DOCSLIB.ORG

Authority Meeting Packet 6-8-2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Authority Meeting Packet 6-8-2017 Thursday, June 8, 2017 7:00pm 3040 Williams Drive, Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22031 AGENDA I. Call to Order Chairman Nohe II. Roll Call Ms. Speer, Clerk III. Minutes of the May 11, 2017 Meeting Recommended action: Approval [with abstentions from those who were not present] Presentation IV. Updating the Region’s Long-Range Transportation Plan Ms. Backmon, Executive Director Action V. Approval of the Release of the TransAction Plan Draft & Associated Project List for Public Comment Mr. Jasper, Principal Planner Recommended action: Approval of the Release of the TransAction Plan Draft & Associated Project List for Public Comment VI. Amendment of Policy 9 – Debt Policy Mayor Parrish, Chair, Finance Committee Recommended action: Amendment of Policy 9 VII. Amendment of Policy 17 – Capital Asset Accounting Mayor Parrish, Chair, Finance Committee Recommended action: Amendment of Policy 17 VIII. Approval of Policy 28 – Responses to Information Requests from Candidates for Political Office Ms. Hynes, Chair, Governance and Personnel Committee Recommended action: Approval of Policy 28 IX. Approval of Revisions to Employee Handbook Ms. Hynes, Chair, Governance and Personnel Committee Recommended action: Approval of Revisions to Employee Handbook 1 X. Approval to Enter into Program Management Agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation Ms. Backmon, Executive Director Recommended action: Approval to Enter into Program Management Agreement XI. Approval of Call for Projects for the I-66 Outside the Beltway Concessionaire Payment Ms. Backmon, Executive Director Recommended action: Approval of Call for Projects Discussion/Information XII. Finance Committee Report Mayor Parrish, Chair XIII. Governance and Personnel Committee Report Ms. Hynes, Chair XIV. Planning & Programming Committee Report Chairman Nohe, Chair XV. Planning Coordination Advisory Committee Report Supervisor Buona, Chair XVI. Technical Advisory Committee Report Mr. Boice, Chair XVII. Monthly Revenue Report Mr. Longhi, CFO XVIII. Operating Budget Report Mr. Longhi, CFO XIX. Monthly Investment Report Mr. Longhi, CFO XX. Executive Director’s Report Ms. Backmon, Executive Director XXI. Chairman’s Comments Closed Session XXII. Adjournment Next Meeting: July 13, 2017 – Immediately Following Public Hearing on Draft TransAction Plan Update 5:30pm Open House 7:00pm Presentation with Public Hearing Immediately Following Northern Virginia Transportation Authority 3040 Williams Drive (Suite 200) Fairfax, VA 22031 www.TheNovaAuthority.org 2 III Thursday, May 11, 2017 7:00pm 3040 Williams Drive, Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22031 MEETING MINUTES I. Call to Order Chairman Nohe Chairman Nohe called the meeting to order at 7:11pm. II. Roll Call Ms. Speer, Clerk Voting Members: Chairman Nohe; Chairman Bulova; Chair Randall; Mayor Silberberg; Chair Fisette; Mayor Parrish; Mayor Meyer; Mayor Rishell; Delegate Minchew; Ms. Hynes. Non-Voting Members: Mayor Burk (departed 8:18pm); Ms. Cuervo; Ms. Mitchell (departed 8:34pm). Staff: Monica Backmon (Executive Director); Michael Longhi (CFO); Keith Jasper (Principal, Transportation Planning and Programming); Sree Nampoothiri (Transportation Planner); Harun Rashid (Transportation Planner); Carl Hampton (Investment & Debt Manager); Peggy Teal (Assistant Finance Officer); Camela Speer (Clerk); various jurisdictional staff. Chairman Nohe stated that Council Member Snyder was not in attendance due to a work commitment, adding that Council Member Snyder did attend the Governance and Personnel Committee meeting which occurred just prior to this evening’s Authority meeting. III. Minutes of the March 23, 2017 Meeting Chairman Bulova moved approval of the March 23, 2017 minutes; seconded by Mayor Parrish. Motion carried with nine (9) yeas and one (1) abstention [with Mayor Silberberg abstaining as she was not at the March 23, 2017 meeting]. Presentations IV. WMATA Governance, Operations and Financial Review Ray LaHood, Former US DOT Secretary 1 Secretary LaHood addressed the Authority and outlined his plans for the Independent Review of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). He stated his intent to meet with WMATA stakeholders and work toward consensus on four major issues: 1-funding, 2- governance, 3-long term maintenance needs and 4-legacy costs. Secretary LaHood noted these efforts recognize that WMATA will always be an integral part of the region and that we all must work together to prepare ‘America’s Metro’ for the 21st century. In closing, he requested the Authority provide input on these issues and noted that he will be producing a report for Governor McAuliffe in the fall. Chair Randall stated that Secretary LaHood’s presence elevates the WMATA conversation and noted that his knowledge will be very valuable to the process. She stated that she appreciates Governor McAuliffe appointing Secretary LaHood to this position and Secretary LaHood accepting the task. Chair Randall noted that last year Mr. Wiedefeld had spoken to the Loudoun County Board regarding WMATA. She stated that she will be inviting him again this year and she invited Secretary LaHood to join him at this presentation. Secretary LaHood responded affirmatively. Chair Randall commented that Secretary LaHood had stated that the $150 million allocated by the federal government is good. She acknowledged that this is a good start, but added that the five Virginia jurisdictions currently contributing to WMATA (not including Loudoun as it has not entered the WMATA compact yet) are contributing approximately $170 million to operations and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Chair Randall shared that the Virginia jurisdictions are contributing as much as the federal government and added that these contributions are similar to those of Maryland and the District of Columbia. She suggested the federal government should contribute more, considering Metro moves the federal government’s workforce. Chair Randall raised the question as to whether $150 million from the federal government is enough, or if the region should accept this as a starting point and work toward a larger contribution. Secretary LaHood responded that a review needs to be done as to how this amount was established, adding that he is not sure how the contribution amount was determined. He stated that he does not believe this amount should be set in stone, particularly based on the contributions of Virginia and others. Secretary LaHood suggested that it needs to be determined what a fair and responsible contribution from the federal government might be. He stated that he would be looking at this to figure out what makes sense, adding that the amount should be reflective of the fact that Metro is the transportation system for the federal government. Secretary LaHood also observed that Metro is the transportation system for visitors from all over the country. Mayor Silberberg thanked Secretary LaHood for attending the NVTA meeting. She echoed Chair Randall’s statements regarding the federal government’s $150 million contribution, noting that while this contribution is good, we should be seeking more. She suggested this allocation may be from many years ago and needs to be reassessed. Mayor Silberberg added that the region has much at stake in ensuring Metro is safe and reliable. She stated that 2 everyone is fully committed to Metro, but questioned how we move forward. Mayor Silberberg suggested the federal government’s role needs to be more robust and that this is a national issue, as it affects the nation’s capital. Chair Fisette thanked Secretary LaHood for attending the NVTA meeting. He commented that former Mayor Williams has proposed a control board for WMATA oversight and suggested that many are now looking for a way to resolve WMATA’s issues without a control board. He asked Secretary LaHood whether the possibility of a control board will be considered in his recommendations. Secretary LaHood responded that he will look at this option, noting that there are those who do not like the idea. He stated that a control board worked for Washington, D.C., making it a better city. He also stated that it is working in Boston, MA. Secretary LaHood offered that some of the issues that need to be dealt with are not going to be decided by a governing board composed of politicians, adding it may be impossible for the current governing structure to resolve some of the fundamental issues. He continued by sharing that Governor McAuliffe is not a fan of the control board, but added it needs to be considered as a way to address the toughest issues. Secretary LaHood continued that a control board could establish credibility, provide support for employees and provide confidence that funding requests will be reasonable and fair. Secretary LaHood stated the idea of a control board is not one he is promoting, but that it is worth looking at as it has worked in other places with similar issues. Chair Fisette asked if there are potential models for a control board and who would appoint members. Secretary LaHood responded there are some models, but that counsel will need to look at how this might work in this situation, concluding that if all of WMATA’s issues could be resolved under the current system, they would already have been. Ms. Hynes expressed her appreciation for Secretary LaHood’s engagement in this conversation. She noted that she had led the WMATA Governance Committee when it was established and that some changes had been made, but there were some that could not be made. She shared her observation that there
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Four Mile Run Valley
    CHAPTER 2 FOUR MILE RUN VALLEY EXISTING CONDITIONS OVERVIEW This chapter contains an overview of existing conditions in the Four Mile Run Valley AREA PLAN STUDY AREA study area. In 2016, the County engaged a team of consultants to review and analyze The Four Mile Run Valley Area Plan study area [See Figure 2.2: 4MRV Planning Area existing conditions and surrounding context, and to help develop ideas and concepts Map] is approximately 95 acres in southern Arlington County bordered by the Nauck for review with the 4MRV Working Group and the broader community. In addition residential neighborhood (north), Four Mile Run stream (south), I-395 (east), and to reviewing existing plans and policy documents that might inform this planning pro- Barcroft Park (west). The study area is divided into four subareas: cess, the consultant team carried out analysis of existing conditions in six topic areas: Urban Form, Transportation, Environment, Economics, Open Space, and Historic Re- Subareas A and B located along S. Four Mile Run Drive include significant community sources. This chapter highlights key conditions, constrains and opportunities from that spaces and recreational resources, including the Four Mile Run Trail, the W&OD Trail, analysis, organized in the following sequence: Allie S. Freed Park, and the immediately adjacent Jennie Dean Park, Shirlington Dog Park, and Barcroft Park. The greatest visibility of Four Mile Run itself is from area • HISTORY bridges; along much of its length, the waterway is faced by the rear of lots/buildings • 4MRV TODAY and dense vegetation. • LAND USE / ZONING • WATER RESOURCES Subareas A and B contain primarily service commercial uses, including many auto- and dog-oriented services.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastbound Widening Revised Environmental Assessment
    STATE PROJECT NUMBER: 0066-96A-417, P101, R201, C501; UPC: 108424 | FEDERAL PROJECT NUMBER: NHPP-066-1(356) FAIRFAX AND ARLINGTON COUNTIES, VIRGINIA TRANSFORM I-66: INSIDE THE BELTWAY Eastbound Widening Revised Environmental Assessment MARCH 2017 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Transform Interstate 66: Inside the Capital Beltway, Eastbound Widening Fairfax and Arlington Counties, Virginia State Project Number: 0066-96A-417, P101, R201, C501; UPC: 108424 Federal Project Number: NHPP-066-1(356) From: Exit 67 Dulles Airport Access Road (Route 267) To: Exit 71 Fairfax Drive (Route 237) Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (C) TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 HISTORY OF I-66 ................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 NEEDS FOR THE PROJECT ................................................................................................ 1-5 1.4.1 Reduce Congestion and Improve Traffic Operations ......................................................... 1-6 1.4.2 Address Safety
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    20130904 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Highlights from the Final Report ................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Supplemental Report Objectives .................................................................................. 1-6 2.0 Refined Multimodal Package ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Roadway Refinement ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Transit Refinement ......................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3 Refined Package Model Results ................................................................................... 2-8 2.4 Peak-Only Tolls versus All Day Tolls .......................................................................... 2-20 2.5 Refined Multimodal Package Conclusions ................................................................. 2-22 3.0 Refined Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Refinement ................................................................ 3-2 3.2 Regionally Significant Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ............................................ 3-4 3.3 Additional Considerations for Bicycle
    [Show full text]
  • Sweet-50-€”-Crystal
    Sweet 50 - Sweet Ride 2021 (Crystal City Water Park start) 48.5 miles Leg Dir Type Notes Total ↑ Generic START: Route starts at Crystal City Water Park 0.0 0.0 ↑ Generic Head North on Crystal Drive to start your ride! 0.0 0.3 ↑ Straight Continue onto 12th St S 0.3 0.1 → Right Turn right onto Long Bridge Drive 0.4 0.6 ← Left Turn left onto Boundary Channel Drive 1.0 0.8 → Right Turn right into parking lot 1.8 Turn left and ride through the parking lot towards the 0.0 ← Left 1.8 trail 0.0 → Right Turn right towards the trail over the bridge 1.8 0.5 ← Left Turn left from parking lot towards the trail 2.3 Turn right to take the trail under George Washington 0.0 → Right 2.3 Memorial Parkway bridge Follow the trail up the hill around the Navy-Merchant 0.1 ← Left 2.4 Marine Memorial 1.9 → Right Keep right to stay on Mt Vernon Trail 4.4 0.3 ↑ Straight Continue onto Custis Trail 4.7 0.8 → Right Turn right to stay on Custis Trail 5.5 0.6 ← Left Sharp left to stay on Custis Trail 6.1 0.1 ← Left Turn left to continue on the trail 6.2 0.1 ← Left Slight left onto Lorcom Ln 6.3 0.4 → Right Turn right onto Nelly Custis Dr 6.7 0.4 ↑ Straight Continue onto Military Rd 7.1 0.3 → Right Turn right onto Marcey Rd 7.4 0.1 ← Left Turn left onto N Beechwood Pl 7.5 0.1 ← Left Turn left onto N Beechwood Circle 7.6 0.0 ↑ GenericCaution— steep grade! 7.7 0.1 → Right Turn right onto Military Rd 7.8 Use the crosswalk to make a U-Turn and take the 0.0 ↑ U Turn 7.8 sidewalk to Zachary Taylor Park 0.0 → Right Turn right in to the Zachary Taylor Park pit stop! 7.8 Turn
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Item #2 – Attachment 2, Transaction
    V.B Transportation Action Plan for Northern Virginia TransAction Plan Project List Draft for Public Comment Spring/Summer 2017 This project list includes a brief Project List: Index by Corridor Segment description of the 358 candidate Segment Description Page regional projects included in 1-1 Rt. 7/Rt. 9 — West Virginia state line to Town of Leesburg 3 TransAction. The projects are 1-2 Rt. 7/Dulles Greenway — Town of Leesburg to Rt. 28 5 listed by Corridor Segment. 1-3 Rt. 7/Dulles Toll Road/Silver Line — Rt. 28 to Tysons 12 Larger projects are listed under 1-4 Rt. 7/Dulles Toll Road/Silver Line — Tysons to US 1 18 each Corridor Segment in which 2-1 Loudoun County Parkway/Belmont Ridge Road — Rt. 7 to US 50 36 they are located, and may 2-2 Bi-County Parkway — US 50 to I-66 42 appear multiple times in this 2-3 Rt. 234 — I-66 to I-95 45 project list. 3-1 Rt. 28 — Rt. 7 to I-66 51 3-2 Rt. 28 — I-66 to Fauquier County Line 56 4-1 Prince William Parkway — I-66 to I-95 60 5-1 Fairfax County Parkway — Rt. 7 to US 50 66 5-2 Fairfax County Parkway — US 50 to Rolling Road 70 5-3 Fairfax County Parkway — Rolling Road to US 1 74 6-1 I-66/US 29/VRE Manassas — Prince William County Line to Rt. 28 78 6-2 I-66/US 29/US 50/Orange Silver Line — Rt. 28 to I-495 84 6-3 I-66/US 29/US 50/Orange Silver Line — I-495 to Potomac River 90 7-1 I-495 — American Legion Bridge to I-66 100 7-2 I-495 — I-66 to I-395 105 7-3 I-495 — I-95 to Woodrow Wilson Bridge 110 I-95/US 1/VRE Fredericksburg — Stafford County Line to Fairfax County 8-1 121 Line 8-2 I-95/US 1/VRE Fredericksburg — Prince William County Line to I-495 127 I-395/US 1/VRE Fredericksburg/Blue Yellow Line — I-495 to Potomac 8-3 137 River 9-1 US 15 — Potomac River to Rt.
    [Show full text]
  • Bluemont Resident Since 1961 and Former Association President, Who Has Made Our Neighborhood a Better Place
    ARLINGTON COUNTY VIRGINIA AUGUST 1999 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 1999 Dedicated to JOHN WHITE A Bluemont resident since 1961 and former Association president, who has made our neighborhood a better place. Acknowledgments Many Bluemont residents helped create Jane Latta this plan. They include: Carl Laroche Doug Levin Carl Hallinan Jim McElfish (Bluemont Neighborhood Conservation Michele McClellan Plan [BNCP] Committee Chair) Marjorie Macieira Victor McMahon Gerry Procanick (BNCP Parks Subcommittee Co-Chair) (Bluemont Civic Association President and BNCP Commercial Subcommittee Co-Chair) Nancy Malin Louis Martin Ellen Armbruster Adrienne Pilot Robert Atkins Stacey Porro (BNCP Ordinances Subcommittee Chair) Bruce Reynolds Lynn Barton Dan Salsburg Brent Baxter Diane Schwarz Bernard Berne Patti Skinner Frank Bolger Carol Sloan Nancy Bort Barbara Szydla Kelly Christopher Brian Taylor Alicia Clark-Rochac Frank Tetreault Nathan Collamer John Van Doren Judy Collins Naomi Verdugo Worth Cooley-Prost (BNCP Tabulation Subcommittee Chair) Allen Cote Robert Waffle George Farah Charles Walden Ed Fendley Janet Weiner (BNCP Drafting Subcommittee Chair) (BNCP Streets Subcommittee Chair) Rene Gorski John White Joann Gottschalk Talmadge Williams (BNCP Parks Subcommittee Co-Chair) (BNCP Commercial Subcommittee Co-Chair) Pam Greene Lynne Willhoit Rick Hodges Alan Wright John Huennekens (BNCP History Subcommittee Chair) Many Arlington County employees also provided Sam Kubiak crucial guidance or assistance. The neighborhood’s (BNCP Traffic Calming Subcommittee Chair) special thanks go to Robert Collins, Chris Nixon, Jeff Sikes, Jim Allen, Nancy Michael and Jennifer King. Acknowledgements i Table of Contents Introduction ............................................ 1 Parks and Other Open Spaces .................23 Executive Summary ............................. 1 Overview ............................................. 23 Development of the Bluemont Parks and Open Space Map ................
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents I
    Table of Contents I. Introduction Introduction Goals and Objectives Benefits of Green Space Green Space, Greenways, & Trail Types II. Regional Green Space and Greenways Framework Vision for Green Space in Metropolitan Washington Existing Green Space Network Green Space Opportunities and Challenges Regional Greenway Projects Accotink Greenway Anacostia Greenway Fort Circle Greenway Metropolitan Branch Trail and Prince George’s Connector Monocacy River Greenway Northwest Branch Greenway Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Prince William County Potomac Heritage Trail Fairfax County Fairfax Heritage Trail and Potomac Heritage Trail Loudoun County Potomac Heritage Trail Prince George’s County Potomac River Greenway and Potomac Heritage Trail Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Trail Community Greenway Access III. Implementation Strategy Overview of the Implementation Process Funding Opportunities Federal Funding State Funding Local Funding Private Funding Community Funding Acquisition and Development Alternatives Federal and State Agencies County and Local Governments Non-Governmental Organizations Private Landowners Management Agreements Management Techniques Safety and Security Maintenance Multi-Use Conflicts Liability Technical Assistance Community Outreach Techniques Confronting Opposition to Greenways Public Outreach Strategies IV. Greenway Resources and Contacts Bibliographical Resources Local Contacts Appendix List of Metropolitan Washington Proposed Greenways Introduction Green Space Past and Present From the National Mall to the region’s stream valley parks and outlying farmland, metropolitan Washington is characterized by natural beauty and green space. In 1791, Pierre L’Enfant laid out the District of Columbia between the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers with 17 park reservations, open space for memorials, civic art, institutions, and broad park-like streets and avenues creating a network of green space. This network was expanded in the late 1800s with the designation of Potomac Park, Rock Creek Park and Anacostia Park.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Appendix P – Bikeway Projects in Currently Approved Plans Planned
    Appendix P – Bikeway Projects in Currently Approved Plans Planned Improvements from Sector & Area Plans that have been added to the MTP Airport Viaduct Trail Connection to National Airport – Implement a pedestrian/bicycle facility on the viaduct structure to connect S. Eads Street and Crystal City with National Airport and the Mt. Vernon Trail. (Crystal City Sector Plan) Courthouse Road Bicycle Lanes Extension – Extension of the bicycle lanes on Courthouse Road between 14th Street and Clarendon/Wilson Boulevards. (Court House Sector Plan) Wilson Boulevard Protected Bicycle Lanes – Implement protected bicycle lanes on Wilson Boulevard from Arlington Ridge Drive to Courthouse Road. Currently partially implemented. (Rosslyn Sector Plan) Lynn Street Protected Bicycle Lanes – Implementation of protected bicycle lanes on N. Lynn Street between 17th Street and Lee Highway. (Rosslyn Sector Plan) Fort Myer Drive Protected Bicycle Lanes - Implementation of protected bicycle lanes on Fort Myer Drive between 17th Street and Lee Highway. (Rosslyn Sector Plan) N. Nash Street Protected Bicycle Lanes – Implementation of protected bicycle lanes on N. Nash Street between 19th Street and Wilson Boulevard. (Rosslyn Sector Plan) Lee Highway (eastbound) Bicycle Lane – Mark a bicycle lane along eastbound Lee Highway between N. Veitch and N. Lynn streets. (Rosslyn Sector Plan) 19th Street North Bicycle Lanes – Mark bicycle lanes on 19th Street North between N. Nash and N. Kent streets. (Rosslyn Sector Plan) Custis Trail at N. Lynn Street – Study the feasibility of implementing an underpass of Lynn Street for the Custis Trail. (Rosslyn Sector Plan) I-66 Overpass – Construct a multi-use trail overpass of I-66 to link 19th street and the Rosslyn Esplanade with the Potomac River shoreline and Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Arlington County, Virginia H 4 a ( I V N A
    . N T. S C H 4T ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA H 4 A ( I V N A B . R 1 I 2 D 3 G ) Pimmit Run E Fishing R D E . IDG Access N BR CHAI - D N . A T R C . H . N P Parks & Off-Street Trails N L N D O . R . R N . L ST T I L S R C 1 I 4 N I H H 4 D . 1 M G R S D A G T O S E N T - U N E N . O N D O D . R 41ST O R S V L G N. T I ST. P . E E H W . N W S . N T T A R . D S S . H ST. N T 0T . H S 4 . I T L H 40T N P 40T H R N G A . T U H P N R L . O T . I T . N S S V 8 . N N T D E 3 . N A T R M A F R L O Y F S E - O T N R . R E M S R O AN B T D L D- E O . PH L - G . N C N. R E T S . T. I Z S T N R A . V t Ethan . For A R I M L . IX IE D L T L . N E W G . Y D I N P E T E Allen Park L N S S . T R - R A W H . I O T D E T R 0 A 4 ) .
    [Show full text]
  • NSF Arlington Transportation Management Program
    NSF Arlington Transportation Management Program Naval District Washington NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK NSF Arlington Transportation Management Program Final February 2014 Prepared for: Prepared by: THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 6 4.7 Active Commuting Programs (Bicycling and Walking) 47 1.1 Goals and Objectives 6 4.8 Variable Work Schedules 47 1.2 Transportation Management Programs 6 4.9 Guaranteed Ride Home 47 1.3 The Regional Transportation Vision 7 5.0 MASTER PLAN LAND USE PROPOSALS: TRANSPORTATION IMPLICATIONS 48 1.4 NSF Arlington 9 5.1 Anticipated Land Use Changes 48 2.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 12 5.2 Employee Density Implications 48 2.1 Local Bus/Metrorail Services 13 5.3 Trip Generation / Modal Split Impacts 48 2.2 Nearby Transit Hub Centers 18 5.4 Master Plan Parking Supply Impacts 50 2.3 Commuter Rail Service 20 5.5 Multi-modal Provisions 50 2.4 Commuter Bus Service 21 6.0 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT 52 2.5 Shuttle Service 22 PROGRAM 52 2.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 22 6.1 Employee Transportation Coordinator 57 2.7 Roadways 24 6.2 Parking Management 57 2.8 Gate Counts and Vehicle Classification 26 6.3 Transit Subsidies 57 2.9 Parking 28 6.4 Alternative Work Schedule and Telecommuting 57 2.10 Ridesharing 30 6.5 Shuttle Service 57 2.11 Employee Survey Results 31 6.6 Ridesharing 3.0 AREA PLANNING CONTEXT 41 6.7 Active Commuting Programs (Bicycling and Walking) 58 3.1 Columbia Pike Land Use and Housing Planning Studies
    [Show full text]
  • ARLINGTON FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN December 31, 2021
    ARLINGTON FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN December 31, 2021 PHOTOS (clockwise from upper left, with photo credits) Street in Arlington Forest (Hutch Brown); Four Mile Run just below Huffman’s Falls (Hutch Brown); northern red oak leaves in Lubber Run Park (Hutch Brown); monarch butterfly on common milkweed in Arlington Forest (David Howell); raccoon in Lubber Run Park (David Howell); Arlington Forest Shopping Center (Dan Brown); red-tailed hawk in Arlington Forest (David Howell); American goldfinch in Arlington Forest (David Howell). CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Neighborhood Goals..................................................................................................................................... 14 Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................................................................... 16 Housing ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 Street Conditions .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Transportation/Traffic Management ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DC2RVA Tier II Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final
    CHAPTER 6 FINAL SECTION 4ΈfΉ EVALUATION 6 FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 6.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Section 4(f) Evaluation follows the procedures for implementing Section 4(f) as outlined in 23 CFR 774 (March 12, 2008), which apply to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Although the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is not directly subject to this rule, FRA has determined that these procedures are appropriate for use for the proposed rail infrastructure improvements collectively known as the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Project.1 The Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation was included as Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS2 and analyzed the potential impacts of the 23 Build Alternatives that were evaluated in that document. This Final Section 4(f) Evaluation considers the Preferred Alternative for the DC2RVA Project, which includes design modifications, additional data collected on cultural resources, and updates to parkland resources subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIS and its Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Refer to Chapter 4 of this Final EIS for details on the Preferred Alternative; additional data and updates to parkland resources since the Draft EIS are detailed within this chapter. This Final Section 4(f) Evaluation presents the following: . Summary of types of Section 4(f) properties, uses, and methodology (see Section 6.2) . Description of the Project and its Preferred Alternative (see Section 6.3) . Description of Section 4(f) properties that are within the Project limits (see Section 6.4) . Determination of Section 4(f) property uses (see Section 6.5) .
    [Show full text]