DOCSLIB.ORG

I-95 395 HOT Lane Project Volume 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-95 395 HOT Lane Project Volume 1 K Awadika3 I-95/I-395 HOV/Bus/HOT Lanes Interchange Justification Report Volume 1 January 7, 2009 PRESENTED TO: Virginia Department of Transportation & Federal Highway Administration PREPARED FOR: Fluor Enterprises 4900 Seminary Road Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22331 PREPARED BY: HNTB Corporation 2900 South Quincy Street Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22206 I-95/I-395 HOV/Bus/HOT Lanes Interchange Justification Report January 7, 2009 PRESENTED TO: Virginia Department of Transportation & Federal Highway Administration PREPARED FOR: Fluor Enterprises 4900 Seminary Road Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22331 PREPARED BY: HNTB Corporation 2900 South Quincy Street Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22206 This document was prepared in a manner consistent with the Federal and State requirements and processes to be utilized in the development of an Interchange Justification Report as documented in the Virginia Department of Transportation Location and Design Division Instructional and Informational Memorandum LD-200.3 Table of Contents ES - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................ES - 1 I. PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................... 1 B. COMPREHENSIVE INTERSTATE NETWORK......................................................................................... 5 C. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS............................................................. 5 D. COMMUNITIES OR ACTIVITIES DIRECTLY SERVED ............................................................................ 8 II. NEED AND PURPOSE....................................................................................................................... 9 III. STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................. 11 IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................................... 15 A. NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................... 15 B. BUILD ALTERNATIVE...................................................................................................................... 15 V. ROADWAY GEOMETRY ............................................................................................................... 18 A. NUMBER OF MAINLINE AND CROSSROAD LANES............................................................................ 18 B. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR SUBSTANDARD FEATURES...................................................................... 18 C. DESIGN WAIVERS FOR SUBSTANDARD FEATURES .......................................................................... 19 VI. TRAFFIC VOLUMES....................................................................................................................... 20 A. TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS ............................................................................................................. 20 B. TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND METHODOLOGY..................................................................................... 22 C. TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 24 VII. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 25 A. EXISTING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................... 28 B. 2015 NO-BUILD ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 30 C. 2015 BUILD ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 33 D. 2030 NO-BUILD ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 38 E. 2030 BUILD ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 42 F. NO-BUILD VERSUS BUILD COMPARISON SUMMARY ...................................................................... 47 G. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 47 H. SYSTEM-WIDE BENEFITS ................................................................................................................ 54 I. VOLUME AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 55 J. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ 57 I. CRASH DATA .................................................................................................................................. 68 VIII. LAND USE........................................................................................................................................ 73 A. CURRENT LAND USE....................................................................................................................... 73 B. LAND USE PLANS AND FUTURE LAND USE..................................................................................... 76 C. ACTIVITY CENTERS......................................................................................................................... 77 D. UTILITIES ........................................................................................................................................ 79 E. RIGHT-OF-WAY .............................................................................................................................. 79 F. LAND USE IMPACTS ........................................................................................................................ 79 IX. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE.............................................................................................. 82 X. CONCEPTUAL GUIDE SIGN LAYOUTS...................................................................................... 83 I-95/I-395 HOV/BUS/HOT LANES IJR i January 7, 2009 List of Figures The following figures are located in Volume 2 (11 x 17 format) of the report. FIGURE I-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS FIGURE I-2 ROADWAY NETWORK FIGURE I-3 COMMUNITIES AND ACTIVITIES DIRECTLY SERVED FIGURE III-1 LOCATION MAP FIGURE III-2 PROJECT STUDY AREA FIGURE V-1 LANE DIAGRAMS EXISTING FIGURE V-2 LANE DIAGRAMS NO-BUILD FIGURE V-3 LANE DIAGRAMS BUILD FIGURE V-4 LOCATIONS OF DESIGN EXCEPTIONS AND WAIVERS FIGURE VI-1 AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES EXISTING FIGURE VI-2 ADT VOLUMES EXISTING, 2015 NO-BUILD, 2015 BUILD, 2030 NO-BUILD AND 2030 BUILD FIGURE VI-3 AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES YEAR 2015 NO-BUILD FIGURE VI-4 AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES YEAR 2015 BUILD FIGURE VI-5 AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DESIGN YEAR 2030 NO-BUILD FIGURE VI-6 AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DESIGN YEAR 2030 BUILD FIGURE VI-7 AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES OFF SYSTEM INTERSECTIONS FIGURE VII-1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE EXISTING FIGURE VII-2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE EXISTING FIGURE VII-3 AM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2015 (NO-BUILD AND BUILD) FIGURE VII-4 PM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2015 (NO-BUILD AND BUILD) FIGURE VII-5 AM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2030 (NO-BUILD AND BUILD) FIGURE VII-6 PM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2030 (NO-BUILD AND BUILD) FIGURE VII-7 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE (SPRINGFIELD INTERCHANGE) FIGURE VII-8 COMPARISON OF LOS IMPACTS (ANALYSIS YEARS 2015 AND 2030) AM FIGURE VII-9 COMPARISON OF LOS IMPACTS (ANALYSIS YEARS 2015 AND 2030) PM FIGURE VII-10 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS COMPARISON BUILD VS. NO-BUILD 2015 AND 2030 FIGURE VII-11 VOLUME/CAPACITY COMPARISON BUILD VS. NO-BUILD 2015 AND 2030 FIGURE VII-12 EADS STREET OPERATIONAL STUDY AND CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE VII-13 SHIRLINGTON OPERATIONAL STUDY AND CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE VII-14 SEMINARY ROAD OPERATIONAL STUDY AND CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE VII-15 FRANCONIA-SPRINGFIELD PARKWAY OPERATIONAL STUDY AND CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE VII-16 FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY OPERATIONAL STUDY AND CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE VII-17 GORDON BOULEVARD OPERATIONAL STUDY AND CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE VII-18 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY OPERATIONAL STUDY AND CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE VII-19 SOUTHERN TERMINUS OPERATIONAL STUDY AND CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE VII-20 EXISTING CRASH LOCATIONS (2004-2006) FIGURE VIII-1 EXISTING LAND USE I-95/I-395 HOV/BUS/HOT LANES IJR ii January 7, 2009 List of Tables The following tables are located in Volume 2 (11 x 17 format) of the report. TABLE IV- 1 INTERCHANGE SPACING TABLE VI- 1 K FACTORS Appendices The following appendices are located in Volume 3 (11 x 17 format) of the report. APPENDIX A LETTERS OF COMMITMENT APPENDIX B CERTIFIED TRAFFIC DATA APPENDIX C HCS INPUT DATA, WORKSHEETS, AND LOS COMPARISON DATA APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT APPROVAL APPENDIX E I-95/I-395/I-495 INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION REPORT APPENDIX F CONCEPTUAL GUIDE SIGN LAYOUTS APPENDIX G OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS DATA I-95/I-395 HOV/BUS/HOT LANES IJR iii January 7, 2009 ES - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requests approval of a proposed interchange modification and access change
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Evaluation of Cement-Stabilized Full-Depth-Recycled Base Materials for Frost and Early Traffic Conditions
    EVALUATION OF CEMENT-STABILIZED FULL-DEPTH-RECYCLED BASE MATERIALS FOR FROST AND EARLY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS By Heather J. Miller, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Massachusetts Dartmouth North Dartmouth, MA 02747 (508) 999-8481 Voice (508) 999-8964 Fax [email protected] W. Spencer Guthrie, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-3864 Voice (801) 422-0159 Fax [email protected] Rebecca A. Crane Research Assistant Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 [email protected] Brad Smith Graduate Research Assistant Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 [email protected] Disclaimer This material is based on work supported by the Federal Highway Administration under Cooperative Agreement No. DTFH61-98-00095 through the Recycled Materials Resource Center at the University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire. The findings, opinions, and recommendations expressed within this document are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the University or the Federal Awarding Agency. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 2. OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................. 2 3. SCOPE OF WORK....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • I-295 Corridor Study Scarborough-Brunswick Prepared by Maine Department of Transportation (Mainedot) Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning
    I-295I-295 CorridorCorridor StudyStudy Scarborough-BrunswickScarborough-Brunswick Prepared by Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning May 2010 I-295 Corridor Study Scarborough-Brunswick Prepared by Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning May 2010 Acknowledgements MaineDOT Edward Hanscom, Study Manager Dennis Emidy, Transportation Engineer PACTS John Duncan, Director Eric Ortman, Transportation Planner Paul Niehoff, Transportation Planner Kevin Hooper, Travel Demand Modeler Other Staff Participants Ernest Martin, MaineDOT Project Development Dan Stewart, MaineDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Sue Moreau, MaineDOT Multimodal Planning & Operations Unit Russ Charette, MaineDOT Mobility Management Division Tracy Perez, formerly MaineDOT Office of Passenger Transportation Gerald Varney, FHWA John Perry, FHWA David Willauer, formerly GPCOG Maddy Adams, GPCOG Corridor Advisory Committee Brunswick: Don Gerrish, Town Manager Theo Holtwijk, Town Planner Cumberland: Bill Shane, Town Manager Carla Nixon, Town Planner Falmouth: George Thebarge, Town Planner Tony Hayes, Public Works Director Freeport: Donna Larson, Town Planner Albert Presgraves, Town Engineer Maine Turnpike Authority: Conrad Welzel, Manager of Government Relations Portland: James Cloutier, City Councilor Larry Mead, Assistant City Manager Mike Bobinsky, Public Works Director State Police I-295 Troop: Lieutenant Ron Harmon Scarborough: Ron Owens, Town Manager Joe Ziepniewski, Town Planner South Portland: Tex Haeuser, Planning Director Steve Johnson, Public Works Director Transit Providers Working Group: Peter Hefler, METRO General Manager Westbrook: Paul Boudreau, Public Works Director Eric Dudley, Chief City Engineer Yarmouth: Nat Tupper, Town Manager Dan Jellis, Town Engineer Cover: I-295 northbound, Exit 3 to Exit 4 (PACTS photo) Table of Contents Executive Summary ES-1 I. Introduction 1-1 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Falls Great Falls
    GreatGreat FallsFalls Great Falls Goes Egg Hunting News, Page 3 Wendy and Jorge Adeler pass out Easter eggs to children at the Great Falls Village Green, Sunday, April 1. Classifieds, Page 20 Classifieds, ❖ Sports, Page 16 ❖ Entertainment, Page 18 ❖ Opinion, Page 8 Possible Future for /The Connection Historic Buildings? 4-5-12 home in Requested Time sensitive material. sensitive Time News, Page 6 Postmaster: Attention ECR WSS ECR Langley Presents Customer Postal Alex McVeigh PERMIT #322 PERMIT Easton, MD Easton, Wellbeing PAID ‘The Crucible’ Postage U.S. Page 5 News, Page 9 STD PRSRT Photo by Photo www.ConnectionNewspapers.comApril 4-10, 2012 online atGreat www.connectionnewspapers.com Falls Connection ❖ April 4-10, 2012 ❖ 1 Spring Specials!!! Extensive Excellent Superior Expert Selection Value Service Craftsmen WALL-TO-WALL CARPET SALE! HARDWOOD FLOOR SALE! Unique Reflection of Quality Unique Reflection of Quality Unique Reflection of Quality AREA RUG SALE! STAIR RUNNER SALE! Custom Stair Rods Available SERVING YOU SINCE 1998 EXCELLENT REPUTATION FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE & SUPERIOR CRAFTSMANSHIP Great Falls OPEN Leesburg Floors GREAT FALLS Calico SUNDAYS Rt. 193 Georgetown Pike Rte. 7 and Georgetown Pike (Route 193) . Rd. Old DominionMcLean Dr . Seneca Square (Next to Calico Corners) Dranesville Pkwy Rt. 7 Fairfax Co. 703-759-9200 1025-K Seneca Road RestonPkwy Monday through Saturday 10-6 • Sunday 12-4 • VISA • Master Card • Discover • AMEX Herndon Reston Tysons Corner 2 ❖ Great Falls Connection ❖ April 4-10, 2012 www.ConnectionNewspapers.com Great Falls Connection Editor Kemal Kurspahic News 703-778-9414 or [email protected] Photo by Photo Photo by Photo Alex McVeigh Alex Victoria Ross Victoria /The Connection /The Connection Children are unleashed to the Great Falls Village Green to hunt for Easter eggs Sunday, April 1 during the annual egg hunt.
    [Show full text]
  • Springfieldspringfield
    SpringfieldSpringfield FranconiaFranconia ❖❖ KingstowneKingstowne ❖❖ NewingtonNewington Batter Up News, Page 2 Cameras Classified, Page 15 Classified, Zach Keast awaits a pitch from coach John Burns ❖ as part of a public service announcement being Coming filmed at Trailside Park on Friday, Aug. 1. The announcement will air on ESPN during the Little League World Series, Aug. 15-24. To Metro? News, Page 2 Sports, Page 13 ❖ Real Estate, Page 12 Real Estate, ❖ Faith, Page 14 SlowerSlower IsIs insideinside BetterBetter WithWith Requested in home 8-8-08 Time sensitive material. NewNew TechnologyTechnology Attention Postmaster: /The Connection News,News, PagePage 33 U.S. Postage PRSRT STD PERMIT #322 Easton, MD PAID Sam Funt Photo by Photo Auguust 7-13, 2008 Volume XXII, Number 32 www.connectionnewspapers.com www.ConnectionNewspapers.com Springfield Connection ❖ August 9-13, 2008 ❖ 1 News Lights! Camera! Play Ball! TV spot will run during Little League World Series later this month. layers and coaches from the ball. Springfield Challenger Baseball Games are non-competitive, have two or P League had their Hollywood three innings and take place on Sunday af- moment on Friday, Aug. 1, as a ternoons. Challenger Baseball allows chil- crew filmed them at Trailside Park for a dren to socialize, develop skills, make public service announcement. friends and feel a sense of accomplishment. Little League Baseball and the Depart- Typically, each team has 10 or 11 players ment of Labor chose the Springfield Chal- and the league has 20 teams with over 200 lenger League to star in the television spot, players in the league. The league runs two which will air on ESPN Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Initiatives
    Transportation Initiatives Transportation • To provide long range transportation planning for new capacity roadway improvements. • To identify potential locations for major transit facilities such as future rail stations and park and Initiatives ride sites. Goals • To enhanced public transportation corridors which will require further study to identify the feasibility of alternative modes and levels of service. • To provide a system of alternative transportation links between residential, educational and commercial activity centers oriented to the non-motorized user. Fairfax County, Virginia: FY 2022 – FY 2026 Advertised CIP - 223 Transportation Initiatives Transportation facilities and services in Fairfax County are primarily provided by the Virginia Program Department of Transportation (VDOT) which owns, constructs, maintains and operates nearly all of the roads in Fairfax County, and by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Description which provides the majority of all public transit service in the region. In addition to the transportation planning done by these two agencies, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) is responsible for ensuring regional compatibility of all transportation plans, a prerequisite for the expenditure of federal funds for any transportation project. The Transportation Section of the Fairfax County's Comprehensive Plan includes the following Link to the established objectives: Comprehensive • Provide for both through and local movement of people and goods via a multi-modal transportation system that provides transportation choices, reduces single-occupancy-vehicle Plan (SOV) use and improves air quality. • Increase use of public transportation and non-motorized transportation. • Ensure that the roadway system provides adequate local access and capacity for through movements, consistent with financial, social, and environmental constraints and with the county's goal of reducing SOV use.
    [Show full text]
  • Directions to USO All-Star Depot, 9455 Jackson Loop, Bldg. 1415, Fort Belvoir, VA, 22060 from Maryland
    Directions to USO All-Star Depot, 9455 Jackson Loop, Bldg. 1415, Fort Belvoir, VA, 22060 From Maryland: Take 495 towards VA to 95 South (Springfield Interchange) - Continue on to 95 South - Take Exit 166 - Fairfax County Parkway (SR 286); Exit towards Fort Belvoir - Once off the exit proceed straight until you get to Rte 1 (this will be the point where you have to go left or right) - Make a left onto Rte 1 and then get into your far right hand lane, make the first right turn - This will be the entrance through the Tulley Gate. If you submitted information for advance security processing, proceed straight and stay in the right hand lane to enter the Visitor’s security Checkpoint. Tell the Security Agent that you are there for a USO event and are on the access list. - If you did not submit information for advance security processing turn right into the Visitor Access Center and go inside to request a day pass. This usually takes about 10- 15 minutes. - Once through the security checkpoint, proceed straight and make a left at the 2nd traffic light onto Gunston Road. - Proceed straight on Gunston and turn left at the 2nd traffic light onto Jackson Loop. - Parking will be on the right. Please follow directional signage for the exact lot. - Proceed on foot to the first row of buildings. The USO All-Star Depot will be the third building on the right. There will be directional signage from the parking lot to the USO All-Star Depot. From Washington DC/Northern Virginia: Take 395 South to 95 South (Springfield Interchange) - Continue on to 95 South - Take Exit 166 - Fairfax County Parkway (SR 286); Exit towards Fort Belvoir - Once off the exit proceed straight until you get to Rte 1 (this will be the point where you have to go left or right) - Make a left onto Rte 1 and then get into your far right hand lane, make the first right turn - This will be the entrance through the Tulley Gate.
    [Show full text]
  • Transaction 2040 Summary
    TransAction 2040 Plan Projects and National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Constrained Long Range Plan Projects Corridor 1 – Dulles/VA 7 Corridor 3 – VA 28 2011-2040 CLRP Projects 2011-2040 CLRP Projects Projects Capital Cost Estimates (in Millions) Projects Capital Cost Estimates (in Millions) Highway Highway 340 Construct Battlefield Parkway from U.S. 15 South of Leesburg to U.S. 15 Bypass north ..........................................$45.0 Construct interchanges along VA 28 between I-66 and VA 7 and widen to 8 lanes ............................................... $100.0 Widen Dulles Access Road from 4 to 6 lanes from Dulles Airport to VA 123 .................................................................$40.0 Reconstruct VA 28 adjacent to its existing alignment and construct overpass of Widen U.S. 15 to 4 lanes from Evergreen Mill Road to south city line of Leesburg ...................................................... $9.3 Norfolk-Southern Railroad B Line and an overpass of/interchange with Wellington Road ..............................$24.9 Construct an interchange on U.S. 15 Bypass at Edwards Ferry Road ..............................................................................$27.0 Widen Wellington Road to 4 lanes from Godwin Drive to VA 28 (Nokesville Road) ...................................................$15.7 Construct an interchange on VA 7 at VA 659 (Belmont Ridge Road) ...............................................................................$72.0 Trails Widen VA 7 to 6 lanes from Seven Corners
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S614
    S614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 5, 2004 says it really could have been more one of our soldiers or an Iraqi citizen. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without dangerous than we even ever thought— Yes, it hurts. objection, it is so ordered. I think we have to assess that in the But do the people of Iraq today have Mr. INHOFE. At this point, I will context of all of the rhetoric we are a better chance to live in freedom and yield to the Senator from Iowa, and hearing about second-guessing a deci- prosperity than they had the entire following his remarks I will seek to be sion that was based on what we had at time they had been ruled by a despot? recognized. the time. Absolutely. Do the people of Afghani- (Mr. ENSIGN assumed the Chair.) Senator FEINSTEIN said we should stan today have the hope for a future Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I relook at our intelligence-gathering or- of freedom more than they had under want to address the consideration that ganization. I do not think anyone the Taliban and the other despots the Senate Finance Committee gave to would disagree with that, including the under whom they have been buried for the portion of the highway bill that de- President of the United States. all these years? Oh, yes. They have a termines the size of the trust fund, In our first effort to address the constitution that is getting ready now source of the trust fund, and our com- issues of the failure that led to 9/11, we to become implemented that actually mittee’s decisionmaking over that.
    [Show full text]
  • AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Springfield Virginia
    AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Springfield Virginia Urban Land $ Institute Springfield Virginia Strategies for Revitalization May 21–26, 2006 An Advisory Services Panel Report ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 About ULI–the Urban Land Institute LI–the Urban Land Institute is a non- resented include developers, builders, property profit research and education organiza- owners, investors, architects, public officials, tion that promotes responsible leadership planners, real estate brokers, appraisers, attor- U in the use of land in order to enhance the neys, engineers, financiers, academics, students, total environment. and librarians. ULI relies heavily on the expe- rience of its members. It is through member in- The Institute maintains a membership represent- volvement and information resources that ULI ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors a has been able to set standards of excellence in wide variety of educational programs and forums development practice. The Institute has long been to encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar- recognized as one of America’s most respected ing of experience. ULI initiates research that an- and widely quoted sources of objective informa- ticipates emerging land use trends and issues and tion on urban planning, growth, and development. proposes creative solutions based on that re- search; provides advisory services; and publishes This Advisory Services panel report is intended a wide variety of materials to disseminate infor- to further the objectives of the Institute and to mation on land use and development. make authoritative information generally avail- able to those seeking knowledge in the field of Established in 1936, the Institute today has more urban land use.
    [Show full text]