COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 25, 2012 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Andrew Beacher, Director, Transportation Services Ben Mays, Acting Director, Management & Financial Services RE: Responses to Supervisor Reid’s Metrorail Questions Submitted 4/30/12 CC: Tim Hemstreet, Linda Neri, Charles Yudd, John Sandy, Leslie Hansbarger, Julie Grandfield, Danny Davis, Anna Nissinen

1. In the DESMAN Traffic study, it states that The Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the full Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)1, was published in 2004, using the Northern Virginia Major Investment Study Model with inputs from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Round 6.3 Cooperative Land Use Forecasts representing year 2003, as well as future highway and transit networks, transit operating plans developed for the project and operating characteristics of the Dulles Toll Road. It also states, as Mr. Pant told us April 17, that there was no up to date modeling or traffic forecasting data. Is it not true that this Northern Virginia Major Investment Study model is not the official COG forecasting tool? Why didn’t DESMAN use the COG Model, which is now Version 2.3 (calibrated and approved in 2011)? As part of the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, the Northern Virginia Major Investment Study (NVMIS) model was selected to model travel demand in the Dulles corridor. As described in Chapter 3 of the June 2002, Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report (Attachment 1) that accompanied the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), this model was judged superior to the COG model available at that time.

Transportation models are designed to reflect best practices for the particular project at hand. While regional models such as the one COG maintains are used to assess overall regional transportation conditions that then feed into forecasts of air quality, subregion outputs are generally only used at the level of an entire road corridor or metro line. Adaptations of COG models are used for project planning studies, and include refinements designed to enhance the accuracy of modeling for the project being studied.

COG staff did provide “off-the-shelf” transit boarding data via a memorandum to DESMAN in January 2012, as shown on the handout provided at the May 16 Board worksession. This data was produced running the Version 2.3 model, and using forecasts for the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within a one-mile radius of the proposed Rt. 606 and Rt. 772 stations. Daily boardings at the Rt. 606 and Rt. 772 stations were summarized from the Version 2.3 model outputs using land use projections reflected in the Round 8.0a Cooperative Forecasts. COG’s memorandum has a caveat, which includes a discussion of the model’s applicability to the station level: “The Version 2.3 model has not been validated to the individual station level, let alone at the mode of

Page 1 of 8

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM

access level to each station. The time allotted for model calibration work did not allow for such level of rigor.”

As indicated by COG staff, the Version 2.3 total daily boardings for the Silver Line as a whole are essentially the same as the FEIS forecasts (1.5% higher) for year 2025. COG staff goes on to say that the station level boardings do not compare as well and without further analysis it is difficult to explain why differences exist. “TPB staff speculates that the FEIS boardings figures were refined after initial modeling results were analyzed. The Version 2.3 forecasts are ‘raw’ and have not undergone any such refinement. Land use differences between Round 6.3 and Round 8.0a are, of course, another potential cause of variation. The difference in TAZ systems underlying the transit network is another important factor to consider.”

There are several reasons to use the station boarding data in the FEIS rather than the COG data:  DESMAN believes the level of rigor, analysis and specificity is greater for station-level boarding data in the FEIS than the data provided by COG;  Since the line level data produced by Version 2.3 is consistent with the line level data in the FEIS, the best available station boarding data should be the refined station boarding data included in the FEIS; and  The model used in the FEIS was specific for the Metrorail extension and the output has been refined, whereas the Version 2.3 model is a regional model not specific to the Metrorail extension.

2. When calculating ridership it appears that the DESMAN study does not use a model, but rather they extrapolated ridership by dividing the projected boardings by the number of projected households from the FEIS in 2025 and then multiplying that ratio by the number of projected households from other years in other various studies. Does staff consider this a sound methodology?

In order to forecast daily station boardings, DESMAN’s methodology determines boardings per household: (1) As a commuter transit link, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of daily boardings (83%) will be typically comprised of home‐based commute trips and will in turn be directly related to the number of households producing those home‐based work trips. As a result, a mathematical relationship can be drawn between number of households and boardings, and used to forecast boardings for other years.

(2) The FEIS provided only one year (2025) of boardings for the new stations. Using that data as well as MWCOG’s Round 6.3 household data for the same year, DESMAN established ratios for each station (Rte 606 and Rte 772) by dividing the number of households forecasted from Round 6.3 into FEIS’s forecasted number of boardings at both stations in year 2025.

Page 2 of 8

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM

Staff considers that this methodology is based on the professional experience and judgment of DESMAN. 3. It says in one of the DEIS documents that it measures non work trips and estimated ridership based on TOD, is that correct? Per MWAA, the ridership forecasts presented in the Draft EIS included all projected transit trips (work and non-work) and were developed using regional population and employment forecasts prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). The MWCOG forecasts are based on inputs from local jurisdictions on future land uses and allowable development. All data presented in the Draft EIS reflect the approved growth forecasts prepared by MWCOG. As noted in the Draft EIS, a sensitivity analysis was also conducted to estimate potential Metrorail ridership in the Dulles Corridor under a rail-related development scenario (higher densities and alternative land uses at station areas). This analysis projected that the base ridership levels presented in the Draft EIS would increase by approximately 15 percent under a more intensive development scenario. 4. The 2003 data that this was based on – is that based on downzoning of Loudoun or pre- downzoning, in which case there would be more by right development in the West and thus more households – perhaps 50,000 more households?

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) used Round 6.3 forecasts. Round 6.3, from 2003, was the first set of forecasts to reflect the land use changes shown in the Revised General Plan. The Revised General Plan, which was adopted in July 2001, included a reduction in the number of residential units that could be built. 5. To what do you attribute the difference in the projected ridership in 2025 for the two Loudoun stations from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Final EIS? The DEIS estimated that boardings for the two Loudoun stations will be: 4,867 at 606 and 1,492 for route 772. The FEIS projects 4,485 at 606 and 6,961 at 772? What caused the difference?

Per MWAA, the primary cause was the change in the location and amount of parking available at each station. At the request of Loudoun County, the amount of new parking the Route 606 station was reduced (from 4,000 to 2,000 spaces) and the amount of parking at Route 772 was increased (from no spaces to 3,300). The other factor was the use of a newer version of the MWCOG Cooperative Forecasts (Round 6.3) for the Final EIS ridership estimates (the Draft EIS estimates used Round 6.2).

6. When these studies refer to “boardings” that counts both entrance and exit at the station correct? So generally speaking each commuting rail rider will represent two boardings?

One boarding represents each time a person gets on to the train. One alighting represents each time a person exits the train.

Page 3 of 8

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM

7. The study done in 2005 by the Washington Airports Task Force used a more recent land used forecast and the COG Model. The study shows ridership of 2,200 at 606 and 2,200 at 772 in the year 2030. I would like to add that this study was conducted by a reputable modeler named Bill Allen who was hired by WATF to do the study. What do you make of this and were you not aware of it before commissioning DESMAN to do its analysis?

Please see the response to question #1 for information on the limitations of the use of the COG regional model, without adaptations, for projecting station boardings.

8. WMATA in its April 17 handout said it saves the Washington region some $350 million in auto- related expenses, but if the subsidy is well over $650 million, does not this mean that the region is not saving anything, and in fact, is losing $300 million each year?

WMATA used calculations presented in its “WMATA: Making the Case for Transit, November 2011 Edition.” On page 6 of that report, WMATA presents its fourth point for making the case: “4. Metro saves families $342 million per year in car operating expenses. Even as property values increase near Metro, Metro reduces total household expenses by reducing transportation costs. Annual savings from lower car operation costs to families living near Metrorail stations and/or bus corridors is $342 million ($2010) annually.8 The footnote explains their calculations, “Based on estimated VMT avoided from the MWCOG Version 2.3.17 Regional Travel Demand Model with Round 8.0 Land Use and variable per mile costs of auto use from AAA’s Your Driving Costs, 2010. These savings do not include vehicles that would have to be purchased by zero-car households.”

9. What is the cost to the overall project of the two Loudoun stations at 772 and 606 including the tracks and parking and how much is each funding partner paying?

Per MWAA, the value of the Phase 2 Preliminary Engineering cost estimate for the portion of that lies beyond the rail yard connection, which is prior to the Route 606 station, is $530 million. It must be cautioned that this does not mean the savings will be $530 million if Loudoun opts out of the Project, as a reduction in scope is not necessarily linear when contractors compute their cost (certain economies of scale could be lost). Also, as previously stated, if Loudoun County opts out, redesign of Phase 2 will be required. The breakdown of costs among the funding partners (for Phase I and II) is as follows: Federal – 15.7%, Commonwealth of Virginia – 4.8%, Fairfax County – 16.1%, Loudoun County – 4.8%, MWAA Aviation Funds – 4.1% and the Dulles Toll Road – 54.5%

10. How many Loudoun citizens commute to the Dulles corridor each day, and to D.C., Alexandria and Arlington, which are generally transit-serviceable? Can you provide an estimate of how many Loudouners would commute to areas within a 1 mile radius of the proposed rail stations in Tysons, and Reston on the Silver line? If you can, please provide how many currently commute to Centerville, Fairfax, Chantilly and Prince William County and Maryland?

Page 4 of 8

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM

The following information represents the best data available to respond to the question. The data was obtained from the recent “SuperNoVa” long-range vision plan conducted by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. Daily Person Work Trips from Loudoun County Trips 2007 2040 Remaining in Loudoun 54000 108000 To DC 9000 13000 To Arlington 4000 8000 To Alexandria 1500 2000 To Fairfax 37000 63000 To Maryland 9000 12000 To Other Destinations 43000 94000

11. The Reston Assn. did a critique of the CDM Smith study and projected that with higher tolls, 30,000 cars will flee the toll road to local roads. What would be the impact on Route 7 or other roads if the tolls go up to $4 and $6 each way on the Dulles Toll Road?

Per MWAA, the CDM Smith Traffic and Revenue study does not identify where the predicted transactions lost on the Toll Road due to the higher proposed future tolls will divert. A traditional traffic and revenue study typically does not include this information. MWAA did ask CDM Smith to provide a response to the diversion question, which is attached (Attachment 2). Staff notes that in its response, CDM Smith disagrees with some of the Reston Citizen Association’s assumptions and conclusions and provides information with respect to these concerns. CDM Smith also provides projected impacts to area roads based on available data. Per the CDM response, “the share of diverted DTR‐traffic that Route 7 is estimated to accommodate is approximately 12%. Route 50 is estimated to carry a similar share and I‐66 would carry about 20% of the diverted traffic. Other nearby roads would carry around 40%.”

12. In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, there is a table (6.3-2, transit capacity by alternative) that states that the capacity at the two Loudoun stations at 606 and 772 is about 9600 to 9900 each and about the same at Route 28 and the Dulles Airport stations. This is AM peak hour. Does this mean that in a 3 hour period, you would have a capacity of 27,000 per station?

Per MWAA, the referenced table shows the maximum capacity for passenger throughput available at each station in the peak hour. The figures for each station represent the amount of physical space available on trains or buses to carry passengers during this period. The total capacity will vary according to the number of vehicles in service and the capacity of each of those vehicles. The figures are similar for many stations because the number of trains and the capacity of each train passing through the station are the same. Any differences are attributable to bus routes at that station that provide service within the corridor. Based on the proposed operating plan, the Dulles Rail line would have a total throughput capacity of approximately

Page 5 of 8

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM

27,000 passengers during the 3-hour peak period. The actual usage of each station will depend on the total number of passengers boarding trains at that location.

13. And, if metro can handle 9600 per peak hour, and we were told that this will supplement east- west road capacity in eastern Loudoun, why are the boardings in the out years just 12,000 to 14,000 all day?

Per MWAA, the boardings are predicted by the COG model. The boardings from the COG model are demand based not capacity based. The 9600 maximum capacity is based upon the peak hour service level and it is simply how much space is available on all the trains operated for that hour. While the capacity could be filled at one station the reality is not one station fills a train. The service is designed to pick up passengers at all stations and of course people get on and off at virtually every station. Service levels do vary at different times of the day and the 9600 number is based on peak service level. 14. Has staff studied if the total trip time to DC is faster if our buses go to Wiehle Ave instead of West Falls Church? Is there a possibility that it still might be faster to take the bus in to Falls Church to skip all the stops at Tysons?

Staff has not studied the variance in time to travel to DC between originations at Wiehle Avenue and West Falls Church. Data on travel times between Wiehle Avenue and West Falls Church are not yet available for comparison purposes. Additionally, travel times for buses depend heavily on time of day.

15. How much money will shorter trip times and less gas for our buses to use Wiehle Ave instead of Falls Church save the County?

Redirecting buses to Wiehle Avenue is not planned as a cost saving strategy. This re-routing opens a new transit market for trips from Wiehle Avenue to Tysons Corner, and the shorter trip from Loudoun to Wiehle Avenue improves frequencies, using fewer buses, thus improving efficiencies, including capacity. Nothing precludes Loudoun from serving both Wiehle Avenue and West Falls Church.

16. Will the project no longer need a rail yard at Dulles Airport if we opt out of the project?

Per MWAA, if Loudoun County opts out and Fairfax/MWAA decide to build Phase 2 to Dulles Airport, a rail yard will still need to be built at Dulles Airport, but the size may be smaller and the location may change.

17. In earlier Phase 2 plans, including the preliminary cost estimate, and the 2004 Dulles Rail Final Environmental Impact Statement, it was proposed that the project scope include widening Route 606 to become a divided four lane highway from a point west of Route 28 and north of Dulles Airport, near the flyover at the Dulles Greenway, approximately five miles to a point near Route 621 intersection north of Route 50 in Arcola. Please explain what, if any, Route 606

Page 6 of 8

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM

improvements are included in the Phase 2 plans and indicate the cost of any proposed road improvements in Loudoun County within the Phase 2 budget.

Per MWAA, the only changes to Route 606 that are part of the Phase 2 rail project are turning lanes at Mercure Circle and Moran Road to improve access to the rail yard and the station. The estimated cost for these modifications is $500,000.

18. If in fact, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority intends to charge Dulles Toll Road users for the cost of constructing Route 606 improvements in Loudoun County, please explain why you are not providing similar road improvements in areas near proposed Dulles Rail stations in Fairfax County, whose residents and businesses constitute a majority of Dulles Toll Road users. In particular, please detail all completed, current and planned expenditures for Dulles Toll Road capital improvements complying with specific measures outlined in the MWAA proposal dated January 17, 2006. http://www.metwashairports.com/file/CorridorProposal.pdf

During the MWAA presentation at the May 16th, 2012 Board of Supervisors work session, MWAA staff explained how the Dulles Toll Road revenues are to be used in accordance with the Permit and Operating Agreement, as well as in accordance with the Master Trust Indenture. In very general terms, the priority of toll road revenues first goes to fulfill the operating and maintenance needs of the Dulles Toll Road itself. Second in order of priority is to pay the debt service (principal and interest payments) on debt issued in support of capital improvements in the corridor (the largest of which is metrorail). Only after these two requirements are satisfied would there be funding available to meet other corridor capital improvements such as the 606 widening project. All projects currently programmed for Dulles corridor funding can be found in the Capital Improvement Program portion of the 2012 Budget for the Airports Authority, including any currently programmed funds for widening of route 606. It was explained during the presentation on May 16, that MWAA needs VDOT concurrence on any Dulles corridor improvement projects, other than those needed to directly maintain or improve the Dulles Toll Road Specifically. Funding for improvements other than to the Dulles Toll Road itself are expected to be extremely limited. The 2012 Budget is posted at:

http://www.mwaa.com/file/Budget_2012_FINAL_December16_Printer3.pdf

19. Page 2-29 of the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement noted: The new S&I Yard would be constructed on Dulles Airport property. The yard would occupy roughly 70 to 90 acres and would be designed for 250 rail vehicles but initially built for 184. In 2011, Mr. Rogoff and MWAA claimed that part of cost savings achieved for Phase 2 was by reducing the design of the maintenance yard to be built at Dulles Airport from serving 250 rail vehicles to 184 rail vehicles. It seems as if it was never intended to be built for more than 184 rail vehicles initially. Does the project require a rail yard of that size? How many railcars will be used by the Silver Line (wasn’t it 128)?

Per MWAA, as part of the MOA negotiated by the parties with the help of Secretary LaHood the rail yard at Dulles was reduced in size from 250 cars to 184 cars saving approximately $80 Page 7 of 8

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM million. The rail project is purchasing 128 cars but the service plan calls for 184 cars at Dulles with the combined operation of Silver and Orange Lines requiring that storage capacity. The extra cars will be part of WMATA’s existing fleet.

Page 8 of 8

CL IN'ticZlZ-

Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results-Technical Report Q^2|

Virginia department of rail and public transportation | June 2002 | Washington metropolitan area transit authority

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 1.2 NEED 5 1.3 PURPOSE 7

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 9 2.1 BASELINE ALTERNATIVE 10 2.2 BRT ALTERNATIVE 13 2.3 METRORAIL ALTERNATIVE 13 2.4 BRT/METRORAIL ALTERNATIVE 14 2.5 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVE 14

3.0 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING METHODOLOGY AND VALIDATION 19 3.1 SELECTION OF TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL SET 19 3.1.1 Travel Demand Model Assessment Process 20 3.1.2 Summary Results of Model Evaluation 22

3.2 NORTHERN VIRGINIA MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY MODEL 22 3.2.1 Model Development History 22 3.2.2 Model Development Process 23 3.2.3 Model Estimation and Validation 31

3.3 MODEL MODIFICATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE DULLES CORRIDOR RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT 61 3.4 DULLES CORRIDOR RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT OPERATING PLAN AND MODEL ASSUMPTIONS 65 3.4.1 Pricing 65 3.4.2 Span of Service 65 3.4.3 Headways 69 3.4.4 Loading Standards 69 3.4.5 Speeds 70 3.4.6 Dwell Time 70 3.4.7 Parking Facilities 70 3.5 MODELING BUS RAPID TRANSIT 71 3.5.1 Modal Constants 71 3.5.2 BRT Constants 72

3.6 TRAFFIC FORECASTING 74

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project i June 2002 Table of Contents Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report I

3.6.1 Highway Assignment Procedures 75 3.6.2 Intersection Traffic Forecasting 76 I 3.6.3 Station Access Forecasting 80 3.6.4 Highway Link Forecasts 80 I TABLES 81 I I I I I I I I INDEX OF TABLES

TABLE 1-1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 8 TABLE 2-1 BOUNDARIES OF GEOGRAPHIC SECTIONS FOR DULLES CORRIDOR 10 TABLE 3-1 COMPARISON OF MODEL CHOICE MODEL RESULTS 82 TABLE 3-2 COMPARISON OF SUB-MODE CHOICE MODEL 83 TABLE 3-3 COMPARISON OF DAILY STATION BOARDINGS (FROM MODE OF ARRIVAL MODEL) 84 TABLE 3-4 COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED VMT 86 TABLE 3-5 COMPARISON OF SCREENLINE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN 1000S) 87 TABLE 3-6 SIMULATED 2000 TRIP RATES 88 TABLE 3-7 SIMULATED AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS (FROM MODE CHOICE MODEL) 89 TABLE 3-8 COMPARISON OF 1994 OBSERVED AND 2000 SIMULATED PERSON TRIP TABLES . 90 TABLE 3-9 COMPARISON OF 1994 OBSERVED AND 2000 SIMULATED TRANSIT SHARES OF SELECTED MARKETS (FROM MODE CHOICE MODEL) 94 TABLE 3-10 COMPARISON OF 1994 OBSERVED AND 2000 SIMULATED RAIL TRIP ENDS (FROM SUB-MODE CHOICE MODEL) 96 TABLE 3-11 COMPARISON OF 2000 OBSERVED AND SIMULATED DAILY BOARDINGS 97 TABLE 3-12 DEFINITION OF LAND USE CATEGORIES (VALUE IN TABLE IS THE CATEGORY) 100 TABLE 3-13 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY INFORMATION REPORT OF INPUT ARRAYS 100 TABLE 3-14 TRIP GENERATION INTERMEDIATE RESULTS - 1990 REPORT OF ESTIMATED HHS BY SIZE AND VEHICLES AVAILABLE 101 TABLE 3-15 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - HOME BASED WORK(HBW) 102 TABLE 3-16 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - HOME BASED UNIVERSITY (HBU) 102 TABLE 3-17 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - HOME BASED SHOP(HBS) 103 TABLE 3-18 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - HOME BASED MISCELLANEOUS (HBM) 103 TABLE 3-19 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - JOURNEY TO WORK(JTW) 104 TABLE 3-20 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - JOURNEY AT WORK (JAW) 104 TABLE 3-21 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - NON-HOME BASED/NON-WORK (NHB) 105 TABLE 3-22 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS TRIP ATTRACTION RATES 105

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project in June 2002 Table of Contents Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-23 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS REVISED SURVEY ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 106 TABLE 3-24 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS TRIP PRODUCTION FACTORS 107 TABLE 3-25 TRIP GENERATION INPUTS TRIP ATTRACTION FACTORS 108 TABLE 3-26 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY - REPORT OF TRIP RATIOS - 1990 109 TABLE 3-27 TRIP GENERATION RESULTS REPORT OF TRIP ENDS BY AREA TYPE - 1990 ... 110 TABLE 3-28A TRIP GENERATION RESULTS TRIP PRODUCTIONS BY JURISDICTION - 1990.... 111 TABLE 3-28B TRIP GENERATION RESULTS TRIP PRODUCTIONS BY JURISDICTION - 1990.... 112 TABLE 3-29A TRIP GENERATION RESULTS TRIP ATTRACTIONS BY JURISDICTION - 1990 113 TABLE 3-29B TRIP GENERATION RESULTS TRIP ATTRACTIONS BY JURISDICTION - 1990 114 TABLE 3-30 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES/HOME BASED WORK 0 CAR - HBW0 115 TABLE 3-31 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES/HOME BASED WORK1 CAR-HBW1 115 TABLE 3-32 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES/HOME BASED WORK 2 CAR - HBW2 116 TABLE 3-33 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES/HOME BASED WORK 3+CAR - HBW3 116 TABLE 3-34 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES HOME BASED OTHER 0 CAR - HBO0 117 TABLE 3-35 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES HOME BASED OTHER 1 CAR-HB01 117 TABLE 3-36 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES HOME BASED OTHER 2 CAR - HB02 118 TABLE 3-37 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES HOME BASED OTHER 3+CAR - HB03 118 TABLE 3-38 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES HOME BASED UNIVERSITY - HBU 119 TABLE 3-39 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES JOURNEY TO WORK(JTW) 119 TABLE 3-40 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES JOURNEY AT WORK (JAW) 120 TABLE 3-41 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES NON-HOME BASED/NON-WORK (NNW) 120 TABLE 3-42 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS HOME BASED WORK - ALL CAR OWNERSHIP CATEGORIES - HBW 121 TABLE 3-43 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS HOME BASED OTHER - ALL CAR OWNERSHIP CATEGORIES - HBO 121 TABLE 3-44 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS HOME BASED UNIVERSITY-HBO 122 TABLE 3-45 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS JOURNEY TO WORK-JTW 122 TABLE 3-46 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS JOURNEY AT WORK-JAW 123 Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

TABLE 3-47 JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS NON-HOME BASED/NON-WORK-NNW 123 TABLE 3-48 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED WORK -OCAR(HBWO) 124 TABLE 3-49 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED WORK -1 CAR(HBW1) 125 TABLE 3-50 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED WORK -2CAR(HBW2) 126 TABLE 3-51 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED WORK - 3+ CAR (HBW3) 127 TABLE 3-52 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED OTHER - 0 CAR (HBO0) 128 TABLE 3-53 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED OTHER-1 CAR(HB01) 129 TABLE 3-54 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED OTHER-2 CAR (HB02) 130 TABLE 3-55 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED OTHER - 3+CAR (HB03) 131 TABLE 3-56 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED UNIVERSITY (HBU) 132 TABLE 3-57 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION JOURNEY TO WORK (JTW) 133 TABLE 3-58 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION JOURNEY AT WORK (JAW) 134 TABLE 3-59 TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION NON-HOME BASED/NON-WORK (NNW) 135 TABLE 3-60 MODAL CHOICE COEFFICIENTS AND PARAMETERS 136 TABLE 3-61 MODAL CHOICE MODEL CONSTANTS FOR HOME BASED WORK (HBW) 138 TABLE 3-62 MODAL CHOICE MODEL CONSTANTS FOR HOME BASED OTHER (HBO) 139 TABLE 3-63 MODAL CHOICE MODEL CONSTANTS FOR OTHER PURPOSES 140 TABLE 3-64 COMPOSITE IMPEDANCE MODEL CONSTANTS FOR HOME BASED WORK 141 TABLE 3-65 1990 CENSUS JOURNEY TO WORK 142 TABLE 3-66 ESTIMATED 1990 HOME BASED WORK TRIPS 143 TABLE 3-67 HOME BASED WORK (HBW) PERSON TRIPS 144 TABLE 3-68 HOME BASED WORK (HBW) TRANSIT TRIPS 146 TABLE 3-69 METRORAIL TRIPS BY LINE GROUP FROM 1990 ONBOARD SURVEY 148 TABLE 3-70 ESTIMATED 1990 METRORAIL TRIPS BY LINE GROUP 149 TABLE 3-71 ESTIMATED HBW METRORAIL TRIPS BY LINE GROUP 150 TABLE 3-72 ESTIMATED TOTAL METRORAIL TRIPS BY LINE GROUP 151 TABLE 3-73 HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT SUMMARY STATISTICS 152 TABLE 3-74 HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT SUMMARY SCREENLINE SUMMARY 153 TABLE 3-75 HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT SUMMARY VMT BY JURISDICTION -1990 VS. 2020 154

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project June 2002 Table of Contents Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-76 HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT SUMMARY NORTHERN VIRGINIA SCREENLINE SUMMARY - 1990 VS. 2020 155 TABLE 3-77 HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT AT NORTHERN VIRGINIA SCREENLINE LOCATIONS.... 156 TABLE 3-78 FARE STRUCTURE ASSUMPTIONS 66 TABLE 3-79 RAIL AND BRT SPAN OF SERVICE 66 TABLE 3-80 LOCAL AND EXPRESS BUS SPAN OF SERVICE 69 TABLE 3-81 LOADING STANDARDS 70 TABLE 3-82 MAXIMUM FREE FLOW SPEEDS (MILES PER HOUR) 70 TABLE 3-83 DWELL TIME ASSUMPTIONS (SECONDS) 70 TABLE 3-84 DESIGN YEAR (2025) PARKING CAPACITY ASSUMPTIONS 71 TABLE 3-85 OPENING YEAR PARKING CAPACITY ASSUMPTIONS 71

I INDEX OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1 DULLES CORRIDOR AND MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS 3 FIGURE 2-1 PROJECT MAP 11 FIGURE 2-2 BRT ALIGNMENT OPTIONS 15 FIGURE 3-1 GENERALIZED MODEL STRUCTURE 27 FIGURE 3-2 DISTANCE K'S FOR HBW 0 CAR 39 FIGURE 3-3 DISTANCE K'S FOR HBW 1 CAR 39 FIGURE 3-4 DISTANCE K'S FOR HBW 2 CAR 40 FIGURE 3-5 DISTANCE K'S FOR HBW 3+ CAR 40 FIGURE 3-6 HOME BASED WORK - 0 CAR (HBWO)TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE IMPEDANCE 43 FIGURE 3-7 HOME BASED WORK - 1 CAR (HBW1) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE IMPEDANCE 43 FIGURE 3-8 HOME BASED WORK - 2 CAR (HBW2) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE IMPEDANCE 44 FIGURE 3-9 HOME BASED WORK - 3+ CAR (HBW3) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE IMPEDANCE 44 FIGURE 3-11 HOME BASED OTHER - 1 CAR (HB01) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE TIME 45 FIGURE 3-12 HOME BASED OTHER - 2 CAR (HB02) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE TIME 46 FIGURE 3-13 HOME BASED OTHER - 3+ CAR (HB03) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE TIME 46 FIGURE 3-14 HOME BASED UNIVERSITY (HBU) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE TIME 46 FIGURE 3-15 JOURNEY TO WORK (JTW) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE TIME... 47 FIGURE 3-16 JOURNEY AT WORK (JAW) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE TIME ... 47 FIGURE 3-17 NON HOME BASED/NON WORK (NNW) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPOSITE TIME 48 FIGURE 3-18 HOME BASED WORK - 1 CAR (HBW1) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 49 FIGURE 3-19 HOME BASED WORK - 0 CAR (HBWO) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 49 FIGURE 3-20 HOME BASED WORK - 2 CAR (HBW2) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 50

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project vii June 2002 Index of Figures Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

FIGURE 3-21 HOME BASED WORK - 3+CAR (HBW3) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 50 FIGURE 3-22 HOME BASED OTHER - 0 CAR (HBO0) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 51 FIGURE 3-23 HOME BASED OTHER - 1 CAR (HB01) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 51 FIGURE 3-24 HOME BASED OTHER - 2 CAR (HB02) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 52 FIGURE 3-25 HOME BASED OTHER - 3+CAR (HB03) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 52 FIGURE 3-26 HOME BASED UNIVERSITY (HBU) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 53 FIGURE 3-27 JOURNEY TO WORK (JTW) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 53 FIGURE 3-28 JOURNEY AT WORK (JAW) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 54 FIGURE 3-29 NON HOME BASED/NON WORK (NNW) TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FOR DISTANCE 54 FIGURE 3-30 NESTING STRUCTURE USED IN MODEL 55 FIGURE 3-31 TYSONS CORNER SUBZONES 63 FIGURE 3-32 RESTON/HERNDON/DULLES SUBZONES 67 FIGURE 3-33 ADJUSTMENT OF INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES 77

June 2002 viii Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) have prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project to evaluate and address the potential environmental effects associated with implementing transit improvements between the Metrorail Orange Line in Fairfax County, Virginia and Route 772 in Loudoun County, Virginia. The Draft EIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the regulations pursuant to the Act.

NEPA requires that federal decision-making include consideration of the potential adverse impacts of a project and its alternatives on the natural and human environment. If significant environmental impacts are anticipated, a plan for mitigating these impacts must be proposed to receive federal funds. Documentation must show that all reasonable alternatives were analyzed and considered. The Draft EIS provides this documentation for the following alternatives under consideration for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project:

• Baseline Alternative; • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative; • Metrorail Alternative; • A combination of BRT and Metrorail (BRT/Metrorail Alternative); and • Phased Implementation.

The General Plans for the BRT Alternative, Metrorail Alternative, and BRT/Metrorail Alternative are provided in Volumes III (Line and Systems) and IV (Facilities) of the Draft EIS. These plans are engineering and architectural drawings that illustrate the approximate type, size and location of the proposed improvements for each alternative. Each successive phase of the Phased implementation Alternative would correspond to the other three alternatives, and are, therefore, also reflected in the General Plans. The plans are used for environmental analysis, review of design feasibility, and public presentations. Together, the Draft EIS and General Plans are intended to assist in the selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative.

This Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report provides documentation of the travel demand forecasting methodology and validation results for the travel demand model set used for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. The report serves as a detailed record of the travel demand forecasting and analysis that was performed during the preliminary engineering and environmental review process.

Chapter 1 provides a brief description of the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project, including project need and the goals and objectives used to evaluate the relative merits of the alternatives under consideration in the Draft EIS. This evaluation is presented in Chapter 10 of the Draft EIS.

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 1 June 2002 Introduction Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

Chapter 2 provides a brief description of the alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS, including the alignment options for the BRT Alternative and for the Metrorail Alternative in Tysons Corner.

Chapter 3 provides a summary of the methodology and validation results for the selected travel demand forecasting model - the Northern Virginia Major Investment Study Model (NVMISM). The model development and validation process is described, including those model modifications and enhancements undertaken to better address the forecasting needs for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. A summary is presented for the operating plan and travel demand model assumptions used for each alternative considered in the Draft EIS. A description is also provided for the procedures used to generate traffic forecasts on local roads surrounding the proposed Metrorail and BRT stations and stops.

The Appendix to this report presents a range of model results by jurisdiction and by alternative.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project includes alternative transit system improvements extending along the 24-mile Dulles Corridor between the Metrorail Orange Line near West Falls Church Station in Fairfax County to Route 772 in Loudoun County. As shown in Figure 1-1, the corridor encompasses several activity centers, including Tysons Corner, Reston, Hemdon, and Washington Dulles International Airport (Dulles Airport), as well as the emerging activity centers in eastern Loudoun County.

Rapid transit in the Dulles Corridor was initially explored in the 1950s as part of the planning process for Dulles Airport. At that time, it was decided to reserve the median of the Dulles Airport Access Road (DAAR) for future transit access to the airport. Subsequently, the need for transit in the corridor was evaluated in the late 1960s during the planning of the regional Metrorail system. Though Metrorail's original Adopted Regional System did not include a connection to Dulles Airport, extending rapid transit service to the airport has remained a local and regional goal.

Most recently, providing a rapid transit connection to Dulles Airport was evaluated in the Dulles Corridor Transportation Study (1997) and the Supplement to the Dulles Corridor Transportation Study (1999). The former, a Major Investment Study (MIS), recommended developing a rail line between the Metrorail Orange Line and Route 772 primarily using the median of the DAAR. The MIS Supplement recommended developing this rail line through a phased implementation program that would begin with enhanced express bus services, then use bus rapid transit (BRT) technology to institute rapid transit service in the Dulles Corridor as quickly as possible. BRT is an emerging transit mode in which buses are used to provide high-quality service akin to a rapid rail system. The BRT line would then be converted to rail as project development continued.

As currently envisioned, the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project would function as an extension of the regional Metrorail system. Multiple technology options are under consideration, but regardless of which technology is ultimately selected, the new transit line would be completely integrated with the existing Metrorail system, particularly in terms of scheduling, signage, and fare collection.

June 2002 2 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project £.OTq_MAC_R,v S ER Eastern Loudoun County Residential & Mixed-Use Development

LEGEND Figure I-I (j Existing Metrorail Orange Line and Stations Major Activity Centers Dulles Corridor and Major ~^^~^ Limited Access Highways Activity Centers ^—^— U.S. Highways

Major Arterials 3 MILES Dulles Corridor Dulles Corridor Boundary Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Introduction

The proposed alternatives under consideration for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project are:

• Baseline; • BRT; • Metrorail; • BRT/Metrorail; and • Phased Implementation.

Several alignment variations are being examined for each alternative.

All proposed alternatives would follow an alignment that generally runs along the Dulles Connector Road, the DAAR, and the Dulles Greenway. Most of the stations would be located in the median of the DAAR and would be similar to stations on the existing Metrorail system. The BRT stations would be designed for future conversion to rail stations. The project also includes the development of station and ancillary facilities such as parking and bus transfer facilities, a bus maintenance and storage facility, a rail service and inspection (S&l) yard, stormwater management facilities, and rail traction power substations and tie breaker stations.

Phased Implementation would combine the other three Build Alternatives into a program of rapid transit improvements that would be implemented in stages. This approach would allow decision-makers to begin to address the travel needs in the corridor with rapid transit in the near term, while allowing for future development of rail.

1.2 NEED

The Dulles Corridor is currently experiencing rapid population and employment growth, particularly at the western end of the corridor. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) projects that, over the next 25 years, this growth will continue at rates that are nearly double those anticipated for the region as a whole. Analysis of MWCOG's Cooperative Forecast Data shows that by 2025, the corridor will experience a 71 percent increase in jobs compared to an average increase of 39 percent throughout the region.

Likewise, population in the corridor is expected to increase 56 percent between 2000 and 2025, compared to 32 percent population growth in the region. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) projects that Dulles Airport will experience considerable increases in air travel patronage, air cargo operations, and employment. Growth in passenger use alone is projected to reach 55 million trips by 2035—more than twice the current level.

The projected population and employment growth are strongly linked to land use and development plans for the corridor. Local comprehensive plans call for higher-intensity office, retail, and residential development at existing activity centers in the corridor, and allow for concentrated development on undeveloped parcels at the emerging activity centers in Dulles Corner and eastern Loudoun County.

The projected increase in residents and job opportunities, when combined with expected increases in passenger and freight operations at Dulles Airport, will result in markedly higher traffic volumes on highways and streets in the Dulles Corridor and throughout the region. Between 2000 and 2025, it is estimated that overall regional travel will increase 31 percent, and regional work trips are expected to increase 36 percent. The highest concentrations of overall travel growth for the region will occur in the Dulles Corridor and the outer Virginia suburbs

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 5 June 2002 Introduction Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

(including western Loudoun, Prince William, Fauquier, and Stafford counties, and other outlying jurisdictions), especially for trips to and from eastern Loudoun County. Between 2000 and 2025, the total number of trips in the corridor is expected to increase 56 percent, while the number of trips to and from eastern Loudoun County is projected to increase 190 percent.

Between 2000 and 2025, eastbound traffic volumes on the Dulles Toll Road, the main east-west arterial road in the corridor, are expected to increase from 6,200 vehicles to 8,200 vehicles in the peak hour between Hunter Mill Road and Reston Parkway (excluding the high-occupancy vehicle lanes). Similarly, peak volumes along the Dulles Connector Road, the Dulles Greenway, and Route 50 are expected to increase substantially. Increasing volumes on these regional routes will force more vehicles on to local roads, causing increases in delay at many key intersections throughout the corridor.

Given that the corridor transportation network currently experiences traffic volumes that meet or exceed the capacity of roadways and intersections, causing severe congestion, these increases in traffic volumes are only expected to worsen conditions. However, many planned capacity improvements are only projected to maintain roadways and intersections at LOS E and F. (LOS is a qualitative measure that represents the average delay experienced by vehicles traveling along a road or through an intersection. LOS E and F indicate very congested or gridlock conditions.) Though the transportation system requires additional capacity to serve the ever- increasing travel demands in the Dulles Corridor, expansion of the roadway network is constrained by limitations of right-of-way and development patterns. Further roadway expansions would likely have impacts on a substantial number of businesses and residents.

Because the existing transit system in the Dulles Corridor operates on the congested roadways described above, it generally offers a poor alternative to auto travel. For travel between several key origins and destinations in the corridor and the region, current transit travel times are approximately 20 to 30 minutes more than those for travel by private auto. As a result, transit in the corridor is not a sufficiently attractive travel alternative—as reflected by the 9 percent transit share of all daily work trips (approximately 40,000 trips)—and does little to effectively serve the existing high levels of travel demand.

In the future, the effectiveness of planned expansions to the corridor transit system—including enhancements to Fairfax County bus service and new express bus service for Loudoun County—will be hampered by increasing traffic volumes and roadway congestion. As a result, many of the enhanced transit services in the corridor will experience increased travel times and reduced schedule reliability, decreasing their attractiveness as an alternative to auto travel in the corridor and limiting their ability to adequately serve the anticipated growth in travel demand.

The inability to serve the anticipated demand will cause highway and transit operations in the Dulles Corridor to deteriorate, further contributing to the region's air quality problem. Currently, the entire Washington metropolitan region is designated a non-attainment area for ozone, one of the six criteria pollutants monitored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A non-attainment designation indicates that the measured air quality exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for this pollutant.

To ensure compliance with the NAAQS, each state must develop a state implementation plan (SIP) demonstrating that every effort is being made to achieve or maintain attainment status. New programs or projects must be in compliance with this SIP. Because emissions from autos are major components in the formation of ozone, the SIP for Virginia includes transportation control measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Reducing vehicle miles traveled should lead

June 2002 6 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Introduction to a decrease in emissions and, over time, contribute to the attainment of air quality standards in the region.

To help attain regional air quality goals, there is a need to develop additional transportation improvements in the Dulles Corridor that can move high volumes of travelers while generating low pollutant emissions and reducing vehicle miles traveled.

1.3 PURPOSE

In response to these needs, and based on work completed in prior studies, DRPT and WMATA have proposed the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. The purpose of the project is to provide a high-quality, high-capacity transit alternative in the Dulles Corridor. The introduction of fixed-guideway transit to the corridor is intended to offer travel time savings between the corridor and the region's core, expand the reach of the region's existing rapid transit system, offer a viable alternative to auto travel for commuting and discretionary trips in the corridor, support future development, assist in meeting the region's air quality goals, and serve diverse populations.

The transit system enhancements under consideration for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project would offer an alternative means of travel for the growing number of residents, employees, and visitors in the Dulles Corridor, and, as a high-quality link to the Metrorail system, would improve mobility throughout the region. By providing a high-capacity transportation choice for travelers, the proposed project would be better able to meet the anticipated increases in travel demand and help reduce future congestion in the corridor. Moreover, the ability of the proposed improvements to increase person-moving capacity over long distances with fewer numbers of vehicles, should help minimize future increases in vehicle miles traveled in the corridor and vehicle emissions.

To determine how well they meet the purposes identified above, each alternative under consideration for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project was evaluated against the set of goals and objectives outlined in Table 1-1.

The goals for the project were originally developed during the 1997 MIS. The goals and objectives were reviewed, discussed, and adjusted in response to stated public concerns over the course of project development throughout the MIS process and as part of the preliminary environmental review process for the Draft EIS. Because several of the goals are interrelated, some of the objectives apply to more than one goal.

Based on the goals and objectives, a set of specific evaluation criteria were developed to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of each alternative proposed for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. The four basic categories of evaluation criteria were social, environmental, economic, and transportation. These criteria were designed to help decision makers to identify similarities, differences, and trade-offs between each alternative.

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 7 June 2002 Introduction Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 1-1: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goals Objectives

Goal 1 Provide more frequent service for trips to the core of the region, Tysons Comer, Reston/Herndon, Dulles Airport, and eastern Loudoun County. Improve Transportation Service Provide multi-modal access. " Improve travel times within the corridor and the region. Provide integrated, seamless transit service to Tysons Comer and other major activity centers. Provide improved transit service in the corridor in the near term in the near term.

Goal 2 Provide more frequent service for trips to the core of the region, Tysons Comer, Reston/Herndon, Dulles Airport, and eastern Loudoun County. Increase Transit Ridership Provide multi-modal access. Improve the amenities of the existing transit service within the corridor and the region. Improve travel times within the corridor and the region. Provide integrated, seamless transit service to Tysons Comer and other major activity centers. Provide improved transit service in the corridor in the near term.

Goal 3 • • Provide improved accessibility to existing and planned activity centers in the corridor and the region. Support Future Development • Provide transit service that supports and is consistent with the character of the existing and future land use and development. > Provide stations that are compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and encourage transit use.

Goal 4 • Contribute to the attainment of regional air quality standards. Support Environmental Quality ' • Minimize negative impacts to traffic patterns. • Minimize negative impacts on neighborhoods and residential land uses. 1 Minimize negative impacts to ecologically sensitive areas. • Minimize negative impacts to historic and cultural resources. • Minimize negative visual and aesthetic impacts.

Goal 5 • • Develop transportation improvements that are consistent with the funding and financial capacity of the region. Provide Cost-effective, Achievable Transportation Solutions • Minimize project operating costs. • Optimize cost-effectiveness.

Goal 6 • Provide a balance of benefits and impacts to all residents within the corridor. Serve Diverse Populations • Improve accessibility to existing and planned employment centers from low-income and minority areas. • Provide transportation improvements that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act standards. • Minimize and mitigate negative impacts to low-income and minority populations.

June 2002 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project include the Baseline Alternative and several Build Alternatives: BRT, BRT/Metrorail, Metrorail, and Phased Implementation. As shown in Figure 2-1, the proposed transit improvements generally follow an alignment along the Dulles Connector Road, the Dulles Airport Access Road (DAAR), and Dulles Greenway between the West Falls Church Station on Metrorail's Orange Line and Route 772 in Loudoun County. Several alignment options are under study in Tysons Corner.

Based on the recommendations of the Major Investment Study (1997), its Supplement (1999), and the outcome of the alternatives evaluation process conducted for this project (described in the Final Alternatives Analysis Report, 2001), the Build Alternatives include:

• BRT Alternative. BRT would extend the full length of the Dulles Corridor between the West Falls Church Station on the Orange Line and Route 772 in Loudoun County.

• Metrorail Alternative. Metrorail would extend the full length of the corridor from a point between the East and West Falls Church stations on the Orange Line and Route 772 in Loudoun County.

• BRT/Metrorail Alternative. Metrorail would extend from a point between the East and West Falls Church stations on the Orange Line through Tysons Corner, and BRT would operate in the remainder of the corridor.

• Phased Implementation Alternative. Metrorail would be implemented for the full length of the corridor through a staged series of rapid transit improvements. Initially BRT would extend from West Falls Church Station on the Orange Line to Route 772 in Loudoun County. Then Metrorail would replace BRT service from West Falls Church Station through Tysons Corner, while BRT would continue to operate from Tysons Corner to Route 772. Finally, Metrorail would replace BRT service between Tysons Corner and Route 772.

The ancillary facilities necessary to support the build alternatives include the following:

» BRT Maintenance and Storage Facility • Metrorail Service and Inspection (S&l) Yard • Metrorail Traction Power Substations and Tie-Breaker Stations • Stormwater Management Facilities

The S&l Yard would be used to store, inspect and service rail vehicles. In addition, new BRT buses would require a storage and maintenance facility. The traction power substations and tie­ breaker stations will be sited based on systems engineering requirements. The Draft EIS includes a power analysis to determine the number of substations and the optimal spacing for the Metrorail, BRT/Metrorail, and Phased Implementation alternatives.

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 9 June 2002 Description of Alternatives Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

For ease of presentation and discussion, the Dulles Corridor has been divided into five geographic sections, as outlined in Table 2-1. A description of each build alternative is provided by geographic section, ending with a broad overview of the necessary ancillary facilities.

TABLE 2-1: BOUNDARIES OF GEOGRAPHIC SECTIONS FOR DULLES CORRIDOR Section From To

Orange Line Connection Metrorail Orange Line Dulles Connector Road/Route 123

Tysons Corner Dulles Connector Road/Route 123 Route 7/DAAR

Mid-Corridor Route 7/DAAR DAAR/Route 28

Dulles Airport DAAR/Route 28 Dulles Airport North-South Service Road/Dulles Greenway

Loudoun County Dulles Airport North-South Service Dulles Greenway/Route 772 Road/Dulles Greenway

The Baseline Alternative and the Build Alternatives are briefly described in Sections 2.1 to 2.5. A more detailed description of each alternative can be found in the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation (2002).

2.1 BASELINE ALTERNATIVE

The Baseline Alternative includes all existing highway and transit infrastructure and services within the corridor, and any that are committed to be implemented by 2025, aside from the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. The Baseline Alternative is the No-Build condition for the corridor, and includes the following elements:

• Existing highways;

• Existing Metrorail infrastructure;

• Existing WMATA, Fairfax Connector, and Loudoun County bus services;

• Fairfax and Loudoun counties' transit improvements included in Phase II (Enhanced Express Bus) of the Dulles Corridor phased implementation program;

• Planned highway and transit improvements through 2025 included in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's (MWCOG's) 2000 financially constrained long- range plan; and

• Marginal increases in transit service and capacity commensurate with forecast population growth in the corridor through 2025.

This Baseline Alternative is consistent with both the "no-action alternative" required by the Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) regulations for implementing NEPA, and the "baseline alternative" defined in FTA's final rule on Major Capital Transit Investment Projects (New Starts). Highway and transit improvements included in the Baseline Alternative are identified in the region's CLRP. Additional capacity improvements to the existing Metrorail system needed to meet forecast increases in travel demand are also included in the Baseline Alternative.

June 2002 10 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project ysons Corner Metrorail Alignments Tl, T6, T9 Tysons Corner Metrorail Alignment T4 Tysons Corner BRT Alignments BRT 1, BRT 2, BRT 3

LEGEND Figure 2-1 (__) Existing Metrorail Orange Line and Stations MM • Dulles Corridor Boundary Project Map

Rapid Transit (Metrorail or BRT) Q proposedTransit Station or Stop Limited Access Highway /—\ _ „ . 6 ' {_J Future Station U.S. Highways Q J 3 MILES Duttes Corridor Major Arterials Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Description of Alternatives

The highway and transit networks defined for the Baseline Alternative are also used as a starting point for each of the Build Alternatives studied for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. The baseline network differs from the network for a specific build alternative by the amount of proposed investment in transit services and facilities in the respective Build Alternatives.

2.2 BRT ALTERNATIVE

The BRT alignment begins at West Falls Church Station on the Metrorail Orange Line and extends along the Dulles Connector Road, the DAAR, and the Dulles Greenway to Route 772 in Loudoun County. On each of these roads, buses would travel in the regular traffic lanes in mixed traffic, except in the eastbound direction on the Dulles Connector Road, where buses are permitted to use the shoulder during periods of severe congestion, when such use does not present a safety hazard to general purpose traffic. In certain limited areas, some BRT vehicles would also use the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes of the Dulles Toll Road. At Dulles Airport, buses would travel on the existing airport access roads to reach the terminal. The BRT Alternative includes modifications to West Falls Church Station, a new layover facility, new BRT stations and stops, and a new BRT maintenance facility and storage yard.

Three different alignments options are under consideration for the BRT Alternative. As shown in Figure 2-2, the primary differences between the alignments are the number and locations of stations and stops. BRT stations are located in the median of the DAAR, whereas BRT stops would be located at facilities outside the median. BRT vehicles would provide access to stops by leaving the DAAR, the Toll Road, or the Greenway. The alignment options include:

• BRT 1- Includes five median stations and three stops. • BRT 2- includes three median stations and four stops. • BRT 3- Includes one multi-level median station and six stops.

All three BRT alignments were designed to allow for future conversion to rail as demand in the Dulles Corridor grows. For the purposes of this discussion, BRT 2 is closest to the system that would be constructed if BRT were to be implemented without any provisions for rail conversion. This is because the stations within the DAAR median, are limited to the platform length and ancillary space sufficient to support BRT operations.

2.3 METRORAIL ALTERNATIVE

The Metrorail Alternative generally follows an alignment between the Metrorail Orange Line near West Falls Church Station and Route 772 in Loudoun County, using the median of the Dulles Connector Road, the DAAR, and the Dulles Greenway (see Figure 2-1). The alignment diverges from these routes to serve Tysons Corner and Dulles Airport.

In Tysons Comer, four possible alignments would provide Metrorail service (Alignments T1, T6, T9, and T4). These alignments would be similar at the eastern and western edges of Tysons Corner, where each would be on aerial structure. Through the core of Tysons Corner, Alignments T1, T6, and T9 would extend along Routes 123 and 7. Each alignment would include an underground segment extending west from the intersection of Route 123 and Tysons Boulevard. For Alignment T1, the western end of the tunnel would be just south of the intersection at Route 7 and Westpark Drive. For Alignment T6, the tunnel would be slightly longer, transitioning back to aerial structure southeast of the intersection at Route 7 and Spring

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 13 June 2002 Description of Alternatives Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

Hill Road. The tunnel for Alignment T9 would be shorter, passing under Route 123 and surfacing on the south side of the road, just east of the Route 7/Route 123 interchange. An additional design option for the Alignment T9 tunnel would extend along the north side of Route 123, surfacing at the eastern edge of the interchange. Alignment T4 would be entirely elevated, diverging into two single-track legs through the core of Tysons Corner. The south leg would extend along Route 123 and Route 7, and the north leg would run along Westpark Drive.

At Dulles Airport, the alignment would diverge from the DAAR and the Greenway and transition to a tunnel segment, providing service to the airport terminal via an underground station.

The Metrorail Alternative would include up to 13 new stations, as well as ancillary facilities, such as a Service and Inspection (S&l) Yard, traction power substations, tie-breaker stations, and stormwater management facilities. Three sites in Loudoun County are under consideration for the S&l Yard.

2.4 BRT/METRORAIL ALTERNATIVE

The BRT/Metrorail Alternative would combine elements of both the BRT and Metrorail Alternatives. The Metrorail portion of the alternative would extend between the Metrorail Orange Line and Tysons Corner. At its eastern end, the alignment would follow the median of the Dulles Connector Road, diverging to serve the core of Tysons Corner using Alignment T1, T6, T9, or T4. As described earlier, the Tysons Corner segment could be entirely aerial, or it could include an underground segment. The Metrorail portion of the alignment would include three to six stations. West of Tysons Corner, the BRT portion of the alternative would be identical to the BRT Alternative. The number of stations and stops would vary depending on the selected BRT alignment option.

The BRT/Metrorail Alternative would also include a new BRT maintenance and storage facility, and the addition of storage tracks to the West Falls Church S&l Yard. The Metrorail portion of the alternative would include traction power substations, tie-breaker stations, and stormwater management facilities.

2.5 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVE

The Phased Implementation Alternative would combine the other three Build Alternatives into a program of rapid transit improvements that would be implemented in stages. Following the approach recommended in the 1999 MIS Supplement, the BRT Alternative would be constructed first; then Metrorail would be constructed from the Orange Line through Tysons Corner, connecting to BRT service between Tysons Corner and Loudoun County; and finally, Metrorail would be constructed between Tysons Corner and Loudoun County, replacing BRT service in the corridor. This approach would allow decision-makers to begin to address the travel needs in the corridor with rapid transit in the near term, while allowing for future development of rail. It is anticipated that operations for BRT would begin in 2005. Metrorail through Tysons Corner would be constructed concurrently with BRT to Loudoun County, and would begin operation soon after implementation of full BRT (2006). Metrorail to Loudoun County is expected to be complete and operational by 2010.

June 2002 14 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Alignment BRT I 4 O Q o Q^CE /• >* # ey fr & >° ^ s

Exisiting Metrorail Orange Line

Alignment BRT 2 * 35^0^80 * J # ^ ^ ^T ^ y ^

Exisiting Metrorail Orange Line

Alignment BRT 3 4 * ^ • jr

Exisiting Metrorail Orange Line

LEGEND Figure 2-2 g> <» BRT Alignment Options

BRT Stop BRT Station BRT Station Transfer Fare Pavilion Median, at grade Median, bi-level &RT- Metrorail DuUes Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Description of Alternatives

The alignments for the Phased Implementation Alternative would be identical to those for the other three Build Alternatives. Initially, the alternative would use one of the three BRT alignments identified earlier. Metrorail through Tysons Corner would follow Alignment T1, T6, T9, or T4, and Metrorail to Loudoun County would be developed along the median of the DAAR, diverge into a tunnel at Dulles Airport, then surface and follow the median of the Dulles Greenway to the vicinity of Route 772—the same alignment presented for the Metrorail Alternative. For each phase, the number of stations and stops would depend on the BRT and Metrorail alignments selected.

Each phase of the Phased Implementation Alternative includes new maintenance and storage facilities. The BRT Maintenance and Storage Facility and the Metrorail S&l Yard would be located either at separate sites or on the same site. As Metrorail is developed through Tysons Corner, additional storage tracks would be constructed at the West Falls Church Station S&l Yard. The Metrorail phases also include traction power substations, tie-breaker stations, and stormwater management facilities.

In general, BRT operations would not be affected by construction of Metrorail through Tysons Comer. Once Metrorail operations begin on this portion of the system, BRT service would be discontinued at West Falls Church Station. Several improvements at this station would remain for feeder bus operations. Service would also be discontinued at the median station proposed near Tysons Corner. The median portion of the station would be removed and the station facilities at the Tysons-West*Park Transit Station would be returned to their original configuration.

For BRT 1 or BRT 2, BRT operations would be affected by construction of Metrorail in the median of the DAAR, particularly in the vicinity of stations. It is expected that median operations for BRT 1 or BRT 2 would be displaced during Metrorail construction and start-up testing, with BRT service relocated to station facilities on the north and south sides of the Dulles Toll Road, Metrorail construction would not affect BRT operations for BRT 3.

Following the implementation of Metrorail operations along the full length of the Dulles Corridor, several BRT facilities, such as fare pavilions at stops and exclusive highway ramps, would be removed or converted for other uses.

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 17 June 2002 Description of Alternatives Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

This page intentionally left blank.

June 2002 18 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 3.0 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING METHODOLOGY AND VALIDATION

The following section summarizes the travel demand forecasting methodology and validation results for the travel demand model set used for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. This section addresses several specific topics. First, the procedures used to test and select an appropriate model for use in the project's Draft EIS are discussed in Section 3.1. Section 3.2 presents the model development and validation process of the selected model - the Northern Virginia Major Investment Study Model (NVMISM). NVMISM is a state-of-the-practice travel demand forecasting tool developed initially for an earlier study of rail in the Dulles Corridor and later applied in major investment studies for both the Dulles Corridor and Interstate 66. Several significant modifications to NVMISM were undertaken to better address forecasting needs for the Draft EIS; these modifications are discussed in Section 3.3.

Section 3.4 summarizes operating plan and travel demand model inputs and assumptions for the alternatives being considered in the Draft EIS. Section 3.5 describes the technical approach used to model Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the Dulles Corridor. Finally, Section 3.6 summarizes the procedures used to generate traffic forecasts on local roads surrounding proposed Metrorail and BRT stations and stops.

The reader should note that due to the number of tables used to describe the travel demand forecasting methodology (Section 3.2), Tables 3-1 through 3-77 appear in order at the end of the Chapter 3 text.

An appendix to this report presents a range of model output (results), including station boardings and mode of arrival forecasts and summaries, by jurisdiction, of transit trips and mode shares. The appendix also provides summary highway and transit travel times, vehicle- miles and hours-traveled, and other model output, by alternative.

3.1 SELECTION OF TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL SET

The ridership forecasting effort for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project presented the Project Team with many challenges, particularly with the complex travel patterns and multiple options to be studied in the Tysons Corner area. Beyond the complex nature of the corridor and the desired phasing of improvements lie several procedural challenges in developing ridership forecasts for the study area. The first issue is the choice of a forecasting tool. As all parties (i.e., WMATA, DRPT, and FTA) had not agreed on the forecasting tool to be used for the study effort, it was necessary to evaluate two modeling options. The first option was the new Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's (MWCOG) Version II model set. The second option was the Northern Virginia Major Investment Study Model (NVMISM) last used for the Metrorail I-66 to Centerville major investment study (MIS).

There were issues with both choices. MWCOG's Version II model set is intended to replace the current but inadequate Version I model as the standard regional tool for multi-modal infrastructure planning. As of Fall 2000, Version II had been developed and calibrated but not

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 19 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report fully validated. There was no MWCOG forecasting subcommittee endorsement of the Version II model. Once fully calibrated and validated, the Version II model would serve as the regional transportation modeling standard, but in late 2000 it was difficult to estimate when the formal adoption of the model would likely take place.

NVMISM had been developed over the past 8 years as a state-of-the-art practice travel demand model system. Two generations were used in previous planning efforts in the Dulles Corridor, as well as ongoing use in the recently completed 1-66 MIS. Concerns had been raised, however, that the NVISM model set under-predicts Core Metrorail trips.

CTC set out to test the two models in October - December 2000. The following summarizes the travel demand model assessment process and the results of the assessment.

3.1.1 Travel Demand Model Assessment Process The Project Team proposed that the decision on which modeling option to use in the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project EIS should rest with whether the preferred tool would be capable of analyzing the complex issues that need to be addressed during preliminary engineering. It was determined that the travel demand model must be able to address the following outcomes and issues:

Benefits and costs of alternative Tysons Corner alignments;

Alternative BRT operating plans;

Home-based non-work trip ridership potential;

Non-home-based ridership potential, particularly within Tysons Corner

Non-work airport related travel;

• Multi-modal trip distribution, parking capacity constraint, and other contemporary supply- demand modeling issues;

• Validity and reasonability in forecasting;

• Complexity, timing and cost of application, once validated;

• Consistency with other studies under way both in Northern Virginia and in the region as a whole.

In addition, the ability of travel demand estimation tools to perform needed analyses within a desired project schedule may require that an informed trade-off be made between analytical capabilities, regional consistency, financial/staff resources, and expediency in the selection of an appropriate model set.

The following summarizes the series of tests undertaken for the V2 and NVMISIM model sets

Operability of Version II The first set of tests compared the results of Version II, as run by CTC, to the results of Version II, as run by the modeling staff of MWCOG. Specifically, tests were run for the mode choice, sub-mode choice, and mode of arrival models, generating results estimating number of trips (by

June 2002 20 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology mode of access) for various trip purposes; Metrorail station boardings; and estimated vehicle- miles-traveled and traffic volumes. Tables 3-1 through 3-5 present the results of these tests.

The intent of these tests was to identify any possible computer problems that might cause errors in model application. The tests indicate that Version II is indeed capable of running on computers other than the one(s) it was developed on and producing consistent results between machines.

Base Year (2000) Model Run Comparisons Once it was determined that the Project Team could run Version II, comparable base-year 2000 simulations were run to compare Version II with NVMISM. The results were compared to a variety of data sources, including faregate-derived April 2000 daily Metrorail boardings by station; COG cordon counts; and results of the 1994 COG home interview survey. In general, the comparison of Version II to the results of the 1994 home interview survey indicated that, for virtually every test (e.g., distribution, sub-mode choice, mode choice), Version II did significantly worse in replicating actual survey or count data for Virginia jurisdictions as both a producer and attractor of trips than it did for the region as a whole.

The results of this set of comparisons are presented in a series of tables (Tables 3-6 through 3- 11) at the end of this Chapter. Application of the Version II trip generation model indicated a propensity to be on the high side in estimating trip rates (Table 3-6); in addition, there also appeared to be trouble with the gravity model despite overall reasonable estimates for trip lengths in both minutes and miles (Table 3-7). Particularly troubling were the results of the total person trip gravity model summaries, which indicated significant differences between total person travel flows predicted for 2000 and actual for 1994 that could not be explained by changes in employment and population during the six-year period, e.g., growth in the suburbs declines in the District. These results are provided in Table 3-8 for several trip purposes, which indicate trip generation or trip distribution issues, which would require additional analysis to address adequately.

In terms of mode shares, Version II did reasonably well in replicating travel on the ground (Table 3-9). It also appeared to be working satisfactorily in estimating transit productions in Virginia; however, it significantly overestimates transit (bus plus rail) attractions in Fairfax County (Table 3-10).

Finally, on a Metrorail station boarding basis, comparing Spring 2000 actual faregate entries to forecasts, the tests revealed that Version II was capable of replicating total regional Metrorail ridership reasonably well, but was generally not as accurate for most station groups as was NVMISM. Table 3-11 provides a direct comparison of Version II and NVMISM simulations of observed Metrorail boardings.

Model Evaluation Based on the series of tests described above, CTC found that NVMISM possessed stronger analytical capabilities (at the time of the test) than did Version II. In addition to the summaries, CTC also found that the need for predicting Metrorail (and BRT) parking lot capacity constraint favors NVMISM. To date, the V2 model has not incorporated a parking lot capacity constraint. In addition, NVMISM has already successfully dealt with BRT, a mode with characteristics more akin to Metrorail than local bus from a rider perspective (per Moshe Ben Akiva and Dan McFadden). This similarity is addressed by giving alternative paths involving a Metrorail and/or BRT leg a unique bias constant in the mode choice utility function; this bias constant is

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 21 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report explained in depth in Section 3.3. This has yet to be addressed for Version II, issues that will require further model development work.

Moreover, Version II had not, as of Fall 2000, ever been run from the trip generation step through both highway and transit assignment steps. The issues identified with Capital Transit Consultant's (CTC) run of Version II (for example, the excessive generation of non-home-based Metrorail productions and attractions in Fairfax County) could not realistically be solved in the amount of time available to the Project Team. These issues reflected the need for further model development, and it was estimated that such development activities would likely take several (3-6) months to accomplish.

Model Selection Given the results and decision factors noted above, WMATA and DRPT selected NVMISM as the regional travel demand forecasting tool for use in the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. Necessary modifications to the model for the EIS included:

• Updating networks, especially the existing plus committed highway network;

• Updating model set-up files and making one more complete pass through model; and

• Minor fine-tuning of model parameters (e.g., speed tables).

The Project Team further suggested the updating of the air passenger mode choice model with results of the 1998 air passenger survey; however, complete survey results were not available in time for the draft environmental impact study effort.

3.1.2 Summary Results of Model Evaluation Tables at the end of Chapter 3 (Tables 3-1 through 3-11) present the results of the model evaluation process outlined in Section 3.1.1.

3.2 NORTHERN VIRGINIA MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY MODEL

Section 3.2 provides an introduction to the Northern Virginia Major Investment Study Model. In addition to summarizing the origins of the model and its past applications, this section details the model estimation and validation procedures, from trip generation through highway assignment. The basic description of the travel demand procedures presented in Section 3.2 is taken from the report, Virginia MIS Travel Forecasting Procedures, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, Inc with the KPMG Transportation Consulting Group.

3.2.1 Model Development History

NVMISM was developed initially for the 1994 Dulles Corridor Rail Study, following general guidelines developed for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments for a major update of the region's travel demand modeling capabilities. Many features of the original Dulles model were considered very useful for a study of transportation alternatives for the I-66 corridor as part of a Major Investment Study (MIS). Following its use in the MIS for the Dulles Corridor, it was used during the I-66 MIS. When the study team for the I-66 MIS began investigation of the original NVISM, they identified a series of initial shortcomings in model application and processing of alternatives. These deficiencies were corrected by the development of a fully operational application package, which greatly improved the ease of use of the model and significantly improved model performance by reducing computer running times. A number of

June 2002 22 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology features were added and the model was used to prepare projections for the alternatives developed for the new Dulles project.

Concurrent with the alternatives analysis, data became available to allow the model to be transferred to its intended application platform; namely, the expanded cordon for the Washington region which also included additional refinement to the zone structure and provision of updated land use and related data. The original Dulles model was then transferred to this new platform and a model calibration effort was undertaken for the new geographic area of the 1-66 project.

During the model development and validation process, additional information was generated and reviewed in considerable detail by a special model review subcommittee of the 1-66 Technical Advisory Committee. This group, and the study team, concluded that some features of the model were not performing at a desired level, so a series of additional analyses were instituted to improve model performance. These efforts and the associated model validation activities are described below.

The model became known as the NVMIS following these improvements. The final phase of the 1-66 study included travel demand simulations for options, which included the development of a full rail system in the Dulles Corridor through Tysons Corner, Reston, Herndon, and Dulles Airport to a terminal station near Ashburn in Loudoun County. When travel simulations of BRT were required for the Supplement to the Dulles Corridor Transportation Study (MIS), some minor additional modifications were made to NVISM and it was applied for that study.

Additional modifications were undertaken for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Draft EIS. These modifications are described in Section 3.3 of this report.

3.2.2 Model Development Process

Model Overview The travel demand procedures developed for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project are based on an understanding and extrapolation of regional travel markets, which can be analyzed from the origin-destination survey conducted by the MWCOG. These markets are the travel made by the residents of the region using their own automobiles, the public transit system, the public taxi system, and personalized non-motorized modes (e.g., walk and bicycle). The markets do not include the trips made by non-residents (such as tourists), trips made to and from outside the region, and trips made by commercial vehicles (e.g., trucks) even if these vehicles are driven by residents of the region.

The models used to estimate these travel markets have been designed to be, as much as practical, state-of-the-art models. Care has been taken to only specify information needed to apply the models, which the MWCOG staff already obtains or forecasts. For example, the land use data required is simply the number of households, the population, the total employment, and total retail employment as presented in the MWCOG Round 6.2 Cooperative Land Use Forecasts. Because of the policy to minimize the requirements for exogenous data, the models include several sub-models, which estimate non-travel demand items, such as parking cost, automobiles, and labor force.

The travel demand procedures were designed to account for several objectives and constraints. The major objectives, or goals, in the design of the travel demand models were that the models:

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 23 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

• Meet the requirements of the new federal regulations, especially the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).

• Consider all possible modes available in the region, including walk, bicycle, taxi, transit, and highway travel. That the transit modes should include local bus travel, express bus travel, rail travel, and commuter rail travel. The highway travel should include, explicitly, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) travel, use of pay (e.g., toll) roads, and standard highway travel.

• Include multi-modal accessibility, or mobility, measures (especially time and cost) in all possible model sets.

• Include land use form where possible.

• Be compatible with the MWCOG's present transportation planning software (MINUTP) but not be limited to the present capabilities of MINUTP, especially in terms of its microcomputer memory limitation.

• Incorporate and extend the present series of MWCOG models. For transit modeling this means a mode choice, sub-mode choice, mode of arrival and station selection capability.

• Include a disciplined procedure for the building, storing, and retrieving of the transportation networks, which includes relating the transportation networks to the land use of the immediate area and also relates transit network information to highway network information.

Some of the constraints imposed on the model development were that:

• Observed data (e.g., the MWCOG origin-destination survey and the WMATA on-board surveys) be already collected.

• The zone and link constraints of the MINUTP software be used, meaning that the network cannot have more than 32,000 links, and the number of traffic analysis zones is limited to 2,500.

• The model should be capable of accepting the new extended MWCOG zone system of up to 2,250 zones.

An important element of the model design is the designation of the travel markets by purpose. This stratification allows for a more precise calibration of the models and also allows the analyst to focus on the essential characteristics of the trip and the person making the trip. For example, it is fairly obvious that shopping trips are "attracted" to areas, which have retail employees. The trip purposes used in this study are fairly standard categories. There are some differences from normal practice in the definition of the non-home based trips (those trips which are made with neither end at the home of the traveler). In NVISM, the Non-home Based (NHB) trips are stratified into the two categories of work related trips and one other category. The two work related trip categories are: (1) those NHB trips that take place on the person's trip to and from work, and; (2) those NHB trips that take place while a person is at work. The travel markets are stratified into purpose categories, including:

June 2002 24 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

• Home Based Work: Trips between home and the work location for the purpose of work.

• Home Based University: Trips between home and school for the purpose of school by persons over the age of 18.

B Home Based Shopping: Trips between home and a location for the purpose of shopping.

• Home Based Other: Trips between work and any other location (purpose) not included in the first three markets. • Non-home Based Journey to/from Work: Any trip with neither end at home nor which was made between the extended journey between workplace and home. For example, if a person ate breakfast at a restaurant and then went to work, the trip between the restaurant and the workplace would be a Non-home Based Journey to/from work.

• Non-home Based Journey at Work: Any trip with neither end at home nor which was made during working hours. For example, if a person visited another office for a meeting, the trip would be Non-home Based Journey at work trip.

• Non-home Based Other: A trip with neither end at home and not associated with work.

The travel demand models require transportation networks. This includes a highway network, a transit network, and a bicycle network. The highway network is stored in a database (in standard microcomputer dBASE format) and this database contains information on the physical attributes of highway links, zonal land use data, and speed count data where available. The transit database stores information about transit routes, including the itineraries of the route, headways, and scheduled speeds (for present routes). The transit routes are linked to the highway links and transit speeds are functions of the highway speeds.

The estimation of highway speeds and capacities are based on the type of highway and land use in the vicinity of the highway. The transportation network database management system includes a model to estimate the type of land use by traffic analysis zone and would assign one of seven land use categories to the highway links. These land use categories are defined with respect to the population and employment densities of the traffic analysis zones. Definitions are shown in Table 3-12.

The transportation network database system also includes programs to build walk and automobile centroid connectors for the transit network. This reduces the manual labor required to code a transit network and would provide for a reproducible network. The procedure reduces the judgment required in the coding of the centroids, thus eliminating manual coding errors.

The travel demand models used to estimate the trips are an enhanced four step process of trip generation, distribution, mode choice and assignment. Transportation accessibility is considered in all the modeling steps, including trip generation and time of day stipulation. The general structure for the models is shown in Figure 3-1.

First step: The first of the four-step process is the trip generation model. The trip generation model includes separate models to estimate productions and attractions. The trip generation model also includes a series of sub-models to estimate households by family size, automobile ownership, and workers per household, which are the demographic procedures. These sub­ models, estimated using the 1990 census data, use as independent variables (input data) the number of households and population per zone and the relative income of the zone (in terms of the regional income). The relative income of the zone was also obtained from the 1990 census

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 25 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report data. The relative income measure is the ratio of the average zonal income to the regional income.

The initial sub-models estimate the number of households by income, family size, and workers. This information is then used with accessibility measures to estimate households by family size, workers, and automobiles owned. There are three accessibility measures used for this model. These measures include the number of employees within one mile of the zone (a measure of walk accessibility); the number of employees within 40 minutes of peak period transit travel time (a measure of transit accessibility); and the number of employees within 6 miles of the zone (a land use form measure). The two distance measures are straight-line measurements, not over the highway network. The final estimates from these sub-models are the number of households (in each zone) stratified by the three socioeconomic variables of family size, number of workers, and number of cars owned.

Since this three-way stratification produces a considerable number of possible household types, the estimated households are held as real values (i.e. there may be 1.134 households in a zone with no cars, two people, and one worker). The automobile ownership model, which estimates the number of households with 0, 1, 2 and 3+ automobiles, is very sensitive to the three accessibility measures, with the number of total automobiles decreasing as the walk and transit accessibility measures increase, and the number of total automobiles increasing as the land use form measure decreases. This movement of the model is especially strong in the estimation of the zero car households.

The estimation of productions (e.g., the trip ends associated with the traveler's home) and attractions (e.g., the trip ends associated with the non-home end of the trip) is performed by the automobile strata. Trips are estimated for zero car households, one car households, two car households and three or more car households. Indeed the entire model chain of generation, distribution, and mode choice is stratified by the four automobiles owned strata.

Demographic measures are extremely important in estimating trip productions, while the land use estimates of households, retail employment, and total employment are important in estimating the attractions. In both cases, measures of accessibility were developed and explored.

Second step: The distribution model is a standard gravity model. Initially, the input zone to zone measure used in the model was the generalized cost from the mode choice model. This generalized cost includes both travel time and costs for all modes, including walking, bicycling, transit, taxi, and highway.

Later model refinements replaced the generalized cost module (see right-hand box in Figure 3- 1) with a simpler formulation in all runs, except that for home-based work trips.

Third step: The mode choice model is a nested logit model, which considers all modes in the region. The top nest of the model has four major modes: highway, transit, taxi, and non-

June 2002 26 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Land Use

Network Demographic Management System Model

Trip Generation . , Model

Trip Distribution';.

Mode Choice Generalized '-.IModel ;' ''* Cost

• *' Assignment

Adapted from: Virginia MS Travel Forecasting Figure 3-1 Procedures Applications Package Overview Generalized Model Structure

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology motorized modes. The non-motorized mode has a single nest of two sub-modes: walk; and bicycle. The highway mode has a drive alone and group nest. The group nest is further divided into two, three, or more persons per car. Each of the groups (including drive alone) has a final nest, which is to use toll roads or free roads. The transit mode is nested by sub-mode including local bus, rail, commuter rail, and express bus. Under each sub-mode, four potential modes of arrivals are included: walk, feeder bus, park-and-ride, and Kiss & Ride. For each combination of mode of arrivals (except walk) the four best stations are identified and used in the final (bottom) nest. The transit nest therefore includes sub-mode, mode of arrival, and station selection factors.

The trip generation, distribution, and mode choice models are applied for daily trips. The travel times used for the work trips are the peak hour travel times while the off-peak travel times are used for the other purposes. After the mode choice model, the user may select to build trip tables for a given period, such as the peak hour. For all transit trips and highway vehicle trips not occurring in the peak hour, the time of day model is a series of factors by trip purpose. For the peak hour calculations, the distance of the trip and the congestion index of the interchange (defined as the difference between the congested time and the uncongested time) are used to estimate the peak hour travel as a proportion of the peak period (3 hours) travel. The peak hour, as a proportion of the peak period, can range between 55 percent and 33 percent.

Fourth step: The highway assignment procedure, for the peak hour, is an equilibrium capacity constraint procedure. The volume/capacity relations used to modify the travel times have been revised to more closely approximate the actual conditions. This was done by reviewing the research that has been performed on these relationships in the last ten years.

Refinements to the Dulles Model (Pre-Dulles Rapid Transit Project Corridor Draft EIS) As noted previously, a number of refinements were made to the NVISM as part of the 1-66 MIS with a few minor updates for the BRT study in the Dulles Corridor. The first set of these refinements included development of a model application package. The original version of the model would later become known as NVMISM. NVMISM was developed as part of an ongoing planning study and many of its features and characteristics were developed in an ad-hoc manner to meet the needs of the study. The resulting procedures were extremely awkward to use and were particularly ill-suited to a major, multi-modal analysis such as was required for the 1-66 MIS.

The application package included the development of a data management system, which rationalized data set naming procedures and file structures. This element of the package included procedures that would scan generalized program control files and other model inputs and substitute the desired data set names and parameters unique to a particular application. This allowed for the development and management of alternatives in a much more expeditious manner and allowed for comparison of results across a range of alternatives with a high degree of confidence by eliminating confusion over file and data set naming structures.

A second part of the application package was a significant streamlining of several elements, most notably the development of transit network inputs. This process, together with the data structure improvement, virtually eliminated the need for time-consuming and error prone development of literally dozens of data sets and control files required for the initial model formulation.

A third element of the application involved enhancements and streamlining of the program code to improve running times. This was accomplished by revising the technique used to compile the program source code, particularly for the modal choice/composite impedance model, invoking

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 29 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report optimization procedures, which reduced computer run times from hours to minutes. In other portions of the model, steps were combined, streamlined, or eliminated so that the overall execution time was optimized and data storage requirements were reduced.

A fourth step in the process was a significant enhancement to the operation of the highway network management system developed initially for the Dulles project using a data base interface. The overall process was integrated into the application package and a number of features were added, including an alternative management system which allows for the development of multiple networks within the same data base framework, greatly improving consistency across alternatives. This feature also facilitates execution of the study by enabling the automated propagation of updates across a family of alternatives without the requirement of independent and error-prone updating of multiple network files.

The updated NVISM Dulles model was used in preparing a series of forecasts for initial 1-66 alternatives using the same database and area system used for the Dulles study. Simultaneously with this activity, data became available for the expanded cordon area that had been designated by the MWCOG as the area for use in future model development activities. The cordon expansion was of particular interest for the 1-66 study, since it included expansion into Fauquier and Clarke Counties, which make up the outer portions of the 1-66 study area. The expanded cordon also included a complete reworking of the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) area system for the region, with the inclusion of smaller zones and revised zonal boundaries, which are vital to accurate assessment of transportation alternatives in the outer portions of Fairfax County and much of Loudoun and Prince William Counties. The expanded model system into western Loudoun County and beyond is also vital for the study of alternatives in the Dulles Corridor.

A major model calibration exercise was initiated to convert the Dulles model and the new application package to the new study area, zonal system, and associated databases for the 1-66 MIS. The calibration procedures originally used for the Dulles study were assembled, codified, and converted into a more convenient "package" for model calibration activities. A series of calibration runs and a detailed review of the results were performed, involving not only the project team but members of a travel demand forecasting subcommittee of the 1-66 Technical Advisory Committee. Although the new model showed considerable promise, a number of shortcomings were noted. Therefore, a plan was developed for further enhancements, a description of which is included in Section 3.3 of this document. It should be noted that many of these issues also existed in the original Dulles model and the "old" cordon area and came to light primarily because of a greater level of detail and range of information that was made available for the 1-66 process. This effort was undertaken, in great degree, because a detailed examination of highway assignment results and related measures was considered vital for the multi-modal 1-66 project but had not been addressed in detail in the rail-focused Dulles study.

As part of the model update effort, considerable review was made of various model inputs, particularly highway networks and related items. Refinements were made in highway network coding to improve consistency in link classification practices and some other minor refinements. One notable change arose because of a concern over lower than reasonable traffic volumes along US 29 in Fauquier County. An examination of model inputs showed that the amount and distribution of external traffic provided by MWCOG was too low and too tightly distributed in the Remington area. Corrected total traffic data was provided by VDOT staff and a procedure was developed to improve the distribution of this traffic to other locations within the region. This procedure greatly improved the performance of the model in the US 29 corridor. Although a spot check showed similar deficiencies in other boundary areas, an update procedure was not

June 2002 30 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology employed as these locations, which are at some significant distance from the 1-66 corridor, were thought to have minimal impact.

During the model development and testing procedure, it was found to be useful to monitor whether appropriate sensitivities were being maintained and that model performance remained acceptable. Tests were conducted using a network based on the 1995/96 Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) prepared by MWCOG. During a round of refinements, the CLRP was updated to reflect the 1997/98 assumptions, most significantly the inclusion of the improvements to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. In addition, the CLRP assumptions were reviewed carefully with VDOT and county staff and a number of enhancements were made to conform with ongoing activities known to the counties but not consistently presented in the CLRP. In addition, further adjustments were made to facility type coding and other inputs to improve consistency.

During the use of the model in the later analysis of I-66 alternatives, a number of additional shortcomings were noted, particularly in transit network representation and the treatment of certain transit features within the modal choice model. Some changes were made to the transit network path building parameters to make them more consistent with the modal choice process and to overcome a problem with combining headways. At the same time, some minor changes were made to minimize overestimation of short commuter rail trips. The latter was accomplished by incorporating a pseudo-1990 VRE network (service did not actually begin until the following year), which allowed calibration of the commuter rail elements to much more closely reflect future year conditions. Also as part of this effort, the MARC commuter rail service was coded in a manner more accurately reflecting actual service patterns.

As part of the BRT study, it was assumed that BRT service would be treated using the same logic as for Metrorail service. However, research showed that trips made entirely on BRT would likely attract a slightly lower modal share than trips made on a full Metrorail system for the equivalent interchanges. Therefore, an additional parameter was added to the model inputs and internal processing which reduced modal share when such all-BRT interchanges were noted. In order to detect such interchanges, an additional station type flag was added to the station data file and some minor revisions were made to the transit network processing programs in the application package.

3.2.3 Model Estimation and Validation During the update of the NVMISM, enhancements were made to most of the major model elements, including trip generation, trip distribution, and modal choice. Explicit changes to model elements and procedures were not made for highway assignment, but the results of the highway assignment process were used extensively to guide modifications to other model elements. The most extensive changes were made during the "Tier 2" phase of the I-66 MIS. Other relatively minor problems, dealing with transit service representation, were found and corrected as part of a minor update prior to "Tier 3" of the 1-66 study. These latter adjustments primarily affected modal choice and no additional changes were made to trip generation or the initial elements of trip distribution. As part of the BRT study, some additional features were added to the modal choice model to reflect BRT services, but these features did not affect the calibration of the model system.

The following provides a summary of the trip generation, distribution, mode choice, and assignment features and outputs of the Northern Virginia Major Investment Study Model.

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 31 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

Trip Generation The basic structure of the trip generation model was not changed. The model remains a highly disaggregate method for estimating trip production rates by a number of household categories, including size, number of workers, number of autos available, and income. The model includes a number of integrated submodels to convert regional distributions of household categories into relationships for each traffic analysis zone. Two of these relationships showing the distribution of households by income and size and the average workers per household for each category are shown in Table 3-13.

The size and income distribution shows two notable categories for single person households, with the largest category being low income single-person households and the smallest category being high income single person households. Beyond these two categories, there is a somewhat surprisingly even distribution across the remaining 14 categories. The table of average number of workers shows the natural relationship between number of workers and household size and also between number of workers and income category, although the range for all but the lowest income category is rather small.

The trip generation submodels produce a number of intermediate calculations, including estimation of numbers of households by size, workers, and vehicle availability, as shown in Table 3-14.

As expected, zero-car households are the smallest overall category, making up less than 10 percent of the total. Although a small overall category, these households account for a significant proportion of transit trips and accurate estimation of their number and distribution was one of the major efforts undertaken during the model update process. As shown, over half of the zero-car households were occupied by a single person, almost equally divided between those working and those not. Although most of the other categories are quite small, over 5,000 zero-car households were estimated with three or more workers and 4 or more persons, indicating a category with relatively high trip generation potential but very low mobility and high transit dependence.

The most fundamental aspects of the trip production part of the model are the household production rates. These rates are stratified by households by workers, size, and auto availability, based on the distributions described above. The household production rates for home based work (HBW) trips are shown in Table 3-15 and those for the other trip categories in Tables 3-16 through 3-21. It should be noted that these household-based rates are shown for non-home based as well as home based trip purposes. This approach was taken in order that a consistent total number of trips be estimated on a regional basis. The actual distribution of these non-home based purpose trips by TAZ is determined by the estimation of trip attractions, noted below.

Home based work trip production rates are possibly the most important single category, since these rates are used to determine the distribution of the trip category that is most important for determining peak period congestion and is generally most divertible to other modes. The database available for the study was not sufficient to compute consistent rates for all categories, so some pooling and smoothing was done to the rates used in the model. As shown in Table 3- 15, certain logical relationships are imposed, such as households with no workers do not produce work trips and no trip rate is available for "impossible" categories such as more workers than total persons.

Trip rates for single worker households generally range from about 1.4 to 1.6 trips, consistent with national statistics when holidays, vacation, sick leave, out of town travel, and part-time work

June 2002 32 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology are taken into account. Trip rates for two-worker households are less than twice the rate for single-worker households, about 2.4 to 2.7 trips per household, reflecting the increased likelihood of part-time workers. This factor is even more evident as the trip rates for households with 3 or more workers are only about 3.3 to 3.8 or only slightly more than double the rate for single-worker households, again reflecting the presence of more part-time workers and, possibly, some increased likelihood of out-of-town travel by one or more household member.

Trip rates for home based university (HBU) trips (Table 3-16) were based on a relatively small sample with a limited ability to distinguish between household categories. The exception is for households with no workers, which represent true "student" households. Trip rates for home based shopping (HBS) trips (Table 3-17) show some interesting patterns, with rates being somewhat higher for zero worker households than for the other category. This result is probably attributable, in part, to trip linking, particularly by members of households with multiple workers, where shopping activities are undertaken as part of trip chains and are classified as non-home based trips. A similar pattern occurs for the remaining home-based trips (Table 3-18) for many of the same reasons. The most notable characteristic in this case is the very high number of trips by households with 4 or more members, reflecting travel involving children in typical family- type households.

Non-home based trips are categorized into three sub-groups. The first, journey to work (JTW) trips, include the initial and final trip of the day to or from the work site that does not originate or end at home. This trip category includes many of the linked trips that have become so much a part of modern urban travel patterns, included stop-offs en-route to and from work for day care, other passenger services, shopping, and other purposes. In most respects, such trips are similar to home base work trips in terms of time of day and predictability, but have very different potential for transit use or ride sharing because of the needs of the multiple destinations and chaining. The trip rates in Table 3-19 show little variation by household size for any given category by number of workers and show the same general pattern of less-than-proportional increases with the number of workers.

The second non-home based subcategory is referred to as journey at work (JAW) and includes all other trips made during the day with one end at a work place. These trips could then include travel made for lunch or mid-day shopping and business-related travel during the workday. Some of these trips may be very predictable, at least for some workers, while others may be a very dynamic part of the worker's employment duties. These rates, shown in Table 3-20, do not show variation by car ownership category but increase more proportionally to the number of workers than do the HBW or JTW rates described previously.

The final non-home based category includes all trips with neither end at work or home. Many of these trips are thus part of linked trips or "tours" and would include trips from one shopping location to another, for example, or other similar activities. The trip rates shown in Table 3-21 show the greatest variation between the zero-worker households and the other categories and no discernable variation among the households with workers, although the rates increase significantly with increasing household size, as would be expected.

Unlike the complex cross-classification approach used for trip production rates, trip attraction rates are computed from simple regression equation results, as shown in Table 3-22 at the end of this chapter.

Several "independent" variables are used in the equations, as shown, including total households, various employment categories, and school enrollment (for HBU trips). An accessibility measure (households within 3 miles) is used in several of the equations rather than

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 33 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report the zonal number of households to reflect the market effects for purposes such as shopping and JAW. The relatively low value for HBW attractions on total employment is explained in large part by the inclusion of many "work" trips in the JTW category.

The original trip generation model, as developed for the Dulles Rail Study and used in the initial model portion of the 1-66 study, included a set of factors to adjust trip rates by area type, to better reflect some differences in trip making behavior attributable to development patterns and other factors. Since the area type measure is a dynamic value over time, which changes for a TAZ as development patterns change, the trip rates for a given zone were found to vary over time in a way that was not completely logical, especially since the area type adjustment factors tended to depress trip rates notably as an area changed from rural to a more developed category. Although this relationship was felt to have some merit as an overall phenomenon, some concern was expressed in specific instances, especially as rather large outer TAZ's changed area type when perhaps only a portion of the TAZ actually experienced development changes.

Another aspect of the previous model was the adoption of a single factor of 1.5, which was multiplied by all the non-work trip rates computed from the 1987/88 travel surveys and reflected in the previous tables. The additional factor was adopted based in part on the fact that the resulting trip rates seemed low when compared to those computed for peer cities and the fact that the overall vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and highway assignment results produced by the model were quite low compared to observed data. The uniform factor of 1.5 was applied on the assumption that the travel survey methodology tended to underestimate non-work travel behavior.

During review of the initial model results for the I-66 study, several deficiencies were noted which led to the model update activity. One of the major concerns was travel being made in seemingly illogical patterns, particularly transit travel within and between suburban jurisdictions. Early investigations showed that this travel was associated with trips produced by zero-car households, which have a very high transit share. Initially, this problem was assumed to be related to trip distribution and modal choice and the current update was structured based on this assumption.

However, after some further investigation, it was found that the trip generation model tended to significantly over-predict the presence of zero-car households in suburban areas and, hence over-predict the number of trips made by such households. Since transit opportunities in such areas are relatively limited, the trip distribution and modal choice elements of the model tended to produce an illogical number of transit trips on very unlikely interchanges.

Further investigation of the resulting trip rates showed other mismatches between the number of trip productions and attractions estimated by the model and total trips by jurisdiction as determined from the travel survey. Since the area type adjustment factor noted above had been found to be suspect, a revised approach was taken where jurisdiction-based factors were developed. In order to preserve differences based on development type, some of the most heavily developed jurisdictions were further stratified into "core" and "non-core" areas. The distinction between "core" and "non-core" was based on a simpler measure than that used for area type, but one which would allow an area with intensifying development to migrate into the "core" area over time and thus be subject to a modified trip rate.

This approach was used to implement and calibrate a revised version of the overall model, together with a large variety of other changes to the trip distribution and modal choice components noted below. Although the resulting model was much improved, certain highway

June 2002 34 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology assignment patterns were still less than desirable, most notably the estimation of VMT by jurisdiction. The general pattern showed that travel was being significantly overestimated in the District of Columbia and underestimated in most of the suburban jurisdiction. Initially, a special adjustment to the District of Columbia trip rates was incorporated into the model, but later a more comprehensive approach was taken.

This latter approach took the form of modifying the previous assumption of a uniform factoring of all non-work trip rates by 1.5, as noted above. Instead, trip rate adjustments were modified by jurisdiction, as shown in Table 3-23, except for trip rates for zero-car households. As shown, the adjustment factor for the District was reduced from 50 percent to only 5 percent while the adjustment for many of the outer jurisdictions were increased by values of 70 percent to 95 percent. Since these adjustments were largely assertions with little detail supporting information, common rates were applied across all non-work trip purposes.

Trip production factors were computed for each jurisdiction as shown in Table 3-24 to better replicate observed data. These adjustments were applied to all home-based trip purposes, including work trips (HBW). A notable impact is the large reduction in HBW trip rates by zero- car households (HBWO) for the outer suburban jurisdictions, with similar large reductions for the other home-based purposes.

These factors tended to relocate trip making by zero-car households back to the inner jurisdictions, particularly the District, and greatly improved the ability of the trip distribution and modal choice models to produce reasonable travel patterns. No production factor is shown for the non-home based categories by jurisdiction, since the distribution of non-home-based trips by TAZ (and hence jurisdiction) is determined by the attraction rates in the model.

The trip attraction adjustment factors are shown in Table 3-25 and have a somewhat more varied form than the production rates shown in Table 3-24. As noted above, the attraction factors also include values for the non-home based purposes.

Finally, it should be noted that both the production and attraction tables include adjustment factors for other jurisdictions outside the central eight for which travel survey data were available to use in developing the model and the adjustment factors. In general, the adjustment factors for the outer counties were set to an average value for Loudoun and Prince William Counties, the outermost jurisdictions for which survey data were available. An additional adjustment was made for Anne Arundel, Howard, and Carroll counties that are part of Baltimore Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Much of the trip making associated with these counties is destined to the City of Baltimore, Baltimore County, and other parts of the Baltimore SMSA not included in the Washington expanded cordon model. A simple adjustment for work trips was made based on 1990 Census travel patterns for these counties and a similar assumption was made for non-work travel. Thus, the effective "internal" trip rates for these counties, especially for Carroll County which is heavily Baltimore-oriented, are noticeably lower than those used for the other outer counties.

A summary of some overall results of the trip generation model is shown in Table 3-26 at the end of this chapter. Here, total trips by purpose and vehicle availability are computed, along with various common aggregate trip rate comparisons such as trips per employee, trips per household, and trips per person. The most meaningful statistics are those in the last column for total trips. Again, HBW trips per employee or per household appear a bit low, but when the closely rated JTW trips are included, the trip rates appear much more logical. Overall trip rates of about 9 trips per household or 3.5 trips per person appear to be logical when compared to reported overall rates for other major cities.

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 35 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

A summary of overall trip productions and attractions by area type are shown in Table 3-27 at the end of this chapter. Many expected patterns emerge here, including the great disparity between HBW productions and attractions for the urban high density and urban commercial area types. Similarly, but in the opposite direction, the rural area type produces far more HBW trips than are attracted, setting up the familiar long-distance commuting patterns observed in the Washington area. By comparison, some areas and purposes are relatively balanced, such as the home based shopping and other home based trips in the urban residential and suburban commercial area types.

Overall trip generation results by jurisdiction (including the "core" and "non-core" breakdowns for the District, Montgomery County, Arlington County, Alexandria, and Fairfax County) are shown in Tables 3-28 and 3-29. These tables show the expected impact of many of the changes in the trip generation procedures noted above, such as the concentration of trip ends for zero-car households in the District of Columbia. Other patterns are also largely as expected, such as the outer counties showing more home based productions than attractions, with a much more balanced distribution of shopping and other home-based categories. Non-home based productions and attractions are shown to be completely balanced, as is typically the case for these purposes, where the trip ends as computed are balanced by TAZ and hence jurisdiction.

Trip Distribution Major changes were made to the overall model structure regarding trip distribution. By far the most significant was shifting away from the use of composite impedance for all purposes except home based work. For the other purposes, a simpler concept based on "composite time" was substituted. This measure proved to be much easier to calibrate and provided trip tables that better replicated observed travel behavior and did not require nearly as significant adjustment factors. In essence, the "composite time" is computed as a form of weighted average of the highway and transit times for each interchange, as:

CT = 1.0 / ((1.0/highway time) + (model factor * (1.0/transit time)))

For application, the "modal factor" was taken as the approximate regional average modal choice for each trip category. For most purposes and subpurposes, the factor was relatively small, in the range of 0.05 to 0.18. The exception is for home based other trips from zero car households (HBO0) where a factor of 0.67 was applied. Thus, for most purposes, the trip distribution pattern is heavily weighted by highway times, while for the HBO category transit travel is the determining factor.

The highway and transit times were taken from peak networks for the home based university (HBU) and journey to work (JTW) categories and from off-peak networks for the other purposes, consistent with the use of these impedances for modal choice. Highway time was computed from the network time plus an allowance for production and attraction terminal time, a factor that was not included in the initial development of the model. The terminal times used were taken from the trip distribution element of the prior MWCOG model. In addition, any tolls found on the minimum time path were converted to equivalent minutes of highway time using a toll factor based on the inputs to the modal choice model.

Transit times were computed based on the overall zone-to-zone travel times used for accessibility computations for both the walk access and drive access paths. Walking times for access and egress were computed from zonal values used elsewhere in the model. The percentage of each zone within the short and long transit walk area was determined and weighted average transit times were computed for each of the various zone-to-zone combinations including the "no transit" portion of the path (if it existed), which was assigned an

June 2002 36 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology arbitrary time of 200 minutes. Finally, intrazonal composite impedances were estimated based on the minimum of the time to the nearest neighboring zone and the average walk time within the zone based on zonal area. A factor was applied to the time to the nearest zone and adjusted until the resulting output number of intrazonal trips was approximately correct.

As noted above, the composite impedance formulation first used in the original model was preserved for the HBW trip purposes. However, two significant changes were made in the calibration procedure. First, a decision was made to base the trip distribution calibration on observed trips alone and remove the simultaneous calibration between trip distribution and modal choice. This approach was taken since it became clear that any imperfections in the gravity model calibration were being compensated by adjustments in modal choice (to a synthetic, post-distribution trip table) and that the resulting constants were becoming quite large and were masking the aspects of the composite impedance that could be used as a basis for trip distribution. The second change was some redefinition and "re-centering" of the model structure designed to minimize the creation of large positive constants in the model estimation process. Such constants have no adverse impact on typical modal choice model application, which focuses on the computation of shares of various travel modes, and the actual magnitude of the variables used in computing the shares are irrelevant. However, when these computations are converted to composite impedance units for trip distribution, the magnitude and interplay between the constants seemed to have an adverse effect. In particular, the presence of large constants on certain transit submodes seemed to "reward" these modes whenever present in the transit network, aggravating the problem with trips being assigned to unlikely transit interchanges.

Another significant modification in the approach was the adoption of jurisdiction-based additional impedances within both the HBW and the non-work gravity models to better reflect observed travel patterns. The origin of this approach dates back to previous versions of the Washington area model where "bridge penalties" were inserted on the Potomac River crossings to reflect the fact that the perceived impedance associated with crossing the river had more impact on travel patterns than was measured directly from highway travel times. In general, such impedances also reflect a tendency for trip making to be more common within jurisdictions than between jurisdictions, other impedances values being equal. This occurs because of social and cultural factors, taxes, schools, and other aspects that influence travel patterns in major cities.

Because the HBW models were still based on composite impedance, it was not possible to insert penalties directly in the highway network to achieve the desired results. Instead, an approach was adopted where the additional impedances were assigned on a jurisdiction-to- jurisdiction basis in integer values corresponding to peak highway travel times, then converted to the composite impedance units used for distribution. The penalties used for the HBW models are shown in Tables 3-30 through 3-33 at the end of this chapter. The values were determined iteratively and were designed to minimize any additional K-factors, or adjustments, required to bring jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction travel patterns into general agreement with the observed data.

As shown in Tables 3-30 through 3-33, the largest penalties were imposed for travel between suburban Maryland and suburban Virginia jurisdictions. Penalties from the inner Virginia jurisdictions to the DC core were generally small or non-existent, while larger penalties were imposed to other parts of DC. Penalties were generally not imposed within the Virginia jurisdictions, except for relatively modest values between the inner and outer jurisdictions, particularly to reduce overestimation of reverse commuting.

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 37 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

The comparison between observed and estimated trips could only be done for the primary jurisdictions for which survey data were available. The remaining counties that are part of the expanded cordon were grouped into three categories. The Maryland "other" category included Howard, Anne Arundel, Charles, and Frederick Counties which were part of the previous MWCOG model but not within the data collection area. The remaining Maryland Counties added to the expanded cordon area (Carroll, St. Mary's, and Calvert) were grouped as "Maryland outer". Similarly, all of the expanded cordon jurisdictions in Virginia (and Jefferson County, West Virginia) were grouped as "Virginia outer". Penalties were set for interactions between these jurisdictions and the rest of the region based on analogies to interchanges for which data were available and to provide a reasonably coherent and consistent set of factors.

For non-work trips, penalties were added to the composite time impedance measures in a similar manner. Here, the assumed penalties were stated in time units and simply added to the computed matrices, since no conversion to arbitrary impedance units was necessary. The penalties for the various non-work purposes are shown in Tables 3-34 to 3-41. In general, a similar pattern emerges from that found for the HBW purposes, except the magnitude of the largest penalties was considerably smaller. Since most of the non-work models were calibrated using off-peak travel times and average trip lengths are generally much shorter than for work trips, often only a small impedance value was needed to provide the necessary shift in travel patterns.

After the application of the impedance values for the HBW purposes, trip lengths were computed against highway time and distance as well as composite impedance. Although the latter distribution was forced to match the observed data due to the nature of the calibration process, the average trip length in miles, particularly, was still noticeably longer than the observed data. As was the case for the previous model calibration, no other type of adjustment was found to be effective, so distance-based K-factors were introduced to shift the trip length distribution back toward a more desired level. The process used in computing the distance K- factors is illustrated in Figure 3-2 to 3-5. The ratio between observed and estimated trips was plotted by distance increments and a regression was made on the ratios. The regression equation was then used to create the distance K-factor' which was applied to the trip tables and further tests were made. As observed previously, the adjustment factor seemed to work better if the K-factor equation was squared, producing a curve that is slightly concave upward. This has the desired effect of shifting more trips into the shorter trip distances, which had been the area of greater mismatch between the observed and estimated values. This impact is most notable for the HBW3 category shown in Figure 3-5. The procedure also shortened the "tail" of the distribution, which contains relatively few trips but contributes significantly to the average trip length and total VMT.

After application of the distance K-factors for the HBW purpose, a single set of conventional jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction factors were computed as shown in Table 3-42. Factors were not required for most of the major interchanges and the factors that do remain were generally quite modest. A single set of K-factors was also computed for the HBO purposes as shown in Table 3-43 and were somewhat more extensive than for HBW, but still relatively modest in number

June 2002 38 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

Figure 3-2: Distance K's for HBW 0 Car

3.5

3.0 h

•D (!) 2.5 m E 2.0 LU •D U) 1.5 o> en O 1.0

0.5 -

0.0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 Distance

•Observed/Estimated —•— Linear Adjustment —A—Squared Adjustment I

Figure 3-3: Distance K's for HBW 1 Car

•Observed/Estimated ~-*~~ Linear Adjustment —A—Squared Adjustment I

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 39 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

Figure 3-4: Distance K's for HBW 2 Car

1.8

1.6

1.4 T3 IU cn 1.2

-4-E* V) 1 n LU T3

0.2

0.0

•Observed/Estimated —«— Linear Adjsutment -A—Squared Adjustment I

Figure 3-5: Distance K's for HBW 3+ Car

1.8 1.6

1.4 .9> TO 1-2 E tf 10 o 0.8 JS 0.6 O 0.4

0.2

0.0

•Observed/Estimated —•— Linear Adjustment —A—Squared Adjustment J

June 2002 40 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology and magnitude. Factors were also computed for university trips and the three non-home based categories as shown in Tables 3-44 through 3-47.

The final trip tables for gravity model calibration, comparing observed and estimated values, are summarized in Tables 3-48 through 3-59 for each purpose and subpurpose. It should be noted that the observed trips were based on expanded survey results so that even at the jurisdiction- to-jurisdiction level the results are somewhat "lumpy," reflecting the large expansion factors in the survey. The estimated trips, which were produced by distributing the survey productions across the region, were somewhat "smooth". As a result, small values appear in the estimated table for many of the more remote interchanges that have no data in the observed table.

Reasonably good agreement can be observed in the most important interchanges, such as the HBW2 and HBW3 tables for intra-jurisdiction values (the diagonals in the tables), which are quite important for capturing reliable travel patterns. Similarly, reasonable agreement has been achieved for other important commuter markets, such as suburban jurisdictions to the DC core.

Reasonably good agreement is also shown for the other trip purposes, especially for the intra- jurisdictional values, which are an even larger percentage of total travel than for HBW purposes.

Trip length distributions for the HBW purposes against composite impedance are shown in Figures 3-6 through 3-9. These graphs illustrate the unique nature of a composite impedance term being used for trip distribution rather than a more conventional highway or composite time impedance. Here, the trip distribution is more or less bell-shaped and the observed values show considerable scatter.

The trip fitting process produced, observed, and estimated average values which are very close and which follow the observed patterns quite well, even for the highly bi-modal distribution shown by the HBW2 category. In addition to the observed and estimated values, the trip length distributions for the full regional model are also shown for each sub-purpose. The total number of trips is significantly larger and hence the distribution is shifted upward compared to the calibration data for the eight inner jurisdictions. However, the trip pattern remains quite consistent and the average values, in composite impedance units, are very similar to the observed and estimated values.

Trip length distributions for the non-work purposes against composite time are shown in Figures 3-10 through 3-17. These distributions follow a much more traditional pattern than those shown previously for HBW. Again, values for the full-expanded cordon region are shown as well as for the observed and estimated data based on the survey for the eight internal jurisdictions.

The average trip lengths increase for the regional data, in part because of longer "tails" in the distributions, representing more opportunities afforded by the expansion of the modeling area. This result may also be affected to some degree by the absence of transit opportunities for most of these areas, leading to the composite time being almost entirely a function of highway travel time. The results may also be affected by the larger zone sizes in the outer areas and their impact on both intrazonal times and interzonal times to adjacent zones.

Although trip distribution was accomplished using either composite impedance (for HBW) or composite time (for other purposes), the distribution of travel patterns against highway distance is a very important determinant of ultimate highway vehicle miles of travel and highway loadings. Trip length distributions against highway distance are shown in Figures 3-18 to 3-29 for each trip purpose and sub-purpose. Again, the distribution of the observed and estimated

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 41 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report trip tables from the gravity model calibration process are shown together with the results for the full regional system based on the expanded cordon.

Although the HBW sub-purposes are still slightly long, the impact of the distance K-factor reduced the difference substantially. In all cases, the overall average regional trip length is about 3 miles longer than for the calibration area. This is not surprising given the higher speeds in the outlying area, the large zone sizes, and the increased travel opportunities for the expanded region.

The observed and estimated average trip lengths tend to be closer for the non-work purposes, illustrating the fact that a distance adjustment factor was not necessary in their development. The trip length "fit" is also somewhat better than for the HBW sub-purposes. The regional average trip lengths are significantly longer than for the calibration area, due to all of the effects noted above. The impact of higher highway speeds may be a particular factor since most of these purposes are distributed using off-peak, unconstrained speeds.

Modal Choice

The modal choice model used in the NVMISM is a highly complex program, which combines state-of-the art treatment of transit, HOV, and toll facility modeling for all trip purposes. The model is structured as a nested logit modal formulation, with fairly conventional trade-offs at the higher level between automobile and transit sub-modes. The nesting structure used in the model is illustrated in Figure 3-30. The transit elements are quite complex, handing both local and premium transit modes as well as drive and walk access sub-modes to both and a unique station choice component.

As in all logit models, the program computes impedances for each transportation sub-mode. The impedance is calculated by multiplying a unique parameter or coefficient against each of several level of service variables, summing the resulting products across all variables, then adding a sub-mode specific constant. The primary modal choice parameters are shown in Table 3-60. The first page of the table summarizes the parameters for the premium transit mode by access sub-mode. The level of service variables include those normally used in such models, including transit in-vehicle time, waiting time, walking time, transfer time, fare, and drive access time. The number of transfers is also included as a separate variable, beyond the waiting time associated with transfers. As shown, the initial waiting time is broken down into a "short" and "long" component, with the "long" waiting time weighted much less heavily than the initial waiting time. This approach reflects the tendency of transit users to adjust their personal schedules when using transit services such as commuter rail or express bus with relatively long waiting times. The model discounts the long wait time so that it has a coefficient that is the same as that for transit in-vehicle time. The "penalty" associated with the short wait (and other out-of-vehicle times) range from 3.5 to 4.0 times the in-vehicle time, a value well in excess of the 2.25 to 2.5 penalties often associated with simpler modal choice models.

The coefficients for local transit are lower than those used for premium transit and reflect somewhat less sensitivity to service levels for this mode. The short wait/long wait structure is preserved, however, with a similar 3.5 to 4.0 "penalty" above in-vehicle time. Coefficients for the highway travel modes are shown in the middle of the second page of the table, together with the coefficients for taxi and the non-motorized modes. The highway modes are based on highway time and various cost elements, including overall mileage-based operating cost, toll cost, and parking cost. The latter values are assigned higher coefficients than those used for overall operating costs, reflecting observed behavior whereby commuters tend to discount the

June 2002 42 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

Figure 3-6: Home Based Work - 0 Car (HBWO)Trip Length Distribution for Composite impedance

/,uuu

6,000 - 5,000 • I

4,000 - tn

r- 3,000 .

2,000 i 1,000 WW*! m 0 •Bww«m.i*v,_.. ..:--• 95 101 107 113 119 125 131 137 143 149 155 161 167 173 179 185 Composite Impedance

• Observed - 8 Counties —o— Estimated - 8 Counties —A— Estimated - Region I

Figure 3-7: Home Based Work -1 Car (HBW1) Trip Length Distribution for Composite Impedance

20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 en Q. 10,000 - 8,000 6,000 4,000 - 2,000 0 95 101 107 113 119 125 131 137 143 149 155 161 167 173 179 185 Composite Impedance

• Observed - 8 Counties —•— Estimated - 8 Counties —A— Estimated Region g

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 43 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

Figure 3-8: Home Based Work - 2 Car (HBW2) Trip Length Distribution for Composite impedance

30,000

25,000

20,000

5,000

0 i•*"•""•""« "••"•" '" 95 101 107 113 119 125 131 137 143 149 155 161 167 173 179 185 Composite Impedance

• Observed - 8 Counties —•— Estimated - 8 Counties —A— Estimated Region |

Figure 3-9: Home Based Work - 3+ Car (HBW3) Trip Length Distribution for Composite impedance

•2- 20,000

95 101 107 113 119 125 131 137 143 149 155 161 167 173 179 185 Composite Impedance

•Observed - 8 Counties —•—Estimated - 8 Counties • Estimated Region I

June 2002 44 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

Figure 3-10: Home Based Other - 0 Car (HBO0) Trip Length Distribution for Composite Time

tu.uuu 35,000 • 30,000 A

25,000 Jt * 7\ ~ 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

Composite Time

• Observed - 8 Counties —•— Estimated - 8 Counties —A— Estimated Region I

Figure 3-11: Home Based Other -1 Car (HBOI) Trip Length Distribution for Composite Time

160,000

140,000 - 1J[ 120,000 - n 100,000 - 1 SvL to •§• 80,000 - r- - 60,000 \^hk • 40,000 - I 20,000

0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

Composite Time

_$- Observed - 8 Counties - - Estimated - 8 Counties -*" Estimated - Region I

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 45 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

Figure 3-12: Home Based Other - 2 Car (HB02) Trip Length Distribution for Composite Time

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

Composite Time

••—Observed - 8 Counties —*— Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated - Region I

Figure 3-13: Home Based Other - 3+ Car (HB03) Trip Length Distribution for Composite Time

^uu,uuu 180,000 -

160,000 flVi \ 140,000 U \^W 120,000 ml ^*"*Mi CO §• 100,000 1 A. V\ 80,000 I "^\ A f\ 60,000 40,000 l Vw 20,000 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

Composite Time

• Observed - 8 Counties —o— Estimated - 8 Counties —A— Estimated- Region |

Figure 3-14: Home Based University (HBU) Trip Length Distribution for Composite Time

June 2002 46 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

oa,uuu • 30,000 l\ 25,000

m 20,000 1 v. & K- Q. |i f \J(f*B*Bf \/ \ H \ H 15,000

10,000 A K O^Br

5,000 ^\*"tf*L*

0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

Composite Time

• Observed - 8 Counties -•— Estimated - 8 Counties -A— Estimated - Region |

Figure 3-15: Journey to Work (JTW) Trip Length Distribution for Composite Time

70,000

13 5 7 9 1113 15 17 19 2123 25 27 29 3133 35 37 39 4143 45 47 49 51

Composite Time

•Observed - 8 Counties —o— Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated - Region

Figure 3-16: Journey at Work (JAW) Trip Length Distribution for Composite Time

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 47 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

tn 50,000 Q.

13 5 7 9 1113 15 17 19 2123 25 27 29 3133 35 37 39 4143 45 47 49 51

Composite Time

•Observed - 8 Counties —•—Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated - Region I

Figure 3-17: Non Home Based/Non Work (NNW) Trip Length Distribution for Composite Time

% 80,000

13 5 7 9 1113 15 17 19 2123 25 27 29 3133 35 37 39 4143 45 47 49 51

Composite Time

[-•-Observed - 8 Counties —•—Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated - Region |

June 2002 48 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

Figure 3-18: Home Based Work -1 Car (HBW1) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

70,000

60,000

123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance (miles)

•Observed - 8 Counties -•—Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated - Region I

Figure 3-19: Home Based Work - 0 Car (HBW0) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

25,000

20,000

15,000 CO Q.

10,000

5,000

o ' 123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance (miles)

•Observed - 8 Counties —•— Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated - Region I

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 49 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

Figure 3-20: Home Based Work - 2 Car (HBW2) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

80,000

123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance (miles)

Observed - 8 Counties —•— Estimated - 8 Counties —A— Estimated - Region I

Figure 3-21: Home Based Work - 3+Car (HBW3) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

70,000

60,000

J .1 ,.l J. I-1-1—I-J...J, I I I I I I I l,,L,.li I, A—L..I 123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance (miles)

•—Observed - 8 Counties —•—Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated - Region I

June 2002 SO Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

Figure 3-22: Home Based Other - 0 Car (HBOO) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

70,000 60,000 50,000 g_ 40,000 £ 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 '•'••'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'I 123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance (miles)

-Observed - 8 Counties —•—Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated - Region I

Figure 3-23: Home Based Other -1 Car (HB01) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

250,000

200,000

150,000 CO o. 100,000

50,000

123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance (miles)

•Observed - 8 Counties -•—Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated - Region I

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 51 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

Figure 3-24: Home Based Other - 2 Car (HB02) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

450,000

400,000 -

350,000

300,000 I-

123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance (miles)

•Observed - 8 Counties —•—Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated Region I

Figure 3-25; Home Based Other - 3+Car (HB03) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

300,000

250,000

200,000

to •Q£. 150,000

100,000

50,000

123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance (miles)

-Observed - 8 Counties —•— Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated - Region I

June 2002 52 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

Figure 3-26: Home Based University (HBU) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

ou.uuu 45,000 40,000 "•' 35,000 4 )A 30,000 to •§- 25,000 H 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Composite Time

• Observed - 8 Counties —•— Estimated - 8 Counties —A— Estimated Region I

Figure 3-27: Journey to Work (JTW) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

CO •§- 80,000 - H

60,000

40,000

20,000 -

0 123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance

•Observed - 8 Counties —•—Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated Region |

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 53 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

Figure 3-28: Journey at Work (JAW) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 CO % 100,000 r- 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance

•Observed - 8 Counties —•— Estimated - 8 Counties —A—Estimated Region B

Figure 3-29: Non Home Based/Non Work (NNW) Trip Length Distribution for Distance

250,000

200,000

150,000 CO Q.

100,000

50,000

123456789 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Distance

• Observed - 8 Counties —•— Estimated - 8 Counties —A— Estimated - Region I

June 2002 54 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Person Trips

Highway Non-Motorized Transit Taxi Trips Trips Trips Trips

Group Ride Drive Alone Walk Bike Local Transit Express Bus Metrorail Commuter Rail Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips

2/Car 3+/Car Walk Feeder Bus Park and Ride Kiss and Ride Trips Trips to Transit to Transit to Transit to Transit

Free Pay Free Pay Free Pay Station I Station 2 Station 3 Station 4

LEGEND Figure 3-30 Mode Split Nesting

* Also applies to Commuter Rail Trips Structure

** Also applies to Park-and-Ride and Kiss-and-RideTrips Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology former but perceive the latter as having a significant impact on travel behavior, particularly modal choice.

The "nesting" coefficients were used to bring the impedances from the lower sub-modal trade­ offs upward in the model structure. As shown, the nesting value for the transit sub-mode nest and the auto occupancy nest have been set to 1.0 which effectively eliminates the impact of nesting at that choice level and makes all the various modes "compete" like a simpler multinomial model. This approach was taken at the recommendation of KPMG senior staff who reviewed the model structure and compared the results with those obtained for models currently being developed in a fully disaggregated fashion in other cities (i.e., the nesting coefficients were being estimated based on detail survey data rather than simply being asserted as in the original version of the models).

At the bottom of the second page are other modal parameters including auto operating cost (of 10 cents per mile), HOV parameters, and various thresholds. The distinction between short and long wait time is set at 7.5 minutes, reflecting the average expected waiting time for a transit service operating at 15 minute headways. At lower frequency, such as half-hourly or hourly services, the additional waiting time does not receive the additional penalty factor as noted above.

Some other modal choice model parameters are illustrated in Table 3-61 at the end of this chapter. One of the basic parameters is the assumed modal choice for intrazonal trips. For home based work trips, this percentage was assumed to be quite different for trips made by zero-car households than for other categories, being primarily walk. For the other household categories, the auto mode assumes an increasing share as auto ownership increases. The shares for the non-work categories have been set at the same percentages as for the 1-car HBW households.

During the latest round of model development, the rail transit trip tables were examined in far more detail than had been done previously It was found that rail trips were overestimated for short trips and underestimated for long trips, a result that has been observed in other major metropolitan areas. As a result, a rail distance adjustment factor was identified. The adjustment is computed as a constant plus a factor multiplied by mileage, with a maximum value of 1.0. This factor has the tendency to "penalize" short rail trips and, since the modal choice calibration process converges on a given rail ridership target, increases the likelihood of longer trips. As shown, the adjustment factor varies by trip purpose, being imposed only on quite short trips (under 3-4 miles) for HBU, JAW, and NNW trips, extending up to 7 miles for HBO trips and 8 miles for HBW trips.

Although the rail distance adjustment factor greatly improved performance of the model, an examination of the resulting rail trip tables showed that the model was still over-predicting suburban-to-suburban Metrorail trips for non-work purposes and under-predicting trips from suburban locations to downtown. Although detailed data were not available, a similar effect was assumed to be occurring for commuter rail trips for non-work purposes and limited data indicated a need for some adjustments to HBW trips as well. These adjustment factors were limited to area type 1 (the core), area type 2 (the heavily developed urban fringe), and the rest of the region. The final factors used are shown in Table 3-61.

A great deal of experience with model performance was gained during the several rounds of Tier 2 analysis during the I-66 MIS and a subsequent small study of commuter rail ridership conducted for the Greater Washington Board of Trade. As part of this analysis, several relatively minor shortcomings in the model, particularly in transit service representation, were

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 57 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report uncovered and corrected. A mini-recalibration of the model was undertaken prior to the performance of the 1-66 Tier 3 analyses and is documented in the materials which follow and also reflected in the final K-factors and subsequent trip distributions noted in the previous section of this report. One parameter, to reduce spurious short trips on commuter rail, is shown near the bottom of Table 3-64. As noted previously, minor features were added to the model to handle BRT services, but these changes did not required any recalibration. A parameter was introduced to reduce the attractiveness of BRT-only trips, as shown at the bottom of Table 3-61.

The bulk of the calibration activity for the modal choice model consisted of estimating the various modal and sub-modal constants used throughout the model. This process was largely automated and was relatively efficient, although somewhat time-consuming. Within each nest of the model, one mode or sub-mode was defined as the base mode and the constants are set to zero. The original selections of the base modes in the Dulles model were modified and the model was "re-centered" so that most resulting coefficients would assume a negative value. This change was made to improve the computation of the composite impedance.

At the highest level of the model, modal constants were assigned by area type. These values for the HBW models are shown at the top of Table 3-62 at the end of this chapter. At this level, transit was assigned as the base mode and almost all of the remaining constants assumed negative values, as desired. As expected, the constants on the highway mode were quite large for zero car households. Other patterns in the constants were rather difficult to interpret, since the values of the constants brought up from lower levels in the nest influence the magnitude of the values at the higher level.

The constants for the other modes and sub-modes did not vary by area type, as is shown in the remainder of Table 3-62 at the end of this chapter. The "express bus" sub-mode was not derived from a separate transit path but was invoked if an express bus time in excess of a specified minimum value was detected on the all-bus transit path. This reflects a change from the original Dulles model structure, which attempted to treat express bus in the same manner as a rail mode. The base mode for the Metrorail nest is changed from feeder bus for zero-car households to kiss-and-ride for the other household categories in an attempt to minimize the number of large positive constants, as noted above. It should be noted that some sub-modes at this lowest level of the nest, particularly park-and-ride activity to Metrorail or commuter rail from zero-car households, represent very unlikely behavior and the very large negative constants are not particularly meaningful.

Constants for the HBO purposes are shown in Table 3-63 at the end of this chapter. The model structure, base modes, and other factors are very similar to the HBW models and the constants follow similar patterns. The constants for HBU and the three non-home based models are combined in Table 3-64 at the end of this chapter. The constants for the JTW and JAW purposes are fairly similar.

Although technically an element of the trip distribution process rather than modal choice, the constants for the HBW composite impedance model are shown in Table 3-65 in the same format as the final modal choice calibration. Other model coefficients and parameters are the same as for the modal choice model. As noted previously, the trip distribution constants were estimated using the observed trip table for the eight inner jurisdictions and transit targets developed for this area. The constants took on similar values in most cases to those produced for the modal choice calibration, which was based on synthetic trip tables for the entire expanded cordon area. Some differences in the pattern of the constants can be noted in the lower nests, particularly for premium transit access modes, due at least in part to survey sampling for some of these less common travel sub-purposes.

June 2002 58 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

During the calibration process, the constants were adjusted so that the trips by various modes and sub-modes matched the "targets" established for each. As a check on the results, total trips were summarized by jurisdiction and Metrorail trips were summarized by station-to-station movements and compared with other survey-based data. As noted previously, mismatches found during these comparisons were used to develop additional model adjustment factors on trip length and orientation.

Because of the importance of HBW trips to overall model results, particular care was given to the model performances for these purposes. In addition, an additional data source from the U.S. Census was available to provide a check at the jurisdiction level. A summary of 1990 census HBW person trips, transit trips, and implied modal choice for each major jurisdiction in the calibration area is shown in Table 3-66. The equivalent information for the final calibrated model is shown in Table 3-67. It should be noted that the latter came from a full application of the expanded cordon regional model with trips extracted for the interior county interchanges only, which impacted the overall distribution of person travel from that used in the gravity model calibration. The overall pattern of travel appears to be quite reasonable with no obvious bias toward trips of a certain type.

As a further check on the usefulness of the model for travel forecasting purposes, a complete run was made for an updated 2020 CLRP scenario used as a baseline for the BRT analysis. Overall HBW person trip travel pattern changes are summarized in Table 3-68. Overall trips increase by about 42 percent, with a large variation by jurisdiction. Growth is especially large for Loudoun and Prince William Counties, with the increase in travel within and between the two counties accounting for some of the largest market increases in the entire region.

Increases in transit travel markets for HBW trips are shown in Table 3-69. The growth is less (23 percent) than overall travel growth because of the large increases in the outer suburban areas and in suburban-to-suburban movements, which attract far lower transit shares than the conventional commuter markets. Most of these latter markets reflect increases in transit shares; for example, the total person trip market for Fairfax County to the DC Core increases only about 9 percent while the transit market increases more than twice as much (over 22 percent). Although the reverse commute and cross-county transit markets are much smaller, most of them also show higher percentages of growth in transit travel than in total person travel. Thus, although transit share increases in most individual markets, the overall regional share declines because of the relative growth in the various markets.

Metrorail trips by station pair were compressed into overall corridors formed by the various Metrorail lines as shown in Table 3-70. Both HBW and non-work trip data were available from the survey. The core-orientation of the Metrorail trips is very evident with almost 75 percent of the total trips having at least one end at a core Metrorail station. Results from the initial Dulles model and the 1-66 MIS model showed that the estimated volumes of trips that remained within a corridor area, such as trips both boarding and alighting at west Orange line stations, seemed to be significantly overstated. Although relatively small volumes compared to the core-oriented overall travel patterns, this overstatement was felt to be significant for the 1-66 corridor study because a significant portion of the potential travel demand consisted of internal trips within the extended Orange line corridor. Such results would also have been misleading for the Dulles Corridor MIS, where internal-corridor trips account for a significant portion of overall travel.

The rail adjustment factors described earlier were used in an iterative fashion to improve the pattern of rail boardings. The final values are shown in Table 3-71. The overall pattern of travel to the core and the relative size of the intra-corridor values have been brought into much better agreement and do not reveal any notable biases toward different travel markets. Growth in

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 59 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

Metrorail travel between 1990 and 2020 is illustrated in Table 3-72 and 3-73, which include the addition of the Green line corridors for 2020. The travel patterns show an increase of about 39 percent in overall Metrorail travel, higher than the increase in overall transit travel, in part because of the completion of the 103-mile system, the Addison Road extension, and the addition of the Potomac Greens station. Most of the drop in the Blue/Orange markets can be attributed to the opening of the Green line, which "captures" rides from the eastern ends of both existing lines. A portion of the drop in core station boardings is also attributed to the opening of the Green line with its extensive bus intercepts at Anacostia station and other locations.

Highway Assignment

For many model applications, an important factor is the ability of the model to provide reasonable highway assignments, both on a facility-by-facility basis and for overall impacts such as vehicle miles of travel, which are a prime determinant of air quality. An overall summary of highway statistics and VMT by jurisdiction is shown in Table 3-74. Similar reports were prepared at various points throughout the model update process and used to detect deficiencies, which were addressed by making modifications earlier in the model chain. Overall, the model appears to be simulating about 4 percent high for overall VMT, comparing assignment results with count data contained in the network. However, it should be noted the Baltimore area jurisdictions (Howard, Anne Arundel, and Carroll Counties) are simulating very high (30 to 40 percent), which significantly impacts the overall statistics. The source of this result is not known and has not been explored in detail for this study since these jurisdictions are quite remote from the Northern Virginia study areas. In contrast, predictions for the outer jurisdictions are somewhat low. Initial investigations show that this may be due in large part to poor specification of internal-external traffic from the expanded cordon stations. A manual adjustment that was applied for Fauquier County was found to completely cure the under- assignment problem. Similar efforts have not been undertaken elsewhere, because these locations are quite remote from the I-66 and Dulles corridors and the volume of traffic involved is modest.

A second summary of highway assignment results is shown in Table 3-75 and includes volume and count data at several regional screenlines identified and used by MWCOG for model validation purposes, plus some additional similar screenlines in the expanded cordon area. Overall traffic volumes are about 7.5 percent high; however, much of this is caused by the outer Maryland screenlines, particularly 22, 25, and 26, which relate to the high VMT values for the Baltimore area jurisdictions. Most of the other screenlines, particularly those of most concern to Northern Virginia travel analysis, are as good or better than the regional average. Moreover, there does not appear to be any appreciable biases between the higher and lower facility types.

Measures of regional impacts for the future are shown in Tables 3-76 and 3-77. In the first, VMT growth by jurisdiction is shown with expected variations between the modest growth in the inner areas and much higher growths in the outer areas, for a regional value of some 55 percent. In the second table, traffic volume growth is shown for the Northern Virginia screenlines. An overall increase of 47 percent occurs, ranging from a low of about 26 percent on the Potomac River bridges and inner Arlington screenlines to almost 150 percent at the screenline along US 15 in Loudoun County.

Finally, the information previously summarized in Table 3-75 is expanded for individual facilities at the Northern Virginia screenlines in Table 3-78. Although some facilities do not perform as well as one might like, the overall pattern at most screenlines appears to be quite reasonable and gives additional confidence that the model system can be used reliably for the purposes for which it has been designed.

June 2002 60 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

3.3 MODEL MODIFICATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE DULLES CORRIDOR RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT

As noted previously, the model framework used for travel demand forecasting was originally developed for the Dulles MIS project and was later extensively modified for the 1-66 MIS, the Western Transportation Corridor Study, and Dulles BRT project. Because data from MWCOG's most recent travel surveys (1994) were not available at the time the model was developed, 1990 data was used, including major assumptions required to account for missing information.

When the model system was applied to a year 2000 baseline during the current study, Metrorail ridership was noted to be lower than recent system counts. Although detailed count data were not available from commuter rail or bus systems, it was felt that these modes were probably underestimated as well. Time and resources were not available for a comprehensive recalibration of the model nor was detailed ridership data available so that parameters controlling estimates for the separate travel markets included in the model could be adjusted. Therefore, a relatively simple aggregate adjustment was applied to overall transit ridership so that average weekday Metrorail ridership approximated system totals for typical weekdays during 2000.

This adjustment was accomplished by adding a small value to the overall transit modal constant. Slightly different values were used for each of the six trip purposes so that each would show approximately the same percentage increase and thus preserve the relationship among the trip purposes. These values replace the values of 0.00 shown for the constant "ktat" in Tables 3-61 through 3-64 of Section 3.6.4. The values used were 0.34 for HBW trips, 0.23 for HBO trips, 0.40 for HBU trips, 0.23 for JTW trips, 0.21 for JAW trips, and 0.19 for NNW trips.

Early in the study, a decision was made to use a fare inflation rate equivalent to a third the rate of the consumer price index (CPI). Since other assumptions had been used in recent studies and since ridership forecasts were required for several interim years, a fare inflation factor was added to the model logic. This allowed for the model to be run with a consistent set of input fares, based on current fare policy, applying a "discount" for each application year, based on the compounded impact of lower fares. Since the model had been developed based on 1990 fares, the "current" (year 2000) fares were deflated by 0.7590, the ratio between the 1990 and 2000 CPI. Future inflation was assumed at 2.5 percent per year, so that the resulting deflator declines to 0.6879 for 2006 analyses, 0.6442 for 2010, and 0.5038 for 2025, or roughly two- thirds the current value.

Since various alignments options were to be studied in the Tysons Corner area and since detailed traffic impact analyses were desired, a comprehensive adjustment to the level of detail in the Tysons area was undertaken. First, county land use data was used to develop splits within the area. Three additional zones were created from larger zones at the periphery of the area and the eight primary zones making up the area were split into a total of 67 new zones, thus adding 62 total zones to the model system. Figure 3-31 presents the Tysons Corner subzone structure. Operationally, the new zone numbers were "borrowed" from a series of extra zones that had been maintained in the model system between the zone numbers assigned to each county. Since the number of extra zones allocated to Fairfax County was less than the 62 additional zones required, zone numbers from ranges set aside for other Northern Virginia counties were used to make up the complete set. Zonal boundary files were recreated, zonal areas were calculated, and various land use and related model inputs, such as densities, were updated for each year used in the analysis (2000, 2006, 2010, and 2025).

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 61 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

The basic highway network in the Tysons area was refined to reflect the new zone system. Street segments that had previously been restricted as transit-only connections were receded as normal highway links with appropriate laneage and capacities. A few additional links were added, primarily to improve the representation of the public and private roadway network surrounding Tysons Corner Center. Additional detail was also added to represent the frontage roads along sections of SR-7 and the ramps at the SR-7/SR-123 urban interchange. For future year networks, co-location plans developed by WMATA and VDOT were used to represent the future configuration of SR-7 and SR-123, as well as some modifications to the Beltway interchange at SR-123. Minor network changes were made in the vicinity of the Tysons West and Tysons East station locations.

After initial runs were completed, a detailed examination of results showed some small inconsistencies between base and build conditions. This result was traced to a characteristic of the model to develop multiple rail access and egress stations for various zonal interchanges, leading to the possibility of rail trip making within the Dulles Corridor for base alternatives without direct rail service. Although the number of trips estimated in these markets was quite small, a modification was made to the model so that any given interchange for any given alternative could be zeroed out, if logic required.

Throughout much of the study, rather high ridership estimates for trips destined to the Tysons area were produced. A review of the impacts of the "sub-zoning" of Tysons into smaller geographic areas was found to be causing some of the overstatement. In the overall model system, parking costs were estimated based on employment density and the use of smaller zones separating major employment developments within Tysons from residential areas or low density retail areas resulted in producing employment densities for selected zones rivaling those of the CBD and causing CBD-like parking costs to be estimated. This effect was overridden by a special model feature that limited the impact of zonal employment on parking costs to the values previously calculated for the original larger zones and consistent with those used for model calibration.

Ridership for the Tysons area still seemed high and a detailed analysis showed that much of the ridership consisted of trips between Tysons and the Reston-Herndon area. This result was also quite pronounced for base case bus service connecting these activity centers. This condition of two large, multi-use activity centers only a few miles apart and connected with high frequency bus express service does not exist elsewhere in the region and was thus not a part of the original model calibration. Recent ridership trends on expanding Fairfax Connector bus service was examined against the base year estimates. A set of adjustment factors were built into the model to reduce the demand to a level more consistent with observed patterns. These adjustments were not applied for more conventional commuter service from the Reston/Herndon area to the regional core, where model estimates were generally consistent with observed travel. This latter result was expected, since these travel patterns exist in numerous places in the region and the model had been developed and calibrated to produce reasonable estimates for these markets.

Different adjustments were applied depending on the travel market. If trip destinations were being made to either Tysons or Reston, relatively small adjustment factors of -0.30 were applied to produce more realistic ridership estimates. If trips were being made to Tysons or Reston by express bus, a much larger adjustment of -2.00 was applied, based on the analysis of the base year ridership patterns. All of the final alternatives were run with these adjustments.

Finally, a set of runs was made of land use sensitivity to higher development densities in Tysons and Reston/Herndon station areas. A similar procedure was applied for sub-zoning Reston and

June 2002 62 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project \

1 Figure 3-31 1319 Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) / Subzone Number

. 1 . II I M Tysons Corner : : : : : : I: X : : : ] Subzone Boundary Transportation Analysis

TAZ Boundary Subzones Duties Corridor 1000 2000 Feet Rapid Transit Project 04-26-02 Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

Hemdon station areas as was applied for Tysons, although at a less fine level of detail. The Reston/Herndon/Dulles subzone structure used rail development related forecasts and is presented in Figure 3-32. Thirteen zones in the Reston and Herndon areas, generally adjacent to the Dulles Access Road right-of-way, were split into two or three areas each. Once again, zonal boundary files were adjusted, areas computed, and land use data were allocated to the revised zones. The sixteen new zones were "borrowed" from the remaining extra zones for Virginia counties and added to the highway and transit networks. Little additional network detail was required since virtually all through streets in the Dulles Corridor were already included in the base network. Other model inputs were modified and the model was used to evaluate the alternate land use scenarios developed by the project team in conjunction with Fairfax County staff.

3.4 DULLES CORRIDOR RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT OPERATING PLAN AND MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

This section summarizes several general operating assumptions used in the travel demand model and applied across each of the alternatives including span of service, service frequencies, dwell times and speeds, service pricing (fare and toll policies, escalation rates), parking, bus routing, and other characteristics. Alternative-specific operating plan inputs are presented in the Transit Operations and Maintenance Plan (June 2002).

3.4.1 Pricing

Table 3-78 summarizes rail, BRT, and bus fare assumptions, in current year dollars. Parking costs are assumed to be $2.25 at BRT and Metrorail stations in both Fairfax and Loudoun counties. Fares and parking costs are assumed to increase every 3 years at the 3-year average of the Consumer Price index.

The Dulles Corridor highway network includes two toll facilities. The Dulles Toll Road currently charges a $0.50 to $0.85 toll in each direction. Bonds for the Toll Road are expected to be paid off by 2015, at which point the toll is eliminated. The Dulles Greenway is a private toll facility that currently assesses a $1.75 toll in each direction. Per guidance provided by the MWCOG, Greenway toll charges are assumed to continue through 2025, and are assumed to rise at a 3.5 percent inflation rate subject to a maximum mainline toll of $2.35.

3.4.2 Span of Service Table 3-79 summarizes the span of service assumptions for rail and BRT operations. These assumptions are consistent with current WMATA Metrorail operations.

Table 3-80 summarizes the span of service assumptions for local and express bus services.

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 65 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report I TABLE 3-78: FARE STRUCTURE ASSUMPTIONS I Mode Service Assumptions Metrorail Peak Off-Peak/Weekends Weekdays 5:30-9:30 a.m. All other times I 3:00-7:00 p.m. MIN MAX MIN MAX Fare $1.10 $3.25 $1.10 $2.10 Miles 0-3 16+ 0-7 10+ BRT Same as above Bus Regular Express Metrobus $1.10 $2.00 Metrorail to Metrobus transfer $0.25 $1.15 Fairfax Connector $0.50 $2.50 (Fairfax Connector Regular Service is$0.25 w/ transfer from Metrorail, BRT, and express bus) Fairfax Connector to Metrobus transfer $0.60 $1.50 Loudoun County Express Service N/A $5.00

TABLE 3-79: RAIL AND BRT SPAN OF SERVICE Day of Week Time Period Hours Weekdays Early A.M. 5:30-6:00 a.m. A.M. Peak Shoulder 6:00-7:30 a.m. A.M. Peak Hour 7:30 - 8:30 a.m. A.M. Peak Shoulder 8:30-9:15 a.m. Midday 9:15 a.m.-3:00 p.m. P.M. Peak Shoulder 3:00-4:30 p.m. P.M. Peak Hour 4:30-5:30 p.m. P.M. Peak Shoulder 5:30-6:15 p.m. Early Evening 6:15-10:00 p.m. Late Evening 10:00 p.m. - midnight (2:00 a.m. Friday) Saturday Base Period 8:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. Late Evening 10:00 p.m.-2:00 a.m. Sunday Base Period 8:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. Late Evening 10:00 p.m. - midnight

June 2002 66 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project •a ro O Wm$m

3 to 1716 1733 ,t/ 1722 1738 1717 1709 J? 1721 1736 •>" 1613 CO) 1710 1735 1718 1719

1395 Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) / Subzone Number Figure 3-32

X-X-Xj Subzone Boundary Reston/Herndon/Dulles Transportation Analysis TAZ Boundary Subzones Dulles Corridor 2000 4000 Feet Rapid Transit Project County Boundary 04-26-02 Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

TABLE 3-80: LOCAL AND EXPRESS BUS SPAN OF SERVICE Bus Service Weekday Saturday Sunday Feeder/Circulator within Tysons Comer 5:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. with connection to BRT at Tysons West 3:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Express Bus between Corridor and Core 5:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m. N/A N/A (including Rosslyn and Pentagon) 3:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Feeder/Circulator Bus between park- Same as Metrorail and-ride lots and Tysons West, Tysons Central D/ Central, and/or West Falls Church Metrorail stations Feeder Bus to BRT Stations and Stops Same as Metrorail

3.4.3 Headways Line haul BRT and Metrorail headways in the Dulles Corridor are assumed to be consistent with current weekday Metrorail headways: 6 minutes in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, and 12 minutes in the base period. The inclusion of peak hour "tripper trains" operating between the West Falls Church and New Carrolton Metrorail stations results in a combined peak hour Orange Line headway of 3 minutes; peak period BRT combined headways into West Falls Church reflect comparable frequencies. Additional assumptions related to horizon year Metrorail system headways and Orange Line tripper train services are addressed in the Transit Operations and Maintenance Plan (March 2002).

Two BRT 1 routes serving Spring Hill Road BRT Station and the BRT "Milk Run" operate at 12- minute headways in the peak; however, the Spring Hill Road BRT Station is served by multiple routes and combined headways destined there are never greater than 6 minutes. Conversely, because of the elimination of the Spring Hill Road BRT Station in BRT 2 and BRT 3 and the implementation of split service to Tysons-West*Park Transit Station and West Fall Church, some routes featuring 4-minute headways are required to provide enough peak period service to West Falls Church.

Express and feeder service frequencies vary, and are fully detailed in the feeder bus plan summaries developed for each alternative and included in the Transit Operations and Maintenance Plan (March 2002).

3.4.4 Loading Standards Table 3-81 summarizes assumed loading standards for rail, BRT and express and local bus. The standard objective reflects the number of passengers per car per the peak hour and is used to determine fleet requirements for all Alternatives. The existing primary standard reflects the maximum desirable load over the peak 30 minutes of service, as specified in WMATA's June 2001 Rail Fleet Management plan.

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 69 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-81: LOADING STANDARDS Mode Primary Metrorail (73 seats per rail car) 120

BRT (61 seats perartic. BRT bus) 100% of seats Express Bus (40 seats per bus) 100% of seats Local Bus (40 seats per bus) 120% of seats

3.4.5 Speeds Table 3-82 summarizes assumed free-flow speeds for rail, BRT, and express and local bus.

TABLE 3-82: MAXIMUM FREE FLOW SPEEDS (MILES PER HOUR) Mode Maximum Permitted Attainable Design

Metrorail Orange Line 75 59.5 Dulles Extension 75 59.5 BRT N/A 55 Express Bus N/A 55

3.4.6 Dwell Time Table 3-83 summarizes station/stop dwell time for rail and BRT service.

TABLE 3-83: DWELL TIME ASSUMPTIONS (SECONDS) Mode Station Stop

Metrorail Orange Line 30 N/A Dulles Extension 30 N/A BRT* 30 30 * BRT dwell times assume pre-paid, off-vehicle, fare and low floor multiple door vehicles.

3.4.7 Parking Facilities Table 3-84 summarizes parking capacity assumptions for each alternative in the design year (2025). Table 3-85 presents parking capacity assumptions for the opening year of each Build Alternative as well as baseline parking assumptions. These assumed capacities are inputs to the travel demand model; the actual number of parking spaces provided for each Build Alternative may be less, depending on forecast demand.

June 2002 70 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

TABLE 3-84: DESIGN YEAR (2025) PARKING CAPACITY ASSUMPTIONS Facility Baseline BRT1 BRT 2 BRT 3 BRT/ Metrorail Phased Metrorail Implementation

Tysons West - - - - 2,000 2,000 2,000

Wiehle Avenue 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300

Herndon-Monroe 1,750 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500

Route 28 - 2,000 - - 2,000 2,000 2,000

Route 606 750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 Total 4,800 12,550 10,550 10,550 14,550 14,550 14,550

TABLE 3-85: OPENING YEAR PARKING CAPACITY ASSUMPTIONS Facility 2005/06 2005/06 2005/06 2005/06 2005/06 2010 2010 Baseline BRT1 BRT 2 BRT 3 BRT/Metrorail Baseline Metrorail

Tysons West - - - - 2,000 - 2,000

Wiehle Avenue 825 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2.300 2,300

Hemdon-Monroe 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 3,500

Route 28 - 300 - - 1,200 - 1,200

Route 606 750 750 750 750 2,750 750 4,750 Total 3,325 5,100 4,800 4,800 10,000 4,800 13,750

3.5 MODELING BUS RAPID TRANSIT

As noted, NVMISM has been modified in several ways to address specific forecasting needs of each of the studies for which it has been applied. One of the most significant modifications to the model was the introduction of procedures for forecasting travel demand for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in the Dulles Corridor. These modifications are described briefly in Section 3.2. The following presents a more detailed summary of the approach used to model BRT for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. Specifically, this section describes the modal bias constant(s) used to reflect bus, rail, and BRT travel times, costs, and less measurable attributes, such as passenger comfort and service reliability, and how these constants are applied in the modeling effort for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project.

3.5.1 Modal Constants Logit mode choice models of the type incorporated into NVMISM utilize a linear function to represent a potential traveler's perception of the disutility of a particular mode for a particular type of trip, defined by purpose, time of day, and origin/destination. When first developed, NVMISM separated transit modes into several categories, or sub-modes, including rail and express bus (but excluding Bus Rapid Transit). The model estimates the "worth" of each category using the travel times and costs associated with each transit sub-mode. The coefficients associated with these travel times and costs are different (potentially) for each type of time and cost but are the same for each category. For example, the coefficient associated with walking time is normally higher than the coefficient associated with riding in a vehicle. That is, a minute of walking has more "dis-benefit" to a person than a minute of riding in a vehicle;

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 71 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report however, the coefficient associated with walking time is the same for walking to a rail station as it is for walking to a bus line. Travel time and costs are separated in several ways, the former by walking, waiting, riding in a transit vehicle, and driving or being driven to a transit vehicle and the latter by transit fare, parking costs, and out-of-pocket highway driving costs. In addition, the number of transfers is also used to estimate the "worth" of the transit sub-mode.

Ultimately when forecasting rail ridership, the model attempts to find several rail paths between pairs of interchanges. Since the process also involves station choices, the model generally attempts to find the four closest stations at each end of the trip and will evaluate and allocate trips among these combinations. Also, since the rail model features four potential access modes (walk, feeder bus, park-and-ride and drop-off), and two potential egress modes (walk and distributor bus), there are potentially 128 combinations (4 x 4 x 4 x 2) to each path.

Targets are established for each rail access market and the model calibrated to meet the targets. Similarly, targets were set for bus-only trips. There is no rail "silver bullet" as such; each of the rail (and bus) access combinations in essence have their own range of coefficients.

In addition to the measurable time and cost attributes of the transportation system, there are also some attributes which affect mode selection but which are not included in the measurable time and costs used in the model. These factors include the potential traveler's perception of ride comfort, convenience (measured in several ways, for example, the presence or absence of off-peak, return direction service), safety, security, the availability or lack of a seat, system image, and reliability. These other "unmeasured" attributes are summed up into a single coefficient, sometimes referred to as a bias constant. This coefficient (or range of coefficients, when combined with the access permutations described above) includes all unmeasured attributes (both good and bad) of the sub-mode category. Mathematically, the equation for a transit category may look like the following:

Rail Measure = Rail Times*Time Coefficients+ Rail Costs *Cost Coefficients + Rail Modal Constants

Express Bus Measure = Express Bus TimesTime Coefficients+ Express Bus Costs *Cost Coefficients + Express Bus Modal Constants

These modal measures are the measures used to estimate ridership for each mode, with the ridership being roughly proportional to the measure. It is fairly easy to see that if the travel times and costs for each transit mode were exactly the same, the only difference in ridership would be from the modal constants. If these constants were a single value it would be easy to identify the difference between the transit modes. Unfortunately, there are a whole series of modal constants for any transit sub-mode depending not only on mode of access but on other variables such as the wealth of the rider and the availability to that rider of a private vehicle alternative for travel.

3.5.2 BRT Constants NVMISIM, as with most regional travel demand forecasting tools, was not originally equipped to deal with the mode of Bus Rapid Transit. However, the consideration of BRT in earlier Dulles Corridor studies required the development of procedures to address BRT demand. It was clear that, as scoped by project stakeholders, BRT could not be considered as an express bus system, as travel demand models typically define express bus; but neither could it be considered as a heavy rail system. Rather, it was assumed that BRT was a hybrid system, which at least for travel demand analysis, should generate a demand somewhere between an express bus system and rail system.

June 2002 72 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

A BRT Technical Committee, made up of representatives from participating Federal, state, and local agencies for the Supplement to the Dulles Corridor MIS, addressed BRT demand estimation techniques in late 1998 and early 1999. In reviewing the characteristics of BRT, it was determined that the hybrid nature of the system (for travel demand estimation) is true only when the trip is made on BRT with no leg of the journey on the rail system, i.e. "intra-corridor" trips. When a trip is made on BRT with a transfer to the Metrorail system, then the trip (for travel demand estimation) is simply a rail trip with feeder bus access. This feeder bus access is, of course, extremely good service and the calculated mode of access (walk, drive, feeder bus) takes place at the BRT station instead of the Metrorail station. However, in all other respects it is treated similarly to an express or local bus feed to Metrorail. In short, if the trip movement uses rail for any portion of the journey then the movement receives the rail un- measurable attributes (modal bias constants) just as any other rail trip would.

For BRT trips which take place entirely within the Dulles Corridor, it was determined by the Technical Committee that the demand estimation procedure would be to address the trip as a hybrid mode trip with a modified modal constant lying somewhere between rail and express bus. The rationale for such an approach was supported to a large degree by research undertaken by Moshe Ben Akiva in the early 1980s. Ben Akiva was engaged in updating the work done by Nobel prize winning economist Daniel McFadden dealing with bias constants in mode choice modeling. Mc Fadden had found that there was no statistically significant difference in the bias constants in calibrated logit mode choice models (choice of transit versus driving) when the choice set had a high quality commuter bus system and when the transit choice was the BART system in the San Francisco Bay Area for trans-Bay work trips.

While McFadden utilized two different surveys in his work, one before BART opened (commuter bus choice) and the other after the system opened (i.e. the Metrorail choice), Ben Akiva used the same survey data set, in essence, partitioned by corridor. The survey data was the 1980 journey to work survey done as part of the census. One set of models was calibrated reflecting household data for the Silver Spring Red Line Corridor. Metrorail had opened over one year before the census and was performing admirably.

The other corridor was calibrated reflecting data from households in the Shirley Highway Corridor. In 1980, there was no rail system there and the bus system had

• Relatively low service frequencies compared to Metrorail, " No stations, • Virtually no parking, • Older and (therefore) unreliable buses, • Virtually no off-peak service, • No off-peak direction peak service, and • No off-board fare collection.

Bus service in the Shirley/l-395 corridor was not marketed or perceived as an integrated system. In short, the system provided a low-quality service with a low-quality image compared to both Metrorail and what was defined as Bus Rapid Transit in the Dulles Corridor. The only thing that differentiated it from local bus service was the presence of the Shirley/l-395 bus lanes, which improved reliability and speed (the speed effects of both bus in HOV lanes and rail transit are already accounted for directly in the time elements of the logit model utility function).

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 73 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

The results of Ben Akiva's research showed that although the perceived but unmeasured "quality" of the express bus choice was limited to the effects of HOV lanes, the bias constants for all car-owning and income classes were statistically different than those for local bus, and in the case of zero car households, actually higher than that for rail- for core work trips, the only location served by the express bus system (also the destination and/or origin of 80% of peak period Metrorail trips).

Differences in the bias constants between express bus on HOV and local bus were not limited to zero-car households. Though smaller for higher auto ownership travelers, they were present for all household types. These results were consistent with McFadden's work and the other findings of Ben Akiva's research, including comparisons of survey data comparing bus and rail systems in Boston and Pittsburgh and a broad survey of the literature on the subject. The bottom line implication of the work, stated in the conclusion of his paper "Comparing Ridership Attraction of Rail and Bus," is that "the findings of this study imply that there is no justification to the introduction of a rail preference bias in a mode choice model which is employed to analyze alternative transit services including both rail and high quality express bus." In other words, Ben Akiva's research suggests that it is not unreasonable for a full application of Bus Rapid Transit to utilize a set of coefficients that represents an amalgam of bias constants for express bus and Metrorail.

The method for generating such a constant was to develop a series of hypothetical movements where the mode share ranged from 4 percent of the travel market to 54 percent. For each movement, transit ridership was estimated first as if the only mode available was rail, and second as if the only mode was express bus. In both cases the travel times and costs for the two modes were exactly the same, thus making the difference in the estimate a function of the modal constants. In all cases, the rail mode estimates were higher than the express bus mode estimates. The express bus market share fell between 60 and 75 percent of the rail market share given the same travel times and costs. The higher express bus to rail ratio occurs when the rail market share is quite high (over 50 percent of all person trips), while the lower ratios occurred in low transit share markets.

It was assumed that BRT demand would lie somewhere between Metrorail and express bus service. The procedure used to estimate BRT demand (for intracorridor trips, as described above) for the Dulles Corridor Draft EIS is to code BRT routes as Metrorail routes for the purposes of separating these routes from local and express bus routes. This procedure further reflects the fact that BRT stations and stops function similarly (and at DAAR stations identically) to Metrorail stations in terms of fare collection, passenger boarding, etc. In the final step of the procedure, however, the BRT modal constant adjustment factors are applied. The factors vary depending on the immeasurable attributes and socioeconomic variables identified earlier, but the general envelope reflects points approximately mid-way between Metrorail and express bus.

3.6 TRAFFIC FORECASTING

NVMISM was used to generate highway assignments that were, in turn, used to forecast traffic volumes on regional highway links and adjusted to develop detailed traffic forecasts for the local road network surrounding proposed stations and stops in the Dulles Corridor. This section describes the traffic forecasting process for both local and regional roadways. Forecast results and their analyses are presented in the Traffic Analysis and Station Access Study Technical Report (June 2002).

June 2002 74 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

3.6.1 Highway Assignment Procedures The standard traffic assignment procedure generates the following results:

• Link traffic volumes, and • Turning movement volumes at intersections.

Due to network size constraints, the traffic assignment module of NVMISM implemented in MINUTP cannot handle the highway network coded in this study, in which the zone structure and road network in Tysons Corner area were refined significantly (see Section 3.3). Thus the MINUTP traffic assignment procedure was converted to TP+ to accommodate the increased network size.

The converted TP+ traffic assignment was then validated by comparing its assignment results (i.e., loaded link traffic volumes and congested travel time between specific origin-destination pairs) with the MINUTP assignment results under the un-refined network condition.

Traffic assignment for the Draft EIS is a multi-class assignment procedure, which considers three classes of vehicles: SOV, HOV-2, and HOV-3+. The process takes the zone-to-zone vehicle trip tables generated from the mode choice sub-model of the Northern Virginia Major Investment Study Model (NVMISM). These trip tables include not only zone-to-zone vehicle trips, but also "zone-to-Metrorail/BRT station" vehicle trips. Thus the traffic assignment results include the vehicle trips to Metrorail stations (auto-access transit trips). These were validated against auto-access forecasts generated directly from NVMISIM, and adjusted as necessary in the intersection factoring process described below. The traffic assignment does not include the transit vehicles (bus) traffic; consequently, feeder bus plans were reviewed and bus volumes were added to station-area access volumes.

The highway networks used in the traffic assignment were developed by updating the network used in the previous Major Investment Study to include all programmed improvements in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Financially Constrained Long Range Plan. In very few cases, improvements which were removed from the most recent plan were not removed from the updated highway network. These facilities are noted in the Traffic Analysis and Station Access Study Technical Report. In addition, because the MWCOG network was so limited in Loudoun County, some new roadway improvements included in its draft Revised General Plan (but not contained in the Regional Constrained Long Range Plan) were also added. For the most part, the zone structure followed MWCOG's TAZ network, except in Tysons Corner, as explained in Section 3.3.

A number of dBase programs were implemented to process the traffic assignment results, including turning movements at intersections, ramp traffic volumes at the interchanges, and highway link volumes. Another dBase program was implemented to summarize the vehicle- miles-of-travel (VMT) and vehicle-hours-of-travel (VHT) within the Dulles Corridor and for the whole region.

These procedures resulted in a three hour a.m. and p.m. peak period and ten hour off-peak period highway assignments for Year 2000 and the design year of 2025 for, initially, the Baseline Alternative, BRT 1 (at the time of running the assignment, BRT 1 was the only BRT alignment under consideration), and Metrorail alignments T1, T4, and T6/T9. A review of the 2025 traffic assignments and forecast vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) for the three Metrorail alignments in the Dulles Corridor found that the difference in traffic among alignments was less than 0.002, or two-tenths of one percent. Consequently, it was determined that there was no

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 75 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report significant differences between Metrorail alignments in terms of overall corridor traffic patterns, and separate regional roadway and local intersection traffic analyses for each alignment was deemed unnecessary. T6 was selected as the alignment for traffic analysis; this included limiting opening year Metrorail highway assignments and assignment factoring to T6, and assuming T6 as the Metrorail alignment in the BRT/Metrorail Alternative. However, where a difference between alignments was found in terms of park-and-ride, Kiss & Ride, or feeder bus activity at specific stations, forecast traffic volumes at station intersections were adjusted to reflect the alignment with the "worst case" traffic impact.

In August 2001, DRPT and WMATA decided to include BRT 2 and BRT 3 as additional alignments for consideration under the BRT Alternative. Year 2025 VMT forecasts for the three BRT alignments yielded similar results. It was determined that the BRT 1 assignment could be used as a "base" BRT assignment, with volumes at station entrances modified by forecast "mode-of-arrival" (see Section 3.6.3) where BRT 2 or BRT 3 was shown to produce higher volumes. For example, the absence of a BRT station at Route 28 resulted in higher traffic volumes at Herndon Monroe under BRT 2 and BRT 3 than under BRT 1, with BRT 3 generating the highest park-and-ride activity at the facility. Therefore, BRT 3 was determined to have the greatest impact of the three alignments in the Herndon Monroe Station area, and BRT 1 forecast volumes at intersections adjacent to the facility were modified by the station mode of arrival forecasts to reflect BRT 3 station area activity. Likewise, the presence of 18 articulated buses per hour on the Tysons Corner roadway system under BRT 3 (as documented in the Transit Operations and Maintenance Plan, March 2002) resulted in the determination that BRT 3 had the greatest traffic impacts of the three BRT alignments in the Tysons Corner area, and similar adjustments to the BRT traffic forecasts were made.

3.6.2 Intersection Traffic Forecasting The study team identified a number of intersections and interchanges in the study area for detailed operational and air quality analysis (a complete list of intersections is provided in the Traffic Analysis and Station Access Study March 2002). The observed traffic data at these intersection and interchanges were collected. These observed traffic data (i.e., turning movement volumes at intersections and ramp traffic volumes at interchanges), with corresponding network link numbers coded in the model, were put in databases in dBase format.

Raw intersection-level highway assignments generated by the regional travel demand model were determined not to be appropriate for the requisite analysis of future local traffic conditions, as the highway network is not coded at the fine level of detail necessary to adequately capture every movement. However, the assignment process, which reflects assumed changes in population and employment within each TAZ, does generate growth rates in traffic volumes, by movement, and these rates can then be applied to observed volumes to obtain forecast movements (see Figure 3-33). The following steps were taken to adjust highway assignments into detailed turning movements at intersections and interchanges in the Dulles Corridor.

1. The modeled peak period traffic volume of each movement at an intersection was adjusted based on the equation presented in Figure 3-33.

2. Three hour assignments were converted into a peak hour for all years of analysis. The peak hour was assumed to reflect 40.2 percent of traffic volume in a three hour peak period; therefore, the MINUTP assignment was multiplied by 0.402 to generate the peak hour assignment;

June 2002 76 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

Figure 3-33: Adjustment of intersection Traffic Volumes

*J.*J

E. e,

V,j = Oij (Ei/ei+Xj/xJK

Where:

= Adjusted future year traffic volumes of movement ij,

0>j - Observed base year traffic volumes of movement ij,

E, = Estimated future year approaching traffic volume of approach /,

6/ = Estimated base year approaching traffic volume of approach /,

= Estimated future year exiting traffic volume of approach/

= Estimated base year exiting traffic volume of approach j.

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 77 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

This page intentionally left blank.

June 2002 78 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Methodology

3. Observed 2000 peak hour traffic volumes were compared with the 2000 modeled peak hour assignments. An equation was written which identified all cases where the modeled assignments were either less than 0.3 times or greater than 4.0 times the observed volumes. For such situations, the modeled numbers are ignored in the calculation of traffic growth rates (see step # 3 below); instead, observed volumes are used.

4. The 2025 peak hour assignments were divided by the 2000 modeled (or observed, as appropriate) peak hour volumes to generate growth rates for each intersection movement. These growth rates were applied to the observed volumes to generate forecast movements.

5. An equation was written to identify all cases where the growth rate of 2025 vs. 2000 exceeded 5.0 or was less than 0.3 (i.e. a negative growth rate). For such situations, upstream and downstream movements with acceptable growth rates were reviewed and the movements with unacceptable rates were hand-factored to be comparable with these adjacent volumes. In some cases where assigned movements grew (or declined) dramatically but the overall intersection rate was reasonable (i.e. fell within an even more restrictive growth envelope of approximately 0.8 and 3.0), an intersection-wide growth rate was applied.

In limited cases where unreasonable assignment results could not be remedied by any of the adjustments described above, more rudimentary factors were applied. This is particularly true for the opening year analyses, where traffic growth could be straight-lined between 2000 observed and 2025 forecast levels. Also, in Loudoun County, the very simplified highway network and large TAZ structure resulted in extremely high traffic growth rates. In such cases, more moderate rates, based on growth taken at the county level, were applied.

Factored volumes were then "balanced" to achieve the final volumes used in the traffic analysis (as presented in the Traffic Analysis and Station Access Study March 2002). Balancing traffic volumes is typical practice when dealing with a large network of intersections In theory, the traffic that departs one intersection should be exactly equal to the traffic that arrives at the downstream intersection. However, as the traffic volume cannot be counted in the field at all intersections simultaneously, the traffic volumes have to be methodically manipulated to attain this balance. The procedure is relatively straightforward: one intersection is held constant, and then the volumes at the next intersection are factored based on a ratio with the volumes from the previous intersection. The result of this calculation is that the receiving volume at the downstream intersection equals the volume that departed the upstream intersection. This procedure is then carried out throughout the network until the entire network is balanced.

2025 and 2010 factored volumes underwent the balancing process, although only the 2025 traffic was analyzed for the entire network. After reviewing the results of the 2010 balancing it was determined that the pre-balanced volumes did not vary greatly from the balanced volumes for those intersections analyzed in 2010, and so the 2006 volumes for these intersections did not undergo the balancing process.

There are a few points specific to the balancing of the Tysons Corner network that should be identified. The arterials were balanced in the following order: Route 7, Route 123, International Drive, Westpark Drive, Spring Hill Road, Greensboro Drive, Tysons Boulevard, Park Run Drive, and Galleria Drive. The intersections held constant for the process were Route 7 and the Dulles Toll Road (north intersection), Route 123 and Colshire Drive, and International Drive and the Dulles Toll Road (north intersection). In the future year 2025 and 2010 scenarios, the I Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 79 June 2002 Methodology Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report forecasting process did not identify volumes for the various ramps that are proposed to access the Route 7 and Route 123 expressways from the local roads or the specific turning movements for the intersections of Route 7 (express and both local roads) with Tyco Road and Spring Hill Road. These volumes were necessary to adequately complete the balancing process and were, after a review for reasonableness, obtained from the Draft Tysons Corner Route 7 and Route 123 Transportation Collocation Study, State Project Number TPD 11671-2-01-02 dated April 3, 2001. Where possible, a ratio of the Collocation Study volumes to the Tysons Corner network volumes was used to generate the needed ramp volumes and percentage splits. Otherwise, the volumes were taken directly from the Collocation Study.

3.6.3 Station Access Forecasting As noted previously, movements into and out of station facilities were modified according to the series of detailed mode of arrival forecasts (included for each Alternative and alignment in Appendix I). For both existing and proposed stations, the peak hour total volumes in and out of each facility were taken directly from the mode of arrival forecasts rather than (in the case of existing stations) the factored assignments, but were assigned according to the directional distribution (i.e. percentage of northbound vs. southbound or eastbound vs. westbound) generated from the assignment. Where stations and stops feature multiple station access points (for example two park-and-ride entrances, as at Tysons West), "ins" and "outs" at each entrance were distributed according to assigned directional splits of general traffic on adjacent local roads. Where stations and stops have two separate access facilities (for example, Reston Parkway, Herndon Monroe, and Route 28, which feature both north side and south side Kiss & Ride and/or parking) zone-to-zone summaries indicating the originating direction of vehicles bound for the TAZ in which the station is located were used to distribute trips between each facility. These splits were done for the 2025 horizon year for each Alternative, and the percentage splits applied to 2006 and 2010 mode of arrival forecasts to obtain opening year movements.

NVMISM does not generate mode-of-arrival forecasts for non-fixed guideway transit modes; therefore, park-and-ride activity at the Reston East (Wiehle Avenue), Herndon-Monroe, and Dulles North Transit Centers for express bus - as provided under the Baseline Alternative- is not so forecasted. In this case, movements into and out of these stations were taken from the assignment and modified by moderate annual growth assumptions in parking demand, up to the point of reaching assumed parking capacity.

3.6.4 Highway Link Forecasts In order to evaluate the impacts of the project on regional highway facilities, a selection of representative links were extracted from the assignment process. 2025, 2010, and 2006 links modeled for each Alternative were divided by modeled 2000 volumes to generate peak period and off-peak period traffic growth rates, which were then applied to 2000 observed volumes. The results of this forecasting process are presented in the Traffic Analysis and Station Access Study (March 2002).

June 2002 80 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLES

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 81 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report I TABLE 3-1: COMPARISON OF MODEL CHOICE MODEL RESULTS I

MWCOG 2000 Run CTC 2000 Run % Difference HBW I Walk to Transit Person Trips 360,525 360,249 -0.08% Drive to Transit Person Trips 141,376 141,339 -0.03% I Total Transit Person Trips 501,901 501,588 -0.06% Auto Driver Person Trips 2,665,878 2,668,496 0.10% Auto Passenger Person Trips 360,378 358,073 -0.64% Total Person Trips 3,528,157 3,528,157 0.00% % Transit Share 14.226 14.217 -0.06% Average Auto Occupancy 1.135 1.134 -0.09% HBS Walk to Transit Person Trips 26,473 26,500 0.10% Drive to Transit Person Trips 3,803 3,816 0.34% Total Transit Person Trips 30,276 30,316 0.13% Auto Driver Person Trips 1,379,853 1,379,876 0.00% Auto Passenger Person Trips 528,327 528,265 -0.01% Total Person Trips 1,938,456 1,938,457 0.00% % Transit Share 1.562 1.564 0.13% Average Auto Occupancy 1.383 1.383 0.00% HBO Walk to Transit Person Trips 127,448 127,472 0.02% Drive to Transit Person Trips 18,433 18,326 -0.58% Total Transit Person Trips 145,881 145,798 -0.06% Auto Driver Person Trips 3,337,737 3,337,800 0.00% Auto Passenger Person Trips 2,531,597 2,531,617 0.00% Total Person Trips 6,015,215 6,015,215 0.00% % Transit Share 2.425 2.424 -0.04% Average Auto Occupancy 1.758 1.758 0.00% NHB Walk to Transit Person Trips 122,230 121,995 -0.19% Drive to Transit Person Trips 10,700 10,687 -0.12% Total Transit Person Trips 132,930 132,682 -0.19% Auto Driver Person Trips 3,943,696 3,943,910 0.01% Auto Passenger Person Trips 1,068,082 1,068,117 0.00% Total Person Trips 5,144,708 5,144,709 0.00% % Transit Share 2.584 2.579 -0.19% Average Auto Occupancy 1.271 1.271 0.00%

June 2002 82 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-2: COMPARISON OF SUB-MODE CHOICE MODEL

MWCOG 2000 Run CTC 2000 Run % Difference HBW Walk to Metro Trips 271,565 271,264 -0.11% Walk to Non-Metro Trips 88,957 88,973 0.02% Drive to Metro Trips 105,750 105,775 0.02% Drive to Non-Metro Trips 35,618 35,525 -0.26% Total Transit Trips 501,890 501,537 -0.07% HBO Walk to Metro Trips 70,658 70,622 -0.05% Walk to Non-Metro Trips 83,196 83,315 0.14% Drive to Metro Trips 21,263 21,190 -0.34% Drive to Non-Metro Trips 877 866 -1.25% Total Transit Trips 175,994 175,993 0.00% NHB Walk to Metro Trips 99,308 99,066 -0.24% Walk to Non-Metro Trips 22,914 22,909 -0.02% Drive to Metro Trips 10,651 10,645 -0.06% Drive to Non-Metro Trips 33 291 -12.12% Total Transit Trips 132,906 132,649 -0.19%

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 83 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-3: COMPARISON OF DAILY STATION BOARDINGS (FROM MODE OF ARRIVAL MODEL)

Station No. Station Name MWCOG 2000 Run CTC 2000 Run % Difference 1 Shady Grove 7,067 7,048 -0.27% 2 Rockville 4,190 4,202 0.29% 3 Twinbrook 3,837 3,783 -1.41% 4 White Flint 3,856 3,817 -1.01% 5 Grosvenor 4,626 4,636 0.22% 6 Medical Center 6,145 6,198 0.86% 7 Bethesda 11,239 11,309 0.62% 8 Friendship Heights 10,474 10,487 0.12% 9 Tenleytown 9,531 9,666 1.42% 10 Van Ness-UDC 6,597 6,546 -0.77% 11 Cleveland Park 4,308 4,244 -1.49% 12 Woodley Park-Zoo 8,746 8,754 0.09% 13 Dupont Circle 18,279 18,295 0.09% 14 Farragut North 26,570 26,641 0.27% 15 Metro Center 12,881 12,899 0.14% 16 Gallery Place 3,213 3,206 -0.22% 17 Judiciary Square 13,901 13,835 -0.47% 18 Union Station 14,808 14,782 -0.18% 19 Rhode Island Ave 5,584 5,650 1.18% 20 Brookland-CUA 3,882 3,941 1.52% 21 Fort Totten 6,126 5,999 -2.07% 22 Takoma 6,692 6,755 0.94% 23 Silver Spring 10,150 10,126 -0.24% 24 Forest Glen 2,687 2,675 -0.45% 25 Wheaton 3,913 3,963 1.28% 26 Glenmont 7,215 6,951 -3.66% 27 Greenbelt 5,655 5,748 1.64% 28 College Park 3,323 3,240 -2.50% 29 PG Plaza 3,851 3,797 -1.40% 30 West Hyattsville 4,202 4,214 0.29% 31 Georgia Ave 4,971 5,018 0.95% 32 Columbia Heights 4,875 4,869 -0.12% 33 U-Street-Cardozo 3,684 3,719 0.95% 34 Shaw-Howard University 3,813 3,784 -0.76% 35 Mt Vernon Square 3,598 3,606 0.22% 36 Archives 4,600 4,584 -0.35% 37 L'Enfant Plaza 13,898 13,790 -0.78% 38 Waterfront 4,387 4,387 0.00% 39 Navy Yard 3,138 3,195 1.82% 40 Anacostia 5,246 5,368 2.33% 41 Congress Heights 4,003 4,016 0.32%

June 2002 84 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

Station No. Station Name MWCOG 2000 Run CTC 2000 Run % Difference 42 Southern Avenue 6,883 6,861 -0.32% 43 Naylor Road 2,572 2,606 1.32% 44 Suitland 4,337 4,350 0.30% 45 Branch Avenue 5,100 5,211 2.18% 46 Van Dorn Street 5,145 5,132 -0.25% 47 Franconia-Springfield 8,958 8,742 -2.41% 48 Huntington 6,892 6,954 0.90% 49 Eisenhower Avenue 2,958 2,982 0.81% 50 King Street 7,079 7,069 -0.14% 51 Braddock Road 7,865 7,852 -0.17% 52 National Airport 2,806 2,814 0.29% 53 Crystal City 8,686 8,661 -0.29% 54 Pentagon City 4,884 4,955 1.45% 55 Pentagon 14,788 14,811 0.16% 56 Arlington Cemetery 99 97 -2.02% 57 Vienna 10,369 10,360 -0.09% 58 Dunn Loring 5,459 5,333 -2.31% 59 West Falls Church 7,556 7,615 0.78% 60 East Falls Church 7,705 7,804 1.28% 61 Ballston 11,489 11,527 0.33% 62 Virginia Square 4,833 4,763 -1.45% 63 Clarendon 4,172 4,103 -1.65% 64 Court House 8,730 8,692 -0.44% 65 Rosslyn 16,515 16,452 -0.38% 66 Foggy Bottom-GWU 23,994 23,859 -0.56% 67 Farragut West 15,380 15,396 0.10% 68 McPherson Square 25,031 25,031 0.00% 69 Federal Triangle 10,887 10,913 0.24% 70 Smithsonian 9,160 9,181 0.23% 71 Federal Center SW 4,399 4,447 1.09% 72 Capitol South 9,915 9,919 0.04% 73 Eastern Market 2,908 2,920 0.41% 74 Potomac Avenue 2,536 2,507 -1.14% 75 Stadium Armory 3,186 3,117 -2.17% 76 Minnesota Avenue 2,530 2,316 -8.46% 77 Deanwood 2,211 2,136 -3.39% 78 Cheverly 2,781 3,308 18.95% 79 Landover 4,751 5,001 5.26% 80 New Carrollton 4,225 4,590 8.64% 81 Benning Road 3,409 2,867 -15.90% 82 Capitol Heights 4,266 3,970 -6.94% 83 Addison Road 5,634 5,692 1.03% TOTALS 592,844 592,654 -0.03%

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 85 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-4: COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED VMT MWCOG 2000 Run CTC 2000 Run % Difference VMT (in 1000's) by Jurisdiction District of Columbia 8,577 8,657 0.93% Montgomery 18,811 18,904 0.49% Prince George's 20,381 20,400 0.09% Arlington 4,556 4,597 0.90% Alexandria 2,408 2,436 1.16% Fairfax 27,015 27,477 1.71% Loudoun 3,684 3,735 1.38% Prince William 6,671 6,745 1.11% Frederick 5,875 5,884 0.15% Howard 8,517 8,499 -0.21% Anne Arundel 9,593 9,595 0.02% Charles 1,955 1,956 0.05% Carroll 2,932 2,923 -0.31% Calvert 1,369 1,367 -0.15% St. Mary's 1,230 1,209 -1.71% King George 942 945 0.32% Fredericksburg 376 381 1.33% Stafford 3,554 3,553 -0.03% Spotsylvania 1,586 1,585 -0.06% Fauquier 2,416 2,437 0.87% Clarke 739 738 -0.14% Jefferson 933 937 0.43% Total 134,120 134,960 0.63% VMT (in 1000's) by Facility Type Freeway 46,413 46,594 0.39% Major Art. 51,728 52,059 0.64% Minor Art. 15,591 15,677 0.55% Collector 11,861 12,030 1.42% Expressway 8,527 8,600 0.86% Total 134,120 134,960 0.63% VMT (in 1000's) by Area Type (Function of Employment and Population Densities) 1 (High on Both Densities) 2,314 2,357 1.86% 2 17,740 17,926 1.05% 3 40,089 40,408 0.80% 4 11,515 11,570 0.48% 5 15,185 15,273 0.58% 6 27,932 28,044 0.40% 7 (Low on Both Densities) 19,345 19,382 0.19% Total 134,120 134,960 0.63%

June 2002 86 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-5: COMPARISON OF SCREENLINE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN 1000S) MWCOG No. Location CTC 2000 Run % Difference 2000 Run 1 Ring 1, Virginia 815 822 0.86% 2 Ring 1, DC 987 992 0.51% 3 Ring 3, Virginia 1,107 1,113 0.54% 4 Ring 3, DC 1,056 1,066 0.95% 5 Beltway, Virginia 1,254 1,271 1.36% 6 Beltway, Maryland 1,954 1,952 -0.10% 7 Ring 5, Virginia 1,360 1,378 1.32% 8 Ring 5, Maryland 1,950 1,956 0.31% 9 Ring 7, Virginia 820 833 1.59% 10 Eastern Loudoun Co. 286 292 2.10% 11 US 15, Loudoun / Prince William Co. 168 169 0.60% 12 Central Montgomery Co. Radial 539 542 0.56% 13 Eastern Montgomery Co. Radial 409 411 0.49% 14 NE. Prince George's Co. Radial 319 320 0.31% 15 Central Prince George's Co. Radial 556 556 0.00% 16 Southern Prince George's Co. Radial 204 202 -0.98% 17 Southern Fairfax / Prince Wm. Radial 891 897 0.67% 18 Central Fairfax Co. Radial 1,161 1,176 1.29% 19 VA Route 7 Radial 990 1,004 1.41% 20 'Inner' Potomac River Crossings 1,470 1,482 0.82% 22 Central Mtg./P.G. Radial 1,998 2,006 0.40% 23 NE Montgomery Co. Radial 173 173 0.00% 24 Montgomery/Prince George's Co. Border 530 530 0.00% 25 Montgomery/ Frederick Co. Border 94 94 0.00% 26 Montgomery / Howard Co. Border 433 433 0.00% 27 Prince George's/Anne Arundel Co. Border 330 333 0.91% 28 Charles / Prince George's Co. Border 149 148 -0.67% 31 Frederick / Carroll Co. Border 164 162 -1.22% 32 Western Loudoun Co. Border 91 90 -1.10% 33 'Outer' Southwestern Circumferential 328 329 0.30% 34 'Outer' Southeastern Circumferential 149 148 -0.67% 35 South of Baltimore City 861 859 -0.23% 36 'Outer" Northwestern Radial 96 98 2.08% 37 'Outer' Western Circumferential 40 40 0.00% 38 'Outer11-95 (South) Radial 184 184 0.00% Total 23,916 24,061 0.61%

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 87 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-6: SIMULATED 2000 TRIP RATES HBW HBO Inc. Level Trips HHs Rate Inc. Level Trips HHs Rate lnc_Grp1 572,640 539,876 1.061 lnc_Grp1 1,128,725 539,876 2.091 lnc_Grp2 792,811 568,696 1.394 lnc_Grp2 1,676,534 568,696 2.948 lnc_Grp3 1,169,988 533,919 2.191 lnc_Grp3 2,962,908 533,919 5.549 lnc_Grp4 1,234,645 465,177 2.654 lnc_Grp4 3,020,007 465,177 6.492 TOTAL 3,770,029 2,107,668 1.789 TOTAL 8,788,171 2,107,668 4.17 Veh. Avail Trips HHs Rate Veh. Avail Trips HHs Rate 0 Veh_Av 136,942 152,717 0.897 0 Veh_Av 129,528 152,717 0.848 1 Veh_Av 832,494 683,835 1.217 1 Veh_Av 1,638,708 683,835 2.396 2 Veh_Av 1,728,764 876,451 1.972 2 Veh_Av 4,295,353 876,451 4.901 3+Veh_Av 1,071,881 394,665 2.716 3+Veh_Av 2,724,576 394,665 6.904 TOTAL 3,770,029 2,107,668 1.789 TOTAL 8,788,171 2,107,668 4.17 HH Size Trips HHs Rate HH Size Trips HHs Rate 1_Psn_HH 497,159 491,846 1.011 1_Psn_HH 744,032 491,846 1.513 2_Psn_HH 1,025,878 681,530 1.505 2_Psn_HH 1,898,281 681,530 2.785 3_Psn_HH 825,971 404,632 2.041 3_Psn_HH 1,869,680 404,632 4.621 4+Psn_HH 1,421,068 529,660 2.683 4+Psn_HH 4,276,184 529,660 8.073 TOTAL 3,770,029 2,107,668 1.789 TOTAL 8,788,171 2,107,668 4.17 HBS NHB Inc. Level Trips HHs Rate Inc. Level Trips HHs Rate lnc_Grp1 406,307 539,876 0.753 lnc_Grp1 823,474 539,876 1.525 lnc_Grp2 545,725 568,696 0.96 lnc_Grp2 1,693,821 568,696 2.978 lnc_Grp3 868,686 533,919 1.627 lnc_Grp3 2,023,159 533,919 3.789 lnc_Grp4 813,016 465,177 1.748 lnc_Grp4 1,987,571 465,177 4.273 TOTAL 2,633,730 2,107,668 1.25 TOTAL 6,527,904 2,107,668 3.097 Veh. Avail Trips HHs Rate Veh. Avail Trips HHs Rate 0 Veh_Av 44,390 152,717 0.291 0 Veh_Av 55,835 152,717 0.366 1 Veh_Av 659,159 683,835 0.964 1 Veh_Av 1,414,655 683,835 2.069 2 Veh_Av 1,224,759 876,451 1.397 2 Veh_Av 3,156,963 876,451 3.602 3+Veh_Av 705,421 394,665 1.787 3+Veh_Av 1,900,558 394,665 4.816 TOTAL 2,633,730 2,107,668 1.25 TOTAL 6,527,904 2,107,668 3.097 HH Size Trips HHs Rate HH Size Trips HHs Rate 1_Psn_HH 391,525 491,846 0.796 1_Psn_HH 845,571 491,846 1.719 2_Psn_HH 708,239 681,530 1.039 2_Psn_HH 1,690,040 681,530 2.48 3_Psn_HH 577,314 404,632 1.427 3_Psn_HH 1,467,776 404,632 3.627 4+Psn_HH 956,654 529,660 1.806 4+Psn_HH 2,524,611 529,660 4.766 TOTAL 2,633,730 2,107,668 1.25 TOTAL 6,527,904 2,107,668 3.097

June 2002 88 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-7: SIMULATED AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS (FROM MODE CHOICE MODEL) A: Highway Trips Avg. Highway Time (min.) Avg. Hwy. Distance (mi.) Total Person Trips Purpose LOV HOV LOV HOV LOV HOV HBW 38.24 56.11 14.36 26.74 3,598,933 151,323 HBS 12.49 N/A 6.66 N/A 2,766,034 N/A HBO 13.6 N/A 7.36 N/A 9,149,736 N/A NHB 16.09 N/A 8.1 N/A 6,645,775 N/A B: Transit Trips Avg. Transit Time (min.) Avg. Hwy. Distance (mi.) Total Person Trips Walk Auto Walk Auto Walk Auto Purpose Access Access Access Access Access Access HBW 46.5 63.07 10.14 20.69 360,237 141,300 HBS 44.36 37.75 5.19 6.58 26,465 3,760 HBO 44.84 51.67 6.77 12.62 127,472 18,296 NHB 42.43 50.35 7.87 13.19 121,975 10,674

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 89 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-8: COMPARISON OF 1994 OBSERVED AND 2000 SIMULATED PERSON TRIP TABLES DC Core Arl. Core Other DC Maryland Virginia Total A: Home Based Work DC Core 1994 Obs. 20,769 - 8,122 4,329 8,829 42,049 2000 Est. 19,704 1,655 6,010 6,073 5,967 39,409 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.95 - 0.74 1.40 0.68 0.94 Arlington Core 1994 Obs. 4,128 652 367 684 2,028 7,859 2000 Est. 2,960 954 900 881 2,295 7,990 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.72 1.46 2.45 1.29 1.13 1.02 Other DC 1994 Obs. 128,982 6,205 70,048 42,471 19,948 267,654 2000 Est. 118,033 7,122 58,649 39,665 24,084 247,553 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.92 1.15 0.84 0.93 1.21 0.92 Maryland 1994 Obs. 252,956 19,716 131,466 1,427,485 167,537 1,999,160 2000 Est. 240,175 31,454 128,662 1,675,096 175,496 2,250,883 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.95 1.60 0.98 1.17 1.05 1.13 Virginia 1994 Obs. 201,559 48,319 54,183 80,474 843,789 1,228,324 2000 Est. 216,367 48,435 64,066 128,015 1,249,132 1,706,015 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 1.07 1.00 1.18 1.59 1.48 1.39 Total 1994 Obs. 608,394 74,892 264,186 1,555,443 1,042,131 3,545,046 2000 Est. 597,239 89,620 258,287 1,849,730 1,456,974 4,251,850 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.98 1.20 0.98 1.19 1.40 1.20 B: Home Based Schiso l

DC Core 1994 Obs. 1,839 520 3,204 2,096 671 8,330 2000 Est. 1,256 462 1,402 1,650 2,970 7,740 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.68 0.89 0.44 0.79 4.43 0.93 Arlington Core 1994 Obs. 310 994 - - . 310 1,614 2000 Est. 106 971 166 183 1,439 2,865 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.34 0.98 - - 4.64 1.78 Other DC 1994 Obs. 8,002 - 61,849 39,883 5,652 115,386 2000 Est. 4,980 3,123 52,422 26,881 17,927 105,333 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.62 - 0.85 0.67 3.17 0.91

June 2002 90 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-8: COMPARISON OF 1994 OBSERVED AND 2000 SIMULATED PERSON TRIP TABLES DC Core Arl. Core Other DC Maryland Virginia Total Maryland 1994 Obs. 1,181 1,184 4,909 980,813 23,316 1,011,403 2000 Est. 2,859 1,563 6,522 1,401,239 44,768 1,456,951 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 2.42 1.32 1.33 1.43 1.92 1.44 Virginia 1994 Obs. 2,660 3,765 413 17,148 631,502 655,488 2000 Est. 2,497 4,989 4,623 25,375 1,185,957 1,223,441 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.94 1.33 11.19 1.48 1.88 1.87 Total 1994 Obs. 13,992 6,463 70,375 1,039,940 661,451 1,792,221 2000 Est. 11,698 11,108 65,135 1,455,328 1,253,061 2,796,330 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.84 1.72 0.93 1.40 1.89 1.56

C: Home Based Othej r DC Core 1994 Obs. 11,293 - 12,122 6,037 6,609 36,061 2000 Est. 8,182 611 8,201 8,206 8,546 33,746 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.72 - 0.68 1.36 1.29 0.94 Arlington Core 1994 Obs. 978 - 684 23 2,680 4,365 2000 Est. 861 1,153 1,135 1,242 3,338 7,729 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.88 - 1.66 54.00 1.25 1.77 Other DC 1994 Obs. 75,844 2,727 256,734 88,157 28,553 452,015 2000 Est. 64,386 5,670 227,960 75,346 33,080 406,442 2000 Est./1994 Obs. 0.85 2.08 0.89 0.85 1.16 0.90 Maryland 1994 Obs. 45,690 2,189 111,257 2,903,314 88,164 3,150,614 2000 Est. 41,808 8,121 102,239 4,309,563 121,023 4,582,754 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.92 3.71 0.92 1.48 1.37 1.45 Virginia 1994 Obs. 43,884 14,503 23,304 97,321 1,712,026 1,891,038 2000 Est. 58,964 20,546 38,099 114,457 4,032,772 4,264,838 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 1.34 1.42 1.63 1.18 2.36 2.26 Total 1994 Obs. 177,689 19,419 404,101 3,094,852 1,838,032 5,534,093 2000 Est. 174,201 36,101 377,634 4,508,814 4,198,759 9,295,509 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.98 1.86 0.93 1.46 2.28 1.68

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 91 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-8: COMPARISON OF 1994 OBSERVED AND 2000 SIMULATED PERSON TRIP TABLES DC Core Art Core Other DC Maryland Virginia Total D: Non-Home Based

DC Core 1994 Obs. 70,208 4,883 43,667 44,032 49,303 212,093 2000 Est. 54,375 5,288 33,283 45,394 62,914 201,254 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.77 1.08 0.76 1.03 1,28 0.95 Arlington Core 1994 Obs. 4,884 3,137 1,365 2,550 13,514 25,450 2000 Est. 5,158 3,670 3,453 8,872 24,877 46,030 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 1.06 1.17 2.53 3.48 1.84 1.81 Other DC 1994 Obs. 43,663 1,366 116,189 62,004 24,457 247,679 2000 Est. 33,289 3,565 95,399 67,148 33,678 233,079 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.76 2.61 0.82 1.08 1.38 0.94 Maryland 1994 Obs. 44,025 2,550 62,001 1,531,823 63,685 1,704,084 2000 Est. 48,052 9,738 69,982 3,039,372 102,471 3,269,615 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 1.09 3.82 1.13 1.98 1.61 1.92 Virginia 1994 Obs. 49,306 13,517 24,453 63,684 1,219,348 1,370,308 2000 Est. 62,041 24,166 32,660 96,231 2,813,344 3,028,442 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 1.26 1.79 1.34 1.51 2.31 2.21 Total 1994 Obs. 212,086 25,453 247,675 1,704,093 1,370,307 3,559,614 2000 Est. 202,915 46,427 234,777 3,257,017 3,037,284 6,778,420 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.96 1.82 0.95 1.91 2.22 1.90 E: All Purposes DC Core 1994 Obs. 104,109 5,403 67,115 56,494 65,412 298,533 2000 Est. 83,517 8,016 48,896 61,323 80,397 282,149 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.80 1.48 0.73 1.09 1.23 0.95 Arlington Core 1994 Obs. 10,300 4,783 2,416 3,257 18,532 39,288 2000 Est. 9,085 6,748 5,654 11,178 31,949 64,614 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.88 1.41 2.34 3.43 1.72 1.64 Other DC 1994 Obs. 256,491 10,298 504,820 232,515 78,610 1,082,734 2000 Est. 220,688 19,480 434,430 209,040 108,769 992,407 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.86 1.89 0.86 0.90 1.38 0.92

June 2002 92 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-8: COMPARISON OF 1994 OBSERVED AND 2000 SIMULATED PERSON TRIP TABLES DC Core Arl. Core Other DC Maryland Virginia Total Maryland 1994 Obs, 343,852 25,639 309,633 6,843,435 342,702 7,865,261 2000 Est. 332,894 50,876 307,405 10,425,270 443,758 11,560,203 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.97 1.98 0.99 1.52 1.29 1.47 Virginia 1994 Obs. 297,409 80,104 102,353 258,627 4,406,665 5,145,158 2000 Est. 339,869 98,136 139,448 364,078 9,281,205 10,222,736 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 1.14 1.23 1.36 1.41 2.11 1.99 Total 1994 Obs. 1,012,161 126,227 986,337 7,394,328 4,911,921 14,430,974 2000 Est. 986,053 183,256 935,833 11,070,889 9,946,078 23,122,109 2000 Est/1994 Obs. 0.97 1.45 0.95 1.50 2.02 1.60

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 93 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-9: COMPARISON OF 1994 OBSERVED AND 2000 SIMULATED TRANSIT SHARES OF SELECTED MARKETS (FROM MODE CHOICE MODEL) Observed 1994 Model 2000 Transit Transit Market Pairs Person Trips % Transit Person Trips % Transit Home Based Work Trips DC ncore - DC core 77,130 58 67,274 57 DC ncore - DC ncore 20,923 29 18,415 31 Mont. Co. - DC core 53,417 48 45,425 47 Mont. Co. - Mont. Co. 11,016 4 8,726 3 PG Co. - DC core 36,996 36 41,292 45 Arl. Ncore - DC core 30,107 62 30,081 68 Alex. - DC core 13,457 50 15,161 46 FFX Co. - DC core 42,263 41 40,228 38 FFX Co. - Arl. core 12,907 46 12,108 49 FFX Co. - Arl. ncore 15,997 26 16,691 25 Home Based School Trips DC ncore - DC core 3,512 43 2,923 59 DC ncore - DC ncore 4,500 7 4,254 8 Mont. Co. - DC core 0 0 26 3 Mont. Co. - Mont. Co. 6,459 2 5,997 1 PG Co. - DC core 654 54 703 42 Arl. Ncore - DC core 346 100 427 28 Alex. - DC core 116 100 145 43 FFX Co. - DC core 0 0 1 0 FFX Co. - Arl. core 0 0 22 2 FFX Co. - Arl. ncore 1,374 24 1,365 26 Home Based Other Trips DC ncore - DC core 22,302 29 19,491 30 DC ncore - DC ncore 40,598 16 35,287 15 Mont. Co. - DC core 9,094 40 8,277 48 Mont. Co. - Mont. Co. 4,583 1 4,382 1 PG Co. - DC core 2,406 14 2,675 14 Arl. Ncore - DC core 5,096 38 5,283 30 Alex. - DC core 994 31 1,109 14 FFX Co. - DC core 9,074 34 9,763 32 FFX Co. - Arl. core 0 0 713 9 FFX Co. - Arl. ncore 1,023 3 951 1 Non-Home Based Trips DC ncore - DC core 9,200 23 7,335 22 DC ncore - DC ncore 4,386 4 4,164 4 Mont. Co. - DC core 6,154 40 6,229 38

June 2002 94 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-9: COMPARISON OF 1994 OBSERVED AND 2000 SIMULATED TRANSIT SHARES OF SELECTED MARKETS (FROM MODE CHOICE MODEL) Observed 1994 Model 2000 Transit Transit Market Pairs Person Trips % Transit Person Trips % Transit Mont. Co. - Mont. Co. 3,050 1 7,897 1 PG Co. - DC core 4,627 24 4,919 18 Arl. Ncore - DC core 4,383 35 4,118 23 Alex. - DC core 861 15 1,032 14 FFX Co. - DC core 4,897 21 5,136 16 FFX Co. - Arl. core 243 5 255 3 FFX Co. - Arl. ncore 1,117 4 1,516 3

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 95 June 2002 TABLE 3-10: COMPARISON OF 1994 OBSERVED AND 2000 SIMULATED RAIL TRIP ENDS (FROM SUB-MODE CHOICE MODEL) HBW HBO NHB TOTAL

1994Obs 2000 Sim. Ratio 1994 Obs 2000 Sim. Ratio 1994Obs 2000 Sim. Ratio 1994Obs 2000 Sim. Ratio

Metrorail Trip Productions DC 80,715 94,872 1.18 31,334 33,724 1.08 63,110 61,669 0.98 175,159 190,265 1.09 MTG 68,616 67,839 0.99 13,129 14,515 1.11 8,442 11,727 1.39 90,187 94,081 1.04 PG 55,657 96,779 1.74 7,511 9,579 1.28 2,160 6,155 2.85 65,328 112.5131 1.72 ARL/ALX 52,477 65,584 1.25 11,340 14,621 1.29 15,008 20,521 1.37 78,825 100,726 1.28 FFX 54,415 46,142 0.85 6,995 13,400 1.92 2,302 9,107 3.96 63,712 68,649 1.08 Other 17,373 24,440 1.41 1,820 859 0.47 - 1,360 - 19,193 26,659 1.39 Total 329,253 395,656 1.20 72,129 86,698 1.20 91,022 110,539 1.21 492,404 592,893 1.20 Metrorail Trip Attractions DC 260,400 302,058 1.16 52,745 53,955 1.02 60,122 61,022 1.01 373,267 417,035 1.12 MTG 19,102 29,219 1.53 6,907 10,560 1.53 9,655 13,403 1.39 35,664 53,182 1.49 PG 2,672 7,584 2,84 2,126 4,461 2.10 2,913 6,197 2.13 7,711 18,242 2.37 ARL/ALX 43,266 44,558 1,03 9,036 12,844 1.42 15,409 20,337 1.32 67,711 77,739 1.15 FFX 3,813 11,806 3.10 1,315 4,676 3.56 2,923 9,457 3.24 8,051 25,939 3.22 Other - 431 - - 202 - - 123 - - 756 - Total 329,253 395,656 1.20 72,129 86,698 1.20 91,022 110,539 1.21 492,404 592.893 1.20

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 96 June 2002 Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-11: COMPARISON OF 2000 OBSERVED AND SIMULATED DAILY BOARDINGS 2000 Station Name Observed 2000 Simulated % Difference Farragut North 25,562 26,570 3.94% Metro Center 28,835 12,881 -55.33% Gallery Place 12,282 3,213 -73.84% Judiciary Square 9,598 13,901 44.83% Archives 7,555 4,600 -39.11% Farragut West 24,957 15,380 -38.37% McPherson Square 16,166 25,031 54.84% Federal Triangle 10,397 10,887 4.71% Sector 0 Stations Subtotal 135,352 112,463 -16.91% Dupont Circle 22,164 18,279 -17.53% Union Station 29,756 14,808 -50.24% Georgia Ave. - Petwor 2,958 4,971 68.05% Columbia Heights 4,015 4,875 21.42% U Street - Cardoza 3,549 3,684 3.80% Shaw - Howard Univ. 3,048 3,813 25.10% Mt. Vernon Sq. - UDC 1,609 3,598 123.62% L'Enfant Plaza 19,830 13,898 -29.91% Waterfront 4,548 4,387 -3.54% Navy Yard 1,918 3,138 63.61% Foggy Bottom - GWU 19,622 23,994 22.28% Smithsonian 15,800 9,160 -42.03% Federal Center SW 5,748 4,399 -23.47% Capitol South 8,445 9,915 17.41% Other DC Core Stations Subtotal 143,010 122,919 -14.05% National Airport 5,281 2,806 -46.87% National Airport Station Subtotal 5,281 2,806 -46.87% Pentagon 16,230 14.788 -8.88% Pentagon Station Subtotal 16,230 14,788 -8.88% Crystal City 12,591 8,686 -31.01% Pentagon City 12,023 4,884 -59.38% Arlington Cemetery 2,280 99 -95.66% Rosslyn 15,528 16,515 6.36% VA Core Stations Subtotal 42,422 30,184 -28.85% Bethesda 8,789 11,239 27.88% Friendship Heights 9,333 10,474 12.23% Tenleytown 6,094 9,531 56.40% Van Ness - UDC 6,553 6,597 0.67% Cleveland Park 4,380 4,308 -1.64% Woodley Park - Zoo 7,170 8,746 21.98% Conn.-Wisconsin Stations Subtotal 42,319 50,895 20.27%

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 97 June 2002 Tab/es Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-11: COMPARISON OF 2000 OBSERVED AND SIMULATED DAILY BOARDINGS 2000 Station Name Observed 2000 Simulated % Difference Rhode Island Ave. 4,894 5,584 14.10% Brookland - CUA 6,198 3,882 -37.37% Fort Totten 5,147 6,126 19.02% Anacostia 10,179 5,246 -48.46% Congress Heights 0 4,003 n/a Southern Ave. 0 6,883 n/a Naylor Road 0 2,572 n/a Eastern Market 4,608 2,908 -36.89% Potomac Ave. 3,527 2,536 -28.10% Stadium - Armory 3,179 3,186 0.22% Minnesota Ave. 2,691 2,530 -5.98% Deanwood 1,771 2,211 24.84% Benning Road 2,981 3,409 14.36% DC East Stations Subtotal 45,175 51,076 13.06% Shady Grove 10,433 7,067 -32.26% Rockville 4,032 4,190 3.92% Twin brook 4,006 3,837 -4.22% White Flint 4,260 3,856 -9.48% Grosvenor 3,663 4,626 26.29% Medical Center 4,456 6,145 37.90% West Mont. Co. Stations Subtotal 30,850 29,721 -3.66% Takoma 5,629 6,692 18.88% Silver Spring 12,018 10,150 -15.54% Forest Glen 1,916 2,687 40.24% Wheaton 4,222 3,913 -7.32% Glenmont 4,883 7,215 47.76% East Mont. Co. Stations Subtotal 28,668 30,657 6.94% Greenbelt 6,487 5,655 -12.83% College Park - U. of 3,194 3,323 4.04% Prince George's Plaza 5,383 3,851 -28.46% West Hyattsville 2,847 4,202 47.59% Suitland 0 4,337 n/a Branch Ave. 0 5,100 na Cheverly 1,567 2,781 77.47% Landover 3,579 4,751 32.75% New Carrollton 9,152 4,225 -53.84% Capitol Heights 2,355 4,266 81.15% Addison Road 6,892 5,634 -18.25% PG Co. Stations Subtotal 41,456 48,125 16.09% Eisenhower 1,256 2,958 135.51% King Street | 5,524 7,079 28.15%

June 2002 98 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-11: COMPARISON OF 2000 OBSERVED AND SIMULATED DAILY BOARDINGS 2000 Station Name Observed 2000 Simulated % Difference Braddock Road 3,553 7,865 121.36% Ballston 10,859 11,489 5.80% Virginia Square 2,434 4,833 98.56% Clarendon 2,803 4,172 48.84% Court House 7,488 8,730 16.59% Inner VA Stations Subtotal 33,917 47,126 38.95% Franconia-Springfield 3,629 5,145 41.77% Van Dom Street 7,901 8,958 13.38% Huntington 8,249 6,892 -16.45% Vienna 10,916 10,369 -5.01% Dunn Loring 4,464 5,459 22.29% West Falls Church 7,377 7,556 2.43% East Falls Church 3,960 7,705 94.57% VA Suburban Stations Subtotal 46,496 52,084 12.02%

All Stations 611,176 592,844 -3.00%

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 99 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-12: DEFINITION OF LAND USE CATEGORIES (VALUE IN TABLE IS THE CATEGORY) Employment Density (Employees per Square Mile Population 1,500- 3,551 - 13,751 - Density 0-100 101 - 350 351 -1,500 3,550 13,750 15,000 >15,000 0-750 7 7 6 6 4 4 2 751 -1,500 6 5 5 4 4 4 2 1,500-3,500 5 5 5 4 4 4 2 3,501 - 6,000 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 6,001 -10,000 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 10,001 -15,000 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 >15,000 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

TABLE 3-13: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY INFORMATION REPORT OF INPUT ARRAYS Size 1 2 3 4+ Regional Proportion of Households by Income and Size Low income 0.1232 0.0615 0.0301 0.0352 Low-med income 0.0799 0.0757 0.0415 0.0529 High-med income 0.0350 0.0857 0.0529 0.0764 High income 0.0153 0.0844 0.0593 0.0910 Average Workers/Household by Income and Size Low income 0.5447 0.8650 1.2666 1.4496 Low-med income 0.8729 1.1885 1.8361 2.0295 High-med income 0.8555 1.3669 2,0365 2.2954 High income 0.8680 1.5910 2.2739 2.4641

June 2002 100 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-14: TRIP GENERATION INTERMEDIATE RESULTS - 1990 REPORT OF ESTIMATED HHS BY SIZE AND VEHICLES AVAILABLE Vehicles: 0 Persons Workers perHH 0 1 2 3+ Total 1 45,658 46,695 0 0 92,353 2 10,620 17,924 8,661 0 37,205 3 4,274 7,089 4,489 2,106 17,959 4+ 4,940 7,706 7,642 5,219 25,508 Total 65,493 79,414 20,793 7,325 173,025 Vehicles: 1 Persons Workers perHH 0 1 2 3+ Total 1 66,599 226,036 0 0 292,635 2 28,039 90,547 43,880 0 162,466 3 4,983 24,825 26,959 8,680 65,447 4+ 4,070 19,694 29,908 15,728 69,399 Total 103,691 361,102 100,746 24,408 589,947 Vehicles: 2 Persons Workers perHH 0 1 2 3+ Total 1 7,973 32,813 0 0 40,786 2 32,047 118,142 143,884 0 294,073 3 4.501 28,519 92,923 25,098 151,042 4+ 4,283 46,838 119,012 41,135 211,268 Total 48,804 226,312 355,819 66,234 697,169 Vehicles: 3+ Persons. Workers perHH 0 1 2 3+ Total 1 1,775 6,006 0 0 7,781 2 5,099 26,102 34,240 0 65,441 3 5,654 10,404 39,227 49,810 105,095 4+ 7,844 14,366 49,907 94,455 166,573 Total 20,373 56,877 123,374 144,265 344,889 Vehicles: All Persons Workers perHH 0 1 2 3+ Total 1 122,006 311,549 0 0 433,555 2 75,806 252,714 230,665 0 559,186 3 19,412 70,838 163,598 85,694 339,540 4+ 21,137 88,604 206,469 156,538 472,748 Total 238,360 723,703 600,732 242,231 1,805,032

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 101 June 2002 TABLE 3-15: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - HOME BASED WORK (HBW) 0 Workers 1 Worker Size 1 Size 2 Size3 Size 4+ Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 OCar 1.4017 0.9200 1.4508 1.4508 1 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 Car 1.4017 1.3486 1.4508 1.4508 2 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2 Car 1.4017 1.4227 1.6115 1.6115 3+Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3+Car 1.4017 1.4524 1.6115 1.6115 2 Workers 3+ Workers Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0000 2.7345 2.4386 2.4386 OCar 0.0000 0.0000 3.2667 3.2667 1 Car 0.0000 2.7345 2.4386 2.4386 1 Car 0.0000 0.0000 3.2667 3.2667 2 Car 0.0000 2.7345 2.6537 2.6537 2 Car 0.0000 0.0000 3.8298 3.8298 3+Car 0.0000 2.7345 2.6537 2.6537 3+Car 0.0000 0.0000 3.8298 3.8298

TABLE 3-16: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - HOME BASED UNIVERSITY (HBU) 0 Workers 1 Worker Size 1 Size 2 Size3 Size 4+ Sizel Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0407 0.0513 0.1395 0.3941 OCar 0.0306 0.0863 0.2250 0.3941 1 Car 0.0407 0.0513 0.1395 0.3941 1 Car 0.0306 0.0863 0.2250 0.3941 2 Car 0.0407 0.0513 0.1395 0.3941 2 Car 0.0306 0.0863 0.2250 0.3941 3+Car 0.0407 0.0513 0.1395 0.3941 3+Car 0.0306 0.0863 0.2250 0.3941 2 Workers 3+ Workers Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0000 0.0863 0.2250 0.3941 OCar 0.0000 0.0000 0.2250 0.3941 1 Car 0.0000 0.0863 0.2250 0.3941 1 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.2250 0.3941 2 Car 0.0000 0.0863 0.2250 0.3941 2 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.2250 0.3941 3+ Car 0.0000 0.0863 0.2250 0.3941 3+Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.2250 0.3941

June 2002 102 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-17: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - HOME BASED SHOP (HBS) 0 Workers 1 Worker Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.4564 0.5000 1.0313 1.0313 OCar 0.2373 0.5000 0.9600 1.0313 1 Car 0.5526 1.1273 1.0313 1.0313 1 Car 0.3006 0.5860 0.9600 1.0313 2 Car 0.5526 1.1502 1.2380 1.5179 2 Car 0.3006 0.9200 1.2040 1.5179 3+Car 0.5526 1.1739 1.3900 2.0100 3+Car 0.3006 0.9300 1.3400 2.0100 2 Workers 3+ Workers Sizel Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0000 0.5000 0.6949 0.9420 OCar 0.0000 0.0000 0.6949 0.9420 1 Car 0.0000 0.5096 0.8000 0.9420 1 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.7300 0.9420 2 Car 0.0000 0.5096 0.8000 1.2600 2 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.7300 1.0659 3+Car 0.0000 0.5096 0.9420 1.4182 3+Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.9200 1.1538

TABLE 3-18: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - HOME BASED MISCELLANEOUS (HBM) 0 Workers 1 Worker Sizel Size 2 Size3 Size 4+ Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.6376 1.1333 1.7500 5.0000 OCar 0.4703 1.0400 1.0000 5.4349 1 Car 1.0581 1.6773 2.9487 5.0000 1 Car 0.6482 1.8693 2.5437 5.4349 2 Car 1.2667 2.2536 2.9487 5.0000 2 Car 0.9043 1.8693 2.5437 5.4349 3+Car 1.2667 2.2536 2.9487 5.0000 3+Car 1.2000 1.8693 2.5437 5.4349 2 Workers 3+ Workers Sizel Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ Sizel Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0000 0.9091 2.4311 5.0188 OCar 0.0000 0.0000 2.4311 4.6009 1 Car 0.0000 1.0309 2.4311 5.0188 1 Car 0.0000 0.0000 2.4311 4.6009 2 Car 0.0000 1.2874 2.4311 5.0188 2 Car 0.0000 0.0000 2.4311 4.6009 3+Car 0.0000 1.4379 2.4311 5.0188 3+Car 0.0000 0.0000 2.4311 4.6009

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 103 June 2002 TABLE 3-19: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - JOURNEY TO WORK (JTW) 0 Worker 1 Worker Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ Sizel Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 OCar 0.3602 0.4000 0.3750 0.4349 1 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 Car 0.4824 0.4265 0.3849 0.4349 2 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2 Car 0.4824 0.4265 0.3849 0.4349 3+Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3+Car 0,4824 0.4265 0.3849 0.4349 2 Workers 3+ Workers Size 1 Size 2 Size3 Size 4+ Sizel Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0000 0.7045 0.6922 0.6922 OCar 0.0000 0.0000 1.1010 1.1010 1 Car 0.0000 0.7465 0.6922 0.6922 1 Car 0.0000 0.0000 1.1010 1.1010 2 Car 0.0000 0.7465 0.6922 0.6922 2 Car 0.0000 0.0000 1.1010 1.1010 3+Car 0.0000 0.8954 0.6922 0.6922 3+Car 0.0000 0.0000 1.1010 1.1010

TABLE 3-20: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - JOURNEY AT WORK (JAW) 0 Workers 1 Worker Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 OCar 0.3305 0.3646 0.4278 0.4278 1 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 Car 0.4626 0.3646 0.4278 0.4278 2 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2 Car 0.6147 0.3646 0.4278 0.4278 3+ Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3+Car 0.6147 0.3646 0.4278 0.4278 2 Workers 3+ Workers Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ Sizel Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0000 0.7113 0.7174 0.7171 OCar 0.0000 0.0000 0.9403 0.9403 1 Car 0.0000 0.7113 0.7174 0.7174 1 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.9403 0.9403 2 Car 0.0000 0.7113 0.7174 0.7174 2 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.9403 0.9403 3+Car 0.0000 0.7113 0.7174 0.7174 3+Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.9403 0.9403

June 2002 104 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-21: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RATES - NON-HOME BASED/NON-WORK (NHB) 0 Workers 1 Worker Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ OCar 0.4302 0.9360 0.7442 1.0345 OCar 0.1667 0.3979 0.7949 1.2232 1 Car 0.7807 0.9360 0.7442 1.0345 1 Car 0.1667 0.3979 0.7949 1.2232 2 Car 0.7807 1.5109 0.7442 1.0345 2 Car 0.1667 0.4719 0.7949 1.2232 3+Car 0.7807 1.5109 0.7442 1.0345 3+Car 0.1667 0.4719 0.7949 1.2232 2 Workers 3+ Workers Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4+ Size 1 Size 2 Size3 Size 4+ OCar 0.0000 0.3979 0.7949 1.2232 OCar 0.0000 0.0000 0.7949 1.2232 1 Car 0.0000 0.3979 0.7949 1.2232 1 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.7949 1.2232 2 Car 0.0000 0.4719 0.7949 1.2232 2 Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.7949 1.2232 3+Car 0.0000 0.4719 0.7949 1.2232 3+Car 0.0000 0.0000 0.7949 1.2232

TABLE 3-22: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS TRIP ATTRACTION RATES Variable Purpose Total Households Retail Other School Total Households w/in 3 Miles Employment Employment Enrolment Employment Home Based Work (HBW) 1.08285 Home Based University (HBU) 0.85253 Home Based Shop (HBS) 0.00247 2.84307 -0.14506 Home Based Miscellaneous (HBM) 1.50632 1.83685 0.17838 Journey to Work (JTW) 0.00193 0.65168 0.16867 Journey at Work (JAW) 0.00087 0.26108 0.25381 Non-Home Based/Non-Work (NNW) 0.37113 0.95011 0.02493

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 105 June 2002 TABLE 3-23: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS REVISED SURVEY ADJUSTMENT FACTORS HBWO HBW1 HBW2 HBW3 HBU HBShO HBShl HBSh2 HBSh3 HBO0 HB01 HB02 HB03 JTW JAW NNW 1 DC Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.50 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.50 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 2 DC Non-Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.50 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.50 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 3 Montgomery Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.50 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.50 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 4 Montg Non-Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.50 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.50 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 5 Prince Georges 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.80 1.50 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.50 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 6 Arlington Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 1.50 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.50 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 7 Arl Non-Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 1.50 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.50 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 A 1,95 8 Alexandria Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.77 1.50 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.50 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 9 Alex Non-Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.77 1.50 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.50 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 10 Fairfax Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.71 1.50 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.50 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 11 Ffx Non-Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.71 1.50 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.50 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 12 Loudoun 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.62 1.50 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.50 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 13 Prince William 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.50 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.50 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29

June 2002 106 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-24: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS TRIP PRODUCTION FACTORS HBWO HBW1 HBW2 HBW3 HBU HBShO HBShl HBSh2 HBSh3 HBO0 HBOI HB02 HB03 JTW JAW NNW 1 DC Core 1.1341 1.6961 1.5794 0.9880 1.2309 0.9042 0.8766 0.7415 0.2848 0.7220 0.8949 0.8747 0.4493 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2 DC Non-Core 0.7792 0.8073 1.0132 0.8667 0.7274 0.4746 0.5426 0.5208 0.6847 0.5599 0.5731 0.6918 0.5393 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3 Montgomery Core 1.2790 1.0990 0.6008 0.9692 0.6966 2.6868 1.3482 0.5839 0.9811 1.0924 0.9203 0.5963 0.4510 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 4 Montg Non-Core 0.3777 0.6108 0.9349 1.0464 0.8835 0.3746 0.8622 0.9364 0.9337 0.3327 0.6906 0.8609 0.9994 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5 Prince Georges 0.3739 0.8416 0.7246 1.1131 1.3530 0.8474 1.2577 1.1260 1.2196 0.1659 1.0114 1.1029 1.0183 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 6 Arlington Core 1.4374 1.0310 0.6094 1.0982 1.2212 0.3558 2.7130 0.8076 1.7976 0.1808 1.4589 0.7177 0.4593 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 7 Arl Non-Core 0.7544 0.9106 1.2891 1.4443 1.3460 0.3558 1.1552 1.5570 2.9263 0.2991 1.3810 1.3745 2.2317 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 8 Alexandria Core 0.7049 1.2517 1.1199 1.0486 1.4259 0.3959 1.2984 1.5052 0.6112 0.2475 1.1858 1.1838 0.6305 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 9 Alex Non-Core 0.7049 1.2517 1.1199 1.0486 1.4259 0.3959 1.2984 1.5052 0.6112 0.2475 1.1858 1.1838 0.6305 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 10 Fairfax Core 0.3153 0.6915 0.9642 1.0747 1.0564 0.3912 1.0026 1.2861 1.2911 0.2869 0.7851 1.2462 1.4123 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 11 Ffx Non-Core 0.3153 0.6915 0.9642 1.0747 1.0564 0.3912 1.0026 1.2861 1.2911 0.2869 0.7851 1.2462 1.4123 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 12 Loudoun 0.4425 0.6972 0.7810 0.9794 0.9874 0.8306 0.8559 0.7265 0.8947 0.1908 1.1832 0.8805 1.1643 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 13 Prince William 0.5050 0.4442 1.0306 1.4043 0.9683 0.9114 0.2566 0.8692 0.9805 0.1723 0.2151 0.9607 1.1375 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 14 Frederick 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 15 Howard 0.3695 0.4451 0.7065 0.9296 0.7957 0.7839 0.4909 0.7575 0.8858 0.1634 0.6056 0.8696 1.0804 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 16 Anne Arundel 0.3979 0.4794 0.7609 1.0012 0.8569 0.8274 0.5182 0.7996 0.9350 0.1725 0.6392 0.9179 1.1404 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 17 Charles 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 18 Carroll 0.3127 0.3767 0.5978 0.7866 0.6733 0.7404 0.4636 0.7154 0.8366 0.1543 0.5719 0.8213 1.0203 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 19 Calvert 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 20 St Mary's 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 21 King George 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 22 Fredericksburg 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 23 Stafford 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 24 Spotsylvania 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 25 Fauquier 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 26 Clarke 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 27 Jefferson 0.4738 0.5707 0.9058 1.1919 0.9779 0.8710 0.5563 0.7979 0.9376 0.1816 0.6992 0.9206 1.1509 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 107 June 2002 TABLE 3-25: TRIP GENERATION INPUTS TRIP ATTRACTION FACTORS HBWO HBW1 HBW2 HBW3 HBU HBShO HBShl HBSh2 HBSh3 HBO0 HBOI HB02 HB03 JTW JAW NNW 1 DC Core 1.8849 1.2986 1.1747 1.5689 0.3505 1.3953 0.3501 0.1438 0.1770 2.1118 0.7565 0.4422 0.5716 0.6198 0.6729 0.5353 2 DC Non-Core 2.1409 1.1315 1.1987 1.3094 0.5510 1.7265 0.5366 0,3569 0.3290 3.5954 0.8214 0.3717 0.4544 0.5084 0.5323 0.5266 3 Montgomery Core 1.6377 0.9928 0.7163 0.5493 1.3386 1.0123 0.9989 0.6093 0.5138 4.8182 0.9975 0.7367 0.6101 0.6000 0.5372 1.0130 4 Montg Non-Core 0.6203 0.9855 1.0112 0.7589 1.3386 1.5762 1.3995 1.1216 0.7983 1.6487 1.2249 1.0049 0.7340 0.8192 0.7513 0.8680 5 Prince Georges 0.4145, 1.2439 0.8415 0.7381 1.0668 2.8146 1.5436 1.0650 1.4184 1.5252 1.4048 1.1837 1.0740j 0.9503 0.9312 1.0656 6 Arlington Core 0.9575 1.1431 1.0110 1.0398 3.6435 2.4213 2.1697 1.4331 2.3591 3.1808 0.9269 0.9783 0.5964 1.0394 1.0087 0.9576 7 Arl Non-Core 1,0771 1.1775 0.9610 0.9709 3.6435 3.0100 1.9079 1.7144 2.3591 1.2831 1.6312 1.1987 1.8139 1.4053 1.4928 1.3629 8 Alexandria Core 3.7508 0.6179 1.3124 0.6494 1.2640 0.2805 1.0609 0.4365 0.8338 3.8372 0.9874 0.2587 0.1523 0.9867 1.1877 0.5109 9 Alex Non-Core 1.6998 1.8376 0.9137 0.9214 1.2640 0.2805 1.4116 0.7475 1.5032 0.8143 1.4336 1.0292 0.9427 1.0285 1.0481 1.0949 10 Fairfax Core 0.5085 1.3144 0.9822 0.6195 1.4494 1.1260 0.2991 0.3112 0.3460 1.0519 0.6884 0.3316 0.3277 0.7947 1.0279 0.5447 11 Ffx Non-Core 0.5085 1.4040 1.2678 0.8674 1.4494 1.1260 1.4133 1.6319 1.0803 1.0519 1.5316 1.5911 1.1506 1.1677 1.2236 1.2075 12 Loudoun 0.8238 1.7178 0.7233 0.6631 0.8980 2.6745 1.3897 1.0745 0.9223 0.6618 2.4971 1.1329 1.3404 1.0468 1.2554 1.0008 13 Prince William 0.5174 0.5630 1.4499 1.0414 1.6205 1.4191 1.2204 1.2204 1.2204 1.3498 1.1608 1.1608 1.1608 0.9843 0.7547 1.0208 14 Frederick 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108 15 Howard 0.4828 0.8211 0.7824 0.6136 0.9777 1.7398 1.1500 1.0260 0.9661 0.8549 1.5563 1.0195 1.1011 0.7610 0.7344 0.7609 16 Anne Arundel 0.5901 1.0036 0.9562 0.7500 1.1950 1.8421 1.2177 1.0863 1.0229 0.9052 1.6479 1.0795 1.1659 0.9301 0.8976 0.9300 17 Charles 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108 18 Carroll 0.5566 0.9465 0.9019 0.7074 1.1271 1.6374 1.0824 0.9656 0.9092 0.8046 1.4648 0.9595 1.0364 0.8772 0.8466 0.8772 19 Calvert 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108 20 St Mary's 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108 21 King George 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 n0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108 22 Fredericksburg 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108 23 Stafford 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108 24 Spotsylvania 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108 25 Fauquier 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108 26 Clarke 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108 27 Jefferson 0.6706 1.1404 1.0866 0.8523 1.2593 2.0468 1.3051 1.1475 1.0714 1.0058 1.8289 1.1469 1.2506 1.0156 1.0051 1.0108

June 2002 108 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-26: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY - REPORT OF TRIP RATIOS - 1990 Vehicles Purpose Item 0 1 2 3+ Total Tot Trips 121,494 637,868 1,324,477 1,049,145 3,132,984 Trips/Empl 0.041 0.215 0.446 0.353 1.055 HBW Trips/HH 0.067 0.353 0.734 0.581 1.736 Trips/Psn 0.025 0.133 0.275 0.218 0.651 Tot Trips 9,497 41,290 196,748 141,833 389,368 Trips/Empl 0.003 0.014 0.066 0.048 0.131 HBU Trips/HH 0.005 0.023 0.109 0.079 0.216 Trips/Psn 0.002 0.009 0.041 0.029 0.081 Tot Trips 91,703 411,595 911,801 602,032 2,017,131 Trips/Empl 0.031 0.139 0.307 0.203 0.679 HBSh Trips/HH 0.051 0.228 0.505 0.334 1.118 Trips/Psn 0.019 0.086 0.190 0.125 0.419 Tot Trips 125,375 1,100,772 2,915,360 1,994,484 6,135,991 Trips/Empl 0.042 0.371 0.982 0.672 2.067 HBO Trips/HH 0.069 0.610 1.615 1.105 3.399 Trips/Psn 0.026 0.229 0.606 0.415 1.276 Tot Trips 1,502,514 Trips/Empl 0.506 JTW Trips/HH 0.832 Trips/Psn 0.312 Tot Trips 1,413,371 Trips/Empl 0.476 JAW Trips/HH 0.783 Trips/Psn 0.294 Tot Trips 1,888,319 Trips/Empl 0.636 NNW Trips/HH 1.046 Trips/Psn 0.393 Tot Trips 16,479,680 Trips/Empl 5.550 All Trips/HH 9.130 Trips/Psn 3.426

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 109 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-27: TRIP GENERATION RESULTS REPORT OF TRIP ENDS BY AREA TYPE - 1990 Productions Area Type HBW HBU HBSh HBO JTW JAW NNW 1 Urban High Density 73,025 3,097 24,868 55,237 118,432 145,860 53,860 2 Urban Commercial 511,481 44,252 278,154 759,835 378,023 390,425 340,046 3 Urban Residential 1,098,993 141,257 773,589 2,227,592 446,530 363,128 705,096 4 Suburban Commercial 381,569 51,790 262,422 813,195 116,848 97,742 220,364 5 Suburban Residential 118,284 17,309 79,976 266,668 141,901 149,199 131,083 6 Rural 630,353 88,071 408,019 1,341,237 108,652 89,810 285,728 7 Exurban 319,276 43,602 190,097 672,236 64,694 64,140 148,529 Attractions Area Type HBW HBU HBSh HBO JTW JAW NNW 1 Urban High Density 573,281 9,362 45,335 172,179 118,432 145,860 53,860 2 Urban Commercial 977,950 171,837 367,902 998,678 378,023 390,425 340,046 3 Urban Residential 742,518 83,761 879,435 2,208,542 446,530 363,128 705,096 4 Suburban Commercial 201,129 50,772 229,581 741,541 116,848 97,742 220,364 5 Suburban Residential 317,852 28,839 189,413 414,199 141,901 149,199 131,083 6 Rural 183,555 31,961 209,933 1,039,131 108,652 89,810 285,728 7 Exurban 136,691 12,838 95,510 561,711 64,694 64,140 148,529

June 2002 110 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-28A: TRIP GENERATION RESULTS TRIP PRODUCTIONS BY JURISDICTION - 1990 Jurisdiction HBWO HBW1 HBW2 HBW3 HBU HBS0 HBS1 HBS2 1 DC Core 28,831 50,021 24,928 5,053 4,988 14,210 12,235 6,241 2 DC Non-Core 40,770 112,318 101,613 31,818 20,275 19,726 43,689 32,070 3 Montgomery Core 2,672 9,204 6,400 5,584 1,970 4,808 6,847 3,940

4 Montg Non-Core 6,366 72,369 224,850 L 170,810 52,528 5,009 56,652 137,630 5 Prince Georges 8,116 102,735 157,412 152,728 78,323 16,104 93,649 159,897 6 Arlington Core 3,890 9,626 3,459 2,027 1,373 611 11,928 2,468 7 Art Non-Core 8,798 40,679 53,019 25,189 12,537 2,935 26,605 36,609 8 Alexandria Core 206 2,208 1,912 838 469 87 1,129 1,445 9 Alex Non-Core 4,484 40,227 34,963 14,939 9,479 1,903 21,753 27,457 10 Fairfax Core 45 826 1,397 818 280 40 579 1,052 11 Ffx Non-Core 4,939 84,697 271,989 224,441 76,758 4,829 67,620 223,435 12 Loudoun 575 7,951 22,587 20,789 7,391 913 5,714 13,431 13 Prince William 1,977 13,333 80,640 81,998 21,516 3,184 4,762 45,359 14 Frederick 1,298 12,104 41,707 37,151 12,050 2,166 7,301 24,685 15 Howard 1,069 11,249 43,901 43,446 12,750 1,870 7,024 29,524 16 Anne Arundel 2,992 27,652 102,262 94,362 30,977 5,517 18,087 70,818 17 Charles 742 6,969 28,913 27,631 8,818 1,223 4,259 17,151 18 Carroll 621 5,998 23,240 21,342 7,147 1,305 4,562 18,657 19 Calvert 422 3,854 14,423 13,084 4,455 705 2,360 8,721 20 St Mary's 696 6,006 20,577 17,582 6,141 1,215 3,805 12,577 21 King George 131 1,091 3,650 3,086 1,091 235 707 2,255 22 Fredericksburg 242 1,957 4,901 3,591 1,385 439 1,260 3,079 23 Stafford 418 3,969 16,926 16,251 5,207 684 2,424 10,057 24 Spotsylvania 346 3,116 12,439 11,332 3,825 578 1,942 7,518 25 Fauquier 330 3,429 13,969 13,499 4,070 517 1,993 8,049 26 Clarke 107 981 3,270 2,754 937 182 608 1,972 27 Jefferson 395 3,295 9,144 7,001 2,638 707 2,112 5,713 41 TOTAL 121,478 637,864 1,324,491 1,049,144 389,378 91,702 411,606 911,810

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 111 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-28B: TRIP GENERATION RESULTS TRIP PRODUCTIONS BY JURISDICTION - 1990 Jurisdiction HBS3 HBO0 HB01 HB02 HB03 JTW JAW NNW 1 DC Core 735 22,342 32,873 21,353 3,492 152,273 183,329 66,917 2 DC Non-Core 14,198 55,544 137,168 132,430 34,580 80,660 68,096 91,535 3 Montgomery Core 3,257 4,699 14,136 12,619 4,650 28,839 28,541 35,895 4 Montg Non-Core 85,448 9,596 129,481 392,462 285,010 160,525 133,628 246,691 5 Prince George's 99,986 7,384 224,839 491,797 259,030 182,908 149,146 304,442 6 Arlington Core 1,686 535 15,949 6,250 1,293 45,605 60,195 17,015 7 Arl Non-Core 26,990 5,047 87,652 98,466 64,110 59,300 52,484 74,617 8 i Alexandria Core 258 103 2,549 3,235 795 5,671 6,936 2,503 9 Alex Non-Core 4,724 2,279 51,512 63,427 14,785 49,432 45,309 59,070 10 Fairfax Core 524 47 1,071 2,857 1,690 20,983 24,100 12,574 11 Ffx Non-Core 152,067 7,460 150,994 679,961 524,425 261,623 241,855 400,862 12J Loudoun 11,116 457 22,667 50,455 44,813 20,331 23,712 31,703 13 Prince William 34,826 1,465 12,393 160,928 126,671 45,741 30,887 85,831 14 Frederick 18,053 1,009 26,828 88,687 68,022 26,961 25,197 53,058 15 Howard 23,750 805 24,416 105,382 90,388 35,402 36,273 54,411 16 Anne Arundel 53,200 2,691 66,685 255,938 201,360 102,073 102,383 153,297 17 Charles 13,398 627 16,691 63,294 51,254 22,365 18,147 40,407 18 Carroll 14,004 643 17,058 67,553 52,745 19,668 18,560 37,114 19 Calvert 6,528 369 9,317 32,393 24,881 7,437 6,859 16,243 20 St Mary's 8,886 608 14,528 45,532 33,266 15,758 15,331 27,177 21 King George 1,576 117 2,689 8,118 5,872 1,107 1,125 3,640 22 Fredericksburg 1,893 199 4,481 10,690 6,846 6,051 5,172 9,743 23 Stafford 7,899 359 9,631 37,304 30,265 3,969 2,728 15,851 24 Spotsylvania 5,633 304 7,757 27,821 21,443 4,803 3,847 13,391 25 Fauquier 6,372 245 7,436 29,256 24,292 6,564 6,553 14,754 26 Clarke 1,374 87 2,245 7,025 5,112 1,431 1,713 3,303 27 Jefferson 3,661 333 7,720 20,137 13,385 7,600 8,198 12,662 41 TOTAL 602,042 125,354 1,100,766 2,915,370 1,994,475 1,375,080 1,300,304 1,884,706

June 2002 112 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-29A: TRIP GENERATION RESULTS TRIP ATTRACTIONS BY JURISDICTION - 1990 Jurisdiction HBWO HBW1 HBW2 HBW3 HBU HBsO HBS1 HBS2 1 DC Core 73,178 226,149 269,293 149,122 14,785 25,472 18,456 7,906 2 DC Non-Core 20,987 63,035 109,904 60,620 27,302 14,926 29,828 25,659 3 Montgomery Core 3,607 21,957 37,076 21,829 0 812 8,518 12,811 4 Montg Non-Core 3,395 45,280 152,703 127,574 43,352 6,740 55,816 141,088 5 Prince George's 2,114 55,340 115,169 101,719 95,911 15,751 88,308 178,060 6 Arlington Core 3,957 33,487 56,317 39,996 0 476 2,960 2,487 7 Arl Non-Core 1,671 13,345 24,681 20,377 13,978 3,912 24,220 35,490 8 Alexandria Core 868 1,330 7,088 2,945 0 35 1,577 1,330 9 Alex Non-Core 2,884 26,265 32,580 29,026 17,905 325 19,036 19,240 10 Fairfax Core 382 7,162 21,863 14,925 0 749 1,916 7,608 11 Ffx Non-Core 2,995 65,229 206,518 173,263 84,230 6,388 71,758 258,940 12 Loudoun 393 7,160 11,071 14,581 7,088 975 4,176 13,847 13 Prince William 538 4,621 46,753 50,218 17,639 1,383 10,071 41,738 14 Frederick 465 7,218 24,468 23,332 13,367 1,506 8,731 21,114 15 Howard 658 9,468 32,993 35,186 4,876 1,274 7,174 24,480 16 Anne Arundel 1,841 26,295 94,505 98,971 24,946 4,408 24,553 53,171 17 Charles 307 4,673 15,877 18,664 7,730 1,544 7,545 23,210 18 Carroll 317 5,081 16,549 18,219 2,162 1,342 7,267 8,769 19 Calvert 117 1,848 6,177 6,889 0 484 2,501 5,481 20 St Mary's 279 4,491 14,860 14,148 2,094 809 4,429 12,275 21 King George 20 324 1,091 1,048 0 84 468 305 22 Fredericksburg 94 1,404 4,940 4,884 6,047 334 1,896 6,090 23 Stafford 47 735 2,431 2,662 0 462 2,307 2,963 24 Spotsylvania 68 1,079 3,581 3,706 0 517 2,699 2,642 25 Fauquier 112 1,864 5,774 6,648 0 544 2,732 2,116 26 Clarke 31 529 1,697 1,544 0 49 281 180 27 Jefferson 154 2,494 8,517 7,039 5,958 396 2,355 2,812 41 TOTAL 121,479 637,863 1,324,476 1,049,135 389,370 91,697 411,578 911,812

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 113 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-29B: TRIP GENERATION RESULTS TRIP ATTRACTIONS BY JURISDICTION - 1990 Jurisdiction HBS3 HBO0 HB01 HB02 HB03 JTW JAW NNW 1 DC Core 4,182 31,525 71,980 76,849 31,555 152,273 183,329 66,917 2 DC Non-Core 10,487 42,101 107,209 107,175 40,913 80,660 68,096 91,535 3 Montgomery Core 7,006 4,093 16,738 34,119 16,561 28,839 28,541 35,895 4 Montg Non-Core 78,822 9,764 128,628 367,380 247,066 160,525 133,628 246,691 5 Prince George's 106,710 10,629 191,623 485,835 253,510 182,908 149,146 304,442 6 Arlington Core 1,413 3,083 15,508 31,437 8,069 45,605 60,195 17,015 7 Arl Non-Core 19,821 2,795 65,905 101,156 73,216 59,300 52,484 74,617 8 Alexandria Core 1,070 440 2,928 1,742 445 5,671 6,936 2,503 9 Alex Non-Core 21,885 1,212 48,373 78,068 40,014 49,432 45,309 59,070 10 Fairfax Core 4,681 421 4,754 8,369 4,755 20,983 24,100 12,574 11 Ffx Non-Core 131,221 6,882 177,447 633,164 476,722 261,623 241,855 400,862 12 Loudoun 8,982 423 20,835 53,418 48,752 20,331 23,712 31,703 13 Prince William 39,289 2,222 23,325 132,252 123,404 45,741 30,887 85,831 14 Frederick 16,365 1,114 27,937 94,010 68,297 26,961 25,197 53.058 15 Howard 20,170 1,227 30,897 102,086 98,303 35,402 36,273 54,411 16 Anne Arundel 63,428 3,178 76,221 260,265 215,686 102,073 102,383 153,297 17 Charles 17,534 811 16,889 66,458 50,114 22,365 18,147 40,407 18 Carroll 13,313 807 14,016 66,742 45,969 19,668 18,560 37,114 19 Calvert 4,850 364 8,134 29,960 20,852 7,437 6,859 16,243 20 St Mary's 7,707 577 13,736 49,257 33,365 15,758 15,331 27,177 21 King George 764 94 2,132 7,433 4,775 1,107 1,125 3,640 22 Fredericksburg 4,109 178 4,319 15,469 12,168 6,051 5,172 9,743 23 Stafford 4,855 369 8,044 29,191 22,478 3,969 2,728 15,851 24 Spotsylvania 5,200 303 7,003 23,924 17,907 4,803 3,847 13,391 25 Fauquier 4,363 372 5,934 28,615 20,370 6,564 6,553 14,754 26 Clarke 464 87 1,982 6,907 4,402 1,431 1,713 3,303 27 Jefferson 3,335 284 8,286 24,099 14,811 7,600 8,198 12,662 41 TOTAL 602,026 125,355 1,100,783 2,915,380 1,994,479 1,375,080 1,300,304 1,884,706

June 2002 114 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-30: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES/HOME BASED WORK 0 CAR - HBWO Alexandri Prince Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington a Fairfax Loudoun William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 5 10 30 30 30 DC Other 20 0 30 30 30 40 40 30 20 30 40 30 Arlington 0 30 0 0 0 10 10 60 60 60 10 50 Alexandria 10 30 0 0 0 10 10 60 40 60 10 50 Fairfax 0 30 0 0 0 10 10 60 60 60 10 50 Loudoun 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 60 0 50 Pr William 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 60 0 50 Montgomery 0 60 70 70 70 70 70 0 20 10 70 10 Pr George's 5 10 60 60 60 60 60 15 0 10 60 10 MD Other 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 10 10 0 60 0 VA Outer 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 60 0 50 MD Outer 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 10 10 0 60 0

TABLE 3-31: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES/HOME BASED WORK 1 CAR - HBW1 Alexandri Prince Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington a Fairfax Loudoun William Montgom George MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 5 10 30 30 30 DC Other 5 0 20 20 30 30 30 20 20 30 30 30 Arlington 10 25 0 0 0 10 10 50 30 40 10 50 Alexandria 0 20 0 0 0 10 10 50 60 60 10 50 Fairfax 8 15 0 0 0 10 20 70 50 70 10 50 Loudoun 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 50 0 50 Pr William 20 20 0 15 15 0 0 60 60 50 0 50 Montgomery 5 15 40 60 60 60 60 0 45 20 60 20 Pr George's 10 15 60 60 25 60 60 30 0 20 60 20 MD Other 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 20 20 0 60 0 VA Outer 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 50 0 50 MD Outer 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 20 20 0 60 0

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 115 June 2002 TABLE 3-32: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES/HOME BASED WORK 2 CAR - HBW2 Prince Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 5 10 30 30 30 DC Other 0 0 20 20 20 30 30 30 15 30 30 30 Arlington 0 10 0 0 0 20 20 50 40 50 10 50 Alexandria 0 30 0 0 0 20 20 50 40 50 10 50 Fairfax 10 30 0 0 0 30 40 60 40 50 30 50 Loudoun 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 60 50 50 0 50 Pr William 50 40 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 70 0 70 Montgomery 20 20 50 60 40 50 50 0 25 20 50 20 Pr George's 27 20 25 25 45 40 40 22 0 20 50 20 MD Other 30 30 50 50 50 50 50 20 20 0 50 0 VA Outer 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 60 50 50 0 50 MD Outer 30 30 50 50 50 50 50 20 20 0 50 0

TABLE 3-33: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES/HOME BASED WORK 3+ CAR - HBW3 Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 5 10 30 30 30 DC Other 0 0 30 30 30 40 40 40 25 40 40 40 Arlington 0 15 0 0 0 10 10 50 50 50 10 50 Alexandria 0 10 0 0 0 10 10 50 50 50 10 50 Fairfax 0 5 0 0 0 20 20 35 50 50 10 50 Loudoun 70 70 0 0 0 0 0 60 40 50 0 50 Pr William 50 40 0 0 10 0 0 70 50 50 0 50 Montgomery 22 15 35 50 35 50 50 0 10 10 50 10 Pr George's 15 25 45 65 35 60 60 10 0 10 50 10 MD Other 30 30 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 0 50 0 VA Outer 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 60 50 50 0 50 MD Outer 30 30 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 0 50 0

June 2002 116 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-34: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES HOME BASED OTHER 0 CAR - HBOO Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DC Other 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 10 10 10 Arlington 0 10 0 2 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Alexandria 0 10 2 0 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Fairfax 0 10 2 2 0 3 10 5 25 20 5 20 Loudoun 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Pr William 2 10 5 0 12 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Montgomery 3 0 10 10 8 10 10 0 6 6 10 6 Pr George's 4 5 20 20 22 20 20 3 0 6 20 6 MD Other 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0 VA Outer 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 MD Outer 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0

TABLE 3-35: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES HOME BASED OTHER 1 CAR - HBOI Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DC Other 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 10 10 10 Arlington 0 10 0 2 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Alexandria 0 10 2 0 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Fairfax 3 10 1 2 0 5 7 12 20 20 5 20 Loudoun 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Pr William 0 10 5 5 8 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Montgomery 3 4 20 20 20 20 20 0 4 6 20 6 Pr George's 1 4 20 20 20 20 20 4 0 6 20 6 MD Other 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0 VA Outer 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 MD Outer 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 117 June 2002 TABLE 3-36: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES HOME BASED OTHER 2 CAR - HB02 Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 10 10 10 7 7 10 10 7 7 7 DC Other 0 0 5 10 10 10 10 6 5 10 10 10 Arlington 10 5 0 2 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Alexandria 10 10 2 0 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Fairfax 10 10 2 2 0 4 15 20 20 20 5 20 Loudoun 7 10 0 0 4 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Pr William 7 10 5 5 15 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Montgomery 10 6 20 20 20 20 20 0 8 6 20 6 Pr George's 10 5 20 20 20 20 20 8 0 6 20 6 MD Other 7 10 20 20 20 20 2^ 6 6 0 20 0 VA Outer 7 10 5 5 5 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 MD Outer 7 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0

TABLE 3-37: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES HOME BASED OTHER 3+ CAR - HB03 Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 DC Other 0 0 8 10 10 10 10 6 3 10 10 10 Arlington 3 8 0 2 2 0 5 20 15 20 5 20 Alexandria 0 10 2 0 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Fairfax 0 10 2 2 0 0 10 15 20 20 5 20 Loudoun 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Pr William 0 10 5 5 10 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Montgomery 3 6 20 20 15 20 20 0 8 6 20 6 Pr George's 5 3 15 20 20 20 20 8 0 6 20 6 MD Other 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0 VA Outer 0 10 5 5 5 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 MD Outer 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0

June 2002 118 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-38: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES HOME BASED UNIVERSITY- HBU Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DC Other 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Arlington 0 10 0 2 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Alexandria 0 10 2 0 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Fairfax 0 10 2 2 0 5 10 20 20 20 5 20 Loudoun 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Pr William 0 10 5 5 5 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Montgomery 5 7 30 30 30 30 30 0 0 8 30 8 Pr George's 5 5 15 30 30 30 30 5 0 8 30 8 MD Other 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 8 8 0 20 0 VA Outer 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 MD Outer 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 8 8 0 20 0

TABLE 3-39: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES JOURNEY TO WORK (JTW) Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 5 6 5 5 5 6 7 10 10 10 DC Other 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 5 7 10 10 10 Arlington 5 10 0 2 2 0 5 20 15 20 5 20 Alexandria 6 10 2 0 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Fairfax 5 10 2 2 0 0 10 25 25 30 5 30 Loudoun 3 10 0 0 0 0 10 25 25 25 0 25 Pr William 5 10 5 5 10 10 0 25 30 30 0 30 Montgomery 6 5 20 20 25 25 25 0 8 8 25 8 Pr George's 7 7 15 20 25 25 30 8 0 8 25 8 MD Other 5 10 20 20 30 25 30 8 8 0 25 0 VA Outer 0 10 5 5 5 0 0 25 25 25 0 25 MD Outer 5 10 20 20 30 25 30 8 8 0 25 0

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 119 June 2002 TABLE 3-40: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES JOURNEY AT WORK (JAW) Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DC Other 0 0 12 12 12 10 10 5 5 10 10 10 Arlington 3 7 0 2 2 0 5 15 20 20 5 20 Alexandria 0 10 2 0 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Fairfax 0 10 2 2 0 0 10 20 20 20 5 20 Loudoun 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20

0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Pr William 0 10 5 5 10 u_ Montgomery 1 0 20 20 20 20 20 0 8 6 20 6 Pr George's 1 4 15 15 10 20 20 8 0 6 20 6 MD Other 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0 VA Outer 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 MD Outer 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0

TABLE 3-41: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION PENALTIES NON-HOME BASED/NON-WORK (NNW) Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DC Other 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 10 10 10 Arlington 0 10 0 2 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Alexandria 0 10 2 0 2 0 5 20 20 20 5 20 Fairfax 0 10 2 2 0 0 10 20 20 20 5 20 Loudoun 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Pr William 0 10 5 5 10 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 Montgomery 3 4 20 20 20 20 20 0 5 6 20 6 Pr George's 2 6 20 20 20 20 20 5 0 6 20 6 MD Other 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0 VA Outer 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 MD Outer 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 6 6 0 20 0

June 2002 120 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-42: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS HOME BASED WORK - ALL CAR OWNERSHIP CATEGORIES - HBW Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 1,000 1,000 682 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 630 1,000 1,000 1,000 DC Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,343 1,000 3,240 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Arlington 1,000 800 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Alexandria 1,000 1,000 611 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,924 1.855 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Fairfax 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,396 1,405 1,000 1,000 1,000 Loudoun 1,000 1,000 1,438 538 1,000 1,000 388 1,768 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr William 1,000 1,546 1,643 1,000 1,000 250 1,000 551 2,020 1,000 1,000 1,000 Montgomery 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 460 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr George's 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,584 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MD Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 VA Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MD Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

TABLE 3-43: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS HOME BASED OTHER -ALL CAR OWNERSHIP CATEGORIES - HBO Prince DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 1,000 1,000 295 356 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 304 1,000 1,000 1,000 DC Other 1,000 1,000 2,022 2,544 1,000 4,000 1,000 2,135 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Arlington 1,000 3.992 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,443 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Alexandria 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,640 250 1,000 1,000 1,000 Fairfax 1,979 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,137 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Loudoun 1,000 1.000 250 2,217 1,000 1,000 334 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr William 250 1,000 605 4,000 1,000 250 1,000 4,000 250 1,000 1,000 1,000 Montgomery 1,000 1,000 4,000 4,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr George's 494 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,839 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 MD Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 VA Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MD Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 121 June 2002 TABLE 3-44: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS HOME BASED UNIVERSITY - HBO Pr DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 3,569 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 DC Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,873 250 1,000 1,000 1,000 Arlington 387 3,960 1.000 250 4,000 1,000 1,000 4.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Alexandria 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,313 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Fairfax 437 364 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Loudoun 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 250 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr William 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,860 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Montgomery 1,000 584 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr George's 434 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 460 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MD Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 VA Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MD Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

TABLE 3-45: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS JOURNEY TO WORK - JTW Pr DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,133 507 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 DC Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,949 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Arlington 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,656 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Alexandria 1,000 1,949 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,997 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Fairfax 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 359 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Loudoun 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,00d 359 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr William 3,133 1,000 2,656 1,997 1,000 1,000 1,000 390 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Montgomery 507 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 390 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr George's 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MD Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 VA Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MD Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

June 2002 122 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-46: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS JOURNEY AT WORK - JAW Pr DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 2,386 574 358 250 250 4,000 250 392 250 1,000 1,000 1,000 DC Other 574 1,000 4,000 4,000 2,048 4,000 1,000 411 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Arlington 358 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Alexandria 250 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 251 1,000 1,000 1,000 Fairfax 250 2,048 1,000 1,000 1,000 250 3,595 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Loudoun 4,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 250 1,000 2,397 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr William 250 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,595 2,397 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Montgomery 392 411 4,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr George's 250 1,000 1,000 251 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MD Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 VA Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MD Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

TABLE 3-47: JURISDICTION-TO-JURISDICTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION K-FACTORS NON-HOME BASED/NON-WORK - NNW Pr DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgom George's MD Other VA Outer MD Outer DC Core 3,211 1,000 250 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 250 1,000 1,000 1,000 DC Other 1,000 1,000 4,000 288 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,054 1,000 1,000 1,000 Arlington 250 4.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Alexandria 1,000 288 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Fairfax 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 2,234 1,000 1,000 1,000 Loudoun 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr William 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Montgomery 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 635 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pr George's 250 2,054 1,000 4,000 2,234 1,000 1,000 635 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MD Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 VA Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 MD Outer 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 123 June 2002 TABLE 3-48: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED WORK -- 0 CAR (HBWO) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 19,078 4,731 370 596 0 0 0 2,320 0 27,095 DC Other 25,081 24,097 1,930 824 1,558 0 0 3,707 1,862 59,059 Arlington 8,727 1,268 2,858 2,026 814 0 0 814 0 16,507 Alexandria 1,212 950 699 856 1,562 0 0 0 466 5,745 Fairfax 1,836 0 456 228 1,458 0 846 846 0 5,670 Loudoun 0 0 0 0 0 608 0 0 0 608 Pr William 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montgomery 6,017 848 0 0 0 0 0 3,567 0 10,432 Pr George's 4,190 2,416 469 506 0 0 0 0 881 8,462 Total 66,141 34,310 6,782 5,036 5,392 608 846 11,254 3,209 133,578 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 18,769 5,120 559 523 506 15 13 1,360 230 27,095 DC Other 26,924 21,572 2,015 1,476 1,894 30 61 3,712 1,375 59,059 Arlington 7,956 2,313 2,845 937 952 35 72 1,098 299 16,507 Alexandria 2,449 835 329 1,042 362 6 75 550 97 5,745 Fairfax 1,660 786 409 602 1,003 71 539 464 136 5,670 Loudoun 6 6 5 0 137 324 68 61 1 608 Pr William 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montgomery 4,387 1,707 327 222 319 83 4 3,149 234 10,432 Pr George's 4,043 1,991 292 231 209 3 1 852 840 8,462 Total 66,194 34,330 6,781 5,033 5,382 567 833 11,246 3,212 133,578

June 2002 124 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-49: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED WORK --1 CAR(HBW1) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 20,083 4,221 1,557 693 1,500 204 0 1,111 852 30,221 DC Other 73,047 33,844 7,334 3,443 4,992 261 96 10,707 6,024 139,748 Arlington 19,060 2,626 15,005 4,357 9,607 0 0 801 2,354 53,810 Alexandria 19,347 2,300 5,548 9,239 6,968 0 158 1,650 562 45,772 Fairfax 18,149 7,349 11,202 8,897 38,081 2,451 266 1,279 2,143 89,817 Loudoun 196 0 208 0 2,907 4,210 120 650 0 8,291 Pr William 2,070 696 2,160 657 3,655 0 4,188 0 0 13,426 Montgomery 26,590 8,927 2.446 340 1,861 0 0 43,774 2,679 86,617 Pr George's 26.636 16,153 1,504 844 5,672 305 0 8,948 43,634 103,696 Total 205,178 76,116 46,964 28,470 75,243 7,431 4,828 68,920 58,248 571,398 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 20,234 3,822 1,675 660 1,123 18 7 2,072 610 30,221 DC Other 72,675 35,406 7,666 2,468 4,237 161 198 9,803 7,134 139,748 Arlington 19,923 2,730 14,848 4,807 8,837 265 116 1,022 1,262 53,810 Alexandria 16,470 2,930 5,043 10,015 9,129 221 298 1,250 416 45.772 Fairfax 17,464 5,999 11,857 8,583 40,039 2,339 637 1,474 1,425 89,817 Loudoun 229 161 494 104 2,861 4,086 63 253 40 8,291 Pr William 958 1,059 2,133 922 4,229 259 3,494 102 270 13,426 Montgomery 26,377 9,077 1,909 326 1,242 61 26 45,127 2,472 86.617 Pr George's 30,649 14,873 1,382 666 3,864 61 47 7,482 44,672 103,696 Total 204,979 76,057 47,007 28,551 75,561 7,471 4,886 68,585 58,301 571,398

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 125 June 2002 TABLE 3-50: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED WORK --2CAR(HBW2) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 5,022 3,161 597 0 920 0 0 414 392 10,506 DC Other 44,156 32,810 5,903 1,287 5,252 137 540 5,870 8,080 104,035 Arlington 19,852 6,670 13.166 2,419 8,222 223 0 1,527 815 52,894 Alexandria 15,537 1,340 3,366 6,138 6,400 350 873 1,265 702 35,971 Fairfax 58,143 14,120 28,344 17,075 136,317 1,671 2,280 10,001 6,994 274,945 Loudoun 1,583 876 1,814 529 8,576 7,139 720 1,323 280 22,840 Pr William 6,509 3,297 7,385 3,281 23,076 0 36,427 850 456 81,281 Montgomery 43,826 23,749 5,192 899 9,729 318 646 130,695 13,876 228,930 Pr George's 27,609 21.326 6,511 3,633 5,229 0 208 16,392 70,047 150.955 Total 222,237 107,349 72,278 35,261 203,721 9,838 41,694 168,337 101,642 962,357 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 5,526 2.218 626 251 667 5 8 856 349 10,506 DC Other 48,228 30,958 5,054 1,431 4,912 75 415 5,211 7,750 104,034 Arlington 21,409 5,553 10,359 3,258 10,144 109 214 1,032 816 52,894 Alexandria 14,451 2,426 4,115 5,084 7,570 57 431 1,137 700 35,971 Fairfax 54,446 14,099 32,216 17,763 137,526 2,178 3,216 7,698 5,802 274,944 Loudoun 1,082 638 1,859 252 10,343 7,012 410 1,087 157 22,840 Pr William 2,972 2,896 7,309 3,326 24,524 531 38,676 410 637 81,281 Montgomery 44,287 23,888 4,123 888 8,084 109 224 134,877 12,646 229,126 Pr George's 28,128 24,002 7,093 3,238 3,580 95 391 13,061 71,362 150,950 Total 220,529 106,678 72,754 35,491 207,350 10,171 43,985 165,369 100,219 962,546

June 2002 126 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-51: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED WORK-- 3+ CAR (HBW3) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 1,190 512 333 0 210 0 55 0 0 2300 DC Other 14,557 8,284 699 624 1,272 0 174 1,466 1,533 28,609 Arlington 7,750 1,211 7,692 2,178 5,036 0 0 284 0 24,151 Alexandria 2,123 2,144 1,028 4,195 4,847 0 0 456 0 14,793 Fairfax 28,474 15,678 22,999 16,061 127,163 3,845 6,819 7,857 1,773 230,669 Loudoun 1,831 178 1,637 0 8,083 9,186 0 807 0 21,722 Pr William 7,218 2,994 7,490 4,286 18,762 1,160 41,155 407 2,071 85,543 Montgomery 24,094 14,559 5,623 1,114 7,513 0 0 109,289 15,572 177,764 Pr George's 28,976 14,975 5,984 771 6,807 0 630 20,188 72,534 150,865 Total 116,213 60,535 53,485 29,229 179,693 14,191 48,833 140,754 93,483 736,416 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 876 558 242 112 231 1 5 181 94 2,300 DC Other 10,504 11,027 1,577 489 1,578 43 152 1,242 1,993 28,605 Arlington 5,642 1,493 6,698 2,625 6,715 123 155 440 260 24,151 Alexandria 2,856 1,243 2,007 3,499 4,300 51 284 378 175 14,793 Fairfax 29,644 13,132 24,080 16,544 127,123 3,259 4,903 8,937 3,023 230,645 Loudoun 1,455 246 1,026 134 7,806 9,565 318 1,007 120 21,677 Pr William 9,317 2,469 6,455 3,002 18,511 669 43,138 596 1,378 85,535 Montgomery 22,211 14,368 5,547 1,172 7,847 220 243 110,652 14,977 177,237 Pr George's 33,287 15,800 5,880 1,714 6,101 148 429 16,039 72,361 151,759 Total 115,792 60,336 53,512 29,291 180,212 14,079 49,627 139,472 94,381 736,702

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 127 June 2002 TABLE 3-52: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED OTHER - 0 CAR (HBOO) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 23,715 5,238 1,339 0 555 0 0 514 724 32,085 DC Other 25,570 63,830 1,273 0 0 0 0 990 4,867 96,530 Arlington 2,620 0 7,989 0 466 0 0 0 0 11,075 Alexandria 699 0 1,065 1,721 1,487 0 0 0 0 4,972 Fairfax 0 0 0 495 12,377 0 0 0 342 13,214 Loudoun 0 0 0 0 0 1,368 0 0 0 1,368 Pr William 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montgomery 2,001 3,183 0 0 0 0 0 20,940 0 26,124 Pr George's 2,334 1,243 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,428 25,005 Total 56,939 73,494 11,666 2,216 14,885 1,368 0 22,444 27,361 210,373 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 24,619 6,119 946 39 107 1 0 180 74 32,085 DC Other 27,205 61,368 41 2 10 0 0 2,580 5324 96,530 Arlington 2,266 11 8,339 11 445 0 0 3 0 11,075 Alexandria 1,173 6 1,378 1,940 468 0 0 7 0 4,972 Fairfax 690 12 329 104 11,979 1 0 87 12 13,214 Loudoun 3 0 0 0 2 1,362 0 1 0 1,368 Pr William 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montgomery 775 6,138 60 3 77 1 0 19,015 55 26,124 Pr George's 512 920 9 0 29 1 0 416 23,118^ 25,005 Total 57,243 74,574 11,102 2,099 13,117 1,366 0 22,289 28,583 210,373

June 2002 128 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-53: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED OTHER - 1 CAR (HBOI) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 12,330 8103 525 577 470 0 252 1,422 341 24,020 DC Other 32,033 131,673 4,279 2,982 5,538 318 355 12,837 11,726 201,741 Arlington 11,889 6,680 80,219 13,587 27,335 0 1,061 4,349 447 145,567 Alexandria 4,876 2,424 8,264 42,887 18,972 0 0 1,152 280 78,855 Fairfax 7,495 1,594 12,900 10,222 189,097 887 287 579 1,050 224,111 Loudoun 159 121 0 0 3,989 22,810 336 336 0 27,751 Pr William 0 0 898 434 2,120 0 12,767 0 217 16,436 Montgomery 6,472 12,854 153 241 2,262 0 0 181,953 5,599 209,534 Pr George's 11,163 18,543 1,046 3,804 7,277 0 0 12,489 258,798 313,120 Total 86,417 181,992 108,284 74,734 257,060 24,015 15,058 215,117 278,458 1,241,135 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 8,431 8,941 1,342 601 1,529 9 33 2,000 1,134 24„020 DC Other 32,481 137,652 2,589 2,045 3,263 65 58 11,777 11,811 201,741 Arlington 16,637 4,640 83,397 10,829 27,877 130 180 1,524 353 145,567 Alexandria 4,875 866 6,831 48,912 16,734 26 157 348 106 78,855 Fairfax 5,629 1,436 12,086 8,519 192,636 566 1,002 1,888 349 224,111 Loudoun 418 145 125 318 4,499 21,811 243 143 49 27,751 Pr William 113 113 211 784 2,551 25 12,529 93 17 16,436 Montgomery 5,595 11,369 872 620 1,194 45 16 180,587 9,236 209,534 Pr George's 12,914 19,418 560 1,729 2,259 15 37 16,026 260,162 313,120 Total 87,093 184,580 108,013 74,357 252,542 22,692 14,255 214,386 283,217 1,241,135

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 129 June 2002 TABLE 3-54: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED OTHER - 2 CAR (HB02) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 3491 3,068 437 153 420 110 0 868 134 8,681 DC Other 24,535 87,901 3,977 1,373 3,895 295 0 14,453 20,614 157,043 Arlington 7,630 6,709 76,589 5,928 28,593 1,083 109 1,510 1,075 129,226 Alexandria 5,300 258 10,750 46,864 25,377 0 0 258 0 88,807 Fairfax 25,686 6,849 39,658 30,617 734,269 12,064 7,609 11,613 2,726 871,091 Loudoun 126 0 110 925 10,759 47,738 1,345 503 0 61,506 Pr William 595 903 1,379 6,001 7,793 1,372 178,293 1,384 0 197,720 Montgomery 8,163 22,331 5,331 1,910 7,472 230 0 452,610 19,491 517,538 Pr George's 4,976 21,688 2,264 1,847 2,660 0 0 27,731 542,958 604,124 Total 80,502 149,707 140,495 95,618 821,238 62,892 187,356 510,930 586,998 2,635,736 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 4,982 2,915 109 36 187 12 27 232 180 8,680 DC Other 31,390 91,567 5,444 1,270 3,036 436 240 9,167 14,476 157,026 Arlington 3,201 8,273 80,616 6,200 26,191 664 544 2,815 715 129,219 Alexandria 2,276 1,174 9,885 54,778 18,611 197 572 920 390 88,803 Fairfax 17,977 7,469 37,863 25,334 752,674 10,519 7,817 6,280 5,110 871,043 Loudoun 773 419 258 487 10,839 46,939 832 679 260 61,486 Pr William 752 1,182 1,874 3,805 8,418 1,285 177,113 2,848 427 197,704 Montgomery 9,280 16,853 3,956 1,793 5,453 1,526 458 458.093 19,649 517,061 Pr George's 9,826 19,182 1,913 3,143 6,810 229 511 21,131 541,962 604,707 Total 80,457 149,034 141,918 96,846 832,219 61,807 188,114 502,165 583,169 2,635,729

June 2002 130 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-55: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED OTHER - 3+ CAR (HB03) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 0 487 0 0 395 0 0 112 265 1,259 DC Other 5,656 26,298 307 91 584 0 0 2,537 6,265 41,738 Arlington 4,085 4,066 45,287 9,142 17,586 0 0 0 320 80,486 Alexandria 218 271 1,058 12,752 3,616 313 0 0 259 18,487 Fairfax 6,135 2,461 31,822 28,991 573,969 7,330 12,729 4,132 3,200 670,769 Loudoun 1,125 562 336 226 6,112 48,078 0 0 0 56,439 Pr William 295 653 480 1,470 8,704 240 150,260 1,827 257 164,186 Montgomery 4,985 11,267 1,059 1,431 2,963 1,636 424 328,443 16,226 368,434 Pr George's 7,493 13,426 0 1,532 1,328 0 295 12,973 305,539 342,586 Total 29,992 59,491 80,349 55,635 615,257 57,597 163,708 350,024 332,331 1,744,384 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 364 497 64 55 133 1 8 67 70 1,259 DC Other 3,661 26,625 987 470 785 24 35 2,496 6,655 41,738 Arlington 2,387 2,657 48,206 7,706 17,977 146 320 667 420 80,486 Alexandria 585 148 1,391 12,765 3,410 11 102 44 31 18,487 Fairfax 13,800 3,024 26,769 29,485 575,054 9,603 9,037 2,854 1,143 670,769 Loudoun 189 88 126 286 10,469 44,558 476 165 82 56,439 Pr William 198 230 762 2,849 6,900 677 152,317 211 42 164,186 Montgomery 5,340 9,467 1,556 754 4,091 194 80 335,672 11,280 368,434 Pr George's 3,556 16,601 974 1,561 1,676 23 80 7,484 310,631 342,586 Total 30,080 59,337 80,835 55,931 620,495 55,237 162,455 349,660 330,354 1,744,384

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 131 June 2002 TABLE 3-56: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION HOME BASED UNIVERSITY (HBU) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 1,895 2,334 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 4351 DC Other 4,732 23,235 491 0 64 0 0 1,183 677 30,382 Arlington 675 1,202 7,293 2,121 4,431 0 0 1,423 0 17,145 Alexandria 542 400 223 7,072 3,177 0 0 0 442 11,856 Fairfax 1,025 808 1,592 8,337 69,169 0 800 0 663 82,394 Loudoun 268 0 778 0 599 6,267 0 0 0 7,912 Pr William 0 0 0 0 5,453 0 17,036 0 0 22,489 Montgomery 1,188 2,301 230 210 112 686 0 39,217 15,158 59,102 Pr George's 1,683 5,709 2,254 0 0 0 0 2,153 73,187 84,986 Total 12,008 35,989 12,861 17,740 83,005 6,953 17,836 43,976 90,249 320,617 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 1,800 1,645 121 105 142 0 8 156 368 4,345 DC Other 3,843 23,928 209 278 575 9 49 892 556 30,339 Arlington 786 1,131 8,246 2,569 3,846 22 60 340 138 17,138 Alexandria 426 219 710 7,588 2,454 11 49 46 344 11,847 Fairfax 1,125 750 1,396 6,402 69,637 812 858 591 760 82,331 Loudoun 189 152 450 124 809 5,608 345 113 116 7,906 Pr William 323 233 125 255 4,222 217 16,694 136 217 22,422 Montgomery 1,602 2,194 133 153 710 247 56 39,640 14,309 59,044 Pr George's 1,886 5,582 1,466 328 827 30 79 1,840 73,201 85,239 Total 11,980 35,834 12,856 17,802 83,222 6,956 18,198 43,754 90,009 320,611

June 2002 132 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-57: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION JOURNEY TO WORK (JTW) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 60,696 29,288 8,380 3,259 11,982 247 1,052 8,555 10,123 133,582 DC Other 16,693 35,666 2,233 1,709 4,724 325 1,121 8,628 11,859 82,958 Arlington 12,600 4,344 38,185 7,106 21,858 711 2,383 3,024 5,032 95,243 Alexandria 2,673 2,606 5,290 19,410 11,242 693 1,158 1,811 1,893 46,776 Fairfax 12,135 5,548 15,787 10,501 173,673 3,892 7,969 5,780 5,283 240,568 Loudoun 1,350 0 248 883 3,303 11,257 659 254 361 18,315 Pr William 3,553 523 1,251 1,146 5,496 0 27,451 806 0 40,226 Montgomery 5,775 10,361 1,603 904 6,247 105 254 126,535 10,422 162,206 Pr George's 8,798 8,848 2,659 1,432 5,378 0 374 14,049 105,433 146,971 Total 124,273 97,184 75,636 46,350 243,903 17,230 42,421 169,442 150,406 966,845 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 56,523 31,873 7,908 3,002 11,716 516 2,269 7,692 12,083 133,582 DC Other 20,111 31,887 2,610 1,944 5,308 270 623 9,937 10,268 82,958 Arlington 11,088 4,399 39,076 7,573 22,534 703 2,237 3,475 4,158 95,243 Alexandria 3,285 2,220 4,976 18,509 12,367 802 1,225 1,486 1,906 46,776 Fairfax 12,274 6,228 14,441 10,720 171,583 3,843 6,606 8,824 6,049 240,568 Loudoun 819 382 571 857 4,228 9,680 607 788 383 18,315 Pr William 2,248 625 1,234 960 5,373 612 27,874 607 693 40,226 Montgomery 6,967 9,852 2,289 1,245 6,267 530 450 121,164 13,442 162,206 Pr George's 10,967 9,684 2,608 1,606 4,967 288 554 15,049 101,248 146,971 Total 124,282 97,150 75,713 46,416 244,343 17,244 42,445 169,022 150,230 966,845

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 133 June 2002 TABLE 3-58: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION JOURNEY AT WORK (JAW) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 106,224 17,098 6,728 1,477 4,700 1,096 0 6,196 3,749 147,268 DC Other 19,943 33,118 5,863 1,229 2,623 367 0 4,530 4,966 72,639 Arlington 12,637 8,633 48,976 7,318 12,792 292 0 4,282 1,574 96,504 Alexandria 2,996 1,828 6,172 21,687 11,340 0 237 246 352 44,858 Fairfax 8,502 4,438 12,883 9,768 182,385 719 7,530 4,687 4,288! 235,200 Loudoun 1,692 566 116 0 1,591 14,714 579 733 0 19,991 Pr William 820 366 328 686 2,491 1,381 20,694 161 0 26,927 Montgomery 7,389 4,831 2,296 558 3,132 827 0 115,512 4,372 138,917 Pr George's 6,769 6,328 1,059 376 3,674 549 0 7,032 102,171 127,958 Total 166,972 77,206 84,421 43,099 224,728 19,945 29,040 143,379 121,472 910,262 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 104,927 15,994 8,724 1,636 4,110 1,069 285 6,185 4,338 147,268 DC Other 21,826 31,559 4,067 1,291 2,888 546 209 3,674 6,579 72,639 Arlington 10,568 9,719 48.435 6,428 14,661 483 607 4.458 1,145 96,504 Alexandria 3,140 1,844 5,669 23,057 9,663 187 413 551 334 44,858 Fairfax 9,803 4,271 14,231 9,845 183,072 2,134 5,489 3,995 2,360 235,200 Loudoun 2,054 471 355 166 1,568 13,310 1,046 914 107 19,991 Pr William 485 164 391 250 3,879 997 20,372 237 152 26,927 Montgomery 7,667 6,169 1,721 369 2,346 786 202 114,141 5,516 138,917 Pr George's 6,839 7,176 1,348 433 4,092 102 187 7,781 100,000 127,958 Total 167,309 77,367 84,941 43,475 226,279 19,614 28,810 141,936 120,531 910,262

June 2002 134 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-59: TRIPS BY INNER JURISDICTIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION NON-HOME BASED/NON-WORK (NNW) Observed DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 20,029 12,576 1,775 2,050 5,323 0 0 2,067 3,501 47,321 DC Other 11,115 57,181 2,223 836 1,859^ 82 357 7,721 12,163 93,537 Arlington 3,495 7,207 43,149 4,683 25,282 244 0 581 0 84,641 Alexandria 2,946 0 4,609 26,601 17,248 0 640 258 1,989 54,291 Fairfax 6,969 3,706 17,501 15,010 305,524 4,511 4,460 3,907 885 362,473 Loudoun 0 126 0 201 4,004 23,064 456 0 0 27,851 Pr William 221 294 400 647 2,734 333 71,080 0 217 75,926 Montgomery 6,036 8,540 446 0 3,042 0 424 223,994 7,870 250,352 Pr George's 3,384 18,333 455 2,535 2,456 362 0 12,081 227,681 267,287 Total 54,195 107,963 70,558 52,563 367,472 28,596 77,417 250,609 254,306 1,263,679 Estimated DC Core DC Other Arlington Alexandria Fairfax Loudoun Pr William Montgomery Pr George's Total DC Core 19,545 12,353 1,653 1,810 4,987 39 198 4,007 2,729 4,7321 DC Other 11,496 59,002 2,910 315 2,016 21 74 6,516 11,187 9,3537 Arlington 3,756 6.000 44,316 5,845 23,212 170 428 501 413 8,4641 Alexandria 2,950 447 5,218 28,449 15,319 45 397 149 1,317 5,4291 Fairfax 7,845 2,640 15,954 14,035 310,035 4,655 2,805 3,182 1,322 36,2473 Loudoun 90 35 149 72 5,144 21,524 772 52 13 2,7851 Pr William 500 157 426 571 4,066 501 69,597 53 55 7,5926 Montgomery 4,332 10,841 366 167 3,365 45 33 223,126 8,077 25,0352 Pr George's 4,087 17,181 378 1,804 1,803 7 50 11,765 230,212 26,7287 Total 54,601 108,656 71,370 53,068 369,947 27,007 74,354 249,351 255,325 1,263,679

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 135 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-60: MODAL CHOICE COEFFICIENTS AND PARAMETERS HBW HBO HBU JTW JAW NNW Coefficients on bus park-and-ride: cinformal_park Informal parking 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 cformal_park Formal parking 0.9018 0.9019 0.9019 0.9019 0.9019 0.9019 Coefficients for walk to premium: csta(1) In vehicle time -0.2883 -0.1333 -0.2883 -0.1167 -0.1167 -0.1000 csta(2) Short wait time -1.0100 -0.5333 -1.0100 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(3) Long wait time -0.2883 -0.1333 -0.2883 -0.1167 -0.1167 -0.1000 csta(4) Walk time -1.0100 -0.5333 -1.0100 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(5) Transfer time -1.0100 -0.5333 -1.0100 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(6) Number of transfers -2.0183 -2.2667 -2.0183 -3.1500 -3.1500 -2.7000 csta(7) Premium fare -0.0267 -0.0203 -0.0267 -0.0215 -0.0215 -0.0185 Coefficients for park-and-ride access: csta(8) In vehicle time -0.2883 -0.1333 -0.2883 -0.1167 -0.1167 -0.1000 csta(9) Short wait time -1.0100 -0.5333 -1.0100 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(10) Long waif time -0.2883 -0.1333 -0.2883 -0.1167 -0.1167 -0.1000 csta(11) Walk time -1.0100 -0.5333 -1.0100 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(12) Transfer time -1.0100 -0.5333 -1.0100 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(13) Number of transfers -2.0183 -2.2667 -2.0183 -3.1500 -3.1500 -2.7000 csta(14) Fare -0.0267 -0.0203 -0.0267 -0.0215 -0.0215 -0.0185 csta(15) Drive time -2.0183 -0.5333 -2.0183 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(16) Highway cost -0.0217 -0.0163 -0.0217 -0.0172 -0.0172 -0.0185 Coefficients for kiss-and-ride access: csta(17) In vehicle time -0.2883 -0.1333 -0.2883 -0.1167 -0.1167 -0.1000 csta(18) Short wait time -1.0100 -0.5333 -1.0100 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(19) Long wait time -0.2883 -0.1333 -0.2883 -0.1167 -0.1167 -0.1000 csta(20) Walk time -1.0100 -0.5333 -1.0100 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(21) Transfer time -1.0100 -0.5333 -1.0100 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(22) Number of transfers -2.0183 -2.2667 -2.0183 -3.1500 -3.1500 -2.7000 csta(23) Fare -0.0267 -0.0203 -0.0267 -0.0215 -0.0215 -0.0185 csta(24) Drive time -2.0183 -0.5333 -2.0183 -0.4667 -0.4667 -0.4000 csta(25) Highway cost -0.0217 -0.0163 -0.0217 -0.0172 -0.0172 -0.0185 Coefficients for walk access to local bus: cbus(1) In vehicle time -0.0577 -0.0267 -0.0577 -0.0233 -0.0233 -0.0200 cbus(2) Short wait time -0.2018 -0.1067 -0.2018 -0.0933 -0.0933 -0.0800 cbus(3) Long wait time -0.0577 -0.0267 -0.0577 -0.0233 -0.0233 -0.0200 cbus(4) Walk time -0.2018 -0.1067 -0.2018 -0.0933 -0.0933 -0.0800 cbus(5) Transfer time -0.2018 -0.1067 -0.2018 -0.0933 -0.0933 -0.0800 cbus(6) Number of transfers -0.4037 -0.4533 -0.4037 -0.6300 -0.6300 -0.5400 cbus(7) Fare -0.0053 -0.0041 -0.0053 -0.0043 -0.0043 -0.0037 Coefficients for drive access to local bus: cbus(8) In vehicle time -0.0577 -0.0267 -0.0577 -0.0233 -0.0233 -0.0200 cbus(9) Short wait time -0.2018 -0.1067 -0.2018 -0.0933 -0.0933 -0.0800 cbus(10) Long wait time -0.0577 -0.0267 -0.0577 -0.0233 -0.0233 -0.0200

June 2002 136 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-60: MODAL CHOICE COEFFICIENTS AND PARAMETERS HBW HBO HBU JTW JAW NNW cbus(11) Walk time -0.2018 -0.1067 -0.2018 -0.0933 -0.0933 -0.0800 cbus(12) Transfer time -0.2018 -0.1067 -0.2018 -0.0933 -0.0933 -0.0800 cbus(13) Number of transfers -0.4037 -0.4533 -0.4037 -0.6300 -0.6300 -0.5400 cbus(14) Fare -0.0053 -0.0041 -0.0053 -0.0043 -0.0043 -0.0037 cbus(15) Drive time -0.2018 -0.1067 -0.2018 -0.0933 -0.0933 -0.0800 Coefficients for auto modes: cda(1) Highway travel time -0.2883 -0.1334 -0.2883 -0.1167 -0.1167 -0.1000 cda(2) Highway travel cost -0.0213 -0.0163 -0.0213 -0.0172 -0.0172 -0.0148 cda(3) Toll cost -0.0267 -0.0203 -0.0267 -0.0215 -0.0215 -0.0185 cda(4) Parking cost -0.0533 -0.0407 -0.0533 -0.0430 -0.0430 -0.0370 chov(1) Highway travel time -0.2883 -0.1334 -0.2883 -0.1167 -0.1167 -0.1000 chov(2) Highway travel cost -0.0213 -0.0163 -0.0213 -0.0172 -0.0172 -0.0148 chov(3) Toll cost -0.0267 -0.0203 -0.0267 -0.0215 -0.0215 -0.0185 chov(4) Parking cost -0.0533 -0.0407 -0.0533 -0.0430 -0.0430 -0.0370 chov(5) HOV time savings 0.2018 0.0934 0.2019 0.0817 0.0817 0.0700 Coefficients for non-motorized modes: cbike Bike time -0.0807 -0.0427 -0.0807 -0.0373 -0.0373 -0.0320 cwalk Walk time -0.0807 -0.0427 -0.0807 -0.0373 -0.0373 -0.0320 Coefficients for taxi: ctaxi(1) Taxi travel time -0.0173 -0.0080 -0.0173 -0.0070 -0.0070 -0.0060 ctaxi(2) Taxi fare -0.0016 -0.0012 -0.0016 -0.0013 -0.0013 -0.0011 Nesting values: ctmnest Transit mode 0.3000 0.3000 0.3000 0.3000 0.3000 0.3000 ctrnmode Transit sub-modes 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 ctmacc Transit access mode 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 chwynest Highway mode 0.3000 0.3000 0.3000 0.3000 0.3000 0.3000 chwyocc Auto occupancy mode 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 chwyacc Free/toll modes 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 cnonnest Non-motorized mode 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 Other Parameters: Auto Operating Cost 10 10 10 10 10 10 HOV Pickup Time 1 1 1 1 1 1 HOV Time Savings Cutoff 5 5 5 5 5 5 HOV 3+ Person Occupancy 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Walk Time Cutoff 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bike Time Cutoff 15 15 15 15 15 15 Short/Long Walk Time 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 137 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-61: MODAL CHOICE MODEL CONSTANTS FOR HOME BASED WORK (HBW) HBWO HBW1 HBW2 HBW3 kaat Highway Area 1 -15.5591 -2.0559 -1.3285 -1.6134 Area 2 -15.5068 -1.2837 -0.6942 -0.4718 Area 3 -40.2622 -0.8932 0.4974 -0.4001 knat Non-motorized Area 1 -2.1652 -0.3333 -0.5997 -0.5610 Area 2 -1.5039 -0.1680 0.0679 -0.6011 Area 3 1.4963 0.9571 0.7951 -1.1287 ktat Transit Area 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Area 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Area 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ktxat Taxi Area 1 -6.5286 -5.9373 -4.6965 -4.5580 Area 2 -11.9813 -6.8450 -7.8628 -5.5216 Area 3 -38.5219 -5.0332 -6.6147 -7.5707 kksr Shared ride -1.1998 -1.8879 -2.5445 -2.5566 kkda Drive alone 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh2 HOV 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh3 HOV 3+ 0.2856 -0.8738 -0.8685 -1.2717 kkdapay Drive alone pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh2pay HOV2 pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh3pay HOV3 pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkwk Walk 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkbk Bike -73.3681 -5.3632 -5.1686 -4.3418 kkloc Local bus -0.1124 0.4247 -0.1938 -1.2084 kkexp Express bus -61.9313 -2.7050 3.3451 5.0853 kkrl Metrorail 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkcrl Commuter rail -172.2013 -4.0445 -1.2000 -1.1068 kklocwa Walk to local 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kklocda Drive to local -8.1956 -1.8169 -0.7018 -0.7720 kkrlwa Walk to Metrorail 3.8266 2.5735 -11.4296 -5.1846 kkrlfed Feeder to Metrorail 0.0000 -8.9159 -15.8139 -21.0332 kkrlpnr PnR to Metrorail -239.2941 5.7977 7.3933 4.9289 kkrlknr KnR to Metrorail -33.9325 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkcrlwa Walk to comm. rail 307.6600 -0.0992 -25.5428 -19.7779 kkcrlfed Feeder to comm. rail -50.1309 -18.1075 -19.2419 -19.6034 kkcrlpnr PnR to comm. rail -184.0323 -18.5492 -6.6258 -6.9154 kkcrlknr KnR to comm. rail 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

June 2002 138 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-62: MODAL CHOICE MODEL CONSTANTS FOR HOME BASED OTHER (HBO) HBOO HB01 HB02 HB03 kaat Highway Area 1 -3.6052 0.4525 1.4132 1.7394 Area 2 -1.8764 1.0100 2.2083 2.3577 Area 3 -2.3860 1.8054 2.2215 1.6732 knat Non-motorized Area 1 1.4145 0.9261 0.4502 1.0350 Area 2 0.7894 1.1999 1.3623 0.6798 Area 3 0.8896 1.6595 2.1765 0.9784 ktat Transit Area 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Area 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Area 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ktxat Taxi Area 1 -1.0586 -2.8435 -2.2469 -1.8166 Area 2 -2.6773 -3.0979 -1.5930 -2.5349 Area 3 -1.5174 -3.2380 -3.6023 -3.5186 kksr Shared ride 0.9761 -0.7203 -0.6680 -0.6912 kkda Drive alone 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh2 HOV 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh3 HOV 3+ -1.3586 -1.0029 -0.3951 -0.8172 kkdapay Drive alone pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh2pay HOV2 pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh3pay HOV3 pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkwk Walk 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkbk Bike -4.7382 -4.9184 -4.2605 -3.7283 kkloc Local bus 1.9913 0.2269 4.0090 5.3266 kkexp Express bus 27.5717 2.1936 0.6181 1.9257 kkrl Metrorail 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkcrl Commuter rail -16.0788 -6.5436 -1.9567 -1.7889 kklocwa Walk to local 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kklocda Drive to local -25.9565 -1.4842 -0.8496 -0.9105 kkrlwa Walk to Metrorail 41.4281 -4.1702 8.3054 21.0061 kkrlfed Feeder to Metrorail 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkrlpnr PnR to Metrorail -131.0161 2.8852 3.5786 1.7842 kkrlknr KnR to Metrorail -110.7510 -3.8318 -0.0770 -2.6955 kkcrl wa Walk to comm. rail 27.9805 31.5908 65.1270 83.8001 kkcrlfed Feeder to comm. rail 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkcrlpnr PnR to comm. rail -127.2225 -11.8895 5.7198 8.4667 kkcrlknr KnR to comm. rail 0.5681 36.0577 -138.0224 -212.0943

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 139 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-63: MODAL CHOICE MODEL CONSTANTS FOR OTHER PURPOSES HBU JTW JAW NNW kaat Highway Area 1 -2.2638 1.1037 0.2657 0.5928 Area 2 -1.2673 1.8140 1.4188 1.0327 Area3 -1.4245 1.7174 1.9853 1.7058 knat Non-motorized Area 1 3.1376 2.5260 1.8186 1.1320 Area 2 0.7259 1.0719 0.9407 0.6253 Area 3 0.2133 0.1373 0.7376 0.6510 ktat Transit Area 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Area 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Area 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ktxat Taxi Area 1 -5.6457 -0.2086 -0.3351 -2.3405 Area 2 -5.2261 -1.8243 -1.1737 -4.0766 Area 3 -8.7779 -2.4473 -2.8603 -2.8617 kksr Shared ride -2.9909 -1.9515 -1.8727 -0.5885 kkda Drive alone 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh2 HOV 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh3 HOV 3+ -0.2699 -1.3855 -0.9635 -0.7827 kkdapay Drive alone pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh2pay HOV2 pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkh3pay HOV3 pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkwk Walk 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkbk Bike -6.2851 -5.2961 -6.2713 -4.7297 kkloc Local bus -8.4290 -2.1664 -3.0836 -4.5464 kkexp Express bus -10.0861 0.8459 4.3919 3.4353 kkrl Metrorail 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkcrl Commuter rail -7.5051 -9.8975 -8.6851 -7.8649 kklocwa Walk to local 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kklocda Drive to local -2.9663 -2.4517 -1.9622 -2.0194 kkrlwa Walk to Metrorail 50.1679 33.2209 17.4498 19.6191 kkrlfed Feeder to Metrorail -20.2583 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkrlpnr PnR to Metrorail -2.8485 7.1681 2.0433 -2.1253 kkrlknr KnR to Metrorail 0.0000 1.3045 -0.4508 -1.7431 kkcrlwa Walk to comm. rail -99.3348 7.6018 30.7814 61.1416 kkcrlfed Feeder to comm. rail -49.4751 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kkcrlpnr PnR to comm. rail -42.7856 3.6940 14.8726 9.0143 kkcrlknr KnR to comm. rail 0.0000 -190.7523 -1.8699 -289.5742

June 2002 140 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-64: COMPOSITE IMPEDANCE MODEL CONSTANTS FOR HOME BASED WORK HBWO HBW1 HBW2 HBW3 kaat Highway Area 1 -5.1467 -2.1096 -1.6051 -1.5765 Area 2 -5.1504 -1.4231 -1.0502 -0.6905 Area 3 -5.3706 -0.7581 -0.0435 -0.3916 knat Non-motorized Area 1 -1.3276 -0.4382 -1.1155 -1.5525 Area 2 -0.6763 -0.6266 -0.9285 -1.0541 Area 3 -0.0959 0.1277 -0.3537 -1.8887 ktat Transit Area 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Area 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Area 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ktxat Taxi Area 1 -4.3191 -5.9552 -4.9801 -5.1162 Area 2 -4.6739 -7.1221 -8.3979 -5.8307 Area 3 -5.7349 -5.4423 -7.4818 -7.9117 ksr Shared ride -0.9347 -1.7971 -2.4616 -2.4574 kda Drive alone 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kh2 HOV 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kh3 HOV 3+ 0.5147 -0.8472 -0.8659 -1.2169 kdapay Drive alone pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kh2pay HOV2 pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kh3pay HOV3 pay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kwk Walk 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kbk Bike -6.3842 -5.0668 -4.7190 -3.9570 kloc Local bus -2.0964 -1.4441 -4.6904 -6.9976 kexp Express bus 1.2245 -1.6198 3.4681 4.7058 krl Metrorail 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kcrl Commuter rail -50.5245 -2.7596 -0.2263 0.7067 klocwa Walk to local 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 klocda Drive to local -2.6792 -1.9639 -1.2485 -1.0381 krlwa Walk to Metrorail -18.2204 1.2594 -14.9013 -17.0625 krlfed Feeder to Metrorail 0.0000 -8.1792 -17.1318 -19.6338 krlpnr PnR to Metrorail -41.0053 -2.9726 -2.9325 -2.9981 krlknr KnR to Metrorail -4.7397 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 kcrlwa Walk to comm. rail 78.0000 8.4043 -30.0565 -7.6470 kcrifed Feeder to comm. rail 49.0000 -9.8286 -12.8898 -16.3519 kcrlpnr PnR to comm. rail -118.0000 -16.9825 -6.3453 -5.7949 kcrlknr KnR to comm. rail 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 141 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-65: 1990 CENSUS JOURNEY TO WORK Person Trips DC DC E/Cent Prince Prince Core Other Arlington Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Total DC Core 18,781 7,572 2,261 843 1,624 25 47 3,515 1,158 35,826 DC Other 178,894 79,878 17,738 5,467 13,374 286 676 26,739 17,565 340,617 Arlington 51,530 13,652 35,032 7,538 24,066 615 980 5,312 2,009 140,734 Alexandria 28,004 6,683 15,330 21,628 17,747 228 551 2,445 2,115 94,731 Fairfax 110,840 34,627 75,823 43,588 340,164 8,915 10,572 22,197 12,403 659,129 E/C Loudoun 3,124 1,076 1,954 619 23,482 17,775 816 1,837 386 51,069 Pr William 13,274 8,760 15,269 9,967 59,806 2,304 71,645 2,704 2,456 186,185 Montgomery 105,970 47,682 14,685 4,009 24,317 1,030 672 313,096 37,976 549,437 Pr George's 134,221 75,174 25,004 10,336 23,669 375 1,258 58,408 210,375 538,820 Total 644,638 275,104 203,096 103,995 528,249 31,553 87,217 436,253 286,443 2,596,548 Transit Trips DC DC E/Cent Prince Prince Core Other Arlington Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Total DC Core 12,408 3,774 1,327 398 303 0 0 1,729 355 20,294 DC Other 96,896 28,177 7,180 1,405 2,343 180 19 9,191 3,114 148,505 Arlington 26,220 3,884 7,715 982 2,169 46 47 1,035 197 42,295 Alexandria 10,030 1,152 3,458 3,151 1,446 16 0 336 139 19,728 Fairfax 30,972 4,144 10,888 2,058 9,222 75 44 984 258 58,645 E/C Loudoun 357 39 83 0 44 0 30 23 0 576 Pr William 1,475 349 645 80 67 360 20 47 21 3,064 Montgomery 46,171 8,043 3,095 416 830 69 0 23,310 1,373 83,307 Pr George's 41,963 11,106 5,240 718 976 70 9 7,602 11,752 79,436 Total 266,492 60,668 39,631 9,208 17,400 816 169 44,257 17,209 455,850 Home Based Work Modal Split DC DC E/Cent Prince Prince Core Other Arlington Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Total DC Core 66.1% 49.8% 58.7% 47.2% 18.7% 0.0% 0.0% 49.2% 30.7% 56.6% DC Other 54.2% 35.3% 40.5% 25.7% 17.5% 62.9% 2.8% 34.4% 17.7% 43.6% Arlington 50.9% 28.5% 22.0% 13.0% 9.0% 7.5% 4.8% 19.5% 9.8% 30.1% Alexandria 35.8% 17.2% 22.6% 14.6% 8.1% 7.0% 0.0% 13.7% 6.6% 20.8% Fairfax 27.9% 12.0% 14.4% 4.7% 2.7% 0.8% 0.4% 4.4% 2.1% 8.9% E/C Loudoun 11.4% 3.6% 4.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3.7% 1.3% 0.0% 1.1% Pr William 11.1% 4.0% 4.2% 0.8% 0.1% 15.6% 0.0% 1.7% 0.9% 1.6% Montgomery 43.6% 16.9% 21.1% 10.4% 3.4% 6.7% 0.0% 7.4% 3.6% 15.2% Pr George's 31.3% 14.8% 21.0% 6.9% 4.1% 18.7% 0.7% 13.0% 5.6% 14.7% Total 41.3% 22.1% 19.5% 8.9% 3.3% 2.6% 0.2% 10.1% 6.0% 17.6%

June 2002 142 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-66: ESTIMATED 1990 HOME BASED WORK TRIPS Persons Trips DC DC E/Cent Prince Prince Core Other Arlington Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Total DC Core 45,672 11,562 3,216 1,374 2,353 22 18 4,028 1,144 69,389 DC Other 158,935 96,861 16,211 5,251 11,973 243 673 17,412 16,214 323,773 Arlington 55.118 11,807 35,188 11,083 27,032 423 401 3,001 2,190 146,243 Alexandria 35,577 7,051 11,589 18,575 21,533 240 774 2,922 1,210 99,471 Fairfax 99,089 33,878 67,305 42,609 299,031 8,070 7,827 18,836 9,694 586,339 E/C Loudoun 3,294 1,309 3,844 562 20,083 16,510 777 2,728 344 49,451 Pr William 14,683 7,281 17,281 8,194 51,722 1,555 70,682 1,301 2,545 175,244 Montgomery 91,791 51,782 11,391 2,449 16,813 334 435 277,782 27,429 480,206 Pr George's 97,901 56,525 14,687 5,836 13,976 281 735 34,478 168,328 392,747 Total 602,060 278,056 180,712 95,933 464,516 27,678 82,322 362,488 229,098 2,322,863 Transit Trips DC DC E/Cent Prince Prince Core Other Arlington Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Total DC Core 23,453 5,015 1,324 510 371 0 0 1,610 209 32,492 DC Other 91,538 24,453 5,514 1,367 1,087 0 0 5,431 1,773 131,163 Arlington 30,505 2,689 6,854 2,007 2,548 0 0 718 146 45,467 Alexandria 18,604 1,496 2,929 2,455 1,910 0 1 531 50 27,976 Fairfax 37,827 3,637 10,821 3,916 8,953 4 2 993 101 66,254 E/C Loudoun 469 78 157 8 44 18 0 58 2 834 Pr William 3,492 653 1,369 538 456 0 57 72 62 6,699 Montgomery 44,575 7,830 1,794 226 241 1 0 19,607 933 75,207 Pr George's 42,995 8,028 2,115 440 268 0 0 3,473 6,226 63,545 Total 293,458 53,879 32,877 11,467 15,878 23 60 32,493 9,502 449,637 Home Based Work Modal Split DC DC E/Cent Prince Prince Core Other Arlington Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Total DC Core 51.4% 43.4% 41.2% 37.1% 15.8% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 18.3% 46.8% DC Other 57.6% 25.2% 34.0% 26.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 31.2% 10.9% 40.5% Arlington 55.3% 22.8% 19.5% 18.1% 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% 23.9% 6.7% 31.1% Alexandria 52.3% 21.2% 25.3% 13.2% 8.9% 0.0% 0.1% 18.2% 4.1% 28.1% Fairfax 38.2% 10.7% 16.1% 9.2% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 1.0% 11.3% E/C Loudoun 14.2% 6.0% 4.1% 1.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 2.1% 0.6% 1.7% Pr William 23.8% 9.0% 7.9% 6.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.1% 5.5% 2.4% 3.8% Montgomery 48.6% 15.1% 15.7% 9.2% 1.4% 0.3% 0.0% 7.1% 3.4% 15.7% Pr George's 43.9% 14.2% 14.4% 7.5% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 10.1% 3.7% 16.2% Total 48.7% 19.4% 18.2% 12.0% 3.4% 0.1% 0.1% 9.0% 4.1% 19.4%

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 143 June 2002 TABLE 3-67: HOME BASED WORK (HBW) PERSON TRIPS 1990 DC DC Prince Prince MD VA MD Core Other Arl Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Other Outer Outer Total DC Core 45,672 11,562 3,216 1,374 2,353 22 18 4,028 1,144 179 1 7 69,576 DC Other 158,935 96,861 16,211 5,251 11,973 243 673 17,412 16,214 2,170 19 61 326,023 Arlington 55,118 11,807 35,188 11,083 27,032 423 401 3,001 2,190 439 31 17 146,730 Alexandria 35,577 7,051 11,589 18,575 21,533 240 774 2,922 1,210 261 24 15 99,771 Fairfax 99,089 33,878 67,305 42,609 299,031 8,070 7,827 18,836 9,694 1,976 587 60 588,962 Loudoun 3,294 1,309 3,844 562 20,083 16,510 777 2,728 344 411 2,011 29 51,902 Pr William 14,683 7,281 17,281 8,194 51,722 1,555 70,682 1,301 2,545 298 2,400 7 177,949 Montgomery 91,791 51,782 11,391 2,449 16,813 334 435 277,782 27,429 16,305 87 768 497,366 Pr George's 97,901 56,525 14,687 5,836 13,976 281 735 34,478 168,328 27,270 17 736 420,770 MD Other 36,900 19,352 6,181 2,486 6,637 7966 241 38,595 34,674 326,817 758 9,854 483,461 VA Outer 9,396 2,714 5,152 3,973 22,954 5,158 24,116 1,410 678 1,314 64,525 233 141,623 MD Outer 8,615 4,029 1,377 648 1,105 44 28 5,417 6,447 17,688 71 82,377 127,846 Total 656,971 304,151 193,422 103,040 495,212 33,846 106,707 407,910 270,897 395,128 70,531 94,164 3,131,979 2020 DC DC Prince Prince MD VA MD Core Other Arl Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Other Outer Outer Total DC Core 50,989 12,947 4,427 1,841 3,199 56 50 4,763 1,721 188 6 2 80,189 DC Other 154,448 96,731 19,983 5,641 14,265 404 1,396 19,133 20,732 1,871 29 40 334,673 Arlington 57,980 12,215 51,398 12,483 30,393 695 753 3,455 2,859 387 55 12 172,685 Alexandria 39,012 7,525 16,732 20,193 25,712 400 1,660 3,154 1,525 240 50 1 116,204 Fairfax 108,088 36,856 103,046 50,748 461,467 18,087 19,718 19,822 13,512 2,402 1,480 51 835,277 Loudoun 6,899 2,670 10,566 1,209 69,667 62,156 4,087 5.899 966 1,389 5,142 31 170,681 Pr William 15,606 8,720 30,355 10,152 88,043 3,328 163,942 1,497 3,669 383 7,202 4 332,901 Montgomery 102,749 55,608 17,598 3,320 24,521 735 1,111 382,200 40,195 20,883 180 738 649,838 Pr George's 114,426 67,909 22,505 7,758 20,247 637 2,262 38,987 260,562 30,325 111 744 566,473 MD Other 53,198 24,925 13,299 4,357 14,114 1,782 909 54,824 57,048 511,257 1,801 11,826 749,340 VA Outer 6,858 2,337 6,620 3,242 29,388 7,637 37,443 1,536 643 1,251 136,840 76 233,871 MD Outer 16,691 7,096 3,909 1,470 2,916 123 152 9,297 14,686 29,504 531 136,725 223,100 Total 726.944 335,539 300,438 122.414 783,932 96,040 233,483 544,567 418,118 600,080 153,427 150,250 4,465,232

June 2002 144 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-67: HOME BASED WORK (HBW) PERSON TRIPS Growth DC DC Prince Prince MD VA MD Core Other Arl Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Other Outer Outer Total DC Core 11.6% 12.0% 37.7% 34.0% 36.0% 154.5% 177.8% 18.2% 50.4% 5.0% 500.0% -71.4% 15.3% DC Other -2.8% -0.1% 23.3% 7.4% 19.1% 66.3% 107.4% 9.9% 27.9% -13.8% 52.6% -34.4% 2.7% Arlington 5.2% 3.5% 46.1% 12.6% 12.4% 64.3% 87.8% 15.1% 30.5% -11.8% 77.4% -29.4% 17.7% Alexandria 9.7% 6.7% 44.4% 8.7% 19.4% 66.7% 114.5% 7.9% 26.0% -8.0% 108.3% -93.3% 16.5% Fairfax 9.1% 8.8% 53.1% 19.1% 54.3% 124.1% 151.9% 5.2% 39.4% 21.6% 152.1% -15.0% 41.8% Loudoun 109.4% 104.0% 174.9% 115.1% 246.9% 276.5% 426.0% 116.2% 180.8% 238.0% 155.7% 6.9% 228.9% Pr William 6.3% 19.8% 75.7% 23.9% 70.2% 114.0% 131.9% 15.1% 44.2% 28.5% 200.1% -42.9% 87.1% Montgomery 11.9% 7.4% 54.5% 35.6% 45.8% 120.1% 155.4% 37.6% 46.5% 28.1% 106.9% -3.9% 30.7% Pr George's 16.9% 20.1% 53.2% 32.9% 44.9% 126.7% 207.8% 13.1% 54.8% 11.2% 552.9% 1.1% 34.6% MD Other 44.2% 28.8% 115.2% 75.3% 112.7% 84.5% 277.2% 42.0% 64.5% 56.4% 137.6% 20.0% 55.0% VA Outer -27.0% -13.9% 28.5% -18.4% 28.0% 48.1% 55.3% 8.9% -5.2% -4.8% 112.1% -67.4% 65.1% MD Outer 93.7% 76.1% 183.9% 126.9% 163.9% 179.5% 442.9% 71.6% 127.8% 66.8% 647.9% 66.0% 74.5% Total 10.7% 10.3% 55.3% 18.8% 58.3% 183.8% 118.8% 33.5% 54.3% 51.9% 117.5% 59.6% 42.6%

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 145 June 2002 TABLE 3-68: HOME BASED WORK (HBW) TRANSIT TRIPS 1990 DC DC Prince Prince MD VA MD Core Other Arl Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Other Outer Outer Total DC Core 23,453 5,015 1,324 510 371 0 0 1,610 209 6 0 0 32,498 DC Other 91,538 24,453 5,514 1,367 1,087 0 0 5,431 1,773 27 0 0 131.190 Arlington 30,505 2,689 6,854 2,007 2,548 0 0 718 146 5 0 0 45,472 Alexandria 18,604 1,496 2,929 2,455 1,910 0 1 531 50 0 0 0 27,976 Fairfax 37,827 3,637 10,821 3,916 8,953 4 2 993 101 3 0 0 66,257 Loudoun 469 78 157 8 44 18 0 58 2 0 0 0 834 Pr William 3,492 653 1,369 538 456 0 57 72 62 0 0 0 6,699 Montgomery 44,575 7,830 1,794 226 241 1 0 19,607 933 46 0 0 75,253 Pr George's 42,995 8,028 2,115 440 268 0 0 3,473 6,226 40 0 0 63,585 MD Other 3,075 758 150 57 19 0 0 836 180 855 0 0 5,930 VA Outer 943 160 227 127 75 0 16 46 10 0 226 0 1,830 MD Outer 207 78 30 7 4 0 0 44 23 0 0 261 654 Total 297,683 54,875 33,284 11,658 15,976 23 76 33,419 9,715 982 226 261 458,178 2020 DC DC Prince Prince MD VA MD Core Other Arl Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Other Outer Outer Total DC Core 27,376 5,574 1,809 824 572 2 0 1,850 347 8 0 0 38,362 DC Other 89,626 23,572 7,049 1,888 1,467 2 2 5,645 2,349 15 0 0 131,615 Arlington 36,792 3,772 11,271 2,983 3,310 5 0 1,170 399 5 0 0 59,707 Alexandria 22,926 1,885 4,847 2,663 2,134 1 1 680 102 2 0 0 35,241 Fairfax 46,302 4,711 19,056 5,945 16,715 102 11 1,602 379 0 0 0 94,823 Loudoun 857 187 438 37 388 53 0 208 10 0 0 0i 2,178 Pr William 4,377 950 2,789 999 1,048 0 280 108 133 0 0 0 10,684 Montgomery 53,409 9,262 3,052 487 990 3 0 29,348 1,688 27 0 0 98,266 Pr George's 53,693 10,375 3,528 775 383 0 0 4,072 8,181 46 0 0 81,053 MD Other 3,470 1,076 277 121 40 0 0 1,183 396 1,440 0 0 8,003 VA Outer 547 142 210 118 106 0 13 50 16 1 472 0 1,675 MD Outer 269 124 27 15 5 0 0 35 48 0 0 456 979 Total 339,644 61,630 54,353 16,855 27,158 168 307 45,951 14,048 1,544 472 456 562,586

June 2002 146 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-68: HOME BASED WORK (HBW) TRANSIT TRIPS Growth DC DC Prince Prince MD VA MD Core Other Arl Alex Fairfax Loudoun William Montg George's Other Outer Outer Total DC Core 16.7% 11.1% 36.6% 61.6% 54.2% - - 14.9% 66.0% 33.3% - 18.0% DC Other -2.1% -3.6% 27.8% 38.1% 35.0% - - 3.9% 32.5% -44.4% - 0.3% Arlington 20.6% 40.3% 64.4% 48.6% 29.9% - - 63.0% 173.3% 0.0% - - 31.3% Alexandria 23.2% 26.0% 65.5% 8.5% 11.7% - 0.0% 28.1% 104.0% - - 26.0% Fairfax 22.4% 29.5% 76.1% 51.8% 86.7% 2450.0% 450.0% 61.3% 275.2% -100.0% - - 43.1% Loudoun 82.7% 139.7% 179.0% 362.5% 781.8% 194.4% - 258.6% 400.0% - - 161.2% Pr William 25.3% 45.5% 103.7% 85.7% 129.8% - 391.2% 50.0% 114.5% - - - 59.5% Montgomery 19.8% 18.3% 70.1% 115.5% 310.8% 200.0% - 49.7% 80.9% -41.3% - 30.6% Pr George's 24.9% 29.2% 66.8% 76.1% 42.9% - - 17.2% 31.4% 15.0% - 27.5% MD Other 12.8% 42.0% 84.7% 112.3% 110.5% - - 41.5% 120.0% 68.4% - - 35.0% VA Outer -42.0% -11.3% -7.5% -7.1% 41.3% - -18.8% 8.7% 60.0% - 108.8% - -8.5% MD Outer 30.0% 59.0% -10.0% 114.3% 25.0% - - -20.5% 108.7% - - 74.7% 49.7% Total 14.1% 12.3% 63.3% 44.6% 70.0% 630.4% 303.9% 37.5% 44.6% 57.2% 108.8% 74.7% 22.8%

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 147 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-69: METRORAIL TRIPS BY LINE GROUP FROM 1990 ONBOARD SURVEY Home Based Work Trips West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Total Core 17,996 4,243 1,180 2,253 2,671 1,582 6,292 36,217 W Orange 45,677 4,805 372 713 1,230 454 4,107 57,358 Blue/Orange 42,145 3,221 2,371 1,941 2,441 987 5,812 58,918 NWRed 27,726 1,179 259 5,838 7,068 350 1,928 44,348 SWRed 16,329 854 475 2,889 2,458 670 769 24,444 East Red 34,599 1,775 672 1,101 4,804 1,895 3,158 48,004 Blue/Yellow 37,385 3,221 378 900 1,812 670 6,236 50,602 Total 221,857 19,298 5,707 15,635 22,484 6,608 28,302 319,891 Non-Work Trips West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Total Core 35,075 7,264 4,581 4,881 8,082 4,495 7,958 72,336 W Orange 14,759 2,548 702 412 1,309 467 2,601 22,798 Blue/Orange 11,013 744 2,594 465 2,176 881 1,354 19,227 NWRed 9,904 489 395 3,375 3,809 497 1,254 19,723 SWRed 10,361 877 773 2,831 3,738 999 943 20,522 East Red 10,355 528 560 662 3,098 1,242 1,053 17,498 Blue/Yellow 14,509 2,684 875 930 1,382 621 5,637 26,638 Total 105,976 15,134 10,480 13,556 23,594 9,202 20,800 198,742 Total Metrorail Trips West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Total Core 53,071 11,507 5,761 7,134 10,753 6,077 14,250 108,553 W Orange 60,436 7,353 1,074 1,125 2,539 921 6,708 80,156 Blue/Orange 53,158 3,965 4,965 2,406 4,617 1,868 7,166 78,145 NWRed 37,630 1,668 654 9,213 10,877 847 3,182 64,071 SWRed 26,690 1,731 1,248 5,720 6,196 1,669 1,712 44,966 East Red 44,954 2,303 1,232 1,763 7,902 3,137 4.211 65,502 Blue/Yellow 51,894 5,905 1,253 1,830 3,194 1,291 11,873 77,240 Total 327,833 34,432 16,187 29,191 46,078 15,810 49,102 518,633

June 2002 148 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-70: ESTIMATED 1990 METRORAIL TRIPS BY LINE GROUP Home Based Work Trips West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Total Core 27,383 1,612 1,293 1,222 3,515 1,686 2,673 39,384 W Orange 38,761 4,529 483 859 3,222 720 4,523 53,097 Blue/Orange 42,756 1,282 1,606 941 3,168 1,605 1,916 53,274 NWRed 23,177 552 234 8,045 4,246 1,530 773 38,557 SWRed 15,566 904 615 1,725 2,251 2,619 1,143 24,823 East Red 31,350 787 719 1,453 5,794 1,870 1,400 43,373 Blue/Yellow 35,342 2,208 387 645 2,900 761 8,041 50,284 Total 214,335 11,874 5,337 14,890 25,096 10,791 20,469 302,792 Non-Work Trips West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Total Core 39,296 5,165 5,142 2,308 5,355 3,669 4,807 65,742 W Orange 10,876 4,237 477 309 1,988 323 2,356 20,566 Blue/Orange 16,495 546 3,962 269 2,156 1,643 740 25,811 NWRed 6,062 293 167 4,954 3,464 1,964 320 17,224 SWRed 6,440 1,028 897 1,507 4,784 2,669 794 18,119 East Red 9,252 308 817 1,542 5,631 3,103 443 21,096 Blue/Yellow 10,010 1,851 487 202 1,624 355 6,245 20,774 Total 98,431 13,428 11,949 11,091 25,002 13,726 15,705 189,332 Total Metrorail Trips West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Total Core 66,679 6,777 6,435 3,530 8,870 5,355 7,480 105,126 W Orange 49,637 8,766 960 1,168 5,210 1,043 6,879 73,663 Blue/Orange 59,251 1,828 5,568 1,210 5,324 3,248 2,656 79,085 NWRed 29,239 845 401 12,999 7,710 3,494 1,093 55,781 SWRed 22,006 - 1,932 1,512 3,232 7,035 5,288 1,937 42,942 East Red 40,602 1,095 1,536 2,995 11,425 4,973 1,843 64,469 Blue/Yellow 45,352 4,059 874 847 4,524 1,116 14,286 71,058 Total 312,766 25,302 17,286 25,981 50,098 24,517 36,174 492,124

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 149 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-71: ESTIMATED HBW METRORAIL TRIPS BY LINE GROUP 1990 West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ NE SE Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Green Green Total Core 27,383 1,612 1,293 1,222 3,515 1,686 2,673 0 0 39,384 West Orange 38,761 4,529 483 859 3,222 720 4,523 0 0 53,097 Blue/Orange 42,756 1,282 1,606 941 3,168 1,605 1,916 0 0 53,274 NWRed 23,177 552 234 8,045 4,246 1,530 773 0 0 38,557 SWRed 15,566 904 615 1,725 2,251 2,619 1,143 0 0 24,823 East Red 31,350 787 719 1,453 5,794 1,870 1,400 0 0 43,373 Blue/Yellow 35,342 2,208 387 645 2,900 761 8,041 0 0 50,284 NE Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 214,335 11,874 5,337 14,890 25,096 10,791 20,469 0 0 302,792 2020 West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ NE SE Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Green Green Total Core 20,583 1,835 637 914 1,897 1,149 2,294 1,243 273 30,825 West Orange 44,162 9,057 561 1,263 3,007 958 7,070 966 198 67,242 Blue/Orange 37,859 1,640 1,929 1,032 2,354 1,257 2,309 1,521 530 50,431 NWRed 25,083 1,031 291 10,320 3,784 2,474 1,160 851 148 45,142 SWRed 17,531 1,125 423 1,644 1,646 1,704 1,389 1,032 192 26,686 East Red 35,562 1,225 579 4,227 4,196 3,400 1,764 2,061 279 53,293 Blue/Yellow 50,174 5,288 500 998 3,105 976 16,622 1,257 303 79,223 NE Green 22,410 934 544 1,089 2,363 1,757 1,588 2,134 441 33,260 SE Green 24,532 865 594 669 1,766 893 1,883 1,615 489 33,306 Total 277,896 23,000 6,058 22,156 24,118 14,568 36,079 12,680 2,853 419,408 Growth West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ NE SE Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Green Green Total Core -25% 14% -51% -25% -46% -32% -14% N/A N/A -22% West Orange 14% 100% 16% 47% -7% 33% 56% N/A N/A 27% Blue/Orange -11% 28% 20% 10% -26% -22% 21% N/A N/A -5% NWRed 8% 87% 24% 28% -11% 62% 50% N/A N/A 17% SWRed 13% 24% -31% -5% -27% -35% 22% N/A N/A 8% East Red 13% 56% -19% 191% -28% 82% 26% N/A N/A 23% Blue/Yellow 42% 139% 29% 55% 7% 28% 107% N/A N/A 58% NE Green N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SE Green N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 30% 94% 14% 49% -4% 35% 76% N/A N/A 39%

June 2002 150 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-72: ESTIMATED TOTAL METRORAIL TRIPS BY LINE GROUP 1990 West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ NE SE Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Green Green Total Core 66,679 6,777 6,435 3,530 8,870 5,355 7,480 0 0 105,126 West Orange 49,637 8,766 960 1,168 5,210 1,043 6,879 0 0 73,663 Blue/Orange 59,251 1,828 5,568 1,210 5,324 3,248 2,656 0 0 79,085 NWRed 29,239 845 401 12,999 7,710 3,494 1,093 0 0 55,781 SWRed 22,006 1,932 1,512 3,232 7,035 5,288 1,937 0 0 42,942 East Red 40,602 1,095 1,536 2,995 11,425 4,973 1,843 0 0 64,469 Blue/Yellow 45,352 4,059 874 847 4,524 1,116 14,286 0 0 71,058 NE Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 312,766 25,302 17,286 25,981 50,098 24,517 36,174 0 0 492,124 2020 West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ NE SE Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Green Green Total Core 60,131 8,566 4,579 3,324 6,484 4,814 8,839 5,962 1,886 104,585 West Orange 57,501 15,491 965 1,641 4,923 1,359 11,484 1,634 322 95,320 Blue/Orange 49,365 2,197 6,692 1,318 3,618 2,573 3,195 2,876 1,275 73,109 NWRed 31,197 1,444 509 17,204 6,796 5,646 1,741 1,552 246 66,335 SWRed 23,879 2,393 866 2,925 6,003 3,542 2,348 2,471 332 44,759 East Red 43,382 1,607 1,322 7,336 7,631 8,789 2,419 4,607 448 77,541 Blue/Yellow 63,997 9,115 1,005 1,309 4,617 1,452 30,786 1,894 506 114,681 NE Green 29,374 1,510 1,274 1,557 4,510 3,594 2,194 7,326 824 52,163 SE Green 31,487 1,074 1,782 872 2,555 1,426 2,339 2,773 1,791 46,099 Total 390,313 43,397 18,994 37,486 47,137 33,195 65,345 31,095 7,630 674.592 Growth West Blue/ NW SW East Blue/ NE SE Core Orange Orange Red Red Red Yellow Green Green Total Core -10% 26% -29% -6% -27% -10% 18% N/A N/A -1% West Orange 16% 77% 1% 40% -6% 30% 67% N/A N/A 29% Blue/Orange -17% 20% 20% 9% -32% -21% 20% N/A N/A -8% NWRed 7% 71% 27% 32% -12% 62% 59% N/A N/A 19% SWRed 9% 24% -43% -9% -15% -33% 21% N/A N/A 4% East Red 7% 47% -14% 145% -33% 77% 31% N/A N/A 20% Blue/Yellow 41% 125% 15% 55% 2% 30% 115% N/A N/A 61% NE Green N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SE Green N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 25% 72% 10% 44% -6% 35% 81% N/A N/A 37%

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 151 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-73: HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT SUMMARY STATISTICS Total Links with Counts 25,395 Total VMT from Counts 110,349,000 Estimated VMT (Links with Counts) 114,346,000 Total Estimated VMT 141,379,000 Estimated VMT/Count VMT (Links with Counts) 103.6% Total Count (All Links) 191,332,000 Total Volume (Links with Counts) 198,002,000 Estimated Volume/Total Count (Links with Counts) 103.5% VMT by Jurisdiction VMT from Estimated Counts VMT % Diff 0 District of Columbia 8,084,000 8,315,000 3% 1 Montgomery 15,710,000 15,662,000 0% 2 Prince Georges 19,125,000 19,706,000 3% 3 Arlington 4,066,000 3,774,000 -7% 4 Alexandria 2,729,000 2,633,000 -4% 5 Fairfax 20,265,000 20,363,000 0% 6 Loudoun 2,074,000 2,229,000 7% 7 Prince William 4,869,000 4,848,000 0% 9 Frederick 4,850,000 4,659,000 -4% 10 Howard 4,607,000 6,011,000 30% 11 Anne Arundel 9,142,000 12,739,000 39% 12 Charles 1,865,000 1,906,000 2% 14 Carroll 1,927,000 2,491,000 29% 15 Calvert 1,234,000 1,076,000 -13% 16 St Mary's 1,470,000 1,130,000 -23% 17 King George 436.000 421,000 -3% 18 Fredericksburg 339,000 303,000 -11% 19 Stafford 2,752,000 2,166,000 -21% 20 Spotsylvania 1,833,000 1,143.000 -38% 21 Fauquier 1,431,000 1,399,000 -2% 22 Clarke 333,000 467,000 40% 23 Jefferson 1,208,000 906,000 -25% Inner 76,922,000 77,530,000 1% Outer 33,427,000 36,817,000 10% Total 110,349,000 114,347,000 4%

June 2002 152 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-74: HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT SUMMARY SCREENLINE SUMMARY Freeway/Expwy/Pk wy Other Facilities Total Estimated Estimated Estimated Volume Count V/C Volume Count V/C Volume Count V/C 1 Arlington Core 382,000 490,000 0.779 279,300 224,000 1.247 661,300 714,000 0.926 2 DC Core 149,200 104,000 1.435 863,400 719,000 1.201 1,012,600 823,000 1.230 3 Ring 3/4 VA 368,300 430,000 0.856 499,500 428,000 1.167 867,800 858,000 1.011 4 Ring 3/4 MD 161,800 110,000 1.471 859,400 1,006,000 0.854 1,021,100 1,116,000 0.915 5 Beltway VA 303,600 376,000 0.808 845,300 670,000 1.262 1,149,000 1,046,000 1.098 6 Beltway MD 487,200 422,000 1.154 1,092,300 1,124,000 0.972 1,579,500 1,546,000 1.022 7 Ring 5/6 VA 462,200 444,000 1.041 691,400 744,000 0.929 1,153,600 1,188,000 0.971 8 Ring 5/6 MD 671,000 472,000 1.422 795,800 818,000 0.973 1,466,800 1,290,000 1.137 9 Fairfax/Loudoun/PW 283,000 292,000 0.969 288,800 252,000 1.146 571,800 544,000 1.051 10 Old Cordon VA 73,100 66,000 1.108 129,100 114,000 1.133 202,200 180,000 1.124 11 Rt 15 28,100 28,000 1.004 96,900 110,000 0.881 125,000 138,000 0.906 12 Western Montg 191,400 178,000 1.075 306,500 286,000 1.072 498,000 464,000 1.073 13 Eastern Montg 164,100 186,000 0.882 221,700 164,000 1.352 385,700 350,000 1.102 14 Northern PG 180,500 178,000 1.014 112,100 82,000 1.367 292,600 260,000 1.126 15 Central PG 193,000 190,000 1.016 41,100 44,000 0.934 234,000 234,000 1.000 16 Southern PG 84,900 110,000 0.772 87,600 60,000 1.460 172,500 170,000 1.015 17 Southern Fairfax 185,400 194,000 0.956 212,900 190,000 1.120 398,300 384,000 1.037 18 Central Fairfax 241,100 210,000 1.148 340,400 304,000 1.120 581,600 514,000 1.131 19 N. Fairfax/Loudoun 160,100 156,000 1.026 186,300 188,000 0.991 346,400 344,000 1.007 20 Potomac River 723,600 746,000 0.970 149,100 104,000 1.434 872,700 850,000 1.027 22 Outer Maryland 759,000 540,000 1.406 717,500 698,000 1.028 1,476,500 1,238,000 1.193 23 Upper Montg 72,700 70,000 1.039 65,000 72,000 0.902 137,700 142,000 0.970 24 Montg/PG 174,300 176,000 0.990 280,700 230,000 1.220 454,900 406,000 1.121 25 Montg/Frederick 65,700 76,000 0.865 30,800 26,000 1.185 96,500 102,000 0.946 26 Montg/Howard 195,400 136,000 1.437 166,100 122,000 1.362 361,500 258,000 1.401 27 PG/Anne Arundel 312,700 182,000 1.718 119,600 86,000 1.391 432,400 268,000 1.613 28 PG/Charles 0 0 0.000 126,700 100,000 1.267 126,700 100,000 1.267 29 Loudoun/West 0 0 0.000 71,300 52,000 1.370 71,300 52,000 1.370 30 PW/Fauquier 23,300 22,000 1.061 67,400 52,000 1.297 90,800 74,000 1.227 31 PW/Stafford 106,500 94,000 1.133 7,100 22,000 0.323 113,600 116,000 0.979 Total 7,203,200 6,678,000 1.079 9,751,100 9,091,000 1.073 16,954,400 15,769,000 1.075

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 153 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-75: HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT SUMMARY VMT BY JURISDICTION -1990 VS. 2020 Estimated Estimated VMT -1990 VMT - 2020 % Difference 0 District of Columbia 8,315,000 10,586,000 27% 1 Montgomery 15,662,000 20,064,000 28% 2 Prince Georges 19,706,000 29,733,000 51% 3 Arlington 3,774,000 4,833,000 28% 4 Alexandria 2,633,000 3,278,000 24% 5 Fairfax 20,363,000 27,932,000 37% 6 Loudoun 2,229,000 4,869,000 118% 7 Prince William 4,848,000 9,329,000 92% 9 Frederick 4,659,000 9,646,000 107% 10 Howard 6,011,000 11,189,000 86% 11 Anne Arundel 12,739,000 19,861,000 56% 12 Charles 1,906,000 3,024,000 59% 14 Carroll 2,491,000 4,897,000 97% 15 Calvert 1,076,000 2,022,000 88% 16 St Mary's 1,130,000 1,781,000 58% 17 King George 421,000 924,000 119% 18 Fredericksburg 303,000 621,000 105% 19 Stafford 2,166,000 3,519,000 62% 20 Spotsylvania 1,143,000 2,611,000 128% 21 Fauquier 1,399,000 3,373,000 141% 22 Clarke 467,000 1,101,000 136% 23 Jefferson 906,000 1,991,000 120% Inner 77,530,000 110,624,000 43% Outer 36,817,000 66,560,000 81% Total 114,347,000 177,184,000 55%

June 2002 154 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project TABLE 3-76: HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT SUMMARY NORTHERN VIRGINIA SCREENLINE SUMMARY -1990 VS. 2020 Freeway/Expwy/Pkwy Other Facilities Total Estimated Volumes Estimated Volumes Estimated Volumes Location 1990 2020 Growth 1990 2020 Growth 1990 2020 Growth (1) Arlington Core 388,100 474,900 22.4% 280,100 368,100 31.4% 668,200 843,000 26.2% (3) Ring 3/4 VA 374,000 443,600 18.6% 509,600 673,200 32.1% 883,600 1,116,800 26.4% (5) Beltway VA 308,600 390,200 26.4% 827,700 1,053,500 27.3% 1,136,300 1,443,700 27.1% (7) Ring 5/6 VA 462,300 674,600 45.9% 691,300 927,900 34.2% 1,153,600 1,602,500 38.9% (9) Fairfax/Loudoun/PW 283,200 475,200 67.8% 304,400 614,900 102.0% 587,600 1,090,100 85.5% (10) Old Cordon VA 73,500 154,700 110.5% 128,900 273,400 112.1% 202,400 428,100 111.5% (11) Route 15 28,000 109,000 289.3% 99,500 209,000 110.1% 127,500 318,000 149.4% (17) Southern Fairfax/PW 186,000 218,100 17.3% 230,400 441,200 91.5% 416,400 659,300 58.3% (18) Central Fairfax/Loudoun 264,400 344,900 30.4% 353,400 579,800 64.1% 617,800 924,700 49.7% (19) Northern Fairfax/Loudoun 161,200 238,200 47.8% 215,700 430,300 99.5% 376,900 668,500 77.4% (20) Potomac Bridges 725,500 897,500 23.7% 150,300 210,800 40.3% 875,800 1,108,300 26.5% (29) Loudoun/West 0 0 - 71,200 138,400 94.4% 71,200 138,400 94.4% (30) Prince William/Fauquier 23,300 52,000 123.2% 76,100 171.300 125.1% 99,400 223,300 124.6% (31) Prince William/Stafford 106,500 174,900 64.2% 7,200 35,300 390.3% 113,700 210,200 84.9%

Total 3,384,600 4,647,800 37.3% 3,945,800 6,127,100 7,330,400 7,330,400 10,774,900 47.0%

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 155 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-77: HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT AT NORTHERN VIRGINIA SCREENLINE LOCATIONS Alt 90M Screen Line (1) Arlington Core Anode Bnode Volume Count 5,359 5,124 41,000 46,000 N GW Pkwy WB 5,379 5,316 44,000 46,000 N GW Pkwy EB 5,125 5,249 23,000 49,000 1-66 WB 5,251 12,041 29,000 49,000 1-66 EB 5,126 5,141 39,000 36,000 Lee Hwy 5,123 5,129 14,000 6,000 Rhodes Street 5,129 5,134 20,000 12,000 Wilson Boulevard 5,134 5,136 11,000 10,000 Court House Road 5,137 5,138 20,000 14,000 10th Street N 5,150 5,151 8,000 12,000 Pershing Drive 5,153 5,360 24,000 16,000 Washington Boulevard 5,373 5,155 29,000 14,000 US 50 WB 5,155 5,363 29,000 14,000 US 50 EB 5,158 5,347 5,000 6,000 2nd Streets 5,169 5,170 49,000 32,000 Columbia Pk 12,421 12,418 83,000 95,000 I-395 SB 12,420 12,417 3,000 0 1-395 HOV SB 12,416 12,419 2,000 0 I-395 HOV NB 5,217 5,218 82,000 95,000 I-395 NB 5,207 5,320 4,000 14,000 Army-Navy Drive 5,208 5,275 28,000 38,000 US 1 5,290 5,295 41,000 55,000 S GW Pkwy SB 5,326 5,318 41,000 55,000 S GW Pkwy NB Total 668,000 714,000 Total w/Count 663,000 714,000

June 2002 156 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-77 CONT. Alt 90M Screen Line (3) Ring 3/4 VA Anode Bnode Volume Count 5,000 5,001 15,000 26,000 VA123 5,124 5,002 30,000 34,000 N GW Pkway NB 5,378 5,379 31,000 34,000 N GW Pkwy SB 5,005 6,579 15,000 6,000 Chesterbrook Road 5,007 6,593 20,000 22,000 Old Dominion Drive 5,015 5,042 5,000 6,000 Yorktown Boulevard 5,016 5,315 16,000 8.000 Williamsburg Boulevard 5,045 5,332 31,000 32,000 Lee Hwy 5,051 5,052 15,000 18,000 Washington Boulevard 5,256 5,186 44,000 55,000 I-66 WB 5,238 5,008 45,000 55,000 I-66 EB 5,074 5,075 7,000 4,000 Patrick Henry Drive 5,075 5,077 31,000 22,000 Wilson Boulevard 5,078 6,074 57,000 54,000 US 50 5,078 6,051 12,000 4,000 Manchester Street 5,079 5,242 7,000 8,000 Glen Carlyn Road 5,080 5,242 43,000 26,000 Carlyn Springs Road 5,083 5,163 32,000 32,000 Columbia Pk 5,178 5,179 10,000 16,000 George Mason Drive 5,180 5,182 27,000 22,000 Walter Reed Drive 5,182 5,184 13,000 12,000 Four Mile Run Drive 5,174 5,184 12,000 10,000 Shiriington Road 12,407 12,403 80,000 97,000 I-395 SB 12,406 12,402 3,000 0 1-395 HOV SB 12,401 12,405 2,000 0 I-395 HOV NB 5,272 12,404 83,000 97,000 I-395 NB 5,187 5,190 73,000 46,000 Glebe Road 5,191 5,305 13,000 16,000 Arlington Ridge Road 5,202 5,203 49,000 38,000 US1 5,292 5,294 23,000 29,000 S GW Pkwy SB 5,197 5,323 33,000 29,000 S GW Pkwy NB 5,293 5,294 9,000 0 National Airport Total 884,000 858,000 Total w/Count 870,000 858,000

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 157 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-77 CONT.

Alt 90M Screen Line (5) Beltway VA Anode Bnode Volume Count 6,592 10,624 39,000 52,000 GW Parkway 6,565 10,620 25,000 12,000 VA193 6,554 6,601 7,000 12,000 Old Dominion Drive 6,608 6,855 15,000 28,000 Lewinsville Road 10,760 10,616 20,000 29,000 Dulles Toll Road WB 10,732 10,717 2,000 4,000 DAARWB 10,715 10,726 2,000 4,000 DAAREB 10,580 10,656 22,000 29,000 Dulles Toll Road EB 6,537 10,612 63,000 40,000 VA123 6,541 10,608 51,000 48,000 VA7 6,589 6,690 4,000 0 Oak Street 6,531 6,697 17,000 14,000 Idylwood Road 6,598 10,728 37,000 44,000 I-66 WB 10,604 12,062 38,000 44,000 I-66 EB 6,524 6,784 53,000 32,000 US 29 6,853 10,600 59,000 56,000 US 50 6,073 10,596 51,000 32,000 Gallows Road 6,029 10,592 72,000 48,000 VA236 6,006 10,588 47,000 52,000 Braddock 6,362 10,552 64,000 44,000 Backiick Road 5,570 5,720 89,000 90,000 US1 12,215 12,207 74,000 85,000 1-395 SB 12,214 12,211 2,000 0 1-395 HOV SB 12,210 12,213 2,000 0 1-395 HOV NB 6,081 12,212 71,000 85,000 1-395 NB 5,643 10,583 79,000 36,000 Van Dom Street 5,591 5,598 90,000 70,000 Telegraph Road 5,557 5,594 42,000 28,000 Mt Vemon Hwy Total 1,136,000 1,018,000 Total w/Count 1,128,000 1,018,000

June 2002 158 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-77 CONT. Alt 90M Screen Line (7) Ring 5/6 VA Anode Bnode Volume Count 6,618 6,619 37,000 20,000 VA193 6,610 6,611 58,000 60,000 VA7 10,764 10,765 35,000 43,000 Dulles Toll Road WB 10,783 10,795 7,000 11,000 DAARWB 10,796 10,784 7,000 11,000 DAAREB 10,666 10,664 36,000 43,000 Dulles Toll Road EB 6623 6,759 15,000 6,000 Beulah Road 6,685 6,686 17,000 18,000 Lawyers Road 6,705 6,798 38,000 60,000 VA123 6,703 6,705 43,000 42,000 Nutley Street 10,748 10,749 70,000 68,000 1-66 WB 10,635 10,633 71,000 68,000 1-66 EB 6,776 6,779 27,000 32,000 US 29 6,347 6,776 36.000 28,000 Blake Lane 6,345 6,347 34,000 50,000 US 50 6,271 6,272 43,000 54,000 VA236 6,277 6,278 48,000 50,000 Braddock Road 6,259 6,260 35,000 24,000 Guinea Road 6,232 6,233 43,000 24,000 Burke Lake Road 6,229 6,233 7,000 12,000 Burke Road 6,201 10,532 30,000 46,000 Old Keene Mill Road 6,201 6,202 33,000 26,000 Rolling Road 6,196 6,203 51,000 16,000 Hooes Road 6,091 6,366 21,000 30,000 Backiick Road 10,685 10,786 77,000 77,000 1-95 SB 6,187 10,775 80,000 77,000 1-95 NB 6,170 6,860 15,000 22,000 Loisdale Road 6,092 6,168 19,000 12,000 Beulah Street 6,150 6,224 24,000 30,000 Telegraph Road 6,118 6,300 58,000 62,000 US1 6,125 6,161 8,000 16,000 Sherwood Hall Road 6,133 6,134 1,000 20,000 Ft Hunt Road 6,102 6,103 27,000 30,000 Mt Vernon Hwy Total 1,154,000 1,188,000 Total w/Count 1,154,000 1,188,000

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 159 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-77 CONT. Alt 90M Screen Line (9) Fairfax/Loudoun/PW Anode Bnode Volume Count 6,641 6,931 57,000 52,000 VA 7 6,929 6,971 4,000 8,000 Sugarland Road 6,664 6,878 28,000 20,000 VA 606 10,772 6,942 14,000 27,000 Dulles Toll Road WB 10,803 6,944 7,000 11,000 DAARWB 6,945 10,804 8,000 11,000 DAAREB 6,913 10,680 13,000 27,000 Dulles Toll Road EB 6,689 6,758 13,000 6,000 McLearenRoad 6,747 10,681 29,000 44,000 US 50 6,746 10,576 4,000 0 Westfields Boulevard 6,832 6,869 12,000 0 Poplar Tree Road 10,754 10,755 47,000 48,000 I-66 WB 10,646 10,644 51,000 48,000 I-66EB 6,314 6,316 35,000 36,000 US 29 6,314 6,866 27,000 20,000 Braddock Road 6,305 6,306 9,000 10,000 Compton Road 6,249 6,452 19,000 2,000 Old Yates Ford Road 6,217 6,420 35,000 22,000 VA123 10,697 10,789 70,000 60,000 I-95 SB 6,083 10,781 72,000 60,000 I-95 NB 6,189 6,412 33,000 32,000 US 1 Total 588,000 544,000 Total w/Count 572,000 544,000 Alt 90M Screen Line (10) Old Cordon VA Anode Bnode Volume Count 6,973 7,145 46,000 30,000 VA 7 6,964 7,155 5,000 2,000 Waxpool Road 6,925 6,926 5,000 6,000 VA 606 6,907 6,909 16,000 22,000 US 50 6,325 10,432 13,000 8,000 US 29 10,785 7,077 36,000 33,000 1-66 WB 6,389 6,792 37,000 33,000 1-66 EB 6,307 6,450 42.000 46,000 VA 28 Total 202,000 180,000 Total w/Count 202,000 180,000

June 2002 160 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-77 CONT. Alt 90M Screen Line (11) Route 15 Anode Bnode Volume Count 7,140 7,169 45,000 40,000 VA 7 7,147 7,150 3,000 6,000 Sycolin 6,900 7,148 3,000 0 Evergreen Mills 7,108 7,110 15,000 22,000 US 50 7,051 10,194 4,000 8,000 VA 234 10,402 10,403 14,000 14,000 I-66WB 6,456 6,401 14,000 14,000 I-66 EB 7,044 7,046 6,000 4,000 VA 55 7,038 7,039 23,000 30,000 US 29 Total 127,000 138,000 Total w/Count 125,000 138,000 Alt 90M Screen Line (17) Southern Fairfax/PW Anode Bnode Volume Count 10,790 10,714 92,000 97,000 1-495 WB 10,589 12,206 94,000 97,000 1-495 EB 6,228 6,229 48,000 48,000 Rolling Road 6,225 10,529 30,000 46,000 Old Keene Mill Road 6,085 6,225 12,000 10,000 Sydenstricker Road 6,223 6,367 23,000 10,000 Lee Chapel Road 6,084 6,236 17,000 8,000 PohickRoad 6,237 6,238 30,000 16,000 VA123 6,242 6,244 5,000 2,000 Henderson Road 6,448 7,075 15,000 26,000 Davis Ford Road 6,446 6,478 14,000 0 Purcell Road 6,443 6,446 3,000 6,000 Hoadly Road 6,443 10,174 5,000 0 Springs Road 6,441 7,015 21,000 14,000 VA234 6,441 7,016 7,000 4,000 Bristow Road Total 416,000 384,000 Total w/Count 398,000 384,000

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 161 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-77 CONT. Alt 90M Screen Line (18) Central Fairfax/Loudoun Anode Bnode Volume Count 10,727 10,733 91,000 95,000 1-495 NB 10,609 10,603 93,000 95,000 1-495 SB 6,698 6,891 41,000 34,000 Gallows Road 6,699 6,889 7,000 14,000 Cedar Lane 6,888 10,630 60,000 38,000 Nutley Street 6,710 6,815 23,000 50,000 VA 123 6,712 6,724 26,000 28,000 Hunter Mill Road 6,718 6,719 28,000 26,000 Waples Mill Road 6,742 10,638 85,000 54,000 US 50 6,741 6,743 23,000 20,000 West Ox Road 6,847 10,623 22,000 0 Fairfax County Pkwy 6,738 6,744 11,000 12,000 Stringfellow Road 6,745 6,832 58,000 20,000 VA 28 6,768 6,884 13,000 0 Poplar Tree Road 6,767 6,768 22,000 14,000 Braddock Road 6,765 6,865 1,000 2,000 Pleasant Valley Road 6,763 6,764 0 0 Bull Run PO Road 7,052 7,103 5,000 2,000 VA 659 7,051 7,053 8,000 10,000 US 15 Total 618,000 514,000 Total w/Count 583,000 514,000

June 2002 162 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report Tables

TABLE 3-77 CONT. Alt 90M Screen Line (19) Northern Fairfax/Loudoun Anode Bnode Volume Count 10,739 10,742 81,000 78,000 I-495NB 10,621 10,615 81,000 78,000 1-495SB 6,601 6,608 7,000 4,000 Swinks Mill Road 6,602 6,606 4,000 4,000 Spring Hill Road 6,610 6,622 8,000 6,000 Walker Road 6,611 6,612 59,000 60,000 VA 7 6,625 6,626 13,000 8,000 Hunter Mill Road 6,624 6,806 2,000 10,000 Wiehle Ave 6,647 6,663 17,000 22,000 VA606 6,571 6,647 20,000 18,000 Reston Pkwy 6,657 6,821 18,000 24,000 VA228 6,664 6,947 20,000 0 Atlantic Boulevard 6,911 6,915 33,000 20,000 VA 28 6,901 7,154 1,000 0 Ashbum Road 7,152 7,153 3,000 0 VA 659 7,150 7,151 3,000 0 Sycolin Road 6,900 7,166 3,000 0 Evergreen Mills Road 7,114 7,149 6,000 12,000 US 15 Total 377,000 344,000 Total w/Count 347,000 344,000 Alt 90M Screen Line (20) Potomac Bridges Anode Bnode Volume Count 3,195 3,192 99,000 101,000 American Legion SB 3,507 3,571 97,000 101,000 American Legion NB 5,000 9,074 48,000 26,000 Chain Bridge 9,000 9,338 103,000 78,000 Key Bridge 5,228 8,670 136,000 90,000 Theodore Roosevelt 8,692 9,327 71,000 74,000 Memorial Bridge 9,321 9,909^ 173,000 232,000 14th Street Bridge 4,620 4,904 73,000 74,000 Woodrow Wilson WB 4,903 4,484 76,000 74,000 Woodrow Wilson EB Total 876,000 850,000 Total w/Count 876,000 850,000

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project 163 June 2002 Tables Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Report

TABLE 3-77 CONT. Alt 90M Screen Line (29) Loudoun/West Anode Bnode Volume Count 14,965 14,966 28,000 36,000 US 340 7,232 14,964 14,000 4,000 VA 9 14,912 14,918 18,000 6,000 VA7 14,900 14,914 12,000 6,000 US 50 Total 71,000 52,000 Total w/Count 71,000 52,000 Alt 90M Screen Line (30) Prince William/Fauquier Anode Bnode Volume Count 14,834 14,838 7,000 6,000 US 17 14,840 14,862 4,000 0 Rectortown Road 14,830 14,846 5,000 0 Hopewell Road 6,447 14,826 11,000 11,000 1-66 WB 14,822 7,098 12,000 11,000 I-66EB 14,825 14,850 3,000 2,000 VA 55 14,823 14,824 30,000 36,000 US 29 14,811 14,812 26,000 8,000 VA 28 Total 99,000 74,000 Total w/Count 91,000 74,000 Alt 90M Screen Line (31) Prince William/Stafford Anode Bnode Volume Count 10,417 10405 52,000 47,000 1-95 SB 6,404 10,424 54,000 47,000 1-95 NB 7,003 7,059 7,000 22,000 US 1 10,441 10,442 0 0 Telegraph Road Total 114,000 116,000 Total w/Count 114,000 116,000

June 2002 164 Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project

Memorandum

To: Andrew T. Rountree, CPA Vice President for Finance and Chief Financial Officer Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

From: Jonathan Pagan

Date: May 15, 2012

Subject: DTR: Response to Question by Supervisor Reid Regarding Traffic Diversion

Dear Mr. Rountree:

This memorandum addresses Supervisor Reid’s Question 1 dated May 8, 2012, namely:

1. “The Reston Assn. did a critique of the CDM Smith study and projected that with higher tolls, 30,000 cars will flee the toll road to local roads. What would be the impact on Route 7 or other roads if the tolls go up to $4 and $6 each way on the DTR?”

First, it is important to note that we do not believe that the projected diversion calculated by the Reston Citizen’s Association (RCA) is correct. RCA has attempted to estimate diversion of traffic from the Dulles Toll Road (DTR) to local roads simply by manipulating data from various sources. There is no indication that RCA retained or directly consulted with any experts in the field of traffic and revenue forecasting to actually model traffic in the Dulles Corridor.

The following discussion highlights key areas of concern regarding the RCA methodology:

RCA assumes incorrectly that if the cost of a trip is increased from $2.25 to $4.50 next year, then 18% of DTR traffic will divert to other roads. However, that reduction in toll transactions is only partly based on toll increases; other key changes occur between 2012 and 2013, a major example being the opening of the 495 Express lanes in late 2012.

It is also not correct to assume that 100% of the decline in toll transactions in response to the toll increase would be diverted to alternate routes. Many other driver responses could contribute to an estimated reduction in transactions, such as increased carpooling, consolidation/reduction of less‐necessary trips, mode‐switch to bus, and more.

Although most traffic on DTR incurs multiple toll transactions on each trip (two ramps or a ramp and a main line toll), some incur single transactions, while some do not involve any tolls

Mr. Andrew Rountree May 15, 2012 Page 2

or qualify as non‐revenue. Therefore it would be difficult for RCA to translate the change in the number of toll transactions into a change in annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes on the DTR or other roads. Regardless, RCA has applied the 18% diversion rate to the AADT data for the DTR published by VDOT in 2010. The VDOT data has a quality rating of “G” which means that it is not based on continuous traffic count station data, but rather portable machine traffic counts taken over a 48‐hour period which were then factored to produce AADT estimates.

RCA’s AADT volumes for the DTR appear to be overstated by some 60,000 to 70,000. They state that “150,000‐200,000 vehicles use the toll road daily based on the 2010 Virginia traffic counts” but VDOT data actually shows two‐way DTR traffic (AADT) to vary between 89,000 and 131,000 along its length. It is possible RCA is using data that includes traffic on the Dulles International Airport Access Highway which is unaffected by tolls on the DTR. The DTR AADT numbers also include non‐toll‐paying traffic (e.g. local airport traffic using DTR and Rt7 to Trap Road), and other non‐revenue traffic that would be unaffected by toll levels.

Raw Model Estimates of Share of Diverted Traffic for Route 7 and other local roads

Between I‐66 and the Potomac River, on a screenline East of Sully Road (see Figure 1), DTR carries about 15% of the East‐West trips totaling approximately 600,000 two‐way AADT. Immediately available, raw traffic model results for the model year 2015 indicate that at the western end of the DTR corridor (just east of Sully Road) there are higher traffic volumes on local roads when the trip cost is increased from $2.25 to $4.50. By 2015, without further DTR toll increases Rt7 AADT increases from 80,200 today to 85,600 due to underlying socio‐economic growth. With DTR tolls at $4.50 AADT would be marginally higher at just under 88,000.

The share of diverted DTR‐traffic that Route 7 is estimated to accommodate is approximately 12%. Route 50 is estimated to carry a similar share and I‐66 would carry about 20% of the diverted traffic. Other nearby roads would carry around 40%. The remaining share not included above consists of mode‐shift, reassignment outside the Rt7‐to‐I‐66 screenline above and a conservative assumption of consolidated/reduced trip‐making. We do not have readily available data on traffic volumes at other DTR toll rate levels at this time. We estimate that approximately one‐third of the diversion would take place in the AM and PM peak hours (6AM‐ 9AM and 3PM‐7PM) with two‐thirds occurring during less‐congested hours; toll customers are likely to be more toll sensitive in off‐peak periods, nighttime, and weekends when the alternative routes have capacity and are more attractive to drivers. Off‐peak time periods also typically have much higher percentages of discretionary trips which characteristically have lower values of time and are more likely to divert off of the DTR than during peak periods,

87119/DTR Comprehensive T&R 2012

Mr. Andrew Rountree May 15, 2012 Page 3

which have a much higher percentage of work and business related trips and when alternate routes are more congested.

To Leesburg

Ashburn

Leesburg Pike Dulles Greenway

To Tysons Herndon Corner

Washington Dulles Dulles International Toll Road Airport

U.S. Route 50

Chantilly Lee -Jackson Memorial Highway

To Fairfax & Arlington

Lee Highway

Screenline East of Sully Road Centreville State Route 28

Figure 1 – Screenline for Diversion Analysis

87119/DTR Comprehensive T&R 2012