Welcome Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis

Public Meeting

October 8, 2014 October 9, 2014 Belmont Elementary School South County Government Center Prince William County, VA Fairfax County, VA Project Schedule

Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014

K KICK OFF PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC 1 MEETING 2 MEETING 3 MEETING

Data Collection (WE ARE HERE)

Purpose and Need

Multimodal Alternatives Development & Evaluation

7UD̪F,PSDFW$QDO\VLVDQG7UDYHO'HPDQG0RGHOLQJ

1 Public Meeting #1 October 9, 2013 Land Use Assessment and • Purpose and Need, Goals and Economic Impact Analysis Objectives • Initial Set of Alternatives Funding Analysis

2 Public Meeting #2 March 26, 2014 Environmental Scan • 5HͤQHG$OWHUQDWLYHV • Forecasting Results • Land Use Assessment $GGLWLRQDO7UD̪F$QDO\VLV

3 Public Meeting #3 Project Phasing Approaches October 8-9, 2014 • Draft • Evaluation of Alternatives • Project Phasing Recommendation • $GGLWLRQDO/DQG8VH 7UDͦF Approaches • Environmental Scan Analysis • Implementation RECOMMEND LOCALLY PREFERRED Considerations ALTERNATIVE Purpose & Need, Goals and Objectives

Purpose Goals and Objectives The purpose of the project is to provide improved performance for Expand attractive multimodal travel options to transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and vehicular conditions and facilities improve local and regional mobility along the Route 1 corridor that support long-term growth and economic • Increase transit ridership • Improve transit to reduce travel times and increase frequency, development. reliability, and attractiveness • Increase transportation system productivity (passengers per hour) Needs within the corridor • Increase comfort, connectivity, and attractiveness of bicycle and Needs pedestrian networks to and along the corridor • Integrate with existing and planned transit systems and services

• Peak and off-peak transit service is infrequent Improve safety; increase accessibility • High transit dependent population Attractive and • Provide accessible pathways to and from transit service and local competitive transit destinations Transit • 6TCHƒEFGNC[UTGFWEGVTCPUKVTGNKCDKNKV[ service • Reduce modal conflicts • High ridership potential for quality transit • Improve pedestrian crossings • Minimize negative impact on transit and auto operations in the • Pedestrian networks along and surrounding corridor Safe and the corridor are disjointed, limiting pedestrian • /CKPVCKPVTCHƒEFGNC[UCVCEEGRVCDNGNGXGNU Pedestrian/ travel and reducing access to transit accessible Bicycle pedestrian and Increase economic viability and vitality of the corridor • $KE[ENGCEEGUUKUFKHƒEWNVYKVJHGYCNVGTPCVKXG bicycle access paths $ • Improve connectivity to local and regional activity centers • Encourage and support compact, higher density, mixed use development consistent with local plans, policies, and economic • 7UGTUGZRGTKGPEGUKIPKƒECPVEQPIGUVKQPCNQPI objectives Route 1 during peak periods Appropriate • 5GEWTGRWDNKECPFKPXGUVQTEQPƒFGPEGKPFGNKXGT[CPFUWUVCKPCDKNKV[ Vehicular level of vehicle of new transit investments • Travel times are highly variable and accommodation unpredictable • Provide high-capacity transit facilities at locations where existing and future land uses make them mutually supportive

• 5KIPKƒECPVRQRWNCVKQPCPFGORNQ[OGPV Support community health and minimize impacts on Land Use/ growth is anticipated regionally and along Support and community resources Route 1 corridor accommodate Economic more robust land • Minimize negative impacts to the natural environment • Current development patterns fail to optimize development • Contribute to improvements in regional air quality Development development potential • Increase opportunities for bicycling and walking to improve health and the environment Refined Transit Alternatives

Alternative 1: Proposed Alignment Alternative 2: Proposed Alignment

Bus Transit - Curb Running Huntington - Median Huntington Penn Daw (@ North Kings Hwy) Penn Daw (@ North Kings Hwy) Summary Beacon Hill Summary Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley (@ Boswell Ave) Hybla Valley (@ Boswell Ave) Fort Belvoir Gum Springs • Bus operates in curb, dedicated transit Pohick Rd North Gum Springs • Bus operates in median in dedicated Pohick Rd North Lorton Station Blvd (@ Sherwood Hall Ln) Lorton Station Blvd (@ Sherwood Hall Ln) South County Center South County Center lanes from Huntington to (@ Mohawk Ln) lanes for the entire length of the (@ Mohawk Ln) (@ Iry Rd) (@ Iry Rd) Pohick Road North FRUULGRUDQGLQPL[HGWUD̩FLQ Woodlawn Woodlawn Gunston Rd Gunston Rd P Prince William County P • %XVRSHUDWHVLQPL[HGWUD̩FVRXWKRI Pohick Road to Woodbridge %57LQ0L[HG7UD̩F %57LQ0L[HG7UD̩F

BRT in Dedicated Lanes BRT in Dedicated Lanes P Woodbridge (@VRE) P Woodbridge (@VRE) P Proposed Park and Ride P Proposed Park and Ride

Key Factors Typical Intersection Key Factors Typical Intersection Average Weekday Ridership Average Weekday Ridership 15,200 16,600 (2035) (2035)

Conceptual Capital Cost $832 M Conceptual Capital Cost $1.01 B

Annual O&M Cost $18 M Annual O&M Cost $17 M

Cost Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness (Annualized capital + $19 (Annualized capital + $20 operating cost per rider) operating cost per rider)

Alternative 3: Proposed Alignment Alternative 4: Proposed Alignment

Light Rail Transit Huntington Metrorail/BRT Hybrid Huntington Penn Daw (@ North Kings Hwy) Summary Beacon Hill Summary Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley (@ Boswell Ave) Hybla Valley (@ Boswell Ave) Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir • Metrorail underground from Gum Springs • operates in the median Pohick Rd North Gum Springs Pohick Rd North Lorton Station Blvd (@ Sherwood Hall Ln) Lorton Station Blvd (@ Sherwood Hall Ln) South County Center Huntington to Hybla Valley; transfer South County Center dedicated lanes for the entire length of (@ Mohawk Ln) (@ Mohawk Ln) (@ Iry Rd) (@ Iry Rd) the corridor to BRT service from Hybla Valley to Woodlawn Woodlawn Gunston Rd Gunston Rd P Woodbridge P • BRT operates in dedicated lanes DQGWUDQVLWLRQVLQWRPL[HGWUD̩FLQ %57LQ0L[HG7UD̩F BRT in Dedicated Lanes LRT in Dedicated Lanes Prince William County Metrorail (Underground) P Woodbridge (@VRE) P P Proposed Park and Ride Woodbridge (@VRE) P Proposed Park and Ride Key Factors Typical Intersection Key Factors Typical Intersection Average Weekday Ridership Average Weekday Ridership 18,400 26,500* (2035) (2035) (BRT 10,600; Metrorail 22,900)

Conceptual Capital Cost $1.56 M Conceptual Capital Cost $2.46 B

Annual O&M Cost $24 M Annual O&M Cost $31 M

Cost Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness (Annualized capital + $28 (Annualized capital + $27 (BRT $29; Metrorail $28) operating cost per rider) operating cost per rider) *Corridor ridership, excluding transfers between Metrorail and BRT Portions Evaluation of Multimodal Alternatives

Evaluation Criteria EvaluationMultimodal Alternatives Process Evaluation Process

Evaluation measures were used to assess how well each potential mode and cross-section TRANSIT VEHICULAR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN met the project goals. Based on feedback from community members and other stakeholders (including members of the Technical Advisory Committee, Executive Steering Committee, and

LIGHT RAIL BUS RAPID Community Involvement Committee), certain measures were weighted double or triple to reflect METRORAIL MONORAIL EXPANDED CONVERTED MINIMUM OPTIMAL BUFFERED TRANSIT TRANSIT LANES LANE STANDARD 1 Range of their importance. Bold measures below were weighted double, while italics indicate that a Alternatives measure’s weight was tripled.

ENHANCED EXPRESS LOCAL CONSISTENT EXISTING STREETCAR MULTIUSE PATH SHARED (RAPID) BUS (SKIP-STOP) BUS BUS VEHICLE LANES VEHICLE LANES Goals Evaluation Measures • Project ridership • Number of transit dependent riders Goal 1: • Transit travel time savings 2 SCREEN 1: Local and • Provides connection to existing transit network Basic Requirements regional • New transit riders Initial EXPANDED CONVERTED 3 LANES LANE mobility • Person throughput Alternatives METRORAIL LIGHT RAIL BUS ENHANCED OPTIMAL BUFFERED MULTIUSE PATH SHARED • Number of riders who walked to access transit TRANSIT RAPID TRANSIT (RAPID) BUS STANDARD

• Provides improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities CONSISTENT EXISTING VEHICLE LANES VEHICLE LANES • Auto Network Delay Goal 2: • Pedestrian access to stops 4 SCREEN 2: Safety and • Pedestrian crossing time Qualitative and Quantitative Measures accessibility • Auto travel time • Impacts due to turns • Preserves flexibility for bike lane Multimodal Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: • Potential to begin transit within 10 years 5 BRT Curb BRT Median LRT Median Metrorail/BRT Hybrid Median Goal 3A: Alternatives • Tendency to encourage additional development for Further Economic Evaluation • Jobs within 60 minutes BRT 1 CONSISTENT MULTIUSE PATH BRT 2: CONSISTENT MULTIUSE PATH LIGHT RAIL CONSISTENT MULTIUSE PATH BRT and METRO CONSISTENT MULTIUSE PATH Development CURB RUNNING VEHICLE LANES MEDIAN VEHICLE LANES TRANSIT VEHICLE LANES HYBRID VEHICLE LANES • Per passenger O&M cost savings with growth • Tendency to accelerate development Goal 3B: • Cost per rider Cost • Estimated Capital Cost Effectiveness • Estimated Annual O&M cost • Change in VMT 6 Detailed Evaluation Goal 4: (Screen 3) Community • Total Right of Way health and • Trips diverted from I-95 See “Evaluation of Alternatives - Results” Board resources • Temporary construction impacts • 'PXKTQPOGPVCNDGPGƒVU Recommended Program 7 of Improvements Bold = measure weight doubled Bold italics = measure weight tripled

Transit Evaluation Recommendations Near-Term Vision Long-Term Vision Median-running Bus Rapid Transit Evaluation of Modes Evaluation of Cross-Sections System in the near-term, with a Transit Metrorail extension to Hybla Valley in Bus Rapid Light Rail Metrorail Curb Median Underground the long-term Transit Transit (BRT) (BRT, LRT) (Metrorail) 10-foot shared use path on both Pedestrian/Bicycle sides of street

3 general purpose travel lanes in each Vehicular direction Evaluation of Transit Alternatives - Results

Summary Table Evaluation Factors (Goals) Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: BRT-Curb BRT-Median LRT Metrorail-BRT (Hybrid)

Goal 1: Local and Regional Mobility 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.00

Goal 2: Safety and Accessibility 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

Goal 3A: Economic Development 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7

Goal 3B: Cost Effectiveness 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5

Goal 4: Community and Health Resources 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8

Ability to Meet Project Goals - Average Score 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8

Evaluation Details *RDO([SDQG0XOWLPRGDO7UDYHO2SWLRQVWR Alternatives Goal 2: Improve Safety and Increase Accessibility Improve Local and Regional Mobility Alt. 1: Alt. 2: Alt. 3: Alt. 4: Alt. 1: Alt. 2: Alt. 3: Alt. 4: Alt. 1Alt. 2Alt. 3Alt. 4 Evaluation Measures BRT-Curb BRT-Median LRT Metrorail-BRT Evaluation Measures BRT-Curb BRT-Median LRT Metrorail-BRT Huntington (Hybrid) (Hybrid) 26,500 Penn Daw (@ North Kings Hwy) Pedestrian access to station Medium Medium Medium Medium (BRT 10,600; Daily Project Ridership 15,200 16,600 18,400 stops* Metrorail 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Beacon Hill (2035)* 22,900) Pedestrian crossing time 102 sec 116 sec 116 sec 97 sec 0.57 0.63 0.69 1.00 Lockheed Blvd (including signal delay)* 0.32 0.42 0.53 1.00 1,500 2,000 2,500 4,750 Fort Belvoir Hybla Valley (@ Boswell Ave) Number of New Transit Riders Automobile travel time 0.32 0.42 0.53 1.00 24.0 23.7 24.0 23.7 Pohick Rd North (minutes during peak hour, Ft. Lorton Station Blvd Gum Springs Number of Transit Dependent 5,157 5,438 5,788 6,350 Belvoir to Huntington Station) (@ Sherwood Hall Ln) 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Riders* 0.81 0.86 0.91 1.00 (@ Iry Rd) South County Center Automobile network delay, Ft. (@ Mohawk Ln) Transit Travel Time Savings Belvoir and Hybla Valley test 466 468 460 453 6 min 9 min 9 min 10 min (Ft. Belvoir to Huntington segments* Metro Station)* (vehicle hr/hr) Gunston Rd 0.59 0.85 0.92 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.98 Woodlawn Moderate Moderate Moderate P Average Transit Person 1,050 1,180 1,360 2,600 7UDͦFLPSDFWVGXHWRWXUQLQJ Minimal impact impact impact impact Throughput vehicles (left turns) 0.40 0.45 0.52 1.00 0.80 0.40 0.40 0.40 Ratio of Transit Person 6LJQL̨FDQW 26% 28% 32% 47% Impacts due to turning No impact No impact No impact Throughput to Total Person impact vehicles (right turns) Throughput, Peak Hour 0.55 0.60 0.68 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 %57LQ0L[HG7UD̩F

Number of Riders who Walked 4,700 5,000 5,200 5,200 3UHVHUYHVͥH[LELOLW\IRUELNH /HVV̩H[LEOH 0RUH̩H[LEOH 0RUH̩H[LEOH 0RUH̩H[LEOH BRT in Dedicated Lanes to Access Transit 0.55 0.60 0.68 1.00 lane in higher activity nodes 0.40 0.80 0.80 0.80 LRT in Dedicated Lanes Provides Improved Bicycle High High High High AVERAGE SCORE 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.82 Metrorail (Underground) and Pedestrian Facilities 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P Connects to Connects to Connects to Connects to P Woodbridge (@VRE) Proposed Park and Ride Provides Connections to Huntington Huntington Huntington Huntington Regional Transit Network* Metro Station Metro Station Metro Station Metro Station 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AVERAGE SCORE 0.70 0.78 0.83 1.00

Goal 4: Support Community Health and Minimize Goal 3a: Economic Development Goal 3b: Cost Effectiveness Impacts on Community Resources

Alt. 1: Alt. 2: Alt. 3: Alt. 4: Alt. 1: Alt. 2: Alt. 3: Alt. 4: Alt. 1: Alt. 2: Alt. 3: Alt. 4: Evaluation Measures BRT-Curb BRT-Median LRT Metrorail-BRT Evaluation Measures BRT-Curb BRT-Median LRT Metrorail-BRT Evaluation Measures BRT-Curb BRT-Median LRT Metrorail-BRT (Hybrid) (Hybrid) (Hybrid)

Tendency to encourage Medium-Low Medium High Medium-High $832 M $1.01 B $1.56 B $2.46 B Change in Vehicle Miles (20,000) (26,000) (34,000) (45,000) additional development* Estimated Capital Cost* Traveled* 0.50 0.60 0.80 0.70 0.44 0.58 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.53 0.34 Some potential Some potential More potential More Potential to increase to increase to increase to increase 700 900 1,200 1,200 Tendency to accelerate pace $18 M $17 M $24 M $31 M Trips diverted from I-95/I-395 pace of pace of pace of pace of Estimated Annual O&M cost* of development 0.58 0.75 1.00 1.00 development development development development 0.94 1.00 0.71 0.55 0.50 0.70 0.80 0.80 Cost per rider* Temporary Construction Least Intensive Moderate Intensive Intensive Per passenger O&M cost $21 $22 $30 $30 Impacts (Annualized capital + operating cost) savings associated with $0.75 $0.68 $1.14 $0.86 ______0.60 0.40 0.20 0.20 increased population and (Average of 2015 and 2035 ridership) Ratio of environmental employment growth 1.00 0.95 0.70 0.70 2.0% 2.2% 1.9% 1.7% 0.66 0.60 1.00 0.75 EHQHͤWVWRDQQXDOL]HG AVERAGE SCORE 0.98 0.93 0.65 0.55 Jobs within 60 minutes 636 920 1,163 2,878 project cost (FTA criterion) 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.77 (change over No Build)* 0.22 0.32 0.40 1.00 Total Additional Right-of-Way 20-30 30-40 35-45 30-40 BRT portion is Required* Potential to Begin Transit High High Low high; Metrorail 1.00 0.73 0.67 0.72 Operations within 10 years* is very low Environmental Impacts: Moderate Fewest Impacts Some Impacts Some Impacts 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.5 Parklands, Cultural Impacts Resources, Wetlands AVERAGE SCORE 0.56 0.62 0.60 0.72 1.00 0.75 0.62 0.75 AVERAGE SCORE 0.72 0.71 0.69 0.77

* Based on input from the community and other stakeholders, these measures were weighted more heavily during score calculation. 1

Current and Ongoing Projects in the Corridor

Segments Route 1 Improvements at Ft. Belvoir (Under construction)

Road widening, including right-of-way reservation for future median transit lanes 2 Route 1 Improvements near Woodbridge (Ongoing) 3 Route 1/123 Interchange Project, Route 1 Widening, Other pedestrian facility improvement projects (see inset map). a Richmond Highway Public Transportation Initiative b c Sidewalk Projects Under Construction: d 1. Northbound from Mt. Vernon Highway/Buckman Road to north of Napper Road e 4 Sidewalk Projects to be constructed in 2015: 1 2. Northbound from Lodge to Huntington Avenue f g 5 1RUWKERXQGIURP)DLUKDYHQ$YHQXH4XDQGHU5RDGWRKRWHOFRPSOH[ 6 4. Southbound from Russell Road to Gregory Drive h 7 1RUWKERXQGIURP5R[EXU\'ULYHWR5XVVHOO5RDG

6. Northbound from Radford Avenue to Frye Road

7. Northbound from Engleside Street to Forest Place

Intersections New REX stops and pedestrian safety improvements (To be constructed in 2015) a. Southgate Drive (new REX stops with sidewalk and accessibility improvements, four new crosswalks, median pedestrian refuge) b. Lockheed Boulevard (new REX stops with sidewalk and accessibility improvements, one new crosswalk, median pedestrian refuge) c. Arlington Drive (new REX stops with sidewalk and accessibility improvements, two See inset new crosswalks, median pedestrian refuge, curb ramps) d. Belford Drive (new REX stop with sidewalk and accessibility improvements, three new crosswalks, median pedestrian refuge) e. Ladson Lane (new REX stops with sidewalk and accessibility improvements, two new crosswalks, median pedestrian refuge) f. 0RKDZN/DQH VLGHZDONDQGDFFHVVLELOLW\LPSURYHPHQWVWRH[LVWLQJEXVVWRSVWZR new crosswalks, median pedestrian refuge) g. Frye Road (new REX stops with sidewalk and accessibility improvements, four new crosswalks, median pedestrian refuge) h. Lukens Lane (new REX stops with sidewalk and accessibility improvements, one new crosswalk, close entrance to service drive) Route 1 Traffic Assessment for 2035 Projected Growth

Existing and Projected Level of Service $GGLWLRQDO7UD̩F$QDO\VLV (Janna Lee Ave to Huntington)

16 Transit

Auto Transit 12 Auto

8 16.8 14.6 13.6 Existing 12.1 4 Segment Travel Time (min) Travel Segment 0 2035 No Build 2035 Median BRT 12

Addition of median transit lanes: • Improves transit travel time 2035 Projected • Incrementally increases automobile travel time • Left turns impacted • 'RHVQRWVLJQĻFDQWO\GHJUDGHRYHUDOO intersection performance

Level of Service *KIJYC[VTCHƒEEQPIGUVKQPKUGZRTGUUGFKPVGTOUQH.GXGNQH5GTXKEG .15 CUFGƒPGFD[VJG*KIJYC[%CRCEKV[/CPWCN *%/ .15KUCNGVVGTEQFG TCPIKPIHTQOū#ŬHQTGZEGNNGPVEQPFKVKQPUVQū(ŬHQTHCKNWTGEQPFKVKQPU6JGEQPFKVKQPUFGƒPKPIVJG.15HQTTQCFYC[UCTGUWOOCTK\GFCUHQNNQYU

LOS A LOS B LOS C

Represents the best operating conditions and is considered free flow. Individual Represents reasonably free-flowing conditions but with some influence by Represents a constrained constant flow below speed limits, with additional WUGTUCTGXKTVWCNN[WPCHHGEVGFD[VJGRTGUGPEGQHQVJGTUKPVJGVTCHƒEUVTGCO others. attention required by the drivers to maintain safe operations. Comfort and convenience levels of the driver decline noticeably.

LOS D LOS E LOS F

4GRTGUGPVUVTCHƒEQRGTCVKQPUCRRTQCEJKPIWPUVCDNGHNQYYKVJJKIJRCUUKPI Represents unstable flow near capacity. LOS E often changes to LOS F very 4GRTGUGPVUVJGYQTUVEQPFKVKQPUYKVJJGCXKN[EQPIGUVGFHNQYCPFVTCHƒE demand and passing capacity near zero, characterized by drivers being severely SWKEMN[DGECWUGQHFKUVWTDCPEGU TQCFEQPFKVKQPUCEEKFGPVUGVE KPVTCHƒE demand exceeding capacity, characterized by stop-and-go waves, restricted in maneuverability. flow. poor travel time, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Route 1 Growth Scenarios 2 and 3 Supporting Infrastructure

Scenario 2: Growth of 15% to 25% above the regional forecast; typical for investment along a high- quality transit corridor (BRT or LRT)

Scenario 3: Population and employment levels associated with development supportive N N of Metrorail (Ballston- Beacon Hill - Scenario 2 Beacon Hill - Scenario 3 Rosslyn Corridor) Public Infrastructure and Services • Major growth is anticipated in the Route 1 corridor in all scenarios including COG 2035 Conventional development forecast • In Comprehensive Plan updates, corridor infrastructure needs will be evaluated: - Streets - Schools - Parks and public space - Public safety - Water and utilities

• 0HWURUDLOVXSSRUWLYHJURZWKOHYHOVUHTXLUHVLJQĻFDQWO\PRUHLQIUDVWUXFWXUH Grid pattern, mixed-use development investment than BRT levels

7UD̩F$VVHVVPHQW Population and employment levels beyond the MWCOG projections require: • Completing planned widening of Route 1 to consistent 6-lanes • Mixed use development • Walkable, pedestrian friendly environment • Investment in high-quality, higher-capacity public transit • Network of local streets Population and employment Growth Street Infrastructure Required to Accomodate Growth +15-25% over Scenario 1 Highest density proposed station areas: Beacon Hill and Hybla Valley Share of trips transit, walk, bike, Add street capacity to supplement internal, and peak spreading Route 1, equivalent to: +15-25% One new 20% 2-lane street Scenario 2 One new Time 25% 2-lane street Population and employment growth up to 160% over Scenario 1 70 AD (+160%)

Six new 50 AD (+80%) 25% 2-lane streets Scenario 3 Scenario 3 Three new 40% to 50% 2-lane streets Time Median-Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

What is Median-Running BRT? Features

Median-running bus rapid transit operates in designated lanes at the center of • Dedicated lanes for transit the roadway. • High-quality stations • High-quality pedestrian safety & access • 7UD̩FVLJQDOSULRULW\IRUWUDQVLW • Off-board fare collection for expedited boarding • System-wide branding

Vision for Hybla Valley BRT Station

%H\RQG'&YLD̨LFNU (Alexandria, VA)

%H\RQG'&YLD̨LFNU (Eugene, OR) El Trole (Quito, Ecuador) HealthLine (, OH) sbX (San Bernadino, CA) N

Where else do bus rapid transit systems exist in the U.S.?

Jerry Masek, Greater Cleveland RTA

Existing

Under Construction

Planned

Mariordo, via Wikimedia Commons Linha Verde (Curitiba, Brazil) Metropolitan Area Express (Las Vegas) Transportation Recommendations, Phasing, and Funding

Recommendations Near-Term Vision Long-Term Vision Median-running Bus Rapid Transit System in the Transit near-term, with a Metrorail extension to Hybla Valley in the long-term

Pedestrian/Bicycle 10-foot shared use path on both sides of street

Vehicular 3 general purpose travel lanes in each direction

Proposed Transit Phasing & Funding

Phases I+II : BRT from Huntington to Fort Belvoir 9% Federal 8% • Potentially competitive segments for federal New Starts/Small State $306M, 3.1 mi. 3.1 mi. Regional 50% $1.46B, 3.1 mi. Starts funding Local 33% • Highest population and employment • Highest ridership potential $224M,7.3 7.3 mimi.

Phase III: BRT from Fort Belvoir to Woodbridge Federal State • Less competitive for federal funding Regional Local • Lower population and employment Unidentified • Includes planned VDOT widening

9% $472M, Phase IV: Metrorail Extension to Hybla Valley Federal 8% 4.64.6 mi.mi. Note: conƟngent upon • Potentially competitive for federal New Starts funding in 2040 State future land use Regional 50% • Contingent upon increased future land use density Local 33%

Years (2015-2040) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Phase I: Huntington to Hybla Valley + Roadway Widening Legend Roadway Widening, Bike/Ped, BRT Comprehensive Planning Scoping/ Final Design Right of Way Utilities Construction Operation Plan NEPA PE Relocation Phase I Comprehensive Plan Revisions Phase II: Hybla Valley to Fort Belvoir Bike/Ped, BRT Phase II Comprehensive Plan Revisions FTA SMALL STARTS PROJECT T Phase III: Fort Belvoir to Woodbridge Improvements DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Roadway Widening, Bike/Ped, BRT Phase III Comprehensive Plan Revisions FTA NEW STARTS Phase IV: Huntington to Hybla Valley Metrorail Extension PROJECT T DEVELOPMENT Metrorail PROCESS Phase IV Comprehensive Plan Revisions A Vision for Transit-Oriented Development

The vision for Route 1, as expressed in County land use plans and through the public visioning process, is a place that attracts the next generation of growth to promote economic competitiveness.

Station areas have: • )RFXVHGJURZWKWKDW̸VWHSVGRZQ̹DVDWUDQVLWLRQWRH[LVWLQJQHLJKERUKRRGV • &RPSDFWPL[HGXVHGHYHORSPHQWSDWWHUQV • Walkable and bikeable streets • A development-focused rather than parking-focused design • High-quality parks and public spaces

Transit investments help increase the economic viability and vitality of the corridor, and create an opportunity for high-quality community development.

Beacon Hill

View Today Potential Development Pattern

Local corridor zoning Permanence of transportation investment Potential Economic N N Development Effects Populationopulation growgrowthth EmploymentEmployment ggrowthrowt Demand for new residential Potential Future View units and commercial space • Property Premium for Existing Local Properties corridor • Net New Investments to the Corridor policies • Increase in the Pace of Corridor Revitalization

Magnitude of travel time Magnitude savings Land use planning Transportation investment Support high quality of travel cost community development savings

N Visualizing Future Station Areas

8QGHUVWDQGLQJWKHDFWLYLW\OHYHOVDQGODQGXVHFRQ̧JXUDWLRQVWRVXSSRUWKLJKTXDOLW\WUDQVLW

Station Activity Levels (population + employment per acre)

Activity Density Associated P-6 with Transit Investment P-Values (DRPT Multimodal System Guidelines, 2013) 2010 Activity Density COG Projection for 2035 Activity Density P-5 (Scenario 1) Comp Plan Activity Density Scenario 2 Scenario 3

P-4

Activity level analysis conducted within 1/2 mile of each station

Beacon Hill Hybla Valley Woodlawn Woodbridge (BRT/Metro) (BRT/Metro)

Woodlawn Beacon Hill • Focused growth at centers • Compact, mixed-use development • Walkable streets • High-quality public realm

N N

Woodbridge Hybla Valley

New Park + Ride

N N Action Plan for Implementation

2014-2015 2020 2030 2040

Adopt TransportaƟon RecommendaƟons: Local Plans, Constrained Long Range Plan, TransAcƟon2040 For Near-Term BRT Project

Environmental Documentation (NEPA), Concept Engineering, Funding Plan

Identify necessary Comprehensive Plan updates and infrastructure investments, conduct market studies

Design and construct multimodal investments

Continue economic development, build ridership

For Long-Term Metrorail Extension

Expand economic development and conduct additional market studies

Identify necessary Comprehensive Plan updates and infrastructure investments

NEPA, Concept Engineering, Funding Plan

Design and construct Metrorail