DOCSLIB.ORG

Arlington County, Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arlington County, Virginia ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA County Board Agenda Item Meeting of June 15, 2013 DATE: June 4, 2013 SUBJECT: Request to authorize Advertisement of a Public Hearing to consider an Amendment to Chapter 14.2 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic), Section 14.2-12(A), of the Code of Arlington County, Virginia, Concerning Maximum and Minimum Speed Limits along Portions of North Meade Street, Clarendon Boulevard, Wilson Boulevard, North Sycamore Street, I-395 (Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway), and I-66 (Custis Memorial Parkway). C. M. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Advertisement of a July 13, 2012, public hearing to enact an Ordinance to Amend, Reenact and Recodify Chapter 14.2 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic), Section 14.2- 12(A), of the Code of Arlington County, Virginia, Concerning Maximum and Minimum Speed Limits by Decreasing the Speed Limit along Portions of North Meade Street, Clarendon Boulevard, Wilson Boulevard, and North Sycamore Street, and by Correcting the Speed Limit along Portions of I-66 (Custis Memorial Parkway) and I-395 (Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway). ISSUES: As part of the regular process, the County Board is being requested to authorize the advertisement of a public hearing concerning a proposed amendment to the County Code. There are no outstanding issues. SUMMARY: The State Code authorizes local governing bodies to enact and enforce ordinances to increase or decrease the speed limits within its boundaries, provided such increase or decrease is based upon a traffic engineering investigation. The Department of Environmental Services, Division of Transportation has conducted studies on the following streets: 1. North Meade Street from Arlington Boulevard to Marshall Drive (formerly Jackson Avenue) 2. Clarendon Boulevard from Washington Boulevard to North Oak Street 3. Wilson Boulevard from Route 110 (Jefferson Davis Highway) to Washington Boulevard County Manager: ##### 21. County Attorney: County Attorney: *****County Manager Staff: Patricia Bush, Department of Environmental Services 4. North Sycamore Street from Washington Boulevard to 17th Street North and North Roosevelt Street from 17th Street North to the County line The results of studies for North Meade Street, Clarendon Boulevard, and Wilson Boulevard indicate that the speed limit on these sections of streets can be decreased by five miles per hour, from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. The results of the study North Sycamore Street/North Roosevelt Street indicate that the speed limit should be a consistent 30 miles per hour. A discrepancy in speed limits exists as reflected in the records of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the County Code on the following streets within Arlington: 5. I-395 (Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway) – regular and HOV lanes 6. I-66 (Custis Memorial Highway) VDOT records indicate that the speed limit of I-395 regular lanes from the Alexandria line to the District of Columbia line is 55 miles per hour. VDOT records indicate that the speed limit on the I-395 HOV lanes within Arlington as being 65 miles per hour from the Alexandria line to 1.37 miles north of Quaker Lane (MP 7.8) and 55 miles per hour from 1.37 miles north of Quaker Lane (MP 7.8) to the District of Columbia line. VDOT records indicate that the speed limit on I- 66 from the Virginia State Line to the Ramp to North Lynn Street is 45 miles per hour, and that the speed limit from the Ramp to North Lynn Street to the Fairfax County Line is 55 miles per hour. County Code would be changed to reflect the actual speed limits. BACKGROUND: As part of the Streets Element of the Master Transportation Plan, a policy was established to design streets to generally favor lower vehicle speeds without impeding or diverting existing vehicle volumes. One of the implementation actions for that policy is the adoption of 25 miles per hour as the standard speed limit for all arterial streets within Arlington’s “downtown” districts on which there are high volumes of pedestrian crossings and higher density land development. Wilson Boulevard and Clarendon Boulevard fall within this category of streets. In addition, the Master Transportation Plan calls for speed limits on other arterial street outside of “downtown” areas to be reviewed. North Sycamore Street/North Roosevelt Street and North Meade Street fall within this category of streets. Speed limits are determined by ordinance based upon a traffic engineering investigation, in accordance with Section 46.2-1300 A.1 of the Code of Virginia and Section 14.2-12 of the County Code. A review of the County Code revealed a discrepancy between VDOT records and the County Code regarding the speed limit along I-395 within Arlington. The review also revealed that the speed limits for I-66 were not listed in the County Code. As I-395 and I-66 are maintained by the state, establishment of speed limits is the responsibility of VDOT. DISCUSSION: The Department of Environmental Services, Division of Transportation has conducted engineering studies on four arterial streets in Arlington. These studies compiled data on speed, collisions, traffic volumes, pedestrian and bicyclist activity, adjacent land uses and development patterns, and roadway characteristics. The data were then evaluated to determine if the existing speed limit was appropriate, or if it could be changed. These engineering studies - 2 - formed the basis of staff’s recommendation to amend the code to lower the speed limits. The civic associations adjacent to these four street segments have been notified of the proposed speed limit changes. As I-395 and I-66 are maintained by VDOT, responsibility for establishing the speed limits on those streets rests with the state. State streets are included in the County Code to allow for flexibility in enforcement of the speed limits. 1. North Meade Street North Meade Street between Arlington Boulevard and Marshall Drive (formerly Jackson Avenue) was evaluated to determine if the current speed limit of 30 mph could be changed. For evaluation purposes, the street was broken into two segments. Speed and volume data were gathered in June 2012. Collisions from January 2009 thru December 2011 were reviewed. Bicycle and pedestrian counts were gathered in June 2010 as part of the Meade Street Bridge Alternatives Study. Based on all factors considered, the study indicated that the speed limit could be decreased from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. New speed limit signs will be placed in accordance with the MUTCD. 2. Clarendon Boulevard The entire length of Clarendon Boulevard, from North Oak Street to Washington Boulevard, was evaluated to determine if the current speed limit of 30 mph could be changed. For evaluation purposes, the street was divided into two segments based on roadway and roadside characteristics. Speed and volume data were gathered in May 2013. Collisions from January 2010 through December 2012 were reviewed. Bicycle and pedestrian counts at signalized intersections were gathered in July 2011 as part of turning movement counts for signal optimization. Based on all factors considered, the study indicated that the speed limit could be decreased from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. New speed limit signs will be placed in accordance with the MUTCD. 3. Wilson Boulevard Wilson Boulevard between Route 110 (Jefferson Davis Highway) and Washington Boulevard was evaluated to determine if the current speed limit of 30 mph could be changed. For evaluation purposes, the street was divided into three segments based on roadway and roadside characteristics. Speed and volume data were gathered in May 2013. Collisions from January 2010 thru December 2012 were reviewed. Bicycle and pedestrian counts at signalized intersections were gathered in July 2011 as part of turning movement counts for signal optimization. Based on all factors considered, the study indicated that the speed limit could be decreased from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. New speed limit signs will be placed in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 4. North Sycamore Street/North Roosevelt Street North Sycamore Street/North Roosevelt Street between Washington Boulevard (Route 237) and Arlington’s border with Falls Church was evaluated to determine if a uniform speed limit could be established. Currently the speed limit of the segment of North Sycamore Street between Washington Boulevard and 19th Street North and the segment between 19th Street North and 17th Street North is 35 mph, while the speed limit of the segment between 17th Street North and the County line is 30mph. Speed and volume data were gathered in December 2012. Collisions from January 2010 thru December 2012 were reviewed. Bicycle and pedestrian counts were - 3 - gathered at signalized intersections in March 2011 as part of turning movement counts for signal optimization. Based on all factors considered, the study indicated that a uniform speed limit of 30 mph could be implemented and that the speed limit on North Sycamore Street from Washington Boulevard to 17th Street North can be decreased from 35 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour. New speed limit signs will be placed in accordance with the MUTCD. 5. I-395 (Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway) I-395 (Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway) runs from Arlington’s border with Alexandria to Virginia’s border with the District of Columbia at the 14th Street Bridge. This section contains separated HOV lanes in addition to the regular lanes. As I-395 is maintained by VDOT, they have the responsibility to establish speed limits along the road. The County Code contains speed limits established along State roads so that violators may be charged under either the State or County Code provisions. It was recently determined that the County Code contains different speed limits for I-395 HOV and regular lanes sections than the speed limits established by VDOT.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A History of Residential Development, Planning, and Zoning in Arlington County, Virginia
    A History of Residential Development, Planning, and Zoning in Arlington County, Virginia April 2020 Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the guidance and feedback from Arlington County staff, including Mr. Russell Danao-Schroeder, Ms. Kellie Brown, Mr. Timothy Murphy, and Mr. Richard Tucker. We appreciate your time and insights. Prepared by Dr. Shelley Mastran Jennifer Burch Melissa Cameron Randy Cole Maggie Cooper Andrew De Luca Jose Delcid Dinah Girma Owain James Lynda Ramirez-Blust Noah Solomon Alex Wilkerson Madeline Youngren Cover Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/arlingtonva/29032004740/in/album-72157672142122411/ i Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................................................ i Prepared by ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................... iii Key Findings ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rosslyn Multi-Modal Transportation Study
    Rosslyn Multi-Modal Transportation Study September 2012 – FINAL DRAFT Arlington County DES – Transportation Planning Photo: Courtesy of Rosslyn BID Ross Table of Contents Executive Summary I. Study Overview II. Development and Travel Demand Forecast III. Existing Conditions and Preliminary Recommendations: Chapter A. - Rosslyn Streets Chapter B. – Transit in Rosslyn Chapter C. – Walking in Rosslyn Chapter D. – Bicycling in Rosslyn Chapter E. – Rosslyn Parking and Curb Space Management Chapter F. – Transportation Demand Management IV. Summary of Transportation Recommendations List of Related Studies and Plans This study was written during the summer of 2011, by staff from the Arlington County DES, Transportation Division. Mapping Appendices assistance provided by the Arlington DES, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Office. Development and demographic data provided by the Arlington DCPHD, Planning Research and Analysis Team (PRAT). 1 can spend more time enjoying the attractions of the region and current four-lanes in a single direction to better balanced two- Executive Summary: less time traveling. Arlington County seeks to continually directional streets. Sidewalks, crossings, curb space assignment expand the availability of transportation options, serving more and streetscape should also be revised. Removal of the existing Introduction: travelers as the region continues to grow. Fort Myer underpass of Wilson Boulevard could help to transform the Rosslyn street system and would allow for The Rosslyn Multimodal Transportation Study is an evaluation of One noteworthy transportation concern is how to transition reallocation of considerable street space to other uses. As the existing and planned transportation facilities, services and Rosslyn from a community with significant cut-through vehicle financial costs and disruptions of that change may prove operations for Rosslyn over the next 20 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Arlington Memorial Bridge Adjacent to the Base of the Lincoln Memorial
    Arlington Memorial Bridge HAER No. DC-7 Adjacent to the base of the Lincoln Memorial, spanning the Potomac River to Arlington Cemetery, VA. Washington District of Columbia PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20013-7127 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD ARLINGTON MEMORIAL BRIDGE HAER No. DC-7 Location: Adjacent to the base of the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C., spanning the Potomac River to Arlington Cemetery, Arlington, VA. UTM: 18/321680/4306600 Quad.: Washington West Date of Construction: Designed 1929, Completed 1932 Architects: McKim, Mead and White, New York, New York; William Mitchell Kendall, Designer Engineer: John L. Nagle, W.J. Douglas, Consulting Engineer, Joseph P. Strauss, Bascule Span Engineer Contractor: Forty contractors under the supervision of the Arlington Bridge Commission Present Owner: National Capital Region National Park Service Department of the Interior Present Use: Vehicular and pedestrian bridge Significance: As the final link in the chain of monuments which start at the Capitol building, the Arlington Memorial Bridge connects the Mall in Washington, D.C. with Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. Designed to connect, both physically and symbolically, the North and the South, this bridge, as designed in the Neoclassical style, complements the other monumental buildings in Washington such as the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, and the Jefferson Memorial. Memorial Bridge was designed by William Mitchell Kendall while in the employ of McKim, Mead and White, a prominent architectural firm based in New York City. Although designed and built almost thirty years after the McMillan Commission had been disbanded, this structure reflects the original intention of the Commission which was to build a memorial bridge on this site which would join the North and South.
    [Show full text]
  • Fy 2021 Adopted Capital Improvement Plan
    FY 2021 ADOPTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Arlington will be a diverse and inclusive world-class urban community with secure, attractive residential and commercial neighborhoods where people unite to form a caring, learning, participating, sustainable community in which each person is important. SUMMARY OF FY 2021 CAPITAL PLAN For FY 2021, the County proposed and adopted a one-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). As the County Manager stated in June 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has created far too much uncertainty in terms of an unstable financial outlook, an increased need for food, housing and health needs, and supporting the business community and workforce. The program presented in the adopted CIP considered the uncertain fiscal horizon of the County and focuses on essential investments with a one-year CIP. As part of the adopted FY 2021 budget, the County Board maintained the existing real estate tax rate at $1.026 per $100 dollars of assessed value (including stormwater tax). The adopted program centers on projects already in progress, projects that are critical to improving County infrastructure and assets, projects that meet legal and regulatory requirements, technology investments and commitments to invest in the stormwater infrastructure system. Highlights of the adopted CIP include: • Fire Station Renovations – The fire stations will be renovated to accommodate additional staff. Renovations include additional storage, living space, locker room facilities and upgrading decontamination areas. • Body Worn Cameras – The new technology will implement Body Worn Cameras for the Police Department and Sheriff’s Office in addition to initial upgrades to four courtrooms to support the program. • Trail Bridge and Modernization Program – This ongoing program will address the replacement of the pedestrian bridges in Glencarlyn and Lubber Run parks, which were destroyed in the July 2019 storm.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    20130904 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Highlights from the Final Report ................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Supplemental Report Objectives .................................................................................. 1-6 2.0 Refined Multimodal Package ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Roadway Refinement ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Transit Refinement ......................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3 Refined Package Model Results ................................................................................... 2-8 2.4 Peak-Only Tolls versus All Day Tolls .......................................................................... 2-20 2.5 Refined Multimodal Package Conclusions ................................................................. 2-22 3.0 Refined Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Refinement ................................................................ 3-2 3.2 Regionally Significant Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ............................................ 3-4 3.3 Additional Considerations for Bicycle
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Form, N.D
    NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024--0018 (Rev. Au g. 2002) United States Department of the ln.terior Vt-fL 1z/10(0o National Park Service fJ tttf .~w NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any Item does not apply to the property being documented. enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance. enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative Items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor. or computer. to complete all items. ==================================================================================-===-======= 1. Name of Property =======================·-=================================--==============-===-===-==-======== historic name Arl ington Ridge Park (000-9707) '> other names/site number U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial (000-9707-0001/000-1233): Netherl3nds Carillon (000-9707- 0002/000-1239): Nevius Tract: lwo Jima Memorial -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------·----------------------------------------·-------------·--- ··---·--·---------------·-·-----------------------·--·-------------
    [Show full text]
  • District Boundary Increase 1
    NPS Fonn 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. Aug. 2002) (Expires Jan. 2005) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM This fonn is for use in nominating or requesting detenninations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register ofHistoric Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Fonn I0-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Buckingham Historic District (Boundary Increase) other names/site number DHR File No. 000-0025 2. Location street & number Area bounded by and including N. Oxford Street, Fifth Street North, North Henderson Road, First Street North, and Second Street North state Virginia code VA county Arlington code 013 zip code 22203 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under theN ational Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certifY that this _x_ nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property _meets_ does not meet the National Register Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Site-Specific Plan Amendment Process, to the Fairfax County Planning Commission for a Possible Amendment of Its Land Use Plan Designation
    \ I ULl V «mmm FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA J L ^r/o, 7 2017 NORTH COUNTY SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS :: \/ NOMINATION TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PI.AN i : y . / / 4 ... w ' fCtl-r. TYPE OR PRINT RESPONSES IN BLACK INK Incomplete forms will not be accepted for review and will be returned to the nominator. Staff reserves the right to correct errors in street address, tax map number, acreage or current Plan designation and may contact the nominator for clarification before acceptance. Be sure to attach required map and original certified mail receipts as proof of property owner notification. THIS BOX FOR STAFF USE ONLY Date Received: Date Accepted: Planning District: Special Area: 1. NOMINATOR/AGENT INFORMATION Name; Elizabeth D. Baker, agent Daytime Phone: 703-528-4700 Address: c/o Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh, P.C., 2200 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300 Arlington, VA 22201 Nominator E-mail Address: ebaker@thelandlawyers.com Signature of Nominator (NOTE: Ttere can be only one nominator per nomination): Signature of dwner(s) if applicable: (NOTE: Attach an additional sheet if necessary. Each owner of a nominated parcel must either sign the nomination or be sent a certified letter): See attached certified letters. Anyone signing on behalf of a business entity, must state the relationship to that organization below or on an attached page: 2. GENERAL INFORMATION Check appropriate | | Dranesville • Hunter Mill \J\ Providence | | Sully supervisor district: Total number of parcels nominated: 6-CIO Total aggregate size of all nominated parcels (in acres and square feet): 86 5 acres sq. 1 Is the nomination a Neighborhood Consolidation Proposal: |L JYes y£jNo (See page 22 of the Guide to the SSPA for more information.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Transportation Plan (MTP) Streets Element
    ARLINGTON MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN STREETS ELEMENT Adopted February 12, 2011 Table of Contents I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………2 II. Summary………………………………………………………….……….……3 III. Policies, Implementation Actions and Performance Measures……….....4 o A Well‐Connected Network of Streets Compatible with Adjacent Land Uses o Complete Streets that Accommodate All Users and Encourage Alternatives to Driving o Manage Streets to reduce Injuries Sustained in Traffic Crashes o Manage Streets to Maximize Their Efficient Use and Minimize Long‐Term Public Expense o Enhance the Human and Natural Environments IV. Functional Classifications and Controlled‐Access Highways …...……..19 o Street Classifications o Controlled Access Highways V. A New Typology for Arlington Streets…………………………………….23 o Arterial Streets o Local (Non‐Arterial) Streets o Alleys and Private Streets o Street Improvement Projects Tables and Figures o Figure 1: Arterial Street Network Functional Classifications…………………………….20 o Table 1: Arlington Street Typology with Associated Street Characteristics…………....26 o Table 2: Local Streets Design Criteria ……………………………………………...………..31 Appendix A: Traffic Crashes Statistical Summary ………..……………..…………….………..….33 Appendix B: Green Streets information ……………………………………………..…………..…..36 Arlington Master Transportation Plan 1 Streets Element – Adopted February 12, 2011 I. Introduction This element of the MTP focuses on multi‐modal use of public streets and rights‐of‐way. Streets have traditionally been seen as the domain of the automobile but are essential facilities for nearly all forms of transportation including individual and mass transit, taxicabs, bicyclists and pedestrians. Moreover, our local streets are not just transportation facilities they also serve as and shape many of our community’s most public spaces. The MTP establishes six broad goals for Arlington’s transportation policy that direct the policies and implementation actions for street development and management that are identified in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Friendly Arlington Arlington County Bike
    Randolph St. Rodman St. Rodman St. Park Rd. Quincy D c St. Quebec St. Quincy St. y. St. Chain Bridge a be w l ue k e Q P 38th St. h c Qu nc Spring Rd. Abbreviations used on this map: a Porter St. eb ra GEORGIA AVE/ r e B Perry Pl. c St. Sherier Pl. l y To Montgomery i Little Falls Rd. e a in Holmead Pl. Porter St. P Ogden St. PETWORTH HS = High School CC = Community Center P DalecarliaPkwy. Quebec Pl. 36th St. County l Ordway St. Oak St. Clara . American Potomac Ave. (YELLOW/GREEN) Arlington County Bike Map 29th St. MS = Middle School Cont. = Continuation Princeton Pl. Clara Barton Pkwy. University Norton 18th St. Loughboro Rd. I n . Otis Pl. Otis Pl. ES = Elementary School C Norton St. d Pl. r Meridian Pl. D i CLEVELAND PARK 14th St. & Watson St. an Newark St. Barton h O Ln. c Newton Pl. Dr. (RED) a C Em k e Chain Bridge Rd. 45th St. bassy P CLEVELAND PARK B a W Idaho Ave. Macomb St. Monroe St. Newton St. n N 13th St. 123 a Newark St. (Shared-use paved trails) METRO STATION 19th St. Park Rd. O-streete trails 34th St. Potomac l v Massachusetts Ave.Capital Bikeshare locations Klingle Rd. Note about street names on this map A Metrorail Stations Public Schools C T ska (Capital Bikeshare station Lowelllocations St. may change. Park Rd. Morton St. Pkwy. Capital ManningPl. hain o ra (BLUE/ORANGE) = Metrorail line color(s) w Bikeeb Lanes New Mexico Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
    BEFORE THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. ORDER N0. 489 IN THE MATTER OF: Served June 10, 1965 Application of Washington, Application No. 323 Virginia and Maryland Coach Company , Inc., to Add Route Docket No. 89 6-L. APPEARANCES: MANUEL J. DAVIS, Attorney for Washington , Virginia and Maryland Coach Company, Inc ., applicant. The Washington , Virginia and Maryland Coach Company, Inc., (W. V. & M.) filed an application on April 28, 1965, for amendment of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 4, to authorise it to establish a regular route operation , designated as Route No. 6-L, to operate as follows: Eastbound : From the Fairfax City Fringe parking lot, west on Lee Highway (29-211 ), south on Walnut Street, east on Main Street and Little River Turnpike (Va. 236), north on Capitol Beltway (495), east on Arlington Boulevard (U.S. 50), Washington Boulevard (Va. 237), and Columbia Pike (Va. 244 ) to the Pentagon Road net- work, thence over Pentagon roadways to the Pentagon Building. Westbound : From the Pentagon Building over Pentagon Roadways to Columbia Pike, thence westerly on Columbia Pike (Va. 244), Washington Boulevard (Va. 237) and Arlington Boulevard (U.S. 50), south on Capitol Beltway (495), west on Little River Turnpike and Main Street (Va. 236), north on Walnut Street and east on Lee Highway (29-211) to the Fairfax City Fringe Parking Lot. Notice of the application and hearing thereon was in compliance with Commission regulations. The application was the subject matter of a hearing held on June 7, 1965 , at the offices of the Commission .
    [Show full text]
  • NSF Arlington Transportation Management Program
    NSF Arlington Transportation Management Program Naval District Washington NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK NSF Arlington Transportation Management Program Final February 2014 Prepared for: Prepared by: THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 6 4.7 Active Commuting Programs (Bicycling and Walking) 47 1.1 Goals and Objectives 6 4.8 Variable Work Schedules 47 1.2 Transportation Management Programs 6 4.9 Guaranteed Ride Home 47 1.3 The Regional Transportation Vision 7 5.0 MASTER PLAN LAND USE PROPOSALS: TRANSPORTATION IMPLICATIONS 48 1.4 NSF Arlington 9 5.1 Anticipated Land Use Changes 48 2.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 12 5.2 Employee Density Implications 48 2.1 Local Bus/Metrorail Services 13 5.3 Trip Generation / Modal Split Impacts 48 2.2 Nearby Transit Hub Centers 18 5.4 Master Plan Parking Supply Impacts 50 2.3 Commuter Rail Service 20 5.5 Multi-modal Provisions 50 2.4 Commuter Bus Service 21 6.0 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT 52 2.5 Shuttle Service 22 PROGRAM 52 2.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 22 6.1 Employee Transportation Coordinator 57 2.7 Roadways 24 6.2 Parking Management 57 2.8 Gate Counts and Vehicle Classification 26 6.3 Transit Subsidies 57 2.9 Parking 28 6.4 Alternative Work Schedule and Telecommuting 57 2.10 Ridesharing 30 6.5 Shuttle Service 57 2.11 Employee Survey Results 31 6.6 Ridesharing 3.0 AREA PLANNING CONTEXT 41 6.7 Active Commuting Programs (Bicycling and Walking) 58 3.1 Columbia Pike Land Use and Housing Planning Studies
    [Show full text]