DOCSLIB.ORG

Responses to Supervisors Questions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Responses to Supervisors Questions COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 2012 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Andrew Beacher, Director, Transportation Services Mark Adams, Director, Management & Financial Services RE: Responses to Supervisor Delgaudio’s Metrorail Questions Submitted 3/5/12 CC: Tim Hemstreet, Linda Neri, Charles Yudd, John Sandy, Leslie Hansbarger, Julie Grandfield, Danny Davis, Ben Mays, Anna Nissinen 1. What are the population and employment densities of planned Loudoun County Metro station areas? Provide current and projected one mile, three mile, five mile radius data in 5 year increments to year 2040. Tables showing population and employment as of 2010, and forecasted through 2040, are attached (Attachment 1). Both total figures and density per square mile are provided for one, three, and five mile radii of the three stations that would be located within Loudoun County (Route 772, Route 606, and Dulles Airport), and for the Route 28 station, which would be located in Fairfax County near the Loudoun County border. Population, employment, and associated densities are only for the areas within Loudoun County. Data for the county as a whole are also provided, for comparison purposes. The attached map shows the location of the one, three, and five mile radii. The buffered areas encircling each station overlap, but population and employment are not double counted in these instances. To illustrate forecasted development in the vicinity of each station, tables for the one mile radius around individual stations (Route 772, Route 606, and Route 28) are also provided. Since the one mile radius around the Dulles Airport station encompasses only airport property, a table is not provided for this station. Forecasts are based on Loudoun County’s latest data, submitted to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) in February 2012 as part of the region’s Round 8.1 cooperative forecasts. Round 8.1 is scheduled for final approval in July 2012. No changes are expected to Loudoun’s forecasts. The Robert Charles Lesser & Co. (RCLCO) report, Market and Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Phase 2 Metrorail Extension to Loudoun County (April 2012), also provides forecasts for the areas surrounding the proposed metrorail stations. These forecasts are based on grouping parcels, rather than applying strict radii, and reflect RCLCO’s view of likely future development. Exhibits I-23 through I-28 show the parcels RCLCO included as part of each station area. Page 1 of 14 COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM Section V exhibits show forecasted development and fiscal impacts for each station area, with and without inflation, for Phase 2 metrorail to Loudoun and also with Phase 1 only. 2. Have Dulles Rail ridership projections from the 2004 Environmental Impact Statement (which did not show the projection assumptions made) been updated? If not, why not? Please provide. No, the Federal Transit Administration did not update the ridership projections from the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement; however, DESMAN Associates, the author of the Metrorail Parking Demand Study commissioned by Loudoun County, examined existing population and land use forecasts models to determine the number of daily boardings at the two stations in Loudoun County (refer to page 6 of the DESMAN Study): Figure 1. DESMAN’s Forecasted Daily Boardings 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Rte 606 3,932 4,114 4,391 4,572 4,713 4,791 Rte 772 6,103 6,386 6,814 7,097 7,314 7,437 12,053 12,52013,230 13,699 14,062 14,268 *Source: Refer to pages 9 and 10 of DESMAN Associate’s Metrorail Parking Demand Study. 3. Why does the Federal Transit Administration only project 10,000 new riders for Dulles Rail and indicate most projected riders are presently bus passengers? According to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), released in 2004, the Federal Transit Administration states, “The full LPA is projected to attract 41,600 new average weekday trips to the regional transit system in its opening year (2015) while the Wiehle Avenue Extension would attract 29,100 in its opening year (2011). In 2025, the full LPA would attract nearly 47,800 new average weekday trips to the regional transit system while the Wiehle Avenue Extension would attract 34,300 new trips (38 percent fewer new trips)” (Chapter 6, page 6-8). There is no indication from the FEIS that most projected riders are presently bus passengers. The Loudoun County Office of Transportation Services has published a Transit Development Plan (TDP), in which they conducted a market analysis to examine current and future (year 2030) conditions. The TDP indicates that only 2% of bus ridership will be lost to Metrorail ridership. 4. What is the current and projected commuting modal travel split for Loudoun County residents? Show shares of single passenger auto, carpool, bus transit, taxi, commuter rail., walk, work at home? See figure below. Page 2 of 14 COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM Means of Transportation to Work Public Transportation Worked at home 2.5% 6.5% Carpooled 9.7% Bicycle Walked 0.2% 1.6% Other means 0.8% Drove Alone Other Motorcycle 78.6% 0.3% 0.1% Taxicab 0.1% Sourced from the 2010 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) estimates accessed using American Fact Finder. 5. What are current and projected rail ridership totals by zip code origin and destination for Loudoun residents who work in Loudoun County and each other jurisdiction accounting for the projected 5% of the total commuter traffic? Answer is included in response to answer to question #6. 6. What are current and projected rail ridership totals by zip code origin and destination for non- Loudoun County residents who work in Loudoun County? Current Ridership Data showing origin and destination is available from the 2007 Metrorail Passenger Survey, conducted by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). This data Page 3 of 14 COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM provides information on metrorail riders in 2007. As WMATA has mentioned, a new survey will be done in 2012. This data describes current, rather than forecasted, ridership. Using the 2007 data, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) has tabulated data for Loudoun County riders, and examined data for the Shady Grove and Rockville stations as well. This data is shown in COG’s paper, Characteristics of Existing Metrorail Usage by Loudoun County Residents and Metrorail Riders at the Shady Grove and Rockville Stations (Attachment 2). See pages 1 through 6 for data on Loudoun County riders, pages 7 through 9 for data on boardings at stations located at or beyond the capital beltway, and pages 9 through 16 for data on the Shady Grove and Rockville stations. Based on the survey data, COG was able to estimate that there were 4,685 weekday riders on metrorail from Loudoun, based on a sample of 435 survey responses. Almost all of these riders started their trip from home. For these home based trips, COG was able to show where riders lived and the stations where they got on the metrorail system (Figure 1 on page 3). Although COG was not able to use zip codes, they did show how many riders came from four areas of the county (Figure 2 on page 4). The destinations of non-Loudoun County residents using Metrorail to get to work in Loudoun could not be determined from the 2007 Metrorail Passenger Survey, since this survey did not collect the destination address of metrorail trips. Forecasted Ridership Both the DESMAN parking demand study and the FEIS addressed forecasted ridership. According to DESMAN, an estimated 12,053 in daily boardings will occur at the two Loudoun stations in year 2018. By year 2025, DESMAN forecasts 13,230 in daily boardings. By 2040, there will be an estimated 14,268 daily boardings. Figure 1: DESMAN’s Forecasted Daily Boardings 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Rte 606 3,932 4,114 4,391 4,572 4,713 4,791 Rte 772 6,103 6,386 6,814 7,097 7,314 7,437 12,053 12,52013,230 13,699 14,062 14,268 The FEIS did not forecast daily boardings for year 2018, however by year 2025, it estimates a total daily boarding of 11,446 (Table 6.1-4, as shown below). For comparison, DESMAN estimates 13,230 riders, a difference of 1,784. The difference between the two studies is that DESMAN took into consideration recent land use changes that would affect Loudoun. The FEIS does not consider such changes, as it was published in calendar year 2004. Page 4 of 14 COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM Table 6.1-4: Forecast Daily Station Boardings in Dulles Corridor No Build Locally Preferred Alternative Alternative Wiehle Avenue Extension Wiehle Avenue Extension Full LPA (2011) (2025) (2025) Corridor Corridor Metrorail Express Bus Metrorail Express Bus Metrorail Tysons East n.a. 3,803 n.a. 3,920 n.a. 4,092 Tysons Central 123 n.a. 5,209 n.a. 5,726 n.a. 6,067 Tysons Central 7 n.a. 3,306 n.a. 3,595 n.a. 3,838 Tysons West n.a. 4,002 n.a. 4,391 n.a. 4,627 Wiehle Avenue n.a. 8,244 n.a. 9,697 n.a. 6,498 Reston Parkway n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 4,708 Reston Town Center n.a. n.a. 1,546 n.a. 1,534 n.a. Herndon-Monroe n.a. n.a. 4,746 n.a. 5,531 8,775 Route 28 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,226 Dulles Airport n.a. n.a.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011
    Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011 Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning August 2011 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning Jim Hamre, Director of Bus Planning Krys Ochia, Branch Manager 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Parsons Brinckerhoff Brian Laverty, AICP, Project Manager Nicholas Schmidt, Task Manager 1401 K Street NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20005 Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Existing Conditions ES-1 Policies and Procedures ES-2 Future Demand ES-3 Recommendations ES-4 Introduction 1 Study Process 3 Coordination 3 On-Site Observations 3 Operating Issues 3 Future Demand 4 Permitting and Enforcement 4 Existing Conditions 7 Key Observations 8 Operating Issues 9 Policies and Procedures 17 Permitting 17 Enforcement 19 Future Demand 25 Methodology 25 Results 28 Recommendations 33 Facility Design 34 Demand Management 37 Permitting 39 Enforcement 42 Contents | i Figures Figure ES-1: Future Shuttle Demand Estimate ES-4 Figure 1: Location of Peer U.S. Transit Agencies 4 Figure 2: Study Stations 7 Figure 3: Vehicles in Tight Turning Areas May Block Bus Bay Entrances (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 4: Long Kiss & Ride Queue (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 5: Pedestrian Shortcut (Southern Avenue Station) 11 Figure 6: Shuttle Blocking Kiss & Ride Travel Lane (King Street Station) 12 Figure 7: Shuttle Blocking Bus Stop (Anacostia Station) 13 Figure 8: Typical Signs Prohibiting Non-Authorized Access to Station Bus Bays
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Line, D Line, F8 and P12 Evaluation
    WMATA SERVICE EVALUATION STUDY Final Report June 2009 Prepared by: P2D WMATA Service Evaluation Study Final Report Contents GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS ............................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 4 PROJECT PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................... 4 PROJECT PROCESS..................................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis of Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................4 Public Involvement ...............................................................................................................................5 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 5 Service Planning...................................................................................................................................5 Traffic Operations .................................................................................................................................7 Customer Communications ..................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth Transportation Board Shannon Valentine 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786-2701 Chairperson Richmond, Virginia 23219
    Commonwealth Transportation Board Shannon Valentine 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786-2701 Chairperson Richmond, Virginia 23219 Agenda item # 21 RESOLUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD September 18, 2018 MOTION Made By: Ms. Hynes, Seconded By: Mr. Kasprowicz Action: Motion Carried Title: Approval and Authorization for the Commissioner of Highways to Execute a Letter Agreement with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to provide funding for WMATA’s Reimbursable Costs, and a Project Principles Agreement between WMATA, the Virginia Department of Transportation, I-66 Express Mobility Partners, and FAM Construction, LLC for the Transform 66 Outside the Beltway Project WHEREAS, the Transform 66 Outside the Beltway Project (Project) entails multimodal transportation improvements on the approximately 22-mile corridor on I-66 between U.S. Route 29 near Gainesville in Prince William County and the I-495 Capital Beltway in Fairfax County (Outside the Beltway Component) and is designed to address existing and future transportation challenges in the I-66 Corridor in a cost-effective and timely manner, to improve multimodal mobility by providing diverse travel choices through an efficient network of park-and-ride, HOV, transit, and Express Lane opportunities, and to enhance transportation safety and travel reliability for the public; and WHEREAS, the Project will be designed, built, financed, maintained, and operated by I- 66 Express Mobility Partners LLC (the Concessionaire or Developer), pursuant to a Comprehensive
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph M. Sussman
    Factors Influencing Land Development Around Rail Transit Stations by Jeffrey Jan Sriver B.S., Civil Engineering Purdue University, 1993 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN TRANSPORTATION at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology August, 1995 ©1995 Jeffrey Jan Sriver All rights reserved The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. r>" i, Signature of Author . .. ................ i/' : A;IparTnnt of CiIl and EnvironmentalEngineering i. Xa! r 1 August, 1995 Certified by ........... .. ... Nigel H. M. Wilson Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Thesis Advisor Accepted By. .. ri~. ..·.... ..Joseph . ...M.Sussman Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies ,.,A;A; UJS[{"rTs IN'i' "U'i'F Or 'fEC!4NOLOGY OCT25 1995 Factors Influencing Land Development Around Rail Transit Stations by Jeffrey Jan Sriver Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on 1 August, 1995, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Transportation Abstract Many of the factors which have influenced development around transit stations over the past thirty years differ from those that shaped the nature of land development at the dawn of rail transit technology, 100 years ago. Rapid transit systems which have been built in the modem era represent investments in a mode of transport that nearly all other political, economic, institutional, and regulatory factors have been aligned to defeat. However, construction of a rail transit network does provide the opportunity to re-orient metropolitan area development in a manner which will take advantage of the travel efficiencies afforded by this transit mode and affect regional travel behavior and quality of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Responses to Local / Regional Agency Comments on I-66 Corridor Improvements Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment
    APPENDIX D RESPONSES TO LOCAL / REGIONAL AGENCY COMMENTS ON I-66 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS TIER 2 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I-66 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS TIER 2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT State Project: 0066-96A-297; UPC 105500 From: US 15 To: I-495 Prince William and Fairfax Counties, Virginia Federal Highway Administration Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Except for a few minor editorial corrections, the text in this appendix is unchanged from what was presented in the Tier 2 Revised EA. New substantive comments (i.e., those on the Tier 2 Revised EA) are addressed in Appendix G of the Tier 2 Final EA. This page intentionally left blank. Virginia Railway Express (VRE) – 6/17/15 Responses to Local/Regional Agency Comments D-1 1.) The Preferred Alternatives is indeed a combination of elements that were identified as part of Alternatives 2A and 2B. Recognizing the cost and complexity of the proposed improvements, VDOT has recommended that the project be implemented in phases. The proposed first phase extends the express lanes for 22 of the original 25 miles, from I-495 to Gainesville (University Boulevard), and then transitions to a traditional HOV lane in each direction. Efforts will be made to minimize expansion of VDOT right of way at University Boulevard and other areas in proximity to the B Line railroad corridor so as not to preclude options to expand the railroad corridor at a future time. 2.) In the Tier 2 Draft EA, park-and-ride lots were proposed at University Boulevard in Gainesville and in Haymarket.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Income Job Accessibility to Silver Line Extension (Sle) Job Center, Washington Dc Metro Area
    LOW INCOME JOB ACCESSIBILITY TO SILVER LINE EXTENSION (SLE) JOB CENTER, WASHINGTON DC METRO AREA BY SUNHYEONG SHIN CAPSTONE REPORT Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Planning in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2018 Urbana, Illinois Adviser: Dr. Jesus Barajas 1 CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1. Job access and unemployment ...................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Accessibility as an indicator of social equity ................................................................................ 5 2.3. Theories about job-housing-transport mode mismatch ................................................................. 6 2.4. Other Example Extensions ............................................................................................................ 6 3. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Metrorail in Washington DC Metropolitan Area .......................................................................... 7 3.2. Phase 1 Silver Line Extension (SLE) ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FY2010 Monthly Financial Report (November 2009)
    Finance, Administration and Oversight Committee Information Item IV-B January 14, 2009 FY2010 Monthly Financial Report (November 2009) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Fiscal 2010 Financials Monthly Financial Report November 2009 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FY2010 November 2009 _________________________________________________________________ REPORT SECTIONS Operating Budget • Ridership • Revenue • Expense Capital Finances • Revenues • Costs • Projects Outstanding Debt Appendix Operating budget variances, by mode Ridership analysis Capital expenditures, by project Capital budget and expenditures, Metro Matters by ARRA Jurisdictional balances on account Transit Infrastructure Investment Fund Grant Activity (November 2009) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority November 2009 Monthly Financial Report -- FY2010 OPERATING BUDGET Summary Total operating revenue in November was $54.3 million, $4.9 million or 8 percent less than budget. The greatest shortfall for the month occurred in passenger and parking revenues which totaled $47.9 million, $4.1 million or 8 percent below the budgeted total of $52.0 million. Non-passenger revenues for the month were $6.4 million, $0.9 million less than the budgeted amount of $7.3 million. Following recent trends, in November rail passenger revenues totaled $36.3 million, $2.7 million or 7 percent below the budgeted amount of $39.0 million. Bus passenger revenue was $7.8 million, $1.2 million or 13 percent below the budget amount of $9 million. MetroAccess revenue for November was $0.3 million, 10 percent less than budgeted. Total expenses for the month of $113.3 million were unfavorable by $2.1 million. Jurisdictional subsidy for the month was unfavorable by $7 million or 13 percent, and through the first five months of Fiscal 2010, jurisdictional subsidy of $267.8 million was unfavorable by $29.6 million or 12 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • 4920 John Ticer Drive Alexandria, VA 22304
    1 Transportation Issues in Northern Virginia FINAL: April 26, 2005 Introduction Hello, this is (FIRST AND LAST NAME) calling from QSA Research on behalf of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, a group of public officials that makes decisions about transportation spending. They have asked us to conduct a survey to give residents like you a voice in some important decisions about transportation improvements and methods for funding them. If Necessary • The survey averages about 10 minutes. • The survey is a good opportunity for you to have your voice heard by public officials who decide which transportation projects to fund and how to pay for them. • We are not selling anything or raising funds for any organization. We only want your opinions. • Your answers will be used for statistical purposes only. You will never be identified as a respondent. Screening Questions S-1 We are surveying only certain areas in Northern Virginia. In what county or independent city is your home located? (READ LIST.) Alexandria City 1 CONTINUE n=100 Arlington County 2 CONTINUE n=100 Fairfax County 3 CONTINUE n=411 Fairfax City 4 CONTINUE n=100 Falls Church City 5 CONTINUE n=100 Loudoun County 6 CONTINUE n=100 Manassas City 7 CONTINUE n=100 Manassas Park City 8 CONTINUE n=100 Prince William County 9 CONTINUE n=134 Other 10 CLARIFY. THANK AND CLOSE Refused 11 THANK AND CLOSE 920 John Ticer Drive Alexandria, VA 22304 voice: 703-567-7655 fax: 703-567-6156 www.qsaresearch.com 1 2 S-2 I need to speak to the adult in your household – that is, a person who is 18 years of age or older – who had the most recent birthday.
    [Show full text]
  • 1[TPZ Ctaa^A at ^Ac AT[Tpbts
    M V 8C0;80=9>1)6gbVc^Wg^c\hZVhnZaZ\VcXZidB^aVc;Vh]^dcLZZ`q?PVT"( • MERENGUE • TANGO • FOXTROT • WALTZ • CHA CHA • SALSA • RUMBA Y Youou CCanan BBee Alex/Landmark Tysons Corner RUMBA T Thehe SStartar TThathat • I Iss DDancing!ancing! Bethesda • Gaithersburg SAMBA SALSA • Silver Spring • Hwy 29 N. MAMBO 1-800-503-6769 CHA • • SWING WALTZ • • HUSTLE WWW.ARTHURMURRAYDC.COM Classes Forming Now NIGHTCLUB • BALLROOM • COUNTRY & WESTERN & COUNTRY • BALLROOM • NIGHTCLUB • FOXTROT • :IN;EB<:MBHGH? u EBO>:EE=:R:MPPP'K>:=>QIK>LL'<HFu L > I M > F ;> K +0% + ) ) / u --5A44++ P^]g^l]Zr 1[TPZCTaa^aAT_^acAT[TPbTS fhk^]bo^kl^%e^Z]bg`mh :ll^llf^gm\ZeelBkZjpZkZÌ\Znl^\^e^[k^Í_hk^qmk^fblml bg\k^Zlbg`ZmmZ\dlphke]& F0B78=6C>=kMa^pZkbgBkZjaZl[^\hf^Z ma^mak^Zm_khfBleZfb\^qmk^fblmlaZllik^Z] pb]^%ËZ\\hk]bg`mhma^ Ê\Znl^\^e^[k^Ë_hkBleZfb\^qmk^fblml%[k^^]& [hmabggnf[^klZg]bg`^h`kZiab\k^Z\a' ]h\nf^gm' bg`]^^ik^l^gmf^gmh_ma^N'L'maZmikh[Z[er ;nlaZg]ablZ]obl^klaZo^lZb]ma^Zll^ll& ;nlalZb]\kbmb\lpah pbee`^mphkl^[^_hk^bm`^ml[^mm^k%_^]^kZe f^gmh_`eh[Zem^kkhkblflniihkm^]ma^bkZk`n& [^eb^o^ma^BkZjpZkaZl bgm^eeb`^g\^ZgZerlml\hg\en]^bgZk^ihkmZm f^gmlmaZmma^phke]bllZ_^k[^\Znl^h_ma^ phkl^g^]m^kkhkblfZk^ h]]lpbmaIk^lb]^gm;nlaÍl\hgm^gmbhgh_Z pZk';nmfhk^maZgmak^^iZ`^lh_lmZkdcn]`& "USH gZbo^Zg]fblmZd^g' 0%4%2-!#$)!2-)$'%449)-!'%3 phke]maZmÍl`khpbg`lZ_^k' f^gmlpZkgbg`Z[hnmma^lik^Z]h_m^kkhkblf ÊMhln``^lmmaZmb_p^ 4ONY"LAIRRECEIVESAPPLAUSEAFTERHISSPEECH Bgma^[e^Zdk^ihkm%]^\eZllb_b^]Zg] \hgmkZlm^]pbmama^Z]fbgblmkZmbhgÍl`eZll& p^k^gÍmbgBkZjp^phne]l^^Zkhlb^kl\^gZk& k^e^Zl^]Mn^l]Zrhg;nlaÍlhk]^kl%ma^gZmbhgÍl
    [Show full text]
  • 1986 Comprehensive Plan, 1989 Reprint
    THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA This document consists of the Area II Plan, adopted August 26, 1975, and all amendments adopted through October 27,1986. Any subsequent amend­ ments are available from Maps and Publications Sales, Massey Building, Fair­ fax, Virginia 246-2974. The Board of Supervisors has established a regular Annual Plan Review and updating process to insure the continuing relevance of the Plan. For infor­ mation regarding the Annua! Plan Review, please call 246-1200. This document, which is to be used in conjunction with the Area Plan maps, provides background information and planning policy guidelines for Fairfax County, as required by the Code of Virginia, as amended. 1986 EDITION (As Amended Through October 27th, 1986) 1989 REPRINT (Including, bound at the rear of this volume, the complete text and map for each amendment pertaining to this volume adopted through July 24, 1989) Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, 1989 Reprint - Area II BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Audrey Moore, Chairman Martha V. Pennine Centreville District Vice Chairman Joseph Alexander, Lee District Katherine K. Hanley, Providence District Sharon Bulova, Annandale District Gerry Hyland, Mount Vernon District Thomas M. Davis, III, Mason District Elaine McConnell, Springfield District Lilla Richards, Dranesville District J. Hamilton Lambert, County Executive PLANNING COMMISSION Peter F. Murphy, Jr., Springfield District Chairman John R. Byers, Mt. Vernon District Maya A. Huber, At-Large David P. Bobzien, Centreville District William M. Lockwood. At-Large Patrick M. Hanlon, Providence District Carl L. Sell, Jr., Lee District Suzanne F. Harsel, Annandale District Henry E. Strickland, Mason District Stephen J.
    [Show full text]
  • WMATA Inspection Reports September 2016
    Inspection Form Form FTA-IR-1 United States Department of Transportation FOIA Exemption: All (b)(6) Federal Transit Administration Agency/Department Information YYYY MM DD Inspection Date Report Number 20160901-WMATA-TW-1 2016 09 01 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Rail Agency Rail Agency Name ROCC Sub- Department Authority Department Name Email Office Phone Mobile Phone Rail Agency Department Contact Information Inspection Location Carmen Turner Facility – Technical Training Inspection Summary Inspection Activity # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Activity Code OPS –TNG – OBS Inspection Units 1 Inspection Subunits 1 Defects (Number) 0 Recommended Finding No Remedial Action Required No Recommended Reinspection No Activity Summaries Inspection of Track Walkers Inspection Refresher Inspection Activity # 1 Inspection Subject Activity Code OPS TNG OBS Class Job Briefing Accompanied Out Brief 0900 - Outside Employee No No Time No Inspector? Conducted 1230 Shift Name/Title FTA-Rail-2-16-A Related Reports Related CAPS / Findings Ref Rule or SOP Standard Other / Title Checklist Reference Related Rules, SOPs, Standards, or Other Main RTA FTA Yard Station OCC At-grade Tunnel Elevated N/A Track Facility Office Inspection Location Track Type X X From To Track Chain Marker Line(s) Number and/or Station(s) Head Car Number Number of Cars Vehicles Equipment Inspector in Charge - Signature Digitally signed by TERRELL A WILLIAMS Date DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DOT Headquarters, 9/06/2016 TERRELL A WILLIAMS ou=FTAHQ, cn=TERRELL A WILLIAMS Date: 2016.09.06 10:46:49 -04'00' Inspector in Charge – Name Inspection Team Terrell Williams Terrell Williams, Patrick Richardson Form FTA-IR-1 Version date: 1/19/16 Form FTA-IR-1 United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration FWSO Inspectors observed the last day of the 4 day Track Walker Inspection 0 refresher course taught at Carmen Turner Training Facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Vienna, Virginia Comprehensive Plan 2008
    TOWN OF VIENNA, VIRGINIA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2008 Approved as amended by the Planning Commission: February 13, 2008 Adopted by the Mayor and Town Council: April 7, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ……………………………………………………………………….... 1 Statutory Requirement ……………………………………………………….… 1 HISTORY ……………………………………………………………………….…..… 3 DEMOGRAPHICS …………………………………………………………………… 6 Table D-1: Total Population – Vienna and Fairfax County …………………..... 6 Table D-2: Vienna’s Population by Age ……………………………………….. 7 Table D-3: Comparison of Average Household Size ……………………….….. 8 Table D-4: Comparative 2000 Income Levels …………..……………………… 8 Table D-5: Vienna’s Population by Race ……………………..…………….….. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES …………………………………………….…….. 10 Map EF-1: Environmental Features …………………………………………….. 14 Map EF-2: Chesapeake Bay Areas Map …………………………….………….. 15 EXISTING LAND USE ………………………………………………........................ 16 Table LU-1: Land Use Distribution ………….………………..…………….….. 17 Table LU-2: Residential Unit Distribution …………………….……………….. 18 Table LU-3: Non-Residential Floor Area by Square Foot ……………………… 18 Table LU-4: Register of Vienna Historic Structures, Sites and Places …………. 22 Map LU-1: Historic Areas Map ……………….……………….……………….. 23 Map LU-2: Land Use Patterns in the Town …………………………………….. 25 Map LU-3: Adjacent County Land Uses …………………………………..……. 26 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: CONDITIONS AND TRENDS …….…………… 27 Map T-1: Street Inventory, Classification and Major Street Plan ……………...... 28 Map T-2: Truck Routes …………………………………………………….…….. 30 Map T-3: Existing Walkway Inventory
    [Show full text]