DOCSLIB.ORG

National Capital Region Federal Parking Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Capital Region Federal Parking Study National Capital Region Federal Parking Study An Accessibility-Based Approach for Federal Facilities Parking Policies September 2017 Notice This document was prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the National Capital Planning Commission. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. ii Page Intentionally Left Blank iii Acknowledgements The U.S. Department of Transportation John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) prepared this study on behalf of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). The project team consisted of David Daddio (team leader), Jessica Baas, and Drew Quinton of the Transportation Planning Division, Stephen Zitzow-Childs of the Organization Performance Division, and Scott Smith of the Technology Innovation & Policy Division. Kael Anderson of NCPC’s Planning Research and Policy Division was the project lead. Michael Weil, Michael Sherman, Jennifer Hirsch, and Paul Jutton contributed to the effort. NCPC and the Volpe Center would like to thank the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments for providing access to the regional transportation model. Dusan Vuksan, Roland Milone, and Meseret Seifu fielded questions and supplied model outputs. iv Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 Study Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................................. 1 Study Findings..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Key Study Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Background and Context ................................................................................................. 12 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 NCPC Parking Policy ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Current and Projected Land Use and Transportation Conditions in the National Capital Region ............... 13 Historical Context of Parking Policy ................................................................................................................. 18 Parking Policies at Principal Federal Agencies ............................................................................................... 23 Study Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................... 27 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 28 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 Developing Parking Policy ................................................................................................................................ 28 Case Studies ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Literature Review Findings ............................................................................................................................... 36 Local Parking Comparison ............................................................................................... 38 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 38 Background and Approach ............................................................................................................................... 38 Recent Zoning Code Updates .......................................................................................................................... 39 Parking Provision and Variance Processes in the NCR .................................................................................. 40 Overview of Local Jurisdiction Parking Regulations/Guidelines .................................................................... 42 Local Parking Comparison Findings ................................................................................................................ 46 Modeling Analysis ............................................................................................................ 49 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 49 Methodology...................................................................................................................................................... 49 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 57 Developing New Parking Policies using the Accessibility Analysis ................................................................. 69 Modeling Analysis Findings .............................................................................................................................. 74 Appendix A: NCPC Master Plan Review Process Summary .................................................... 76 Appendix B: NCPC’s Transportation Management Plan Standards ....................................... 79 Appendix C: Historic Context of NCPC’s Parking Policies ....................................................... 81 Appendix D: Federal Employee Commuting Policies .............................................................. 85 Appendix E: Transportation Demand Management Strategies .............................................. 88 Appendix F: Traffic Impact Assessments ................................................................................ 93 Appendix G: Detailed Descriptions of Jurisdictional Parking Regulations .............................. 95 District of Columbia .......................................................................................................................................... 95 v Montgomery County .......................................................................................................................................... 97 Prince George’s County .................................................................................................................................. 102 City of Alexandria ............................................................................................................................................ 105 Arlington County .............................................................................................................................................. 107 Fairfax County ................................................................................................................................................. 110 Loudoun County .............................................................................................................................................. 112 Prince William County ..................................................................................................................................... 114 Appendix H: Development and Limitations of the Volpe Model ........................................... 117 Model Limitations ........................................................................................................................................... 119 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 121 vi List of Figures Figure 1: NCPC Parking Policy Map ............................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Map of Suggested New NCPC Parking Ratio Policies ................................................................................ 9 Figure 3: Map of Expected Land Use and Transportation Changes in the Region (2016-2030) ......................... 14 Figure 4: Change in Accessibility to Jobs by Automobile (2016-2040) .................................................................. 15 Figure 5: Change in Accessibility to Jobs by Transit (2016-2040) ......................................................................... 15 Figure 6: Current and Future Commute Mode Shares Across the Region ............................................................. 16 Figure 7: Evolution of Parking Policy Nationally ....................................................................................................... 18 Figure 8: NCPC Parking Policy Milestones ..............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Creating a Future for Greenbelt Road/MD-193
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL REPORT Creating a Future for Greenbelt Road/MD-193 WASHINGTON, DC SPONSORED BY: City of Greenbelt City of College Park Town of Berwyn Heights Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments June 4-5, 2018 Washington ABOUT ULI WASHINGTON A DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE ULI Washington is a district council of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), a nonprofit education and research organization supported by its members. Founded in 1936, the Institute today has over 32,000 members worldwide representing the entire spectrum of land use planning and real estate development disciplines working in private enter-prise and public service. As the preeminent, multidisciplinary real estate forum, ULI facilitates the open exchange of ideas, information, and experi- ence among local, national, and international industry leaders and policy makers dedicated to creating better communities. ULI’s mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creat- ing and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. ULI Washington carries out the ULI mission locally by sharing best practices, building consensus, and advanc- ing solutions through educational programs and community outreach initiatives. ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL (TAP) PROGRAM The objective of ULI Washington’s Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) program is to provide expert, multidisciplinary, and objective advice on land use and real estate is-sues facing public agencies and nonprofit organizations in the Metropolitan Washing-ton Region. Drawing from its extensive membership base, ULI Washington conducts one and one-half day Panels offering objec- tive and responsible advice to local decision-makers on a wide variety of land use and real estate issues, ranging from site-specific projects to public pol- icy questions.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • FTA WMATA Safetrack Project Management Oversight Report May
    FOIA Exemption: All (b)(6 Monthly Report SafeTrack Program Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) May 2017 Progress Surge 14 – Prince George’s Plaza Station to Greenbelt Station – Track 2 at completion of Surge 14. June 26, 2017 PMOC Contract Number: DTFT60-14-D-00011 Task Order Number: 006, Project Number: DC-27-5272, Work Order No. 01 OPs Referenced: 01, 25 Hill International, Inc. One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street, 17th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 PMOC Lead: Michael E. Radbill, P.E. Length of Time PMOC Assigned to Project under current Contract: 3 Years, 1 Month Length of Time PMOC Lead Assigned to Project: 5 Years, 2 Months TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 1 B. PROGRAM STATUS ....................................................................................................... 2 C. CORE ACCOUNTABILITY INFORMATION ....................................................................... 3 D. MAJOR PROBLEMS/ISSUES ........................................................................................... 4 MAIN REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 6 1. PROGRAM STATUS ........................................................................................................... 6 2. PROGRAM COST ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment: Work Session No
    ONTGOMERY OUNTY LANNING EPARTMENT M C P D THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MCPB Item No. Date: 09/10/2020 Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment: Work Session No. 4: Mobility Analysis Nkosi Yearwood, Planner Coordinator, Mid-County Planning Division [email protected], (301) 495-1332 Patrick Reed, Planner Coordinator, Mid-County Planning Division [email protected], (301) 495-4538 Jessica McVary, Master Plan Supervisor, Mid-County Planning Division [email protected], (301) 495-4723 Carrie Sanders, Chief, Mid-County Planning Division [email protected], (301) 495-4653 Completed: 09/04/2020 SUMMARY The fourth Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment work session will focus on: 1. Key Plan area transportation comments and recommendations; 2. Comments received from the public, stakeholders and the Planning Board in previous work sessions; and 3. Suggested changes for the Planning Board’s consideration. On December 5, 2019, staff presented the Plan’s key preliminary transportation recommendations to the Planning Board. The Board largely supported the preliminary recommendations, including enhancements to Crabbs Branch Way, general Vision Zero safety recommendations, and the removal of the MD 355 and Gude Drive interchange from the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways. During the Board’s review of the preliminary recommendations in December 2019, the Planning Board posed transportation-related questions regarding the
    [Show full text]
  • Mobility Assessment Report
    Sector Plan DRAFT mobility assessment report Abstract This report documents how well the County is meeting its goals for mobility of cars, cyclists, pedestrians, and transit, by measuring and analyzing historical, current, and future traffic congestion data and trends. Source of Copies The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 8787 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910 Also available at www.MontgomeryPlanning.org/transportation Staff Draft Prepared by the Montgomery County Planning Department April 2014 Contents Introduction 1 Highlights 2 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled Intersections Roadways Pedestrians and Bicyclists Ride On Metrobus Metrorail Travel Trends 4 National, State, and Local Vehicle Miles Traveled 4 InterCounty Connector (MD 200) Effects on Local Roads 4 Congested Intersections 6 Most Congested Intersections by CLV 8 Other Congested Intersections 18 Intersection Exceeding Policy Area Congestion Standards 23 Congested Roadways 24 Non-Auto Travel Trends 38 Pedestrian and Bicycling Analysis 38 Transit Analysis 43 Ride On Bus WMATA Metrobus WMATA Metrorail References 49 Maps Map 1 Ten Most Congested Intersections 7 Map 2 Intersections Exceeding LATR Standard 23 Map 3 Roadway Analysis Coverage with Policy Areas 25 Map 4 Pedestrian Activity 39 Map 5 Bike Count Locations 40 Map 6 Total Bike Split Movement Analysis 41 Map 7 Average Daily Ridership: Ride On Bus 43 Map 8 Average Peak Headways: Ride On Bus 44 Map 9 Metrobus Daily Revenue Trips 45 Map 10 Metrobus Daily Headways 46 Map 11 Metrobus Ridership per Revenue
    [Show full text]
  • FTA WMATA Metrorail Safety Oversight Inspection Reports, August 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 20160804-WMATA-TW-1 2016 08 04 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Rail Agency Rail Agency Name RTTO Sub- Department Authority Department Name Email Office Phone Mobile Phone Rail Agency Department Contact Information Inspection Location Surge #6 Takoma and Silver Spring Station Platforms Inspection Summary Inspection Activity # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Activity Code OPS – GEN – OBS Inspection Units 1 Inspection Subunits 2 Defects (Number) 0 Recommended Finding No Remedial Action Required No Recommended Reinspection No Activity Summaries Platform Inspection at Takoma and Silver Spring Inspection Activity # 1 Inspection Subject Activity Code OPS GEN OBS Stations Job Briefing Accompanied Out Brief 1000 - Outside Employee No No Time No Inspector? Conducted 1400 Shift Name/Title 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 Red Line Track Chain Marker Takoma Station Silver Spring Station Line(s) B07-B08 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, ou=FTAHQ, 8/04/2016 TERRELL A WILLIAMS cn=TERRELL A WILLIAMS Date: 2016.08.08 14:41:35 -04'00' Inspector in Charge – Name Inspection Team Terrell Williams Terrell Williams Form FTA-IR-1 Version date: 1/19/16 Form FTA-IR-1 United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration FWSO Inspectors inspected SafeTrack operations at the Takoma and Silver Spring 0 station platforms during this fourth day of Surge #6 which is a continuous single tracking segment between the stations.
    [Show full text]
  • FTA WMATA Inspection Reports December 2016
    FOIA Exemption: All (b)(6) Inspection Form Form FTA-IR-1 United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Agency/Department Information YYYY MM DD Inspection Date Report Number 20161201-WMATA-WP-1 2016 12 01 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Rail Agency Rail Agency Name Track Sub- Department Authority Department Name Email Office Phone Mobile Phone Rail Agency Department Contact Information Inspection Location Twinbrook (A13) to Rockville (A14) Inspection Summary Inspection Activity # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Activity Code TRK-JSB-OBS TRK-WI-PI Inspection Units 1 1 Inspection Subunits 1 1 Defects (Number) 0 2 Recommended Finding No Yes Remedial Action Required1 No Yes Recommended Reinspection No Yes Activity Summaries Inspection Activity # 1 Inspection Subject Job Safety Briefing Activity Code TRK JSB OBS Job Briefing Accompanied Out Brief 1000- Outside Employee TRST 6431 Yes No Time No Inspector? Conducted 1230 Shift Name/Title Related Reports N/A Related CAPS / Findings N/A Ref Rule or SOP Standard Other / Title Checklist Reference Related Rules, SOPs, RWPM Standards, or Other MSRPH Main RTA FTA Yard Station OCC At-grade Tunnel Elevated N/A Track Facility Office Inspection Location Track Type X X Track Chain Marker From To Line(s) A 1 Number and/or Station(s) Twinbrook (A13) Rockville (A14) Head Car Number Number of Cars Vehicles Equipment N/A N/A N/A TRST 6431 provided a comprehensive job safety briefing to the work gang prior to Number of Defects 0 accessing the right of way (ROW) at Twinbrook. The briefing outlined the work Recommended Finding? No limits of the inspection, the protection that would be used (Train Approach Description Warning with Foul Time in red areas), the required Personal Protective Equipment Remedial Action Required? No (PPE), a review of hot spots, and a review of hazards which would be encountered on the ROW.
    [Show full text]
  • Collision of Two Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metrorail Trains Near Fort Totten Station Washington, D.C
    Collision of Two Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metrorail Trains Near Fort Totten Station Washington, D.C. June 22, 2009 Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-10/02 National PB2010-916302 Transportation Safety Board NTSB/RAR-10/02 PB2010-916302 Notation 8133C Adopted July 27, 2010 Railroad Accident Report Collision of Two Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metrorail Trains Near Fort Totten Station Washington, D.C. June 22, 2009 National Transportation Safety Board 490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20594 National Transportation Safety Board. 2010. Collision of Two Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metrorail Trains Near Fort Totten Station, Washington, D.C., June 22, 2009. Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-10/02. Washington, DC. Abstract: On Monday, June 22, 2009, about 4:58 p.m., eastern daylight time, inbound Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metrorail train 112 struck the rear of stopped inbound Metrorail train 214. The accident occurred on aboveground track on the Metrorail Red Line near the Fort Totten station in Washington, D.C. The lead car of train 112 struck the rear car of train 214, causing the rear car of train 214 to telescope into the lead car of train 112, resulting in a loss of occupant survival space in the lead car of about 63 feet (about 84 percent of its total length). Nine people aboard train 112, including the train operator, were killed. Emergency response agencies reported transporting 52 people to local hospitals. Damage to train equipment was estimated to be $12 million. As a result of its investigation of this accident, the National Transportation Safety Board makes recommendations to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Meps Data Users' Workshop
    AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY MEPS DATA USERS’ WORKSHOP TWO-DAY COMPUTER HANDS-ON CONDITIONS, EXPENDITURES, AND UTILIZATION AHRQ CONFERENCE CENTER WORKSHOP LOGISTICAL FACT SHEET Location: AHRQ Conference Center 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850-6649 Phone: 301-427-1831 For security purposes, please be prepared to show a photo ID to enter the AHRQ facility. Participants are responsible for their own travel arrangements, hotel accommodations, and meals. There is a break room at AHRQ with vending machines. There are places for lunch either within walking distance or via the AHRQ shuttle. Directions will be provided at the check-in. Hotel There are many hotels within a one-mile radius of the AHRQ building that can be Accommodations: found by searching on the Internet. Some local hotels offer shuttle service to the nearby Shady Grove Metro station and may also offer shuttle service from your hotel to AHRQ. Confirm shuttle arrangements when making hotel reservations. Ground If you take METRO (the subway system for the D.C. metropolitan area), the free Transportation: AHRQ shuttle leaves from the Shady Grove station during the morning at :15 and :45 minutes past the hour starting at 6:45 am and will bring you directly to the AHRQ building. To reach the ARHQ shuttle, turn left after exiting the Metro fare gates at the Shady Grove station, go up the escalator—the shuttle will park to your immediate right. If you decide to take MetroBus instead of the AHRQ shuttle, take the route 63 or 66 bus from the Shady Grove station. The AHRQ building is located across the parking lot from the Market Place corner store at the corner of Redland and Gaither Roads (see the last page for a map of the immediate area).
    [Show full text]
  • I-270 Monorail Feasibility Study
    I-270 MONORAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY FEBRUARY 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapters Tables Executive Summary ................................................................................1 ES.1 Design Criteria ................................................................................2 Chapter 1 Introduction ..........................................................................9 ES.2 Potential Environmental Resource Impacts .....................................4 Chapter 2 Analysis ..............................................................................15 ES.3 Total Project Costs ..........................................................................5 Chapter 3 Impacts and Costs ...............................................................53 ES.4 Total Routine Operating Costs ........................................................5 Chapter 4 Findings ...............................................................................63 ES.5 Projected Changes in Daily Boardings for Major Transit Routes .....6 References ES.6 Projected Changes in Daily Trips Between Build and No Build........7 Appendices 2.1 Design Capacity – Number of Passengers ......................................20 2.2 I-270 Feasibility Study Monorail Design Criteria ............................22 Figures 2.3 Standard Station Dimensions .........................................................30 ES.1 Feasibility Study Monorail Alignment .............................................3 2.4 Metrorail Montgomery County Station Analysis .............................32
    [Show full text]
  • Station Screening Report
    Station Screening Report MD 355 BRT Corridor Planning Study Phase 2 Station Screening Report June 20, 2019 Station Screening Report Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 4 1.1 MD 355 BRT Project Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................................................. 12 1.4 Two Levels of Station Screening in this Phase of Study .................................................................................. 12 1.5 Station Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 13 1.6 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 2 Screening Criteria .................................................................................................................. 16 2.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Level 1 Screening
    [Show full text]
  • Response to RFP #C-1932 Route 606 Metrorail Station Parking Facility
    Response to RFP #C-1932 Route 606 Metrorail Station Parking Facility - Volume I: Materials Requested in RFP Section 4.1.3 Requested I: Materials - Volume Facility Station Parking 606 Metrorail Route PPTA Facilities Parking VA Loudoun County, Proposal RFP #C-1932 | Solicitation for to Response Solicitation for Proposal Loudoun County, VA Parking Facilities PPTA: Route 606 Metrorail Station Parking Facility Volume I: Materials Requested in RFP Section 4.1.3 Due: October 30, 2013, 5PM Submitted by: Trammell Crow Company & Route 606, LLC wholly-owned subsidiary of CB Richard Ellis October 30, 2013 Loudoun County, Virginia Procurement Division, MSC 41C ATTN: Donald R. Legg, CPPO 1 Harrison Street, SE, 4th Floor Leesburg, VA 20175 Dear Mr. Legg: We are pleased to present this proposal in response to your Solicitation for Proposal C‐ 1932 for all three of the Loudoun County Parking Garages. The response that we present accomplishes the goals set out in the Solicitation and is reflected in the 100% Preliminary Engineering plans while furthering important Loudoun County objectives such as concentrating future development at Metro stations, encouraging mass transit ridership, increasing the County’s revenues from commercial development and creating a more environmentally and economically sustainable community. Our proposal also presents some concepts and ideas based upon a modified version of the Preliminary Engineering documents for your consideration. The team that we have assembled brings an exceptional level of experience and expertise for this project. Trammell Crow Company is one of the leading public/private partnership developers in the United States. Their expertise in working with local jurisdictions will be invaluable even though this project may become a wholly private undertaking as outlined in the Solicitation.
    [Show full text]