DOCSLIB.ORG

Bicycle Facilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bicycle Facilities COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW BOWIE REDEVELOPMENT SITE PUD 1339-1355 E STREET, SE ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. 15-33 WASHINGTON, DC June 2, 2016 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Case No. 15-33 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.15-33 DeletedEXHIBIT NO.27A Prepared by: 1140 Connecticut Avenue NW 3914 Centreville Road 15125 Washington Street Suite 600 Suite 330 Suite 136 Washington, DC 20036 Chantilly, VA 20151 Haymarket, VA 20169 Tel: 202.296.8625 Tel: 703.787.9595 Tel: 703.787.9595 Fax: 202.785.1276 Fax: 703.787.9905 Fax: 703.787.9905 www.goroveslade.com This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of services, is intended for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization by Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc., shall be without liability to Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. Contents Figures Executive Summary ................................................................... i Figure 1: Site Location ............................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................. 1 Figure 2: Walkscore/Bikescore for Site Area ........................... 5 Project Summary .................................................................. 1 Figure 3: Major Regional Transportation Facilities .................. 8 Purpose of Study .................................................................. 1 Figure 4: Major Local Transportation Facilities ....................... 9 Contents of Study ................................................................ 1 Figure 5: Planned Development Map .................................... 10 Study Area Overview ............................................................... 4 Figure 6: Site Plan .................................................................. 14 Major Transportation Features ............................................ 4 Figure 7: Site Circulation Plan ................................................ 15 Future Regional Projects ...................................................... 6 Figure 8: Study Area .............................................................. 22 Project Design ........................................................................ 11 Figure 9: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................ 23 Overview ............................................................................ 11 Figure 10: Existing Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes ............... 24 Alley Operations................................................................. 11 Figure 11: Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............... 25 PARKING ............................................................................. 12 Figure 12: Outbound Trip Distribution and Routing .............. 26 Loading and Trash .............................................................. 12 Bicycle Parking ................................................................... 12 Figure 13: Inbound Trip Distribution and Routing ................. 27 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ................... 13 Figure 14: Site-Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......... 28 Trip Generation ...................................................................... 16 Figure 15: Total Future Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............... 29 Traffic Operations .................................................................. 17 Figure 16: Current Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ... 30 Study Area, Scope, & Methodology ................................... 17 Figure 17: Morning Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Results ...... 33 Transit .................................................................................... 35 Figure 18: Afternoon Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Results ... 34 Existing Transit Service....................................................... 35 Figure 19: Existing Transit Service ......................................... 38 Proposed Transit Service.................................................... 36 Figure 20: Pedestrian Pathways ............................................ 41 Site-Generated Transit Impacts ......................................... 36 Figure 21: Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ........................ 42 Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................... 39 Figure 22: Existing Alley Pedestrian Counts ........................... 43 Pedestrian Study Area ........................................................ 39 Figure 23: Existing Bicycle Facilities ....................................... 46 Surrounding Pedestrian Infrastructure .............................. 39 Site Impacts ........................................................................ 39 Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................... 44 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................... 44 Proposed Bicycle Facilities ................................................. 44 On-Site Bicycle Facilities .................................................... 45 Site Impacts ........................................................................ 45 Crash Data Analysis ................................................................ 47 Summary of Available Crash Data ...................................... 47 Potential Impacts ............................................................... 47 Summary and Conclusions ..................................................... 48 Tables Table 1: Carshare Locations and Vehicles ................................ 5 Table 2: Trip Generation Summary ........................................ 16 Table 3: Summary of Background Development Trip Generation ............................................................................. 19 Table 4: Applied Growth Rates .............................................. 19 Table 5: LOS Results .............................................................. 31 Table 6: Queuing Results ....................................................... 32 Table 7: Existing Bus Lines ..................................................... 35 Table 8: Sidewalk Requirements ............................................ 39 Table 9: Intersection Crash Rates .......................................... 47 Table 10: Crash Type Breakdown ........................................... 47 This north-south alley will serve as the major point of access to EXECUTIVE SUMMARY the existing 30 foot east-west alley off of which the entrances to the below-grade resident parking garage and loading dock The following report is a Comprehensive Transportation Review are to be situated. (CTR) for the redevelopment of the Bowie Site at 1339-1355 E Street, SE. This report reviews the transportation aspects of the Parking Planned Unit Development (PUD) application. The Zoning The building includes a below-grade parking garage with 90 Commission Case Number is 15-33. parking spaces accessed from the public alley south of the site. 89 of the parking spaces are planned for residential use and The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the PUD will one parking space will be dedicated to the 1,200 sf seniors generate a detrimental impact to the surrounding facility, resulting in a parking ratio of 0.59 spaces per unit. This transportation network. This report concludes that the PUD amount of parking is typical and sufficient for new residential will not have a detrimental impact to the surrounding developments in the District, especially ones with multi-modal transportation network assuming that all planned site design transportation and transit access such as this project’s location. elements are implemented, and all mitigation measures are incorporated into the PUD application. Loading Facilities The loading area provided in the PUD is adequate to serve the Proposed PUD expected loading demand. While the Zoning Regulations state The 1339-1355 E Street SE PUD proposes to replace an existing that a building of this size should include one 55-foot berth and staging area for garbage collection trucks and auto collision a 20-foot service and delivery space, the PUD proposes one 30- repair center with a 4-story residential development containing foot berth and one 20-foot service and delivery space, which approximately 152 residential units and 1,200 sf of space to should be more than sufficient to meet this multifamily facilitate the delivery of programs and services assisting senior building’s needs. As is typical for exclusively multi-family citizens in the neighborhood. This new residential building will residential developments with similarly sized units, no include 90 below-grade parking spaces for the property’s residential units are anticipated to be large enough to demand residents and a 30-foot loading berth. Both of these will be a 55-foot truck for move-in/move-out purposes as compared to accessed from an existing 30 foot alley situated on the south a typical single-family home or to service retail uses. It should side of the development parcel. also be noted that the loading facilities proposed for this development are consistent with ZR16 requirements. Pedestrian access into the new building will occur from E Street SE. The project will improve the current pedestrian Trash operations will occur from the southern alley with trash infrastructure and public space along E Street by adding new trucks picking up bins that will be wheeled out to them and street trees,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DC Circulator Service Changes for June 24, 2018 ‐ Responses To
    DC Circulator Service Changes for June 24, 2018 ‐ Responses to Public Comments ID Name Comment Response from DDOT I am a Ward 6 (Capitol Hill area) resident who will be working in Ward 8 beginning this summer. I support the proposed changes because they will improve 1 A Kaufman travel to and around Ward 8 while helping community members access vital services and increase the connectivity between Wards 6 & 8. I am a Ward 7 resident who will be working in Ward 8 beginning this summer. I support the proposed changes because they will improve travel to and around 2 AD Saunders Ward 8 while helping community members access vital services and community supports. This route directly affects me and my commute on a daily basis. 3 A Donovan This route would be a great addition, and a stop at the new Wharf development would be really helpful. The Union Station‐ Navy Yard route has low ridership, especially during the mid‐day and on weekends (17 passengers boarding per hour, tied for 4th in the system). It also currently serves areas that do not demand high‐ Dear DDOT, We live in NE on Capitol Hill and frequently use the Union Station‐Navy Yard Metro route to take our daughter to school. In the summer we use the frequency, all‐day service. From end to end, the trip on the route often to go to Nationals games and to go to Yards Park. The proposed changes would severely impact my family's ability to get our daughter to school and DC Circulator is 28 minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Navy Yard Transportation Management Program (TMP)
    Washington Navy Yard Transportation Management Program (TMP) Naval District Washington NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Washington Navy Yard Transportation Management Program Final August 2014 Prepared for: Prepared by: THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 6 4.5 Shuttle Bus Service 35 1.1 Goals and Objectives 6 4.6 Ridesharing (Carpools and Vanpools) 36 1.2 Transportation Management Programs 6 4.7 Bicycle Facilities 36 1.3 The Regional Transportation Vision 7 4.8 Variable Work Schedules 36 1.4 The Washington Navy Yard 9 4.9 Guaranteed Ride Home and Ride-Matching 36 4.10 Other Vehicle Travel 37 2.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS NEAR THE WASHINGTON NAVY YARD 12 5.0 MASTER PLAN LAND USE PROPOSALS: TRANSPORTATION 2.1 Metrorail and Bus Service 12 IMPLICATIONS 38 2.2 Commuter Rail Service 15 5.1 Anticipated Land Use Changes 38 2.3 Commuter Bus Service 15 5.2 Employee Density Implications 38 2.4 Shuttle Service 16 5.3 Trip Generation / Modal Split Impacts 38 2.5 Bicycle and Pedestrians 17 5.4 Master Plan Parking Supply Impacts 40 2.6 Roadways 18 5.5 Multi-modal Provisions 40 2.7 Gate Counts and Vehicle Classification 18 5.6 Roadway Circulation and Parking Strategies 40 2.8 Parking 20 6.0 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 42 2.9 Ridesharing 20 6.1 Employee Transportation Coordinator 42 2.10 Ferry Service 20 6.2 Parking Supply and Management 46 2.11 Naval District Washington Regional Transportation 6.3 Transit Subsidies 47 Survey Results 21 6.4 Telecommuting 48 2.12 Area Intersection Level of Service 27 6.5 Shuttle Bus Service 48 3.0 AREA PLANNING CONTEXT 28 6.6 Ridesharing (Carpools and Vanpools) 49 3.1 The 11th Street Bridge Project 28 6.7 Bicycle Facilities and Walkers 50 3.2 D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2020 Transit Development Plan
    DC Circulator Transit Development Plan 2020 Update April 12, 2021 (Page intentionally left blank) DC Circulator 2020 TDP i April 2021 Transit Development Plan 2020 Update DRAFT Table of Contents 1.046T 46T Introduction46T ..............................................................46T .................................................... 1 46T 46T Purpose of the Transit Development Plan (TDP)46T ..............................................................46T ............ 1 46T 46T Transit Development Plan Process46T ..............................................................46T ................................. 3 2.046T 46T DC Circulator System Overview46T ..............................................................46T ....................... 4 46T 46T History46T ..............................................................46T ............................................................................. 4 46T 46T Organizational Structure46T 46T ............................................................................................................... 6 46T 46T Strategic Goals and Objectives46T ..............................................................46T ....................................... 6 46T 46T Levels of Service46T 46T ............................................................................................................................ 8 46T 46T Fare Structure46T ..............................................................46T ............................................................... 10 46T 46T Fleet
    [Show full text]
  • Anchor Mental Health…………………………………………………………………
    District of Columbia Department of Mental Health Directory of Mental Health Rehabilitation Services Agencies 2008 - 2009 Revised Feb. 2009 1 Table of Contents: Access HelpLine (AHL)............................................................................................Pg. 5 CSA Directory: Anchor Mental Health…………………………………………………………………..... Pg. 6 Community Action Group…………………………………………………………………Pg. 7 Community Connections, Inc………………………………………………………........ Pg. 8 D.C. Community Services Agency (DCCSA)………………………………………….. Pg. 9 Family and Child Services of WDC, Inc…………………………………………………Pg. 10 Family Preservation……………………………………………………………….…….... Pg. 11 Fihankra Place, Inc……………………………………………………………….……..... Pg. 12 First Home Care Corporation……………………………………………………….…… Pg. 13 Georgetown Kids Medical Mobile Clinic (KMMC) …………………………………...Pg. 14 Green Door…………………………………………………………………………….……Pg. 15 Hillcrest Children’s Center………………………………………………………….….... Pg. 16 Latin American Youth Center…………………………………………………….………Pg. 17 Launch, LLC. ………………………………………………………………………………Pg. 18 Life Stride……………………………………………………………..………….……….. Pg. 19 Mary’s Center……………………………………………………………..……………..... Pg. 20 McClendon Center……………………………………………………………………..… Pg. 21 MD/DC Family Center ..........……………………………………………….…..……... Pg. 22 Neighbors Conseijo…………………………………………………………………....…. Pg. 23 Progressive Life…………………………………………………………………………….Pg. 24 PSI…………………………………………………………………………………...…...... Pg. 25 Psychiatric Center Chartered…………………………………………………….…........ Pg. 26 RCI Counseling Center……………………………………………………………………Pg.
    [Show full text]
  • Candidate Sites CANDIDATE SITES
    33 Candidate Sites CANDIDATE SITES Candidate sites were evaluated by applying the specific urban design, economic, With Prime Sites listed first, the 100 candidate sites are: transportation, and environmental criteria defined in Section 3 (for Site Evaluation Criteria, see the technical master plan material, posted on NCPC’s website at www. Candidate Memorial and Museum Sites ncpc.gov). The following Prime Site evaluations were conducted based both on site reconnaissance and using data obtained from NCPC and other sources. No. General Location/Description In addition to these 20 prime sites, 80 additional sites are considered within this mas- Note: Sites #1 through 20 represent the Prime Sites ter plan. Those additional sites are included at the end of the Prime Site evaluations 1 Memorial Avenue at George Washington Memorial Parkway and provide overview assessments of each site's potential to accommodate future (west of Memorial Bridge ) memorials and museums. 2 E Street expressway interchange on the east side of the Kennedy Center 3 Intersection of Maryland and Independence Avenues, SW The diagram below illustrates the approximate location of the 20 Prime Sites within (between 4th and 6th Streets) the master plan framework's Waterfront Crescent, Monumental Corridors, and 4 Kingman Island (Anacostia River) Commemorative Focus Areas. 5 Freedom Plaza on Pennsylvania Avenue, NW between 13th -14th Streets 6 Potomac River waterfront on Rock Creek Parkway (south of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge) 7 East Capitol Street east of 19th Street (north
    [Show full text]
  • 81 College Park Line
    81 College Park Line Proposed Change • Route 81 runs on Sundays only. It is exactly like Route 83, but it serves Greenbelt Station instead of College Park Station. • This proposal would make Route 83 run on Sundays. The College Park Line would no longer serve Greenbelt Station on Sundays. • All service on the College Park Line would serve College Park Station seven days a week. Reason for the Change: • These will the make the College Park Line easier to understand. Service from Cherry Hill Campground will go to College Park Station seven days a week. Alternative Transportation Options: • Route C2 serves Greenbelt Station. It currently runs Monday through Saturday. We plan to add Sunday service to Route C2 to replace Route 81 service at Greenbelt Station. 81 College Park Line Cambio propuesto • El itinerario 81 funciona únicamente los domingos. Es exactamente igual al itinerario 83, pero presta servicio en Greenbelt Station en vez de College Park Station. • Esta propuesta implicaría que el itinerario 83 funcione los domingos. La Línea College Park no prestaría servicio en Greenbelt Station los domingos. • Todo el servicio de la Línea College Park prestaría servicio en College Park Station los siete días de la semana. Motivo del cambio: • Esto haría a la Línea College Park más fácil de entender. El servicio de Cherry Hill Campground irá a College Park Station los siete días de la semana. Opciones de transporte alternativas: • El itinerario C2 presta servicio en Greenbelt Station. Actualmente funciona de lunes a sábado. Planeamos agregar el servicio de los domingos al itinerario C2 para reemplazar al servicio del itinerario 81 en Greenbelt Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorials and Museums Master Plan, December 2001
    33 Candidate Sites CANDIDATE SITES Candidate sites were evaluated by applying the specific urban design, economic, With Prime Sites listed first, the 100 candidate sites are: transportation, and environmental criteria defined in Section 3 (for Site Evaluation Criteria, see the technical master plan material, posted on NCPC’s website at www. Candidate Memorial and Museum Sites ncpc.gov). The following Prime Site evaluations were conducted based both on site reconnaissance and using data obtained from NCPC and other sources. No. General Location/Description In addition to these 20 prime sites, 80 additional sites are considered within this mas- Note: Sites #1 through 20 represent the Prime Sites ter plan. Those additional sites are included at the end of the Prime Site evaluations 1 Memorial Avenue at George Washington Memorial Parkway and provide overview assessments of each site's potential to accommodate future (west of Memorial Bridge ) memorials and museums. 2 E Street expressway interchange on the east side of the Kennedy Center 3 Intersection of Maryland and Independence Avenues, SW The diagram below illustrates the approximate location of the 20 Prime Sites within (between 4th and 6th Streets) the master plan framework's Waterfront Crescent, Monumental Corridors, and 4 Kingman Island (Anacostia River) Commemorative Focus Areas. 5 Freedom Plaza on Pennsylvania Avenue, NW between 13th -14th Streets 6 Potomac River waterfront on Rock Creek Parkway (south of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge) 7 East Capitol Street east of 19th Street (north
    [Show full text]
  • Second Amended Master Complaint Jurisdiction And
    Case 1:10-mc-00314-RBW-JMF Document 125 Filed 10/18/10 Page 1 of 83 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA In the Matter of the FORT TOTTEN METRORAIL CASES ) Arising Out of the Events of June 22, 2009 ) ) LEAD CASE: Jenkins v. Washington ) Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, et al. ) Case No.: 1:10-mc-00314-RBW ) ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ALL CASES ) ) SECOND AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction in this Court is founded on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regional Compact, which establishes original jurisdiction in this Court over WMATA matters pursuant to WMATRC Art XVI § 81; D.C. Code Ann. § 1-2431(81) (1981) and DC ST § 9-1107.10. 2. Venue in this Court is proper as the negligent acts and/or omissions, committed by the Defendants occurred in the District of Columbia. DEFENDANTS 3. At all times relevant, Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (hereinafter “WMATA”) was the owner of the Metro subway system being operated by its employees, who were acting within the course and scope of their employment and/or agency with WMATA. 4. Defendant WMATA was created when Congress approved the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact (“WMATA Compact”), D.C. Case 1:10-mc-00314-RBW-JMF Document 125 Filed 10/18/10 Page 2 of 83 Code Sec. 9-1107.01 et seq., that was signed by the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. 5. By the terms of the WMATA Compact creating it, WMATA is liable for its negligent acts and/or omissions and those of its Directors, officers, employees and agent committed in the conduct of any proprietary function “D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Stadium-Armory Station Area Planning Study Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
    M WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Mmetro STADIUM-ARMORY STATION AREA PLANNING STUDY Final Report January 2006 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Department of Planning and Information Technology Office of Business Planning & Project Development M STADIUM-ARMORY STATION AREA PLANNING STUDY Mmetro CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-4 3. PLANNING CONTEXT 5-7 4. MASTER PLAN 8-15 5. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 16-20 6. STATION CAPACITY AND ENHANCEMENTS 21-22 7. ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATE 23 8. NEXT STEPS 23 STADIUM-ARMORY STATION AREA PLANNING STUDY 1. INTRODUCTION Over the past five years, the District of Columbia has experienced a renaissance campus plan; and the Master Plan for the RFK stadium site being developed by the characterized by increased real estate values and a concerted effort by Mayor Anthony National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). Williams, the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (AWC), the District of Columbia Office of Planning (DCOP), and the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) to develop Given these planned or potential projects, and other on-going transportation studies in the strategic land use and transportation plans that enhance existing public spaces, increase station vicinity, the District Office of Planning and WMATA determined that a station area opportunities for cultural and recreational activity centers, and introduce mixed-use retail study was warranted to evaluate existing pedestrian and vehicular access in and around in older commercial corridors. The Stadium-Armory station area is one of the Metrorail the station, to identify opportunities for enhancing the overall transit experience, and to station sites that will be impacted by many of the major infrastructure investments coordinate plans for station improvements with other transportation and master plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard VHB Memo Template
    January 29, 2010 Contract No. 09-049 An Evaluation of the Metrobus Priority Corridor Networks Draft Final Report Submitted to Metropolitan Washington Council of 777 North Capitol Street, N.E Governments Suite 300 Washington, District of Columbia 20002 Washington Metropolitan Area 600 5th Street, NW Transit Authority Washington, DC 20001 Submitted by In Association With: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Shapiro Transportation Consulting, LLC 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700 Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning Vienna, VA 22182 Gallop Corporation Contents Overview of Priority Corridor Network (PCN) Concept ...................................................... 1 PCN Concept ............................................................................................................................ 1 Current PCN Status ................................................................................................................. 1 PCN Evaluation Project .......................................................................................................... 4 PCN Evaluation Overall Findings ......................................................................................... 5 Overall Results of PCN Alternatives .................................................................................... 5 Results of Key Measures of Effectiveness in PCN Corridors ............................................ 7 PCN Impact on Regional Transit Ridership ...................................................................... 14 PCN Relationship
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution #13-30
    PRESENTED AND ADOPTED: November 21, 2013 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PROPOSED BUS SERVICE ADJUSTMENTS AND TARIFF CHANGES 2013-30 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, Metrobus has established criteria to determine service effectiveness, including average ridership per day, passengers per revenue trip, passengers per revenue mile, subsidy per passenger, and cost recovery; and part WHEREAS, Service improvements to provide more efficient service are periodically needed, including additional trips on crowded routes, additional running time on trips that are consistently late, and additional service to areas within the greatest demand; and WHEREAS, Some service improvements can be made using existing resources by redirecting resources to areas of greatest need; and WHEREAS, This approach to service realignment would not increase the operating budget, but would increase ridership, increase the farebox recovery ratio, and maintain or improve overall on-time performance and customer satisfaction; and WHEREAS, The Board of Directors approved holding public hearings on the proposed service realignment on July 25, 2013; and WHEREAS, Six public hearings in three jurisdictions were held to solicit customer reaction to proposed modifications to bus service; and WHEREAS, The Federal Transit Administration issued revised regulations concerning Title VI concerns; and WHEREAS, Staff has conducted public outreach as required by the Title VI regulations soliciting input from minorities and low-income groups; and WHEREAS,Superseded Staff has performed a Service Equity Analysis on the proposed services to determine whether there is a disparate impact or disproportionate burden on minority or low-income populations; and WHEREAS, Staff has briefed the Board of Directors on the service changes and the equity impacts; and Motioned by Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Metro Core Capacity Study
    Metro Core Capacity Study A Prescription for Meeting Market Demand A Legacy of Service Since 1976, the Metro system has provided mobility to the people of and visitors to the National Capital Region. Over the years, Metro also has become a vital element in the region=s balanced transportation equation, as evidenced by the fact that: 18% of peak period trips in Metro=s service territory are on transit. 41% of all trips into the region’s core, including Rosslyn, Crystal City and the Pentagon, are on transit. Half of Metro’s downtown stations serve federal facilities and about 35%-40% of locally based federal employees regularly ride the system. Metro is a mode of choice to major special events including July 4th, sporting contests, concerts, parades, festivals and celebrations such as presidential inaugurations. On a daily basis, Metro removes up to 325,000 vehicles from the regional roadways and eliminates the need for 1,400 miles of highway lane miles or more than a 10% increase in the existing highway network--thus contributing to regional mobility and regional air quality mandates. Moreover, Metro has spawned over $15 billion in development at station sites as the region has grown and prospered. On March 29, 2001, the Metrorail system marked its 25th anniversary of service. As a testament to Metro’s success, it has recently been recognized as the fastest growing rail system in the nation in terms of ridership. Together, Metrorail and Metrobus currently transport more than 1.1 million customers each business day. The integral role Metro plays in providing mobility to the region was demonstrated conclusively on the morning of September 11, 2001 when, in the wake of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon, Metrobus, Metrorail and MetroAcess operated a near flawless, back-to-back rush hour when Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]