DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft US 29 Mobility & Reliability Study Technical Report July 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft US 29 Mobility & Reliability Study Technical Report July 2020 Draft US 29 Mobility & Reliability Study Technical Report July 2020 Draft This page intentionally left blank. Draft US 29 Mobility & Reliability Study Technical Report Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ iii Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. iv Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Study Area and Study Corridor ................................................................................................................. 2 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Population, Jobs, and Income ................................................................................................................... 3 Corridor Travel Patterns ............................................................................................................................ 4 Previous Studies ........................................................................................................................................... 8 US 29 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) County and State Studies .................................................................... 10 US 29 Related BRT Studies.................................................................................................................... 12 US 29 Related Traffic and Transit Studies.............................................................................................. 12 Countywide and Regional Transit Studies .............................................................................................. 13 Related Regional Studies........................................................................................................................ 15 Functional and Master Planning Documents .......................................................................................... 15 Existing Roadway Conditions and Traffic Operations ................................................................................. 19 Transit Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Existing FLASH Station Accessibility .......................................................................................................... 34 Station 1 – Silver Spring Transit Center .................................................................................................. 34 Station 2 – Fenton Street ........................................................................................................................ 36 Station 3 – University Boulevard ............................................................................................................. 38 Station 4 – Burnt Mills .............................................................................................................................Draft 40 Station 5 – Oak Leaf Drive ...................................................................................................................... 42 Station 6 – White Oak Transit Center ..................................................................................................... 44 Station 7 – Stewart Lane ......................................................................................................................... 46 Station 8 – Tech Road ............................................................................................................................ 48 Future Traffic Forecasts and Traffic Operations ......................................................................................... 50 Population, Households, and Employment ............................................................................................. 50 Travel Forecasting Methodology ............................................................................................................. 52 2025 No Action Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 55 Alternatives Development and Evaluation .............................................................................................. 61 Page i US 29 Mobility & Reliability Study Technical Report 2025 Median Bus Lane Corridor Alternative Evaluation ......................................................................... 69 2025 Managed Lane Analysis ................................................................................................................. 79 Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 88 Summary of Findings and Recommended Mobility Package ................................................................. 91 Draft Page ii US 29 Mobility & Reliability Study Technical Report List of Tables Table 1 2017 Daily Vehicle Trips To and From the US 29 Subarea……………………………………….…6 Table 2 2017 Average Weekday Vehicle Trips using US 29………………………………………………….6 Table 3 Summary of US 29 Studies and Plans……………………………………………………...………….7 Table 4 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Delay Ranges……………………….……………….…...22 Table 5 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Delay Ranges……………………………………….....22 Table 6 Existing Failing Intersections…………………………..……………………………………………….23 Table 7 Existing Failing Segments…………………………………………………………….................…….24 Table 8 VISSIM Modeled Travel Times……………..………………………………………………………….25 Table 9 VISSIM Modeled Person Throughput………………..…………………………………………….….26 Table 10 Existing Transit Operations along US 29.………………………………………………….………..30 Table 11 RideOn Ridership/………………………………….……………………………………………….….31 Table 12 WMATA Ridership……………………………………………………………………………………..33 Table 13 US 29 Corridor Land Use 2017-2040 by District………………………………………..………….50 Table 14 2025 No Action Failing Intersections…………………………..…………………………………….56 Table 15 2025 No Action Failing Segments……………………………………………………………...…….57 Table 16 2025 Median Bus Lane Failing Intersections………………………..……………………………...75 Table 17 2025 Median Bus Lane Failing Segments…..………………………………………………………76 Table 18 2025 Managed Lane Failing Intersections……………………………….………………………….83 Table 19 2025 Managed Lane Failing Intersections…………………….…………………………………….84 List of Figures Figure 1: BRT study area and Study Corridor……………………………………………………………………2 Figure 2: US 29 Corridor Existing Land Use…………………………………………………………..…………3 Figure 3 US 29 Travel Market Subareas……………..………………………………………….………………5 Figure 4 2017 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip O-Ds Using US29……………………………………………..7 Figure 5 2018 US 29 Traffic Volumes by Mode………………………………………………………………..19 Figure 6 Existing Travel Times by Mode from Tech Road to Georgia Avenue……………………………...20 Figure 7 Person throughput illustration………………………………………………………………………….21 Figure 8 Existing Conditions Level of Service………………………………………………………..………...27 Figure 9 Existing US 29 Corridor Transit Services…………………………………………………………….29 Figure 10 US 29 Corridor Land Use 2017 -2040 By District……………………………………….………….51 Figure 11 US 29 Subarea Change in DraftEmployment and Households, 2017-40……………………….……..52 Figure 12 Subarea Assignment Process (MWCOG Base Model)………………………………. …….…....54 Figure 13 2025 No Action Link and Intersection Level of Service – Vehicles……………………………....58 Figure 14 2025 No Action Link and Intersection Level of Service – BRT……………………………………59 Figure 15 2025 No-Action Modeled Travel Times Between MD 198 and Georgia Avenue…………….....60 Figure 16 Intersection Improvement Screening Matrix…………………………………………………………62 Figure 17 Previous study interchange design concept for US 29/ Greencastle Road……………………...63 Figure 18 Intersection / Interchange Improvement Concepts and Costs…………………………………….64 Figure 19 Transportation Systems Management and Operations Strategies…………………………….…67 Figure 20 Median Bus Lane Concept………………………………………………………….…………….…..72 Figure 21 Median Bus Lane Typical Sections…………………………………………………………………..73 Figure 22 2025 Median Bus Lane Link and Intersection Level of Service – Vehicles………………….…..77 Figure 23 2025 Median Bus Lane Link and Intersection Level of Service – BRT…….……………...……..78 Page iii US 29 Mobility & Reliability Study Technical Report Figure 24 2025 Median Bus Lane Travel Times Between MD 198 and Georgia Avenue……………..….79 Figure 25 Managed Bus Lane Typical Sections……………………………………………………...………..81 Figure 26 2025 Managed Lane Link and Intersection Level of Service – Vehicles……………….………..85 Figure 27 2025 Managed Lane Link and Intersection Level of Service – Vehicles………………………...86 Figure 28 2025 Managed Lane Travel Times Between MD 198 and Georgia Avenue…………………….87 Figure 29 Person Throughput Comparison……………………………………………………………………..88
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statement of Compliance Application of The
    STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE APPLICATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, REPRESENTED BY THE AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY 1601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW (Square 181, Lot 162) 1. Introduction The Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Australian Embassy, Washington DC (the “Embassy” or the “Applicant”), proposes to remove the existing Australian chancery building at 1601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW (Square 181, Lot 162) and replace it with a new chancery building.1 The building will contain chancery office space, conference and meeting rooms, consular services, and accessory space. The replacement chancery building’s height, density, and lot occupancy will be generally consistent with that of the existing chancery building. As further detailed below, Foreign Missions Board of Zoning Adjustment (“FMBZA”) review is required for the proposed replacement chancery. The FMBZA has exclusive jurisdiction to review the proposed project pursuant to Section 206 of the Foreign Missions Act (22 USC § 4306) (the “Act”) and Subtitle X, Chapter 2 of the 2016 Zoning Regulations (“DCMR 11”), including public space approval and historic preservation approval pursuant to 11X DCMR §§ 201.8 and 203.7. The Act makes it clear that provisions of law other than the Act "shall apply to chanceries only to the extent that they are consistent with this section." 22 USC § 4306(j). Further, "[N]o act of any Federal agency shall be effective to confer or deny any benefit with respect to any foreign mission contrary to this Chapter." 22 USC § 4307. The final determination made by the FMBZA concerning the location, replacement or expansion of a chancery “shall not be subject to 1 “Chancery” is defined in the Zoning Regulations and in the Foreign Missions Act as “[t]he principal offices of a foreign mission used for diplomatic or related purposes, and annexes to such offices (including ancillary offices and support facilities), including the site and any building on such site that is used for such purposes.” 11B DCMR § 100.2; 22 USC § 4302.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Women Salute to Enterprising the Business Newspaper of Howard & Anne Arundel Counties and the BWI Business District Q&A Joani Gammill … Women … Page 17 Page 7
    The August 2018 Volume 26, Number 8 Enterprising Monthly Women Salute to Enterprising The Business Newspaper of Howard & Anne Arundel Counties and the BWI Business District Q&A Joani Gammill … Women … Page 17 Page 7 New Developer Chosen for What Next? The Fight to End Howard Circuit Courthouse NextGen Noise By Mark R. Smith, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF The jet noise is loud. And it’s been constant. For about three years. And while the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has engaged the community about the issues caused by its estimated $36 billion NextGen flight control system — though with no results — the FAA recently disengaged from talks with the locals in late June after the state filed an administrative petition, with Howard County government following suit in mid-July. The separation has resulted in the muting of the D.C. Metroplex BWI Community Roundtable, which the FAA dictated be created to foster that very line of communication. The group will still meet, albeit less frequently. While the controversy caused by the noise has been discussed and debated, roundtable members are wondering what The design of the new Howard County Circuit Courthouse addresses deficiencies that hamper safety and security at the to do after Howard County has requested existing, 175-year-old facility. that the FAA promptly restore flight paths at Baltimore-Washington International By George Berkheimer, SENIOR WRITER legislation. ment process that started in July 2017. Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI Mar- The plan, submitted by Bethesda-based “Ultimately the proposal from Edgemoor- shall) to their pre-NextGen status and Howard County is one step closer to Edgemoor-Star America Judicial Partners Star was chosen as the best value for the evaluate new routes, as required by federal getting a new Circuit Courthouse follow- (ESJP), includes a 237,000-square-foot, county,” said Howard County Executive statutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Facilities
    COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW SHEPHERD PARK PUD WASHINGTON, DC March 11, 2016 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Case No. 15-29 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.15-29 DeletedEXHIBIT NO.22B 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 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Contents of Study .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Docket/Notice of Public Hearing
    Notice of Public Hearing Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Docket B17-01: Proposed FY2018 Operating Budget and Docket B17-02: Proposed FY2018 Capital Improvement Program and Federal FY2017 Grant Applications Purpose Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority on the two dockets noted above as follows: Hearing No. 613 Monday, January 30, 2017 Metro Headquarters Building 600 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Open House 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing at 5 p.m. Speaker registration is on-site only and closes at 9 p.m. Please note that this date is subject to Metro’s inclement weather cancellation policy. In the event of a cancellation, Metro will post information about a new hearing on wmata.com. The public hearing location is wheelchair accessible. Any individual who requires special assistance such as a sign language interpreter or additional accommodation to participate in the public hearing, or who requires these materials in an alternate format, should contact Danise Peña at 202-962-2511 or TTY: 202-962-2033 as soon as possible in order for Metro to make necessary arrangements. For language assistance, such as an interpreter or information in another language, please call 202-962-2582 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing date. For more information please visit www.wmata.com/budget. In accordance with Section 62 of the WMATA Compact, Metro will conduct a public hearing at the location listed in this notice. Information on the hearing will be provided in area libraries, in Metrorail stations, on Metrobus and MetroAccess vehicles, and online at www.wmata.com/budget.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation and Environment Committee
    T&E COMMITTEE #1 March 5, 2020 MEMORANDUM March 2, 2020 TO: Transportation and Environment Committee FROM: Glenn OrliI~enior Analyst SUBJECT: FY21-26 Capital Improvements Program (CIP}--transportation: mass transit and pedestrian facilities/bikeways projects, and Facility Planning-Transportation1 PURPOSE: Worksession Please bring the Executive's Recommended FY21-26 CIP to this worksession, This is the second Committee worksession scheduled to review the transportation portion of the FY21-26 CIP. This worksession will include a review of mass transit and pedestrian facilities/bikeways projects, and Facility Planning-Transportation. Staff anticipated to attend this worksession include: Chris Conklin, Director, Department of Transportation (DOT) Emil Wolanin, Deputy Director, DOT Tim Cupples, Chief, Division of Transportation Engineering, DOT Dan Hibbert, Chief, Division of Transit Services, DOT Fred Lees, Chief, Management Services, DOT Brady Goldsmith, Office of Management & Budget Sara Benson, Senior Transit Facilities Planner, WMATA Michael Hance, AECOM A. PRELIMINARIES A clarification is requested regarding the February 27 worksession. The Executive did not include PDFs for the Highway Noise Abatement and Dedicated but Unmaintained Roads projects in his Recommended FY21-26 CIP. Council staff had recommended retaining these PDFs in the CIP, but not showing funding within the six-year period. In addition, over the next two-year CIP cycle, Council staff recommends that DOT reevaluate whether the criteria for these two programs be revised or to scrap the programs altogether, and to bring its recommendations to the Council. However, at the worksession Council staff did not receive the Committee's recommendation. Council staff has requested certain short briefings as part of this worksession, noted in italics in this staff report.
    [Show full text]
  • Producing and Protesting Invisibility in Silver Spring
    Rotenstein, David S. “Producing and Protesting Invisibility in Silver Spring, Maryland.” In Demand the Impossible: Essays in History as Activism, edited by Nathan Wuertenberg and William Horne, 89–111. Washington D.C.: Westphalia Press, 2018. PRODUCING AND PROTESTING INVISIBILITY IN SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND David S. Rotenstein Independent Scholar Introduction Silver Spring, Maryland, developed during the early twentieth century as a sundown suburb: an area covering more than ten square miles where ra- cial restrictive deed covenants prevented African Americans from owning or renting homes.1 Located in Montgomery County about 6 miles north of downtown Washington, D.C., Silver Spring did not begin desegregating its businesses until the late 1950s and housing discrimination remained legal there until 1968, when the county’s open housing law went into ef- fect. Despite dramatic changes in Silver Spring’s demographics and poli- tics, the community’s history and historic preservation efforts remain as segregated as its earlier public culture. New residents with no diachronic attachments to the community and a historically white and wealthy power regime complicate local efforts to make history and historic preservation more inclusive. African Americans, the Jim Crow era, and the civil rights actions that helped break down racial barriers in Silver Spring in the 1960s remain invisible in published histories and in the commemorative land- scape. I live in Silver Spring and I make my living in public history. In recent years, my work has focused on suburban gentrification and how people of color are displaced from communities and erased from the historical record.2 In 2011, my family moved from Silver Spring to an Atlanta, Georgia, suburb where African Americans were being displaced by aggressive real estate practices that were converting the city into a new wealthier and whiter sub- urban enclave.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed DC Bus Changes
    FY22 Proposed Metrobus Service Changes District of Columbia FRIENDSHIP HEIGHTS-SOUTHEAST LINE – ROUTES 30N, 30S SERVICE GUIDELINE SCORES Line Benefit Score 46 Line Classification Framework Overall Grade B Activity Tier 1 AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP Winter 2019-2020 Weekday Saturday Sunday Pre-Pandemic 4,947 3,774 3,795 PROPOSED CHANGES TO PRE-PANDEMIC SERVICE 1st half Fiscal Year 2022 (July-December 2021) • Eliminate service and replace with additional 31, 33 trips between downtown, Georgetown and Friendship Heights Metrorail Station, and additional 32, 36 trips between downtown, Capitol Hill and Naylor Road/Southern Ave. Metrorail stations 2nd half Fiscal Year 2022 (January-June 2022) • Continue proposed 1st half fiscal year adjustments PROPOSED SERVICE FREQUENCIES (minutes) Early Weekday Weekday Morning- FY 2022 Saturday Sunday Peak Off-Peak Late Evening (all days) July-December 2021 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A January-June 2022 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ALTERNATIVE SERVICE 1st half Fiscal Year 2022 (July-December 2021) • Routes 31, 33 between downtown, Georgetown and Friendship Heights Metrorail Station • Routes 32, 36 between downtown, Capitol Hill and Naylor Road/Southern Ave Metrorail station 2nd half Fiscal Year 2022 (January-June 2022) • Same as 1st half of fiscal year AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP Fall 2020 Weekday Saturday Sunday Total Ridership 2,092 N/A N/A Percentage affected 1 0% N/A N/A 1st Half FY 2022 Percentage affected 1 0% N/A N/A 2nd Half FY 2022 1 – Estimated percent of trips that can no longer board at the same stop using Metrobus.
    [Show full text]
  • District of Columbia: 42, 43, 74, S2, S4, S9
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2019 Metrobus State of Good Operations ROUTES 42, 43 – MOUNT PLEASANT LINE BUDGET • Cost neutral PROPOSED CHANGE • During most off-peak periods (weekdays, middays and evenings; Saturdays; and Sunday mornings and afternoons), operate every-other trip as Route 43. These trips will connect Gallery Place and Mount Pleasant, operating under Dupont Circle. They will alternate with Route 42 trips serving Dupont Circle. Route 42 only would continue to operate early mornings and late nights daily, and evenings on Sundays. • Adjust the schedule to reflect traffic conditions and improve on-time performance and service reliability. • Eliminate the last round trip on weekday, Saturday and Sunday late nights due to low ridership. REASON FOR CHANGE • Respond to customer suggestions and public feedback: o This service plan was recommended in the Metrobus Service Evaluation Study: Mount Pleasant Line: 42, 43 and Connecticut Avenue Line: L1, L2 from October 2018. • Operating more trips under Dupont Circle will avoid congestion and provide faster travel time for passengers continuing past Dupont Circle in each direction. • Red Line connections will be maintained at Dupont Circle Metrorail Station on Route 42 and at Farragut North Metrorail Station on routes 42 and 43. • Adjust running time to provide a more realistic schedule and improve on-time performance and service reliability, with the goal of reaching at least 80% on-time performance in all time-periods. Recent on-time performance for the line is outlined below: December 2018-June
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION Board of Zoning Adjustment District
    1140 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202.296.8625 MEMORANDUM To: Jenna Jacobson Rock Creek Property Group David Avitabile Goulston & Storrs Jane Nelson Nelson Architects From: Tracy Jones-Schoenfeld Daniel Solomon Robert B. Schiesel, P.E. Daniel B. VanPelt, P.E., PTOE Date: June 9, 2017 Subject: 5 Thomas Circle – Comprehensive Transportation Review INTRODUCTION This memorandum presents a Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) of the proposed expansion of the National City Christian Church, located at 5 Thomas Circle in the Logan Circle neighborhood of Northwest Washington, DC. This document was prepared in support of the project’s Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) application. Figure 1 identifies the regional site location within the District, and Figure 2 shows an aerial of the site in relation to its near vicinity. The site is currently improved with a three-story structure occupied by the National City Christian Church. The Campbell Wing, located on the western portion of the property, currently has 39,000 square feet of space which has included a variety of uses including office, educational, and childcare. The proposed project will add two floors with approximately 21,000 additional square feet of office space to the Campbell Wing. It is anticipated that this space will be primarily leased by tenants not affiliated with the National City Christian Church. The site is located 0.3 miles from the McPherson Square Metrorail Station, which provides direct connections to areas in the District, Maryland, and Virginia. Pedestrian facilities near the site provide excellent connections to transit and other destinations. The presence of numerous bike facilities near the site, including a Capital Bikeshare station directly adjacent to the site, will increase the use of non-vehicular travel modes to and from the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Ellsworth Urban Park - Public Testimony Will Be Taken
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK & PLANNING COMMISSION MCPB Item # 6 April 24, 2014 MEMORANDUM April 16, 2014 TO: Montgomery County Planning Board VIA: Mary Bradford, Director of Parks Michael F. Riley, Deputy Director, Administration John Nissel, Deputy Director, Operations Dr. John E. Hench, Ph.D., Chief, Park Planning and Stewardship Division (PPSD) Mitra Pedoeem, Chief, Park Development Division (PDD) FROM: Dominic Quattrocchi, Planner Coordinator (PPSD) Brooke Farquhar, Master Planner/Supervisor (PPSD) Patricia McManus, Design Section Supervisor, (PDD) Aaron Feldman, Landscape Architect, (PDD) SUBJECT: Proposed Urban Dog Park at Ellsworth Urban Park - Public testimony will be taken Recommended Action: The Department of Parks seeks approval of the Montgomery County Planning Board for Montgomery County’s first Urban Dog Park to be located in an underutilized portion of Ellsworth Urban Park adjacent to Colesville Road. BACKGROUND M-NCPPC Montgomery County Parks currently has 5 existing dog parks available to the public. None are located inside the Beltway. The 2012 Park Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan estimates 12 additional dog parks will be needed in Montgomery County by 2022. Policy The Vision 2030 Strategic Plan, approved by the Board in 2011, recommends addressing the growing demand for dog parks, especially in urban areas. The Board-approved 2012 PROS Plan recommends that dog parks be provided in areas of highest population density. Both Vision 2030 and PROS recommend repurposing of underutilized
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian Facilities
    COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW CHILDREN’S NATIONAL AT WALTER REED Z.C. CASES NO. 19-24 AND 19-24A: TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENT WASHINGTON, DC January 27, 2020 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.19-24A EXHIBIT NO.7A Prepared by: 1140 Connecticut Avenue NW 3914 Centreville Road 15125 Washington Street Suite 600 Suite 330 Suite 212 Washington, DC 20036 Chantilly, VA 20151 Haymarket, VA 20169 Tel: 202.296.8625 Tel: 703.787.9595 Tel: 571.248.0992 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 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................................... i Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Silver Spring Station Capacity Analysis Study, Final Report
    SILVER SPRING Station Capacity Analysis Study Final Report Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Planning April 2014 Silver Spring Metrorail Station Capacity Analysis Study Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Background............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Study Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Report Organization ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.0 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Station Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Station Area and Planning Context .........................................................................................................14 2.3 Existing Station Conditions .....................................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]