DOCSLIB.ORG

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study - FINAL REPORT- Presented to: Submitted By: September 2015 Cover Letter Tollway Towers North, Suite 870 15770 North Dallas Parkway Ali K. Soroush, Ph.D. Dallas, TX 75248 Project Manager Tel: 214-245-5300 [email protected] Fax: 214-889-5049 Date: September 23, 2015 To: Morteza Farajian, Ph.D. Program Manager Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships Virginia Department of Transportation Subject: I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report Dear Mr. Farajian, C&M Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the Final Report of the I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study. This report presents an overview of the proposed project, an assessment of existing traffic conditions and socioeconomic data in the project area, and an overview of field data collection and analyses. The report also presents details regarding the modeling approach, methodology, and, most importantly, the traffic and revenue forecast. The C&M project team expresses its sincere gratitude to VDOT for providing the opportunity to participate in this project. Respectfully, Carlos M. Contreras, MBA Ali Soroush, Ph.D. President Project Manager I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Prepared For: By: Final Report September 2015 Disclaimer The results of this study constitute the opinion of C&M with respect to the tolled facility’s future traffic and revenue. The traffic and revenue projections provided in this report were developed based on standard professional practices and the information available at the time the study was executed, subject to the time and budget constraints of the study’s scope of work. C&M reasonably relied on the accuracy and completeness of information provided (both written and orally) by the Virginia Department of Transportation and independent parties. C&M is unaware of any material facts that would call into question the information that was received. Publicly available material has not been independently verified, and C&M does not assume responsibility for verifying such material. As with any forecast, differences between projected and actual outcomes may occur due to future events and circumstances outside of C&M’s control. C&M cannot guarantee or ensure future events in connection to this traffic and revenue forecast, though the projections and other forward-looking statements included herein are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date this study was completed. The information and results presented in this report should be considered as a whole. Selecting portions of any individual result without considering the intent of the whole may promote a misleading or incomplete view of this study’s findings and the methodologies used to obtain these findings. C&M does not endorse the value or merit of partial information extracted from this report. I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study iii FINAL REPORT Table of Contents Table of Contents Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................. vii List of Figures .................................................................................................................. ix List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xi Executive Summary ................................................................................................ ES-1 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Project Description and Alignment 1-1 1.2. Project Benefits 1-2 1.3. Previous Studies 1-2 1.4. Basic Study Information 1-3 1.5. Study Area 1-3 1.6. Organization of the Report 1-4 2. Existing Information and Field Data ............................................................... 2-1 2.1. Existing Roadway Network 2-1 2.1.1. I-66 ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2. I-495 ......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.3. Route 267 ................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.4. US 15........................................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.5. US 50........................................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.6. US 29........................................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.7. Route 28 ................................................................................................... 2-3 2.1.8. Route 286 ................................................................................................. 2-3 2.1.9. Route 123 ................................................................................................. 2-3 2.1.10. Route 243 ................................................................................................. 2-3 2.2. Historical Traffic Trends 2-3 2.3. Field Data Review 2-6 2.3.1. Traffic Count Data .................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.2. Traffic Profiles ......................................................................................... 2-15 2.3.3. INRIX Speed Data .................................................................................. 2-24 2.3.4. Travel Time Data .................................................................................... 2-27 I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study iv FINAL REPORT Table of Contents 2.3.5. Bluetooth Origin-Destination Data .......................................................... 2-29 2.3.6. AirSage Data .......................................................................................... 2-31 2.3.7. I-495 Express Lanes ............................................................................... 2-32 3. Socioeconomic Review & Projections ............................................................ 3-1 3.1. Introduction 3-1 3.1.1. Population ................................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.2. Number of Households ............................................................................. 3-6 3.1.3. Employment .............................................................................................. 3-8 3.1.4. Median Household Income ..................................................................... 3-11 3.2. Future Year Socioeconomic Projections 3-13 3.2.1. Population Projections ............................................................................ 3-13 3.2.2. Households Projections .......................................................................... 3-21 3.2.3. Employment Projections ......................................................................... 3-27 4. Modeling Methodology .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1. Overview of Modeling Methodology 4-1 4.2. Overview of the MWCOG TDM 4-1 4.3. MWCOG TDM Adoption and Modification 4-5 4.4. MWCOG TDM Validation 4-5 4.4.1. Trip Generation ......................................................................................... 4-5 4.4.2. Trip Distribution ........................................................................................ 4-6 4.4.3. Mode Choice ............................................................................................ 4-8 4.4.4. Traffic Assignment .................................................................................... 4-9 4.5. Base Year Model Calibration 4-9 4.5.1. Volume Calibration ................................................................................... 4-9 4.5.2. Speed and Travel Time Calibration ........................................................ 4-19 4.5.3. Origin-Destination Calibration ................................................................. 4-22 4.6. Future Year Models 4-24 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast ......................................................................... 5-1 5.1. Toll Diversion Program and Value of Time (VOT) 5-1 5.2. Validation of the Estimated VOT 5-3 5.3. Toll Diversion Curves 5-4 5.4. Toll Collection System and Schedule 5-5 5.5. Project Configuration and Toll Treatment 5-5 I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study v FINAL REPORT Table of Contents 5.6. Revenue Maximization 5-7 5.7. Traffic and Revenue Assumptions 5-8 5.8. Traffic and Revenue Results 5-10 5.8.1. CRA High Scenario ................................................................................ 5-10 5.8.2. MWCOG Baseline Scenario ................................................................... 5-13 5.8.3. CRA Mid Scenario .................................................................................. 5-15 5.8.1. CRA Low Scenario ................................................................................. 5-17 5.8.2. Scenario
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1542‐1550 First Street, Sw Design Review
    COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW 1542‐1550 FIRST STREET, SW DESIGN REVIEW WASHINGTON, DC August 4, 2017 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Case No. 17-13 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.17-13 DeletedEXHIBIT NO.17A 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 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Study Area Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC
    1 Reimagining DC 295 as a vital multi modal corridor: The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC Jonathan L. Bush A capstone thesis paper submitted to the Executive Director of the Urban & Regional Planning Program at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Masters of Professional Studies in Urban & Regional Planning. Faculty Advisor: Howard Ways, AICP Academic Advisor: Uwe S. Brandes, M.Arch © Copyright 2017 by Jonathan L. Bush All Rights Reserved 2 ABSTRACT Cities across the globe are making the case for highway removal. Highway removal provides alternative land uses, reconnects citizens and natural landscapes separated by the highway, creates mobility options, and serves as a health equity tool. This Capstone studies DC 295 in Washington, DC and examines the cases of San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway, Milwaukee’s Park East Freeway, New York City’s Sheridan Expressway and Seoul, South Korea’s Cheonggyecheon Highway. This study traces the history and the highway removal success using archival sources, news circulars, planning documents, and relevant academic research. This Capstone seeks to provide a platform in favor DC 295 highway removal. 3 KEYWORDS Anacostia, Anacostia Freeway, Anacostia River, DC 295, Highway Removal, I-295, Kenilworth Avenue, Neighborhood Planning, Southeast Washington DC, Transportation Planning, Urban Infrastructure RESEARCH QUESTIONS o How can Washington’s DC 295 infrastructure be modified to better serve local neighborhoods? o What opportunities
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Congestion Analysis Report for the Baltimore Region Top 10
    Quarterly Congestion Analysis Report for the Baltimore Region Top 10 Bottleneck Locations 2nd Quarter 2018 Table of Contents About the region .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 How bottleneck conditions are tracked .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Maps Defined ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Top 10 Bottleneck Map .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Top 10 Bottleneck List ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 #1-10 Ranked Bottlenecks with Maps, Timeline, Traffic Counts and Notes .......................................................................................................................... 8-27 Speed Maps for the Baltimore Region (AM and PM Peak) ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bowie Washington Clinton Oxon Hill Camp Springs
    503 Z7 to/from Laurel to/from Columbia 409 Z2 to/from Olney C8 to/from White Flint to/from Elkridge Z11 to/from Laurel Racetrack Burtonsville Park & Ride Montgomery 295 St 302 Main St Z6 Sandy Spring Rd 89M WESTFARM to/from Burtonsville/ RTA provides local service Castle Blvd Z7 Old Sandy 87 Z2 Z7 to/from throughout Central Maryland, Spring Rd Z8 Z6 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit Center to/from Greencastle/Briggs Chaney (Silver Spring m ) Sweitzer Ln including Laurel. 503 COLUMBIA PIKE 302 Gorman Ave 5th St WHITE OAK 409 K6 Industrial Intercounty Connector Van Dusen Rd 87 Pkwy CALVERTON 141 89 89M 89 Laurel Tech Broadbirch Dr 141 to/from Rd Galway Dr Gaithersburg Park & Ride Calverton Blvd Laurel 301 Washington Blvd Van Dusen Rd Fort Meade Rd B30 Z6 Z7 Regional Z7 302 LAUREL Baltimore-Washingtonto/from Pkwy BWI Airport via Arundel Mills Z7 502 Hospital Ashford 4th St LOCKWOOD DR Blvd 502 to/from Arundel Mills Z11 K9 R2 Beltsville Dr 87 C8 FDA Cherry Ln Z2 C8 Red Clay Rd PATUXENT RIVER Plum Orchard Dr Towne Centre 502 Old Z8 Mulberry St Laurel 87 Annapolis Rd Broadbirch Dr Broadbirch R2 Z6 95 301 White Oak Cherry Hill Rd 89 Cherry Ln Adventist St Cypress 302 502 89M Laurel-Bowie Federal Medical Center 87 Z7 Rd Research South Laurel NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE AmmendaleVirginia Rd B30 Muirkirk Park & Ride Center 86 Manor Ritz Way Baltimore Ave COLUMBIA PIKE Rd Rd Z7 Centerpark Powder Mill Rd Laurel-Bowie Rd89M 87 Office Park Contee Rd 301 89 Z2, Z6, Z7, Z8, Z11 to/from Powder Mill Rd Muirkirk Rd 89M Muirkirk Paul S.
    [Show full text]
  • Rehabilitation of Buildings 6 and 7 at the Potomac Annex U.S. Institute of Peace
    Executive Director’s Recommendation Commission Meeting: October 6, 2016 PROJECT NCPC FILE NUMBER Rehabilitation of Buildings 6 and 7 at the 7650 Potomac Annex United States Institute of Peace NCPC MAP FILE NUMBER 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW 1.33(38.00)44427 Washington, DC APPLICANT’S REQUEST SUBMITTED BY Final approval of site and building United States Institute of Peace plans PROPOSED ACTION REVIEW AUTHORITY Approve as requested Federal Projects in the District per 40 U.S.C. § 8722(b)(1) and (d) ACTION ITEM TYPE Consent Calendar PROJECT SUMMARY The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) has submitted final site and building plans for the rehabilitation of Buildings 6 and 7 at the Potomac Annex, a federal property generally bounded by 23rd Street, Constitution Avenue, the E Street Expressway, and the E Street approach ramp to Interstate 66. Buildings 6 and 7 are located directly north of the USIP Headquarters Building near the intersection of 23rd and C Street, NW. In 2012, the United States Department of the Navy (Navy) transferred administrative jurisdiction of Buildings 6 and 7 to USIP. The Navy transferred the remaining portion of Potomac Annex, except three Navy flag officer houses and associated land, to the United States General Services Administration (GSA) for use by the United States Department of State (DOS). Buildings 6 and 7 are surrounded to the southeast and east by other federal properties and organizational headquarters, including the American Pharmacists Association Building, the Harry S Truman Building, and the National Mall. Buildings 6 and 7 are contributing resources to the Observatory Hill Historic District, determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington Capital Beltway and Its Impact on Industrial and Multi-Family Expansion in Virginia JULIA A
    The Washington Capital Beltway and Its Impact on Industrial and Multi-Family Expansion in Virginia JULIA A. CONNALLY and CHARLES O. MEIBURG, Bureau of Population and Economic Research, University of Virginia This paper reports on the impact of the Washington Capital Beltway on industrial and multi-family expansion in Northern Virginia. Between 1960 and 1965 industrial employment grew 71 percent, primarily because of the many industries which located near the Beltway. Interviews with 48 industry execu­ tives indicated that access to the circumferential was a sig­ nificant factor in their location decision. The wholesale­ distribution and research and development firms gave the greatest weight to accessibility to the Beltway. As well as promoting industrial growth, the Beltway has altered the com­ muting patterns of the industrial workers. One-half of 2, 100 employees surveyed used the circumferential to commute. The Beltway has expanded the labor market to include Maryland and a much larger section of Northern Virginia. The Beltway area also spawned more than 3, 000 new apartment units be­ tween 1964 and 1966. Like the industrial workers, 50 percent of the apartment residents commute via the Beltway, but their travel pattern is quite different. The large majority are em­ ployed in the District and Arlington County; only a few work in nearby industries. The implications of the study include the continued growth of industrial and multi-family development in the Beltway area, resulting in increased traffic on both the radials and the Beltway, with the greatest pressure occurring at the interchanges. The study concludes with an approach toward the control of land development in interchange areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Alfred D. Lott, ICMA-CM, CPM City Manager SUBJECT
    MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Alfred D. Lott, ICMA-CM, CPM City Manager SUBJECT: Status Report DATE: November 9, 2017 Status Report 1. Purchase of Road Deicing Salt The Public Works Department has located a contract for the purchase of road deicing salt with Montgomery County (IFB# 1041647) through two (2) vendors, upon which we will be able to piggyback. The current price for salt with Morton Salt, Inc. (Primary Vendor) is $68.12/ton and we intend to purchase up to 1,460 tons as needed this winter. We will sign a contract and issue a purchase order to Morton Salt, Inc. in the amount of $99,455.20. This is within the amount budgeted for FY18 in the Public Works Streets Operating Supplies Account. The current price for salt with Eastern Salt Co., Inc. (Secondary Vendor) is $77.10/ton. We will sign a contract and issue a purchase order to Eastern Salt Co., Inc. in the amount of $10,000. As provided for in the Montgomery County Contract, the Secondary Vendor would serve only as a backup salt supplier should the Primary Vendor be unable to fulfill a required order. As provided in Section 62 of the City Charter, this will serve as the required seven (7) day notice of intent to purchase. 2. Economic Development Committee (EDC)) The EDC held their regular meeting Wednesday and heard a briefing on the Prince George’s County Competitive Retail Market Strategic Action Plan given by Derick Berlage from MNCPPC and Larry Hentz from the County EDC. One of the ways the Plan is implemented is through a targeted effort to recruit grocery stores, high-quality restaurants, and women’s apparel stores.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Infrastructure
    W ARREN C OUNTY Infrastructure Introduction A community’s infrastructure is the framework of essential services relating to utilities and transportation networks. This chapter focuses on the following four topics: Water Service, Sewer Service, Stormwater Management, and Transportation. Most often, capital improvement plans are an outgrowth of planning for creation and expansion of existing utility and transportation facilities. Warren County has had a history of privatization which is documented in the County Code, adopted in 1981. The code made it clear that the County wished to avoid an unreasonable burden for providing water and sewer, fire and rescue, police protection, and solid waste disposal services, or the expenditure of public funds for such services. This left many of these services in the hands of developers, untrained individuals, or owner associations which resulted in an inconsistent system of services. When subdivisions were plotted in the 1950s through the 1970s, no one could have foreseen the problems inherent in a lack of unity of the infrastructure provision and planning. A 1992 demographic survey conducted by Property Owners' Associations of Virginia, Inc., determined that in rural area subdivisions platted 30 to 40 years ago, dwellings occupied less than 40% of their lots. The Comprehensive Plan’s survey of Warren County residents, revealed that citizens are feeling the negative effects from the lack of infrastructure. In fact, 61% are concerned about development trends in their neighborhoods and 63% are concerned about development trends elsewhere in the County. The largest concern was traffic congestion, followed by substandard roads and lack of groundwater. In response to this dissatisfaction, the County must re-evaluate its development ordinances in relation to guiding and facilitating orderly and beneficial growth and 2013 C OMPREHENSIVE development that will promote public health, safety, and the population’s P LAN welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's Interstate and Beltway Mileage
    BALTIMORE BELTWAY MILEAGE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2020 Total County Route Begin Description End Description Mileage Anne Arundel IS 695 East of IS 97 Baltimore County Line 2.920 Baltimore IS 695 Anne Arundel County Line MD 695 East of IS 95 27.590 Baltimore IS 83 IS 695 IS 695 1.520 Baltimore MD 695 IS 695 East of IS 95 Baltimore City Line @ Francis Scott Key Bridge 13.660 Baltimore City MD 695 Baltimore County Line Anne Arundel County Line 3.336 Anne Arundel MD 695 Baltimore City Line IS 695 East of IS 97 2.480 Baltimore Beltway Mileage 51.506 MARYLAND'S CAPITAL BELTWAY MILEAGE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2020 Total County Route Begin Description End Description Mileage Prince George's IS 95 Virginia State Line IS 495 26.110 Prince George's IS 495 Montgomery County Line IS 95 1.750 Montgomery IS 495 Virginia State Line Prince George's County Line 14.380 Maryland's Capital Belway Mileage 42.240 The Maryland Department of Transportation - State Highway Administration, Data Services Division, MARYLAND'S INTERSTATE SYSTEM AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2020 The following Interstate Highways are Maintained by the Maryland Department of Transportation - State Highway Administration. Route Description Miles IS 68 West Virginia State Line to IS 70 80.680 IS 70 Pennsylvania State Line to Baltimore City Line 91.710 IS 81 West Virginia State to Pennsylvania State Line 12.080 IS 83 Baltimore City Line to Pennsylvania State Line 27.800 IS 95 Virginia State Line to Southwestern Baltimore City Line (Including IS 95X) 50.270 IS 97 US 50/301 (IS 595) to IS 695 at IS 895A 17.620 IS 195 BWI Airport to MD 166 4.350 IS 270 IS 495 to IS 70 (Including IS 270-Y) 34.695 IS 295 IS 95 to Washington D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosslyn Plaza Design Guidelines February 1, 2016
    ROSSLYN PLAZA DESIGN GUIDELINES FEBRUARY 1, 2016 VORNADO / CHARLES E. SMITH - GOULD PROPERTY COMPANY PICKARD CHILTON - REED HILDERBRAND - WDG ROSSLYN PLAZA DESIGN GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT TEAM 1. INTRODUCTION / 1 PUBLIC ART / 51 PROJECT DESCRIPTION / 2 PLANTING / 52 DESIGN STANDARDS / 3 FURNITURE & FURNISHINGS / 54 OWNER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT / 55 VORNADO/CHARLES SMITH VISION & PURPOSE / 4 2345 CRYSTAL DRIVE, SUITE 1100 LOCATION / 5 SITE LIGHTING / 56 ARLINGTON, VA 22202 POINTS OF INTEREST / 7 PAVING PRECEDENT IMAGES / 57 T 703.769.8200 F 703.842.1460 URBAN CONTEXT / 8 OWNER TOPOGRAPHY / 9 5. PHASING / 58 GOULD PROPERTY COMPANY EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS / 10 1725 DESALES STREET NW, SUITE 900 OVERVIEW / 59 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION / 13 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 OPEN SPACE / 60 T 202.467.6740 F 202.331.9122 EXISTING & APPROVED OPEN SPACE / 14 EXISTING BUILDINGS / 61 ZONING / 15 DESIGN CONSULTANT PHASE 1 / 62 PICKARD CHILTON ARCHITECTS, INC. PHASE 2 / 63 980 CHAPEL STREET PHASE 3 / 64 NEW HAVEN, CT 06510 2. CONCEPT PLAN / 16 T 203.786.8600 AERIAL VIEW / 17 PHASE 4 / 65 SITE PLAN OVERVIEW / 18 PHASE 5 / 66 ARCHITECT OF RECORD BUILDING HEIGHT & PLACEMENT / 19 WDG ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 1035 CONNECTICUT AVE NW, SUITE 300 6. BUILDING HEIGHT AND FORM GUIDELINES / 67 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 T 202.857.8300 F 202.463.2198 3. STREETS / TRANSPORTATION / 20 INTRODUCTION / 68 STREET WIDTHS & SECTIONS / 21 BUILDABLE AREAS AND EDGES / 69 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SIDEWALK TYPES / 26 GROUND LEVEL BUILDING DESIGN / 78 REED HILDERBRAND INC. SERVICE AND PARKING ACCESS / 83 741 MT. AUBURN ST SIDEWALK SECTIONS / 27 WATERTOWN, MA 02472 SIDEWALK ELEMENTS / 29 PARKING LOCATION AND DESIGN / 86 T 617.923.2422 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN / 30 GRADE TRANSITIONS / 87 SITE TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, & STREET HIERARCHY / 31 BUILDING HEIGHT / 89 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TADJER COHEN EDELSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • I-495 EXPRESS LANES NORTHERN EXTENSION Virginia Department of Transportation
    I-495 EXPRESS LANES NORTHERN EXTENSION Virginia Department of Transportation Cooper Middle School PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 977 Balls Hill Rd., McLean, Va. June 11, 2018 Agenda § Welcome and introductions § Project background § About the study § Scope of the study § Agency stakeholder coordination § Project website § Schedule § Questions and feedback Virginia Department of Transportation 2 Project Background I-495 Express Lanes History § Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision issued by FHWA – June 2006 § Included Express Lanes improvements to George Washington Memorial Parkway § Environmental document (NEPA) reevaluations completed § May 2007 (revised IJR project limits to south § May 2009 of Old Dominion Drive) § July 2009 § June 2008 § Dulles Interchange November 2009 § December 2008 § Express Lanes and Dulles Interchange open to traffic November 2012 § I-495 North Shoulder Lane Use Project (1½ mile Express Lanes merge to GW Parkway) § Study completed June 2014, Open to traffic June 2015 Virginia Department of Transportation 3 Project Background Existing Conditions § I-495 congestion routinely extends between American Legion Bridge and Tysons (south of Dulles Toll Road) § Multiple hours of congestion during AM and PM peak periods and weekends § Cut-through traffic using local roads and residential streets on either side of I-495 Virginia Department of Transportation 4 Project Background Northern Virginia Express Lanes Network § 90+ mile express lanes network by late 2022 § 54 miles in service § I-95, I-495, I-66 Inside the Beltway § 31 miles under construction § I-395 Northern Extension, I-66 Outside the Beltway § 10 miles in development § I-95 to Fredericksburg § 3 miles under study § I-495 Northern Extension § Three individual operators Virginia Department of Transportation 5 About the Study Potential Express Lanes Access Dulles Toll Road (VA Route 267) at I-495 Existing Express Lane Access New Express Lane Access To Be Studied 495 South to Rt.
    [Show full text]
  • Directions to Cherry Hill Park, College Park, Maryland from Beltway I-495
    Directions to Cherry Hill Park, College Park, Maryland From I-81 Northbound Use Interstate 66 Exit 300 Eastbound to Capital Beltway (64 From Beltway Miles). Take the Beltway north and then east (16 Miles) to Exit I-495/95, use Exit 25 (US Route One South, College Park). 25 South-College Park.† See above From US Route One (Baltimore Ave.) make immediate right onto CHERRY HILL ROAD. Go one mile to park entrance on From I-81 Southbound left. Exit 4 East toward Frederick. At Frederick use I-270 to Washington Beltway (I 495). Stay on Beltway to Exit 25 South- From Baltimore College Park or the alternate route shown below. Southbound I-95, use Exit 29B (Route 212-Calverton). Follow Route 212 (Powder Mill Road) one mile, turn left onto CHER- Alternate route from the West: RY HILL ROAD. Go one mile to park entrance on right. Interstate 70 from Frederick toward Baltimore, (Approx. 33 miles.) Take US 29 South, approx. 16 miles, left or Eastbound From the North using I-95 Southbound onto Cherry Hill Road for three miles to entrance on right. Exit 29-B west on (MD Route 212, Powder Mill Road) one mile, Left onto Cherry Hill Road, One mile to entrance on right. Alternate route from the South: From Mile Post (Exit 104) in Virginia take route 207 approx. From the South using I-95 Northbound and The Capital seven miles northeast to Route 301 Northbound. Cross into Beltway Maryland and after approx. 63 miles take MD Route 5 nine Exit 25 South College Park (US Route One).
    [Show full text]