Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis. Virginia APA Conference July 20, 2015

Transcription

1 Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis Virginia APA Conference July 20, 2015

2 Topics 1. Study context and overview (Amy Inman, DRPT) 2. Stakeholder engagement and committee structure (Tim Roseboom, DRPT) 3. Multimodal transportation analysis (Jason Mumford, AECOM) 4. Transportation and land use (Meredith Judy, Rhodeside & Harwell) 5. Key considerations for implementation (Leonard Wolfenstein, Fairfax County DOT) 2

3 02 Study Corridor 1 Study Context and Overview 3

4 Project Corridor 16 mile section of Route 1 Extends from I 95/I 495 Beltway area, through Fairfax County, to Route 123 at Woodbridge in Prince William County Route 1 4

5 Existing Conditions 5 5

6 Previous Studies and Efforts Route 1 has been the subject of numerous roadway and transitrelated studies and efforts. Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan Mount Vernon District Long Range Visioning Report BRAC EIS / BRAC Existing Conditions Report VDOT Location Study / Corridor Study Fairfax Connector & PRTC TDP WMATA Regional Bus Study Richmond Highway Public Transportation Initiatives BRT Feasibility Study (Prince William County) Potomac Communities, Urban Land Use Institute Report North Woodbridge Study Area Long Range Plan WMATA US 1 Fort Belvoir to Huntington Metro Rail Station ~ Transit Improvement Study Prince William County BRAC Report NVTC ~ Route 1 Corridor Bus Study

7 Transit Related Recommendations Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan Implement enhanced transit service along Richmond Highway, such as Metro, Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit Establish transit stations at North Kings Hwy; at Beacon Hill Road; near Fordson Lane; near Mohawk Lane; near Sacramento; near Railroad line on Fort Belvoir Base; and at Telegraph Road Fairfax County Transit Development Plan Modify schedule for Metrobus 11Y Mt. Vernon Express Line trips Restructure and Improve Metrobus REX service Increase service and revise routing on Connector 151/152 and 161/162 Prince William County Comprehensive Plan Identify and develop alternative transit concepts such as bus rapid transit, light rail transit, Potomac ferry service, Metro Rail extension (Blue Line) to Potomac Mills WMATA Transit Service Impacts of BRAC Report Extend PRTC s Route 1 OmniLInk Route from Prince William County to South Post entrance and improving connections to existing transit centers by extending the Metrobus REX line to Lorton VRE and improve local bus connections to the Franconia Springfield Station Prince William County / PRTC BRT Feasibility Study (2011) Implement two local BRT routes to service the PRTC Transit Center and the Route Commuter Lot as land use and ridership demand increase to support the investment To offset travel time due to traffic congestion implement queue jump lanes and transit signal priority 7 7

8 Transit Related Recommendations Continued Mount Vernon District Visioning Task Force (2010) Implement a peak period HOV/bus lane on Richmond Highway Encourage VDOT to install traffic responsive technology on all of the traffic signals in the Mount Vernon District Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission TDP OmniLink Route 1 Extension to Ft. Belvoir (timeframe ) Improve weekday peak period service frequency from 30 minutes to 20 minutes, Improve weekday midday service frequency from 45 minutes to 30 minutes, Improve weekday night service frequency from 45 minutes to 30 minutes, Improve Saturday service frequency from 110 minutes to 60 minutes, and Add Sunday service at a frequency of 110 minutes VDOT Centerline Study (2009) Widen Route 1 from Capital Beltway to the Stafford County line with accommodations for trails and transit bus pullouts in key locations 8

9 Transit Related Recommendations Continued WMATA US 1 Ft. Belvoir to Huntington Metro Station Transit Improvement Study Three phases of recommendations: Phase one ( ) Streamline bus service and routes Add GPS and SmartCard payment technology to buses Implement signal priority in the corridor for buses Improve/enhance pedestrian and passenger facilities Phase two ( ) Implement Bus Rapid Transit Phase three (2025+) Implement light rail transit in the corridor as ridership demand and land use density and development will support the major capital investment 9

10 Roadway Infrastructure Recommendations Widen Route 1 from the Capital Beltway to the Stafford County line with accommodations for trails, right shoulder bus lane pull offs and shelters at high demand stops Encourage VDOT to install traffic responsive technology on all of traffic signals in the Mount Vernon District Procure and Deploy Traffic Signal Priority on Richmond Highway Improve pedestrian network along the corridor and passenger experience at bus stops (e.g., shelters) 10 10

11 Legislative Action Senate Joint Resolution (SJR 292) 2011 General Assembly Session Requesting the Department of Rail and Public Transportation to evaluate the level of study necessary to identify and advance potential public transportation services to Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County and the Marine Corps Base at Quantico in Prince William and Stafford Counties 11

12 SJR 292 Recommendations Near term Improve conditions for transit operations and riders: Conduct necessary study and analysis to implement BRT Conduct pedestrian facility and shelter assessment and develop a funding strategy to improve the existing conditions Focus redevelopment to the corridor Long term Plan for the future: Conduct land use analysis and develop a vision for economic development/redevelopment in the corridor Feasibility analysis to determine potential for extending metro or implementing light rail 12

13 Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis Study Outcomes Recommend a program of multimodal transportation improvements for adoption by Fairfax County and Prince William County Define transit, roadway,and bicycle/pedestrian projects that could be advanced for implementation. 13

14 Purpose and Need Needs: Attractive and competitive transit service Safe and accessible pedestrian and bicycle access Appropriate level of vehicle accommodation Support and accommodate more robust economic development Goals: GOAL 1: Expand attractive multimodal travel options to improve mobility GOAL 2: Improve safety; increase accessibility GOAL 3: Increase economic viability and vitality of the corridor GOAL 4: Support community health and minimize impacts on community resources 14

15 Evaluation Process Public Meeting #1 (Fall 2013) Screen 1: Initial Alternatives Public Meeting #2 (Spring 2014) Screen 2: Refined Alternatives Public Meeting #3 (Fall 2014) Screen 3: Detailed Evaluation Recommendations 15

16 2 Stakeholder Engagement and Committee Structure 16

17 What was the project schedule in June 2013? 17

18 Project Organization: Committee Roles Policy Guidance Technical Guidance Study Feedback Executive Steering Committee: Policy Guidance State and County elected officials Commonwealth Transportation Board Senior County staff Fort Belvoir Leadership Technical Advisory Committee: Technical Guidance County staff VDOT staff Federal agency staff (FTA, FHWA) Fort Belvoir Leadership Resource agency staff Transit providers Community Involvement Committee: Study Feedback Community and advocacy groups Individuals Business and land owners Project Management Team DRPT VDOT Fairfax County Prince William County OIPI 18

19 Committee Lists: Executive Steering Committee Name Organization/Agency Role/Title ELECTED OFFICIALS: FEDERAL Congressman Gerry Connolly U.S. House of Representatives 11th District of VA, Representative Congressman Jim Moran U.S. House of Representatives 8th District of VA, Representative ELECTED OFFICIALS: STATE Senator Adam Ebbin Virginia Senate 30th District, Senator Senator Toddy Puller Virginia Senate 36th District, Senator (Fairfax, Prince William, Stafford) Delegate Mark Sickles Virginia House of Delegates 43rd District, Delegate Delegate Scott Surovell Virginia House of Delegates 44th District, Delegate ELECTED OFFICIALS: LOCAL Supervisor Gerald Hyland Fairfax County Mt. Vernon District Supervisor Supervisor Jeff McKay Fairfax County Lee District Supervisor Catherine Hudgins WMATA Board of Directors Board Member (Also Fairfax County Supervisor, Hunter Mill District) Supervisor Frank Principi Prince William County Woodbridge District Supervisor Supervisor John Jenkins Prince William County Neabsco District Supervisor APPOINTED OFFICIALS Fran Fisher Commonwealth Transportation Board Member (Also President of Revenue Recovery Consultants, Inc.) Thelma Drake Virginia Department of Rail and Public Director Transportation Helen Cuervo Virginia Department of Transportation Northern Virginia VDOT Administrator Renee Hamilton Virginia Department of Transportation Northern Virginia VDOT Deputy Administrator STAFF Ryan Kelly Secretary's Office Special Assistant, VDOT Tom Biesiadny Fairfax County Director, Department of Transportation Noelle Dominguez (Alternate to T. Biesiadny) Fairfax County Legislative Liaison Tom Blaser Prince William County Director, Department of Transportation Christopher Landgraf Fort Belvoir Chief Facility Planning Garrison Commander 19 19

20 Outreach Methods Committee Meetings (technical, elected, community) Public Meetings Social Media News Ads and Press Release Flyers and Fact Sheets Metro Station and Bus Ads Community Event Booths Bilingual On Line and On Corridor Targeted Efforts to Engage Diverse Populations 20

21 Public Meetings Public Meeting #1 (Fall 2013) Study introduction Existing conditions Goals and objectives Public Meeting #2 (Spring 2014) Initial alternatives Evaluation measures Land use analysis Public Meeting #3 (Fall 2014) Evaluation of alternatives Study recommendations Phasing and implementation 21

22 Public Meeting #3: Key Themes and Survey Results Majority of residents generally support draft recommendation Want to expedite Metrorail extension Interested in learning more about County land use planning and transit modes Recognize project funding is biggest challenge 22

23 Study Schedule: October 9, 2014 We are here 23

24 Recommendation BRT in mixed traffic through Prince William County Widen roadway to six continuous lanes Continuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities Median running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the near term would provide a cost effective transportation solution to support economic development plans. Metrorail extension to Hybla Valley in the longterm has potential to provide a higher level of local and regional mobility and support longterm corridor development, contingent upon increased future land use density. BRT median in dedicated lanes in Fairfax County Metrorail underground to Hybla Valley with supporting BRT in the long-term 1_signed resolution.pdf 24

25 02 Study Corridor 3 Multimodal Transportation Analysis 25

26 Evaluation Process Screen 1: Initial Alternatives Screen 2: Refined Alternatives Screen 3: Detailed Evaluation Recommendations 26

27 Bicycle/Pedestrian and Roadway Recommendations Recommendations: Roadway: Consistent, 6 vehicular lanes along the corridor Bike/Ped: 10 foot multiuse path (Note: implementation of recommended section varies along the corridor) Transit: Under evaluation! 27

28 Alternative 1: Bus Rapid Transit Curb Running BRT operates in dedicated curb lanes to Pohick Road North Huntington Penn Daw Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley BRT operates in mixed traffic from Pohick Road North to Woodbridge Woodbridge VRE BRT in Mixed Traffic BRT in Dedicated Lanes Proposed Park & Ride 28

29 Alternative 2: Bus Rapid Transit - Median BRT operates in median in dedicated lanes in Fairfax County; transitions to mixed traffic through Prince William County Huntington Penn Daw Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley BRT in Mixed Traffic BRT in Dedicated Lanes Woodbridge VRE Proposed Park & Ride 29

30 Alternative 3: Light Rail Transit Light Rail operates in median in dedicated lanes for entire corridor Huntington Penn Daw Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley Woodbridge VRE LRT in Dedicated Lanes Proposed Park & Ride 30

31 Alternative 4: Metrorail- BRT Hybrid Median Running BRT in the near term Huntington Beacon Hill Hybla Valley Metrorail underground to Hybla Valley with supporting BRT in the long term Woodbridge VRE BRT in Mixed Traffic BRT in Dedicated Lanes Metrorail (Underground) Proposed Park & Ride 31

32 Summary of Key Indicators Based on Scenario 1 Land Use (COG 2035 Forecast) Alt 1: BRT Curb Alt 2: BRT Median Alt 3: LRT Alt 4: Metro/BRT Hybrid Average Weekday Ridership (2035) 15,200 16,600 18,400 26,500 (BRT 10,600; Metro 22,900) Conceptual Capital Cost $832 M $1.01 B $1.56 B $2.46 B* (Metro $1.46B; BRT $1 B) Annual O&M Cost (Each Alternative includes $5 M annual cost for Ft. Belvoir shuttle service) $18 M (BRT $13M; Ft Belvoir Shuttle $5M) $17 M (BRT $12M; Ft Belvoir Shuttle $5M) $24 M (LRT $19M; Ft Belvoir Shuttle $5M) $31 M** (Metro $17M; BRT $8M; Ft Belvoir Shuttle $5M) Cost Effectiveness (Annualized capital + operating cost per rider) $19 $20 $27 $28** (Metrorail: $28; BRT: $29) * This figure represents full BRT construction between Huntington and Woodbridge, then Metrorail extension from Huntington to Hybla Valley ** These figures assume operation of Metrorail between Huntington and Hybla Valley, and BRT between Hybla Valley and Woodbridge 32

33 Evaluation of Alternatives Goals Goal 1: Local and Regional Mobility Goal 2: Safety and Accessibility Goal 3A: Economic Development Goal 3B: Cost Effectiveness Goal 4: Community Health and Resources Ridership Travel time savings Traffic Pedestrian access Example Measures Economic development effects Implementation Capital costs Operating costs Environmental impacts Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 33

34 Evaluation of Alternatives: Findings Check out Board 4 for full evaluation results! Slide in Progress 34

35 Recommendation Evaluation results suggest: Median running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the near term would provide a cost effective transportation solution to support economic development plans. Metrorail extension to Hybla Valley in the longterm has potential to provide a higher level of local and regional mobility and support longterm corridor development, contingent upon increased future land use density. 35

36 Traffic Analysis Findings Scenario 1 (MWCOG 2035 Growth Forecast) Addition of median transit lanes: Improves transit travel time Incrementally increases automobile travel time Left turns impacted Does not significantly degrade overall intersection performance Segment Travel Time (min) Auto travel time Transit travel time Auto travel time No Build 2035 Build Transit travel time (Janna Lee Ave. to Huntington) 36

37 Traffic Analysis Conclusions Major growth is anticipated With project investment, need: Network of local streets Schools Parks Public safety Metrorail growth levels require significantly more infrastructure investment than BRT levels 37

38 4 Transportation and Land Use 38

39 Transportation investment supports economic viability and vitality of the corridor Population growth Employment growth Demand for new residential units and commercial space Land use planning Transportation investment Support high quality community development 39

40 Example: Arlington County 40

41 Example: Alexandria, VA 41

42 DRPT Multimodal System Design Guidelines Statewide resource for planners, engineers, designers, policy and decision makers Approaches to support integrated land use and multimodal transportation planning Guidelines to optimize transit investments and reduce reliance on cars 42

43 DRPT Multimodal System Design Guidelines Analyze population and employment density as a means to understand transit options Engage stakeholders in discussion about density, urban design, and high quality transit 43

44 Activity Unit Density Map (2035 COG Projections) 44

45 Population and Employment Growth Scenarios 45

46 Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) P 6 (70+) P 5 (34 70) P 4 (14 34) (End of line station) (End of line station) P 3 (7 14) Ballston Rosslyn Norfolk LRT 46

47 Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) 2010 Activity Levels P 6 (70+) P 5 (34 70) P 4 (14 34) P 3 (7 14) 47

48 Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) Regional Projection (2035) P 6 (70+) P 5 (34 70) P 4 (14 34) 48

49 Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) Comprehensive Plan Levels P 6 (70+) P 5 (34 70) 49

50 Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) Scenario 2 = Growth of 15% to 25% over the regional forecast (scenario 1) P 6 (70+) P 5 (34 70) 50

51 Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) Scenario 3 = Growth levels supportive of Metrorail (to Hybla) and BRT (south of Hybla) P 6 (70+) P 5 (34 70) 51

52 Beacon Hill Land Use Scenarios N 52

53 Beacon Hill Transit Oriented Development at BRT-supportive Activity Levels N 53

54 Beacon Hill Transit Oriented Development at Metrorail-supportive Activity Levels N 54

55 Woodlawn Transit Oriented Development at BRT-supportive Activity Levels N Artist s Rendering 55

56 Woodbridge Transit Oriented Development at BRT-supportive Activity Levels New Park& Ride N N 56

57 Hybla Valley with BRT N 57

58 Hybla Valley with BRT and Metrorail N 58

59 Lessons Learned Land use to support transit is complex, involving many elements. Stakeholders easily misunderstood the multimodal center types as a rule rather than a tool. Must be carefully communicated. Visuals (artist depictions, diagrams, infographics) are critical for communicating ideas about density and urban design, and the tradeoffs for creating high quality transit investments. N 59

60 02 Study Corridor 5 Key Considerations for Implementation 60

61 Implementation A. Phasing of BRT B. Roadway Widening Sequencing C. Environmental Assessment BRT, Road Widening D. Land Use Comprehensive Plan E. Timeline 61

62 Phasing and Implementation Approach Phase I: Huntington to Hybla Valley ($306 M) 3.1 mi Huntington Hybla Valley Fort Belvoir Woodbridge 62

63 Phasing and Implementation Approach Phase II: Hybla Valley to Fort Belvoir ($224 M) 7.3 mi Huntington Hybla Valley Fort Belvoir Woodbridge 63

64 Phasing and Implementation Approach Phase III: Fort Belvoir to Woodbridge ($472 M) 4.6 mi Huntington Hybla Valley Fort Belvoir Woodbridge 64

65 Phasing and Implementation Approach Phase IV: Metrorail Yellow Line Extension to Hybla Valley* ($1.46 B) 3.1 mi *Contingent upon future land use Huntington Hybla Valley Fort Belvoir Woodbridge 65

66 Phasing and Implementation Approaches Phase I III: Implement Multimodal Improvements and BRT (Median Running) Phase IV: Extend Metrorail to Hybla Valley 3.1 mi. 3.1 mi. 7.3 mi. 4.6 mi. 66

67 Roadway Widening CURRENT CONDITION 4 LANES IN SOUTHERN SECTION 4 LANES IN MIDDLE SECTION 6 LANES IN NORTHERN SECTION DISCONTINUOUS SIDEWALKS DESIRED CONDITION 6 LANES (3 NB; 3 SB) BRT IN MEDIAN CONTINUOUS PED/BIKE FACILITY 67

68 3 Segments of Route 1 Northern Section No existing median Commercial land uses Southern Section Widening to 6 Lanes Under Construction Part of BRAC Reserving median for transit Middle Section Planned Widening to 6 Lanes Bottleneck section next for construction Environmental Documentation

69 Route 1 Widening Southern Section BRAC Project 3.7 Miles $180 million Completion Feb 2016 Includes Median for Transit 69

70 Route 1 Southern Section 70

71 Route 1 Southern Section Cross Section 71

72 Route 1 Widening Middle Section 72

73 Route 1 Widening Northern Section 73

74 Environmental Assessment Ideal to do combined Environmental Assessment (For entire segment to be improved) Proceeding with EA for Road Widening Middle Segment with provision for BRT (VDOT) Subsequent EA for BRT Phases 1 and 2 (County) 74

75 Comprehensive Plan Key Issues: Metrorail/BRT Policy guidance Land use levels at stations Refining Location of BRT Stations Station Templates Cross Section/ROW Impacts Process: Advisory Group Public Outreach Timeline: 4 Year Timeline Proposed (Start July 2015) 75

76 Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) Scenario 2 = Growth of 15% to 25% over the regional forecast (scenario 1) P 6 (70+) P 5 (34 70) 76

77 FUNDING Road Widening Southern Section $180 m funded Middle Section $90 m estimate $10 m funded BRT Phase I and II $530 m estimate $ 4 m funded for environmental documentation 77

78 Potential Implementation Timelines Phase I: Huntington to Hybla Valley + Roadway Widening Roadway Widening, Bike/Ped, BRT Phase I Comprehensive Plan Revisions Phase II: Hybla Valley to Fort Belvoir Bike/Ped, BRT Phase II Comprehensive Plan Revisions Phase III: Fort Belvoir to Woodbridge Improvements Roadway Widening, Bike/Ped, BRT Phase III Comprehensive Plan Revisions Phase IV: Huntington to Hybla Valley Metrorail Extension Metrorail Legend: General Project Development Sequence Comprehensive Plan Years ( ) Phase IV Comprehensive Plan Revisions Note: Timelines assume a funding stream to support projects implementation. *Contingent upon increased future land use density. Planning Scoping/ NEPA PE Typical New Starts Funding Steps/Sequence: FTA SMALL STARTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS * Final Design Right of Way Utilities Relocation Construction Operation FTA NEW STARTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 78

79 Comments and Questions 79

80 Appendix 80

81 Committee Lists: Technical Advisory Committee Name Jurisdiction Jim Maslanka City of Alexandria Marti Reinfeld City of Alexandria Randy White Fairfax Connector Leonard Wolfenstein Fairfax County Liz Hagg Fairfax County Marianne Gardner Fairfax County Barbara Byron Fairfax County Noelle Dominguez Fairfax County Thomas Burke Fairfax County Fairfax County, Chief Special Projects Division (BRAC and Mark Canale Dulles Rail) John Simkins FHWA Irené Rico FHWA, Division Administrator Christopher Landgraf Fort Belvoir Melissa Barlow FTA Dan Koenig FTA Ryan Long FTA, Community Planner Claire Gron NVTC Tom Blaser Prince William County George Philips Prince William County Ray Utz Prince William County Tracy Gordon Prince William County Barbara Johnson Prince William County Name Eric Marx Alfred Harf Ryan Kelly Edythe Kelleher Thomas Faha Andrea Kampinen Angel Deem Kanti Srikanth Bud Siegel Maria Sinner Dironna Belton Christine Hoeffner Greg Potts Allison Davis Jurisdiction PRTC PRTC Secretary's Office Southeast Fairfax Development Corporation, Executive Director VDEQ (Regional Director, Northern VA) VDHR VDOT Central Office VDOT NOVA VDOT NOVA VDOT, NOVA District, Transportation and Land Use Director (PWC) Virginia OIPI VRE WMATA WMATA 81 81

82 Committee Lists: Project Management Team Name Amy Inman Tim Roseboom Leonard Wolfenstein Thomas Burke George Phillips Dironna Belton Kanti Srikanth Bud Siegel Ryan Kelly Jurisdiction/Agency DRPT DRPT Fairfax County Fairfax County Prince William County Virginia OIPI VDOT NOVA VDOT NOVA Secretary s Office 82 82

83 Community Involvement Committee Signatories of the June 12, 2013 letter to Thelma Drake, Jeff McKay and Gerald Hyland: o The Coalition for Smarter Growth o Sierra Club, Virginia Chapter o Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling o Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance o Community Preservation and Development Corporation o Spring Bank Community Association o Friends of Quander Brook o United Community Ministries o Audubon Naturalist Society o Wesley Housing Development Corp. of Northern Virginia o Friends of Dyke Marsh o Good Shepherd Housing & Family Services Planning Commissioners (Fairfax County and Prince William County) Transportation Commissioners (Fairfax County) Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Organizations Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Associations Lee District Association of Civic Organizations Lee Land Use Committee South County Federation Mount Vernon Lee Chamber of Commerce South Fairfax Chamber of Commerce Alexandria Economic Development Partnership Other key community interest groups and community leaders Business and real estate leaders Major property owners along the corridor Neighborhood associations in the study area 83

84 Growth Scenarios Require Transportation and other Public Investment Major growth is anticipated in the Route 1 corridor in all growth scenarios including COG 2035 forecast In Comprehensive Plan updates, corridor infrastructure needs will be evaluated: Streets Schools Parks and public space Public safety Water and utilities Metrorail supportive growth levels require significantly more infrastructure investment than BRT levels Current analysis focuses on traffic capacity 84

85 Traffic Analysis Findings: Growth Scenarios 2 and 3 Street Infrastructure Required to Accommodate Growth For highest density proposed station areas: Beacon Hill and Hybla Valley Share of trips transit, Add street capacity to walk, bike, internal, supplement Route 1, and peak spreading equivalent to: Scenario 2 One new 20% 2 lane street One new 25% 2 lane street Scenario 3 25% 40% to 50% Six new 2 lane streets Three new 2 lane streets Population and employment Growth % over Scenario 1 Time % Population and employment growth up to 160% over Scenario 1 70 AD (+160%) 50 AD (+80%) Time 85

86 Phasing and Implementation Approach Phase IV: Metrorail Yellow Line Extension to Hybla Valley* ($1.46 B) 3.1 mi *Contingent upon future land use Huntington Hybla Valley Fort Belvoir Woodbridge 86

87 Phasing and Implementation Approaches Phase I III: Implement Multimodal Improvements and BRT (Median Running) Phase IV: Extend Metrorail to Hybla Valley 3.1 mi. 3.1 mi. 7.3 mi. 4.6 mi. 87

88 Transit Funding Assumptions by Geographic Segment Phase I+II: Huntington to Fort Belvoir Potentially competitive for federal New Starts/Small Starts funding Highest population and employment Highest ridership potential 7.3 mi Federal State Regional Local 8% 9% 33% 50% Phase III: Fort Belvoir to Woodbridge Less competitive for federal funding Lower population and employment Includes planned VDOT widening 15% 10% 22% 33% 20% Federal State Regional Local Unidentified 88

89 Funding by Geographic Segment Phase IV: Huntington to Hybla Valley Potentially competitive for federal New Starts funding in 2040 Contingent upon increased 7.3 mi future land use density Federal State Regional Local 8% 33% 9% 50% 89

90 Potential Implementation Timelines Approach: BRT and Long Term Metrorail Implementation (2040) Phase I: Huntington to Hybla Valley + Roadway Widening Roadway Widening, Bike/Ped, BRT Phase I Comprehensive Plan Revisions Phase II: Hybla Valley to Fort Belvoir Bike/Ped, BRT Phase II Comprehensive Plan Revisions Phase III: Fort Belvoir to Woodbridge Improvements Roadway Widening, Bike/Ped, BRT Phase III Comprehensive Plan Revisions Years ( ) Phase IV: Huntington to Hybla Valley Metrorail Extension* Metrorail Phase IV Comprehensive Plan Revisions Note: Timelines assume a funding stream to support projects implementation. *Contingent upon increased future land use density. Legend: General Project Development Sequence Comprehensive Plan Planning Scoping/ NEPA PE Final Design Right of Way Utilities Relocation Construction Operation 90

91 Potential Implementation Timelines Phase I: Huntington to Hybla Valley + Roadway Widening Roadway Widening, Bike/Ped, BRT Phase I Comprehensive Plan Revisions Phase II: Hybla Valley to Fort Belvoir Bike/Ped, BRT Phase II Comprehensive Plan Revisions Phase III: Fort Belvoir to Woodbridge Improvements Roadway Widening, Bike/Ped, BRT Phase III Comprehensive Plan Revisions Phase IV: Huntington to Hybla Valley Metrorail Extension Metrorail Legend: General Project Development Sequence Comprehensive Plan Years ( ) Phase IV Comprehensive Plan Revisions Note: Timelines assume a funding stream to support projects implementation. *Contingent upon increased future land use density. Planning Scoping/ NEPA PE Typical New Starts Funding Steps/Sequence: FTA SMALL STARTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS * Final Design Right of Way Utilities Relocation Construction Operation FTA NEW STARTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 91

92 Combined Action Plan for Implementation 92