A Presentation by the Project Managers: Rick Canizales Prince William County. Jana Lynott, AICP Northern Virginia Transportation Commission

Transcription

1 A Presentation by the Project Managers: Rick Canizales Prince William County & Jana Lynott, AICP Northern Virginia Transportation Commission for the: Public Open House and Hearing December 6, 2005 George C. Marshall High School Fairfax County

2 Slide 1 For the past year, the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority has been working on an update to the region s long-range transportation plan. The last plan was approved in December 1999, entitled the Northern Virginia 2020 Transportation Plan, or 2020 Plan. TransAction 2030 is name the NVTA gave to the update of the 2020 Plan. One of the principle charges of the NVTA is a plan that lays out regional transportation priorities. The TransAction 2030 Plan is a blueprint for the transportation projects needed by the region to address a growing population and travel on all means of transportation. Unlike the Metropolitan region s Constrained Long-Range Plan, TransAction 2030 is not constrained by the available funds known today. It s the collection of projects that are considered essential in addressing the mobility needs of the region. Slide 2 Presentation Outline Background Technical Analysis Public Input Q&A

3 Slide 3 TransAction 2030 Northern Virginia Region Loudoun County Arlington County Falls Church City of Fairfax Manassas Park Manassas Prince William County Alexandria Fairfax County D.C. The TransAction 2030 Plan includes the nine jurisdictions of Northern Virginia and will focus on road, transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements in eight regional corridors: Basemaps shapefiles: VDOT Slide 4 TransAction Regional Multimodal Corridors VA Route 7 and Dulles Toll Rd 28 VA Route Loudoun County Parkway/ Tri-County Parkway/VA 234/ VA Fairfax County Parkway Prince William Parkway I-495 Beltway I-95/I-395-US Route 1 I-66/US-29/US

4 Slide 5 Updating the 2020 Plan 2020 Plan was prepared in 1999; much has changed since then Some projects were completed or are underway More studies were conducted Number of vehicle miles traveled in region has grown by 2.1% annually Transit trips have increased by 4% annually No new projects beyond those already in the 2020 Plan have been added to TransAction 2030 Plan. Data sources: Virginia Department of Transportation Northern Virginia Transportation Commission Slide Vision In the 21 st century, Northern Virginia will develop and sustain a multi-modal transportation system that supports our economy and quality of life. It will be fiscally sustainable, promote areas of concentrated growth, manage both demand and capacity, and employ the best technology, joining rail, roadway, bus, air, water, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities into an interconnected network. In 1999, Northern Virginia s elected officials, aided by the contributions of citizens, mapped out a vision for our region s transportation future. This vision continues to guide this update of the 2020 Plan. Source: Northern Virginia 2020 Transportation Plan, December, 1999 Slide 7

5 Region is growing The Washington DC Metropolitan Region will add 2 million people and 1.6 million jobs by 2030 Northern Virginia Employment Jobs in Millions Employment Our region is growing and we ll need to plan ahead to protect and improve our quality of life in Northern Virginia. The Washington metropolitan region is projected to add 2 million people and 1.6 million new jobs by Nearly half of the employment and more than half of the population growth is expected to occur in Northern Virginia, where new home construction is not expected to keep up with this demand. Even if new home construction continuing at a strong pace, there will still be more jobs in the region than there are homes for workers. More and more people will commute to jobs in Northern Virginia from outside the region either because they can t find homes in the region, or they can t find homes that they can afford. This will lead to longer commutes, more congestion, and poorer air quality. Data sources: Reality Check: Envisioning Our Regions Growth, Participant s Guide Book, ULI Washington, February 2, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Round 6.4a Population and Employment Forecasts.

6 Slide 8 Congestion Means Longer Commuting Times It s no secret that road congestion causes longer commuting times. Recent studies show that the Washington, D.C. region is the third most congested in the nation and suffers from over 125,000 hours per year of traffic delay this translates to over 33 hours per person --almost a whole week of vacation that the average resident spends sitting in traffic every year! And the situation is only getting worse. Photo credits: The Washington Post, December 28, 2004 Data source: Texas Transportation Institute, 2004 Annual Urban Mobility Report,

7 Slide 9 Challenges continue with demand exceeding capacity Demand exceeds capacity on all forms of transportation in our region. Use of Metrorail has grown 30% over the past eight years and use of Metrobus has grown 25% since Photo credits: James A. Parcell, Washington Post Slide 10 Growth in Transit Use Commuter rail use also rising Jan-00 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan-01 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan-03 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan-03 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan-04 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Use of Virginia Railway Express (VRE), has grown by 76% since 2000, as roadway commuters flock to the train. Photo credits: Virginia Railway Express Data source: Virginia Railway Express

8 Slide 11 Activities Extend planning horizon to 2030 Update project costs. Over $15 billion needed to complete TransAction 2030 Plan projects. Remove completed projects, those underway, or those in CLRP Bring the analysis of transit performance up to the same level as that done for highways in 1999 Understand the interactions between modes (highway, transit, bicycle, pedestrian) Provide a variety of opportunities to engage the public Prioritize projects against agreed-upon criteria Slide Plan Technical analysis focused on auto mode Performance measures generated from the COG model Limited number of transit measures Examples: households within walking distance of rail, daily transit boardings, change in roadway congestion as a result of transit projects No ped, bike performance evaluation The 2020 Plan provided only limited analysis of transit performance. There was no evaluation of the performance of our pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Since 1999, the transportation modeling has evolved and tools have become available to better assess the effects of transit, bicycle and pedestrian investments. We ve made use of these tools in our update to the transportation plan, and believe the result is a much better understanding of our transportation system and ultimately, a better plan.

9 Slide 13 Highway Performance The next several slides show examples of the different types of analysis underpinning the draft Plan. The maps show the performance of different transportation systems, or networks. The full set of maps for each networks (2005 existing conditions, 2030 CLRP, and TransAction 2030) will be posted on the Project Website along with the final Plan document once approved. Each of the performance measures address 3 networks. The 2005 network of existing conditions based on what s built today. The 2030 CLRP network shows conditions expected in 2030 when the already-funded projects have been built. Finally, the TransAction 2030 Plan network assumes funding will be found and all the projects proposed in this plan are built. This is the spaghetti map showing stop-and-go traffic on our roadways in The red denotes what we like to call LOS G in NOVA, or one or more hours of stop-and-go traffic per each rush hour period.

10 Slide 14 Park and Ride Lot Performance Red dotes denote park and ride lots that fill up before the end of the morning rush hour. Orange dots are those that fill up by the end of the rush hour, and green dots are those with additional capacity.

11 Slide 15 Transit Performance Five measures Service coverage Passenger load Frequency of service Hours of service Travel time One of the cornerstones of this planning update is the inclusion of more analysis of transit performance, also called Transit level of service. We looked at five transit LOS measures. Service coverage how much of Northern Virginia is served by transit? Passenger load how crowded are trains and buses? Frequency of service how often can you hop a train or bus to get to major destinations? HOURS OF service how many hours during the day can you complete a trip on public transportation? Travel time how does my travel time on transit compare with what it would be by car.

12 Slide 16 Passenger Load Passenger load LOS shows the level of crowding on trains and buses. As you can see from this map, passenger s on Metrorail s Orange line experience fairly crowded standing conditions during the peak morning rushhour. Slide 17 Travel Time Travel time LOS compares the difference in door-to-door travel times between activity centers, by transit and by auto It s faster to travel by transit from Tysons to downtown than it is by car and just as fast to get to Reston, Merrifield, Rosslyn, and Ballston.

13 Slide 18 Multimodal LOS Analysis Helps us to understand the interactions between modes (auto, transit, bicycle, pedestrian) Auto LOS based on volume/capacity ratios Bus LOS inputs: frequency (hourly buses in one direction) multiplied by adjustment factors for: Hours of service Street-crossing difficulty Pedestrian LOS in segment Barriers (e.g., ditches) between sidewalk and bus stops Multimodal LOS analysis helps us to understand the interactions between modes and evaluate the effects of proposed investments on each mode. Auto LOS is based on volume/capacity ratio, a measure that VDOT has used for many years. The transit, bicycle and pedestrian LOS measures are based on the users point of view and comfort: for instance-how frequent does the bus come, how much room does a bicyclist or pedestrian have between its travel way and traffic. Slide 19 Multimodal LOS Analysis Bicycle LOS inputs: Curb lane traffic volumes Bike lane/shoulder presence Posted speed Truck percentage Pavement condition Pedestrian LOS Inputs: Traffic volumes Sidewalk presence & width Separation from traffic Protective barrier presence

14 Slide 20 Multimodal LOS Florida DOT The best way to understand this is through photos. Point out different LOS by mode. Slide 21 Multimodal LOS NOTE: Auto LOS shown here is based on the FDOT method This slide depicts the interaction between modes along a segment of the US Route 1 Corridor in Prince William County.

15 Slide 22 Public Involvement Opportunities Telephone survey Website Community events Telephone Hotline Public Hearing There were numerous opportunities for public comment during this update. Slide 23 Telephone Survey Methodology Representative sample of 1,263 Northern Virginia adults 18+ At least 100 interviews conducted in all jurisdictions Aggregate data weighted to compensate for the effects of over-sampling these jurisdictions Bases shown on charts are unweighted Margin of Error +/- 2.8 percentage points April 26 to May 10, 2005

16 Slide 24 Two-thirds of residents are frustrated with the trips they take most often. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Total Sample (N=1263) Core Suburbs (N=206) Inner Suburbs (N=601) Outer Suburbs (N=456) Very Frustrating 25% 11% 20% 39% Somewhat Frustrating 41% 47% 41% 37% Not Very Frustrating 21% 22% 25% 13% Not At All Frustrating 12% 19% 14% 10% Slide 25 Almost nine in ten cited traffic as a reason for their frustration with travel. Responses to an Open-Ended Question Traffic 86% Inconsiderate or Aggressive Drivers Timing of Traffic Lights Accidents Construction Too Many Homes Time It Takes Need More Public Transportation 11% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Base=Very or Somewhat Frustrated N=829

17 Slide 26 Commuters who take transit are less frustrated than are those who always drive alone. Take Transit to Work Always Drive Alone 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 29% 16% 15% 8% % Very Frustrated % Not At All Frustrated Slide 27 Summary of Public Priorities for Transit and Road Widening 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Highest Priority Transit Highest Priority Road Widening * 60% * 56% * 43% * * 46% 42% 39% 37% * 31% 31% 29% 21% 18% 18% 13% 0% Rt. 7/Dulles (N=336) Beltway (N=437) Route 28 (N=287) Interstate-66 (N=574) Interstate 95 (N=276) FF Pkwy (N=201) PW Pkwy (N=116) * Statistically significant difference between transit and road widening Note: Excludes the Tri-County Parkway because there are no transit projects. In most radial corridors, such as I-95, transit is favored. In most circumferential corridors, such as county parkways, road widening is favored.

18 Slide 28 Summary of Mean Willingness to Pay for Transit and Road Widening Highest Priority Transit Highest Priority Road Widening $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $2.10 $1.40 $2.22 $1.57 $1.84 $1.24 $1.73 $1.87 $1.45 $1.41 $2.12 $1.48 $2.26 $1.62 $2.06 $1.46 $0.50 $0.00 The overall difference between willingness to pay for transit and road widening is highly significant. Route 7/ Dulles Route 28 Fairfax Cnty Prkwy Prince William Cnty Prkwy Beltway I-66 I-95 Grand Mean* * The bases for the grand mean are 691 for transit and 668 for road widening. Note: Excludes the Tri-County Parkway because there are no transit projects. Interestingly, those who chose transit as their top priority are willing to pay more to get their top priority project built than are those who chose road widening. Slide 29 Half of all respondents said that public transportation is their top priority, compared to just over one-quarter who chose road improvements Most Important Second Most Important Public Transportation 50% 24% 74% Roads and Highways 28% 23% 51% Sidewalks and Crosswalks 9% 18% 27% Bike Trails and Lanes 6% 12% 18% HOV Lanes 5% 15% 20% Base=Total Sample N=1,263 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Those from PWC as likely as Arlington County residents to favor transit improvements. Q: Which one of these of these transportation improvements is most important to you? Second most important to you?

19 Slide 30 Most and Second Most Acceptable Funding Methods Most Acceptable Second Most Acceptable 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 39% 19% 34% 20% 23% Increase Gas Tax 57% Increase Income Tax 72% 26% 46% Increase Sales Tax Base=Total Sample N=1,263 Slide 31 Project and Network Performance Evaluation In Fall 2005, the NVTA approved two sets of evaluation criteria. The first, our projectbased evaluation criteria were used to answer the question, how well does a project perform compared to other projects within a corridor and to rank the projects by mode and by corridor. The second set of criteria are used to test how well the TransAction 2030 Plan network (assuming all TransAction 2030 Plan projects are built) performs compared to the 2005 network (our existing road and transit network) and the region s Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP).

20 Slide 32 Conclusions We now have draft list of priorities Telephone survey and other public input indicates desire for enhanced multimodal transportation system Transit LOS shows areas where additional transit service warranted Highway LOS illustrates that TransAction 2030 level of funding is needed. Funding shortfall of over $15 billion

21 Slide 33 The NVTA Needs to Hear From You! Are the factors used to rank the TransAction 2030 projects reasonable? Any factors missing? Can you support the priorities outlined? Please stay for the formal public comment period at 7:30 PM or fill out a comment form on your way out