Appendix F: Detailed Modeling Results

Similar documents
Public Opinion about Transportation Issues in Northern Virginia

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS of The Draft 2015 CLRP

TRANSIT PERFORMANCE IN THE I-66 INSIDE THE BELTWAY CORRIDOR

NORTHERN VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

FY 2018 I-66 Commuter Choice Program Presentation to the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission May 3,

Table of Contents. 2.0 Land Use and Transportation Inputs Land Use Factors Transportation Factors

Public Information and Participation Comments

MCTC 2018 RTP SCS and Madera County RIFP Multi-Modal Project Eval Criteria GV13.xlsx

Memorandum. Purpose: To update the MPO CTAC on the status of the LRTP scenario evaluation process.

Public Opinion about Transportation Issues in Northern Virginia A Report Prepared for the:

Town of Superior. Superior Trails Plan

Base Information. 1. Project Title County Line Road Shoulder Improvements. Start: County Line Road/17 th Avenue End: County Line Road/State Highway 66

Performance Criteria for 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

Base Information. 1. Project Title SH7/East Arapahoe Multi-Use Path and Transit Stop Improvements. 2. Project Start/End points or Geographic Area

Evaluation of Significant Transportation Projects in Northern Virginia Transportation District

Corridor Advisory Group and Task Force Meeting #10. July 27, 2011

Base Information. 1. Project Title Erie Parkway and WCR 7 Traffic Signal Project

Development of Arlington County s Marked Crosswalk Guidelines. Jon Lawler, P.E. Design Engineer Arlington County, VA

What if YOU could help plan Northern Virginia s transportation future?

Appendix B: Forecasting and Traffic Operations Analysis Framework Document

APPLICATION OVERVIEW APPLICATION FORM OUTLINE

ISSUE 1. Geography challenge. Geography funnels traffic from several key corridors onto I-5.

DULLES AREA TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (DATA) February 18, Susan Shaw, P.E., VDOT, Megaprojects Director

Sketch Level Assessment. of Traffic Issues. for the Fluor Daniel I-495 HOT Lane Proposal. Ronald F. Kirby

BRIEFING ON PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND CHANGES Additions and Changes to Projects Proposed for Inclusion in the 2015 CLRP Update

Washington DC Section of ITE Project Briefing

DOT Performance Measurement and Reporting System All Performance Measures

Project Description Form 8EE

ROADSOADS CONGESTION HAMPTON SYSTEMYSTEM MANAGEMENT. Part II Roadway Congestion Analysis Mitigation Strategies and Evaluation

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FY Transportation Capital Improvement Plan Update Arlington Committee for Transportation Choices

TransAction Plan Project List

Typical Rush Hour Commute. PennyforTransportation.com

Dulles Area Transportation Association. October 11, Susan Shaw, P.E., Megaprojects Director Virginia Department of Transportation

DOT Performance Measurement and Reporting System

Roadways. Roadways III.

Multimodal Through Corridors and Placemaking Corridors

Rio Mills Rd/Berkmar Dr Extended Connection

Integrating Community Development and Transportation Strategies. November 13, 2014

Base Information. 4. Project Contact Person, Title, Phone Number, and

PenPlace SPRC #6. September 27, DRAFT

I-105 Corridor Sustainability Study (CSS)

VIRGINIA RAILWAY EXPRESS

Corridor 1 - Dulles/VA 7 TransAction 2040 Projects

Managing Dulles Rail Construction in Tysons Corner

Memorandum. From: Jakob zumfelde, Transportation Planner Date: November 7, 2018 Reference: Long Range Transportation Plan

Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility

Institute for Real Estate Management Chapter (IREM) 77 VDOT Northern Virginia Megaprojects September 13, 2017

Chapter 6 Transportation Plan

Appendix T 1: Additional Supporting Data

Colorado Boulevard to US-85. City of Thornton. Darrell Alston, Traffic Engineer, ,

City of Fairfax, Virginia City Council Work Session

Attachment A: Columbus Area Metropolitan Transportation Plan Objectives, Performance Measures, and Targets

Project Description Form 6V

Transportation Management Program Office Newsletter J U L Y

SF Transportation Plan Update

Chapter 5 Future Transportation

Regional Transportation Needs Within Southeastern Wisconsin

Measuring the Distribution and Costs of Congestion. Tim Lomax Texas Transportation Institute

Crystal City-Potomac Yard Transitway Extension

92% COMMUTING IN THE METRO. Congested Roadways Mode Share. Roadway Congestion & Mode Share

ARRENTON RANSPORTATION

How To Encourage More Efficient Transportation in Brazilian Cities

FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2004 CMR:432:04

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF CALEDON TRANSPORTATION NEEDS STUDY

Land Use and Transportation Town Hall September 17, 2018

NORTHERN VIRGINIA HIGHLIGHTS for the Dulles Area Transportation Association

I-395 Express Lanes Northern Extension Project Public Hearings

2018 Transportation Survey October 17, Prepared by:

Magnolia Place. Traffic Impact Analysis. Prepared for: City of San Mateo. Prepared by: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

6/14/2013. Welcome. to the US 75 Corridor Study. Public Meeting. US 75 Corridor Study Area

Planning Committee STAFF REPORT March 7, 2018 Page 2 of 4 The following MTSOs are being used across the five subregions: Intersection Level of Service

Ridership in Virginia by System FY2017

2014 STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT

Base Information. 1 st and Main Street, Longmont. Following the US287 corridor to US36 in Broomfield. Boulder County

Transportation Management Program Office Newsletter N O V E M B E R

University Hill Transportation Study Technical Memorandum Alternatives Modeling and Analysis May 2007

Route 7 Corridor Study

Performance Measures Target Setting NCTCOG Public Meetings

APPENDIX A: Complete Streets Checklist DRAFT NOVEMBER 2016

Short-Term Enhancements Improvements to keep Austin moving. MetroRapid

US287 Asset Inventory Fort Collins. Figure 5-1 Fort Collins Bridges and Traffic Signals

Capital Beltway HOT Lanes - Frequently Asked Questions

Moving Towards Complete Streets MMLOS Applications

Route 28 Widening (PW County Line to Old. Old Centreville Road) Scored HB 2 Application

Public Consultation Centre

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 9. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Introduction

Blueprint for Better Transportation in Northern Virginia

In station areas, new pedestrian links can increase network connectivity and provide direct access to stations.

City of White Rock. Strategic Transportation Plan. May 16, 2005

Measuring and Communicating Mobility:

I-95 Transit/ TDM Study. LRTP Advisory Committee Meeting April 20, 2017

Core of Rosslyn Transportation Study Existing Conditions Report - Appendix. Appendix E: VISSIM Model Calibration Summary

Project Description Form 8AA

ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Summary of Phase IV Activities APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DEMAND INDEX

Meeting Schedule 7:00-7:15 Open House 7:15-7:45 Existing Conditions/Short-Term Improvements Study Presentation 7:45-8:00 Q&A Session 8:00-8:10

Transportation Corridor Studies: Summary of Recommendations

Access BART: TOD and Improved Connections. October 29, 2008

CPC Parking Lot Riverside Drive. Transportation Rationale

Transcription:

Appendix F: Detailed Modeling Results TransAction Technical Report

(This page intentionally left blank)

METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES F-3

(This page intentionally left blank)

Approved TransAction Measures - December 8, 2016 Definitions of Measures and Scoring Methodology Options (Adopted January 2017) Definitions of Measures Goal 1: Enhance quality of life and economic strength of Northern Virginia through transportation 1.1.1 Total Person Hours of Delay (HB599) Daily number of person-hours of travel above free-flow travel time for motorized trips (automobile and transit). 1.1.2 Transit Crowding (HB599) Daily number of transit route-miles 1 experiencing crowded conditions (local bus > 1.0 seating capacity; express bus and commuter rail > 0.9 seating capacity; Metrorail > 100 passengers/car). 1.1.3 Person Hours of Congested Travel in Automobiles (HB599) Daily number of person-hours of travel in congested conditions, where congested is travel time in excess of 2.0 times the free-flow travel time. 1.1.4 Person Hours of Congested Travel in Transit Vehicles (HB599) Daily number of person-hours of travel in congested conditions (buses on roadways), where congested is travel time in excess of 2.0 times the free-flow travel time. 1.2.1 Congestion Severity: Maximum Travel Time Ratio Maximum ratio of congested travel time to free-flow travel time during the AM and PM peak period. 1.2.2 Congestion Duration (HB599) Number of hours of the day auto and transit passengers experience heavily congested travel conditions (travel time ratio greater than 2.0) times the number of facility miles. 1.3.1 Percent of jobs/population within 1/2 mile of high frequency and/or high performance transit Percent of activity (population + 2 * employment) within 1/2 mile of Metrorail, commuter rail, or high capacity bus service (at least 500 seats per hour or 12,000 seats daily) 1 This is the sum of the number of route segments (route-miles) that are over capacity during the course of the day (i.e., number of scheduled runs for that route that have over capacity segments). F-5

1.3.2 Access to Jobs within 45 mins by auto, and within 60 mins by transit (HB599) Number of regional jobs that can be reached from each household in Northern Virginia based on a 45 minute travel time by automobile or a 60 minute travel time by transit 1.4.1 Average travel time per motorized trip between Regional Activity Centers Average travel time per trip for motorized trips between and among zones within one mile of Regional Activity Center centroids. 1.4.2 Walkable/bikeable environment within a Regional Activity Center Qualitative: High, Med, Low, None thresholds to be defined based on facilities within one mile of the RAC centroid: High: Dense grid of arterial streets with wide sidewalks and signal timing plans that favor pedestrian movements; bike lanes on most major arterials and bike rental stations at 0.25 mile intervals; good taxi and/or ride-hailing service with 5 minute wait or less; and transit circulator or shuttle bus routes connecting most activity locations and regional transit services within the RAC. Medium: -- 50% of the high amenities Low: -- 25% of the high amenities None: -- less than 10% of the high amenities Goal 2: Enable optimal use of the transportation network and leverage the existing network 2.1.1 Safety of the transportation system Qualitative: The VDOT Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) value is calculated at the corridor segment level. For project addressing a safety concern, a proportional factor is applied and the absolute change in EPDO is quantified. EPDO = (number of fatal crashes * 541.7) + (number of injury crashes * 29.2) + (number of property damage crashes * 1) F-6

2.2.1 First and last mile connections Qualitative: High, Med, Low, None thresholds to be defined based on access facilities within one mile of high capacity transit stations: - High: all day shuttle bus or feeder bus services with at least 10 minute headways in the peak and 20 minute headways in the offpeak, good taxi and/or ride-hailing service with 5 minute wait time or less, sidewalks on all arterials and bike lanes on major arterials. - Medium 50% of high - Low 25% of high - None less than 10% of high 2.3.1 Share of travel by non-sov modes Share of non-sov person volume per mile calculated by summing HOV2, HOV3+ and transit trips with trips less than 0.5 miles (approximating non-motorized travel) on network links. 2.4.1 Person hours of travel caused by 10% increase in PM peak hour demand (HB599) Change in PM peak period person-hours of travel resulting from a 10 percent increase in PM peak hour (5-6pm) trip-making. Goal 3: Reduce negative impacts of transportation on communities and the environment 3.1.1 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by speed VMT by speed class in AM and PM peak (8 am - 9 pm and 5 pm - 6 pm) and off-peak periods. (VMT < 15 mph/hour or > 65 mph/hour = high emission rates) F-7

Rating Methodology Options For qualitative Measures 1.4.2 and 2.2.1, a NONE-LOW-MEDIUM-HIGH scale is used to rate how well a project provides for improved categories, relative to the 2040 Baseline condition, that advance the goals of that measure. If the project did not identify improvements for a particular category, or did not occur with a one-mile proximity of an activity center or high-capacity transit station, it received a NONE score. Otherwise, the project was rated according the guidelines defined in Table 1. Scores for each of the three qualitative measures were developed at the project level. A score of 0-5 (with 5 being the highest score) was assigned for a given project Measure 1.4.2: Walkable/bikeable environment within a Regional Activity Center and Measure 2.2.1: First and last mile connections were scored using the following rubric: 0: Projects not rated as providing benefits to that corridor segment 1: Projects rated as providing LOW benefits to either transit circulation/connectivity or bicycle/ pedestrian facilities 2: Projects rated as providing LOW or MEDIUM benefits across multiple categories 3: Projects rated as providing MEDIUM benefits across multiple categories 4: Projects rated as providing MEDIUM benefits across multiple categories and/or providing HIGH benefits in either transit circulation/connectivity or bicycle/pedestrian facilities 5: Projects rated as providing HIGH benefits across multiple categories For qualitative Measure 2.1.1, a binary YES-NO response is provided for each project to denote whether it specifically addresses a safety need (i.e., referencing a vehicular of bicycle/pedestrian safety improvement or projects that limit potentially dangerous interactions between vehicles and cyclists/ pedestrians) within its project description. A 10% reduction in Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) measure, based on VDOT crash data, will be applied to grid cells within the project impact area. In the Baseline network, the values for Measure 1.4.2 and Measure 2.2.1 are zero, representing existing conditions. Improvements in either of those measures are represented with a positive value for the Project network. Overlapping projects are additive to each measure score. A binned value is assigned for each grid cell based on the magnitude of the total improvement in walkable/bikeable places or firstlast mile connections. These values are then averaged across all grid cells within a project impact area to quantify the benefit contributed by each measure. For Measure 2.1.1, the grid cells in the Baseline network have a starting EPDO calculated based on FHWA s equation: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/sec4.cfm The change in the EPDO (reduction) is calculated for grid cells within the impact area for project improvements with a stated goal of safety. F-8

Table 1: Guidelines for rating project improvements Category Measure Score Description Pedestrian Facilities 1.4.2 & Low Minor pedestrian improvements within activity center 2.2.1 Medium Larger scale pedestrian improvements within activity center or project providing pedestrian access to transit station High Program of pedestrian improvements within activity center or project providing key pedestrian connections to high capacity transit stations Street Grid 1.4.2 Low Complete streets projects; intersection improvements specifying bike/pedestrian connectivity; unspecified multimodal improvements Medium High New roadway connections within activity center County or city-wide program of improving street grid connectivity (roadway, bike/pedestrian) Ridesharing 2.2.1 Low Park-n-Ride (new construction/expansion/added capacity)- might permit additional slug line capacity/space for informal car sharing; Pedal-n-Ride facilities focused on public bus access Bikesharing Bicycle Facilities Transit Circulation in Activity Centers First/last mile transit connections Medium Kiss-n-Ride (expansion/added capacity) High Kiss-n-Ride (new construction) creates new ride share opportunity 1.4.2 & Low Bicycle lockers; bicycle racks 2.2.1 High Bikeshare / bike rental stations; Projects that identify bikeshare as a goal without reference to a specific facility 1.4.2 & Low Bike-related project lies along the periphery of an RAC or 2.2.1 provides minimally better access to transit stations Medium Bike-related project lies well within an RAC or provides moderately better access to a transit station High Bike-related project provides good bicycle access within an RAC and/or to a transit station 1.4.2 Low Supportive transit facilities in activity centers (transit center, information systems, bus facilities, etc.) Medium Local transit service improvements within activity center High Transit circulator service or high-capacity transit improvements in activity center 2.2.1 Low Supportive transit facilities near high-capacity transit stations (transit center, information systems, bus facilities, etc.) Medium High High-capacity transit improvements High frequency transit connections serving high-capacity transit stations F-9

(This page intentionally left blank)

MODELING RESULTS BY SEGMENT AND MEASURE F-11

(This page intentionally left blank)

Plan Results Each performance measure is scored on a 0-100% scale, where 0%, or "--", indicates no benefit along a corridor segment over the baseline condition and 100% indicates maximum regional benefit for a corridor segment. A negative score indicates a reduction in a performance measure associated with a negative impact, such as congestion, while a positive score indicates an improvement in the condition of the transportation system, such as improving regional accessibility. Person Delay Transit Crowding Person Delay in Auto Person Delay in Transit Congestion Severity Congestion Duration Transit Coverage Activity Center Connectivity Accessibility to Jobs Safety Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Transit Station Connectivity Vehicle Occupancy System Resiliency Emissions Reduction A performance rating is calculated by multiplying the absolute score for each performance measure by its associated measure weight. Corridor Segment Measure 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4.1 1.4.2 2.1.1 2.2.1 2.3.1 2.4.1 3.1.1 Measure Weight 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 10% 5% 10% 1-1 Rt. 7/Rt. 9 West Virginia State Line to Town of Leesburg -9% 0% -10% -2% -18% -- -- 20% -100% 20% 100% -- -- -8% -9% 15.8 1-2 Rt. 7/Dulles Greenway Town of Leesburg to Rt. 28-5% -3% -11% -9% -14% -46% 36% 64% -54% 51% 28% 51% -- -99% -59% 34.5 1-3 Rt. 7/Dulles Toll Road/Silver Line Rt. 28 to Tysons -53% -5% -55% -24% -45% -51% 14% 36% -28% 61% 13% 62% -- -54% -65% 39.9 1-4 Rt. 7/Dulles Toll Road/Silver Line Tysons to US 1-62% -100% -68% -49% -18% -99% 36% 42% -27% 76% 11% 78% -- -18% -85% 54.7 2-1 Loudoun County Parkway/Belmont Ridge Road Rt. 7 to US 50-55% 0% -61% -8% -35% -28% -- 70% -58% 71% 7% 62% -- -78% -100% 43.9 2-2 North-South Corridor/Bi-County Parkway US 50 to I-66 -- -1% 0% 0% -1% -- -- 60% -52% 41% -- -- -- -- -- 7.7 2-3 Rt. 234 I-66 to I-95-28% -5% -28% -7% -36% -12% -- 66% -61% 31% -- 18% -- -- -35% 21.0 3-1 Rt. 28 Rt. 7 to I-66-22% -12% -31% -21% -8% -46% 50% 62% -45% 71% 2% 53% -- -100% -87% 40.7 3-2 Rt. 28 I-66 to Fauquier County Line -23% -7% -24% -11% -9% -8% 100% 70% -56% 43% -- 29% -- -- -29% 24.9 4-1 Prince William Parkway I-66 to I-95-42% -23% -44% -24% -34% -35% 36% 77% -59% 29% -- 20% 1% -67% -48% 34.2 5-1 Fairfax County Parkway Rt. 7 to US 50-28% -12% -32% -16% -28% -28% -- 39% -23% 51% 7% 56% -- -18% -45% 27.0 5-2 Fairfax County Parkway US 50 to Rolling Road -34% -7% -38% -23% -39% -22% 36% 86% -38% 49% 0% 29% -- -43% -47% 31.0 5-3 Fairfax County Parkway Rolling Road to US 1-17% -19% -20% -19% -36% -- 100% 100% -41% 65% -- 20% -- -- -26% 26.4 6-1 I-66/US 29/VRE Manassas Prince William County Line to Rt. 28-52% -23% -49% -26% -8% -38% 86% 74% -59% 39% 97% 27% -- -37% -40% 40.5 6-2 I-66/US 29/US 50/Orange-Silver Line Rt. 28 to I-495-73% -27% -77% -88% -49% -61% 64% 67% -33% 92% 10% 78% 22% -38% -73% 58.1 6-3 I-66/US 29/US 50/Orange-Silver Line I-495 to Potomac River -37% -84% -42% -100% -10% -58% 29% 40% -29% 100% 12% 100% -- -20% -67% 49.5 7-1 I-495 American Legion Bridge to I-66-49% -26% -51% -13% -50% -38% 43% 45% -23% 51% 0% 64% -- -75% -56% 39.6 7-2 I-495 I-66 to I-95-19% -23% -22% -23% -28% -22% 50% 79% -29% 82% 2% 64% -- -52% -30% 33.0 7-3 I-495 I-395 to Woodrow Wilson Bridge -88% -42% -88% -13% -67% -40% 36% 58% -30% 65% 4% 58% 100% -67% -71% 59.2 8-1 I-95/US 1/VRE Fredericksburg Stafford County Line to Fairfax County Line -95% -29% -96% -70% -100% -32% 43% 88% -62% 39% -- 22% -- -- -72% 48.5 8-2 I-95/US 1/VRE Fredericksburg Prince William County Line to I-495-79% -62% -86% -89% -49% -41% 71% 82% -39% 69% 1% 27% 8% -34% -100% 54.6 8-3 I-395/US 1/VRE Fredericksburg/Blue-Yellow Line I-495 to Potomac River -100% -97% -100% -53% -37% -100% 21% 40% -30% 59% 13% 62% 60% -38% -92% 65.8 9-1 US 15 Potomac River to Rt. 7-9% -- -9% -1% -39% -3% -- 46% -58% 20% 17% -- -- -3% -10% 11.8 9-2 US 15 Rt. 7 to I-66-10% -1% -11% -2% -50% -6% -- 50% -56% 20% 19% -- -- -3% -13% 13.6 9-3 US 15 US 50 to US 29-6% -3% -5% 0% -15% -2% -- 47% -- -- 6% -- -- -14% -6% 5.8 10-1 Braddock Road/VRE Manassas Rt. 28 to I-495-71% -32% -75% -44% -40% -28% 71% 81% -36% 73% 7% 27% -- -42% -77% 45.4 10-2 Columbia Pike/Braddock Road I-495 to Pentagon -21% -50% -21% -48% -18% -19% 7% 42% -31% 82% 6% 85% 49% -- -31% 35.8 11-1 US 50 Fauquier County Line to City of Fairfax -59% -14% -61% -30% -50% -30% 21% 67% -51% 86% 7% 65% -- -- -75% 42.3 Performance Rating F-13

(This page intentionally left blank)