project briefing metropolitan washington council of governments transportation policy board project...
TRANSCRIPT
Project Briefing
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Transportation Policy Board
Project Briefing
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Transportation Policy Board
December 16, 2009December 16, 2009
// Multi-Modal Corridor StudyMulti-Modal Corridor Study
/ Study AreaStudy Area
2
Multi-Modal Study by SHA and MTA for MDOT
30 miles of Limited Access Highway (I-270 and US 15)
1.5 miles of New Alignment Highway (MD 75)
14-mile Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT)
Multi-Modal Study by SHA and MTA for MDOT
30 miles of Limited Access Highway (I-270 and US 15)
1.5 miles of New Alignment Highway (MD 75)
14-mile Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT)
NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Biggs Ford RoadBiggs Ford Road
SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Shady Grove RoadShady Grove Road
NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Biggs Ford RoadBiggs Ford Road
SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Shady Grove RoadShady Grove Road
/ Purpose and NeedPurpose and Need
Purpose
To investigate options that address congestion and improve safety along the I-270/US 15 Corridor due to existing and projected growth within the corridor.
Need
The I-270/US 15 Corridor provides an essential connection between the Washington DC metropolitan area and central and western Maryland. It is an essential corridor for carrying local and long distance trips, both within and beyond the corridor.
Purpose
To investigate options that address congestion and improve safety along the I-270/US 15 Corridor due to existing and projected growth within the corridor.
Need
The I-270/US 15 Corridor provides an essential connection between the Washington DC metropolitan area and central and western Maryland. It is an essential corridor for carrying local and long distance trips, both within and beyond the corridor.
3
/ Project GoalsProject Goals
Measures of Effectiveness
Support Orderly Economic Growth
Enhance Mobility
Improve Goods Movement
Preserve the Environment
Optimize Public Investment
Developed through coordination with the I-270/US 15 Focus Group.
Measures of Effectiveness
Support Orderly Economic Growth
Enhance Mobility
Improve Goods Movement
Preserve the Environment
Optimize Public Investment
Developed through coordination with the I-270/US 15 Focus Group.
4
/Corridor AlternativesCorridor Alternatives
Alternative 1 – No Build
Alternative 2 – Transportation Systems Management / Travel Demand Management (TSM/TDM)
Alternative 3A/B – Master Plan HOV Alternative
Alternative 4A/B – Master Plan General Purpose Alternative
Alternative 5A/B – HOV + General Purpose Alternative
Alternative 5C – HOV + General Purpose Alternative, Express Bus Option
Alternative 6A/B – Express Toll Lane (2+1) Alternative
Alternative 7A/B – Express Toll Lane (2+2) Alternative
Costs of highway build alternatives range between $3.0-4.7 billion.
Alternative 1 – No Build
Alternative 2 – Transportation Systems Management / Travel Demand Management (TSM/TDM)
Alternative 3A/B – Master Plan HOV Alternative
Alternative 4A/B – Master Plan General Purpose Alternative
Alternative 5A/B – HOV + General Purpose Alternative
Alternative 5C – HOV + General Purpose Alternative, Express Bus Option
Alternative 6A/B – Express Toll Lane (2+1) Alternative
Alternative 7A/B – Express Toll Lane (2+2) Alternative
Costs of highway build alternatives range between $3.0-4.7 billion.
5
/I-270 Managed Lanes: Part of a
Bigger PictureI-270 Managed Lanes: Part of a
Bigger Picture
Managed lane network would include:
• Virginia HOT Lanes (under construction)
• West Side Mobility Study (feasibility study)
• Intercounty Connector (under construction)
• I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Study (in planning stage)
Managed lane network would include:
• Virginia HOT Lanes (under construction)
• West Side Mobility Study (feasibility study)
• Intercounty Connector (under construction)
• I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Study (in planning stage)
6
/ CCT AlignmentCCT Alignment
7
/ CCT Project InformationCCT Project Information
14 miles long with 17 stations (includes 4 beyond 2030)
Light Rail Transit (LRT) or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on a dedicated transitway
Transit transfers at Germantown (local / express bus), Metropolitan Grove (MARC), Shady Grove (WMATA Red Line)
Connects key growth areas identified by Montgomery County. Special study recently to evaluate Gaithersburg West Master Plan
Proposed adjacent bike path for entire length
14 miles long with 17 stations (includes 4 beyond 2030)
Light Rail Transit (LRT) or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on a dedicated transitway
Transit transfers at Germantown (local / express bus), Metropolitan Grove (MARC), Shady Grove (WMATA Red Line)
Connects key growth areas identified by Montgomery County. Special study recently to evaluate Gaithersburg West Master Plan
Proposed adjacent bike path for entire length
8
/ Results TableResults Table
9
Transit Alternative
Travel Time Shady Grove to
COMSAT (minutes)
Ridership (Daily Boardings)
Capital Cost (millions-2007$)
Alt. 6 and Trans. TSM60 6,000 - 7,000 $86.9
Alt. 6 and Light Rail (A)36 24,000 - 30,000 $875.7
Alt. 6 and Bus Rapid (B)38 21,000 - 27,000 $461.2
Alt. 7 and Light Rail (A)36 24,000 - 30,000 $875.7
Alt. 7 and Bus Rapid (B) 38 21,000 - 27,000 $461.2
/ Preferred AlternativePreferred Alternative
Frederick Board of County Commissioners
Montgomery County Council and County Executive
City of Frederick
City of Gaithersburg
City of Rockville
National Park Service (Monocacy National Battlefield)
Comment Cards, E-Comments, and Public Testimony
Frederick Board of County Commissioners
Montgomery County Council and County Executive
City of Frederick
City of Gaithersburg
City of Rockville
National Park Service (Monocacy National Battlefield)
Comment Cards, E-Comments, and Public Testimony
Alternative 7B with HOT lanes; improved service to Park and Ride facilities; no reversible lanes
Alternative 7A with two reversible HOT lanes; improved transit connections
Build alternative; improve bus service
Alternative 7A/B, against using police impound lot as BRT facility
Alternative 7A with HOV lanes
Favors Alternative 3 or 4, a maximum of six lanes through the battlefield; shift proposed transitway alignment
Most comments focused on minimizing community and resource impacts of both transit/highway alternatives.
Alternative 7B with HOT lanes; improved service to Park and Ride facilities; no reversible lanes
Alternative 7A with two reversible HOT lanes; improved transit connections
Build alternative; improve bus service
Alternative 7A/B, against using police impound lot as BRT facility
Alternative 7A with HOV lanes
Favors Alternative 3 or 4, a maximum of six lanes through the battlefield; shift proposed transitway alignment
Most comments focused on minimizing community and resource impacts of both transit/highway alternatives.
10
/ Project ScheduleProject Schedule
Agency Comments
Selection of Preferred Alternative
Agency Comments
Selection of Preferred Alternative
11
December 1, 2009
Winter 2010
December 1, 2009
Winter 2010
Highway Path• Update and Identify Minimization / Mitigation Opportunities• Prepare Tier 1 FEIS / Record of Decision• Identify Project Segments for Tier 2 Study and Design
Transit Path• Submit New Starts Application• Preliminary Engineering and FEIS Preparation• Final Design• Secure Funding for Construction
After the Preferred Alternative selection, FHWA and FTA recommend splitting the highway and transit projects.