/ Multi-Modal Corridor Study
Project Status Briefing
Planning Board
of the
Maryland-National Capital Park
and Planning Commission
April 30, 2009
/ Presentation Outline
Introduction / Background
I-270/US 15 Alternatives
Corridor Cities Transitway Alternatives
Next Steps
1
/ Study Area
NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT: Multi-Modal Study by SHA
Biggs Ford Road
and MTA for MDOT
Project Team with SHA,
MTA, Counties and Cities
30 +/- miles of Limited
Access Highway
1.5 miles of New Alignment
Highway (MD 75)
SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:
Shady Grove Road 14 +/- mile Transitway
2
/ Purpose And Need
Purpose
T investigate
To i ti t options
ti that
th t address
dd congestion
ti
and improve safety along the I-270/US 15
Corridor due to existing and projected growth
within the corridor.
Need
Thee I-270/US
0/US 155 Corridor
Co do p provides
o des ana essential
esse a
connection between the Washington DC
metropolitan area and central and western
Maryland It is an essential corridor for carrying
Maryland.
local and long distance trips, both within and
beyond the corridor.
3
/ Recent Timeline
June 2002: Location/Design Public Hearings
(DEIS)
Fall 2003: MDOT Requested Managed Lanes
Evaluation
June 2004: Public Information Meeting
g on
Express Toll Lanes (ETL’s) and Minimization
Options/Refinements
2005 – 2008: Engineering/Environmental
Studies
Spring 2009: Public Hearings (AA/EA)
4
/ Changes Since 2002
Managed
g Lanes – Evaluate Feasibility
y
FHWA/FTA Guidance
Alternatives Analysis (AA)
Transit Modeling
NEPA Documentation
Alternatives
Travel Forecast 2030
Reconfigured I-270/MD 85 Interchange
Reconfigured I-270/I-370 Interchange
5
/ Changes Since 2002
Alternatives (cont.)
Detailed Avoidance/Minimization Studies
Monocacy National Battlefield
Fox Chapel neighborhood (Germantown)
Advanced US 15/Monocacy Blvd. Interchange
I
Impact
t Analysis
A l i forf ETL Alternatives
Alt ti
Air, Noise, Communities, Cultural, Natural,
Traffic
6
/
Corridor Alternatives
DEIS EA
Alt. 1: No-Build Alternative Alt. 6A: Enhanced MP w/1 ETL/LRT
Alt. 2: TSM/TDM Alternative Alt. 6B: Enhanced MP w/1 ETL/BRT
Alt. 3A
Alt 3A: MP HOV w/LRT
/LRT Alt
Alt. 7A
7A: E
Enhanced
h d MP w/2
/2 ETL/LRT
Alt. 3B: MP HOV w/ BRT Alt. 7B: Enhanced MP w/2 ETL/BRT
Alt. 4A: MP GPL w/LRT
Alt. 4B: MP GPL w/BRT
Alt. 5A: Enhanced MP HOV/GPL w/LRT
Alt 5B
Alt. 5B: E
Enhanced
h d MP HOV/GPL w/BRT
/BRT
Alt. 5C: Enhanced MP HOV/GPL w/Premium Bus
MP = Master Plan
HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lane LRT = Light Rail on the CCT
GPL = General-Purpose Lane BRT = Bus Rapid Transit on the CCT
7
/ DEIS Alternatives 3A/B and 4A/B
Alternatives 3A/B, 4A/B
I-270 (MD 121 to MD 85)
8
/ DEIS Alternatives 3A/B and 4A/B
Alternatives 3A/B, 4A/B, 5A/B/C
I-270 (MD 124 to MD 117)
9
/ DEIS Alternatives 5A/B and 5C
Alternatives 5A/B/C
I-270 (MD 121 to MD 85)
10
/ DEIS Alternatives 5A/B and 5C
Alternatives 3A/B, 4A/B, 5A/B/C
I-270 (MD 124 to MD 117)
11
/ Express Toll Lanes
ETLs are the latest type of “Managed
Lanes”.
Other types of managed lanes include
HOV Truck only
HOV, only, Transit only
only, and HOT
lanes.
Provides needed highway capacity
to address congestion through an
alternative funding strategy (toll
financing) mmuch
ch sooner than
traditional funding approaches
allow.
12
/ Express Toll Lanes
Objectives:
Offer Reliable and Predictable Travel Times and Choices
Promote Transit Solutions/Carpooling
Build Sustainable Highway Capacity Sooner
Develop an Integrated Highway System that Optimizes Efficiency
and Maximizes Flexibilityy
Capture Air Quality and Other
Environmental Benefits
Improve Incident Response Time
Take Advantage of Technology:
Electronic Toll Collections
13
/ Express Toll Lanes
MDOT’s Goal: Develop a Statewide ETL system that
optimizes efficiency and flexibility.
Express Toll Lanes are being considered on controlled
access highways
hi h experiencing
i i chronic
h i congestion
ti
during peak travel times.
T
Two Projects
P j t Under
U d C
Construction
t ti iin M
Maryland
l d
Ongoing Project Development Studies:
I-270
I-495/I-95 (Capital Beltway)
MD 5
23 Other Corridors Under Consideration
14
/
I-270 ETL: Part of a
Bigger Picture
Managed Lane Network
would include:
• Virginia
g HOT Lanes
(under construction)
• West Side Mobility Study
(feasibility study)
• Intercounty Connector
(under construction)
• I 270/US 15 Multi
I-270/US Multi-Modal
Modal
Study (in planning stage)
15
/ Express Toll Lanes
16
/ I-270 ETL Limits
ETL
NORTHERN
LIMIT
ETL
SOUTHERN
LIMIT
North of MD 80 to South of I-370
17
/ EA Alternatives 6A/B
Alternatives 6A/B
MD 121 to ETL Terminus (North of MD 80)
18
/ EA Alternatives 6A/B
Alternatives 6A/B and 7A/B
MD 117 to MD 124
19
/ EA Alternatives 7A/B
Alternatives 7 A/B
MD 121 to ETL Terminus ((North of MD 80))
20
/ EA Alternatives 7A/B
Alternatives 6A/B and 7A/B
MD 117 to MD 124
21
/ I-270 ETL Northern Access
Vehicles will access the ETL lanes via open access slip
ramps in the following areas:
Northern Terminus
South of MD 80 (slip ramps)
I-270 Southbound GP to ETL (entry)
I-270 Northbound ETL to GP (exit)
North of MD 121 (slip ramps)
I-270 Southbound ETL to GP and GP to ETL
I-270 Northbound ETL to GP and GP to ETL
22
/ I-270 ETL Southern Access
Vehicles will access the ETL lanes via Direct
Access Ramps from these
Interchanges:
g
Newcut Road (NB/SB)
MD 118 (NB/SB)
Watkins Mill Road Area (NB/SB) and/or MD 117 (SB)
I-370/ICC (NB to/from EB)
23
/ Direct Access Ramp Examples
24
/ Highway Capital Costs
Highway
g y capital
p costs have been estimated for
roadways, interchanges, structures, earthwork,
g
traffic control and environmental mitigation
Highway capital costs include final design, right-
of way acquisition and construction
of-way
Current estimate completed in early 2009
Location Highway Cost
Frederick County $1
1,472
472 M
City of Frederick $ 464 M
Montgomery County $2
2,642
642 M
25
/ “Breakout” Projects
I-270/MD 121 Interchange
g
I-270/Watkins Mill Road – New Interchange in
Gaithersburg (Design phase)
US 15/MD 26 Interchange – New Northbound
On-ramp – Completed 2006
US 15/Monocacy Boulevard Interchange – New
Interchange (Design phase)
26
/ CCT Alignment
27
/ CCT Alignment
17 stations ((includes 4 beyond
y 2025))
Transit transfers at Metropolitan Grove (MARC),
Shady Grove (WMATA Red Line) Line), and local bus
Access from local streets, I-270 interchanges,
and direct access ramps
Build Alternatives include Light Rail Transit
(LRT), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
T
Transit
it TSM Alt
Alternative
ti features
f t premium
i bus
b
on I-270 managed lanes (HOV or ETL) with
service to CCT stations
28
/ King Farm
29
/ Metropolitan Grove
30
/ Right-of-Way Preservation
Montgomery County Master Plans and Sector
Pl
Plans
Right-of-Way Status
Approximately 35% lies within publicly controlled land
(i.e. – within existing street right-of-way or on land
dedicated to the transitway)
Additional 25% has right-of-way protection through
reservation or easement
Remaining 40% has no protections at this time
Preservation/Coordination with Local
Jurisdictions
MTA reviews development
p p
plans to ensure transitway
y
preservation
31
/ Operations & Maintenance Facility
Needed for both LRT or BRT
Site Identification
LRT must be adjacent to the transitway
BRT must be adjacent or within a reasonable distance
Site Layouts
LRT – Geometric Constraints and Grades
BRT – Optimal Facility Size (phasing)
5 Sites Identified and Included in AA/EA (one
existing from DEIS and four new)
32
/ Alternative Alignments
Crown Farm, Shady Grove Life Sciences
Center/Belward Farm, and Kentlands
33
/ Results Table
CCT Alternatives Preliminary Travel Demand Forecasts & Cost Estimates
Annual
Travel Time
Ridership Operations and
Shady Grove to Capital Cost
Transit Alternative ((Daily
y Boardings
g - Maintenance
COMSAT ((millions-2007$)
illi 2007$)
2030) Costs
(minutes)
(millions-2007$)
60 6,000 - 7,000 $86.9 $14.8
Alt. 6 and Trans. TSM
36 24,000 - 30,000 $777.5 $28.1
Alt. 6 and Light Rail (A)
38 21,000 - 27,000 $449.9 $26.8
Alt. 6 and Bus Rapid (B)
36 24,000 - 30,000 $777.5 $28.1
Alt. 7 and Light Rail (A)
Alt. 7 and Bus Rapid (B) 38 21,000 - 27,000 $449.9 $26.8
34
/ Project Funding
Federal – Section 5309 New Starts
New fixed guideway systems (rail, bus rapid transit)
E tensions to existing
Extensions e isting ssystems
stems
Typically matched at 50%+
Project funding decisions made jointly by FTA and
Congress – national competition
State – Transportation Trust Fund
Local Jurisdictions
Others
35
/ Federal Approval Process
Systems Planning Alternatives Analysis
Locally Preferred
Alternative
We are
Here
FTA Decision
On Entry
into PE
ht
ment Oversigh
Major Development
Preliminary Engineering Stage
Projject Managem
FTA Decision FTA Decision Point
On Entry
into Final Design
Full Funding
Final Design Grant Agreement
Construction
36
/ New Starts Criteria
Summary Rating
Project Justification
Financial Rating
Rating
Other
Factors
Mobility Environmental Cost Land Non-Section Capital Operating
Improvements Benefits Effectiveness Use 5309 Share Finances Finances
User Low Income Capital
Benefits Households Cost
O&M
Employment
Cost
User
Benefits
Minimum Project Development Requirements:
Metropolitan Planning and Project Management Technical NEPA Other
Programming Requirements Capability Approvals Considerations
37
/ New Starts Evaluation Criteria
Project Ratings given to two composite
measures: project
j t jjustification
tifi ti andd project
j t
finance
R ti - “high”,
Rating “hi h” ““medium
di hi
high”,
h” ““medium”,
di ” ““medium
di
low”, “low”
Project Justification
Mobility – travel time, transit dependent usage, etc.
Cost effectiveness – ratio of cost to user benefit
Cost-effectiveness
Land use – transit supportive land use
P j t Finance
Project Fi
Amount and reliability of non-federal share of New
Starts
38
/ Cost-Effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness ~ 50% of Project
j Justification
rating
Must get a “medium”
medium rating in cost-effectiveness
cost effectiveness
for a project to be recommended.
FY 2010 Cost-Effectiveness Rating
High less than or equal to$11.99
Medium-High between $12.00 and $15.99
Medium between $16
$16.00
00 and $24
$24.49
49
Medium-Low between $24.50 and $30.49
Low
L G
Greater
t than
th or equall tto $30.51
$30 51
39
/ Cost Effectiveness Results
A B C D
Total Capital Annualized Annual Annual User Annualized Cost
Costs Capital Costs Operating Costs Benefit per Hour of User
((2007 dollars)) ((2007 dollars)) ((2007 dollars)) ((Hours)) Benefit
TSM 86,860,000 7,440,700 14,793,000 1,890,000 --
Build Alternatives
Alternative 6A
777,530,000 62,202,400 28,129,000 3,960,000 $32.90
(LRT)
Alternative 6B
449,920,000 36,443,500 26,859,000 4,110,000 $18.50
(BRT)
Alternative 7A
777,530,000 62,202,400 28,129,000 3,990,000 $32.43
(LRT)
Alternative 7B
449 920 000
449,920,000 36 443 500
36,443,500 26 859 000
26,859,000 4 140 000
4,140,000 $18 25
$18.25
(BRT)
40
/ Locally Preferred Alternative
Multi-modal - highway and transit alternative selection
Transit Mode Selection - TSM, BRT, LRT
Consider project phasing - tool for managing costs
Alternative alignments (CCT)
Environmental Impacts
p
Public Hearing/Document Review process
Citizen/community groups
Project Team/Local Government
FTA/FHWA
Environmental
E i t l agencies
i
Cost Effectiveness (CCT)
Funding/Affordability
41
/ Federal Approval Process
2002 Draft Environmental 2009 Alternatives Analysis/
Impact Statement Environmental Assessment
Locally Preferred
Alternative
We are
Here
Highway and Transit
Projects Split
Tier 1 FEIS and Major Development
Stage
Record of Decision
Decision Point
Prioritize
Projects to Advance to Tier 2
Study
Prepare Tier 2 FEIS and
Record of Decision
Design
42
/ Project Schedule
Public Outreach Ongoing
AA/EA Completion May 2009
AA/EA Circulation May 2009 – July 2009
Public Hearing June 2009
Selection of Preferred Fall 2009
Al
Alternative
i
Request Entry for PE/New Late 2009
St t Submission
Starts S b i i (Transit)
(T it)
PE/FEIS Completion TBD
Initiate Final Design TBD
Start Construction TBD
43
/ Public Outreach
Project Newsletter
Available for Project Briefings to Local
Neighborhoods/Organizations
Briefings to City/County Staff
Briefings
g to City/County
y y State Elected
Officials prior to Spring 2009 Public
Meetings
Website : [Link]
44
/ Next Steps
Continue agency
g y coordination and p
public
outreach
Conduct review process
Hold p
public hearings
g
Select cost effective, affordable Locally
Preferred Alternative
Secure non-federal funding
g
Secure federal funding
45
/ Thank You
Questions/concerns or for additional information:
Highway:
Russ Anderson
(randerson2@[Link])
Transit Related:
Rick Kiegel
(rkiegel@[Link])
( ki l@ t l d )
46
