HD7B - Virginia Commuter Study -- Northern Virginia Case Study

  • Published: 1983
  • Author: Department of Highways and Transportation
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 150 (Regular Session, 1980)

Executive Summary:
The purpose of the Virginia Commuting Study is to assess the feasibility of alternative transportation modes for commuters working in metropolitan centers, while residing in outlying communities. The study was prompted by the General Assembly's concern over the problems facing such commuters in a state and national climate of declining transportation revenues, high costs of building and operating transportation facilities, and an uncertain energy future. Of particular concern is the desire to identify more cost- and energy-efficient modal alternatives to the single-occupant auto, which characterizes much of today's commuting in Virginia.

Study Approach

The approach to this study has followed three broad phases:

1. The identification of problems and issues associated with commuting in Virginia (with an emphasis upon longer-distance commuting from outlying suburbs and exurban areas) and the development of policy, program, and legislative options to address these issues.

2. The identification of available modal options for such commuting (as drawn from national experience) and the development of a planning methodology through which the applicability of these options can be determined for urban areas in Virginia.

3. A detailed analysis of three case study areas – Northern Virginia, Roanoke, and Martinsville – in which the methodology developed in the second phase will be applied to determine the viability of various commuter options in these areas. The case study areas were chosen by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH& T) to provide a cross-section of urban area size and commuting problems that is somewhat representative of commuting conditions across the state.

An important feature of the study is the definition in Phase I of three future scenarios for commuter transportation in the 1980s and beyond, which reflect the uncertainties that exist with regard to energy availability and costs and financial resources for transportation improvements. The viability of alternative transportation actions in the case study areas (Phase 3) and alternative policy and program actions (Phase I) is considered within the context of the scenarios to define actions which appear appropriate under any of the scenarios (and thus, represent high-priority actions for implementation).

Organization of this Report

This report documents one of the three case studies in Phase 3. Other reports describe the analyses and results of Phase I (Commuting Problems, Issues, and Policy/Program Response) and Phase 2 (A Methodology for Evaluating Commuter Travel Options in Virginia Cities). An Executive Summary provides an overview of the entire study and highlights principal conclusions and recommendations.

The presentation of case study analyses and conclusions basically follows the principal steps of the planning methodology that is detailed in the Phase 2 report. The case studies have the dual objectives of identifying actions that can be taken to improve commuting in each area and demonstrating the use of the planning methodology in a variety of commuting environments. The second objective requires that each step of the analysis be documented in detail so that subsequent users of the methodology can achieve maximum benefit from application in the case studies. Thus, the report contains more extensive tables, sample calculations, and description of assumptions than would ordinarily be found in a typical project feasibility study.

While each case study report follows the general outline of the major steps in the planning methodology, there are important differences in the way in which material is presented and in the level and type of analysis for each case study. This results primarily from the vast differences in commuting conditions between a large urban region such as Northern Virginia, that is part of an even larger metropolitan area, and a smaller, free-standing urban area, such as Martinsville. The types and level of problems in two such contrasting areas obviously demand different planning and analytical techniques, and the resulting transportation solutions are likely to be quite different in form, cost, and impact.

Finally, some of the variation in the case study discussions is the result of different analysts working on each area. While there was extensive communication between the three principal analysts during the study, each was given considerable flexibility in adapting and applying the basic methodology to conditions in his respective study areas. This had the benefit of producing three fairly independent tests of the planning methodology, reflecting not only differences among study areas, but differences in interpretation of the methodology, as well.

CASE STUDY AREA DEFINITION

The Northern Virginia Case Study area is shown in Figure 1.1. The area includes the counties of Fairfax, Prince William, Loudoun, Fauquier, Clarke, Frederick, Warren, Rappahannock, Culpeper, Stafford, and SpotsyIvania, and the independent cities of Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park, Fairfax, Winchester, and Fredericksburg. Arlington County and the city of Alexandria are included in parts of the analysis, but are not part of the primary study area because work trips from these areas are fairly short, and their commuters already have and use a wide variety of alternative travel modes.

The major destination for study area work trips is the central D.C. area (see Figure 1.2). This includes the District's downtown employment core, but also extends into Arlington County to include Rosslyn, Fort Myer, the Pentagon, Crystal City, and National Airport. This will henceforth be referred to as the "central area."

The recent growth in suburban employment has made suburban work destinations grow in importance. For this study, suburban destinations include Fairfax County, Fairfax City, Falls Church, Alexandria and that portion of Arlington County outside the central area.

Another geographic stratification is at the boundary of the Washington, D.C. SMSA. The SMSA includes Loudoun and Prince William Counties and the closer-in jurisdictions (see Figure 1.1). Although travel from the outlying counties is included, it should be noted that available data limits much of the analysis detail to the SMSA jurisdictions.