East Falls Church Land Use and Transportation Studylandtrx.vdot.virginia.gov/Attachments/be8ab303877a4d7… · · 2011-04-07... Summary of VDOT Daily Traffic Volume Data ... Table

© Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2010

Prepared for:

May 2010

Transportation Impact Study

East Falls Church Land Useand Transportation Study

Arlington County, VA

i© Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2010

May 2010

Transportation Impact Study

East Falls Church Land Use andTransportation Study

Arlington County, VA

Contact Information:

Bridget ObikoyaArlington CountyDepartment of Environmental ServicesDivision of [email protected]

Richard Hartman, AICPArlington CountyDivision of [email protected]

R. David Whyte, P.E.Kimley-Horn and Associates, [email protected]

Erin Murphy, EITKimley-Horn and Associates, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




ii© Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2010

Transportation Impact StudyMay 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................................ 1

Purpose of Report and Study Objectives ...................................................... 1Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 2

Site Location and Study Area ........................................................................... 2Description of the Proposed Development ........................................................ 2Analysis Methodology....................................................................................... 2Principal Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations .................................. 5

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................. 10Study Area .................................................................................................. 10Description of On-site Development ............................................................ 10Existing Area Roadways ............................................................................. 13Existing Transit Service ............................................................................... 14Existing Bicycle network .............................................................................. 15Existing Pedestrian network ........................................................................ 15Currently Programmed Transportation Improvements and TransportationImprovement Plans ..................................................................................... 19

3. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................... 23Traffic Counts .............................................................................................. 23Historic Traffic Growth ................................................................................. 23Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 24Existing Area Pedestrian Movement and bicycle Travel ............................. 27Analysis Methodology ................................................................................. 29

Conditions Studied ......................................................................................... 29Vehicular Intersection Capacity Analysis......................................................... 29Vehicular Link Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ........................................................ 30Multimodal Conditions .................................................................................... 30

Analysis of Existing Conditions ................................................................... 31Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................ 31Link Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ....................................................................... 32Transit Conditions .......................................................................................... 34Bicycle Conditions .......................................................................................... 35Pedestrian Conditions .................................................................................... 35On-street Parking Conditions .......................................................................... 36

4. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT ......... 37Historic and Projected Traffic Growth .......................................................... 37Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 38Analysis of Future conditions without development ..................................... 43

Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................ 43

iii© Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2010


Link Volume-to-Capacity ................................................................................ 48Multimodal Conditions .................................................................................... 48

5. SITE TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................ 49Person Trip Generation ............................................................................... 49Mode Choice Assumptions.......................................................................... 51

6. SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT .................................. 54

7. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT ................. 57Future with Development Traffic Volumes................................................... 57Analysis of Future Conditions with Development ........................................ 57

Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................ 57Link V/C Ratio ................................................................................................ 62Multimodal Conditions .................................................................................... 62

8. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................... 63Transportation Demand Management ......................................................... 63Corridor Recommendations ........................................................................ 64Intersection Recommendations ................................................................... 66Neighborhood Traffic Calming ..................................................................... 68Transit Network ........................................................................................... 69Pedestrian and Bicycle Network .................................................................. 69Parking ........................................................................................................ 70Analysis of Future Conditions with Development with Improvements ......... 75

Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................ 75Link V/C Ratio ................................................................................................ 79Multimodal Conditions .................................................................................... 80

9. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 81APPENDIX

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1.1: Regional Project Location ....................................................................................3Figure 1.2: Location of Proposed East Falls Church Development Sites ...............................4Figure 2.1: Existing Laneage and Traffic Control .................................................................12Figure 2.2: Existing Transit Network ....................................................................................16Figure 2.3: Existing Bicycle Network ...................................................................................17Figure 2.4: Existing Pedestrian Network ..............................................................................18Figure 3.1: Existing (2010) AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................25Figure 3.2: Existing (2010) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................26Figure 3.3: Observed Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel ...........................................................28Figure 3.4: Existing Level of Service ...................................................................................33

iv© Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2010


Figure 4.1: 2030 AM Peak Hour Base Traffic Volumes ........................................................39Figure 4.2: 2030 PM Peak Hour Base Traffic Volumes ........................................................40Figure 4.3: Locations of Approved and Unbuilt Developments ............................................42Figure 4.4: 2030 Future without Development AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes....................44Figure 4.5: 2030 Future without Development PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes....................45Figure 4.6: Future without Development AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service

.........................................................................................................................47Figure 5.1: Proposed East Falls Church Development Sites ...............................................53Figure 6.1: Residential Trip Distribution ...............................................................................55Figure 6.2: Retail Trip Distribution .......................................................................................56Figure 7.1: 2030 Future with Development AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................58Figure 7.2: 2030 Future with Development PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................59Figure 7.3: 2030 Future with Development (No Improvements) AM and PM Peak Hour

Intersection Levels of Service ...........................................................................61Figure 8.1: Recommended Transit Network ........................................................................72Figure 8.2: Recommended Shared-use Trail and Bicycle Network ......................................73Figure 8.3: Recommended Pedestrian Network ..................................................................74Figure 8.4: Recommended Laneage and Traffic Control .....................................................77Figure 8.5: Future with Development and Improvements AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection

Levels of Service ..............................................................................................78

LIST OF TABLESTable 2.1: Proposed Development Site Characteristics .......................................................10Table 3.1: Summary of VDOT Daily Traffic Volume Data ....................................................24Table 3.2: Vehicular Level of Service Range of Delay .........................................................30Table 3.3: Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis ...............................................................31Table 3.4: Existing Link V/C Ratios .....................................................................................32Table 4.1: Summary of VDOT Daily Traffic Volumes and MWCOG Travel Forecasting Model

Projections .........................................................................................................37Table 4.2: Approved and Unbuilt Developments ..................................................................38Table 4.3: Approved and Unbuilt Development Vehicle Trip Generation .............................41Table 4.4: Future without Development Intersection Capacity Analysis ...............................46Table 4.5: Future without Development Link V/C Ratios ......................................................48Table 5.1: Person Trips Generated by Proposed Development ...........................................50Table 5.2: Proposed Trip Generation Mode Split Assumptions ............................................52Table 5.3: Vehicle Trips Generated by Proposed Development...........................................52Table 6.1: Trip Distribution ..................................................................................................54Table 7.1: Future with Development Intersection Capacity Analysis ....................................60Table 7.2: Future with Development Link V/C Ratios ...........................................................62Table 8.1: Future with Development and Improvements Intersection Capacity Analysis ......75Table 8.2: Future with Development and Improvements Link V/C Ratios ............................80

1© Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2010


1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYPURPOSE OF REPORT AND STUDY OBJECTIVESThis report presents the results of a transportation impact study (the study) for the increasesin development proposed (proposed development) as part of the East Falls Church AreaPlan (the plan). The purpose of the East Falls Church Area Plan is to generate a land useand transportation vision for the East Falls Church area. The study is an appendix to theEast Falls Church Area Plan and will be used to comply with Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDOT) traffic impact analysis regulations under Chapter 527 of the 2006Code of Virginia.

The land use element of the plan includes a concept plan and policy framework that setheight, density, use mix, and urban design standards for sites likely to experienceredevelopment. The transportation element of the plan evaluates pedestrian, bicycle, andvehicular access to the existing Metrorail station. The plan recommends infrastructure,streetscape, and other public improvements to support an urban, walkable, and accessiblemixed-use environment within this area.

The plan was guided by a Task Force comprised of representatives from Arlington Countyand the City of Falls Church, VDOT, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority(WMATA), and area citizens. WMATA and VDOT are major landowners in the study areaand control transportation infrastructure including the Metrorail station, Interstate 66, andseveral state-owned arterial roadways. Setting the stage for planning and analysis, the EastFalls Church Task Force drafted a vision for the future of East Falls Church:

“Our vision is for East Falls Church to evolve into a ‘Transit Town’ by combining thebest of what was with the needs of a desirable 21st Century community. Transit Townwill abound in locally serving uses that will re-create that lost small town feeling andadvance sustainability concepts in our corner of Arlington County. A balance andmixture of uses, such as neighborhood-oriented retail, businesses and restaurants,will be within easy reach of people. New buildings will be of compatible densities andheights so as to complement and fit in with our best existing structures. East FallsChurch will be a distinctive stop along the Metro Rail system, combining humanscale development with a warm and inviting pedestrian-oriented, walkablestreetscape. There will be a central public space used for street fairs and othergatherings featuring some symbol or artwork for community identity. The area will bethe focus for the intermodal transfers that connect transit (both bus and rail), foottraffic and bicycle users, and discourage single occupancy vehicle transportation.Affordable housing opportunities will allow for economic diversity. We envision awell-connected, ‘green,’ safe and accessible community which will grow organically.”

The transportation impact study was prepared in accordance with the VDOT Chapter 527Guidelines and a scoping discussion with Arlington County staff and VDOT planning staff.



This report describes the background information, analysis methodology, existingtransportation conditions, future transportation conditions without the proposeddevelopment, travel demand generated by the proposed development, and futuretransportation conditions with the proposed development. This report also providesrecommendations for future transportation infrastructure and policy related to the East FallsChurch area.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSite Location and Study AreaThe East Falls Church area is in western Arlington County, Virginia adjacent to the City ofFalls Church. The East Falls Church study area encompasses areas of Arlington Countyand the City of Falls Church as well as the East Falls Church Metrorail station. The studyarea is shown in a regional context in Figure 1.1.

Description of the Proposed DevelopmentThe East Falls Church Area Plan identifies sites in Arlington County that are likely toexperience redevelopment. The proposed development sites are shown in Figure 1.2. Theproposed development analyzed in the study may vary slightly in the type and location ofdevelopment from the proposed development in the plan; however, the proposeddevelopment in the plan will be within an order of magnitude of the overall developmentanalyzed in this study. The development analyzed in this transportation impact analysis isthe following:

790 Residential Flats (apartments and/or condominiums) 42 Residential Townhomes 110,850 square feet of Specialty Retail 49,000 square feet of General Retail (includes possible 40,000 square foot grocery

store)

Analysis MethodologyThe study considers vehicular traffic impacts of the proposed development using severalmeasures in order to best convey to the public how it will feel to travel by vehicle in EastFalls Church in the future with the proposed development in place. The measures used toanalyze vehicular traffic impacts are intersection level of service (LOS) and vehicular linkvolume to capacity ratio (V/C ratio). While each measure is accurate individually, the twomeasures present a more comprehensive summary of the impacts.

The study also considers the transportation impact on other modes of travel— walking,bicycling, and transit. The non-vehicular travel modes are assessed qualitatively.

East Falls ChurchStudy Area

East Falls Church Land Use and Transportation StudyTransportation Impact Study

Arlington, VARegional

Project Location 1.1

0 10.5Miles

0.5 miles

MAPLE AVE

COLUMBIA ST

BROAD ST

WASHINGTON ST

GREAT FALLS ST

PARK AVE

JEFFERSON ST

LITTLE FALLS ST

CHER

RY ST

LINCOLN AVE

LAWTON ST

FAIRFAX ST

ANNA

NDAL

E RD

MERIDIAN ST

GRESHAM PL

RILEY ST

NOLA

ND ST

VIRGINIA AVE

MIDVA

LE ST

FOREST DR

PARK PL

VAN BUREN ST

UNDERWOOD ST

DORCHESTER RD

BUXTON RD

OAKH

AVEN

DR

TUCKAHOE ST

KATIE

CT

LANGSTON LN

GARDEN CT

SHADOW WALK

DOUG

LAS A

VE

PENNSYLVANIA AVE

GOVERNORS CT

BISHOPS CT

FOUR MILE RUN

JAMES THURBER CT

LOUN

SBUR

Y PL

YUCA

TAN S

T

26TH ST

PARK WASHINGTON CT

16TH ST

LEE HWY

VAN BUREN ST

BROAD ST

FAIRFAX ST

COLUMBIA ST

LEE HWY

INTERSTATE 66

WASHINGTON BLVD

N SYCAMORE ST

FAIRFAX DR

RAMP

12TH ST N

22ND ST N

26TH ST N

25TH ST N

19TH ST N

16TH ST N12TH RD N

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

19TH RD N

18TH RD N

18TH ST N

N UNDERWOOD STN VAN BUREN ST

28TH ST N

11TH RD N

N ARIZONA ST

23RD ST N

N POWHATAN ST

27TH S

T N

12TH PL N

N WYOMING ST

15TH RD N

LITTL

E FAL

LS RD

24TH ST N

N WESTMORELAND ST

22ND RD N

JOHN

MAR

SHAL

L DR

21ST ST N

N YUCATAN ST

N OHIO ST

17TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

N ROCKINGHAM ST

20TH ST N

N QUA

NTICO ST

11TH ST N

N TUCKAHOE ST

N QUESADA ST

N POTOMAC ST

N WINCHESTER ST

15TH PL N

24TH RD N

N SOMERSET ST

N ROC

HEST

ER ST

27TH RD NDORCHESTER RD

N VAN BUREN CT

N VENABLE ST

N POCOMOKE ST

23RD ST N

19TH ST N

N QUANTICO ST

N QUINTANA ST

27TH RD N

N QUINTANA ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

27TH ST N

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

N POC

OMOK

E ST

25TH ST N

N WES

TMOR

ELAN

D ST

N QUA

NTICO

ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N POT

OMAC

ST

N QUINTANA ST

N POTOMAC ST

N UNDERWOOD ST

22ND RD N

LITTLE

FALL

S RD

RAMP

N SYC

AMOR

E ST

N POWHA

TAN ST

N POW

HATA

N ST

26TH ST N

RAMP

24TH ST N

RAMP

N TUCKAHOE ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

RAMP

23RD ST N

INTERSTATE 66

FAIRFAX DR

22ND RD N

N ROOSEVELT ST

18TH ST N

22ND RD N

28TH ST N

N POW

HATA

N ST

0 500250Feet

LegendMetrorail

County Line

Study AreaPotential Development Sites

East

Falls

Chu

rch L

and U

se an

d Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Stu

dyTra

nspo

rtatio

n Imp

act S

tudy

Ar

lingt

on, V

ALo

catio

n of P

ropo

sed E

ast F

alls

Chur

ch D

evelo

pmen

t

1.2



Principal Findings, Conclusions, and RecommendationsExisting Conditions–The following summarizes existing transportation conditions in thestudy area.

Vehicular: Study area intersections operate at overall LOS D or better with the exception of the

following: I-66 On-Ramp and Washington Boulevard: LOS F in the AM peak hour

Field conducted travel time surveys and observations revealed that arterials in thestudy area are congested during peak hours and queuing occurs through adjacentintersections

Study area arterial links operate at V/C ratios of less than 0.80 with the exception ofthe following:

Washington Boulevard westbound from Lee Highway to I-66 West On-Ramp:V/C ratio of 1.10 in the AM peak hour

Transit: Transit services provided are Metrorail, Metrobus, George bus, and ART bus

services Pedestrian access to the Metrorail station from the south and west is limited by I-66 Bicycle access to the Metrorail station from the north is challenging due to a lack of

facilities

Pedestrian and Bicycle: Sidewalks are in-place on most study area arterials with the exception of:

Both sides Washington Boulevard eastbound (bridge section) from LeeHighway to the Metro Park-and-Ride lot driveway

West side of Washington Boulevard northwestbound from Lee Highway to25th Street N.

The study area is proximate to the regional W&OD trail There are no striped on-street bicycle facilities in the study area

2030 Future Conditions without Development– The analysis of 2030 future conditionswithout development considers the combined effects of travel demand generated by generaltraffic growth on study streets, approved and unbuilt development, and programmedtransportation improvements.

An overall growth factor of 7.0 percent was used to adjust the existing year (2010) trafficvolumes to the future year 2030. Four approved and unbuilt developments were consideredin this study. Programmed transportation improvements considered in this study, describedin Chapter 2, are the following:

N. Washington Street streetscape in the City of Falls Church Arterial traffic management (ATM) measures on N. Sycamore in the study area ATM measures on Washington Boulevard east of the study area



I-66 spot improvements Metrorail Silver line to the Dulles Airport on which the East Falls Church Metrorail

station will be the last point of transfer between the Orange line and the Silver line Express bus service in the I-66 corridor to include stations at or near the East Falls

Church Metrorail station

The following summarizes future transportation conditions without development in the studyarea.


following: Washington Street and Broad Street: LOS E in the AM and PM peak hours Lee Highway and Westmoreland Street: LOS F in the PM peak hour I-66 On-Ramp and Washington Boulevard: LOS F in the AM peak hour

Study area arterial links operate at V/C ratios of less than 0.80 with the exception ofthe following:

Lee Highway from the Falls Church city line to Fairfax Drive/WashingtonBoulevard: V/C ratio of 1.14 in the PM peak hour

Washington Boulevard westbound from Lee Highway to I-66 West On-Ramp:V/C ratio of 1.12 in the AM peak hour

Transit: Transit services provided are Metrorail Orange and Silver lines, I-66 Express Bus,

Metrobus, George bus, and ART bus services.

Pedestrian and Bicycle: Improved streetscape on N. Washington Street in Falls Church

Key Assumptions Regarding Travel Demand of the Proposed Development– Tounderstand the impact of the proposed development on the 2030 transportation network, itstravel demand was quantified as follows:

1. Person trips were generated using the Institute of Traffic Engineer’s (ITE) TripGeneration Report, 8th Edition

2. Mode split assumptions were based on data published by WMATA and MWCOG3. Person trips were assigned to specific transportation modes based on type of

development and distance from the Metrorail station

The following were assumed with regard to mode split:

The proposed development will have a mix of land uses The proposed development will be served by a number of transit services, an

improved pedestrian network, and an improved bicycle network

2030 Future Conditions with Development– The analysis of 2030 future conditions withdevelopment considers the effect of travel demand generated by the proposed development



on the future without development transportation network (no improvements related to theproposed development or the East Falls Church Area Plan). The following summarizesfuture transportation conditions with development in the study area.


following: Washington Street and Broad Street: LOS E in the AM and PM peak hours

(minor increases in overall intersection delay compared to future conditionswithout development)

Lee Highway and Westmoreland Street: LOS F in the PM peak hour Washington Boulevard westbound and the I-66 On-Ramp: LOS F in the AM

peak hour (minor increases in delay compared to future conditions withoutdevelopment)

Washington Boulevard and the site M1 driveway: LOS F in the PM peak hour Study area arterial links operate at V/C ratios of less than 0.80 with the exception of

the following: Washington Street between Broad Street and the Arlington County Line: V/C

ratio of 0.90 in the PM peak hour Lee Highway from the Falls Church city line to Fairfax Drive/Washington

Boulevard: V/C ratio of 1.21 in the PM peak hour Washington Boulevard westbound from Lee Highway to I-66 West On-Ramp:

V/C ratio of 1.19 in the AM peak hour

Transit: No change from future conditions without development

Pedestrian and Bicycle: No change from future conditions without development

Recommended Improvements– Recommended improvements in this study are multimodalin nature and are intended to improve the transportation network for all users. The types ofimprovements recommended are described in the following:

Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Policies, strategies, and programsconsistent with County policy to promote and encourage transportation choice.Corridor Recommendations. General street recommendations to improveaccommodation of all modes of transportation (walking, bicycling, transit, andvehicular).Intersection Recommendations. Intersection modifications to improve operationand safety for all modes.Neighborhood Traffic Calming. County policy that provides a methodology toaddress, analyze, and mitigate the effect of traffic on local streets with measuresaimed at reducing vehicle speeds and increasing safety.



Transit. Recommendations for the future transit services and locations of new ormodified facilities to improve access to and between transit services.Bicycles and Pedestrians. Locations of new and modified facilities to improveconnectivity and accommodation.Parking. Curb space management guidelines, parking requirements, and otherprograms and policies to manage parking demand.

2030 Future Conditions with Development and Improvements – The analysis of 2030future conditions with development and improvements considers the effect of travel demandgenerated by the proposed development and improvements related to the proposeddevelopment contained in the plan. The following summarizes future transportationconditions with development and transportation recommendations in the study area.


following: Washington Street and Broad Street: LOS E in the AM and PM peak hours

(intersection delay similar to that of future conditions without development) Washington Boulevard westbound and the I-66 On-Ramp: LOS F in the AM

peak hour (intersection delay reduced with altered lane designations) Study area arterial links operate at V/C ratios of less than 0.80 with the following

notes: Lee Highway from the Falls Church city line to Fairfax Drive/Washington

Boulevard: V/C ratio reduced from 1.21 to 0.95 in the PM peak hour Washington Boulevard westbound from Lee Highway to I-66 West On-Ramp:

V/C ratio reduced from 1.19 to 1.16 in the AM peak hour

Transit: Improved access to the Metrorail station including the following:

Provision of proposed new western entrance with plaza, kiss-and-ride, andbus facilities

Provision of additional bicycle parking Provision of real-time transit information

Pedestrian and Bicycle: Improved intersection safety for pedestrians and bicyclists with through the use of

improved crosswalks, improved median refuges, pedestrian signalization, bicyclelanes and bicycle actuation

Sidewalks on both sides of all arterials, pedestrian space is widened or improvedthrough streetscaping on all arterials

Improved access to the W&OD trail at Sycamore Street and Lee Highway



Conclusions

With the proposed multimodal transportation improvements in place, the proposeddevelopment in the East Falls Church Area Plan can be accommodated.

Two study area intersections operate at LOS E or F under future conditions withdevelopment. The intersection of Washington Street and Broad Street is forecast to operateat LOS E in the AM and PM peak hour, but the proposed development raises theintersection delay nominally when compared to future conditions without development.Improvements that include additional lanes are not feasible at this intersection due toadjacent development.

The intersection of Washington Boulevard westbound and the I-66 On-Ramp operates atLOS F in the AM peak hour. The intersection also operates at LOS F under existingconditions. Additional widening is infeasible at this intersection and signalization would notimprove performance for the Washington Boulevard movement.

The study section of Washington Boulevard westbound from Lee Highway to the I-66 WestOn-Ramp is the only study road section that will operate with a V/C ratio of greater than 1.0under future conditions with development. This street section is constrained by theintersections of Washington Boulevard with Lee Highway and the I-66 On-Ramp. WideningWashington Boulevard would improve link operations; however, it would create substantialimpacts on property.

The vehicular network experiences some congestion under future conditions, similar to whatis currently experienced it is under existing conditions. Despite the relatively congestedoperations of the two aforementioned intersections, vehicular mobility will be maintained inthe study area. A significant increase in traffic on local streets is not anticipated due toproposed future development. In the event that traffic volumes become a concern, ArlingtonCounty has a neighborhood traffic calming program in place to reduce vehicular speed andimprove safety as warranted.

Overall mobility and safety will be improved by the addition or improvement of multimodalfacilities and services in the East Falls Church area. Recommendations in this study supportthe provision of new and improved regionally- and locally-serving transit services in thefuture. Metrorail station access will be increased with the proposed western entrance. Anetwork of on-street bicycle facilities and improved trail connections will facilitate convenientand safe movement of bicyclists. Pedestrian conditions will benefit from new connections,adequate new facilities, modifications to intersections, and more moderate vehicle speeds.



2. BACKGROUND INFORMATIONSTUDY AREAThe study area is bounded by Washington Boulevard and N. Sycamore Street to the north,E. Broad Street and Columbia Street to the south, N. Sycamore Street and Lee Highway tothe east, and Westmoreland Street, Little Falls Road, and N. Maple Avenue to the west.There are 17 existing intersections in the study area that were included in the analysis. Thestudy area and study intersections were agreed to by Arlington County and VDOT at theScope of Work Meeting on January 4, 2010. The study area and study intersections areshown in Figure 2.1. A copy of the VDOT Chapter 527 Pre-Scope of Work Meeting Formand Scope of Work Form are included in Appendix A.

DESCRIPTION OF ON-SITE DEVELOPMENTThis study asses the transportation impacts of the twelve development sites identified by theplan. The proposed development is located in the East Falls Church area of ArlingtonCounty, Virginia. The plan designates the sites A through I (including G1), M1, and M2. Thestudy uses the same designations. Table 2.1 describes proposed development sitecharacteristics.

Table 2.1: Proposed Development Site Characteristics

Site Existing UseGeneral Land

Use Plan1ExistingZoning2 Proposed Use* Access

A/BCommercial,

veterinary hospital,automobile repair shop

Low office-apartment-hotel CM

Site A: 180 residential flats67 ksf specialty retailSite B: open space

Lee Highway atintersection with

Westmoreland Street(proposed signal)

C Restaurant and hotel Low office-apartment-hotel CM 66 residential flats

8.5 ksf specialty retail Westmoreland Street

D Bank, 12-unit multi-family residential

Servicecommercial C-2 57 residential flats Washington Boulevard

(right-in, right-out)

EGas station with

convenience marketand car wash

Servicecommercial and

Low-mediumresidential

C-2 96 residential flatsLee Highway at

intersection with VanBuren Court

F Bank Servicecommercial C-O 29 residential townhomes Underwood Street

G1 Parking lot Low residential R-6 9 residential townhomes

Washington Boulevardat intersection with

Metro station driveway(proposed signal)



Table 2.1: Proposed Development Site Characteristics

Site Existing UseGeneral Land

Use Plan1ExistingZoning2 Proposed Use* Access

H Single-familyresidential Low residential R-6 4 residential townhomes

Sycamore Street northof Washington

Boulevard (right-in,right-out)

I Commercial Low office-apartment-hotel C-2 9 ksf general retail Little Falls Road south

of Lincoln Avenue

M1 Metrorail stationparking lot

Governmentand community

facilitiesS-3A

50% replacement of Metrorailstation parking

Bus operations facility350 residential flats40 ksf general retail

11.35 ksf specialty retail

Washington Boulevard(proposed signal)

M2 Metrorail station kiss-and-ride lot

Governmentand community

facilitiesS-3A Kiss-and-ride facility

41 residential flats19th Road N. north of

19th Street N.*ksf = 1,000 square feet1 Arlington County General Land Use Plan, 20042 Arlington County Zoning Ordinance, 2009

Proposed development in the small area plan is likely to vary slightly in the type, intensity,and use from the development analyzed in this study. The plan’s proposed development willbe within an order of magnitude of the studied development. The small area plan providesadditional information on existing and proposed site uses and additional informationregarding land use and zoning in East Falls Church.

The small area plan discusses a grocery store of approximately 40,000 square feet in size.The location of the proposed grocery store may be site A/B or site M1. Arlington Countyexpects that site M1 will have significantly less retail if the grocery store is not included onsite M1. The study assumes that the proposed grocery store is located on site M1 torepresents the worst-case scenario in terms of generating the highest number of vehiculartrips.

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend

Metrorail (Orange

County Line

Study Area

Approved and Unbuilt Development Location

Proposed Development Site

Travel Lane

! Existing Signal

!( Unsignalized

and Silver Lines)

Exis

tin

g La

nea

ge a

nd

Traf

fic

Con

trol

2.1



EXISTING AREA ROADWAYSKey roadways in the East Falls Church study area are described in the following:

Interstate-66 (I-66) - This east-west interstate bisects the study area. Through the studyarea, I-66 has a four-lane median-divided cross-section. The posted speed limit on I-66 inthe study area is 55 miles per hour (mph). Exit 69 is located within the study area and has adivided diamond configuration with the following points of access:

Eastbound Off-ramp: Fairfax Drive north of Lee Highway Eastbound On-ramp: N. Sycamore Street at the signalized intersection of 19th Street

N. Westbound Off-ramp: N. Sycamore Street at the signalized intersection of the East

Falls Church Metrorail station bus facility Westbound On-ramp: Washington Boulevard north of 25th Street N.

The average daily traffic on I-66 Eastbound was 69,000 vpd and 59,000 vpd to the west andeast of Exit 69, respectively1. The average daily traffic on I-66 Westbound was 67,000 vpdand 55,000 vpd to the west and east of Exit 69, respectively1.

Lee Highway (US Route 29)/N. Washington Street (US Route 29/VA Route 237) - Thisarterial is oriented northeast-southwest through the In the City of Falls Church it is called N.Washington Street, while in Arlington County it is called Lee Highway. It generally has afour-lane undivided cross-section in the study area. The posted speed limit on N.Washington Street in the study area is 30 mph. The posted speed limit on Lee Highway inthe study area is 25 mph. The average daily traffic volume on N. Washington Streetbetween Little Falls Road and the Arlington County line was approximately 24,000 vehiclesper day (vpd) in 20082. The average daily traffic volume on Lee Highway betweenWashington Boulevard and Sycamore Street was approximately 23,000 vpd in 20081. Thepredominant travel direction in the AM peak hour is northeastbound. The predominant traveldirection in the PM peak hour is southwestbound.

N. Sycamore Street/N. Roosevelt Street (VA Route 237) - This north-south arterialgenerally has a four-lane divided cross-section in the study area. In the City of Falls Churchit is called N. Roosevelt Street, while in Arlington County it is called N. Sycamore Street. Theposted speed limit on N. Roosevelt Street in the study area is 25 mph. The posted speedlimit on N. Sycamore Street in the study area is 35 mph to the south of WashingtonBoulevard and 30 mph to the north of Washington Boulevard. The average daily traffic

1 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates Jurisdiction Report: Arlington County andCity of Alexandria, VDOT, 2008.2 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates Specialty Locality Report: City of FallsChurch, VDOT, 2008.



volume on N. Sycamore Street between 17th Street N. and Lee Highway was approximately22,000 vpd in 20081. The average daily traffic volume on N. Sycamore Street between LeeHighway and 26th Street N. was approximately 12,000 vpd in 20081. The predominant traveldirection in the AM peak hour south of Washington Boulevard is northbound. Thepredominant travel direction south of Washington Boulevard in the PM peak hour issouthbound. North of Washington Boulevard, vehicular peak hour travel is generallybalanced in the northbound and southbound directions.

Fairfax Drive - This is an east-west arterial that becomes Lincoln Avenue at the FallsChurch city line. West of Little Falls Road, Fairfax Drive has a four-lane divided cross-section. Between Little Falls Road and Lee Highway, Fairfax Drive is one-way eastboundwith a three-lane cross-section. The posted speed limit on Fairfax Drive in the study area is30 mph. The average daily traffic volume on Fairfax Drive between Little Falls Road and LeeHighway (on-way eastbound) was approximately 7,000 vpd in 20081.

Washington Boulevard (VA Route 237) - This is an east-west arterial. East of LeeHighway, Washington Boulevard generally has a four-lane undivided cross-section.Between Lee Highway and the I-66 On-Ramp, Washington Boulevard is one-waywestbound with a three-lane cross section. Between the I-66 On-Ramp and WestmorelandStreet, Washington Boulevard is one-way westbound with a two-lane cross-section. Theposted speed limit on Lee Highway in the study area is 30 mph. The average daily trafficvolume on Fairfax Drive between Lee Highway and Sycamore Street was approximately30,000 vpd in 20081. The predominant travel direction on the two-way section of WashingtonBoulevard west of Sycamore Street in the AM peak hour is westbound. The predominanttravel direction on the two-way section of Washington Boulevard west of Sycamore Street inthe AM peak hour is eastbound.

EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICEThe study area is currently served by the Metrorail Orange Line, Metrobus, George, andArlington Regional Transit (ART) as described in the following:

Orange Line Average daily boardings and alightings at the East Falls Church Metrorail

station: 4,200 passengers (May 2006)3

Station access is provided along N. Sycamore Street at I-66 Metrorail station facilities include:

3 2007 Metrorail Passenger Study Final Report, WMATA, 2007.



– Bus facility with four bus bays (access provided on Sycamore Streetopposite the I-66 Off-ramp)

– Park-and-ride facility with 422 long-term spaces (access provided onWashington Boulevard west of Sycamore Street)

– Kiss-and ride facility with approximately 50 short-term metered parkingspots (access provided on 19th Street N. west of Sycamore Street)

– Bicycle racks and lockers Metrobus

Route 2A, 2B, 2C, 2G, Washington Boulevard Line (weekday, Saturday,Sunday)

Route 3A, 3B, 3E Lee Highway Line (weekday, Saturday, Sunday) Route 24T, McLean Hamlet-East Falls Church Line (weekday only)

George Bus Service (Falls Church) Route 26E, East Falls Church Loop (weekday only)

ART Service (Arlington County) Route 52, Ballston-Virginia Hospital Center-East Falls Church (weekday,

Saturday, Sunday) Route 53 Ballston Metro-Old Glebe-East Falls Church Metro (weekday only)

Existing transit services are shown in Figure 2.2.

EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORKThe study area is currently served by the Washington and Old Dominion (W&OD) regionaltrail. In addition, the following streets are designated as on-street bike routes in the studyarea:

N. Sycamore Street/N. Roosevelt Street (Yorktown Boulevard to south Falls Churchcity line)

N. Tuckahoe Street (19th Road N. to 18th Street N.) Van Buren Street (W&OD trail to Columbia Street)

The existing bicycle network is shown in Figure 2.3.

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN NETWORKSidewalks are provided on most streets in the study area as shown in Figure 2.4. ArlingtonCounty’s Master Transportation Plan (MTP) directs that arterials should have sidewalks onboth sides of the street and residential streets should have sidewalks on at least one side ofthe street. Based on guidance provided in the MTP, existing sidewalk deficiencies wereidentified and are shown in Figure 2.4.

3A 3B 3E

2A 2B 2C 2G

2A 2B 2C 2G

24T

26A 26E

3A 3B 3E

24T

26A 26E

Park-and-Ride Lot

Bus Facility

Kiss-and-RideLot

MAPLE AVE

COLUMBIA ST

BROAD ST

GREAT FALLS ST

WASHINGTON ST

PARK AVE JEFFERSON ST

LITTLE FALLS ST

LINCOLN AVE

LAWTON ST

CHER

RY ST

RILEY S

T

ANNANDALE RD

FAIRFAX S

T

VIRGINIA A

VE

MERIDIAN ST

GRESHAM PL

NOLAN

D ST

MIDVALE ST

PARK PL

VAN BUREN ST

FORE

ST DR

DORCHESTER RD

PENNSYLVANIA A

VE

OAKH

AVEN

DR

UNDERWOOD ST

GIBSON ST

LANGSTON LN

BUXTON RD

TUCKAHOE ST

GARDEN CT

SHADOW WALK

GOVERNORS CT

WALDEN CT

BISHOPS CT

JAMES THURBER CT

FOUR MILE RUN

YUCA

TAN S

T

GUND

RY DR

26TH ST

PARK WASHINGTON CT

16TH ST

LEE HWY

VIRGINIA A

VE

COLUMBIA ST

FAIRFAX ST

VAN BUREN ST

LEE HWY

INTERSTATE 66

FAIRFAX DR

RAMP

N SYCAMORE ST

22ND ST N

26TH ST N

25TH ST N

16TH ST N

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

19TH RD N

19TH ST N

N VAN BUREN ST

WASHINGTON BLVD

N UNDERWOOD ST

N ARIZONA ST

23RD ST N

28TH ST N

N POWHATAN ST

27TH S

T N18TH ST N

12TH PL N

12TH ST N

N WYOMING ST

15TH RD N

12TH RD N

LITTLE

FALLS

RD

24TH ST N

N WESTMORELAND ST

22ND RD N

21ST ST N

N YUCATAN ST

18TH RD N

17TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

N QUA

NTICO

ST

N ROCKINGHAM ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N QUESADA ST

N WINCHESTER ST

15TH PL N

24TH RD N

N POTOMAC ST

N SOMERSET ST

N FOUR MILE RUN DR


N VAN BUREN CT

N VENABLE ST

N POCOMOKE ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

LITTLE

FALLS

RD

N QUA

NTICO

ST

27TH RD N

19TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

N QUANTICO ST

INTERSTATE 66

23RD ST N

26TH ST N

N POT

OMAC

ST

25TH ST N

N QUIN

TANA

ST

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

24TH ST N

18TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

RAMP

N SYC

AMOR

E ST

22ND RD N

N TUCKAHOE ST

RAMP

RAMP

28TH ST N

RAMP

N WES

TMOR

ELAN

D ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

22ND RD N

N UNDERWOOD ST

0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet

LegendCounty Line

Study Area

Metrorail (Orange Line)

Exist

ing Tr

ansit

Netw

ork

2.2

ART Bus Stop

Metrobus or George Bus Stop

ART Bus Route

George Bus Route

Metrobus Route

East

Falls

Chu

rch L

and U

se an

d Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Stu

dyTra

nspo

rtatio

n Imp

act S

tudy

Ar

lingt

on, V

A

COLUMBIA ST

MAPLE AVE

WASHINGTON ST

BROAD ST

JEFFERSON ST

LITTLE FALLS ST

GREAT FALLS ST

PARK AVE

CHER

RY ST

LAWTON ST

LINCOLN AVE

FAIRFAX S

T

MERIDIAN ST

GRESHAM PL

NOLAN

D ST

ANNA

NDAL

E RD

MIDVA

LE ST

PARK PL

FOREST DR

VAN BUREN ST

UNDERWOOD ST

VIRGINIA A

VE

BUXTON RD

TUCKAHOE ST

DORCHESTER RD

LANGSTON LN

GARDEN CT

SHADOW WALK

RILEY ST

GOVERNORS CT

WALDEN CT

KATIE

CT

BISHOPS CT

JAMES THURBER CT

FOUR MILE RUN

LOUN

SBUR

Y PL

YUCA

TAN S

T

26TH ST

PARK WASHINGTON CT

16TH ST

LEE HWY

VAN BUREN ST

FAIRFAX ST

COLUMBIA ST

LEE HWY

INTERSTATE 66

FAIRFAX DR

RAMP

N SYCAMORE ST

22ND ST N

12TH ST N

26TH ST N

25TH ST N

19TH ST N

WASHINGTON BLVD

16TH ST N

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

19TH RD N

12TH RD N

18TH RD N

N VAN BUREN ST

18TH ST N

N UNDERWOOD ST

23RD ST N

N ARIZONA ST

11TH RD N

27TH S

T N

N POWHATAN ST

12TH PL N

N WYOMING ST

28TH ST N

15TH RD N

24TH ST N

N WESTMORELAND ST

22ND RD N

LITTLE

FALLS

RD

21ST ST N

N POT

OMAC

ST

N YUCATAN ST

17TH ST N

JOHN

MAR

SHAL

L DR

N QUINTANA ST

N QUA

NTICO

ST

N ROCKINGHAM ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

20TH ST N

N QUESADA ST

N OHIO ST

N WINCHESTER ST

15TH PL N

24TH RD N

N SOMERSET ST


N ROC

HEST

ER ST

N VAN BUREN CT

N VENABLE ST

N POCOMOKE ST

N POW

HATA

N ST

FAIRFAX DRN QUINTANA ST

RAMP

N TUCKAHOE ST

N POC

OMOK

E ST

N QUIN

TANA

ST

24TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

28TH ST N

N TUCKAHOE ST

27TH ST N

N POTOMAC ST

27TH RD N

N SYC

AMOR

E ST

19TH ST N

N UNDERWOOD ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

18TH ST N

N POTOMAC ST

RAMP

N POW

HATA

N ST

25TH ST N

26TH ST N

LITTLE

FALLS

RD

N QUANTICO ST

N WES

TMOR

ELAN

D ST

22ND RD N

N TUCKAHOE ST

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

RAMP

23RD ST N

INTERSTATE 66

RAMP

22ND RD N

N QUA

NTICO

ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

22ND RD N

23RD ST N

N POW

HATA

N ST

Exist

ing B

icycle

Netw

ork

2.3

Shared-use Trail

Bicycle Lane

On-street Bicycle Route

LegendMetrorail (Orange Line)

County Line

Study Area

0 500250Feet

W&OD Trail

W&OD Trail

East

Falls

Chu

rch L

and U

se an

d Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Stu

dyTra

nspo

rtatio

n Imp

act S

tudy

Ar

lingt

on, V

A

Exist

ing Pe

destr

ian N

etwor

k

2.4

Existing Sidewalk

Recommended SidewalkShared-use Trail

LegendMetrorail (Orange Line)County Line

Study Area

0 500250Feet

W&OD Trail

W&OD Trail

East

Falls

Chu

rch L

and U

se an

d Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Stu

dyTra

nspo

rtatio

n Imp

act S

tudy

Ar

lingt

on, V

A



CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTSAND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLANSMetrorail Silver Line - The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) isconstructing a 23-mile extension of the existing Metrorail system between East Falls Churchand Loudoun County as shown in Figure 2.5. The extension will provide high-quality, high-capacity transit service to Tysons Corner, Reston, Herndon, the Dulles Toll Road corridor,Dulles International Airport, and parts of Loudoun County.

The overall project includes 11 new stations and will be built in two phases. Phase 1,currently under construction, will run between East Falls Church and Wiehle Avenue. Phase1 is scheduled to be complete in 2013. Phase 2 will run between Wiehle Avenue andLoudoun County. A construction date has not been set for Phase 2. The East Falls ChurchMetrorail station will be the last western transfer point between the Orange Line and SilverLine.

Figure 2.5: Dulles Corridor MetrorailSource: www.dullesmetro.com

http://www.dullesmetro.com



I-66 Spot Improvements – VDOT is currently planning to construct spot improvements inthree sections along westbound I-66 between Washington D.C. and I-495. The spotimprovements will be constructed within existing right-of-way. The spot improvements willlengthen existing on- and off-ramps to create auxiliary lanes between several existinginterchanges. VDOT forecasts that the spot improvements will increase average speed inthe corridor, reduce travel times, and decrease congestion. Planning completed by VDOTindicates that the spot improvements will decrease congestion at the intersections of LeeHighway and Washington Boulevard, Lee Highway and Fairfax Drive, and Lee Highway andN. Sycamore Street. The locations of the three spot improvements are shown in Figure 2.6.

Two of the proposed spot improvement projects are within the East Falls Church study area.Section 1 extends from Fairfax Drive to Sycamore Street. As of November 2009, the designfor Section 1 was nearly complete, and the construction was expected to be advertised inJanuary 2010. Section 2 extends from Washington Boulevard to the Dulles Connector. As ofNovember 2009, the preliminary design is the only funded portion of the project.

Figure 2.6: I-66 Spot Improvement LocationsSource: www.I-66spotimprovements.com

I-66 Transit/TDM – The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) ismanaging a study to evaluate short- and medium-term transit and transportation demandmanagement (TDM) improvements along a portion of the I-66 corridor, highlighted in Figure2.7. Results of the study will be used to develop project-specific plans to implement

http://www.I-66spotimprovements.com



enhanced transit and TDM services over the next 5 to 15 years. The study is not complete;however, preliminary recommendations under consideration include new bus services suchas Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and additional automobile commuter options such ascarpooling, vanpooling, and park-and-ride.

Preliminary recommendations identified in the study in the East Falls Church area includeimprovements to traveler information systems, customer comfort and productivity amenities,express bus service on US 29, more bus service to Tyson’s Corner and Washington D.C.,and enhanced rideshare and transit information programs. In addition, East Falls Church isa potential express bus transfer station on the potential I-66 express bus corridor. The finalreport is being drafted and the study’s results will inform additional I-66 multimodal studieswhich are underway.

Figure 2.7: I-66 Transit/TDM Study AreaSource: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/I66study.aspx

N. Washington Street and Gresham Place Traffic Signal – The City of Falls Church isplanning to upgrade the existing traffic signal at the fire station driveway (offset to the northof Gresham Place) to serve both the driveway and Gresham Place.

http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/I66study.aspx



Northgate at Falls Church Development – The traffic study for this development indicatesthat a traffic signal is needed at one or both of the intersections at Lee Highway andGresham Place (Arlington County) and N. Washington Street and Jefferson Street (City ofFalls Church). Further study by Falls Church found that side street traffic on Gresham Placeand Jefferson Street did not meet signal warrants with the Northgate development in placeand that the signals in the corridor provide for long enough gaps to allow turning movementsat the two intersections.

Falls Church City Center Development –Planned improvements related to the East FallsChurch study area include installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of S. MapleAvenue with W. Broad Street, a multimodal transit station at the northwest corner of Broadand Washington Streets that will serve as a hub for all forms of transportation directlyserving the City Center, and pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and traffic calmingmeasures in the area of the development.

N. Washington Street Streetscape –Falls Church is developing a plan for a pedestrian-friendly streetscape for N. Washington Street between West Broad Street and the ArlingtonCounty line.

Arterial Transportation Management (ATM) Plan for N. Sycamore Street – The 2004study recommends the following for Sycamore Street within the study area:

Travel lanes reduced in width to allow bicycle lanes, landscaped medians, left-turnlanes, wider landscape strips, wider sidewalks, and on-street parking to be providedwithin existing right-of-way

Intersection modifications to reduce vehicle speeds and improve pedestrian andbicyclist safety

Access management through use of medians

Arterial Transportation Management Plan for Washington Boulevard – The 2004 studyrecommends the following for Sycamore Street to the east of the study area:

Travel lanes reduced in width to allow wider landscape strips and wider sidewalks tobe provided within existing right-of-way

Intersection modifications to reduce vehicle speeds and improve pedestrian andbicyclist safety



3. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONSTRAFFIC COUNTS17 intersections were identified for study. Vehicle turning movement counts were performedin February 2008 during the weekday AM (6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.), mid-day (11:00 a.m. to1:00 p.m.), and PM (4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) peak periods for the following intersections:

Washington Street (Route 237) and Broad Street Washington Street (Route 237) and Fairfax Drive Washington Boulevard and Fairfax Drive/25th Street Lee Highway (Route 29) and Washington Boulevard Lee Highway (Route 29) and Sycamore Street Washington Boulevard and Sycamore Street Sycamore Street and I-66 Westbound Ramp Sycamore Street and 19th Street/I-66 Eastbound Ramp

Counts were performed in the weekday AM (6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.) and PM (4:00 p.m. to7:00 p.m.) peak periods for the following intersections:

Lee Highway (Route 29) and Westmoreland Street Washington Boulevard and 25th Street Sycamore Street and 22nd Street Washington Street (Route 237) and Columbia Washington Street (Route 237) and Jefferson Street

The intersection of Washington Boulevard and the East Falls Church Metrorail Parking Lotdriveway has a different peak period due to the loading and unloading of the parking lot.Counts were performed at this intersection between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. and between4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

For all counted intersections, the peak traffic hour was established by identifying the peak60 minutes of traffic during each peak period at each intersection. Appendix B of this reportcontains raw turning movement count data.

Peak hour traffic volumes at intersections not identified in the aforementioned were providedby Arlington County and the City of Falls Church as part of their county- and city-wideSynchro networks.

HISTORIC TRAFFIC GROWTHVDOT’s daily traffic volume publications for 2001, 2004, and 2008 were used to assess thelevel of general traffic growth on study area streets. Table 3.1 summarizes VDOT daily trafficvolume data studies for study area streets.



Table 3.1: Summary of VDOT Daily Traffic Volume Data

Street Average Daily TrafficVolume* (Year)

Average Daily TrafficVolume* (Year)

Annual Changein Traffic

Washington Street - BroadStreet to Great Falls Road

30,300(2001)

25,000(2008)

-2.8%

Washington Street – Little FallsRoad to Arlington County Line

30,000(2001)

24,000(2008)

-3.3%

Lee Highway – Falls ChurchCity Line to Fairfax Drive

25,000(2001)

24,000(2008)

-0.5%

Lee Highway – WashingtonBoulevard to Sycamore Street

25,000(2001)

23,000(2008)

-1.2%

Sycamore Street – 17th StreetN. to Lee Highway

22,100(2004)

22,000(2008)

-0.1%

Sycamore Street – LeeHighway to 26th Street N.

12,000(2004)

12,000(2008)

0.0%

Fairfax Drive – Little Falls Roadto Lee Highway

6,700(2004)

7,100(2008)

0.9%

Washington Boulevard – LeeHighway to Sycamore Street

26,000(2001)

30,000(2008)

2.0%

E Broad Street - Lee Highway toFairfax Dr

24,600(2001)

22,000(2008)

-1.6%

W Broad Street -West Street toLee Highway

28,100(2001)

29,000(2008)

0.4%

*Volumes shown are vehicles per day, rounded to the nearest hundredSource: VDOT Daily Traffic Volume Reports for 2001, 2004, and 2008

The review of VDOT daily traffic volume data shows that daily traffic volumes on studystreets have not increased or have increased nominally since 2001. The lack of growth islikely to be attributed to minimal past development activity in the study area, the presence ofhigh-quality transit, and vehicle capacity limitations on streets.

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMESThe analysis of daily traffic volumes shows that there has been little to no growth, in manycases a decrease in daily traffic volumes, on study area streets. Based on this analysis,existing year (2010) volumes were assumed to be equal to 2008 turning movement counts.Existing (2010) peak hour volumes at study intersections are shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2for AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line

Study Area

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9a

1597 854

LeeHwy

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

## Existing AM Peak Hour Volume

Anim

alHo

spita

l

5/101235/930145/380

Lee

Hwy11

53 365 81

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

12

113

1286 9

704345

10

0 0 0

74 0 23

LeeHwy

11

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

3801179

951068

0

879940

1011000

59

43 712

149

24 589

145

Broa

dSt

151305

34

8528138 74 69

Col

umbi

aSt

WashingtonSt

4

45 50

141555

74525

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

6

431116

23

72363153

WashingtonSt

1

1451110

115570

20 95Pa

rkAv

e

WashingtonSt

2

65 160

801125

70640

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

3

211456

2

2555312

11 2 12

5

Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

87

1170259

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

154212

01350

64

0 0 0

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

45611

3031

FairfaxDr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9

2621

48 3

17

15

14

16

1418065

8710

73 68

134

408

245

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

012

14

28 752 79

132

233

7538310

803

439 76

586037824 39

410

2

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

13

30

10

18 541 10

99421

0 490

15

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

074940 3 0 15

0128660

0 0 0

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

165

367

99

6281367

Exis

ting

(201

0) A

M P

eak

Hou

r Tra

ffic

Volu

mes

56 146 82 0 2 49

40 0 49

116

629

432

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

25th St N

3.1

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line

Study Area

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

11 AM:Mid:PM:

1210 11

4 6

1 2 3

5

87

9 9a 17

15

14

16

13

76 498

104

75 718

182

Broa

dSt

6851128

123983153

WashingtonSt

75870

1051070

105

185

Park

Ave

WashingtonSt

220

90

501005

1501040

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

1393570

211242378 11

971

Col

umbi

aSt

WashingtonSt

25 25

930125

1485

45

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

15951

2

4012372514 0 11

Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

36 96 35 1 1 15

Anim

alHo

spita

l

650252

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

1136652

1827116

1 0 2

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

11715

46 0 26

258

902

490

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

745Fairfax

Dr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

230

1199 10

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

1027 419

0 0 0

62 0 19

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

37836

0

2211210

34 213 82

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

325

795 14

445719Lee

Hwy

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

220867

6668375

130

308

122 99

898

125

625

836

7 11

23310

3 515

32

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

10710192

86 440 36

170

764

253

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

054

7

27 1120 176

176

214

28553666 38

628

7 86

626629323 38

189

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

01226

10 40 0 69

1117819

0 0 0

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

25th St N

## Existing PM Peak Hour Volume

Exis

ting

(201

0) P

M P

eak

Hou

r Tra

ffic

Volu

mes

3.2



EXISTING AREA PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT AND BICYCLE TRAVELOn Wednesday, October 17 and Thursday, October 18, 2007, field observations wereconducted in the area surrounding East Falls Church Metrorail station. Field observationscentered on the collection of weekday AM and PM peak period pedestrian and bicyclemovements and counts. In consultation with Arlington County and the City of Falls Church,key intersections were selected for observation. The following describes the locations andtimes when data was collected:

Lee Highway, Westmoreland Street, Fairfax Drive, W&OD trail intersections: 6:30a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Metro station, staircase adjacent to short term parking lot at 19th Road North andTuckahoe Street: 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Unnamed trail at border of County/Falls Church: 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., 4:30 p.m. to5:00 p.m.

Sycamore Street and Washington Boulevard intersection: 7:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.,5:15 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.

Sycamore Street and 19th Street N. intersection: 8:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., 5:45 p.m. to6:15 p.m.

Washington Boulevard mid-block crossing west of the Metrorail Parking Lotdriveway: 7:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., 5:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.

Observed pedestrian and bicycle movements are summarized in Figure 3.3.

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Washington Boulevard and Sycamore Street Sycamore Street and 19th Street North North Tuckahoe Street and 19th Street North

Washington Boulevard and Metro Parking LotWashington Boulevard, Lee Highway, and W&OD Trail

Obs

erve

d Pe

dest

rian

and

Bic

ycle

Mov

emen

ts

3.3



ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analyses performed document the impact of proposed development on vehicular traffic,pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit within the study area. In this study, corridor travel timeand link volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio are measures considered in addition to intersectioncapacity analysis to document vehicular conditions. While each measure is accurateindividually, the pair of measures presents a more comprehensive summary of trafficimpacts.

The study also considers the impact of the proposed development on other modes oftravel— walking, bicycling, and transit. These travel modes are assessed qualitatively.

Conditions StudiedAnalyses were performed for the following conditions:

Existing conditions (2010) Future conditions (2030) without the proposed development Future conditions (2030) with the proposed development Future conditions (2030) with the proposed development and multimodal

transportation improvements

Vehicular Intersection Capacity AnalysisIntersection capacity analysis was conducted using Synchro Version 7, which utilizesmethodologies contained in the 2000 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) forsignalized and unsignalized intersections.

According to the HCM, capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that canpass over a particular road segment or through a particular intersection within a fixed timeduration. The operating conditions of streets and intersections are described by level ofservice (LOS). LOS is as a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions andmotorist perceptions within a traffic stream. The HCM defines six levels of service, LOS Athrough LOS F, with A being the best and F being the worst. The ranges of vehicle delay foreach level of service are shown in Table 3.2.



Table 3.2: Vehicular Level of Service Range of Delay

Level of Service(LOS)

Delay per Vehicle (seconds per vehicle)Signalized

IntersectionsUnsignalizedIntersections

A 10 10B > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15C > 20 – 35 > 15 – 25D > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50F > 80 > 50

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition

Arlington County does not have a standard for minimum acceptable vehicular level ofservice. Instead, the County endeavors to balance accommodation of pedestrians,bicyclists, transit, and vehicles.

Vehicular Link Volume-to-Capacity RatioVolume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios compare the volume on a roadway link to the capacity of thelink. A V/C ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the vehicular volume on a studied link is lessthan the theoretic vehicular capacity for the time period. A V/C ratio of 1.0 indicates thatvehicular volume equals the theoretic vehicular capacity. If the V/C ratio exceeds 1.0, thevehicular volume has exceeded the theoretic vehicular capacity.

The AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios were calculated based on the termini of each studylink. The V/C ratio is an average of the V/C ratio for each intersection lane group weightedbased on volumes. The V/C ratios, volumes, and capacities at each intersection werederived from the Synchro HCM reports used for the intersection capacity analysis.

Multimodal ConditionsConditions related to pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and parking were qualitatively examinedusing measures such as identifying facilities provided, network connectivity, and safetyconcerns.



ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONSExisting conditions analyses are based on the 2010 traffic volumes and existing intersectionlaneage and traffic control at the study intersections. Existing traffic signal timings wereobtained from Arlington County and the City of Falls Church and were used in the existingconditions analyses.

Intersection Capacity AnalysisThe results of the capacity analyses are summarized in Table 3.3. Analysis results showoverall level of service and delay information for each intersection. Figure 3.4 shows level ofservice by lane group. The Synchro HCM reports are contained in Appendix C.

Table 3.3: Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis

Intersection ExistingConditions*

1. Washington Street and Broad Street D (37) / C (32)

2. Washington Street and Park Avenue A (8) / B (12)

3. Washington Street and Great Falls Street B (10) / A (4)

4. Washington Street and Columbia Street C (29) / C (22)

5. Washington Street and Jefferson Street A (1) / A (1)

6. Washington Street /Lee Highway and Gresham Place A (3) / A (1)

7. Lee Highway and Westmoreland Street A (7) / D (50)

8. Lee Highway and Fairfax Drive C (27) / C (25)

9. Fairfax Drive/25th Street N. and Washington Boulevard A (2) / A (2)

9a. I-66 On-Ramp and Washington Boulevard F (97) / B (12)

10.Lee Highway and Washington Boulevard C (26) / C (22)

11. Lee Highway and Underwood Street A (4) / A (1)

12. Lee Highway and Sycamore Street C (22) / C (20)

13. 22nd Street N. and Sycamore Street A (3) / A (1)

14. Washington Boulevard and Sycamore Street D (41) / C (33)

15. Metro Bus facility/I-66 Off-Ramp and Sycamore Street A (8) / B (12)

16. 19th Street N./I-66 On-Ramp and Sycamore Street C (24) / B (12)

17. Washington Boulevard and Metro Park-and-Ride Lot A (1) / A (7)

* LOS (seconds of delay) AM/PM Peak HourSource: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.



The analysis shows that under existing conditions, the intersection of Washington Boulevardwestbound and the I-66 On-Ramp (Intersection 9a) operates at LOS F in the AM peak hour.All other intersections operate at overall LOS D or better. Some movements operate at lessthan LOS D under existing conditions.

Link Volume-to-Capacity RatioThe peak hour link V/C ratios are shown in Table 3.4. HCM analysis worksheets arecontained in Appendix C.

Table 3.4: Existing Link V/C Ratios

Link 2010 ExistingConditions*

Washington Street– Broad Street to Arlington County Line 0.50 (0.63)

Lee Highway– Falls Church City Line to Fairfax Drive/Washington Boulevard 0.28 (0.79)

Lee Highway– Washington Boulevard to Sycamore Street 0.47 (0.40)

Sycamore Street– Lee Highway to Washington Boulevard 0.41 (0.27)

Sycamore Street– Washington Boulevard to 19th Street 0.49 (0.32)

Washington Boulevard– Lee Highway to Sycamore Street 0.73 (0.66)

Washington Boulevard Westbound– Lee Highway to I-66 West On-Ramp 1.10 (0.71)* AM peak hour V/C ratio (PM peak hour V/C ratio)Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line

Study Area

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

Anim

alHo

spita

l

(41.

0/D

) 42.

3/D

(40.

6/D

) 42.

0/D

(103

.0/F

) 59.

2/E

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

12

(21.

6/C

) 36.

0/D

41.9/D (28.8/C)

19.3/B (26.2/C)

10

(36.5/D) 18.0/A

(12.2/B) 8.3/A

(3.6/A) 11.3/B

(2.7/A) 6.1/A

(23.

4/C

) 24.

5/C

(31.

8/C

) 51.

1/D

32.4

/C (3

3.4/

C)

45.1

/D (2

7.0/

C)

Broa

dSt

(17.0/B) 13.5/B

(18.9/B) 33.1/C

15.6/B (22.9/C)

15.5/B (12.4/B)

33.8

/C (3

1.4/

C)

Col

umbi

aSt

WashingtonSt

4

(12.

5/B)

64.

4/F

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

6

(22.0/C) 17.0/B

(25.1/C) 35.3/D

19.0/B (37.7/D)

41.3/D (21.0/C)Washington

St

1 Park

Ave

WashingtonSt

2

9.9/

A (1

2.1/

B)

126.

8/F

(60.

9/F)

(2.2/A) 2.6/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

0.0/A (0.0/A)

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

3

5

Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

87

(15.1/B) 19.5/B

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

1.5/A (66.6/E)

(15.2/B) 7.4/A

0.0/

A (4

3.3/

D)

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

4.6/A (12.6/B)

10.3/B (14.1/B)

14.1/B (21.5/C)Fairfax

Dr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9

(7.7

/A) 7

.3/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9a 17

15

14

16

(37.5/D) 45.9/D

(37.8/D) 45.1/D

(7.5

/A) 1

0.2/

B

(12.

4/B)

22.

7/C

1.0/

A (4

.4/A

)

3.5/

A (6

.5/A

)

59.5

/E (2

.5/A

)

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(3.9

/A) 3

.4/A

3.0/

A (5

.2/A

)

58.8/E (53.5/D)

59.4/E (54.3/D)

59.3/E (54.3/D)

(59.6/E) 64.7/E

(58.3/E) 63.0/E

(43.1/D) 57.2/E

(47.3/D) 76.8/E

(26.6/C) 32.8/C

(32.

1/C

) 36.

0/D

(30.

9/C

) 30.

7/C

(20.

5/C

) 13.

2/B

42.1/D (36.8/D)

44.1/D (35.9/D)

11.2

/B (1

0.4/

B)

31.4

/C (2

4.4/

C)

27.3

/C (2

3.4/

C)

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

13

(17.0/C) 14.0/B

(8.4

/A) 8

.4/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

16.2/C (13.7/B)

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

8.8/

A (8

.4/A

)

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

(297

.5/F

) 71.

2/F

(16.

0/C

) 11.

9/B

0.0/A (0.0/A)

2.5/A (1.0/A)

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

46.2

/D (4

3.2/

D)

48.5

/D (4

6.9/

D)

98.0

/F (6

0.2/

E)8.8/A (6.5/A)

12.4/B (6.9/A)

Exis

ting

AM a

nd P

M P

eak

Hou

r Int

erse

ctio

nLe

vels

of S

ervi

ce

(28.

0/C

) 35.

8/D

(48.

4/D

) 44.

4/D

34.8

/C (3

2.1/

C)

45.1

/D (4

1.2/

D)

48.2

/D (4

3.2/

D)

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

25th St N

LeeHwy

40.8

/D (3

3.6/

C)

48.6

/D (4

0.9/

D)

(9.7/A) 4.8/A

6.2/A (8.0/A)

(0.8/A) 0.7/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

0.8/A (0.8/A)

17.5

/C (1

4.3/

B)

(10.

6/B)

14.

6/B

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

1.7A (1.9/A)

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

43.1

/A (2

1.6/

A)

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

11

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

(1.8/A) 6.2/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

0.0/A (0.0/A)

(17.

0/C

) 149

.49/

F

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

AM Vehicle Delay/LOS (PM VehicleDelay/LOS)

AM|PM Signalized Intersection Levelof Service

AM|PM Unsignalized IntersectionLevel of Service

26.6/C (19.9/B)

LOS A or B

LOS C or D

LOS E or F

3.4



All study links, with the exception of Washington Boulevard westbound between LeeHighway and the I-66 West On-Ramp operate at a V/C ratio of less than 0.80 during the AMand PM peak hours.

Westbound Washington Boulevard between Lee Highway and the I-66 On-Ramp operatesat a V/C ratio of 1.10 during the AM peak hour.

Other study links with V/C ratios of 0.60 or higher are Washington Street in the AM peakhour, Lee Highway between the Falls Church city line and Fairfax Drive/WashingtonBoulevard in the AM peak hour, and Washington Boulevard between Lee Highway andSycamore Street in the AM and PM peak hours.

Transit ConditionsThe Metrorail station is accessible by walking, bicycling, bus, kiss-and-ride, and park-and-ride. Issues related to these modes of access follow.

To the north and east, the Metrorail station enjoys relatively easy pedestrian access. Withthe exception of some major intersections, most streets have sidewalks and allow for acomfortable walk to the station. To the southwest, pedestrian access is somewhat morelimited due to a the station entrance location and impediments to access such as I-66, lackof sidewalk on the Washington Boulevard bridge, and the grade between the W&OD trail,18th Road N., and the Metrorail station. The 2002 East Falls Church Metrorail StationAccess Study shows that only 16 percent of responding customers who walk to the stationin the AM peak period originated from the west. 11 percent of responding customers walkeda distance of less than one-half mile to the station.

In 2007, over 100 bicyclists were observed at the Metrorail station and bicycle racks werefull during pedestrian and bicycle field observations for this study. 2002 WMATA data showsthat 64 percent of bicycle lockers and 98 percent of bicycle racks at the station wereutilized4.Four percent of peak hour users accessed the station via bicycle, based on 2007WMATA data. Station access from the west is circuitous. There is no safe route to accessthe station from the north by bicycle.

The Metrorail station has a bus facility, providing an off-street waiting area for up to fourbuses. Bus feeder service is provided by Metrobus, George bus, and ART. Bus transfersaccount for up to 23 percent of PM peak hour station egress.

The Metrorail station has both park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride facilities. There are 422 long-term spaces for Metro riders. The parking lot was observed to be full by 7:30 a.m., and many

4 Station Access and Capacity Study, WMATA, 2008.



spaces are observed to be available in the late afternoon for Metro riders travelling towardWashington D.C. in the evening. The Metrorail Station Access Study found that 71 percentof customers who used the park-and-ride lot originated to the south and west of theMetrorail station. 23 percent of park-and-ride customers traveled a distance of greater than5 miles to get to the station. Only 30 percent of the park-and-ride customers originated in zipcode boundaries within Arlington County or the City of Falls Church. A majority of thesecustomers (57 percent) originated from zip code boundaries within Fairfax County.

Bicycle ConditionsThere are some existing bicycle facilities in the study area. The W&OD trail runs through thestudy area, though it is disjointed at Sycamore Street. There are no on-street bicyclefacilities in the study area. Issues related to bicycle travel follow.

There is no convenient way for a bicyclist to access the W&OD trail from north of I-66.Pedestrian and bicycle observations showed that few bicyclists arrived at or departed fromthe Metrorail station via the north.

The W&OD trail intersects with Lee Highway at grade near the intersection with FairfaxDrive. There are issues with the existing crossing configuration. The bicycle crossing on thesouth leg of the intersection conflicts with the heavy right-turn movement from Fairfax Driveto Lee Highway. Many bicyclists were observed to be riding down the middle of LeeHighway between Fairfax Drive and N. Westmoreland Street.

Pedestrian ConditionsThe pedestrian conditions assessment related to intersection crosswalks, mid-blockcrossings, and sidewalks is summarized in this section. Most signalized intersections in thestudy area that have crosswalks also have pedestrian countdown heads. To address thosethat do not, Arlington County has a standing maintenance program that upgradesintersections without countdown heads annually. The following intersections in the studyhave very wide approaches that increase pedestrian crossing time and exposure:

Lee Highway and Fairfax Drive/Washington Boulevard Lee Highway and Washington Boulevard Lee Highway and Sycamore Street Washington Boulevard and Sycamore Street Lee Highway and Metrorail station bus facility driveway/I-66 Off-Ramp Lee Highway and 19th Street N./I-66 On-Ramp

There are locations in the study area where pedestrians cross mid-block. A location of majorconcern is Washington Boulevard near the Metro Park-and-Ride lot driveway.



Arlington County has a policy that sidewalks must be provided on both sides of all arterialstreets and at least one side of residential streets. With guidance from this policy, locationswith missing sidewalks or sidewalks in the study area include the following:

Washington Boulevard eastbound bridge section (both sides of the street) Washington Boulevard between bridge section and Metro Park-and-Ride lot

driveway (south side of the street) Washington Boulevard Northwestbound between Lee Highway and 25th Street N.

(west side of the street)

Locations in the study area with observed sidewalk deficiencies include the following:

Lee Highway between Fairfax Drive and City of Falls Church Line – many drivewaycreate conflicts between pedestrian and vehicles (north side of the street)

Lee Highway between Washington Boulevard and N. Underwood Street – manydriveway create conflicts between pedestrian and vehicles (south side of the street)

On-street Parking ConditionsOn-street parking regulations in the study area vary. Residential permit-only parkingregulations restrict non-residents from parking on most residential streets in the area. Curbspaces are generally not used by the residents during the day.



4. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENTHISTORIC AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC GROWTHVDOT’s daily traffic volume publications as well as the MWCOG travel demand model wereused to assess the future level of growth on study area streets. Table 4.1 summarizes dataavailable from VDOT’s daily counts and MWCOG’s model forecasts for study area streets.

Table 4.1: Summary of VDOT Daily Traffic Volumes andMWCOG Travel Forecasting Model Projections

2004VDOT

AverageDaily

Traffic*

2008VDOT

AverageDaily

Traffic*

AnnualChange

inTraffic**

(VDOT)

2010Model

AverageDaily

Traffic*

2030Model

AverageDaily

Traffic*

AnnualChange

inTraffic**

(Model)Lee Highway– Falls Church City Line to

Washington Boulevard 26,500 24,000 -2.4% 39,500 44,400 0.6%

Lee Highway– Washington Boulevard toSycamore Street 26,100 23,000 -3.1% 55,400 55,800 0.0%

Sycamore Street– 17th Street N. to LeeHighway 22,100 22,000 -0.1% 39,700 43,100 0.4%

Sycamore Street– Lee Highway to 26thStreet N. 11,900 12,000 0.1% 31,200 33,500 0.4%

Washington Boulevard & Fairfax Drive–Westmoreland Street to Lee Highway 29,000 30,000 0.9% 22,400 22,800 0.1%

Washington Boulevard– Lee Highway toSycamore Street 9,400 9,400 0.0% 15,900 18,600 0.8%

Weighted AverageAnnual Change in Traffic (2004 to 2008) -0.88% (2010 to 2030) 0.34%

Projected 20 Year Growth 7.0%*Volumes are shown in vehicles per day, rounded to the nearest hundred**Average annual change in traffic weighted based on the daily traffic volume of the later yearSources: VDOT Average Daily Traffic Volume Reports, 2004 and 2008MWCOG Travel Forecasting Model loaded highway networks for future years 2010 and 2030

Review of VDOT daily traffic volumes shows zero or negative growth on study area arterials,with the exception of Washington Boulevard from Lee Highway to Sycamore Street andFairfax Drive from Little Falls Road to Washington Boulevard. These two links connect theeastbound ramps of the split I-66 interchange in the study area and form a parallel route toeastbound I-66 between Westmoreland Street and Sycamore Street. Volumes on eastboundI-66 between Westmoreland Street and Sycamore Street have declined slightly over asimilar time period.

MWCOG’s regional travel forecasting model projections show some that growth occurs onthe study area roads of Lee Highway, Sycamore Street, and Washington Boulevardbetween 2010 and 2030. The average annual growth on these links, weighted based on2030 volume projections, is 0.34 percent.



TRAFFIC VOLUMESFuture without development traffic volumes represent future traffic that would travel throughthe area intersections without the proposed development in East Falls Church. The futuretraffic volumes without development were developed by applying a growth factor torepresent general traffic growth and by adding traffic generated by approved and unbuiltdevelopments as described in the following.

General Traffic Growth- Based on VDOT daily traffic volumes and projected model dailytraffic volumes, an annual growth rate of 0.34 percent was used to adjust Existing Year(2010) traffic volumes to the Build-out Year (2030). This results in a total growth of 7.0percent over the 20-year period. The growth rate was not applied to local streets in the studyarea or to turning movements to and from local streets. The growth rate was applied to thefollowing streets:

Broad Street Fairfax Drive Lee Highway

Little Falls Road Sycamore Street Washington Boulevard

N. Washington Street I-66 Eastbound Ramps I-66 Westbound Ramps

The 2030 base traffic volumes at study intersections are shown in Figure 4.1 for the AMpeak hour and Figure 4.2 for the PM peak hour.

Approved and Unbuilt Development Vehicular Traffic- There are developments in theEast Falls Church study area that are currently approved, but are unbuilt. The trafficgenerated by these developments is not accounted for in the existing traffic volumes, butwas assumed to be in place in the future year 2030. The approved and unbuiltdevelopments included in this analysis are summarized in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Approved and Unbuilt Developments

Development Name Future Development* AccessRose/Westmoreland Residential 128 residential flats, 8.248 ksf specialty retail Westmoreland StreetTax Analyst Property 205 residential flats, 8.5 ksf specialty retail Westmoreland Street

FallsChurchCityCenter

Phase I

134 adult housing units, 3.298 ksf bank with drivethrough, 43.8 ksf bowling center (existing to

remain),4.8 ksf high-turnover restaurant, 180 hotel rooms

76.37 ksf office, 55.591 ksf specialty retail

Various locations onMaple Avenue andAnnandale Road

Phase II412 apartments, 58.85 ksf grocery store, 5.0 ksf

high-turnover restaurant, 11.75 ksf specialtyretail, 16 townhouses

Northgate at Falls Church 95 apartments, 10 townhouses,22.9 ksf retail, 14.452 ksf office

Jefferson Street andColumbia Street

*ksf = 1000 square feetSources: Rose/Westmoreland Traffic Impact Study, Tax Analyst Property Traffic Impact Study, Falls Church City Center

Traffic Impact Study, Northgate at Falls Church Traffic Impact Study

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line

Study Area

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

LeeHwy

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

XX (XX) [XX] Existing (Growth) [2030 Base]AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Anim

alHo

spita

l

5/101235/930145/380

[19] 23[0] 0

[62] 74

[37]

95

[836

] 106

8[0

] 0

0 [0]0 [0]0 [0]

UnderwoodSt

Lee

Hwy11 AM:

Mid:PM:

[57]

(4) 5

3[3

91] (

26) 3

65[8

7] (6

) 81

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

12

[121

] (8)

113

[137

6] (9

0) 1

286

[10]

(1) 9

704 (49) [753]345 (24) [369]

10

[0] (

0) 0

[0] (

0) 0

[0] (

0) 0

74 (0

) [74

]0

(0) [

0]23

(0) [

23]

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

11

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

[407] (27) 380[1262] (83) 1179

[95] (0) 95[1143] (75) 1068

[0] (0) 0

87 (0) [87]994 (70) [1064]0 (0) [0]

[108] (7) 101[1070] (70) 1000

[63] (4) 59

[46]

(3) 4

3[7

62] (

50) 7

12[1

59] (

10) 1

49

24 (2

) [26

]58

9 (4

1) [6

30]

145

(10)

[155

]

Broa

dSt

[15] (0) 15[1397] (92) 1305

[34] (0) 34

8 (0) [8]528 (37) [565]13 (0) [13]8

(0) [

8]74

(0) [

74]

69 (0

) [69

] Col

umbi

aSt

WashingtonSt

4

[45]

(0) 4

5[5

0] (0

) 50

[1514] (99) 1415[55] (0) 55

745 (52) [797]25 (0) [25]

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

6

[46] (3) 43[1194] (78) 1116

[25] (2) 23

72 (5) [77]363 (25) [388]153 (11) [164]

WashingtonSt

1

[145] (0) 145[1188] (78) 1110

115 (0) [115]570 (40) [610]

20 (0

) [20

]95

(0) [

95]

Park

Ave

WashingtonSt

2

65 (0

) [65

]16

0 (0

) [16

0]

[80] (0) 80[1204] (79) 1125

70 (0) [70]640 (45) [749]

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

3

[21] (0) 21[1558] (102) 1456

[2] (0) 2

25 (0) [25]553 (39) [592]12 (0) [12]

11 (0

) [11

]2

(0) [

2]12

(0) [

12]

5

Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

87

[1252] (82) 1170[277] (18) 259

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

1 (0) [1]542 (38) [580]12 (0) [12]

[0] (0) 0[1445] (95) 1350

[64] (0) 64

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

456 (32) [488]11 (1) [12]

303 (0) [303]1 (0) [1]

FairfaxDr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9

[26]

(0) 2

6[2

299]

(151

) 214

8[3

] (0)

3

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9a

[170

9] (1

12) 1

597

[914

] (60

) 854

17

15

14

16

[141] (0) 141[80] (0) 80[65] (0) 65

[87]

(0) 8

7[1

148]

(75)

107

3[7

3] (5

) 68

134

(0) [

134]

408

(29)

[437

]24

5 (1

7) [2

62]

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

[0] (

0) 0

[129

9] (8

5) 1

214

28 (0

) [28

]75

2 (5

3) [8

05]

79 (6) [85]1 (0) [1]32 (2) [34]

[23] (0) 23[3] (0) 3

[7] (0) 7[576] (38) 538[332] (22) 310

[859

] (56

) 803

[470

] (31

) 439

[81]

(5) 7

6

58 (4) [62]603 (42) [645]78 (5) [83]24

(2) [

26]

394

(28)

[422

]10

2 (7

) [10

9]

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

13

[3] (0) 3[0] (0) 0

[10] (0) 10

[18]

(0) 1

8[5

79] (

38) 5

41[1

0] (0

) 10

99 (0) [99]4 (0) [4]21 (0) [21]

0 (0

) [0]

490

(34)

[524

]15

(0) [

15]

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

[0] (0) 0[802] (53) 749

[40] (0) 40

[3] (

0) 3

[0] (

0) 0

[15]

(0)

15

0 (0) [0]1286 (90) [1376]60 (0) [60]

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

165

(12)

[177

]36

7 (2

6) [3

93]

99 (7

) [10

6]

62 (4) [66]813 (57) [870]67 (5) [72]

2030

Bas

e AM

Pea

k H

our T

raffi

c Vo

lum

es

[56]

(0) 5

6[1

46] (

0) 1

46[8

2] (0

) 82

[0] (

0) 0

[2] (

0) 2

[49]

(0) 4

9

[40]

(0) 4

0[0

] (0)

0[4

9] (0

) 49

116

(8) [

124]

629

(44)

[673

]43

2 (3

0) [4

62]

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

25th St N

4.1

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line

Study Area

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

11 AM:Mid:PM:

1210 11

4 6

1 2 3

5

87

9 9a 17

15

14

16

13

[81]

(5) 7

6[5

33] (

35) 4

98[1

11] (

7) 1

04

75 (5

) [80

]71

8 (5

0) [7

68]

182

(13)

[195

]

Broa

dSt

[73] (5) 68[547] (36) 511

[30] (2) 28

123 (9) [132]983 (69) [1052]153 (11) [164]

WashingtonSt

[75] (0) 75[931] (61) 870

105 (0) [105]1070 (75) [1145]

105

(0) [

105]

185

(0) [

185] Pa

rkAv

e

WashingtonSt

220

(0) [

220]

90 (0

) [90

]

[50] (0) 50[1076] (71) 1005

150 (0) [150]1040 (73) [1113]

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

[13] (0) 13[1001] (66) 935

[70] (0) 70

21 (0) [21]1242 (87) [1329]37 (0) [37]8

(0) [

8]11

9 (0

) [11

9]71

(0) [

71] C

olum

bia

St

WashingtonSt

[25]

(0) 2

5[2

5] (0

) 25

[995] (65) 930[125] (0) 125

1485 (104) [1589]45 (0) [45]

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

[15] (0) 15[1018] (67) 951

[2] (0) 2

40 (0) [40]1237 (87) [1324]25 (0) [25]14

(0) [

14]

0 (0

) [0]

11(0

) [11

] Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

[36]

(0) 3

6[9

6] (0

) 96

[35]

(0) 3

5

[1] (

0) 1

[1] (

0) 1

[15]

(0) 1

5

Anim

alHo

spita

l

[696] (46) 650[270] (18) 252

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

1 (0) [1]1366 (96) [1462]52 (0) [52]

[1] (0) 1[885] (58) 827[116] (0) 116

1 (0

) [1]

0 (0

) [0]

2 (0

) [2]

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

1170 (82) [1252]15 (1) [16]

[46]

(0) 4

6[0

] (0)

0[2

6] (0

) 26

258

(18)

[276

]90

2 (6

3) [9

65]

490

(34)

[524

]

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

74 (0) [74]5 (0) [5]Fairfax

Dr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

[230

] (0)

230

[128

3] (8

4) 1

199

[10]

(0) 1

0

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

[109

9] (7

2) 1

027

[448

] (29

) 419

[0] (

0) 0

[0] (

0) 0

[0] (

0) 0

62 (0

) [62

]0

(0) [

0]19

(0) [

19]

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

[37] (0) 37[895] (59) 836

[0] (0) 0

22 (0) [22]1121 (79) [1200]0 (0) [0]

[36]

(2) 3

4[2

28] (

15) 2

13[8

8] (6

) 82

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

[348

] (23

) 325

[851

] (56

) 795

[15]

(1) 1

4

445 (31) [476]719 (51) [770]Lee

Hwy

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

[235] (15) 220[928] (61) 867

[71] (5) 66[731] (48) 683

[80] (5) 75

130

(9) [

139]

308

(22)

[330

]12

2 (9

) [13

1]

99 (7) [106]898 (63) [961]125 (9) [134]

[6] (0) 6[2] (0) 2[5] (0) 5

[8] (

0) 8

[393

] (26

) 367

[11]

(0) 1

1

23 (0) [23]3 (0) [3]10 (0) [10]

3 (0

) [3]

515

(36)

[551

]32

(0) [

32]

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

[107] (0) 107[101] (0) 101

[92] (0) 92

[86]

(0) 8

6[4

71] (

31) 4

40[3

9] (3

) 36

170

(0) [

170]

764

(54)

[818

]25

3 (1

8) [2

71]

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

[0] (

0) 0

[585

] (38

) 547

27 (0

) [27

]11

20 (7

9) [1

199]

176 (12) [188]1 (0) [1]76 (5) [81]

[21] (0) 21[4] (0) 4

[30] (2) 28[592] (39) 553[713] (47) 666

[413

] (27

) 386

[307

] (20

) 287

[92]

(6) 8

6

62 (4) [66]662 (47) [709]93 (7) [100]23

(2) [

25]

381

(27)

[408

]89

(6) [

95]

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

[0] (0) 0[1312] (86) 1226

[10] (0) 10

[40]

(0) 4

0[0

] (0)

0[6

9] (

0) 6

9

1 (0) [1]1178 (83) [1261]19 (0) [19]

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

25th St N

XX (XX) [XX] Existing (Growth) [2030 Base]PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

2030

Bas

e PM

Pea

k H

our T

raffi

c Vo

lum

es

4.2



The locations of the developments are shown in Figure 4.3. The approved traffic impactstudies for the approved and unbuilt developments were used to determine the number ofvehicular trips generated by the developments. The vehicular trips generated by theapproved and unbuilt developments are shown in Table 4.3. The traffic impact analysis tripgeneration sheets are in Appendix D.

Table 4.3: Approved and Unbuilt Development Vehicle Trip Generation

Development AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour DailyTotal In Out Total In Out

Rose/Westmoreland Residential1 44 10 34 72 43 29 790Tax Analyst Property2 62 12 50 114 67 47 838Falls Church City Center Phase I3 428 280 148 662 275 388 7,067Falls Church City Center Phase II3 422 173 248 863 477 385 8,899Northgate at Falls Church4 91 43 48 162 80 82 1,807

Total 1,047 518 528 1,873 942 931 19,4011 Assumes 40% non-auto mode split for residential, 15% non-auto mode split for retail, and 10% non-auto mode

split for office2 Assumes 40% non-auto mode split for residential and15% non-auto mode split for retail3 Assumes 5% transit reduction for all uses, 5% pass-by reduction for retail, and internal capture as calculated

using the ITE Trip Generation Manual methodology4 Assumes 5% transit reduction for residential and 2% pass-by reduction for retailSources: Rose/Westmoreland Traffic Impact Study, Tax Analyst Property Traffic Impact Study, Falls Church City

Center Traffic Impact Study, Northgate at Falls Church Traffic Impact Study

The vehicular trips generated by the approved and unbuilt developments were assigned tothe study area links and intersections based on the assignments in the traffic impact studiesfor each development. The total approved and unbuilt development trips at studyintersections are shown in Figure 4.4 for the AM peak hour and Figure 4.5 for the PM peakhour. The vehicular trip assignment figures from each traffic impact study are provided inAppendix D.

Future without Development Traffic Volumes – Future without development trafficvolumes were calculated by adding the vehicular trips generated by approved and unbuiltdevelopments to 2030 base traffic volumes. The future without development traffic volumesat study intersections are shown in Figure 4.4 for the AM peak hour and Figure 4.5 for thePM peak hour.

Rose/Westmoreland ResidentialTax Analyst Property

Falls Church City Center

Northgate at Falls Church

MAPLE AVE

COLUMBIA ST

BROAD ST

WASHINGTON ST

GREAT FALLS ST


LITTLE FALLS ST

CHER

RY ST

LINCOLN AVE

LAWTON ST

RILEY ST

ANNANDALE RD

FAIRFAX ST

VIRGINIA AVE

NOLA

ND ST

GRESHAM PL

MERIDIAN ST

MIDVA

LE ST

FOREST DR

VAN BUREN ST

UNDERWOOD ST

PARK PL

TUCKAHOE ST

BUXT

ON RD

11TH ST

HILLWOOD AVE

DORCHESTER RD

PENNSYLVANIA AVE

KATIE

CT

OAKH

AVEN

DR

GIBSON ST

DOUG

LAS A

VE

LANGSTON LN

GARDEN CT

SHADOW WALK

SYCAMORE ST

GOVERNORS CT

WALDEN CT

BISHOPS CT

FOUR MILE RUN

JAMES THURBER CT

LOUN

SBUR

Y PL

YUCA

TAN S

T

26TH ST

PARK WASHINGTON CT

16TH ST

LEE HWY

FAIRFAX ST

COLUMBIA ST

VIRGINIA AVE

VAN BUREN ST

BROAD ST 11TH ST

LEE HWY

INTERSTATE 66

FAIRFAX DR

RAMPN SYCAMORE ST

22ND ST N

12TH ST N

25TH ST N

16TH ST N

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

19TH ST N

19TH RD N

26TH ST N

N VAN BUREN ST

WASHINGTON BLVD

23RD ST N

N UNDERWOOD ST

18TH ST N

12TH PL N

N WYOMING ST

15TH RD N

N ARIZONA ST

11TH ST N

12TH RD N

N POWHATAN ST

24TH ST N

N WESTMORELAND ST

11TH RD N

22ND RD N

21ST ST N

18TH RD N

N YUCATAN ST

LITTLE

FALL

S RD

27TH S

T N

17TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

N QUA

NTICO ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N POT

OMAC

ST

N ROC

HEST

ER ST

N QUESADA ST

N WINCHESTER ST

15TH PL N

24TH RD N

N SOMERSET ST

N ROCKINGHAM ST


N VAN BUREN CT

N VENABLE ST

N POCOMOKE ST

INTERSTATE 66

N QUANTICO ST

24TH ST N

N TUCKAHOE ST

27TH RD N

N QUANTICO ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N QUINTANA ST

N POTOMAC ST

18TH ST N

N QUA

NTICO

ST

26TH ST N

N UNDERWOOD ST

RAMP

19TH ST N

N QUIN

TANA

ST

25TH ST N

N WES

TMOR

ELAN

D ST

N SYC

AMOR

E ST

RAMP

27TH ST N

RAMP

22ND RD N

N TUCKAHOE ST

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

RAMP

23RD ST N

LITTL

E FAL

LS RD

22ND RD N

N TUCKAHOE ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

0 500250Feet

LegendMetrorail (Orange Line)County LineStudy AreaApproved and Unbuilt Development Location

Loca

tions

of A

ppro

ved a

nd U

nbuil

t Dev

elopm

ents

4.3

East

Falls

Chu

rch L

and U

se an

d Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Stu

dyTra

nspo

rtatio

n Imp

act S

tudy

Ar

lingt

on, V

A



ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENTIntersection capacity and V/C ratio analyses were conducted for future traffic volumeswithout development at study intersections. Existing intersection laneage and traffic controlat study area intersections were used in the analysis, except for the following transportationimprovements:

I-66 Spot improvements for the On-ramp to Westbound I-66 at WashingtonBoulevard

Two lanes on the ramp Intersection of Washington Boulevard and the I-66 On-ramp modified to

provide a left turn lane, a shared left-through lane, and a through lane Traffic signal at the fire station driveway modified to serve Gresham Place as

described in the Northgate at Falls Church Development section of Chapter 2

Intersection Capacity AnalysisIntersection capacity analysis was performed using existing signalized intersection phasingand timings. The results of the capacity analyses are summarized in Table 4.4. Analysisresults show overall level of service and delay information for each intersection for theexisting and future without development traffic volumes. Figure 4.6 shows level of service bylane group. The Synchro HCM reports are contained in Appendix E.

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line

Study Area

Approved and Unbuilt Development Site

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

LeeHwy

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

XX (XX) [XX] 2030 Base (Approved & UnbuiltDevelopment Trips) [2030 Futurewithout Development] AM Peak HourTraffic Volumes

Anim

alHo

spita

l

5/101235/930145/380

[19] 23[0] 0

[62] 74

[37]

95

[836

] 106

8[0

] 0

0 [0]0 [0]0 [0]

87 [2

2]99

4 [1

121]

0 [0

]

UnderwoodSt

Lee

Hwy11 AM:

Mid:PM:

[57]

(0) 5

7[3

91] (

0) 3

91[8

7] (0

) 87

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

12

[151

] (30

) 121

[137

6] (0

) 137

6[1

0] (0

) 10

753 (0) [753]369 (61) [430]

10

[0] (

0) 0

[0] (

0) 0

[0] (

0) 0

74 (0

) [74

]0

(0) [

0]23

(0) [

23]

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

11

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

[446] (39) 407[1335] (73) 1262

[95] (0) 95[1216] (73) 1143

[0] (0) 0

87 (0) [87]1064 (61) [1125]0 (0) [0]

[140] (32) 108[1111] (41) 1070

[63] (0) 63

[104

] (58

) 46

[833

] (71

) 762

[163

] (4)

159

26 (1

5) [4

1]63

0 (8

2) [7

12]

155

(45)

[200

]

Broa

dSt

[15] (0) 15[1485] (88) 1397

[34] (0) 34

8 (0) [8]565 (110) [675]13 (0) [13]8

(0) [

8]74

(0) [

74]

69 (0

) [69

] Col

umbi

aSt

WashingtonSt

4

[45]

(0) 4

5[5

0] (0

) 50

[1612] (98) 1514[55] (0) 55

797 (116) [913]25 (0) [25]

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

6

[90] (44) 46[1233] (39) 1194

[49] (24) 25

77 (37) [114]388 (69) [457]164 (4) [168]

WashingtonSt

1

[145] (0) 145[1276] (88) 1188

115 (0) [115]610 (110) [720]

20 (0

) [20

]95

(0) [

95]

Park

Ave

WashingtonSt

2

65 (0

) [65

]16

0 (0

) [16

0]

[80] (0) 80[1292] (88) 1204

70 (0) [70]685 (110) [795]

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

3

[21] (0) 21[1644] (86) 1558

[2] (0) 2

25 (0) [25]592 (95) [687]12 (21) [33]11

(0) [

11]

2 (1

) [3]

12 (0

) [12

]

5

Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

87

[1364] (112) 1252[303] (26) 277

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

1 (0) [1]580 (111) [691]12 (11) [23]

[0] (0) 0[1541] (96) 1445

[66] (2) 64

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

488 (91) [579]12 (0) [12]

303 (0) [303]1 (0) [1]Fairfax

Dr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9

[26]

(0) 2

6[2

338]

(39)

228

6[3

] (0)

3

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9a

[174

0] (3

1) 1

709

[922

] (8)

914

17

15

14

16

[141] (0) 141[114] (34) 80

[65] (0) 65

[87]

(0) 8

7[1

148]

(0) 1

148

[73]

(0) 7

3

134

(9) [

143]

437

(0) [

437]

262

(0) [

262]

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

[0] (

0) 0

[129

9] (0

) 129

9

28 (0

) [28

]80

5 (0

) [80

5]

85 (0) [85]1 (9) [10]34 (0) [34]

[23] (0) 23[3] (0) 3

[7] (0) 7[602] (26) 576[332] (0) 332

[859

] (0)

859

[470

] (0)

470

[81]

(0) 8

1

62 (0) [62]645 (30) [675]83 (0) [83]26

(0) [

26]

422

(0) [

422]

109

(0) [

109]

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

13

[3] (0) 3[0] (0) 0

[10] (0) 10

[18]

(0) 1

8[5

79] (

0) 5

79[1

0] (0

) 10

99 (0) [99]4 (0) [4]21 (0) [21]

0 (0

) [0]

524

(0) [

524]

15 (0

) [15

]

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

[0] (0) 0[828] (26) 802

[40] (0) 40

[3] (

0) 3

[0] (

0) 0

[15]

(0)

15

0 (0) [0]1376 (30) [1406]60 (0) [60]

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

177

(30)

[207

]39

3 (0

) [39

3]10

6 (0

) [10

6]

66 (0) [66]870 (31) [901]72 (0) [72]

2030

Fut

ure

With

out D

evel

opm

ent

AM P

eak

Hou

r Tra

ffic

Volu

mes

[56]

(0) 5

6[1

46] (

0) 1

46[8

2] (0

) 82

[15]

(15)

0[3

] (1)

2[6

1] (1

2) 4

9

[45]

(5) 4

0[0

] (0)

0[9

1] (4

2) 4

9

124

(31)

[155

]67

3 (0

) [67

3]46

2 (0

) [46

2]

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

25th St N

4.4

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line

Study Area

Approved and Unbuilt Development Site

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

11 AM:Mid:PM:

1210 11

4 6

1 2 3

5

87

9 9a 17

15

14

16

13

[154

] (73

) 81

[661

] (12

8) 5

33[1

18] (

7) 1

11

80 (4

8) [1

28]

768

(158

) [92

6]19

5 (8

3) [2

78]

Broa

dSt

[156] (83) 73[641] (94) 547

[85] (55) 30

132 (69) [201]1052 (95) [1147]164 (6) [170]

WashingtonSt

[75] (0) 75[1115] (184) 931

105 (0) [105]1145 (170) [1315]

105

(0) [

105]

185

(0) [

185] Pa

rkAv

e

WashingtonSt

220

(0) [

220]

90 (0

) [90

]

[50] (0) 50[1260] (184) 1076

150 (0) [150]1113 (170) [1283]

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

[13] (0) 13[1185] (184) 1001

[70] (0) 70

21 (0) [21]1329 (170) [1499]37 (0) [37]8

(0) [

8]11

9 (0

) [11

9]71

(0) [

71] C

olum

bia

St

WashingtonSt

[25]

(0) 2

5[2

5] (0

) 25

[1194] (199) 995[125] (0) 125

1589 (185) [1774]45 (0) [45]

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

[15] (0) 15[1197] (179) 1018

[2] (0) 2

40 (0) [40]1324 (144) [1468]25 (41) [66]14

(0) [

14]

0 (2

) [2]

11(0

) [11

] Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

[36]

(0) 3

6[9

6] (0

) 96

[35]

(0) 3

5

[28]

(27)

1[3

] (2)

1[3

5] (2

0) 1

5

Anim

alHo

spita

l

[881] (185) 696[314] (44) 270

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

1 (0) [1]1462 (180) [1642]52 (54) [106]

[1] (0) 1[1077] (192) 885

[123] (7) 116

1 (0

) [1]

0 (0

) [0]

2 (0

) [2]

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

1252 (170) [1422]16 (0) [16]

[51]

(5) 4

6[0

] (0)

0[6

3] (3

7) 2

6

276

(64)

[340

]96

5 (0

) [96

5]52

4 (0

) [52

4]

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

74 (0) [74]5 (0) [5]Fairfax

Dr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

[230

] (0)

230

[134

6] (6

3) 1

283

[10]

(0) 1

0

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

[115

0] (5

1) 1

099

[460

] (12

) 448

[0] (

0) 0

[0] (

0) 0

[0] (

0) 0

62 (0

) [62

]0

(0) [

0]19

(0) [

19]

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

[37] (0) 37[1017] (122) 895

[0] (0) 0

22 (0) [22]1200 (116) [1316]0 (0) [0]

[36]

(0) 3

6[2

28] (

0) 2

28[8

8] (0

) 88

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

[402

] (54

) 348

[851

] (0)

851

[15]

(0) 1

5

476 (0) [476]770 (116) [886]Lee

Hwy

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

[298] (63) 235[1050] (122) 928

[126] (55) 71[798] (67) 731

[80] (0) 80

139

(56)

[195

]33

0 (0

) [33

0]13

1 (0

) [13

1]

106 (0) [106]961 (60) [1021]134 (0) [134]

[6] (0) 6[2] (0) 2[5] (0) 5

[8] (

0) 8

[393

] (0)

393

[11]

(0) 1

1

23 (0) [23]3 (0) [3]10 (0) [10]

3 (0

) [3]

551

(0) [

551]

32 (0

) [32

]

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

[107] (0) 107[133] (32) 101

[92] (0) 92

[86]

(0) 8

6[4

71] (

0) 4

71[3

9] (0

) 39

170

(46)

[216

]81

8 (0

) [81

8]27

1 (0

) [27

1]

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

[0] (

0) 0

[585

] (0)

585

27 (0

) [27

]11

99 (0

) [11

99]

188 (0) [188]1 (46) [47]81 (0) [81]

[21] (0) 21[4] (0) 4

[30] (0) 30[636] (44) 592[713] (0) 713

[413

] (0)

413

[307

] (0)

307

[92]

(0) 9

2

66 (0) [66]709 (54) [763]100 (0) [100]25

(0) [

25]

408

(0) [

408]

95 (0

) [95

]

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

[0] (0) 0[1356] (44) 1312

[10] (0) 10

[40]

(0) 4

0[0

] (0)

0[6

9] (

0) 6

9

1 (0) [1]1261 (54) [1315]19 (0) [19]

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

0 (0

) [0]

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

25th St N

XX (XX) [XX] 2030 Base (Approved & UnbuiltDevelopment Trips) [2030 Futurewithout Development] PM Peak HourTraffic Volumes

2030

Fut

ure

With

out D

evel

opm

ent

PM P

eak

Hou

r Tra

ffic

Volu

mes

4.5



Table 4.4: Future without Development Intersection Capacity Analysis


2030 FutureConditions without

Development*

1. Washington Street and Broad Street D (37) / C (32) E (56) / E (60)2. Washington Street and Park Avenue A (8) / B (12) A (9) / B (18)3. Washington Street and Great Falls Street B (10) / A (4) A (8) / A (3)4. Washington Street and Columbia Street C (29) / C (22) C (29) / C (29)5. Washington Street and Jefferson Street A (1) / A (1) A (3) / A (2)6. Washington Street /Lee Highway and Gresham Place A (3) / A (1) A (7) / A (6)7. Lee Highway and Westmoreland Street A (7) / D (50) B (12) / F (186)8. Lee Highway and Fairfax Drive C (27) / C (25) C (31) / C (28)9. Fairfax Drive/25th Street N. and Washington Boulevard A (2) / A (2) A (2) / A (3)9a. I-66 On-Ramp and Washington Boulevard F (97) / B (12) F (145) / C (17)10.Lee Highway and Washington Boulevard C (26) / C (22) D (41) / C (27)11. Lee Highway and Underwood Street A (4) / A (1) A (4) / A (1)12. Lee Highway and Sycamore Street C (22) / C (20) C (24) / C (21)13. 22nd Street N. and Sycamore Street A (3) / A (1) A (3) / A (1)14. Washington Boulevard and Sycamore Street D (41) / C (33) D (42) / C (36)15. Metro Bus facility/I-66 Off-Ramp and Sycamore Street A (8) / B (12) A (8) / B (13)16. 19th Street N./I-66 On-Ramp and Sycamore Street C (24) / B (12) C (28) / B (14)17. Washington Boulevard and Metro Park-and-Ride Lot A (1) / A (7) A (1) / B (11)* LOS (seconds of delay) AM/PM Peak HourSource: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Under Future conditions without development, the intersection of Washington Street andBroad Street (Intersection 1) operates at LOS E in the AM and PM peak hours. Theintersection of Lee Highway and Westmoreland Street (Intersection 7) is forecast to operateat LOS F during the PM peak hour. The LOS can be attributed to westbound left-turnmovement delays. The westbound left-turn also delays westbound through traffic because awestbound left turn lane is not provided. The intersection of Washington Boulevardwestbound and the I-66 On-Ramp (Intersection 9a) continues to operate at LOS F in the AMpeak hour. The intersection of Lee Highway and Washington Boulevard (Intersection 10) isaffected by increased traffic volumes and will operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour. Allother intersections operate at overall LOS D or better. Some movements operate at lessthan LOS D under future conditions without development.

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line

Study Area

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

Anim

alHo

spita

l

(40.

2/D

) 46.

8/D

(39.

8/D

) 47.

0/D

(106

.2/F

) 42.

1/D

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

12

(23.

8/C

) 57.

8/E

82.9/F (41.8/D)

23.8/C (35.1/D)

10

(50.5/D) 27.7/C

(10.9/B) 8.0/A

(15.7/B) 44.3/D

(5.8/A) 9.3/A

(52.

7/D

) 26.

6/C

(41.

4/D

) 77.

9/E

39.5

/D (7

9.7/

E)

126.

7/F

(216

.0/F

)

Broa

dSt

(22.6/C) 13.0/B

(25.5/C) 33.9/C

16.4/B (32.8/C)

18.7/B (16.2/B)

31.7

/C (3

1.4/

C)

Col

umbi

aSt

WashingtonSt

4

(61.

4/E)

68.

8/E

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

6

(46.2/D) 17.7/B

(25.9/C) 58.7/E

22.6/C (48.4/D)


St

1 Park

Ave

WashingtonSt

2

9.5/

A (1

5.0/

C)

115.

1/F

(43.

1/E)

(2.3/A) 2.7/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

0.0/A (0.0/A)

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

3

5

Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

87

(20.9/C) 25.9/C

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

3.3/A (275.8/F)

(20.4/C) 10.8/B

0.0/

A (5

1.5/

D)

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

4.9/A (16.8/B)

14.9/B (17.4/B)

14.8/B (25.7/D)Fairfax

Dr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9

(7.7

/A) 7

.3/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9a 17

15

14

16

(43.3/D) 47.5/D

(47.2/D) 48.4/D

(8.1

/A) 1

1.2/

B

(13.

4/B)

26.

1/C

1.1/

A (4

.4/A

)

3.5/

A (7

.1/A

)

69.3

/E (2

.9/A

)

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(4.4

/A) 3

.5/A

3.3/

A (5

.9/A

)

58.5/E (52.4/D)

59.3/E (54.1/D)

59.3/E (54.1/D)

(59.6/E) 64.7/E

(58.3/E) 63.0/E

(51.9/D) 52.2/D

(50.8/D) 76.5/E

(30.4/C) 23.2/C

(32.

2/C

) 41.

0/D

(30.

8/C

) 33.

8/C

(20.

0/B)

16.

2/B

44.2/D (39.3/D)

48.0/D (40.7/D)

12.4

/B (1

1.3/

B)

32.6

/C (2

4.8/

C)

27.8

/C (2

3.8/

C)

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

13

(18.1/C) 14.8/B

(8.5

/A) 8

.5/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

17.4/C (14.3/B)

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

8.9/

A (8

.5/A

)

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

(584

.5/F

) 98.

2/F

(17.

5/C

) 12.

4/B

0.0/A (0.0/A)

2.7/A (1.2/A)

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

46.1

/D (4

4.5/

D)

46.5

/D (4

5.6/

D)

94.5

/F (6

0.8/

E)

10.7/B (7.7/A)

21.4/C (9.1/A)

(28.

0/C

) 33.

0/C

(61.

3/E)

70.

2/E

35.9

/D (3

5.9/

D)

47.6

/D (4

2.9/

D)

52.5

/D (4

5.6/

D)

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

25th St N

LeeHwy

40.8

/D (3

3.6/

C)

48.6

/D (4

0.9/

D)

(17.4/B) 6.9/A

7.2/A (13.5/B)

(1.1/A) 0.7/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

2.4/A (2.5/A)

23.7

/C (3

0.8/

D)

(23.

7/C

) 46.

2/E

(3.1/A) 5.3/A

3.3/A (6.5/A)

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

50.5

/F (2

4.9/

C)

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

11

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

(2.3/A) 4.2/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

0.0/A (0.0/A)

(21.

4/C

) 188

.9/F

(21.

4/C

) 188

.9/F

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

Futu

re w

ithou

t Dev

elop

men

t AM

and

PM

Pea

kH

our I

nter

sect

ion

Leve

ls o

f Ser

vice

AM Vehicle Delay/LOS (PM VehicleDelay/LOS)

AM|PM Signalized Intersection Levelof Service

AM|PM Unsignalized IntersectionLevel of Service

26.6/C (19.9/B)

LOS A or B

LOS C or D

LOS E or F

4.6

Fire

Sta

tion

Driv

eway

Driv

eway



Link Volume-to-CapacityThe results of the link v/c ratio analyses are summarized in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Future without Development Link V/C Ratios

Link2010

ExistingConditions*

2030 FutureConditions

withoutDevelopment*

Washington Street– Broad Street to Arlington County Line 0.50 (0.63) 0.61 (0.76)

Lee Highway– Falls Church City Line to Fairfax Drive/Washington Boulevard 0.28 (0.79) 0.56 (1.14)

Lee Highway– Washington Boulevard to Sycamore Street 0.47 (0.40) 0.54 (0.52)

Sycamore Street– Lee Highway to Washington Boulevard 0.41 (0.27) 0.43 (0.29)

Sycamore Street– Washington Boulevard to 19th Street 0.49 (0.32) 0.54 (0.36)

Washington Boulevard– Lee Highway to Sycamore Street 0.73 (0.66) 0.81 (0.74)

Washington Boulevard Westbound– Lee Highway to I-66 West On-Ramp 1.10 (0.71) 1.12 (0.72)* AM peak hour V/C ratio (PM peak hour V/C ratio)Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Under future conditions without development, the V/C ratios on study links generallyincrease. Lee Highway between the Falls Church city line and Fairfax Drive/WashingtonBoulevard is forecast to operate at a V/C ratio of 1.14 under future conditions withoutdevelopment. Westbound Washington Boulevard will continue to operate at a V/C ratio ofgreater than 1.0.

Multimodal ConditionsPedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel were not analyzed for future conditions withoutdevelopment.



5. SITE TRIP GENERATIONThis chapter summarizes the methodology used to develop traffic forecasts for the proposeddevelopment in East Falls Church. The forecast process consisted of the following steps:

Person trips were generated for each proposed development site contained in theplan

Mode splits were developed Person trips were assigned to specific modes of travel Vehicular trips were assigned to study intersections

The following sections describe each part of the forecast development process.

PERSON TRIP GENERATIONLand uses for each proposed development site in the study area are provided in the plan.The land uses contained in the final East Falls Church Area Plan may vary slightly fromthose analyzed; however, the proposed development in the plan will be within an order ofmagnitude of the overall density analyzed in this study. A summary of the future land useinformation studied is shown in Table 5.1.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report, 8th Edition (ITEreport) summarizes data collected at thousands of developments of various types and sizesrelated to the number of trips entering and exiting the sites. Much of the data in the ITEreport was collected in suburban areas and at developments with a single land use. For thisstudy, the trips generated using the ITE report are considered to be person trips andadjustments are made to account for mixed use development and urban conditions with aconsequential mode split.

Weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour person trips are generated for eachproposed development site using rates provided in the ITE Report. The following land usecodes were applied:

General Retail: ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) Residential flat: ITE Land Use Code 230 (Apartment) Townhome: ITE Land Use Code 230 (Condo/Townhouse) Specialty Retail: ITE Land Use Code 814 (Specialty Retail)

Table 5.1 summarizes the peak hour and daily person trips generated by the proposed EastFalls Church development.



Table 5.1: Person Trips Generated by Proposed Development

Site Land Use DailyAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Total In Out Total In OutA/B Residential Flat 180 D.U. 1,197 92 18 74 112 73 39

Specialty Retail 67 ksf 2,969 45 25 20 182 80 102Subtotal Site A 4,166 137 43 94 294 153 141

C Residential Flat 66 D.U. 439 34 7 27 41 27 14Specialty Retail 8.5 ksf 377 6 3 3 23 10 13

Subtotal Site C 816 40 10 30 64 37 37D Residential Flat 57 D.U. 379 29 6 23 35 23 12

Specialty Retail 9 ksf 399 6 3 3 24 11 13Subtotal Site D 778 35 9 26 59 34 25

E Residential Flat 96 D.U. 638 49 10 39 60 39 21Specialty Retail 15 ksf 665 10 6 4 41 18 23

Subtotal Site E 1,303 59 16 43 101 57 44F Townhouse 29 D.U. 168 13 2 11 15 10 5

Subtotal Site F 168 13 2 11 15 10 5G1 Townhouse 9 D.U. 52 4 1 3 5 3 2

Subtotal Site G 52 4 1 3 5 3 2H Townhouse 4 D.U. 23 2 0 2 2 1 1

Subtotal Site H 23 2 0 2 2 1 1I General Retail 9 D.U. 920 9 5 4 34 17 17

Subtotal Site I 920 9 5 4 34 17 17M1 Residential Flat 350 D.U. 2,328 8 4 4 31 14 17

General Retail 40 ksf 4090 40 24 16 149 73 76Specialty Retail 11.35 ksf 503 8 4 4 31 14 17

Subtotal Site M1 6,921 227 64 163 397 228 169M2 Residential Flat 41 D.U. 273 21 4 17 25 16 9

Subtotal Site M2 273 21 4 17 25 16 9TOTAL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 15,420 547 154 393 996 556 440



MODE CHOICE ASSUMPTIONSTo accurately represent the anticipated trip-making patterns associated with the proposeddevelopment in East Falls Church, assumptions were developed to assign person trips totransit, walking, bicycling, and vehicular modes. Assumptions were based on local, regional,and national experience and evidence at similar scale redevelopment projects in likecontexts. Specifically, WMATA’s 2005 Development-Related Ridership Survey and theMWCOG 2008 Household Transportation Survey for the metropolitan area in general andthe Rosslyn-Ballston corridor of Arlington County in particular were consulted. Generallyguiding the development of travel mode choice assumptions were the following:

The Distance to Station metric from WMATA was considered in the development ofmode split assumptions since the East Falls Church study area represents an“average” location of those surveyed in the WMATA study. The WMATA studydocumented location typologies of central business district (CBD), Inside theBeltway, and Outside the Beltway

Rosslyn-Ballston corridor data from the Household Transportation Survey was usedbecause the proposed East Falls Church Area Plan is intended to promote andcreate travel characteristics similar to those exhibited in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridorfor development in East Falls Church

The majority of proposed residential development will be multi-family and will beneighborhood-scale and pedestrian-oriented

Retail development will be neighborhood- and pedestrian-focused and designed togenerate minimal auto model share

County policies encourage mode choice through the TDM program The proposed development is proximate to an existing Metrorail station and will have

high-quality access to the station and to future transit options that will consist of twoMetrorail lines, I-66 BRT, and bus transit

The plan includes significant recommendations to dramatically improve bicycle andpedestrian accommodation in the East Falls Church area

Local and regional vehicular transportation networks have a finite car-carryingcapacity

Based on the available data, factors were developed to reflect the desirability of walking,bicycling, and taking transit to make the trips generated by the proposed development. Logicand data suggest that the proposed sites closest to transit will have the highest rate oftransit use. The general assumptions for mode splits are shown in Table 5.2.

The location of each development site, site access, and distance from the proposedMetrorail station is shown in Figure 5.1. The mode splits were applied to the total persontrips for each development site. Table 5.3 shows the resulting vehicle trips by site.



Table 5.2: Proposed Trip Generation Mode Split Assumptions

Land Use Transit –Metrorail*

Transit –Bus

Pedestrianand Bicycle Auto Total

Residential (adjacent to transit station) 54% 1% 16% 25% 100%Residential (within 1/4 mile of transit station) 48% 1% 15% 41% 100%Residential (within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of transit station) 31% 5% 10% 54% 100%Retail (specialty) 29% 8% 45% 18% 100%Retail (mid-box format) 29% 8% 27% 36% 100%Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., References: WMATA 2005 Development-Related Ridership Study and 2000 U.S. Census

Table 5.3: Vehicle Trips Generated by Proposed Development

Site(Distanceto Metro)

Land UsePercent

of PersonTrips

DailyAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Total In Out Total In Out

A/B(1/4 mile)

Residential Flat 41% 491 38 7 31 46 30 16Specialty Retail 18% 534 8 5 3 33 14 19

Subtotal Site A 1,025 46 12 34 79 44 35

C(1/4 mile)


Subtotal Site C 248 15 4 11 21 13 8

D(1/4 mile)


Subtotal Site D 227 13 3 10 18 11 7

E(1/4 mile)


Subtotal Site E 382 22 5 17 32 19 13F

(1/4 mile)Townhouse 41% 69 5 1 4 6 4 2

Subtotal Site F 69 5 1 4 6 4 2G1

(1/4 mile)Townhouse 41% 21 2 0 2 2 1 1

Subtotal Site G 21 2 0 2 2 1 1H

(1/4 mile)Townhouse 41% 9 1 0 1 1 0 1

Subtotal Site H 9 1 0 1 1 0 1I

(1/2 mile)General Retail 36% 331 3 2 1 12 6 6

Subtotal Site I 331 3 2 1 12 6 6

M1(0 miles)

Residential Flat 25% 582 44 10 34 55 36 19General Retail 36% 1472 14 9 5 54 26 28Specialty Retail 18% 91 1 1 0 6 3 3

Subtotal Site M1 2,145 60 19 41 114 64 50M2

(0 miles)Residential Flat 25% 68 5 1 4 6 4 2

Subtotal Site M2 68 5 1 4 6 4 2TOTAL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4,525 172 47 125 291 166 125

Adjacent

1/4 mile

1/2 mile

0.5 miles

1/4 mile

Adjacent

MAPLE AVE

COLUMBIA ST

BROAD ST

WASHINGTON ST

GREAT FALLS ST

PARK AVE

JEFFERSON ST

LITTLE FALLS ST

CHER

RY ST

LINCOLN AVE

LAWTON ST

FAIRFAX ST

ANNA

NDAL

E RD

MERIDIAN ST

GRESHAM PL

RILEY ST

NOLA

ND ST

VIRGINIA AVE

MIDVA

LE ST

FOREST DR

PARK PL

VAN BUREN ST

UNDERWOOD ST

DORCHESTER RD

BUXTON RD

OAKH

AVEN

DR

TUCKAHOE ST

KATIE

CT

LANGSTON LN

GARDEN CT

SHADOW WALK

DOUG

LAS A

VE

PENNSYLVANIA AVE

GOVERNORS CT

BISHOPS CT

FOUR MILE RUN

JAMES THURBER CT

LOUN

SBUR

Y PL

YUCA

TAN S

T

26TH ST

PARK WASHINGTON CT

16TH ST

LEE HWY

VAN BUREN ST

BROAD ST

FAIRFAX ST

COLUMBIA ST

LEE HWY

INTERSTATE 66

WASHINGTON BLVD

N SYCAMORE ST

FAIRFAX DR

RAMP

12TH ST N

22ND ST N

26TH ST N

25TH ST N

19TH ST N

16TH ST N12TH RD N

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

19TH RD N

18TH RD N

18TH ST N

N UNDERWOOD STN VAN BUREN ST

28TH ST N

11TH RD N

N ARIZONA ST

23RD ST N

N POWHATAN ST

27TH S

T N

12TH PL N

N WYOMING ST

15TH RD N

LITTL

E FAL

LS RD

24TH ST N

N WESTMORELAND ST

22ND RD N

JOHN

MAR

SHAL

L DR

21ST ST N

N YUCATAN ST

N OHIO ST

17TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

N ROCKINGHAM ST

20TH ST N

N QUA

NTICO ST

11TH ST N

N TUCKAHOE ST

N QUESADA ST

N POTOMAC ST

N WINCHESTER ST

15TH PL N

24TH RD N

N SOMERSET ST

N ROC

HEST

ER ST


N VAN BUREN CT

N VENABLE ST

N POCOMOKE ST

LITTLE

FALL

S RD

N SYC

AMOR

E ST

N QUA

NTICO

ST

N QUINTANA ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N POW

HATA

N ST

27TH ST N

N POC

OMOK

E ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N POT

OMAC

ST

27TH RD N

N QUANTICO ST

N QUINTANA ST

RAMP

RAMP

N QUINTANA ST

N POTOMAC ST

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

24TH ST N

22ND RD N

23RD ST N

RAMP

19TH ST N

N POWHA

TAN ST

22ND RD N

25TH ST N

N TUCKAHOE ST

N WES

TMOR

ELAN

D ST

26TH ST N

N TUCKAHOE ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

23RD ST N

INTERSTATE 66

RAMP

22ND RD N

18TH ST N

N UNDERWOOD ST

28TH ST N

N POW

HATA

N ST

O

PM1A

N

F

E

ID

C

G1

M2

B H

0 500250Feet

LegendMetrorail (Orange and Silver Lines)

County Line

Study Area

Approved and Unbuilt Development LocationPotential Development Sites

Adjacent to Metro

Within 1/4 mile of Metro

Within 1/2 mile of Metro

Future Driveway

Prop

osed

East

Falls

Chu

rch D

evelo

pmen

t Site

s

5.1

East

Falls

Chu

rch L

and U

se an

d Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Stu

dyTra

nspo

rtatio

n Imp

act S

tudy

Ar

lingt

on, V

A

Existing Metro Station Entrance

Future Metro Station Entrance



6. SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENTVehicle trips were assigned to the study area street network based on existing trafficpatterns in the area for residential and commercial trips. The distributions are summarized inTable 6.1 and are shown on the area road network in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2 forresidential and retail respectively.

Table 6.1: Trip Distribution

Direction To/From ResidentialPercentage

RetailPercentage

To/From North on Sycamore Street 2% 8%To/From Northeast on Lee Highway 22% 25%To/From East on Washington Boulevard 14% 16%To/From East on I-66 9% 4%To/From South on Sycamore Street/Roosevelt Street 6% 6%To/From South on E. Broad Street 7% 7%To/From Southwest on N. Washington Street 7% 15%To/From West on W. Broad Street 10% 6%To/From Northwest on Great Falls Street 1% 3%To/From West on Fairfax Drive/Lincoln Avenue 1% 3%To/From West on I-66 20% 4%To/From North on Westmoreland Street 1% 3%

Vehicle trips were assigned to study area streets and intersections based on the most likelyroute(s) a vehicle would use to travel from a site access point to an external (to the studyarea) destination. The assignment of the peak hour site generated traffic volumes at studyintersections is shown on Figure 7.1 for the AM peak hour and Figure 7.2 for the PM peakhour.

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend

Metrorail (Orange and Silver Lines)

County Line

Study Area



Res

iden

tial

Tri

p D

istr

ibu

tion

6.1

22%2%

14%

6%7%

10%

7%

1%

1%

20% 1%

9%

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line

Study Area



25%8%

16%

6%7%

6%

15%

3%

3%

4% 3%

4%

Ret

ail T

rip

Dis

trib

uti

on

6.2



7. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENTFUTURE WITH DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMESFuture traffic volumes with development represent future traffic volumes with the proposedEast Falls Church development in place. Future traffic volumes with development werecalculated by adding the site generated traffic volumes to the future traffic volumes withoutdevelopment. The resulting future traffic volumes with development at study intersectionsare shown on Figure 7.1 for the AM peak hour and Figure 7.2 for the PM peak hour.

No reductions in traffic volumes were taken to account for the existing development that willbe removed from the proposed development sites when the proposed redevelopmentoccurs.

ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENTIntersection capacity and V/C ratio analyses were conducted for future traffic volumeswithout development at study intersections. Intersection laneage and traffic control used forthe analysis are the same as those used in the future condition without development.Recommended improvements are analyzed as a part of Chapter 8 of this study.

Intersection Capacity AnalysisThe results of the capacity analyses are summarized in Table 7.1. Analysis results showoverall level of service and delay information for each intersection. Figure 7.3 shows level ofservice by lane group. The Synchro HCM reports are contained in Appendix F.

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line



Study Area

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

Legend


County Line

Study Area


Study Area



XX (XX) {XX} [XX] 2030 Future Without Development(Residential Site Trip) {Retail SiteTrip} [2030 Future with Development]AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Anim

alHo

spita

l[1

04] {

0} (

0) 1

04[8

33] {

0} (

0) 8

33[1

66] {

1} (

2) 1

63

41 (1

) {0

} [4

2]71

2 (1

) {0

} [7

13]

200

(3)

{1}

[204

]

Broa

dSt

[15] {0} (0) 15[1497] {5} (7) 1485

[34] {0} (0) 34

8 (0) {0} [8]675 (25) {2} [702]13 (0) {0} [13]8

(0) {

0} [8

]74

(0)

{0}

[74]

69 (0

) {1

} [7

0] Col

umbi

aSt

WashingtonSt

4

[45]

{0}

(0)

45[5

0] {0

} (0

) 50

[1625] {6} (7) 1612[55] {0} (0) 55

913 (26) {2} [941]25 (0) {0} [25]

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

6

[90] {0} (0) 90[1238] {3} (2) 1233

[49] {0} (0) 49

114 (9) {1} [124]457 (7) {1} [465]168 (7) {1} [176]

WashingtonSt

1

[145] {0} (0) 145[1288] {5} (7) 1276

115 (1) {0} [116]720 (23) {2} [745]

20 (0

) {0

} [2

0]95

(0)

{0}

[95] Pa

rkAv

e

WashingtonSt

2

65 (

0) {

0} [6

5]16

0 (0

) {0

} [1

60]

[80] {0} (0) 80[1304] {5} (7) 1292

70 (1) {0} [71]795 (24) {2} [821]

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

3

[21] {0} (0) 21[1657] {6} (7) 1644

[2] {0} (0) 2

25 (1) {0} [26]687 (25) {2} [714]33 (0) {0} [33]11

(0)

{0}

[11]

3 (0

) {0}

[3]

12 (0

) {0

} [1

2]

5

Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

87

[1387] {2} (21) 1364[315] {4} (8) 303

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

1 (5) {3} [9]691(14) {1} [706]23 (3) {1} [27]

[4] {2} (2) 0[1550] {4} (5) 1541

[66] {0} (0) 66

0 (8

) {1}

[9]

0 (5

) {0}

[5]

0 (1

8) {

2} [2

0]

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

579 (19) {4} [602]12 (3) {0} [15]

303 (0) {0} [303]1 (0) {0} [1]

FairfaxDr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9

[33]

{1}

(6)

26[2

363]

{1}

(24

) 23

38[6

] {0}

(3)

3

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9a

[176

4] {

1} (

23)

1740

[923

] {0}

(1)

922

17

15

14

16

[144] {0} (3) 141[119] {0} (5) 114

[68] {0} (3) 65

[88]

{0}

(1)

87[1

150]

{1}

(1)

114

8[7

3] {0

} (0

) 73

143

(2)

{1}

[146

]43

7 (4

) {1

} [4

42]

262

(6)

{0}

[268

]

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

[0] {

0} (0

) 0

[130

4] {

1} (

4) 1

299

28 (0

) {0

} [2

8]80

5 (1

1) {

2} [8

18]

85 (1) {1} [87]10 (0) {0} [10]34 (1) {0} [35]

[23] {0} (0) 23[3] {0} (0) 3

[17] {1} (9) 7[617] {2} (13) 602

[342] {1} (9) 332

[864

] {2}

(3)

859

[471

] {0}

(1)

470

[82]

{0}

(1)

81

62 (0) {0} [62]675 (4) {3} [682]83 (0) {0} [83]26

(3)

{3}

[32]

422

(2)

{1}

[425

]10

9 (2

) {0

} [1

11]

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

[0] {0} (0) 0[840] {1} (11) 828

[48] {4} (4) 40

[22]

{2}

(17)

3[0

] {0}

(0)

0[3

7] {3

} (1

9) 1

5

0 (0) {0} [0]1406 (5) {2} [1413]60 (5) {6} [71]

0 (1

) {0}

[1]

0 (0

) {0}

[0]

0 (1

) {0}

[1]

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

[56]

{0}

(0)

56[1

46] {

0} (

0) 1

46[8

2] {0

} (0

) 82

[15]

{0}

(0)

15[3

] {0}

(0)

3[6

1] {0

} (0

) 61

[49]

{0}

(4)

45[1

] {0}

(1)

0[9

7] {0

} (6

) 91

155

(3)

{1}

[159

]67

3 (4

) {1

} [6

78]

462

(1)

{1}

[464

]

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

25th St N

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

87 [2

2]99

4 [1

121]

0 [0

]

UnderwoodSt

Lee

Hwy11 AM:

Mid:PM:

[57]

{0}

(0)

57[3

92] {

0} (

1) 3

91[9

7] {1

} (9

) 87

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

12

[165

] {3}

(11

) 15

1[1

387]

{1}

(10

) 13

76[1

2] {

0} (

2) 1

0

753 (5) {1} [759]430 (11) {1} [442]

10

[0] {

0} (0

) 0

[0] {

0} (0

) 0

[0] {

0} (0

) 0

74 (2

) {0

} [7

6]0

(0) {

0} [0

]23

(5)

{0}

[28]

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

11

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

[457] {1} (10) 446[1349] {2} (12) 1335

[96] {0} (1) 95[1233] {2} (15) 1216

[0] {0} (0) 0

87 (0) {0} [87]1125 (4) {2} [1131]0 (0) {0} [0]

[142] {1} (1) 140[1128] {1} (16) 1111

[66] {0} (3) 63

13

[3] {0} (0) 3[0] {0} (0) 0

[10] {0} (0) 10

[18]

{0}

(0)

18[5

90] {

1} (

10)

579

[10]

{0}

(0)

10

99 (0) {0} [99]4 (0) {0} [4]21 (0) {0} [21]

0 (0

) {0}

[0]

524

(6)

{4}

[534

]15

(0)

{0}

[15]

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

207

(0)

{0}

[207

]39

3 (1

) {1

} [3

95]

106

(0)

{0}

[106

]

66 (0) {0} [66]901 (4) {2} [907]72 (2) {3} [77]

LeeHwy

2030

Fut

ure

With

Dev

elop

men

t AM

Pea

k H

our

Traf

fic V

olum

es

7.1

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line



Study Area

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

Legend


County Line

Study Area


Study Area



11 AM:Mid:PM:

1210 11

4 6

1 2 3

5

87

9 9a 17

15

14

16

13

[154

] {0}

(0)

154

[661

] {0}

(0)

661

[130

] {4}

(8)

118

128

(0)

{1}

[129

]92

6 (0

) {0

} [9

26]

278

(10)

{3}

[291

]

Broa

dSt

[156] {0} (0) 156[657] {8} (8) 641

[85] {0} (0) 85

201 (5) {3} [209]1147 (4) {9} [1160]170 (4) {4} [178]

WashingtonSt

[76] {1} (0) 75[1155] {14} (26) 1115

105 (0) {0} [105]1315 (13) {15} [1343]

105

(0)

{1}

[106

]18

5 (1

) {0

} [1

86]

Park

Ave

WashingtonSt

220

(0)

{0}

[220

]90

(0)

{0}

[90]

[50] {0} (0) 50[1301] {14} (27) 1260

150 (0) {1} [151]1283 (13) {15} [1311]

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

[13] {0} (0) 13[1226] {14} (27) 1185

[70] {0} (0) 70

21 (0) {0} [21]1499 (13) {16} [1528]37 (0) {0} [37]8

(0) {

0} [8

]11

9 (0

) {0

} [1

19]

71 (1

) {1

} [7

3] Col

umbi

aSt

WashingtonSt

[25]

{0}

(0)

25[2

5] {0

} (0

) 25

[1237] {15} (28) 1194[125] {0} (0) 125

1774 (14) {17} [1805]45 (0) {0} [45]

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

[15] {0} (0) 15[1240] {15} (28) 1197

[2] {0} (0) 2

40 (1) {1} [42]1468 (13) {16} [1497]66 (0) {0} [66]14

(0)

{0}

[14]

2 (0

) {0}

[2]

11(0

) {0}

[11]

Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

[36]

{0}

(0)

36[9

6] {0

} (0

) 96

[35]

{0}

(0)

35

[28]

{0}

(0)

28[3

] {0}

(0)

3[3

5] {0

} (0

) 35

Anim

alHo

spita

l

[908] {10} (17) 881[339] {13} (12) 314

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

1 (19) {9} [29]1642 (8) {10} [1660]106 (7) {1} [114]

[13] {4} (8) 1[1102] {10} (15) 1077

[129] {1} (5) 123

1 (4

) {6}

[11]

0 (2

) {2}

[4]

2 (1

0) {

11}

[23]

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

1422 (24) {18} [1464]16 (1) {1} [18]

[54]

{1}

(2)

51[4

] {1}

(3)

0[6

9] {2

} (4

) 63

340(

10)

{2}

[352

]96

5 (9

) {5

} [9

79]

524

(6)

{2}

[532

]

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

74 (0) {0} [74]5 (0) {0} [5]Fairfax

Dr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

[238

] {5}

(3)

230

[136

4] {

5} (

13)

1346

[12]

{1}

(1)

10

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

[116

5] {

3} (

12)

1150

[463

] {2}

(1)

460

[0] {

0} (0

) 0

[0] {

0} (0

) 0

[0] {

0} (0

) 0

62 (1

) {0

} [6

3]0

(0) {

0} [0

]19

(2)

{1}

[22]

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

[40] {0} (3) 37[1034] {10} (7) 1017

[0] {0} (0) 0

22 (1) {0} [23]1316 (15) {9} [1340]0 (0) {0} [0]

[36]

{0}

(0)

36[2

31] {

2} (

1) 2

28[1

01] {

8} (

5) 8

8

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

[426

] {12

} (1

2) 4

02[8

63] {

5} (

7) 8

51[2

1] {

1} (

5) 1

5

476 (5) {3} [484]886 (13) {7} [906]Lee

Hwy

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

[310] {3} (9) 298[1073] {9} (14) 1050

[129] {3} (0) 126[814] {8} (8) 798

[81] {0} (1) 80

195

(1)

{2}

[198

]33

0 (1

) {2

} [3

33]

131

(0)

{0}

[131

]

106 (0) {0} [106]1021 (15) {7} [1043]134 (9) {7} [150]

[6] {0} (0) 6[2] {0} (0) 2[5] {0} (0) 5

[8] {

0} (0

) 8

[409

] {10

} (6

) 39

3[1

1] {0

} (0

) 11

23 (0) {0} [23]3 (0) {0} [3]10 (0) {0} [10]

3 (0

) {0}

[3]

551

(11)

{9}

[571

]32

(0)

{0}

[32]

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

[109] {0} (2) 107[136] {1} (2) 133

[94] {1} (1) 92

[90]

{1}

(3)

86[4

77] {

2} (

4) 4

71[3

9] {0

} (0

) 39

216

(4)

{1}

[221

]81

8 (3

) {2

} [8

23]

271

(4)

{2}

[277

]

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

[0] {

0} (0

) 0

[593

] {2}

(6)

585

27 (0

) {0

} [2

7]11

99 (9

) {5

} [1

213]

188 (8) {2} [198]47 (0) {0} [47]81 (2) {0} [83]

[21] {0} (0) 21[4] {0} (0) 4

[45] {10} (5) 30[652] {10} (6) 636

[724] {5} (6) 713

[429

] {4}

(12

) 41

3[3

08] {

0} (

1) 3

07[9

3] {0

} (1

) 92

66 (0) {0} [66]763 (14) {9} [786]100 (1) {0} [101]25

(9)

{9}

[43]

408

(2)

{0}

[410

]95

(1)

{0}

[96]

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

[0] {0} (0) 0[1369] {7} (6) 1356

[38] {12} (16) 10

[62]

{13}

(9)

40

[0] {

0} (0

) 0

[97]

{18}

(10

) 69

1 (1) {0} [2]1315 (15) {5} [1335]19 (19) {17} [55]

0 (0

) {0}

[0]

0 (0

) {0}

[0]

0 (1

) {0}

[1]

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

25th St N

2030

Fut

ure

With

Dev

elop

men

t PM

Pea

k H

our

Traf

fic V

olum

es

7.2XX (XX) {XX} [XX] 2030 Future Without Development

(Residential Site Trip) {Retail SiteTrip} [2030 Future with Development]PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes



Table 7.1: Future with Development Intersection Capacity Analysis



withoutDevelopment*


withDevelopment*

1. Washington Street and Broad Street D (37) / C (32) E (56) / E (60) E (57) / E (63)

2. Washington Street and Park Avenue A (8) / B (12) A (9) / B (18) A (9) /B (19)

3. Washington Street and Great Falls Street B (10) / A (4) A (8) / A (3) A (8) / A (3)

4. Washington Street and Columbia Street C (29) / C (22) C (29) / C (29) C (29) / C (31)

5. Washington Street and Jefferson Street A (1) / A (1) A (3) / A (2) A (3) / A (2)

6. Washington Street /Lee Highway and Gresham Place A (3) / A (1) A (7) / A (6) A (7) / A (6)

7. Lee Highway and Westmoreland Street A (7) / D (50) B (12) / F (186) B (14) / F (216)

8. Lee Highway and Fairfax Drive C (27) / C (25) C (31) / C (28) C (31) / C (30)

9. Fairfax Drive/25th Street N. and Washington Boulevard A (2) / A (2) A (2) / A (3) A (2) / A (3)

9a. I-66 On-Ramp and Washington Boulevard F (97) / B (12) F (145) / C (17) F (161) / C (23)

10.Lee Highway and Washington Boulevard C (26) / C (22) D (41) / C (27) D (46) / C (29)

11. Lee Highway and Underwood Street A (4) / A (1) A (4) / A (1) A (5) / A (2)

12. Lee Highway and Sycamore Street C (22) / C (20) C (24) / C (21) C (24) / C (22)

13. 22nd Street N. and Sycamore Street A (3) / A (1) A (3) / A (1) A (3) / A (1)

14. Washington Boulevard and Sycamore Street D (41) / C (33) D (42) / C (36) D (43) / C (36)

15. Metro Bus facility/I-66 Off-Ramp and Sycamore Street A (8) / B (12) A (8) / B (13) A (8) / B (14)

16. 19th Street N./I-66 On-Ramp and Sycamore Street C (24) / B (12) C (28) / B (14) C (28) / B (14)

17. Washington Boulevard and Metro Park-and-Ride Lot A (1) / A (7) A (1) / B (11) A (8) / F (257)


Under future conditions with development the intersection of Washington Street and BroadStreet (Intersection 1) is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E in the AM and PM peakhours, with minor increases in overall intersection delay. The intersection of Lee Highwayand Westmoreland Street (Intersection 7) is forecast to continue to operate at LOS F in thePM peak hour. This LOS can be attributed to the lack of a westbound left-turn lane at theintersection. The intersection of Washington Boulevard and the I-66 On-Ramp (Intersection9a) also is forecast to continue to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. With the proposeddevelopment complete, the intersection of Washington Boulevard and the Metro Park-and-Ride lot (future M1 site driveway, Intersection 17) is forecast to operate at LOS F in the PMpeak hour. All other intersections operate at overall LOS D or better. Some movementsoperate at less than LOS D under future conditions with development.

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line



Study Area

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

Legend


County Line

Study Area


Study Area



Was

hing

ton

Blvd

Anim

alHo

spita

l

(39.

0/D

) 40.

3/D

(38.

5/D

) 39.

8/D

(107

.4/F

) 41.

3/D

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

12

(24.

8/C

) 65.

4/E

92.2/F (44.8/D)

24.7/C (36.6/D)

10

(54.8/D) 29.1/C

(10.8/B) 7.9/A

(17.1/B) 49.5/D

(6.3/A) 9.9/A

(52.

7/D

) 26.

7/C

(42.

3/D

) 79.

8/E

39.8

/D (8

0.1/

F)

133.

8/F

(241

.9/F

)

Broa

dSt

(23.0/C) 13.2/B

(27.1/C) 34.7/C

16.7/B (35.1/D)

19.0/B (16.9/B)

31.8

/C (3

1.6/

C)

Col

umbi

aSt

WashingtonSt

4

(61.

4/E)

68.

8/E

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

6

(49.3/D) 17.8/B

(26.2/C) 59.9/E

22.8/C (51.9/D)


St

1 Park

Ave

WashingtonSt

2

9.4/

A (1

5.2/

C)

118.

0/F

(41.

6/E)

(2.4/A) 2.8/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

0.0/A (0.0/A)

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

3

5

Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

87

(28.0/C) 25.9/C

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

4.0/A (320.2/F)

(33.6/C) 12.4/B

0.0/

A (5

3.0/

D)

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

5.1/A (17.9/B)

18.9/B (18.3/B)


Dr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9

(7.7

/A) 7

.3/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9a 17

15

14

16

(43.3/D) 47.5/D

(47.5/D) 48.6/D

(8.2

/A) 1

1.4/

B

(13.

6/B)

26.

6/C

1.1/

A (4

.5/A

)

3.6/

A (7

.3/A

)

70.1

/E (3

.0/A

)

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(4.4

/A) 3

.6/A

3.3/

A (6

.0/A

)

58.5/E (52.4/D)

59.3/E (54.0/D)

59.3/E (54.1/D)

(59.6/E) 64.7/E

(58.3/E) 63.0/E

(71.5/E) 57.0/E

(51.6/D) 77.2/E

(31.3/C) 21.7/C

(32.

5/C

) 41.

5/D

(31.

0/C

) 34.

0/C

(20.

0/B)

16.

3/B

44.4/D (39.9/D)

48.2/D (41.9/D)

11.4

/B (9

.9/A

)

33.3

/C (2

5.8/

C)

28.5

/C (2

4.6/

C)

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

13

(18.9/C) 15.1/B

(8.6

/A) 8

.6/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

17.8/C (14.7/B)

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

8.9/

A (8

.6/A

)

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

(100

0/F)

374

.9/F

(20.

0/C

) 13.

4/B

0.0/A (0.0/A)

3.2/A (3.8/A)

153.

8/F

(321

.9/F

)

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

45.8

/D (4

4.5/

D)

46.2

/D (4

5.4/

D)

90.1

/F (5

9.9/

E)

11.0/B (7.9/A)

26.2/C (10.4/A)

(28.

1/C

) 33.

0/C

(64.

9/E)

72.

0/E

36.0

/D (3

6.7/

D)

47.8

/D (4

3.5/

D)

52.7

/D (4

6.4/

D)

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

25th St N

LeeHwy

40.8

/D (3

3.6/

C)

48.6

/D (4

0.8/

D)

(19.2B) 7.3/A

7.5/A (13.9/B)

(1.2/A) 0.8/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

2.4/A (2.6/A)

25.1

/D (3

0.1/

D)

(23.

3/C

) 49.

0/E

(3.2/A) 5.3/A

3.4/A (6.9/A)

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

66.9

/F (2

7.6/

C)

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

11

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

(2.5/A) 8.1/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

0.0/A (0.0/A)

(28.

0/C

) 208

.4/F

(28.

0/C

) 208

.4/F

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

AM|PM SignalizedIntersection Level of Service

AM|PM UnsignalizedIntersection Level of Service

Approved and UnbuiltDevelopment Location

Futu

re w

ith D

evel

opm

ent (

No

Impr

ovem

ents

) AM

and

PM P

eak

Hou

r Int

erse

ctio

n Le

vels

of S

ervi

ce

7.3

Fire

Sta

tion

Driv

eway

Driv

eway

LOS A or B

LOS C or D

LOS E or F

AM VehicleDelay/LOS(PM VehicleDelay/LOS

26.6/C(19.9/B)



Link V/C RatioTable 7.2 shows the peak hour link V/C ratios for future conditions with development.

Table 7.2: Future with Development Link V/C Ratios

Link 2010 ExistingConditions*

2030 FutureConditions without

Development*

2030 FutureConditions withDevelopment*

Washington Street– Broad Street to ArlingtonCounty Line 0.50 (0.63) 0.61 (0.76) 0.64 (0.90)

Lee Highway– Falls Church City Line to FairfaxDrive/Washington Boulevard 0.28 (0.79) 0.56 (1.14) 0.60 (1.21)

Lee Highway– Washington Boulevard toSycamore Street 0.47 (0.40) 0.54 (0.52) 0.57 (0.54)

Sycamore Street– Lee Highway to WashingtonBoulevard 0.41 (0.27) 0.43 (0.29) 0.43 (0.29)

Sycamore Street– Washington Boulevard to 19th

Street 0.49 (0.32) 0.54 (0.36) 0.54 (0.54)

Washington Boulevard– Lee Highway toSycamore Street 0.73 (0.66) 0.81 (0.74) 0.83 (0.77)

Washington Boulevard Westbound– LeeHighway to I-66 West On-Ramp 1.10 (0.71) 1.12 (0.72) 1.19 (0.77)

* AM peak hour V/C ratio (PM peak hour V/C ratio)Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Under future conditions with development the study link of Washington Street betweenBroad Street and the Arlington County Line is forecast to operate at a V/C ratio of 0.90. Thestudy link of Lee Highway between the Falls Church city line and Fairfax Drive/ WashingtonBoulevard is forecast to operate at a V/C ratio of 1.21.

Multimodal ConditionsPedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel were not analyzed for future conditions withdevelopment.



8. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTSThis chapter presents multimodal transportation recommendations in support of proposedEast Falls Church development. Future multimodal transportation improvements coupledwith existing Arlington County transportation policy are anticipated to allow the proposeddevelopment to meet goals for mode split that were used in forecasting traffic generated bythe proposed development. Transportation recommendations in this chapter are organizedin the following sections:

Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Policies, strategies, and programsconsistent with County policy to promote and encourage transportation choice.Corridor Recommendations. General street recommendations to improveaccommodation of all modes of transportation (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, andvehicles).Intersection Recommendations. Intersection modifications to improve operationand safety for all modes.Neighborhood Traffic Calming. County policy that provides a methodology toaddress, analyze, and mitigate the effect of traffic on local streets with measuresaimed at reducing vehicle speeds and increasing safety.Transit. Recommendations for the future transit services and locations of new ormodified facilities to improve access to, and between transit services.Bicycles and Pedestrians. Locations of new and modified facilities to improveconnectivity and accommodation.Parking. Curb space management guidelines, parking requirements, and otherprograms and policies to manage parking demand.

Following the discussion on proposed transportation recommendations, analyses of trafficimpacts with the proposed recommendations are presented.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENTTDM can provide significant benefit in the support of existing and proposed development inEast Falls Church. With strategic implementation, TDM can help to reduce the attractivenessof making single-occupant vehicle trips, within, to, and from East Falls Church.

In Arlington, TDM is a set of guiding principles underlying Arlington’s development policyand a set of services provided by Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS). Togetherthe principles and services encourage less dependence on the automobile. TDM in Arlingtonincludes the promotion of mass transit, walking, bicycling, carpooling, car sharing, andtelecommuting to reduce demand for vehicular travel, lessen congestion and air pollution,and improve travel choice and accessibility. ACCS influences travel demand by supporting awide array of convenient alternatives to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) and peak-hour travel,as well as providing information and incentives for their use. Collectively ACCS services



reinforce Arlington’s commitment to reducing traffic congestion by planning for people ratherthan vehicles.

This study recommends that TDM policies for East Falls Church be consistent withcountywide TDM policies outlined in the most recent version of the Arlington County MasterTransportation Plan (MTP). Relevant 2009 MTP TDM recommendations for the proposeddevelopment in East Falls Church are the following:

Policy 1: Incorporate comprehensive TDM plans for all site plans and use-permitdevelopments to minimize vehicular trips and maximize the use of other traveloptions.Policy 2: Incorporate TDM measures with respect to all existing public buildings andfacilities, irrespective of redevelopment status. Explore strategies and incentives toachieve TDM measures in existing private buildings.Policy 3: Require regular travel surveys of new development with TDM plans andlink to performance measures to enable follow-up actions. Undertake biennialevaluations of the effectiveness of the County’s TDM policies and private-sectorcompliance with TDM commitments, and implement revisions as warranted.Policy 5: Apply TDM programs to non-work travel, as well as commuting, forresident, visitor and employee trips through informational displays, website,promotional campaigns and mailings of materials.

Recommended TDM measures coinciding with the policies listed above may include thefollowing:

Enhanced Arlington SmarTrip (Universal Transit Pass). Passes that typicallyprovide unlimited rides on all local or regional transit services for low monthly fees,which are often absorbed entirely by the employer, school, or developer. Universaltransit passes reduce the cost of transit for the user and may increase transitridership.Ride Sharing. Ride matching services help motorists identify potential drivingcompanions and encompasses carpooling and vanpooling. Providing parking in apreferred location or at a reduced price encourages ride sharing and may reducesingle-occupant vehicle use.Car Sharing. Hourly car rental for members, car sharing cars are dispersedthroughout an urban area at convenient centralized locations. In East Falls Church,car sharing cars could be located at the Metrorail station and near proposed retail ormultifamily residential development. Shared cars allow residents to forego carownership and allow employees to have access to a vehicle without commuting inone.

CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONSAll arterial streets are recommended to generally accommodate some or all of the followingelements:



Sidewalks on both sides of arterials, 6-foot wide minimum (clear width for sidewalks,exclusive of 2-foot building shy zone)

Sidewalk on at least one side of local streets, 5-foot wide minimum Sidewalk buffers (clear zone or tree/furniture zone) 5-foot minimum width utility/landscape zone 6-foot wide bicycle lanes (may include 1–1/2 feet of gutter pan) 11-foot wide outer travel lanes for Arlington County-maintained streets (may include

1–1/2 feet of gutter pan) 10- to 11-foot wide additional travel lanes for Arlington County-maintained streets 11-foot wide lanes on VDOT-maintained roads 7-foot wide parallel parking lanes (includes 1–1/2 feet of gutter pan) Left-turn lanes at major intersections

Recommendations for specific corridors in the study area are illustrated and explained infurther detail in the East Falls Church Area Plan. Summaries of specific elementsrecommended for arterials are as follows:

Lee Highway from the Falls Church City Line to Fairfax Drive/Washington Boulevard Raised-curb median or left-turn lane at intersections Striped bicycle lane in each direction Streetscape to provide increased or improved pedestrian space Recommended modifications will require additional right-of-way that is planned to be

provided with the redevelopment of sites A, B and C

Lee Highway from Washington Boulevard to Sycamore Street Existing striped median replaced with a raised-curb median or left-turn lane at

intersections (southwest of Underwood Street) Reconfiguration of existing striped median (northeast of Underwood Street) Striped bicycle lane in each direction Streetscape to provide increased or improved pedestrian space On Recommended modifications will require additional right-of-way in some locations

southwest of Underwood Street that is planned to be provided with theredevelopment of sites D, E, and F

Sycamore Street between Washington Boulevard and 19th Street Striped bicycle lane in each direction (excluding section under I-66 bridge) On-street parking between Washington Boulevard on and the bus facility driveway in

the southbound direction Streetscape to provide increased or improved pedestrian space

Sycamore Street between Lee Highway and Washington Boulevard Removal of one vehicular travel lane in the northbound direction Removal of one vehicular travel lane in the southbound direction (north of 22nd

Street N.) Striped bicycle lane in each direction Streetscape to provide increased or improved pedestrian space



Washington Boulevard west of Sycamore Street (two-way) Striped bicycle lane in each direction On-street parking between the Washington Boulevard Bridge and Sycamore Street

in the eastbound direction Left-turn lane in each direction at the Metro Park-and-Ride lot driveway (future Site

M1 driveway) Streetscape to provide increased or improved pedestrian space Recommended modifications will require additional right-of-way that is planned to be

provided with the redevelopment of site M1

Washington Boulevard Eastbound, east of Lee Highway Minimum of 30-feet of space on the south side of the street adjacent to the future

second Metrorail station entrance to be used as needed for the Metro Plaza(pedestrian zone), bus layover lane, and kiss-and-ride function

Striped bicycle lane in the eastbound direction, east of the Metro Plaza Sidewalk in the eastbound direction

Washington Boulevard Westbound east of Lee Highway Striped bicycle lane in the westbound direction Streetscape to provide increased or improved pedestrian space Recommended modifications will require additional right-of-way that is planned to be

provided with the redevelopment of site E

Washington Boulevard Northwestbound between Lee Highway and Westmoreland Street Striped bicycle lane in the northwestbound direction Removal of one vehicular travel lane in the northwestbound direction north of the I-

66 On-Ramp Streetscape to provide increased or improved pedestrian space Recommended modifications may require additional right-of-way. The property

owner on the west side of Washington Boulevard is VDOT (I-66 right-of-way)

INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONSIntersection recommendations are generally intended to improve pedestrian and bicycleaccess at intersections, improve vehicular capacity without adding additional lanes, and toimprove safety for all modes of transportation. All signalized intersections are generallyrecommended to include the following:

Pedestrian count-down heads and push-buttons Bicycle detectors where bicycle lanes are provided High-visibility crosswalk markings Appropriate curb radii and ADA-compliant curb ramps Curb extensions where appropriate to shadow on-street parking and reduce

crosswalk distances at intersections Median pedestrian refuges on streets generally wider than 60 feet, curb to curb



Recommendations for study intersections are illustrated and explained in further detail in theEast Falls Church Area Plan. Summaries of recommendations for selected intersections areas follows:

N. Sycamore Street/19th Street N./I-66 On-Ramp Removal of the southbound (N. Sycamore Street) right-turn lane Modification of the existing trail terminus to intersect at the southeast corner of the

intersection

N. Sycamore Street/Metro Bus facility/I-66 Off-Ramp Reconfigured westbound (I-66 Off-Ramp) right-turn lane (remove free right-turn) Improved refuge median on the north (N. Sycamore Street) leg of the intersection Reconfigured Metrobus facility driveway to reduce pedestrian conflicts

N. Sycamore Street/Washington Boulevard Removal of the southbound (N. Sycamore Street) and eastbound (Washington

Boulevard) right-turn lanes Reassignment of the laneage on the northbound (N. Sycamore Street) approach to

provide dual left-turn lanes, a single through lane, and a right-turn lane Concurrent signal phasing for the northbound and southbound (N. Sycamore Street)

directions Improved refuge medians on the north and south (N. Sycamore Street) legs of the

intersection

N. Sycamore Street/Lee Highway Removal of one through lane in the northbound (N. Sycamore Street) and

southbound (N. Sycamore Street) directions Removal of merge lanes on N. Sycamore Street Improved refuge islands on the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection

to create curbless pedestrian crossings

Lee Highway/Gresham Place Trail crossing between the fire station driveway and Gresham Place

Lee Highway/Westmoreland Street Left-turn lanes in the both directions of Lee Highway

Lee Highway/Fairfax Drive/Washington Boulevard Eastbound Closure of Old Fairfax Drive driveway on the southeast corner of the intersection Enhanced landscaped median on the south (Lee Highway) leg of the intersection Realignment of W&OD trail at the southwest and southeast corners of the

intersection Trail crossing (for new trail along Four Mile Run) on south (Lee Highway) leg of the

intersection



Lee Highway/Washington Boulevard Westbound Raised-curb median refuge island on the north leg (Lee Highway) of the intersection

Washington Boulevard Westbound/25th Street N./I-66 On-Ramp Removal of the northbound (Washington Boulevard) left-turn lane at 25th Street N.

intersection Two northbound (Washington Boulevard) left-turn lanes to the I-66 On-Ramp

intersection and two lanes on the ramp One northbound through lane (Washington Boulevard toward Westmoreland Street)

at the I-66 On-Ramp intersection Coordination of improvement with VDOT’s Spot Improvement project

Washington Boulevard Westbound/Westmoreland Street Realignment of Washington Boulevard’s terminus Left- and right-turn lanes on Washington Boulevard in westbound direction

Washington Boulevard and Future Site M1 Driveway (Existing Metrorail Park and RideLot Driveway)

New traffic signal at the intersection after consideration of the following: Appropriate traffic signal warrants as described in the Manual on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices Results of an engineering study demonstrating the need for the signal and

studying its overall impacts to traffic flow on Washington Boulevard andintersecting roadways

Left-turn lanes on Washington Boulevard Note: The traffic signal proposed for this location would not meet minimum spacing

standards identified in VDOT’s Road Design Manual for Arterial Streets; however, itdoes meet minimum spacing criteria for Collector Streets. The installation of a signalat this intersection would require an exception to access management regulations.

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMINGThe accommodation of pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicles was considered in thecorridor and intersection recommendation section of the East Falls Church Area Plan.Recommendations do not specifically address local streets in the study area that are notadjacent to proposed development sites. Arlington County’s Neighborhood Traffic CalmingPlan sets the stage for accommodating all modes of transportation and promoting safety onlocal streets in the County. As development is completed in the East Falls Church area, theCounty’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming program should be utilized as needed to managetraffic on local streets.



TRANSIT NETWORKFigure 8.1 shows the existing and recommended transit network. The following arespecifically recommended:

Provision of a new western entrance to the existing Metrorail station including aplaza with kiss-and-ride and bus drop-off facilities

Accommodation of Metrobus, George, and ART services through the provision ofappropriate facilities at the existing and future Metrorail entrances

Support of the proposed I-66 Express Bus service by providing station and transferfacilities at the East Falls Church Metrorail station

Provision of additional bicycle parking and a bicycle station proximate to the Metrorailstation

Provision of real-time transit information for passengers at Metrorail station entranceareas and bus stops

Enhancement of bus stops to provide shelters, benches, lighting, and real-timetransit information

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NETWORKProviding safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be essential inaccommodating proposed development in East Falls Church. The future transportationnetwork has been planned so that walking and bicycling can represent a sizable proportionof all future trips. Recommendations to support the existing and future needs of pedestrianand bicyclists include the following:

Shared-Use Trails. Figure 8.2 shows the existing and recommended shared-use trailnetwork. The following are specifically recommended:

Trail connection from the W&OD trail to the new Metrorail plaza on the WashingtonBoulevard Bridge

Direct connection from the proposed development in Site M1 to the proposed newwestern Metrorail Station entrance

Trail connecting Lee Highway (across from N. Underwood Street) with WashingtonBoulevard through the existing Verizon property

Improved connections to the W&OD trail at Sycamore Street W&OD trail spur from the existing alignment (south of Little Falls Road) to Lee

Highway (north of Gresham Place intersection) Study of trail connection from Lee Highway (north of Gresham Place intersection) to

Van Buren Street

Bicycle Network. Figure 8.2 shows the existing and recommended bicycle network. Thefollowing are specifically recommended:



Bicycle lane in each direction of Lee Highway from the Falls Church city line to N.Sycamore Street

Bicycle lane in each direction of N. Sycamore Street from Lee Highway to 19th Street N. Bicycle lane in each direction of Washington Boulevard from Lee Highway to

Sycamore Street (excluding eastbound Washington Boulevard west of the proposedMetro Plaza)

Bicycle lane in the northwestbound direction of Washington Boulevard from LeeHighway to Westmoreland Street

Designation the following new bicycle routes: N. Westmoreland Street (Lee Highway to 19th Street N.) N. Westmoreland Street (Little Falls Road to Washington Boulevard) N. Van Buren Street (19th Road N. to 16th Street N.) 15th Street N. (Sycamore Street to cul-de-sac) 16th Street N. (N. Van Buren Street to Sycamore Street) 18th Street N. (N. Van Buren Street to N. Tuckahoe Street) 19th Road N. (west of N. Van Buren Street to N. Tuckahoe Street) 19th Street N. (N. Westmoreland Street to Sycamore Street)

Pedestrian Network. Figure 8.3 shows existing and recommended pedestrian facilities andstreetscapes. The following are specifically recommended:

Sidewalk along the south side of the bridge section of Washington Boulevardbetween Lee Highway and the Metro Park-and-Ride lot driveway (future Site M1driveway)

Improved streetscape on Lee Highway from the Falls Church city line to N.Sycamore Street

Improved streetscape on Sycamore Street from Lee Highway to 19th Street N. Improved streetscape on Washington Boulevard from 25th Street N. to Sycamore

Street Improved streetscapes along development frontages

PARKINGOn-street parking and curb space management should be consistent with the latest versionof Arlington County’s MTP. Consistent with the MTP, the follwing are rescommend withregard to parking and curb space in the East Falls Church study area:

Re-evaluation and reconfiguration of curb space as sites develop or redevelop Allocation of curb space dependent on the specific land uses and businesses served

in the adjacent block. To ensure that curb space maximizes its potential to supportthe transportation infrastructure, advance the economic well-being of the County,and serve the greatest number of users, the following hierarchy of accommodation isrecommended in the planning of curb space in East Falls Church:



1. Safety features like fire hydrants, curb nubs for pedestrians, and sight linesfor drivers

2. Public multi-user vehicles (e.g. bus stops, taxi-stands, and carsharing)3. Periodic/temporary uses (e.g. shuttles and private buses, vending, loading

and deliveries)4. Dedicated short-term parking (e.g. paratransit drop-off and short-term meters)5. Long-term parking of vehicles (e.g. tour buses, valet parking, and all-day

meters) Time restrictions and designation of spaces to optimize the use of curb space and to

give priority to the appropriate users at appropriate times Dedication of remnant areas in parking lanes or garages for the exclusive use of

small vehicles such as microcars, scooters, bicycles, and motorcycles Appropriate location of features such as curb nubs, fire hydrants, and bus stops to

maximize available curb length and versatility Minimized number and width of driveways to achieve longer lengths of available curb

space Use of multi-space parking meters where street-level retail and business increase

demand for short-term parking

On-street parking is recommended at the following locations:

N. Sycamore Street (west side) between Lee Highway and 22nd Street N. N. Sycamore Street (west side) between Washington Boulevard and the Metrorail

station bus facility N. Sycamore Street (both sides) between the I-66 bridge and 19th Street N./I-66 On-

Ramp Washington Boulevard (east side) adjacent to Site M1 Washington Boulevard Northwestbound (east side) between the I-66 On-Ramp and

Westmoreland Street

Park-andRide (Garage)

Bus Facility

Kiss-and-Ride

Facility

MAPLE AVE

COLUMBIA ST

BROAD ST

GREAT FALLS ST

WASHINGTON ST


LITTLE FALLS ST

LINCOLN AVE

LAWTON ST

CHER

RY ST

RILEY S

T

ANNANDALE RD

FAIRFAX S

T

VIRGINIA A

VE

MERIDIAN ST

GRESHAM PL

NOLAN

D ST

MIDVALE ST

PARK PL

VAN BUREN ST

FORE

ST DR

DORCHESTER RD

PENNSYLVANIA A

VE

OAKH

AVEN

DR

UNDERWOOD ST

GIBSON ST

LANGSTON LN

BUXTON RD

TUCKAHOE ST

GARDEN CT

SHADOW WALK

GOVERNORS CT

WALDEN CT

BISHOPS CT

JAMES THURBER CT

FOUR MILE RUN

YUCA

TAN S

T

GUND

RY DR

26TH ST

PARK WASHINGTON CT

16TH ST

LEE HWY

VIRGINIA A

VE

COLUMBIA ST

FAIRFAX ST

VAN BUREN ST

LEE HWY

INTERSTATE 66

FAIRFAX DR

RAMP

N SYCAMORE ST

22ND ST N

26TH ST N

25TH ST N

16TH ST N

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

19TH RD N

19TH ST N

N VAN BUREN ST

WASHINGTON BLVD

N UNDERWOOD ST

N ARIZONA ST

23RD ST N

28TH ST N

N POWHATAN ST

27TH S

T N18TH ST N

12TH PL N

12TH ST N

N WYOMING ST

15TH RD N

12TH RD N

LITTLE

FALLS

RD

24TH ST N

N WESTMORELAND ST

22ND RD N

21ST ST N

N YUCATAN ST

18TH RD N

17TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

N QUA

NTICO

ST

N ROCKINGHAM ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N QUESADA ST

N WINCHESTER ST

15TH PL N

24TH RD N

N POTOMAC ST

N SOMERSET ST


N VAN BUREN CT

N VENABLE ST

N POCOMOKE ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

LITTLE

FALLS

RD

N QUA

NTICO

ST

27TH RD N

19TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

N QUANTICO ST

INTERSTATE 66

23RD ST N

26TH ST N

N POT

OMAC

ST

25TH ST N

N QUIN

TANA

ST

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

24TH ST N

18TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

RAMP

N SYC

AMOR

E ST

22ND RD N

N TUCKAHOE ST

RAMP

RAMP

28TH ST N

27TH ST N

RAMP

N WES

TMOR

ELAN

D ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

22ND RD N

N UNDERWOOD ST

0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet

LegendCounty Line

Study Area


Reco

mmen

ded T

rans

it Netw

ork

8.1

Potential ExpressART Bus Route

George Bus Route

Metrobus RouteBus Station

Kiss-and-Ride

BusFacility

StrationEntrance

Plaza East

Falls

Chu

rch L

and U

se an

d Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Stu

dyTra

nspo

rtatio

n Imp

act S

tudy

Ar

lingt

on, V

A



Futre Metro Station Entrace

COLUMBIA ST

MAPLE AVE

WASHINGTON ST

JEFFERSON ST

BROAD ST

LITTLE FALLS ST

CHER

RY ST

LAWTON ST

GREAT FALLS ST

PARK AVE

FAIRFAX S

T

LINCOLN AVE

MERIDIAN ST

GRESHAM PL

NOLAN

D ST

MIDVA

LE ST

PARK PL

FOREST DR

VAN BUREN ST

UNDERWOOD STBUXTON RD

TUCKAHOE ST

GARDEN CT

SHADOW WALK

GOVERNORS CT

WALDEN CT

KATIE

CT

BISHOPS CT

JAMES THURBER CT

FOUR MILE RUN

LOUN

SBUR

Y PL

YUCA

TAN S

T

26TH ST

PARK WASHINGTON CT

16TH ST

LEE HWY

FAIRFAX ST

COLUMBIA ST

VAN BUREN ST

LEE HWY

INTERSTATE 66

FAIRFAX DR

RAMP

N SYCAMORE ST

12TH ST N

22ND ST N

26TH ST N

25TH ST N

12TH RD N

19TH ST N

18TH ST N

16TH ST N

18TH RD N

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

N OHIO ST

19TH RD N

11TH RD N

N VAN BUREN ST

WASHINGTON BLVD

N UNDERWOOD ST

23RD ST N

N ARIZONA ST

27TH S

T N

N POWHATAN ST

12TH PL N

N WYOMING ST

28TH ST N

15TH RD N

20TH ST N

24TH ST N

N WESTMORELAND ST

22ND RD N

LITTLE

FALLS

RD

21ST ST N

N POT

OMAC

ST

N YUCATAN ST

17TH ST N

JOHN

MAR

SHAL

L DR

N QUINTANA ST

N QUA

NTICO

ST

N ROCKINGHAM ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

N QUESADA ST

14TH ST N

N WINCHESTER ST

15TH PL N

24TH RD N

N SOMERSET ST


N ROC

HEST

ER ST

N VAN BUREN CT

N VENABLE ST

N POCOMOKE ST

N QUINTANA ST

N QUIN

TANA

ST

28TH ST N

N QUANTICO ST

N POW

HATA

N ST

N POC

OMOK

E ST

N POTOMAC ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

24TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

RAMP

22ND RD N

INTERSTATE 66

N POTOMAC ST

27TH RD N

22ND RD N

27TH ST N

N UNDERWOOD ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

RAMP

18TH ST N

RAMP19TH ST N

FAIRFAX DR

25TH ST N

21ST ST N

N SYC

AMOR

E ST

N WES

TMOR

ELAN

D ST

26TH ST N

N TUCKAHOE ST

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

23RD ST N

N POW

HATA

N ST

RAMP

22ND RD N

N QUA

NTICO

ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

LITTLE

FALLS

RD

23RD ST N

N POW

HATA

N ST

Reco

mmen

ded S

hare

d-use

Trail

and B

icycle

Netw

ork

8.20 500250

Feet

W&OD Trail

Shared-use Trail

Recommended Shared-use Trail

Further Study of Off-street Trail

Bicycle Lane

Recommended Bicycle Lanes

On-street Bicycle Route

Recommended On-street Bicycle Route

LegendMetrorail (Orange and Silver Lines)

County Line

Study Area

W&OD Trail

Existing Metro

Future Metro

Station Entrance

Station Entrance

East

Falls

Chu

rch L

and U

se an

d Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Stu

dyTra

nspo

rtatio

n Imp

act S

tudy

Ar

lingt

on, V

A

COLUMBIA ST

MAPLE AVE

WASHINGTON ST

BROAD ST

JEFFERSON ST

LITTLE FALLS ST

GREAT FALLS ST

PARK AVE

CHER

RY ST

LAWTON ST

LINCOLN AVE

FAIRFAX S

T

MERIDIAN ST

GRESHAM PL

NOLAN

D ST

ANNA

NDAL

E RD

MIDVA

LE ST

PARK PL

FOREST DR

VAN BUREN ST

UNDERWOOD ST

VIRGINIA A

VE

BUXTON RD

TUCKAHOE ST

DORCHESTER RD

LANGSTON LN

GARDEN CT

SHADOW WALK

RILEY ST

GOVERNORS CT

WALDEN CT

KATIE

CT

BISHOPS CT

JAMES THURBER CT

FOUR MILE RUN

LOUN

SBUR

Y PL

YUCA

TAN S

T

26TH ST

PARK WASHINGTON CT

16TH ST

LEE HWY

VAN BUREN ST

FAIRFAX ST

COLUMBIA ST

LEE HWY

INTERSTATE 66

FAIRFAX DR

RAMP

N SYCAMORE ST

22ND ST N

12TH ST N

26TH ST N

25TH ST N

19TH ST N

WASHINGTON BLVD

16TH ST N

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

19TH RD N

12TH RD N

18TH RD N

N VAN BUREN ST

18TH ST N

N UNDERWOOD ST

23RD ST N

N ARIZONA ST

11TH RD N

27TH S

T N

N POWHATAN ST

12TH PL N

N WYOMING ST

28TH ST N

15TH RD N

24TH ST N

N WESTMORELAND ST

22ND RD N

LITTLE

FALLS

RD

21ST ST N

N POT

OMAC

ST

N YUCATAN ST

17TH ST N

JOHN

MAR

SHAL

L DR

N QUINTANA ST

N QUA

NTICO

ST

N ROCKINGHAM ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

20TH ST N

N QUESADA ST

N OHIO ST

N WINCHESTER ST

15TH PL N

24TH RD N

N SOMERSET ST


N ROC

HEST

ER ST

N VAN BUREN CT

N VENABLE ST

N POCOMOKE ST

N POW

HATA

N ST

FAIRFAX DRN QUINTANA ST

RAMP

N TUCKAHOE ST

N POC

OMOK

E ST

N QUIN

TANA

ST

24TH ST N

N QUINTANA ST

28TH ST N

N TUCKAHOE ST

27TH ST N

N POTOMAC ST

27TH RD N

N SYC

AMOR

E ST

19TH ST N

N UNDERWOOD ST

N TUCKAHOE ST

18TH ST N

N POTOMAC ST

RAMP

N POW

HATA

N ST

25TH ST N

26TH ST N

LITTLE

FALLS

RD

N QUANTICO ST

N WES

TMOR

ELAN

D ST

22ND RD N

N TUCKAHOE ST

N ROO

SEVE

LT ST

RAMP

23RD ST N

INTERSTATE 66

RAMP

22ND RD N

N QUA

NTICO

ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

N ROOSEVELT ST

22ND RD N

23RD ST N

N POW

HATA

N ST

East

Falls

Chu

rch L

and U

se an

d Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Stu

dyTra

nspo

rtatio

n Imp

act S

tudy

Ar

lingt

on, V

ARe

comm

ende

d Ped

estri

an N

etwor

k

8.3

Priority Pedestrian ImprovementStreetscape Improvement

Recommended Sidewalk

Existing SidewalkShared-use Trail

Recommended Shared-use Trail

Further Study of Off-street Trail

LegendMetrorailCounty Line

Study Area



0 500250Feet

W&OD Trail

W&OD Trail



ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT WITHIMPROVEMENTSIntersection capacity and V/C ratio analyses were conducted for the future with developmenttraffic volumes for the improved study area intersections. The intersection laneage andtraffic control reflect the recommended improvements discussed in this chapter and areshown in Figure 8.4. The existing signalized intersection phasing and timings for FallsChurch intersections were not altered. Signalized intersections in Arlington County arecontrolled by the county and were adjusted according to the proposed recommendations.The intersection cycle lengths in Arlington County were reduced to 110 seconds in the AMpeak hour and 100 seconds in the PM peak hour.

Intersection Capacity AnalysisThe results of the capacity analyses are summarized in Table 8.1. Analysis results showoverall level of service and delay information for each intersection. Figure 8.5 showsanalysis results by lane group. The Synchro HCM reports are contained in Appendix G.

Table 8.1: Future with Development and Improvements Intersection Capacity Analysis



withoutDevelopment*


withDevelopment*


withDevelopment,Improvements*

1. Washington Street and Broad Street D (37) /C (32)

E (56) /E (60)

E (57) /E (63)

E (57) /E (60)

2. Washington Street and Park Avenue A (8) /B (12)

A (9) /B (18)

A (9) /B (19)

A (6) /B (10)

3. Washington Street and Great FallsStreet

B (10) /A (4)

A (8) /A (3)

A (8) /A (3)

A (8) /A (3)

4. Washington Street and ColumbiaStreet

C (29) /C (22)

C (29) /C (29)

C (29) /C (31)

C (25) /C (35)

5. Washington Street and Jefferson Street A (1) /A (1)

A (3) /A (2)

A (3) /A (2)

A (5) /A (2)

6. Washington Street /Lee Highway andGresham Place

A (3) /A (1)

A (7) /A (6)

A (7) /A (6)

A (5) /A (3)

7. Lee Highway and Westmoreland Street A (7) /D (50)

B (12) /F (186)

B (14) /F (216)

B (12) /C (31)

8. Lee Highway and Fairfax Drive C (27) /C (25)

C (31) /C (28)

C (31) /C (30)

C (23) /C (27)

9. Fairfax Drive/25th Street N. andWashington Boulevard

A (2) /A (2)

A (2) /A (3)

A (2) /A (3)

A (2) /A (3)

9a. I-66 On-Ramp and WashingtonBoulevard

F (97) /B (12)

F (145) /C (17)

F (161) /C (23)

F (130) /C (20)

10.Lee Highway and WashingtonBoulevard

C (26) /C (22)

D (41) /C (27)

D (46) /C (29)

D (44) /C (20)



Table 8.1: Future with Development and Improvements Intersection Capacity Analysis



withoutDevelopment*


withDevelopment*


withDevelopment,Improvements*

11. Lee Highway and Underwood Street A (4) /A (1)

A (4) /A (1)

A (5) /A (2)

A (2) /A (1)

12. Lee Highway and Sycamore Street C (22) /C (20)

C (24) /C (21)

C (24) /C (22)

C (37) /C (26)

13. 22nd Street N. and Sycamore Street A (3) /A (1)

A (3) /A (1)

A (3) /A (1)

A (2) /A (1)

14. Washington Boulevard and SycamoreStreet

D (41) /C (33)

D (42) /C (36)

D (43) /C (36)

D (42) /C (33)

15. Metro Bus facility/I-66 Off-Ramp andSycamore Street

A (8) /B (12)

A (8) /B (13)

A (8) /B (14)

A (7) /A (9)

16. 19th Street N./I-66 On-Ramp andSycamore Street

C (24) /B (12)

C (28) /B (14)

C (28) /B (14)

C (20) /B (12)

17. Washington Boulevard and MetroPark-and-Ride Lot

A (1) /A (7)

A (1) /B (11)

A (8) /F (257)

B (10) /B (16)


Under future conditions with development and improvements, the intersection ofWashington Street and Broad Street (Intersection 1) is forecast to continue to operate atLOS E in the AM and PM peak hours. The overall delay will be similar to that experiencedunder future conditions without development. The intersection of Washington Boulevardwestbound and the I-66 On-ramp (intersection 9a) will continue to operate at LOS F in theAM peak hour. The overall delay will be reduced from existing conditions with the alteredlane designations to provide dual northwestbound left-turn lanes to the I-66 On-Ramp. Allother intersections are forecast to operate with an overall LOS D or better. Somemovements will operate at LOS E or F.

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend

Metrorail

County Line

Study Area



Travel Lane

Site Access

! Existing Signal

!( Proposed Signal

!( Unsignalized

(Orange andSilver Lines)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G1 H

I

M1

M2N

O

P

Rec

omm

ende

d La

nea

ge a

nd

Traf

fic

Con

trol

8.4

East

Fal

ls C

hurc

h La

nd U

se a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n St

udy

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Stu

dyAr

lingt

on, V

A

Legend


County Line



Study Area

1

14

13

17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

10

15

16

9a

Legend


County Line

Study Area


Study Area



Was

hing

ton

Blvd

Anim

alHo

spita

l

(26.3/C) 60.4/E

(17.9/B) 32.1/C

(7.9/A) 9.8/A

LeeHwy

Syca

mor

eSt

12

(23.

9/C

) 83.

3/F

67.9/E (27.6/C)

8.5/A (18.5/B)

10

(42.4/D) 41.4/D

(7.1/A) 5.7/A(1

4.1/

B) 3

0.6/

C

(12.

7/B)

24.

3/C

(52.

7/D

) 26.

7/C

(42.

3/D

) 79.

8/E

39.8

/D (8

0.1/

F)

133.

8/F

(241

.9/F

)

Broa

dSt

(15.5/B) 6.7/A

(30.4/C) 27.7/C

16.7/B (39.8/D)

19.0/B (17.3/B)

31.8

/C (3

1.6/

C)

Col

umbi

aSt

WashingtonSt

4

(46.

0/D

) 60.

8/E

Gre

sham

Pl

WashingtonSt

6

(47.3/D) 17.8/B

(26.2/C) 59.9/E

29.4/C (42.5/D)

43.1/D (10.6/B)Washington

St

1 Park

Ave

WashingtonSt

2

9.4/

A (1

5.2/

C)

118.

0/F

(41.

6/E)

(2.4/A) 2.8/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

0.0/A (0.0/A)

Gre

atFa

lls S

t

WashingtonSt

3

5

Jeffe

rson

St

WashingtonSt

87

(22.2/C) 17.6/B

LeeHwy

LeeHwy

1.7/A (44.1/D)

9.2/A (24.9/C)

(10.2/B) 4.9/A

(6.5/A) 12.4/B

43.8

/D (3

7.6/

D)

Wes

tmor

e-la

nd S

t

3.6/A (12.9/B)

9.9/A (12.2/B)


Dr

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9

(4.2

/A) 0

.6/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

Was

hing

ton

Blvd

9a 17

15

14

16

(30.2/C) 40.7/D

(32.4/C) 42.7/D

(9.9

/A) 7

.8/A

(18.

3/B)

15.

6/B

4.1/

A (5

.5/A

)

53.6

/D (4

.6/A

)

N 19th

St

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66On Ramp

BusEntrance

Syca

mor

eSt

I-66Off Ramp

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

(3.0

/A) 3

.3/A

3.4/

A (5

.7/A

)

44.2/D (37.9/D)

44.6/D (38.2/D)

44.6/D (39.3/D)

(44.6/D) 49.8/D

(43.6/D) 48.5/D

(11.8/B) 27.5/C

(40.8/D) 51.4/D

(32.

9/C

) 59.

0/E

(22.

8/C

) 23.

9/C

(14.

4/B)

3.9

/A

32.2/C (24.5/C)

22.8/C (51.5/D)

37.5

/D (3

7.9/

D)

45.2

/D (4

8.3/

D)

WashingtonBlvd

Syca

mor

eSt

13

(19.3/C) 14.6/B

(9.0

/A) 9

.2/A

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

17.1/C (15.3/C)

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

9.1/

A (8

.6/A

)

22nd St N

Syca

mor

eSt

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

(23.0/C) 13.1/B

(41.

8/D

) 44.

7/D

(38.

3/D

) 42.

5/D

5.8/A (4.1/A)

3.9/A (14.3/B)

47.2

/D (4

2.7/

D)

WashingtonBlvd

Town

hom

esM

etro

Park

ing

24.6/C (21.8/C)

37.8/D (37.0/D)

66.2/E (29.0/C)51

.8/D

(31.

0/C

)

30.4

/C (2

4.9/

C)

(44.

4/D

) 33.

0/C

(40.

2/D

) 47.

4/D

28.4

/C (3

2.3/

C)

39.2

/D (4

2.9/

D)

44.6

/D (4

7.7/

D)

Fairf

axD

rW

ashi

ngto

nBl

vd

25th St N

LeeHwy

40.8

/D (3

4.9/

C)

48.6

/D (4

0.8/

D)

(13.0/B) 6.2/A

0.7/A (2.1/A)

(1.2/A) 0.8/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

2.4/A (2.6/A)

30.7

/D (3

0.3/

D)

(23.

4/C

) 93.

9/F

(1.7/A) 3.7/A

2.2/A (3.5/A)

17.5

/C (1

4.2/

B)

LeeHwy

Unde

rwoo

dSt

11

Veriz

onEn

tranc

e

(2.1/A) 5.7/A

(0.0/A) 0.0/A

0.0/A (0.0/A)

0.0/A (0.0/A)

(27.

9/C

) 199

.3/F

(27.

9/C

) 199

.3/F

(0.0

/A) 0

.0/A

0.0/

A (0

.0/A

)

AM|PM SignalizedIntersection Level of Service

AM|PM UnsignalizedIntersection Level of Service

LOS A or B

LOS C or D

LOS E or F

26.6/C (19.9/B) AM VehicleDelay/LOS(PM VehicleDelay/LOS

Approved and UnbuiltDevelopment Location

Futu

re w

ith D

evel

opm

ent a

nd Im

prov

emen

ts A

Man

d PM

Pea

k H

our I

nter

sect

ion

Leve

ls o

f Ser

vice

8.5

Fire

Sta

tion

Driv

eway

Driv

eway



The intersection of Lee Highway and Westmoreland Street (Intersection 7) is forecast toimprove to LOS C in the PM peak hour with eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes inplace. At the intersection of Lee Highway and Sycamore Street (Intersection 12), LOS isforecast to remain C in the AM and PM peak hours despite the removal of a through laneand right-turn lanes in the northbound and southbound directions. Similarly, the intersectionof 22nd Street N. and Sycamore Street (Intersection 13) is forecast to remain LOS A despitethe removal of a through lane on Sycamore Street. At the intersection of WashingtonBoulevard and Sycamore Street (Intersection 14), the removal of southbound andeastbound right-turn lanes does not have a negative impact on the overall LOS ofintersection. The removal of the split phasing for the northbound/southbound direction,combined with the redesignation of the existing lane uses reduce the overall intersectiondelay. With a traffic signal and turn-lanes in place, the intersection of Washington Boulevardand the Metro Park-and-Ride lot driveway (future Site M1 driveway, Intersection 17) isforecast to operate at LOS B in the PM peak hour.

Under future conditions with development and improvements, all driveways for proposeddevelopment sites will operate at overall LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours.The Synchro HCM reports for site driveways with access to arterial roads are contained inAppendix H.

Link V/C RatioTable 8.2 shows the results of the link V/C analyses for future conditions with developmentand the proposed improvements.



Table 8.2: Future with Development and Improvements Link V/C Ratios

Link2010

ExistingConditions*


withoutDevelopment*


withDevelopment*


withDevelopment,Improvement*

Washington Street– Broad Street toArlington County Line 0.50 (0.63) 0.61 (0.76) 0.64 (0.90) 0.60 (0.78)

Lee Highway– Falls Church City Line toFairfax Drive/Washington Boulevard 0.28 (0.79) 0.56 (1.14) 0.60 (1.21) 0.52 (0.95)

Lee Highway– Washington Boulevard toSycamore Street 0.47 (0.40) 0.54 (0.52) 0.57 (0.54) 0.62 (0.68)

Sycamore Street– Lee Highway toWashington Boulevard 0.41 (0.27) 0.43 (0.29) 0.43 (0.29) 0.76 (0.56)

Sycamore Street– WashingtonBoulevard to 19th Street 0.49 (0.32) 0.54 (0.36) 0.54 (0.54) 0.62 (0.52)

Washington Boulevard– Lee Highwayto Sycamore Street 0.73 (0.66) 0.81 (0.74) 0.83 (0.77) 0.98 (0.86)

Washington Boulevard Westbound–Lee Highway to I-66 West On-Ramp 1.10 (0.71) 1.12 (0.72) 1.19 (0.77) 1.16 (0.74)

* AM peak hour V/C ratio (PM peak hour V/C ratio)Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Under future conditions with development and improvements, the study link of WashingtonStreet between Broad Street and the Arlington County Line is forecast to operate at a V/Cratio of 0.78 in the PM peak hour, reduced from 0.90 under the future conditions withoutimprovements. The study link of Lee Highway from the Falls Church city line to FairfaxDrive/Washington Boulevard is forecast to operate at a V/C ratio of 0.95 in the PM peakhour. The study link of Washington Boulevard between Lee Highway and Sycamore Streetis forecast to operate at a V/C ratio of 0.98 in the AM peak hour.

Multimodal ConditionsPedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel were not specifically analyzed for future conditionswith development and the proposed improvements. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transitconditions will benefit from the proposed improvements.



9. CONCLUSIONSThis study finds that the area transportation system with recommended improvements willaccommodate the proposed East Falls Church development. The recommended additionalor improved multimodal facilities will provide a greater level of overall accommodation andsafety to all modes of transportation within the study area. Recommendations in this studyinclude the provision of new and improved regionally- and locally-serving transit services inthe future. Metrorail station access will be increased with the proposed western entrance. Anetwork of on-street bicycle facilities and improved trail connections will facilitate convenientand safe movement of bicyclists. Pedestrian conditions will benefit from new connections,adequate new facilities, modifications to intersections, and more moderate vehicle speeds.

The vehicular network will experience some congestion under future conditions; however, itwill not be dissimilar to what is currently experienced under existing conditions. Under futureconditions with development and improvements, all driveways for proposed developmentsites will operate at overall LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours. Two study areaintersections are anticipated to operate at LOS E or F under future conditions withdevelopment.

The intersection of Washington Street and Broad Street is forecast to operate at LOS E inthe AM and PM peak hour; however, the proposed development only increases intersectiondelay nominally when compared to future conditions without development. Improvementsthat include additional lanes are not feasible at this intersection due to existing adjacentdevelopment.

The intersection of Washington Boulevard westbound and the I-66 On-Ramp is forecast tooperate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. It is worth noting that the intersection currentlyoperates at LOS F. Additional widening is not feasible or useful at this intersection andsignalization would not improve performance for the Washington Boulevard movement.

The study section of Washington Boulevard westbound from Lee Highway to the I-66 WestOn-Ramp is the only study road section that will operate with a V/C ratio of greater than 1.0under future conditions with development. This street section is constrained by theintersections of Washington Boulevard with Lee Highway and the I-66 On-Ramp. WideningWashington Boulevard would improve link operations; however, the physical constraints ofthe intersections at either end of the section prevent widening from being an effectiveapproach to improving operations.

Even with the relatively congested operations of the two aforementioned intersections andone road section, vehicular mobility will be maintained in the study area. Traffic is notforecast to increase substantially on local streets as a result of plan proposed futuredevelopment.

Documents

East Falls Church Land Use and Transportation Studylandtrx.vdot.virginia.gov/Attachments/be8ab303877a4d7… · · 2011-04-07... Summary of VDOT Daily Traffic Volume Data ... Table