EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket
Feasibility Study Report
Prepared for
Virginia Railway Express (VRE)
Alexandria, Virginia
Prepared by
Vienna, Virginia
in association with
AECOM
The Perspectives Group
Harris Miller Miller Hanson Inc.
September 28, 2009
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Existing Service ......................................................................................................................... 1 Service Extension Options to Gainesville-Haymarket ............................................................... 2 Minimum Operating Segment .................................................................................... 2 Phased Approach ...................................................................................................... 2 Full Build-Out ............................................................................................................. 3 Areas of Evaluation .................................................................................................... 4 Station Site Identification and Screening ................................................................................. 10 Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................................... 11 Site Location Recommendations ............................................................................. 11 Rail Infrastructure Assessment ................................................................................................ 16 Corridor Improvements ............................................................................................ 16 Rail Infrastructure Needs ......................................................................................... 16 Environmental Considerations ................................................................................. 18 Train Storage Requirements .................................................................................... 19 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 24 Terminus .................................................................................................................. 24 Comparison of Extension Options ........................................................................... 24 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 25 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 26 Federal Funding Opportunities ................................................................................ 27 State Funding Opportunities .................................................................................... 27 Local Funding Opportunities .................................................................................... 27 Other Funding Opportunities.................................................................................... 27 \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
i
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
List of Tables
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Summary of Equipment Needs and Associated Capital Costs .................................. 5
Summary of Ridership Model Findings ...................................................................... 7
Number of Trips ......................................................................................................... 8
Total Capital and O&M Costs (in $2008) ................................................................. 10
Site Scoring Matrix ................................................................................................... 13
Summary Matrix of Environmental Considerations ............................................. 14-15
Linear Feet of Wetlands and Floodplains Identified Along Rail Line........................ 18
Challenges Associated with Potential Storage Yard Sites ....................................... 23
Advantages and Disadvantages of Extension Options ............................................ 25
List of Figures
Figure 1:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
ii
Summary of Equipment Needs and Associated Capital Costs ................................ 12
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Strategic Plan 2004-2025 listed an extension
to the Gainesville-Haymarket region as one of several viable options for a
potential network expansion of the Manassas Line. The Gainesville-Haymarket
Feasibility Study was initiated to fulfill this need.
The purpose of this Feasibility Study is to investigate the feasibility of expanding
commuter service northwesterly for approximately 11 miles along the existing
Norfolk Southern (NS) B Line
from Manassas Station on the
Manassas Line to the
Gainesville-Haymarket region.
The Feasibility Study will
examine the project from an
engineering, construction,
ridership, operations, and cost
perspective to aid in
determining the value of adding
commuter service for residents
in the northern Virginia
communities of Gainesville and
View of existing NS corridor.
Haymarket.
Existing Service
Commuter rail service operates on two lines in northern Virginia: from
Washington, DC to Fredericksburg on tracks owned by CSX Corporation (CSX)
and from Alexandria, VA to Manassas on tracks owned by NS (Mainline). From
Union Station in Washington, DC, these two lines share the same CSX owned
right-of-way for about 9.6 miles, to just south of Alexandria, Virginia, where they
diverge. The Fredericksburg Line roughly follows Interstate 95 (I-95) and the
Potomac River to the City of Fredericksburg, and the Manassas Line runs in a
westerly direction from Alexandria, roughly paralleling I-66 approximately five
miles to the south, into the cities of Manassas Park and Manassas.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
1
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Service is currently oriented towards Washington, DC in the morning peak
periods (5:00AM-8:00AM) and in the opposite direction in the evening peak
periods (4:00PM-7:00PM). There is no service on weekends.
Per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CSX, VRE is limited to 40
trains per day system-wide for the CSX owned tracks from approximately one
mile west of the Alexandria Station to Union Station, Washington, DC.
Currently, 16 daily trains are operated on the Manassas Line and 14 daily trains
on the Fredericksburg Line (13 of the Fredericksburg Line trains operate in
revenue service and one operates in non-revenue service). The combined service
results in a total of 30 daily trains in the corridor between Alexandria and Union
Stations.
Service Extension Options to GainesvilleHaymarket
A few different options for the expansion of VRE commuter rail service have
been developed to offer a range of investment of service opportunities.
Minimum Operating Segment
As a short-term approach to providing service to the Gainesville-Haymarket
area, a minimum operating segment (MOS) option could be implemented to one
station (single platform) in Gainesville. This option would be an overlay of the
existing Broad Run service. Two round trips per day between Gainesville and
Washington, DC would be added – two inbound trips to Washington, DC in the
AM Peak Period and two outbound trips to Gainesville in the PM Peak Period.
These trips would keep the total VRE service within the capacity constraint of 40
trains per day. Minor modifications to the current Manassas Line schedule
would be needed. The service would be provided using spare equipment that is
currently excess equipment (not required to meet the spare ratio), offering a
starting point for regular service to/from the Gainesville-Haymarket area. It
would still require building a second track parallel to the existing NS B Line,
although it is possible to relocate portions of the existing mainline, thus
accommodating two tracks in the existing right-of-way. Trains could be stored
on a secure siding at the station to support the initial service plan. This option
would require minimal capital resources, as no new vehicles would be needed.
Phased Approach
A second approach would be to pursue a phased implementation plan to the
Gainesville-Haymarket area, with a more robust schedule of service than the
MOS option to Gainesville as the first phase. The second phase would include
extending the service to Haymarket. This option would require more capital
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
2
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
resources than the MOS option because it would run more frequent service
(similar to the full build-out option). This service would make five round trip
runs per day (10 total trips), which is within the capacity constraint of 40 trains
per day. It would require more extensive modifications to the current Manassas
Line schedule. The initial phase would include stations in Gainesville and in the
Sudley/Innovation area. The second phase would add the Haymarket Station as
funding permits. The phased approach would provide a transit benefit to more
riders initially than the MOS through more frequent service and an additional
station, but would cost less, at least initially, than the full build-out option.
Full Build-Out
The full build-out option includes adding the new branch of service all the way
to Haymarket. Heading in a westerly direction along the NS B Line from
Manassas Station, trains would stop at three stations in the Sudley/Innovation,
Gainesville, and Haymarket areas. This option would require the most
significant capital resources in one outlay but may be more cost effective than
extending the investment over multiple years and phases. It would most
effectively meet the transit needs of the growing population along the entirety of
the Gainesville-Haymarket corridor.
The full build-out option could vary based on three potential service scenarios:
h
h
h
Unconstrained Service
Split Service Constrained
Split Service Constrained (with rail shuttle service)
Unconstrained Service
The Unconstrained Service option would provide the following trips on the
Manassas Line:
h
h
Broad Run to Washington DC: 16 round-trip
Haymarket to Washington DC: 16 round-trip
The total number of trips on the Manassas Line (32) combined with the existing
Fredericksburg trains would exceed VRE’s system wide constraint of 40 trains
per day on the CSX tracks between NS mile 9.12 (Seminary CFP 103),
approximately one mile south of Alexandria Station and Washington, DC Union
Station. Implementation challenges for this alternative include the need to
negotiate for additional slots above the 40 trains per day maximum as well as
accommodate additional mid-day/overnight storage requirements.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
3
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Split Service Constrained
The Split Service Constrained option would evenly split the theoretical 20 trips
per day for the Manassas Line evenly between Broad Run Station and
Haymarket. As a result, five roundtrips per day would service each terminal.
This would require modifying the current Manassas Line schedule. There are no
major implementation challenges associated with this option since additional
slots on CSX are not needed, although mid-day/overnight storage capacity may
be a concern depending on the operating plan.
Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle
This option offers the same 10 daily roundtrips from the two Manassas Line
terminals (Broad Run and Haymarket) to Washington, DC as in the previous
Split Service Constrained option. In addition, this option adds a rail shuttle
service that runs to/from Alexandria Station and primarily Haymarket. This
shuttle would offer a two-seat ride to Washington, DC through a transfer at
Alexandria Station to Metrorail and would also provide an all day reverse
commute service from Alexandria to the Manassas and the GainesvilleHaymarket area. This shuttle service slightly overlaps the portion of the CSX
controlled rail line that is subject to the capacity constraint. The ‘split’ between
NS and CSX territory and the start of the capacity constraint is approximately
one mile west of the Alexandria Station. Implementation challenges for this
option include coordinating with NS and CSX for the rail shuttle service and to
obtain expanded access to the Alexandria Station. Additional capacity
improvements on CSX and improvements at the Alexandria Station and
expansion of mid-day/overnight storage may be required in support of this
option.
Areas of Evaluation
The feasibility of each of these commuter rail expansion options is assessed in the
following six main areas:
h
h
h
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
4
Capacity Constraints
Equipment Needs
Ridership
Scheduling/Operations
Costs
Fare Revenue
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Capacity Constraints
The Unconstrained option requires negotiations between all parties to identify
and fund the modifications necessary to support the service expansion. The Split
Service Constrained option assumes that service added works within the existing
agreement and no new capacity improvements are required. The Split Service
Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle option would also require negotiations to address
the capacity issues on the CSX controlled territory. It is assumed that the cost of
the solution may be less since the option only impacts a short one-mile segment
and Alexandria Station. An alternative option would be to explore staying in NS
territory, stopping short of Alexandria at an infill station at Van Dorn Metrorail
or similar, but this would need to be further evaluated.
Equipment Needs
Based on the current fleet and anticipated system needs, VRE estimates that three
locomotives could be available for a Gainesville-Haymarket service, helping to
offset equipment purchase costs for the extension options. The total anticipated
equipment needs and their associated capital costs for these extension options
are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Equipment Needs and Associated Capital Costs for
Extension Options.
Total Equipment Needed
Net Equipment
Purchase*
Sets
Loco
Coaches
Loco
Coaches
MOS
2
2
6**
0
0
$0 M
$0 M
$0 M
Phased
Approach
1
1
10
0
10
$0 M
$23 M
$23 M
Split Service
Constrained
1
1
10
0
10
$0 M
$23 M
$23 M
Split Service
Plus Shuttle
6
6
32
3
32
$14 M
$74 M
$88 M
Capital Costs
Loco
Coaches
Total
* Net Equipment Purchase equals Total Equipment Needed less the available extra equipment (three locomotives).
** The MOS assumes a modification of existing train sets to obtain extra coaches to run this service.
Ridership
Ridership data for the Gainesville-Haymarket extension was initially compiled as
part of the Strategic Plan in 2004. These ridership modeling results
demonstrated an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 trips per day attributable to the
Gainesville-Haymarket extension.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
5
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
A second travel demand model forecasting process was developed as part of the
Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis to forecast the projected ridership
for the extension options. This process was based on the current Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) model set (Version 2.2), related
work on other projects in the Washington metropolitan area, and adjustments to
better match observed transit travel in the Gainesville-Haymarket corridor.
These ridership modeling results demonstrated an estimated 1,000 to 3,600 trips
per day attributable to the Gainesville-Haymarket extension.
One key difference between the two modeling processes was that the first model
included unconstrained capacity, while the latter was modeled within the
existing capacity constraint. Working within the capacity constraint lessens the
service frequency and results in lower ridership forecast numbers.
It should be noted that the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
(MWCOG) model is highly sensitive to service frequency. The calibration for
transit service is closer to a rapid transit service (i.e. Metrorail) than it is to a
commuter rail service frequency. Even slight adjustments in frequencies resulted
in significant ridership shifts. To address this issue, two model test runs were
conducted. These runs shifted all of the service to the Gainesville-Haymarket
corridor to test the sensitivity of the model. These test runs resulted in forecast
ridership attributed to the Gainesville-Haymarket extension of approximately
5,500 trips per day.
Table 2 summarizes of the ridership model findings for the GainesvilleHaymarket Alternatives Analysis. This includes the Full Build-Out options (Split
Service Constrained and Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle), as well as
the two test runs, 1G and 1H (service ending in Gainesville and Haymarket,
respectively). Total Manassas Line Trips include all VRE trips (inbound and
outbound service). Total Manassas Line Study Area Trips include all VRE trips
(inbound and outbound service) to/from the study area stations: Manassas
Park, Manassas, Broad Run, Sudley Manor/Innovation, Gainesville, and
Haymarket.
Between the ridership projections from the Strategic Plan and the GainesvilleHaymarket Alternatives Analysis, it can be concluded that a rail extension to
Gainesville-Haymarket would add needed capacity and choice to the VRE
system. The forecast methodology differed among these two studies, but the
range of ridership potential was identified as somewhere between 1,000 and
5,000 trips per day. These results demonstrate a market for commuter rail
service in the Gainesville-Haymarket corridor, but the size of this market is
dependent upon the frequency of the service offered. A key finding is that a new
end of the line station in Gainesville or Haymarket has the potential to attract a
similar level of ridership as Broad Run Station.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
6
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Table 2: Summary of Daily Ridership Model Findings
Total VRE
Manassas Line
Trips (Per Day)
Total Manassas
Line Study Area
Trips (Per Day)
1.
Split Service
Constrained
(1B)
Split Service
Constrained Plus
Rail Shuttle (1C)
Test 1G Option
11,394
17,500
9,388
10,046
6,126
9,156
4,174
6,058
Test 1H Option
Source: Appendix F of VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Key to establishing a final set of forecast ridership projections will be a
determination regarding the level of service that can realistically be provided to
the two Manassas Line termini: Broad Run and Gainesville-Haymarket. An
initial starter service to one station in Gainesville is going to attract a smaller base
of ridership than a full service plan to three new stations. The starter service
would be helpful to start establishing a real demand for the service and provide a
platform from which to build a full service plan.
Scheduling/Operations
Operating plans for the extension options were developed to allow the
identification of vehicle requirements, estimation of capital costs, estimation of
operating & maintenance (O&M) costs and modeling of ridership. The
conceptual operating plans for the options consist of planned headway and
travel times for each proposed and modified existing corridor.
The operating plans were established based on existing constraints, including the
capacity constraint into Washington, DC. The service periods were defined as
follows:
h
h
h
AM Peak: 5-8 AM
Mid-day: 8 AM-4 PM
PM Peak: 4-7 PM
For the Minimum Operating Segment option, the existing Manassas Line
schedule does not change. Two round trips per day (two inbound during the
AM Peak and two outbound during the PM Peak) would be added to the new
branch to Gainesville.
The Phased Approach option would reduce the number of trips on the current
Manassas Line schedule serving Broad Run Station. The operating plan for this
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
7
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
option is the same as the operating plan for the Full Build-Out Split Service
Constrained option, except that the Phased Approach ends in Gainesville.
Table 3 provides a summary of the number of trips and their scheduled
departure times for the Split Service Constrained and the Split Service
Constrained Plus Shuttle options.
Table 3: Number of Trips
# Trips
Split Service Constrained
AM Peak
Mid-day
PM Peak
New CR From G-H to
Modified Existing CR
DC
from Broad Run to DC
In
3
4
Out
1
1
In
1
0
Out
1
0
In
1
1
Out
3
4
Split Service Constrained Plus
Shuttle
AM Peak
# Trips
# Trips
20
New CR from G-H to
Modified Existing CR
New CR Shuttle from G-
DC
from Broad Run to DC
H to Alexandria
In
3
6
3
Out
0
1
2
Mid-day
In
0
1
10
Out
0
1
9
PM Peak
In
0
0
2
Out
3
5
4
1.
2.
3.
4.
# Daily Trips1
VRE trips for the commuter rail options are on Manassas Line only.
CR = Commuter Rail; G-H = Gainesville-Haymarket
VRE operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM. This represents a 15-hour service day.
There are no pre-AM peak or post-PM peak train starts.
Costs
The capital cost estimates include infrastructure items, such as track installation,
land acquisition, station design and parking, signal system installation, and
equipment acquisition. The cost assumptions do not include grade separation
projects along the B Line. These are independent projects that VRE will need to
coordinate with VDOT and other agencies as required.
Infrastructure requirements were identified at a conceptual level based on the
proposed alignments. For example, the quantity of new track that would be
needed is based on assumptions about the design speed, operating plan, and
available track. Site structures and the signal system to be installed were
estimated based on assumed or existing conditions, such as where retaining
walls may be needed and the capabilities of the current signal system on the
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
8
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
20
corridor. Improvements made by the Commonwealth of Virginia and NS, such
as passing sidings and signalization updates were accounted for in the estimate.
Improvements required to overcome the existing capacity constraint into
Washington DC associated with any of the options are not included in the
estimates.
Equipment requirements were estimated based on the modeling results, utilizing
the conceptual operating plans developed for each option. The number of
vehicles needed is a function of the length of the route, planned headways, the
average speed, and the turnaround times. Vehicle requirements are estimated
based on these factors and include accommodating for existing fleet. Note that
the cost estimates do not include spare locomotives and coaches.
Vehicle parking requirements and lot sizes were estimated for each potential
station based on the modeling results for test options 1G and 1H, which
demonstrate the maximum ridership potential of stations along the GainesvilleHaymarket extension. The expansion of parking facilities at existing stations that
would be attributed to the Gainesville-Haymarket service expansion was also
included.
Conceptual O&M costs were also estimated based on alignments, operating
plans, and service levels for the Build Alternatives. Operating and maintenance
costs are the expenses incurred to provide day-to-day operations and
maintenance of the transit system. Labor and direct expenses are two main
components of O&M costs. Labor expenses include salaries of management,
administrative, operations, and maintenance staff. The staffing level required for
a project is based on the fleet size and the hours of operation for the proposed
service. Direct expenses include costs for management, administration,
operations, equipment and right-of-way maintenance, power/utilities,
spares/consumables, cleaning/facilities maintenance, and other contingencies.
The capital cost for the MOS option includes the possibility of relocating portions
of the existing mainline to accommodate the second track within the existing
right-of-way. This would require negotiations with Norfolk Southern, as well as
a detailed analysis of the most appropriate locations to do this along the corridor.
The MOS option also includes a provision for eliminating costs that could
potentially be covered by a development proffer, as shown in Table 4.
Total conceptual capital and O&M costs for each of the propose extension
options are summarized in Table 4.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
9
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Table 4: Total Capital and O&M Costs (in $2008)
Minimum
Operating
Segment
Phased Option
with 2 Stations
Full Build-Out Split
Service Constraint (1B)
Full Build-Out Split
Service Constraint + Rail
Shuttle (1C)
Total Capital Cost $58 M/$43 M*
$122 M
$159 M
$243 M
Total Annual O&M
Cost** $20 M
$26 M
$27 M
$44 M
Note:
*
**
Represents the total costs for the MOS option minus the costs that could potentially be covered through a
private development proffer.
The costs shown in this table represent the annual O&M costs for the entire Manassas Line service under this
scenario.
Station Site Identification and Screening
In 2005, the Gainesville-Haymarket Extension Implementation Plan identified
three future potential station locations for the project based on the ridership
demand and regional roadway access capabilities. These potential station
locations are:
¾
¾
¾
Sudley Manor (Sudley/Innovation) Area: Access from Sudley Manor
Drive
Gainesville Area: Access from US 29
Haymarket Area: Access from US 15
The Implementation Plan identified the need for an assessment of potential
station sites located within these areas. Potential sites located within these
general areas include:
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
Haymarket Site 1
Haymarket Site 2
Gainesville Site 1
Dominion Station Site
Gainesville Site 2
Florida Rock Site
Sudley/Innovation Site 1
Sudley /Innovation Site 2
Williams Site
Vulcan Quarry Site
Wellington Road Site
These potential station sites are shown in Figure 1.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
10
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation criteria were developed to assess the advantages and disadvantages
of potential station locations. The evaluation criteria include station access,
transit operations, land use compatibility, and project costs. Each station site was
rated numerically from -2 to +2, with -2 being the most unfavorable and +2 being
the most favorable based on each criterion. All ratings were totaled, and the
strengths and weaknesses associated with each site were identified. The
performance of each site relative to this evaluation criterion is summarized in
Table 5. Table 6 provides a comparative matrix of potential impacts by site.
Site Location Recommendations
This evaluation performed in this study was not used to select preferred station
site alternatives in each of the three general station areas (Haymarket,
Gainesville, and Sudley/Innovation), but rather to identify the strengths and
weaknesses of each site. Completion of the evaluation process did identify three
sites that should potentially be dropped from the list of potential alternatives as
the project development process moves forward.
The first of these sites is the Vulcan Quarry Site. This site performed poorly
relative to the other sites in the evaluation scoring, predominantly because
preliminary engineering analysis indicated that the site is very likely infeasible
from an engineering perspective. While more detailed analysis could be
completed in future stages of project development, the preliminary analysis
indicates that this is a candidate for removal from the list of potential
alternatives.
The second candidate for removal is the Sudley/Innovation Site 2. This site has
good access off Sudley Manor Drive, but it performed poorly because it is
dominated by existing uses that would be expensive and time consuming to
displace. Other sites around Sudley/Innovation Site 2 (Sudley/Innovation Site 1
and the Williams Industrial Site) have comparable access and do not have the
same issues as Sudley/Innovation Site 2.
A third potential site to be considered for removal is the Wellington Road Site.
The site performed very well relative to environmental considerations, but it
performed less well relative to accessibility issues and acquisition and
displacement issues. With regard to accessibility, the site has relatively poor
connections to the regional roadway network, making it relatively inaccessible to
potential passengers arriving at the station via automobile. The site is also close
to the Manassas Station, thus splitting the rider shed. With regard to acquisition
and displacement issues, the site performed poorly because multiple properties
would have to be assembled for a site large enough to accommodate a park and
ride facility. Under this criterion, there would also be displacement of existing
residential properties.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
11
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
PZ
AG
E
RD
29
RD
IL LE
GAINSFORD CT
CH L N
ST
RR
Y
AR
R
CH
E
QU
ST
OW
BA
RT
R
PL
CT
N
BR
E
D
CK
ET
NT
ST
T LN
D
TA
DR
BY
R
D
SH
ALLWO
OD
PI
EY
DR
EN
HO O
OV
ER
ST
IR
E
DR
DEA N
CL
BE
RK
R DR
A
R
FOS TE
KE
SV
ILL
E
NO
CENT REVIL L
E RD
MATH IS AVE
PORT NE R AVE
DY S
PEAB O
CT
MAL LOW
IDE R
BUR N
S
GOD WIN DR
RD
RD
ON
GT
LIN
EL
W
Y
ST
TOW N LN
RD
TRE
V
LE
VE
LN
N
ER
YD
N
KI
MC
MA
I
N
B UC K N
C EN
LIBERTY ST
T
UT S
ER N
BU T
T
RW
NE
BAN
D
DR
OOD
LIVINGSTON RD
QU
TW
R DR
Y M ANO
SUD LE
Y
DS
W
EL
SH
RD RD
BALLS FO
ST
Legend
OG
ST
GG
HI
LL
RD
RD
OL
H
SC
VE
NA
TO
N
28
N
CH
L
OO
BR
A
SO
NG
V
U
TE
E
AV
R
FE
R
N
F
JE
RD
LI
NC
RL
DO
TU
ST
ST
ST
IAM A CT
AS
I LL
E
W
GL
DL
E
U
O
C
O
DO
IN
W
PR
AS
P
ST
PINEY B
I
MA
ST
T
ES
VE
TA
R ST
N
OL
ST
W
AN
ER
NT
1
!
Figure 1:
Potential Station Locations
Potential Station Locations and Park & Ride Sites
EY R
VRE Haymarket Extension
D
INC
Potential Park and Ride Sites
IAM
PY
T AV E
D
500ft Buffer
Waterbody
GRA N
NO
VINT HILL RD
V
K ES
ER
IL L
DR
ILL
VI NT HIL L R D
S
AS
EW
1
!
M AN AS
Roads
0
2,000
4,000
Feet
E
T
ST
GR
CE
AV
W
ST
T
ES
E
AV
H
RC
T
YS
VI E
IR
N
W
VE
TA
U
CH
ES
DE
BE
ZE
I
MA
ST
AN
VE
EA
E
LE
LL
WA
66
LE
TT
BA
GR
AVE
PARK
CENTE
R ST
BY
ST
GS
T
FA
ST
BNEL AVE
LE
E LL R D
IR V IN
T
DY
L RD
COCK R
AV E
S
MO
CENTE
MAPLE ST
S
ST
BO
L
EW A
T
EG
UR
T
E
AV
WE
A
PE
N
STO
RN
ET
C
ALMO ND ST
GA
VE
ATE TR
SO
N
NL
RO
A
BE
D
AR
DR
Y RD
TAYLO
RS
ST
Z IMBR O A
CT
G PA N
DR
L
SU D
§
¨
¦
PR
·
T
THO N
BL
RD
LEE
DS
PY
RD
WE
L LI
N VALLEY
IN
HWY
LE E
PLA
BE A URE GA RD
NELSO N L N NE L
PA R
K
NN
ROBIN LY
I AM
HAYD EN
RD
LEXINGTO
VL
DE
15
CT
CI
WI
LL
FRE EDO M CENTER
CE
KS
OR
WY
£
¤
HY
LEE
H WY
E HY
Y LE
H WY
29
UA
ST
E
AV
RT
U
ST
TRE ET
SUD LE
Williams Site
EF
FI V
EN
A RD
£
¤
HA Z
TO
NG
VE
NA
T
TS
AR
234
H
LEE
HY
LE E
D
Wellington Road Site
PR
IN
LEE
CT
AN
Sudley Manor
Site 1
V
U
I
SH
WA
GLADSTONE ST
MERIT CT
LD G
2
!
OD
WINTERWO
CON FED
ER
T
CT
Vulcan Quarry Site
BOND
PY
GA
RL
LON GS
Y RD
EW O
ST
Sudley Manor
Site 2
OS
T
H DR
LN
R IFIE
·
ORT
W
LE
HE M RD
I LL
I AM
FORD DR
MER
A N CH L N
Y
T
NC
ES
V I LL
A S HE
CT
OD
Y DR
ASK
DAM
O
AG
RR
TA
CT
ST
BUR
W O OD
RI X
EW
ATSW
SUD LE
RD
SWEE TB RIAR
OS
E
VE
R
TE D
Y GA
CT
FIN
R UF
ASH
TON
A
A MB R
I
BETHLE
PR
I NC
LE Y
EWEL L
ST
S UD
RD
ST
SUDLEY
DR
2
!
DR
EARLY
N
E L DR
HU
RO
S UN N
RO
R
R
PINEY
LI
HA
LL
RD
L IN
TO
N
CR
CT
SD
SD
ARTO ST
RY
D
TON RD
AR
£
¤
OL
ES
SE
G
TE
NO
RD
R
ED
AN
DO
ON
DE
CH
W ELLIN G
SH AL L HW
B R AN
HY
LL IAM PK WY
PRINC E WI
JOHN MAR
WEL LIN
G
T
OO
D
EW A Y CE NTE R DR
Y
AN
C
KS
LI N
OU R R D
B RA NCH DR
S RD
E
LE
TO N
DIGGE
RNE
HY
LING
ROLLING RD
CT
CLA
RK
TO N
E
LE
WEL
HY
NEW
M
CT
R
OS
TE
CO
AY
G
S
R AW
W
EL
S
Y
HW
Y
WEEMS RD
KIN
IB
HW
RR
D
E
LE
HY
R
GILLIS WAY
RO
PL
HOAC
M AN A
MERCURY AV
ILL
TA
GE
V
BLE IGHT DR
DR
AUL
TP
S AI N
RI
TW
CAN
Y GR
A SH B
WALNUT PARK LN
JEFFERSON ST
MADIS ON ST
FAY ETT E ST
HE
ELL
OVE
ST
LP
S O N HW Y
AD I
ES M
JAM
Y
HW
S ON
ADI
ES
M
JAM
HY
ON
DIS
MA
ES
JAM
WY
NH
IS O
E
LE
E
LE
HY
E
LE
HW
Gainesville
Site 1
DR
AD
HE
C
R
RD
HY
T
GA
AY
MC
S EY M
E
LE
E
LE
HY
NE
ES
M
Gainesville Site 2
E
LE
WY
PL
D
JAM
C OT E BL
E
LE
LL E
R
L
LL H
Y
ITY B
HA
HW
RD
E S C O VE
E
LE
ALL
IC
E PL
E BL
H
ON
NT
AL
R FD
WH A
T
HCO
O
ES T
LIM
PO N D
AT
E RS
DR
A RS
PRINCE WILLIAM PKWY
Dominion
Station Site
IV
UN
UNT
NM
L
TR
S SING D R
PR
Florida
Rock Site
RD
TH
W
CRO
AP
L
HI L
ET
R A SS
GG
RR
ON
ET
CUSHING
JOH
GA
N
RNI
TU
VE
S
MA
V
GR O
L
GE
PA
LN
T
CL
SO M
ER
S
CAR
CT
YM
HA
KE
AR
DR
EY
EH
HU
LFISH WAY
RD
E WILL IA M PY
AG
R ED H OUS E
WY
NEPTU N E
RD
·
VENUS CT
15
A
OLD CAROLIN
£
¤
FN
HE
E
LE
G
AF
HE R I T
B
LN
Haymarket Site 1
W
K EY CL U
P RI NC
66
§
¦
¨
GAP WAY
J OC
EA
E N D DR
L DR
H
Haymarket
Site 2
L
NP
S ST
N ST
A L N U T HI L
O
AV
WAS HING
TO
EG
ILLS D R
ED
TR
HWY
PIN RD
CHARLE
JOH N MA RSH ALL
LN
FORBES PL
R N LP
L
JOR D
AN
BE
AVALON ISLE WAY
RD
66
§
¦
¨
D
AN
NE W
R L W IT TON C L
PL
GHAM
EY
COLLIN
LP
ST
Y
R
U
JAN SB
M AC
ON G
ROV
E LN
A R T HU R H
CATH AR
T CL
HEATHC OTE BL
ABB E
CH
CART ERWO OD DR
RS
WAY
SKIP TON
AY
TIO
E CT
AN
DAN EH U
AM W
I
HC OT R E DR
E BL
SH E
R IN
GH
SH
R
EM O
HEAT
NN
SLAT
PE
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville - Haymarket
Table41:VRESITESCORINGMATRIXforEXTENSIONOFSERVICEFEASIBILITYSTUDY
5
4.2.1 ACCESS and MOBILITY
Access & Proximity to Main Travel Routes
Site 9
Site 10
Site 11
Wellington
Road
Site 8
Vulcan Quarry
Site 7
Williams
Site 6
Sudely 2
Gainesville 1
Site 5
Sudely 1
Haymarket 2
Site 4
Florida Rock
Site 3
Gainesville 2
Site 2
Dominion
Station
Site 1
Haymarket 1
Site Criteria
(numbers match the chapter headings)
Importance in
Category
INSTRUCTIONS: 1) place your score in the yellow boxes below for each site; 2) Score 5 for "best result" and 1 for "worst result". See "notes" for explanation. Put your comments in last column.
100%
4.8
4.8
4.4
3.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.4
3.6
60%
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.5
4.5
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
Notes regarding the criteria. Use as a guideline with 5
being highest score (for the best result, i.e. for no enviro
concerns, etc.). Score 1 for lowest score (for worst result,
i.e., for many enviro concerns, etc.).
3.2
Easy access to main travel routes = 5, farthest from or
3.0 poor site access = 1
Sidewalks exist or can be easily connected = 5, poor
3.0 connectivity or steep slopes = 1
Site allows safe and easy circulation = 5; circulation
4.0 and safety concerns = 1
ADA Accessible & Sidewalk Linkages
20%
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
Easy and safe internal circulation?
20%
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
100%
1.8
2.8
3.3
4.3
3.3
1.8
3.5
2.8
2.5
1.8
75%
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
25%
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
3.0 No impacts = 5; Major impacts =1
No signals required = 5; new signals = 1
1.0
4.2.2 TRAFFIC and CONGESTION
Traffic Impact (qualitative)
Does access require new traffic signal
controls?
4.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL and CULTURAL
CONSIDERATIONS
100%
3.2
4.0
3.6
3.7
3.8
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.3
3.9
4.2
RPAs and/or Wetlands on or adjacent to
site?
14%
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
Floodplains?
14%
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Hazardous Materials identified on site?
14%
3.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
5.0 No Floodplains = 5
5.0 No Hazardous Materials present = 5
Site provides terrestrial or aquatic habitat?
14%
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
Historic Resources?
Soils (Prime Farmland/Statewide
importance) on undeveloped land?
14%
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10%
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Community facilities/parks adjacent to site?
Concentrations of Minority/Low-Income
Populations?
4.2.4 LAND USE and SMART GROWTH
ISSUES
10%
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
No Wetlands = 5
4.0 No habitat = 5
5.0 No archeological/cultural issues = 5
No Prime of Statewide Important Farmlands or
3.0 developed land = 5
No adjacent community facilities/parks = 5
1.0
No concentrations of minority/low-income = 5
4.0
10%
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
100%
2.8
3.1
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.4
3.5
3.8
3.8
1.7
3.1
Compatible with zoning & adjacent land uses?
35%
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
3.0
Alternative trasnportation access?
30%
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
Mass Transit Node potential?
35%
3.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
100%
4.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.8
5.0
2.7
5.0
3.4
2.9
30%
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
Cost & schedule in line with market = 5; higher cost or
2.0 delays in acquisition 1
Low capital costs = 5; moderate = 3; High = 1
Unique Capital Costs
20%
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
Property Displacement
30%
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
Topography Issues
20%
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
5.0 Suitable soils & topography = 5
4.2.6 OPERATIONS and
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
100%
4.3
4.8
4.8
4.3
4.8
3.5
4.0
3.0
4.0
3.5
4.8
Unique Site Considerations?
25%
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
5.0
Environmental Considerations
25%
2.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
3.0
If no impacts = 5; If may require trackage adjustment or
4.0 other impacts to RR = 1
If on tangent and good LOS for RR = 5; if on a curve
Impact to Freight Operations
25%
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
Potential Impacts to Adjacent Properties
25%
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
yes = 5; no = 1
good = 5; poor = 1
MTN likely = 5; MTN unlikely = 1
0%
0%
4.2.5 ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT
ISSUES
Land acquisition is acceptable: cost and
schedule
No = 5; Yes =1
yes = 5; no = 1
RAW SCORE
21.6
24.4
23.4
22.7
22.9
20.6
23.9
20.0
23.0
17.8
5.0 and poor LOS = 1
yes = 5; no = 1
5.0
20.6
Site Specific comments about
scoring. Insert your comments
about the score used for a site.
Table 6: Summary Matrix of Environmental Considerations1
Site
Minority/LowIncome
Populations
Historic
Resources
Parks
and
Communi
ty
Facilities
Prime Soils
or Soils of
Statewide
Importance2
Water
Resources3
Hazardous
Materials/
Contamination
Wildlife
Habitats
Haymarket
Site 1
No
No
No
Yes, site is
currently on
undeveloped
land
Yes – North
Fork Stream,
RPA,
Floodplain and
Wetlands
Unlikely, EPA reports
no releases/known
contamination for
site; 2 sites reported
within study buffer
Yes
Haymarket
Site 2
Potentially, site
within census
block groups with
higher than
average lowincome
populations and
housing is
adjacent to site
No
No
Yes, site is
currently on
undeveloped
land
Yes,
intermittent
stream,
wetlands within
study buffer
Unlikely, EPA reports
no releases/known
contamination at the
site or within study
buffer
Yes
Gainesville
Site 1
No
Unlikely,
however further
research/
coordination is
recommended
No
Yes, site is
currently on
undeveloped
land
Yes, stream,
wetlands
Potentially, additional
coordination with
DEQ/EPA needed
(Atlantic Research
Corporation site)
Yes
Dominion
Station Site
No
No
No
Yes, site is
currently on
undeveloped
land
Yes, wetlands
Unlikely, EPA reports
no releases/known
contamination at the
site
Yes
Gainesville
Site 2
No
Yes, further
research/
coordination is
recommended
No
Yes, site is
currently on
undeveloped
land
No
Potentially, additional
coordination with
DEQ/EPA needed
(Atlantic Research
Corporation site)
Yes
Florida
Rock Site
No
Yes, further
research/
coordination is
recommended
No
No, site is
developed
Yes
Unlikely, EPA reports
no releases/known
contamination at the
site; 3 sites reported
within study buffer
No
Sudley/
Innovation
Site 1
Potentially, site
within census
block groups
with higher
than average
low-income
populations
and housing is
adjacent to site
No
No
Yes, site is
currently on
undeveloped
land
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
14
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Yes, stream,
wetlands
Unlikely, EPA
reports no
releases/known
contamination at
the site;
numerous sites
identified within
study buffer
Yes
Table 6: Summary Matrix of Environmental Considerations (continued)1
Site
Minority/LowIncome
Populations
Historic
Resources
Parks and
Community
Facilities
Prime Soils
or Soils of
Statewide
Importance2
Water
Resources3
Hazardous
Materials/
Contamination
Wildlife
Habitats
Sudley/
Innovation
Site 2
Potentially, site
within census
block groups
with higher
than average
minority & lowincome
populations
and housing is
adjacent to site
No
No
No, site is
developed
Yes,
wetlands
Unlikely, EPA
reports no
releases/known
contamination at
the site;
numerous sites
identified within
study buffer
No
Williams
Site
No
Yes, further
research/
coordination is
recommended
No
No, site is
developed
Yes,
wetlands
Potentially, EPA
reports this site is
listed as
having/handling
hazardous
materials
No
Vulcan
Quarry Site
Potentially, site
within census
block groups
with higher
than average
minority & lowincome
populations
and housing is
adjacent to site
No
Yes, site is
located near a
school with
athletic
amenities that
may be open to
the public
(undetermined)
No, site has
been cleared
for mining and
is an active
mine
Yes, fresh
water ponds,
streams,
wetlands
Yes, EPA reports
this site is listed
as
having/handling
hazardous
materials
No
Wellington
Road Site
Potentially, site
within census
block groups
with higher
than average
low-income
populations
and housing is
on site
No
Yes, site is
located near a
school with
athletic
amenities that
may be open to
the public
(undetermined)
Yes, site is
mostly
undeveloped
Yes, stream
on site,
wetlands
Unlikely, EPA
reports no
releases/known
contamination at
the site;
numerous sites
identified within
study buffer
Yes
Environmental resources were evaluated largely based on readily available data, including information from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). As the project
advances, these resources would be examined in greater detail and field visits would be conducted to verify the evaluation as needed.
2Cooridination with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NCRS) is required to determine specific impacts. It should be noted that Prime Farmland is
designated independently of current land use, but it cannot be areas of water or urban or built-up land.
3Water Resources includes surface waters, floodplains, wetlands and designated Resource Protection Areas (RPA). RPA areas, as defined by the Chesapeake
Bay Act, include the land area within 100 feet of a perennial stream bank or edge of wetlands adjacent to the perennial stream. RPA areas are
protected under state law and local ordinances.
1
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
15
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Rail Infrastructure Assessment
This new branch of service would diverge from the existing Manassas Line
service just west of the existing Manassas Station at Manassas Junction (MP 33)
on NS’s Piedmont Subdivision. It
would extend northwesterly from
Manassas Junction through Sudley
Manor, Gainesville, and Haymarket,
a distance of approximately 11 miles,
along the NS B Line. Three potential
station locations have been identified
and evaluated as discussed in the
previous section: Haymarket,
Existing NS B Line
Gainesville, and Sudley/Innovation.
Overnight storage tracks would be located toward the end of the line. As
previously discussed, equipment would be rotated through Broad Run to allow
for every other day servicing of the equipment. The new facility at Gainesville or
Haymarket would be for storage only.
Corridor Improvements
The general approach to the integration of commuter rail service along the 11mile NS B Line corridor between Manassas Junction and Haymarket can be
summarized as follows:
h
h
h
The existing main line track, which is generally centered within the ROW,
will remain “as is”. Minor adjustments to the alignment of the existing
main line track will be considered to minimize and/or avoid environmental
impacts, ROW acquisition, and/or excess need for retaining wall structures.
A continuous second main line track will be constructed for the 11 mile
length.
The second main line track will be off-set to either the north (preferred) or
south of the existing main line track as feasible.
Design criteria for the project corridor is located in Appendix H of the
Gainesville-Haymarket Feasibility Study Report.
Rail Infrastructure Needs
Rail infrastructure needs vary based upon the selected approach to the service:
Implementation of the minimum operating segment, a phased approach, or a full
build-out from Manassas to Haymarket. Infrastructure improvements common
to all three of these build options include:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
16
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Building a second mainline track parallel to the existing NS B Line track,
with variations as needed to accommodate the selected design speed. This
second track would have the following components:
¾ Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) with wood ties
¾ Approximately 11 turnouts
¾ Approximately 2 or 3 universal crossovers
¾ Suitable for freight and commuter rail use
¾ Upgraded crossings and signaling systems designed in accordance with
NS’s recent signalization upgrades and a Positive Train Control system.
h Right-of-way acquisition along some portions of the corridor to
accommodate this second track.
h One storage yard along the alignment near the end of the line.
h
It should be noted that it is possible to relocate portions of the existing mainline
track, thereby accommodating two tracks within the existing right-of-way. This
would reduce the amount of land acquisitions, since acquisitions would not be
needed if both tracks fit within the existing right-of-way. However, it would
likely require some retaining walls or other structural modifications.
Infrastructure improvements that vary according to where the end of the line is
(phased approach) and operating frequency include:
h
Length of the second track.
¾ If a full build-out to Haymarket is implemented, the second track would
be about eleven miles long including NS’s planned two-mile siding in
Gainesville.
¾ If a MOS or phased approach is implemented to Gainesville, the initial
phase segment of the second track would be about eight miles long,
depending on the exact location of the Gainesville Station. The length of
the track would include NS’s planned two-mile siding, thus reducing the
new track construction requirement to approximately six miles.
h Number of stations. These stations would include low level platforms,
elevators, fare collection equipment, and parking facilities.
¾ If a full build-out to Haymarket is implemented, it is recommended that
three stations (Sudley/Innovation, Gainesville, and Haymarket) be
constructed.
¾ If a phased approach is implemented, there are two possible options
regarding the number of stations that would be constructed in the initial
phase:
¾ Two stations-one in Sudley/Innovation and one in Gainesville
¾ One station-Gainesville
h The MOS would include one new station in Gainesville.
Other infrastructure improvements include parking expansions as needed at the
existing Manassas Line stations to accommodate the increase in ridership. There
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
17
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
are several grade separations that have been identified as being critical to the
Gainesville-Haymarket extension. These include the US 29/Linton Hall Road
interchange and the Route 28/Wellington Road interchange. Both of these
projects are VDOT initiatives with which this project would need to coordinate.
Environmental Considerations
As part of the Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis, a qualitative
assessment of potential environmental effects was conducted to determine the
potential effects of extension options.
h
One potentially significant archaeological site was identified in the
Gainesville area south of the NS B Line. No other known sites were
identified within the NS B Line corridor.
h
Several streams traverse the NS B Line, many of which have designated
floodplains associated with them. A large floodplain area was identified
along the southern side of the NS B Line west of the intersection with US 29
to just past US 15 in Haymarket. Wetland areas were also identified along
the corridor. Large wetland areas were identified in the vicinity of Sudley
Manor Drive, along I-66 where the NS B Line parallels the interstate, and
west of Route 29 along the southern side of the NS B Line. Portions of these
streams, floodplains, and wetlands are adjacent to Resource Protection
Areas, which are protected under the Chesapeake Bay Act. These would
need to be evaluated further in the next phase of the project.
h
For wetlands and floodplains, the linear feet along the NS B Line were
calculated using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Two scenarios are
presented: linear feet of wetlands and floodplains between Manassas and
Haymarket; and linear feet of wetlands and floodplains between Manassas
and Gainesville. Table 7 provides these calculations.
Table 7: Linear Feet of Wetlands and Floodplains Identified Along the Rail
Line
Alignment
Manassas to
Haymarket
Manassas to
Gainesville
(to Route 29)
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
18
Length of
Alignment
(in Feet)
Wetlands
Linear Feet
56,530
2,740
4.85%
7,270
12.86%
41,730
1,740
4.17%
300
0.72%
Percentage
of Alignment
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Floodplains
Linear Feet
Percentage
of Alignment
Based on the linear feet calculated, an alignment between Manassas and
Gainesville would have the potential to impact considerably fewer wetland
and floodplain areas.
h
Based on the environmental factors indicated, potential impacts to water
resources, such as floodplains and wetlands, are the greatest concern.
Along the NS B Line west of US 29, large areas of wetlands and floodplains
have been identified. Impacts to these resources may occur from land
disturbing activities, such as acquiring additional right-of-way to construct
a second track, or the provision of stations and park and ride lots. Impacts
to these resources would require agency coordination, environmental
permitting, and mitigation. Impacting these resources could impact project
schedule and costs. As such, an extension that ends in the Gainesville area
would be favorable to avoid potentially significant impacts to the water
resources identified.
h
Several potentially contaminated sites or hazardous waste generators were
identified along the NS B Line. The greatest concentration of these sites was
noted in the vicinity of the US 29 grade crossing.
Preliminary quantitative noise and vibration screening analyses were also
performed in the Alternatives Analysis. The exact number of potentially affected
sites depends on the specific land use and number of buildings located near the
alignments. Extension options with the greatest number of trains in use and the
most frequent service on the corridor would likely have the most impacts.
A greater amount of ambient noise can be observed in Gainesville versus
Haymarket as a result of denser and more commercial development. Haymarket
has less ambient noise and more residential development. Impacts would be
more apparent with an alignment that extends all the way to Haymarket than
one that ends in Gainesville.
Train Storage Requirements
The proposed extension of service to Gainesville/Haymarket would require
additional sets of equipment. Since the new service would be located along the
NS B Line, and the potential terminal stations are between eight and 11 miles
northwest of Manassas (11 to 14 miles from Broad Run), an overnight storage
facility for the new sets of equipment at or near the Gainesville/Haymarket
terminal would reduce deadhead train miles. A separate storage facility for the
proposed service would also reduce potential conflicts with NS operations and
facilitate a more reliable service. This train storage facility would be for the
parking of trains only; the maintenance, repairs, and cleaning of these train sets
would still take place at the Broad Run Yard. This would be accomplished by
rotating the fleet on a regular basis.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
19
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Storage Options
The size/type of facility that would be necessary varies by the level of service
that would be provided. It is anticipated that the MOS and Phased Approach
option would need storage capacity for two train sets (two six car trains; up to 14
units). The Full Build-Out constrained options (Split Service Constrained, and
Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle) would need storage capacity for a
minimum of three train sets (24 units) to six train sets (36 units). The
unconstrained option could exceed the 36 units depending on the level of service
ultimately offered. For planning purposes, the Split Service Constrained Plus
Rail Shuttle was assumed as the maximum storage need [36 units – 3 full sets (2-6
and 1-8 car set) and 3 shuttle sets (3-3 car sets)]. The minimum facility size
would be 14 units (two six car trains). The train storage facility options include
the following:
h
No facility: This option would utilize the existing Broad Run Yard for
overnight storage and deadhead (run trains empty in non-revenue service)
between Broad Run Yard and the first station of revenue service. This option
might be sufficient in the short term for the MOS or the first stage of the
phased approach but is not recommended as a long term solution. The
principle drawbacks are the limited capacity of the Broad Run facility, the
lack of room for expansion, and the additional cost of deadheading trains
between overnight storage at Broad Run Yard and the start of revenue
service in the Gainesville-Haymarket area.
h
Siding only: With the MOS and Phased Approach options, a storage siding
could be constructed in lieu of a full storage yard. This siding would need to
hold at least two train sets (14 units). It would also need to be a doubleended siding so that a parked train is not trapped behind a disabled train.
This single siding would need to be approximately 1,200 feet in length.
h
Full storage yard: With the Full Build-Out option, a full storage yard would
need to be constructed. This yard should be located as close as possible to
the terminal station to avoid time and capacity-consuming deadhead moves
to and from an alternate location. For the Split Service Constrained Plus Rail
Shuttle option, the storage need would be 36 units in six sets of equipment [3
full sets (2-6 and 1-8 car set) and 3 shuttle sets (3-3 car sets)]. There would
need to be three tracks approximately 800 feet in length and three tracks
approximately 350 feet in length. There should be at least one “empty” track
to accommodate moves within the yard.
Potential Sites for a Storage Yard
There are several factors to consider in determining the potential sites for a
storage yard: the size of the facility, the potential operational impacts on the NS
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
20
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
B Line as well as the proposed service, finding a location with compatible
surrounding land uses, and environmental resources. From an operational
perspective, the facility should be as close to the terminal station as practicable.
It also needs to be in a location that minimizes potential operational impacts on
the NS B Line. The operation of the facility should be self contained; any yard
equipment moves/shifts should not go past the limits of the yard unless
absolutely necessary. The facility should be located in an area where the impact
of idling diesel engines and/or the starting up of diesel engines in the early
morning hours does not impact abutters. It should also be located to minimize
potential impacts on environmental resources.
A factor worth considering is the close proximity of the general Gainesville
Station site area to the Haymarket Station site area (approximately three miles).
Given the possibility of an initial MOS or phased approach, a facility located in
Gainesville may be able to facilitate both the initial as well as the long-term needs
of the proposed service.
Three potential site locations were identified in the Gainesville-Haymarket
Implementation Plan. These sites include Balls Ford Road, Haymarket, and the
Vulcan Quarry. A list of potential sites, some within the general locations
identified in the Implementation Plan, as well as potential sites located during
site reconnaissance and through preliminary environmental analyses, was
established. This list was intended to be inclusive of sites that could potentially
serve as a station and park and ride lot and/or a storage yard and are shown in
Figure 1.
End of Line Sites:
h Haymarket Site 1
h Haymarket Site 2
Mid-Corridor Sites:
h Gainesville Site 1
h Dominion Station
h Gainesville Site 2
h Florida Rock
h Sudley/Innovation Site 1
h Sudley/Innovation Site 2
h Williams
h Vulcan Quarry
h Wellington Road
Of these potential sites, there are a few that present unique challenges in
accommodating storage yards. Table 8 identifies the operational and
environmental/land use challenges associated with each potential site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
21
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
In terms of environmental/land use considerations, the most suitable sites
include Haymarket Site 2, Florida Rock Site, Sudley/Innovation Site 1,
Sudley/Innovation Site 2, Williams Site, and Wellington Road Site. In terms of
operational considerations, the most suitable sites include Haymarket Site 2 and
Dominion Station. Gainesville Site 2 also shows potential as a storage yard site,
but it is farther from the end of the line. Haymarket Site 1, Gainesville Site 1, the
Florida Rock Site, Sudley/Innovation Site 1, the Williams Site, the Vulcan Quarry
Site, and the Wellington Road Site may be removed from consideration based
upon operating constraints. From a location perspective, the Haymarket and
Gainesville sites are the most favorable.
Based on the factors considered, the overall recommendation would be to
initially consider the following sites for the Full Build-Out storage facility:
h Haymarket Site 2
h Dominion Station
Given the layout requirements of the Full Build-Out storage facility, it is likely
that these sites may be able to accommodate the storage yard, as well as the
station and park and ride facility.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
22
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Table 8 Challenges Associated with Potential Storage Yard Sites
Potential Site
Miles from
Haymarket
Miles from
Broad Run
Operational Challenges
Environmental/Land Use
Challenges
Haymarket Site 1
0
13
-Not feasible.
-May impact water resources,
including RPAs, floodplains and
wetlands.
-May impact soils and wildlife habitat.
Haymarket Site 2
0
13
-None observed.
-May impact water resources.
-May impact soils and wildlife habitat.
Gainesville Site 1
3
10
-Cannot accommodate
storage yard without sharp
turn in and out of site.
-May impact water resources.
-May impact historic resources.
-May impact soils.
-May have contamination from prior
site use.
Dominion Station
3
10
-None observed.
-May impact wildlife habitat.
-May impact soils.
Gainesville Site 2
3
10
-None observed, but site is far
from the end of the line.
-May impact water resources.
-May impact historic resources.
-May impact soils.
-May have contamination from prior
site use.
Florida Rock
-Cannot accommodate
storage yard without sharp
turn in and out of site.
-May impact water resources.
-May impact archaeological resources.
Sudley/Innovation
Site 1
-Curved track frontage may
present additional challenges
when locating turnouts and
site is far from the end of the
line.
-May impact water resources.
-May impact minority/low-income
populations.
-May impact soils and wildlife habitat.
Sudley/Innovation
Site 2
-None observed, but site is far
from the end of the line.
-May impact water resources.
-May impact minority/low-income
populations.
Williams Site
-Short, curved track frontage
may make it difficult to fit the
ladder and track lengths, as
well as locate turnouts.
-May impact water resources.
-May impact archaeological resources.
Vulcan Quarry
-None observed.
-May impact water resources.
-May impact minority/low-income
populations.
-May contain hazardous materials.
-Not compatible with existing Land
Use (Agricultural Zoning A-1)
Wellington Road
-Site close to existing Broad
Run Yard. Increased
deadhead miles.
-May impact minority/low-income
populations.
-May impact soils and wildlife habitat.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
23
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
The concept of a single storage track for the MOS and Phase Approach options
could probably be incorporated into the Gainesville Site 1, Dominion Station, and
Gainesville Site 2 station locations.
Findings
Ridership projections demonstrate that a Gainesville-Haymarket extension
would attract additional riders to VRE service from the region. The extension
would add needed capacity and choice to the corridor. The GainesvilleHaymarket extension has the potential to generate daily trips in the range of
1,000 to 5,000 per day, based on the projections developed for this Feasibility
Study and the earlier Strategic Plan.
Terminus
Preliminary environmental assessments demonstrate that an end of line station
in Gainesville is more favorable for the extension than an end of line station in
Haymarket. This is a result of potential water resources impacts along the south
side of the NS B Line west of US 29, particularly if the right-of-way must be
expanded, as well as the potential for greater noise and vibration impacts.
Ridership forecasts suggest that there is a relatively small difference in daily
boardings between a Haymarket and Gainesville terminus. With Gainesville as
the terminus for the Gainesville-Haymarket extension, the cost range of
alternatives drops approximately $25 M.
Comparison of Extension Options
The advantages and disadvantages of pursuing each of the extension options
(Minimum Operating Segment, Phased Approach, or a Full Build-Out) are
summarized in Table 9.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
24
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Table 9 Advantages and Disadvantages of Extension Options
Options
Minimum
Operating
Segment (MOS)
Summary
A new service branch between
Gainesville and Manassas
provided while keeping the
existing Manassas Line service
frequency.
Advantages
- Lowest Cost
- No additional
vehicles needed
- Does not exceed 40 trains
per day maximum
Disadvantages
- Lowest Service Coverage
- Lowest Ridership
- Limited Service Frequency
- Lowest Fare Revenue Recovery
Phased Approach
Two Stations –
Gainesville and
Sudley/Innovation*
Full Build-Out
Split Service
Unconstrained (1A)
A new service branch to
Gainesville (two stations) with
modifications to existing
Manassas Line service.
A new branch to Haymarket
overlaying the existing service on
the VRE Manassas Line, keeping
the existing Manassas Line
service frequency and exceeding
VRE’s capacity constraint.
- Does not exceed 40 trains
per day maximum
-Some New Equipment Needs
- Limited Service Coverage
- Greatest Service
Coverage
- Highest Service
Frequency between G-H
and DC
Full Build-Out
Split Service
Constrained (1B)
A new branch to Haymarket
overlaying the existing service on
the VRE Manassas Line,
modifying the existing Manassas
Line service frequency, but
working within VRE’s capacity
constraint.
A new branch to Haymarket
overlaying the existing service on
the VRE Manassas Line and a
new rail shuttle service between
Haymarket and Alexandria,
modifying the existing Manassas
Line service frequency, but
working within VRE’s capacity
constraint.
- Does not exceed 40 trains
per day maximum
- Great Service Coverage
- Exceeds 40 train per day maximum
with associated Implementation
Challenges
- High Costs
- High Quantity of New Equipment
Needs
- Additional capacity improvements
on CSX and improvements at the
Alexandria Station may be required
-Some New Equipment Needs
Full Build-Out
Split Service
Constrained Plus
Rail Shuttle (1C)
- Highest Ridership
- Great Service Coverage
- Highest Fare Revenue
Recovery
- Frequent Shuttle Service
between G-H and
Alexandria
- Does not exceed 40 trains
per day maximum
- High Costs
- Highest Quantity of New
Equipment Needs
- Additional capacity improvements
on CSX and improvements at the
Alexandria Station may be required
* Note: This would be the first phase of the Phased Approach Option. The second phase would be the Full Build-Out option to Haymarket.
Conclusions
There are a few general conclusions that can be made regarding the overall
evaluation of the extension.
h Options with greater frequency (i.e. unconstrained) will demonstrate the
highest ridership. This is because the model is very sensitive to service
frequency.
h Options with greater frequency will have higher capital and O&M costs due
to the need for more equipment and the increased train miles.
h Since options with greater frequency yield the highest ridership numbers,
these options also yield the greatest revenue from fare collection.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
25
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
h
h
All extension options utilize the NS B Line and require coordination and
negotiation with NS regarding required right-of-way. All of these options
require the construction of a second track and must adhere to the design of
NS’s Passenger Rail Design Criteria.
Options that are unconstrained (i.e. exceed the allocation of 40 trains per
day maximum between NS mile 9.12 and Washington DC) require
coordination and negotiation with CSX.
Options that propose a rail shuttle service to avoid most of the stretch of track
that is subject to the capacity constraint still require coordination and negotiation
with CSX, since approximately one mile of the constrained track is included in
the rail shuttle route. Additionally, platform improvements are needed at
Alexandria Station.
Implementation
To move forward, decisions need to be made regarding the appropriate terminus
of the extension and the operating plan of choice (i.e. constrained or
unconstrained and with or without rail shuttle). VRE has the option to
implement the minimum operating segment to simply begin service along the
corridor or to pursue more detailed studies and seek federal funding for the
extension or to pursue both of these options. The Feasibility Study has
determined that the most suitable terminus for the extension at this time
(Gainesville), as well as the most appropriate operating plans depending on the
level of funding (minimum operating segment to phased approach to full buildout).
If VRE desires to exceed the 40 trains per day maximum that is set forth in the
agreement with CSX, then additional research needs to be done to determine
modifications necessary to achieve this, including negotiations with CSX and the
identification of the anticipated costs. If VRE does not want to exceed the 40
trains per day maximum, then the options remaining are to offer split service
along the Manassas Line between Union Station/Broad Run and Union
Station/Gainesville-Haymarket or to offer split service coupled with a rail
shuttle.
Implementation steps for the Gainesville-Haymarket extension will vary
depending on the selected funding source. The first step in implementation
would therefore be to choose a funding path to work towards.
Funding options include federal, state and local.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
26
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Federal Funding Opportunities
There is one primary source of federal funds for major capital investment transit
projects – the FTA’s New Starts Program. This program is highly competitive
with projects across the country competing for a limited pool of funding. FTA
assigns a rating designating a project’s eligibility for funding. The ratings are:
High; Medium High; Medium; Medium Low; and Low. A project general needs
to achieve a Medium rating to qualify for federal funds through the New Starts
Program. The initial assessment of user benefit conducted as part of the
Alternatives Analysis suggests that the Gainesville-Haymarket extension would
likely be in the Medium Low to Low range, making funding through the New
Starts Program unlikely. It is possible that adjustments to the travel demand
forecasting process and a refinement of the cost estimates may improve the
rating. At this point however, New Starts Program funding appears unlikely.
FTA now administers a second program called Small Starts. This program is for
projects with a total capital cost of under $250 million. One advantage of the
Small Starts Program is that FTA relaxes some of the more stringent modeling
requirements, allowing more flexibility in how the forecasts are prepared. An
initial assessment of the Gainesville-Haymarket extension with respect to the
Small Starts Program criteria indicates that the ratings could improve to Medium
or better. One disadvantage to a Small Starts application is that the federal share
is limited to $75 million of the total cost.
State Funding Opportunities
The primary source of state funding would be through the Rail Enhancement
Fund (REF). The Commonwealth has already invested in the NS B Line corridor
using monies from the REF. This program is a competitive process that uses a
cost benefit analysis approach developed by DRPT. Other state options include a
budget line item appropriation or dedicated funding source being created.
Local Funding Opportunities
There are also a few sources of local funds that could be available for the project
through general funds, and/or other local revenues or through bonding
authority.
Other Funding Opportunities
There are also a few other sources funding that could be available for the project
through taxation districts, partnership contributions, tax increment financing
(TIF) or other revenues streams.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
27
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
Special Transportation, Benefits Assessment, and Taxation Districts
Virginia statutes permit several types of districts to be formed with the potential
for generating revenues to repay the initial capital investment or to fund ongoing
maintenance and upkeep of the service and facilities. Some areas have created
special assessment districts around transit stations. Transit projects can create
returns through generating new economic development around transit stations
that is focused on the transit system and its customer base.
Partnership Contributions
Private and non-profit partners may have their own revenue sources that can be
used to build portions of the transit project. Virginia has a proffer system under
which developers negotiate voluntary contributions to local infrastructure via
either (1) any money voluntarily proffered in writing signed by the owner of
property subject to rezoning, and accepted by a locality pursuant to the authority
granted by §15.2-2298 or §15.2-2303 of the Code of Virginia; or (2) any payment
of money made pursuant to a development agreement entered into under the
authority granted by §15.2-2303.1 of the Code of Virginia. This is another
potential funding opportunity for VRE. Transit-oriented development (TOD) is
encouraged around transit stations, and this could be a funding source for VRE if
the development is conducted in a manner to be beneficial to both the private
investor and VRE. There has been some initial interest expressed to VRE by
developers to establish a proffer agreement with the local jurisdiction. Such a
proffer agreement could fund as much as:
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
Land acquisition
Permanent easements for public access
Construction of public access across private land, through private facilities,
or from private facilities down to the platform
Elevators from the private facility down to the platform
Construction of the station
Associated parking, roadway and access improvements
Utility relocation or consolidation
Pedestrian improvements and landscaping
This would substantially reduce VRE’s capital costs associated with the
implementation of the extension and would provide the private investor with
strong transit access for the development.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
TIFs are often called “public-private partnerships” because they rely on public
action to stimulate private investment. TIFs fund projects through the issuance
of bonds that pay for acquisition, demolition, and infrastructure costs associated
with redevelopment. Generally, a public investment is made on a blighted area
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
28
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)
that demonstrates potential as a private investment once the basic infrastructure
needs are met. Property taxes increase over time after the private development
occurs, and this change in taxes, or tax increment, is used to retire bonds that
were sold to initially fund the public investment.
Under any of the funding scenarios considered, there would also be the potential
to solicit private foundation contributions to support construction of the station
and/or associated parking. There is also an opportunity to fully utilize statefunded rail improvements (through DRPT) on the Norfolk Southern Crescent
Corridor as outlined in the DRAFT Virginia Statewide Rail Plan. This plan states
that there are 39 individual projects identified in Virginia on the Crescent
Corridor that will primarily expand single mainline tracks to double tracks, add
passing sidings, and expand passing sidings. Some of these projects provide
dual benefits to improve passenger and freight rail.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\executive_summary\vre_executive_sum
mary_07_23_2009.doc
29
Executive Summary (Feasibility Study)