FINAL REPORT
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 Figures ....................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ iv Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Relevant Planning Studies ......................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 VRE Strategic Plan ....................................................................................... 2 1.1.2 Gainesville-Haymarket Extension Implementation Plan ............................... 3 1.1.3 VRE Station Access Study ............................................................................ 4 1.1.4 VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis ....................................... 4 1.1.5 VDOT Major Investment Study and Multimodal Transportation and
Environmental Study .................................................................................................. 5 1.1.6 Prince William County Land Use Plans......................................................... 5 Existing Service ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Current Operations .................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Amtrak Services ............................................................................................ 8 2.1.2 Stations ......................................................................................................... 8 Existing Ridership ...................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Fare Revenue ............................................................................................. 12 Capacity ................................................................................................................... 12 Existing Fleet ........................................................................................................... 13 Storage and Cleaning .............................................................................................. 13 Capital Improvement Projects Underway................................................................. 14 Service Extension Options to Gainesville-Haymarket ................................................. 15 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
i
Minimum Operating Segment .................................................................................. 15 Phased Approach .................................................................................................... 15 Full Build-Out ........................................................................................................... 16 3.3.1 Unconstrained Service (Alternative 1A from the Gainesville-Haymarket
Alternatives Analysis)............................................................................................... 16 3.3.2 Split Service Constrained (Alternative 1B from the GainesvilleHaymarket Alternatives Analysis) ............................................................................ 17 3.3.3 Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle (Alternative 1C from the
Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis) ......................................................... 17 Areas of Evaluation .................................................................................................. 17 3.4.1 Capacity Constraints ................................................................................... 18 3.4.2 Equipment Needs........................................................................................ 18 3.4.3 Ridership ..................................................................................................... 20 3.4.4 Scheduling/Operations ................................................................................ 22 3.4.5 Costs ........................................................................................................... 23 Final Report (Feasibility Study)
3.4.6 Fare Revenue ............................................................................................. 27 Station Site Identification and Screening ....................................................................... 29 4.1 4.2 4.3 Station Site Identification ......................................................................................... 29 Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................................... 45 4.2.1 Site Evaluations .......................................................................................... 49 Station Location Recommendations ........................................................................ 80 Rail Infrastructure Assessment ......................................................................................... 81 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Corridor Conditions .................................................................................................. 81 Corridor Improvements ............................................................................................ 81 5.2.1 NS B Line Improvements ............................................................................ 82 5.2.2 Proposed Improvements ............................................................................. 82 Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 82 Rail Infrastructure Needs ......................................................................................... 85 Other Infrastructure Needs ...................................................................................... 88 Environmental Considerations ................................................................................. 88 Train Storage Requirements .................................................................................... 90 5.7.1 Storage Options .......................................................................................... 90 5.7.2 Potential Sites for a Storage Yard ............................................................... 91 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 99 6.1 6.2 6.3 Terminus .................................................................................................................. 99 Comparison of Extension Options ........................................................................... 99 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 100 Implementation .................................................................................................................. 103 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Funding Sources .................................................................................................... 103 7.1.1 Federal Funding ........................................................................................ 104 7.1.2 State Funding ............................................................................................ 105 7.1.3 Local Funding/Other Funding Sources ..................................................... 105 Implementation Steps for Pursuit of Federal Funding............................................ 106 Environmental Review ........................................................................................... 107 7.3.1 State Review ............................................................................................ 107 7.3.2 Federal Review ........................................................................................ 108 Project Delivery Mechanisms ................................................................................. 108 Appendix A: Service Plans .............................................................................................. 109 Appendix B: Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates ........................................ 111 Appendix C: Fare Revenue Forecasts ............................................................................ 113 Appendix D1: Station Location Evaluation Criteria................................................... 115 Appendix D2: Station Location Evaluations ................................................................ 117 Appendix E: Capital Cost Estimates .............................................................................. 119 Appendix F: Rail Infrastructure Improvements .......................................................... 121 Appendix G: Schematic Layout of Rail Corridor ........................................................ 123 Appendix H: Design Criteria .......................................................................................... 125 \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
ii
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
List of Figures
Figure 1-1:
Figure 2-1:
Figure 2-2:
Figure 4-1:
Figure 4-2:
Figure 4-3:
Figure 4-4:
Figure 4-5:
Figure 4-6:
Figure 4-7:
Figure 4-8:
Figure 4-9:
Figure 4-10:
Figure 4-11:
Figure 4-12:
Figure 4-13:
Figure 4-14:
Figure 4-15:
Figure 4-16:
Figure 4-17:
Figure 4-18:
Figure 4-19:
Figure 5-1:
Figure 5-2:
Figure 5-3:
Figure 5-4:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
iii
NS B Line and Gainesville-Haymarket Corridor....................................................... 2
System Map ............................................................................................................. 7
VRE Origin Destination Map .................................................................................. 11
Potential Station Locations and Park & Ride Sites ................................................ 34
Haymarket Site 1 Conceptual Plan ........................................................................ 35
Haymarket Site 2 Conceptual Plan ........................................................................ 36
Gainesville Site 1 Conceptual Plan ........................................................................ 37
Dominion Station Site Conceptual Plan ................................................................. 38
Gainesville Site 2 Conceptual Plan ........................................................................ 39
Florida Rock Site Conceptual Plan ........................................................................ 40
Sudley Manor Site 1 Conceptual Plan ................................................................... 41
Sudley Manor Site 2 Conceptual Plan ................................................................... 42
Williams Site Conceptual Plan ............................................................................... 43
Wellington Road Site Conceptual Plan .................................................................. 44
Minority Population ................................................................................................ 72
Low-Income Population ......................................................................................... 73
Archaeologically Significant Sites .......................................................................... 74
Soils ....................................................................................................................... 75
Water Resources ................................................................................................... 76
Floodplains............................................................................................................. 77
Wetlands ................................................................................................................ 78
Hazardous Material Sites ....................................................................................... 79
Typical Rail Section ............................................................................................... 87
Storage Yard Layout Options................................................................................. 92
Florida Rock Site Conceptual Layover Plan .......................................................... 96
Haymarket Site 2 Conceptual Layover Plan .......................................................... 97
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
List of Tables
Table 2-1:
Table 2-2:
Table 2-3:
Table 2-4:
Table 3-1:
Table 3-2:
Table 3-3:
Table 3-4:
Table 4-1:
Table 4-2:
Table 5-1:
Table 5-2:
Table 6-1:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
iv
Stations ...................................................................................................................... 9
Estimated Unlinked Passenger Trips (EUPT) for VRE System ............................... 10
Average Daily and Average Annual Passenger Trips for Manassas Line ............... 10
VRE Current Ticket Fare by Ticket Type (2009) ...................................................... 12
Summary of Equipment Needs and Associated Capital Costs ................................ 19
Summary of Ridership Model Findings .................................................................... 21
Number of Trips ....................................................................................................... 23
Total Capital and O&M Costs (in $2008) ................................................................. 27
Site Scoring Matrix ................................................................................................... 48
Summary Matrix of Environmental Conditions .................................................... 70-71
Linear Feet of Wetlands and Floodplains Identified Along Rail Line........................ 89
Challenges Associated with Potential Storage Yard Sites .................................. 94-95
Advantages and Disadvantages of Extension Options .......................................... 100
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
1
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
View of existing NS corridor.
Gainesville and Haymarket.
The Feasibility Study is also
intended to support VRE decision-making for future phases of this project.
Figure 1-1 shows the NS B Line, which runs from just west of Manassas Station
past Sudley, Gainesville, and Haymarket.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
1
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
1.1
Relevant Planning Studies
There are several relevant planning studies that have been completed and should
be evaluated in terms of the information they provide regarding a potential
Gainesville-Haymarket extension.
1.1.1
VRE Strategic Plan
The Phase 1 VRE Strategic Plan, completed in June 2002, focuses on near to midterm (through 2010) operating plans and capital requirements to maintain a high
level of service quality while accommodating ridership demands. The Phase 2
Strategic Plan, completed in May 2004, addresses long-term (through 2025)
operational and capital requirements. This Plan serves as the blueprint for the
future VRE network in terms of service area, service design, and system
infrastructure, including rolling stock. The Strategic Plan also identifies a range
of potential growth scenarios – targeted, aggressive, and deferred – for future
VRE system growth and expansion and the infrastructure and capital
requirements necessary to support each scenario.
Figure 1-1: NS B Line and Gainesville-Haymarket Corridor
In order for VRE to reach its market potential, Phase 2 of the Strategic Plan
recommends developing the core network to build up parking capacity, station
facilities, and railroad infrastructure; improve service and expand the coverage;
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
2
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
and proactively strive to establish development partnerships for funding. The
concluding list of initiatives derived from Phase 2 of the Strategic Plan is:
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
1.1.2
Work towards a ridership goal of 26,000 – 30,000 trips per day.
Improve the core VRE network and expand its capacity to carry VRE
riders
Acquire additional rolling stock and locomotives
Construct storage and maintenance facilities
Improve parking and station access
Pursue expansion of opportunities to Gainesville and Spotsylvania
Explore opportunities for partnerships, including TOD
Update the plan in three to five years
Gainesville-Haymarket Extension
Implementation Plan
The VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Extension Implementation Plan was completed
in 2005 and explored the opportunity for service expansion in the corridor,
studied potential station and storage sites, and researched public-private
partnership funding opportunities. The extension proposed in the
Implementation Plan was for 11 miles from the City of Manassas to Haymarket
in Prince William County, Virginia. The Implementation Plan estimated that it
would take approximately nine years to complete the full project extension if
federal funding was pursued through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA)
New Starts Process.
The Implementation Plan did not include travel demand modeling, but based on
a rail market assessment developed as part of VRE’s Strategic Plan, it was
estimated that there is potential for 3,100 to 5,500 trips per day by 2025
attributable to the Gainesville-Haymarket extension. Preliminary concept plans
and capital cost estimates were included in the plan. The capital cost estimates
ranged from $174 to $281 million and accounted for the railroad infrastructure,
rail yard facility improvements, construction of three new stations and associated
parking, and purchase of new vehicles to meet the future conditions.
Preliminary action items outlined in the Implementation Plan include:
h
h
h
h
Secure funding for and conduct a feasibility study, alternatives analysis,
and environmental review.
Develop corridor land use and station area plans and/or development
guidelines as a basis for all ongoing rail extension work.
Secure right-of-way and property for stations and railroad yards.
Formalize working arrangements among stakeholders.
The Implementation Plan describes several items that should be incorporated
into the Feasibility Study:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
3
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
1.1.3
Ridership projections for future VRE service incorporating the
Gainesville-Haymarket corridor.
Ridership projections for potential express bus services and other transit
services at the potential station locations to appropriately define parking
needs.
Railroad capacity analysis, using methods approved by CSX, NS, and
Amtrak to verify the extent and configuration of railroad infrastructure
required to meet each provider’s needs.
Assessment of the impact of the new service on the existing railroad
network.
Conceptual engineering of the rail alignment to provide a basis for cost
estimating.
Identification of appropriate solutions for all existing grade crossings.
Analysis of impacts of alternative station locations and station area
development scenarios on potential VRE ridership, rail alignment, and
rail infrastructure requirements.
Analysis of alternative implementation phasing plans.
Conceptual cost estimates.
Financial analysis of the project to identify potential sources of capital
funding and determine the level of projected operating subsidies
following completion of the project.
Close coordination with railroad stakeholders to ensure that the project
emerging from the feasibility study incorporates all of the elements
required to meet the needs and requirements of CSX, NS, and Amtrak
associated with the project.
VRE Station Access Study
In April 2006, a Station Access Study was completed. The purpose of this study
was to address the growing demand on parking capacity and access at the
existing commuter rail stations. Recommendations were identified for paid
parking, access improvements, commuter incentives, and partnering with
jurisdictions on promoting TOD at certain stations.
1.1.4
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives
Analysis
In May 2009, the VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis was
completed. The purpose of this study was to identify the most appropriate
transit investment strategies for improving mobility and regional access for
residents in the communities of Gainesville and Haymarket to reach destinations
in downtown Washington, DC and its surrounding business districts. The study
evaluated different alternatives based on the conceptual routing options,
operational characteristics, environmental issues, costs, ridership projections,
and design constraints. The Alternatives Analysis included a two-tiered analysis
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
4
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
of the alternatives. Tier 1 evaluated all potential transit options qualitatively and
rated the alternatives based on the findings of the evaluation. Alternatives with
a positive rating moved forward into Tier 2. Tier 2 evaluated two baseline
scenarios and three build alternatives. It was recommended that one of the
baseline scenarios and two of the build alternatives move forward into the next
phase for further study. Further evaluations will focus on areas, such as service
capacities, the location of the end of line station for the rail alternatives, station
locations, and more detailed environmental considerations.
1.1.5
VDOT Major Investment Study and Multimodal
Transportation and Environmental Study
In 1999, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Department of
Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), completed the I-66 Major Investment
Study (MIS). This study recommended a collection of multimodal transportation
investment strategies to address growing traffic congestion along the I-66
corridor between the Capitol Beltway (I-495) and US 15 in Haymarket. One of
these investments was an extension of VRE service to the Gainesville-Haymarket
corridor.
The I-66 Multimodal Transportation and Environmental Study (MTES) followed
the MIS process. Initiated in 2000, the purpose was to provide a comprehensive
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluated the benefits
and impacts of the multimodal transportation improvements and strategies for
the I-66 corridor. The study area extended 24 miles from the US 15 interchange
in Prince William County to the western limit of the I-495 interchange in Fairfax
County. One of the strategies being developed as part of the joint VDOT/DRPT
process was the Gainesville-Haymarket extension of commuter rail service.
Work on the MTES was stopped by VDOT in 2004.
1.1.6
Prince William County Land Use Plans
The Prince William County 2008 Comprehensive Plan shows the land use plans
in the Gainesville-Haymarket corridor as a mixture of community, regional,
flexible, and industrial employment centers; suburban residential (high density);
regional commerce center; and public lands. Prince William County is currently
working on Land Use and Transportation Updates to the Comprehensive Plan.
This update includes guidelines for incorporating transit and smart growth
principles into development and includes identified nodes of Commerce and
Community along the I-66 corridor.
The majority of the Gainesville-Haymarket corridor is located within the Prince
William County I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan. This Plan is a separate chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan and it identifies strategies for the effective and efficient
design of new residential, commercial, and mixed-use development.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
5
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Future development plans, as promoted by Prince William County, would likely
contribute to potential VRE ridership in the Gainesville-Haymarket corridor.
The County has identified inter- and intra-county employment destinations.
Existing employment and development patterns favor Washington, DC and
inner suburbs as the regional employment center and support current VRE
service schedules, which are oriented around peak traffic flow into Washington,
DC in the morning and out in the evening. If this pattern changes in the future
through the establishment of suburban employment centers (i.e. more intercounty travel), reverse peak service and inter-station service may play a larger
role for VRE.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
6
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
2
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. Figure 2-1
shows the VRE System Map.
Figure 2-1: System Map
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
7
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
2.1
Current Operations
Service is 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. Weekday service provided
between Broad Run and Union Station, Washington, DC includes:
h
Inbound (Broad Run to Union Station):
¾ AM Peak: Six trains (Departing Broad Run at 5:05, 5:45, 6:15,
6:40, 7:20, and 7:50 AM)
¾ Mid-day: One train (Departing Broad Run at 2:45 PM)
¾ PM Peak: One train (Departing Broad Run at 5:01 PM)
h
Outbound (Union Station to Broad Run):
¾ AM Peak: One train (Departing Union Station at 6:25 AM)
¾ Mid-day: Two trains (Departing Union Station at 1:15 PM and
3:45 PM)
¾ PM Peak: Five trains (Departing Union Station at 4:25, 5:00, 5:30,
6:10, and 6:50 PM)
Peak period headways are approximately 30 minutes inbound in the AM Peak
and outbound in the PM Peak. The existing operating schedule provides 16 VRE
Manassas Line train trips between Alexandria and Union Station. This service
yields an annual total of 141,500 train miles, including revenue and nonrevenue
miles.
2.1.1
Amtrak Services
Amtrak trains supplement VRE service in the off-peak periods through the
Amtrak Cross Honor Agreement. Amtrak trains are available only to VRE riders
with a valid 10-Trip, Five Day, Monthly, or TLC ticket. Amtrak does not accept
VRE Single-Ride, Round Trip Tickets, or Free Ride Certificates. To ride Amtrak
trains, a multi-fare VRE ticket must be accompanied by a Step-Up Ticket. The
additional Amtrak service to be implemented by the Commonwealth of Virginia
includes two additional weekday Amtrak trains on the Manassas Line (inbound
to DC from Lynchburg in the mid-morning and outbound to Lynchburg from
DC at 4:50 PM) and two additional weekday Amtrak trains on the
Fredericksburg Line (inbound to DC from Richmond in AM peak and outbound
from DC to Richmond at 3:55 PM). The Lynchburg service is planned to begin in
fall 2009 with the Richmond service toward the end of 2009.
2.1.2
Stations
There are currently 18 stations served by VRE trains. Four of the 18 stations are
serviced by both lines. Seven stations also serve as stops for Amtrak intercity
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
8
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
trains. There are three stations located near the study area: Manassas, Manassas
Park, and Broad Run/Airport. These stations provide free commuter parking.
Manassas, Manassas Park, and Broad Run/Airport stations have 686, 600, and
885 available parking spaces, respectively. A 532-space parking garage facility
has recently been constructed adjacent to the Manassas Station. The City of
Manassas and VRE will share this facility, with 313 spaces reserved for VRE
riders during commuting hours. Table 2-1 provides a list of all VRE stations and
shows which service providers share those stations.
Table 2-1: Stations
Union Station
L’Enfant
Crystal City
Alexandria
Backlick Road
Rolling Road
Burke Centre
Manassas Park
Manassas
Broad Run/Airport
Franconia/Springfield
Lorton
Woodbridge
Rippon
Quantico
Brooke
Leeland
Fredericksburg
Amtrak
VRE
Intercity
Passenger
Trains
Manassas Line
Fredericksburg Line
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: VRE website (www.vre.org).
2.2
Existing Ridership
Average daily ridership for the past three years (2006, 2007 and 2008) has been
14,667; 13,982; and 15,135, respectively. Table 2-2 shows monthly ridership totals
for the years 2004 through 2008. Table 2-3 presents the 2007 Average Daily and
Annual Passenger Trips along the Manassas Line.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
9
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Table 2-2: Estimated Unlinked Passenger Trips (EUPT) for VRE System
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Year 2004
Year 2005
Year 2006
Year 2007
Year 2008
276,231
289,342
347,190
324,377
299,489
326,486
316,063
326,748
320,121
303,053
287,842
289,192
291,407
287,469
351,671
317,977
325,002
339,914
305,628
329,201
314,748
299,471
289,180
273,205
286,116
286,416
340,657
287,905
322,490
275,190
272,934
307,941
314,748
300,888
272,084
252,720
300,407
258,944
309,310
288,277
310,046
298,345
292,043
317,035
275,476
323,994
277,425
239,696
317,646
297,205
312,098
336,860
305,560
328,153
338,591
319,222
340,516
352,652
271,125
297,356
Yearly Total
3,706,134
3,724,873
3,520,089
3,490,998
3,816,984
Monthly Avg.
308,845
310,406
293,341
290,917
318,082
Source: Based on information provided by VRE.
Table 2-3: Average Daily and Annual Passenger Trips for Manassas Line
Stations
Broad Run
Manassas
Manassas Park
Burke Centre
Rolling Road
Backlick Road
Average Daily
Passenger Trips (2007)
699
622
604
714
374
148
Average Annual
Passenger Trips (2007)
201,711
150,627
155,923
175,029
98,570
42,758
Source: VRE Average Daily and Annual Passenger Trips by Station and Line for Calendar Year 2007.
NVTC website (2008).
Figure 2-2 shows the existing VRE passenger origins. The rider points of origin
are color-coded with the station in which they board.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
10
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Jefferson
Winchester
Winchester
How
270
97
7
Frederick
Montgomery
Clarke
522
340
A
Leesburg
Loudoun
355
650
11
340
50
Wolf Trap
Herndon
District of Columbia
McLean
267
Reston
Warren
15
66
Front Royal
Fairfax
123
Chantilly
495
Arlington
7100
522
17
Jefferson
Arlington
Vienna
Centreville
Crystal City
Alexandria
Merrifield
29
Prince
Alexandria
Haymarket
Norfolk Southern
'B' Line
Union Station
L'Enfant
Burke Centre
Backlick Road
Rolling Road
123
Bull Run
Manassas Park Burke
Manassas
Franconia
Franconia/Springfield
123
Warrenton
Fauquier
215
600
28
Broad
Run
Manassas
Fort Hunt
Lake Ridge
Lorton
Lorton
Rappahannock
Prince William
Dale City
211
234
Woodbridge
Woodbridge
Rippon
Montclair
28
29
NewingtonMount Vernon 210
Quantico
Quantico Marine
Marine Corps
Corps Base
Base
15
Charles
Quantico
Culpeper
301
522
Summerduck
Stafford
Madison
17
Brooke
Lake of the Woods
Leeland Road
3
15
218
Fredericksburg
206
Fredericksburg
20
3
King George
Orange
522
Spotsylvania
17
95
Westm
Fort
Fort A
AP
P Hill
Hill Military
Military Res
Res
1
33
Caroline
Louisa
Essex
64
Source: ESRI Streetmap 9.1 (2005)
Fluvanna
Figure 2-2
3-3 Existing VRE Passenger Origins
360
Legend
15
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket
Extension Feasibility Study/
Alternatives Analysis
Alexandria
Crystal City
Lorton
Backlick Road
Franconia/Springfield
Manassas
Union Station
Broad Run/Airport
522
Fredericksburg
Manassas Park
Woodbridge
Brooke
L'Enfant
Quantico
Burke Centre
Leeland Road
Rippon
Goochland
Passenger origin - color coded by station of origin
(based on VRE Rider Survey 2008)
Rolling Road
Hanover
VRE_Extension
0
295
1.5
3
4.5
6 Miles
King and
King William
2.2.1
Fare Revenue
Current fare revenue by ticket type as of March 2009 is shown in Table 2-4.
VRE’s current boarding percentage by ticket type was calculated using the
current ticket fares and the data on revenue generated by ticket type. The
percentage of riders boarding with each type of ticket is:
h
h
h
h
h
h
Single-Ride: 2.8%
Two-Trip: 3.6%
Ten-Trip: 37.3%
Five-Day: 6.4%
Monthly: 48.9%
Amtrak Step-Up: 1.1%
Table 2-4: VRE Current Ticket Fare Revenue by Ticket Type (2009)
Single Ride
Two-Trip
Ten-Trip
Five-Day
Monthly
$9.15
$8.60
$8.00
$6.80
$6.25
$18.30
$17.20
$16.00
$13.60
$12.50
$84.20
$78.80
$73.30
$62.60
$57.10
$73.20
$68.50
$63.80
$54.40
$45.00
$253.60
$237.30
$220.90
$188.50
$155.80
Ticket Fare
(2009)
Zone 8
Zone 7
Zone 6
Zone 4
Zone 3
Note: Amtrak Step-Up Tickets are $9.95.
2.3
Capacity
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. The MOU identifies additional trains by line, although modifications to
the ratio could be proposed for future operations.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
12
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
2.4
Existing Fleet
The existing Manassas Line service uses five train sets to make 16 daily trips.
Each train set consists of one locomotive and coaches; four of the train sets have
six coaches and the fifth train
set has eight coaches. Two of
these sets make a single AM
inbound trip and then enter a
mid-day layover facility in
Washington, DC. These trains
exit the layover facility in time
for the PM peak and make a
single outbound trip. The
remaining three train sets make
additional trips during the day.
Existing Manassas Station.
All five train sets use the
layover facility in Washington, DC at some time during the day. The train sets
are stored at night in Broad Run Yard.
For the overall system (Manassas and Fredericksburg services), there are
currently 67 coaches and 11 locomotives (sometimes 12 depending on the specific
equipment) used for daily service. VRE has 21 locomotives, 18 of which are
owned and 3 of which are leased. The majority of these locomotives are over 40
years old. A locomotive replacement program is underway; however, it is
currently only partially funded. There are 61 “new” Sumitomo gallery coaches
and 30 “old” Pullman gallery coaches. Ten additional Sumitomo coaches are
scheduled for delivery in February 2010. Once the 10 additional coaches are
received, no additional coach purchases are expected until the locomotive
replacement project is fully funded to replace up to 20 VRE locomotives.
2.5
Storage and Cleaning
Daytime storage tracks are leased from Amtrak at their Ivy City Yard located just
outside Union Terminal in Washington, DC. Amtrak does light servicing and
maintenance on the locomotives at this facility. There are 78 units (1 unit = 1
locomotive or 1 coach) currently stored at the Ivy City Yard during the day. The
78 units maximize the daytime storage capacity for VRE equipment at Ivy City.
VRE is currently exploring options to relocate/expand their daytime storage.
VRE owns rail yards at the two southern ends of its system: Broad Run Yard at
Manassas Airport and the Crossroads Yard south of Fredericksburg. These
facilities provide overnight storage for equipment and servicing. The Crossroads
Yard provides heavy maintenance and repair functions. It is also equipped with
a car wash to clean the exterior of the locomotives and coaches.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
13
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
A heavy maintenance and repair facility similar to the one at Crossroads Yard is
currently being constructed at Broad Run Yard. Initially, this facility will not
have a car wash. The storage capacity of Broad Run Yard is 62 units. This will
increase to about 67 units with the construction of the new facility. Long-term,
additional storage capacity is still needed since the Broad Run Yard does not
have expansion capacity. It has been VRE’s thought that additional overnight
storage could be located on Gainesville-Haymarket extension to expand capacity.
A Gainesville-Haymarket facility would also enable more efficient operations
(eliminate or minimize deadhead moves in peak periods).
2.6
Capital Improvement Projects
Underway
Current capital improvement projects underway include:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
14
h
Broad Run Maintenance Facilities: Construction of a maintenance
facility at Broad Run Yard and to extend storage tracks within the Yard.
The facility is designed to accommodate major overhauls and repairs. In
the future, a train carwash is planned.
h
Brooke Station Parking Lot Expansion: Expansion of the existing
parking lot at Brooke Station.
h
Burke Centre Station Platform Extension: Construction of a platform
and canopy extension at Burke Centre Station.
h
Cherry Hill Third Track: Completion of an Environmental Assessment
and Preliminary (30%) Design for the addition of approximately 11.4
miles of mainline third track within the CSX line between Aquia Creek
and Powell’s Creek, making full use of the newly constructed Quantico
Creek Bridge. As this phase of the project is being performed, VRE is
pursuing additional funding that will advance the project through final
design and eventually construction in 2011.
h
Leeland Road Station Parking Lot Expansion: Expansion of the existing
parking lot at the VRE Leeland Road Station.
h
Woodbridge Station Expansion: Construction of a second platform and
kiss and ride facility at the VRE Woodbridge Station.
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
3
Service Extension Options to
Gainesville-Haymarket
This chapter describes various commuter rail service extension options from
Manassas to Gainesville-Haymarket, and the methodology applied to evaluate
them. The options have been developed to offer a range of investment of service
opportunities. Both minimal and full options are considered.
3.1
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.
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.
3.2
Phased Approach
A second approach would be to pursue a phased implementation plan to the
Gainesville-Haymarket area. This approach would include a more robust
schedule of service than the MOS option to Gainesville as the first phase. The
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
15
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
second phase would include extending the service to Haymarket. This option
would require more capital resources than the MOS option discussed in Section
3.1 because it would run more frequent service (similar to the full build-out
option in Section 3.3). 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.
3.3
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 Unconstrained Service
h Split Service Constrained
h Split Service Constrained (with rail shuttle service)
3.3.1
Unconstrained Service (Alternative 1A from
the Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives
Analysis)
The Unconstrained Service option adds a new branch of commuter service that
would run to/from Union Station, Washington, DC and Haymarket. This
service would overlay the existing VRE Manassas Line service to/from Union
Station, Washington, DC and Broad Run Station. This service scenario 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),
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
16
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
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.
3.3.2
Split Service Constrained (Alternative 1B from
the Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives
Analysis)
Working within the system wide capacity constraint of 40 trains per day, this
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.
3.3.3
Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle
(Alternative 1C from the GainesvilleHaymarket Alternatives Analysis)
This option offers the same 10 daily roundtrips from the two Manassas Line
terminals (Broad Run and Haymarket) to Washington, DC. 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
Gainesville-Haymarket 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.
3.4
Areas of Evaluation
The feasibility of each of these commuter rail expansion options is assessed in the
following six main areas:
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
17
Capacity Constraints
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
h
h
h
h
h
3.4.1
Equipment Needs
Ridership
Scheduling/Operations
Costs
Fare Revenue
Capacity Constraints
As noted in Section 2.3, VRE has a system-wide capacity constraint of 40 trains
per day. These 40 trains per day can generally be split evenly between the
Fredericksburg and Manassas Lines. Although the MOU does identify the
addition of trains by line, modifications may be proposed for future operations.
This constraint begins approximately one mile south of the Alexandra Station at
NS mile 9.12 (Seminary CFP 103), where the Manassas Line diverges from the
Fredericksburg Line.
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 the 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.
3.4.2
Equipment Needs
As previously summarized in Chapter 2, VRE currently has 21 locomotives (18 of
which are owned and 3 of which are leased) and 91 coaches (61 “new” and 30
“old” gallery coaches). Ten additional gallery coaches are scheduled for delivery
by February 2010. VRE currently uses 11 locomotives and 67 coaches for daily
revenue service system wide. For the Manassas Line, five train sets (five
locomotives and 32 coaches) are in operation.
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 are:
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
18
MOS option: This option would utilize two of the extra locomotives. While
it is currently uncertain whether extra coaches would be available to
operate this service, existing train sets could be modified as necessary to
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
obtain the minimal number of coaches required. It is anticipated that the
current fleet can meet the equipment needs of the MOS option.
h
Phased Approach option: This option would require purchasing additional
equipment. Assuming the service frequency is equivalent to the level of
service proposed in the Full Build-Out Split Service option, the quantity of
new equipment required would be:
¾ 1 new locomotive needed – 3 extra locomotives available = None
¾ 10 new coaches needed – 0 extra coaches available = 10 new coaches
h
Full Build-Out Unconstrained option: This option would require more
trains that the Full Build-Out Split Service Constrained option, but how
many more trains would be needed depends on the frequency of operation
that could be negotiated.
h
Full Build-Out Split Service Constrained:
¾ 1 new locomotive needed – 3 extra locomotives available = None
¾ 10 new coaches needed – 0 extra coaches available = 10 new coaches
h
Full Build-Out Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle:
¾ 6 new locomotives needed – 3 extra locomotives available = 3 new
locomotives
¾ 32 new coaches – 0 extra coaches available = 32 new coaches
A summary of equipment needs and their associated capital costs for these
options are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: 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.
Note that these estimates do not include an industry standard 10 percent spare
ratio. The spare ratio is based on the total fleet size, not the incremental
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
19
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
purchase. There may be excess equipment in the fleet such that when a purchase
is made, no additional spares are required because the 10 percent ratio is already
met. For their total fleet, VRE would need approximately two spare locomotives
and 10 spare coaches system wide.
The Gainesville-Haymarket to DC and Broad Run to DC vehicle fleet would need
to be rotated, such that all vehicles are able to be cleaned and maintained at the
Broad Run Yard/Layover Facility.
3.4.3
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. This included a Full Build-Out option with
three stations (Sudley/Innovation, Gainesville, and Haymarket), unconstrained
capacity, and frequent headways of approximately 30 minutes for the existing
Manassas Line service and the new branch to/from Union Station, Washington,
DC and Haymarket. This service plan resulted in an appropriate 15 minute
headway in the trunk line between Manassas Station and Washington, DC.
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.
Specific details about the model and its enhancements can be found in Appendix
E of the Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis report.
These ridership modeling results demonstrated an estimated 1,000 to 3,600 trips
per day attributable to the Gainesville-Haymarket extension. This included a
Full Build-Out option with three stations (Sudley/Innovation, Gainesville, and
Haymarket), working within the existing capacity constraint and service plan,
and less frequent headways of approximately 50-60 minutes for the existing
Manassas Line service and the new branch to/from Union Station, Washington,
DC and Haymarket. 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
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
20
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
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 (Alternatives Analysis, Appendix E).
Table 3-2 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. The projected station boardings
are in Appendix F of the Alternatives Analysis.
Table 3-2: 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 than 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.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
21
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
3.4.4
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 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.
Operating plans for the Phased Approach option would include service
frequency along the new branch to Gainesville beyond that which is offered in
the Minimum Operating Segment. In order to achieve this frequency and work
within the existing capacity constraint, 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 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. Peak period headways would be approximately
52 minutes inbound and outbound. The proposed operating schedule provides
20 trips per day total for the existing Manassas Line (terminating at Broad Run
Station) and the new branch of service (terminating at Gainesville). This is
within the VRE allotment of the 40 trains per day maximum for both lines
(assuming 20 trains per day for the Fredericksburg Line) set by the capacity
constraint. Preliminary schedules are shown in Appendix A. Table 3-3 provides
a summary of the number of trips and their scheduled departure times for the
Split Service Constrained and the Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle.
The Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle option would offer a similar
operating schedule to the Split Service Constrained, except that this option adds
a commuter rail shuttle from Gainesville-Haymarket to Alexandria Station. In
Alexandria, riders can transfer to and from Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority (WMATA) Metrorail trains. Peak period headways would be
approximately 60 minutes for the Gainesville-Haymarket to Washington DC trip,
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
22
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
30 minutes for the Broad Run to Washington DC trip, and 45 minutes for the
Gainesville-Haymarket to Alexandria rail shuttle service trip. With the exception
of a short segment of the rail shuttle that overlaps the portion of track subject to
the capacity constraint, this option is within the capacity constraint.
Table 3-3: Number of Trips
# Trips
Split Service Constrained
AM Peak
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
Mid-day
PM Peak
Split Service Constrained Plus
Shuttle
AM Peak
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
Mid-day
PM Peak
1.
2.
3.
4.
3.4.5
# Trips
New CR from
G-H to DC
3
1
1
1
1
3
Modified Existing CR from
Broad Run to DC
4
1
0
0
1
4
New CR from
G-H to DC
Modified Existing CR from
Broad Run to DC
3
0
0
0
0
3
# Trips
# Daily
Trips1
20
New CR Shuttle from
G-H to Alexandria
6
1
1
1
0
5
3
2
10
9
2
4
20
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
Conceptual capital costs and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs were
estimated for the extension options as part of this study and are presented in
2008 dollars. The year 2008 was selected as the base year for the purpose of
presenting all costs associated with the project, since this was used as the existing
year for modeling purposes. Also, the O&M cost models were developed using
VRE’s latest available FY2008 operating expenses.
3.4.5.1
Conceptual Capital Costs
Conceptual capital cost estimates were developed based on the conceptual
alignments and operating plans. The items in the cost estimates are grouped into
nine categories, which are consistent with the FTA’s Standard Cost Categories
(SCCs) for Major Capital Projects. These categories are:
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
23
Guideway and Track Elements
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
Station, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals
Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings.
Sitework and Special Conditions
Systems
ROW, Land, Existing Improvements
Vehicles
Professional Services
Unallocated Contingency
A list of assumptions included as part of the conceptual capital cost estimates
are:
h
All capital cost estimates have been developed using current year (2008)
dollars.
h
Base Year: 2008 was used as the Base Year for definition of the unit
prices and preparation of the capital cost estimates.
h
Unit costs used in the capital cost estimates are based on averages of
costs for similar recent construction in the mid-Atlantic region.
h
Unallocated Contingency: An unallocated contingency of 32% was used
in the estimates. This contingency is applied to the total capital cost for
each option.
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
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
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
24
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
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 as described in
Section 3.4.2.
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.
The conceptual capital costs for the extension options are presented in Table 3-4.
As shown in the table, the MOS option would require the lowest capital cost of
$65 million, while the Full Build-Out Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle
option would require the highest capital cost of over $240 million. The capital
cost for the Phased Approach option (Phase 1 only with service to Gainesville as
an end of line station and an intermediate station in Sudley/Innovation) would
be approximately $122 million. The Full Build-Out Split Service Constrained
option is estimated at $160 million. The Full Build-Out Spilt Service for both the
Constrained option and the Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle option were assessed
in the Alternatives Analysis report as Alternatives 1B and 1C, respectively.
Further detail on the capital cost estimates is included in Appendix E.
The MOS option seeks to identify the minimal investment necessary to begin
conducting service to the Gainesville area. To achieve this, there are a couple of
cost items unique to the MOS option:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
h
Land Acquisition: If the existing rail line is shifted or relocated slightly, two
tracks can fit into the existing right-of-way without land acquisition. To
estimate the minimal investment necessary on the MOS option, it is
assumed that a combination of relocating the existing track and acquiring
land (needed for areas where the second track is constructed adjacent to the
existing track without relocating the existing track) will be implemented for
the MOS options. This reduces the land acquisition cost from
approximately $8 million to $4 million, as detailed in Appendix E, but this
does not include costs for the addition of retaining walls and other
structural modifications that may be necessary to accommodate two tracks
in the existing right-of-way.
h
Development Proffers: As shown in Table 3-4, under the MOS option, there
is an opportunity for private developers to proffer all or a portion of the
costs for the VRE extension. The private contribution could include as
much as the costs for the station, parking, adjacent roadway improvements
and access, utilities, pedestrian improvements and landscaping, and any
land acquisition necessary for the station. These costs are noted in the
25
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
detailed table for the MOS option in Appendix E and would reduce the total
estimated cost for the MOS option from $58 million to $43 million.
These options could be conducted for any of the extension options, but for
simplicity are only shown for the MOS option.
3.4.5.2
Conceptual O&M Costs
Conceptual O&M costs were 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.
Based on the data received from VRE showing the total cost of annual operating
expenses and the total number of annual train miles, the current cost per mile of
train service was calculated. VRE’s FY2008 actual operating expenses totaled
$48,063,499. The total annual train miles system-wide, including revenue and
nonrevenue miles, is 347,500. Thus, the cost per train mile is $138.71. Appendix
B shows the detailed breakdown of this calculation. The Split Service
Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle uses a separate cost per train mile, $69.36, for the
shuttle service, which is based on three-car consists.
Based on these cost models, the annual conceptual O&M costs for the extension
options were calculated and are presented in Table 3-4. These represent the total
O&M cost for each alternative, including existing or modified existing service.
As shown in the table, the O&M cost in the MOS option is approximately $20 M
and includes two new round trips from Gainesville to DC in addition to the
existing Broad Run to DC service. The Full Build-Out Split Service Constrained
Plus Rail Shuttle option would require the highest O&M cost of $44 million. The
O&M costs under the Phased options and the Full Build-Out Split Service
Constrained option would are approximately $27 million. The Full Build-Out
Spilt Service for both the Constrained option and the Constrained Plus Rail
Shuttle option were assessed in the Alternatives Analysis report as Alternatives
1B and 1C, respectively.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
26
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Table 3-4: Total Capital and O&M Costs (in $2008)
Minimum
Operating
Segment
Total Capital
Cost Full Build-Out Split
Service Constraint (1B)
Full Build-Out Split
Service Constraint + Rail
Shuttle (1C)
$58 M/$43M*
$122 M
$159 M
$243 M
$20 M
$26 M
$27 M
$44 M
Total Annual O&M
Cost** Note:
3.4.6
Phased Option
with 2 Stations
* 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.
Fare Revenue
The fare revenue was forecasted based upon the current ticket fares, the
percentage of riders boarding with each type of ticket, the estimated daily
boardings, and 250 service days per year. Annual forecasted fare revenues for
the extension options range from $16.3 million to $25.6 million.
The fare revenue would partially offset the total O&M costs, and the adjusted
annual O&M costs range from approximately $10 million to $20 million
annually. A detailed breakdown of the fare revenue forecasts is in Appendix C.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
27
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
28
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
4
Station Site Identification and
Screening
This chapter discusses the proposed station site alternatives and the process by
which each station site was evaluated to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
each site. The station site identification and screening includes two phases: the
first phase focused on the initial identification of potential sites; the second phase
focused on the evaluation of each potential site based on a range of criteria.
These criteria included components such as potential environmental impacts,
operational feasibility, and access.
In the first phase of the screening, eleven sites were identified as potential station
locations. These sites were in the vicinity of the station locations identified in the
Gainesville-Haymarket Implementation Plan: Haymarket, Gainesville, and
Sudley Manor (now Sudley/Innovation). The second phase of the screening
evaluated each site relative to a wide range of evaluation criteria to identify those
station and park and ride sites that appear to be the most feasible while also
minimizing negative impacts.
4.1
Station Site Identification
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
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
29
Sudley Manor (Sudley/Innovation)Area: Access from Sudley Manor
Drive
Gainesville Area: Access from US 29
Haymarket Area: Access from US 15
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
The Implementation Plan identified the need for an assessment of potential
station sites located within these areas. Figure 4-1 contains a summary map
showing the study area and general location of each of the potential sites
identified through this assessment. There is interest among developers within
Prince William County to develop potential station sites in conjunction with VRE
using Transit Oriented Development (TOD) principles. This has been noted
accordingly in the following site descriptions.
Ridership forecasts performed for the Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives
Analysis (Alternatives Analysis Report, Appendix E) estimated the number of
daily inbound boardings for each of the three potential station locations. The
maximum daily inbound boardings were 883 for the Haymarket area; 321 for the
Gainesville area; and 606 for the Sudley/Innovation area. The maximum buildout was assumed for the preliminary development of station plans and assumed
provision of surface parking lots. These are conceptual estimates that need to be
further refined in the next phase of the project.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
h
Haymarket Site 1: This site is located on the south side of the NS B Line,
adjacent to US 15 and just west of the Town of Haymarket. Entrances to
this potential site would be located about 1,500 feet south of Virginia Route
55 (VA-55) and about one-quarter of a mile south of Interstate 66 (I-66).
This potential station site is also located about five miles north of the
intersection of US 15 and US 29. Access to this site would be via US 15, with
vehicles accessing the site from the north via I-66 and US 15 and the south
via US 29 and US 15. This site is adjacent to the Town of Haymarket, and
there is fairly dense residential and commercial development along US 15
from north of I-66 to US 29. The maximum number of potential parking
spaces at this site is 1,026. The conceptual plan for this site is shown in
Figure 4-2.
h
Haymarket Site 2: This site is located on the north side of the NS B Line,
adjacent to VA-55 and just west of the Town of Haymarket and US 15. This
site is directly across the NS B Line from Haymarket Site 1. Entrances to the
site would be located off of VA-55, about one-quarter of a mile west of US
15. The surrounding land use characteristics are the same as those for
Haymarket Site 1. The site is the location of a proposed mixed-use
development called Midwood Center. The maximum number of potential
parking spaces at this site is 942. The conceptual plan for this site is shown
in Figure 4-3.
h
Gainesville Site 1: This site is located on the south side of the study
alignment, adjacent to University Boulevard. University Boulevard runs
between US 29, which is located north of I-66 and Wellington Road. Access
to the station would be via University Boulevard. This access point is
located approximately one-quarter of a mile south of US 29 and
approximately one-quarter of a mile north of Wellington Road. The
30
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
immediate area around the station site is lightly developed, but commercial
and retail development exists further west along Wellington Road. This
commercial development includes the Virginia Gateway Business Park and
the Virginia Gateway Shopping Center. This site is part of a proposed
mixed-use development called Prince William Station. It should be noted
that the park and ride plans for this site consist of a surface parking lot. If
the mixed use development moves forward, this surface parking may be
replaced with structured parking in conjunction with the development. The
maximum number of potential parking spaces at this site is 900. The
conceptual plan for the site is shown in Figure 4-4.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
h
Dominion Station Site: This site is located north of the NS B Line, east of
University Boulevard and south of I-66. Access to the site would be via an
extension of Randolph Ridge Lane, which connects to Balls Ford Road. The
site is approximately three-quarters of a mile west of Balls Ford Road. This
site is located between Gainesville Site 1 and 2, which are south of the NS B
Line. The immediate area around the site is currently lightly developed.
This site was part of a proposed mixed-use development called Dominion
Station. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Dominion Station was
denied by Prince William County, but the land use for the site is still mixedused development. As with Gainesville Sites 1 and 2, the park and ride
plan for this site is a surface lot that may be replaced with structured
parking if a mixed-use development on the site moves forward. The
maximum number of potential parking spaces at this site is 572. The
conceptual plan for this site is shown in Figure 4-5.
h
Gainesville Site 2: This site is also located on the south side of the NS B
Line, approximately 750 feet east of Gainesville Site 1. As with Gainesville
Site 1, access to the site would be from University Boulevard. This site is
also located within the proposed Prince William Station mixed-use
development. As with Gainesville Site 1, the planned park and ride facility
is a surface lot that may be replaced with structured parking if the mixeduse development moves forward. The maximum number of potential
parking spaces at this site is 919. The conceptual plan for the site is shown
in Figure 4-6.
h
Florida Rock Site: This site is located on a former quarry that is located just
northeast of where Prince William Parkway crosses the NS B Line. Access
to the site would be via Prince William Parkway, which would provide
direct access into the station. A traffic and signal warrant analysis would be
required to ensure that this direct access is acceptable to the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT). An alternative access would be via
Balls Ford Road, which would provide access into the site from the north.
This access point is off of Balls Ford Road, about one-quarter mile from
Prince William Parkway (located to the west), and approximately one and
three-quarters of a mile from Sudley Road (located to the east). The
31
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
maximum number of potential parking spaces at this site is 1,032. The
conceptual plan for this site is shown in Figure 4-7.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
h
Sudley/Innovation Site 1: This site is located on the south side of the NS B
Line, off of Bethlehem Road and directly northwest of Sudley Manor Drive.
Bethlehem Road intersects Sudley Manor Drive about one-fifth of a mile
northeast of Prince William Parkway (State Route 234, dedicated as the
Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Highway). Access to this site would be
from Bethlehem Road. The area around this station site is lightly developed
to the southwest of the NS B Line, but is fairly densely developed to the
northeast of the alignment, off of Sudley Manor Drive. This development
includes commercial, retail, and residential development. The maximum
number of potential parking spaces at this site is 882 spaces. The conceptual
plan for this site is shown in Figure 4-8.
h
Sudley /Innovation Site 2: This site is located off of Sudley Manor Drive,
with access to the site from Sudley Manor Drive and Chatsworth Drive. The
site would encircle an existing commercial area. This site is currently
occupied by a long-term storage facility and other commercial uses. There
is also a gas pipeline that runs through this site. This pipeline right-of-way
would split the site and would not have parking on it. The conceptual
design does include a connecting road between the two halves of the site
over this right-of-way. This site is located directly across the NS B Line
from Sudley/Innovation Site 1. As with the Sudley/Innovation Site 1, the
immediate station area is lightly developed to the southwest of the study
alignment, but more densely developed to the northeast. The maximum
number of potential parking spaces at this site is 396 spaces. This is fewer
spaces than the forecasted daily inbound boardings in the
Sudley/Innovation station area. The conceptual plan for this site is shown
in Figure 4-9.
h
Williams Site: This site is located on the south side of the NS B Line, to the
east of Sudley Manor Drive. The entire Williams Site is located across
Sudley Manor Drive from Sudley/Innovation Site 1, but the actual
proposed station and park and ride site is located in the unoccupied
northeast corner of the overall Williams Site (the area to the west of this
portion of the overall site is an existing manufacturing operation). Access to
this site would be off of Wellington Road. The area surrounding the site is
lightly developed, but it is more densely developed to the northeast of the
NS B Line. The maximum number of potential parking spaces at this site is
684. The conceptual plan for this site is shown in Figure 4-10.
h
Vulcan Quarry Site: This site is located on the north side of the NS B Line,
to the east of Sudley Manor Drive. Access would be directly from Sudley
Manor Drive, though an alternative access would be from Ashton Avenue.
The site is currently occupied by a rock quarry. The immediate area is
32
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
lightly developed, but denser development exists to the north of the Vulcan
Quarry Site. This site is heavily disturbed based on the quarry operations
and would involve significant capital costs to convert it to a station and
park and ride lot. Preliminary engineering analyses indicate that the site is
not feasible as a station and park and ride lot due to the expense associated
with mitigating the site issues from the quarry operations. Based on this
analysis, no conceptual site plan was developed.
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
33
Wellington Road Site: This site is located to the south of the NS B Line, just
northeast of the intersection of Wellington Road and Freedom Center
Boulevard. Access to the site would be via Wellington Road. The site is
located approximately one mile from the intersection of Wellington Road
and Prince William Parkway and approximately one-quarter mile from the
intersection of Wellington Road and Godwin Drive. The area surrounding
this site is lightly developed. This site has limited frontage on the NS B Line
due to an industrial siding. Construction of a station on this site may
require intrusion on adjacent properties. The maximum number of
potential parking spaces at this site is 806. The conceptual plan for this site
is shown in Figure 4-11.
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
PZ
AG
E
RD
RD
IL LE
TRE
V
GAINSFORD CT
CH L N
B R AN
CT
ST
RY
RD
RR
Y
CH
E
QU
ST
OW
BA
RT
R
N
BR
E
D
CK
ET
NT
ST
T LN
D
TA
DR
D
SH
ALLWO
OD
PI
EY
DR
PL
HO O
OV
ER
ST
IR
E
DR
CL
BE
RK
R DR
A
R
FOS TE
RD
KE
SV
ILL
E
NO
DEA N
GOD WIN DR
CENT REVIL L
E RD
MATH IS AVE
AR
R
DY S
PEAB O
CT
PORT NE R AVE
LIBERTY ST
IDE R
BUR N
S
T
T
ER N
BU T
T
RW
BAN
NE
RD
ON
GT
LIN
EL
W
EN
TOW N LN
RD
C EN
Y
ST
ER
LE
VE
LN
N
N
B UC K N
YD
N
KI
MC
MA
I
BY
R
LIVINGSTON RD
MAL LOW
DR
OOD
UT S
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 4-1:
Potential Station Locations
Potential Station Locations and Park & Ride Sites
EY R
VRE Haymarket Extension
D
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
ST
W
U
CH
ES
DE
BE
ZE
I
MA
LE
TT
BA
VE
TA
E
LE
LL
WA
VE
EA
BY
ST
GS
T
FA
T
AN
CENTE
R ST
LE
E LL R D
IR V IN
GR
BNEL AVE
AVE
PARK
COCK R
AV E
S
MO
CENTE
MAPLE ST
S
ST
ST
L RD
CT
T
SO
N
NL
RO
EG
UR
T
E
AV
WE
DY
L
EW A
Z IMBR O A
ALMO ND ST
T
RN
ET
C
BO
N
STO
BE A URE GA RD
A
BE
D
AR
DR
Y RD
TAYLO
RS
ST
VE
DS
GA
U
ST
A
PE
UA
ST
E
AV
RT
NELSO N L N NE L
PA R
K
NN
ROBIN LY
G PA N
BL
66
INC
·
CI
THO N
DR
L
SU D
§
¨
¦
PR
LEE
ATE TR
TO
NG
GLADSTONE ST
MERIT CT
PY
RD
RD
HWY
LE E
HA Z
CT
I AM
KS
OR
WE
L LI
N VALLEY
IN
15
BOND
WI
LL
FRE EDO M CENTER
CE
HAYD EN
RD
LEXINGTO
VL
DE
£
¤
HY
LEE
H WY
E HY
Y LE
H WY
29
I
SH
WA
TRE ET
SUD LE
Williams Site
EF
FI V
WY
£
¤
CT
PLA
CON FED
ER
T
VE
NA
T
TS
AR
234
H
LEE
HY
LE E
CT
D
Sudley Manor
Site 1
V
U
PR
IN
LEE
OD
WINTERWO
AN
Wellington Road Site
EN
A RD
2
!
Y
ST
LD G
SH AL L HW
GA
RL
LON GS
Y RD
EW O
OD
Vulcan Quarry Site
LN
R IFIE
·
Sudley Manor
Site 2
W
LE
PY
FORD DR
MER
A N CH L N
H DR
RI X
HE M RD
I LL
I AM
ORT
BETHLE
EW
ATSW
OS
T
CH
W ELLIN G
JOHN MAR
T
CT
NC
ES
V I LL
A S HE
O
AG
RR
TA
Y DR
ASK
DAM
ST
BUR
W O OD
CT
SWEE TB RIAR
OS
E
VE
R
TE D
Y GA
CT
FIN
R UF
ASH
TON
A
A MB R
R
I
SUD LE
RD
S UN N
RO
SD
R
LL IAM PK WY
PRINC E WI
PR
I NC
LE Y
QU
S UD
RD
EWEL L
ST
SUDLEY
DR
2
!
DR
ST
N
EARLY
HU
RO
AR
29
CR
CT
TE
NO
RD
R
ED
AN
DO
ON
SD
PINEY
LI
HA
LL
ES
SE
G
ET
DE
TON RD
ARTO ST
AN
C
OO
D
L IN
TO
N
TW
KIN
OU R R D
D
E L DR
E
LE
£
¤
OL
S RD
LI N
HY
DIGGE
RNE
HY
WEL LIN
G
NEW
M
CT
R
OS
TE
CO
AY
G
S
R AW
E
LE
HY
EW A Y CE NTE R DR
Y
ROLLING RD
CT
TO N
CLA
RK
PL
W
ON
EL
S
E
LE
B RA NCH DR
WEEMS RD
S
MA
V
GR O
IB
Y
TO N
D
MERCURY AV
KS
JAM
WY
NH
E
LE
HW
RR
D
HW
LING
DR
IS O
HE
E
LE
WEL
NE
AD
LL E
R
Y
HY
T
GA
C
R
RD
E
LE
HY
RD
E S C O VE
HY
HW
Gainesville
Site 1
R
GILLIS WAY
RO
PL
HOAC
M AN A
WY
AY
MC
S EY M
E
LE
E
LE
HY
ALL
IC
E PL
D
ES
M
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
LL H
Y
Gainesville Site 2
E
LE
E
LE
ES
MA
HA
HW
H
ON
NT
AL
R FD
WH A
RR
JAM
C OT E BL
W
S SING D R
PO N D
E
LE
O
ES T
LIM
TR
AP
E BL
L
A RS
L
R A SS
GG
T
HCO
ITY B
TH
AT
E RS
DR
NM
PRINCE WILLIAM PKWY
Dominion
Station Site
IV
UN
UNT
JOH
GA
PR
Florida
Rock Site
RD
EH
LFISH WAY
L
HI L
CRO
HE
E
LE
RD
E WILL IA M PY
AG
HU
N
RNI
TU
ET
HE R I T
R ED H OUS E
WY
CL
SO M
ER
S
W
EY
VE
T
FN
L DR
H
B
CAR
CT
YM
HA
KE
AR
RD
NEPTU N E
DR
A
OLD CAROLIN
VENUS CT
15
LN
L
NP
K EY CL U
LN
G
£
¤
·
EA
E N D DR
P RI NC
66
§
¦
¨
GAP WAY
J OC
A L N U T HI L
O
AV
Haymarket
Site 2
ILLS D R
ED
TR
S ST
N ST
PIN RD
WAS HING
TO
EG
L
HWY
FORBES PL
R N LP
AVALON ISLE WAY
CHARLE
JOH N MA RSH ALL
BE
A R T HU R H
CATH AR
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
LN
CART ERWO OD DR
T CL
JOR D
AN
AF
CUSHING
RS
RD
Haymarket Site 1
L
GE
PA
HEATHC OTE BL
ABB E
CH
66
§
¦
¨
D
AN
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
4.2
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. A detailed
explanation of the evaluation criteria and the methodology used for the scoring
is included in Appendix D1. A summary of the evaluation criteria and ratings is
shown in Table 4-1.
The Gainesville-Haymarket corridor was assessed at the onset of the Feasibility
Study to ensure that all potential station sites were identified and evaluated.
This initial set of potential station sites was evaluated based on the established
criteria. The final scores were used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
each site. The evaluation criteria include access and mobility, traffic congestion
impacts, environmental considerations, land use and smart growth issues,
acquisition and development issues, and operations and implementation issues.
Each of these is summarized below and described in greater detail in Appendix
D1.
Access and Mobility
This criterion assesses the ease of access to each site for potential riders. The
more accessible the site is, the more likely it will attract riders. Key points in
evaluating each site for this criterion include the quality of the roadway(s)
providing direct access into the site; as well as how effectively the direct-access
roadway(s) connects to the regional roadway network (each site would likely
attract riders from beyond the immediate station area). This criterion also
considers the ease of implementing future pedestrian and transit connections to
the site and the ease and safety of internal circulation on the site. The
performance of each site relative to this evaluation criterion is summarized in
Table 4-1.
Traffic and Congestion Impacts
This criterion considers potential impacts to the external roadway network
associated with vehicles entering and exiting the station site. It focuses on
potential impacts to traffic flow on access roadways, adjacent intersections, and
upstream and downstream intersections, especially intersections with major
roadways. As part of this evaluation, the need for additional signals was also
considered. The performance of each site relative to this evaluation criterion is
summarized in Table 4-1.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
45
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Environmental Considerations
This criterion considers the potential impacts to a wide range of environmental
resources. These resources include wildlife habitat, historic resources, prime
farmland, and water resources, such as floodplains and wetlands. It also
examines environmental justice implications by identifying concentrations of
minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of the site. This criterion
also considers the potential impacts for hazardous materials based on previous
land uses. Existing data sources were used to conduct the evaluation; no field
investigations were conducted to assess specific site conditions. 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. The performance of each site
relative to this evaluation criterion is summarized in Table 4-1.
Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
This criterion considers how well each station site corresponds with local longrange plans for economic development and smart growth, as well as existing and
future zoning plans. It also considers the site’s potential for smart growth and
transit oriented development (TOD), as well as the site’s potential for re-use.
This criterion is especially relevant due to the significant number of proposed
development plans along the NS B Line. The potential station sites were
evaluated against this criterion based on their current zoning and land use
designations. Future land use within the corridor may be modified in the future
by Prince William County through its Comprehensive Plan update process. The
performance of each site relative to this evaluation criterion is summarized in
Table 4-1.
Acquisition and Development Issues
This criterion focuses on the cost of constructing a station and associated parking
on each site. Specific circumstances, such as difficult topography, special access
requirements, stormwater retention issues, or the cost of displacing an existing
use were considered when evaluating this site relative to this criterion. The
performance of each site relative to this evaluation criterion is summarized in
Table 4-1.
Operations and Implementation Issues
This criterion focuses on the overall ease of implementation and considers factors
such as unique site considerations (e.g. site shape and frontage on the mainline),
environmental considerations that could delay implementation, impacts to
freight operations, and potential impacts to adjacent properties that could also
delay implementation. This criterion also considered whether the station site
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
46
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
was on a tangent or curve. Since none of the sites contained a curve that could
not be mitigated (based on the conceptual engineering completed for this study),
this factor was not used to distinguish between site alternatives. The
performance of each site relative to this evaluation criterion is summarized in
Table 4-1.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
47
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Table 4‐1: VRE SITE SCORING MATRIX for EXTENSION OF SERVICE FEASIBILITY STUDY
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.
4.2.1
Site Evaluations
This section describes the scoring results and rationale for each site according to
the evaluation criteria.
4.2.1.1
Haymarket Site 1
Access and Mobility
Haymarket Site 1 received the highest score (tied with Haymarket Site 2 and
Gainesville Site 1) for this criterion because there is well-defined local access to
the site from US 15, as well as connections to the regional highway network.
These connections include access to I-66, located about one-half of a mile to the
north, which provides access for potential riders coming from the west, and
access to US 29, about five miles to the south, which provides access for riders
coming from the southwest, including Culpeper and Fauquier County. This site
also has direct access to US 15, which can provide access to development to the
north of the alignment. Haymarket Site 1, as well as all of the other sites,
currently lacks defined pedestrian access, but connections to the Town of
Haymarket could be made easily and effectively if this site were developed as a
station. Therefore this site received a high score relative to future pedestrian
connections.
Traffic Congestion
This site received a low overall score relative to this evaluation criterion based on
relatively poor scores on both sub-categories. The station will route additional
cars onto US 15, which has high current traffic volumes and which was identified
as congested in the data collection phase of the study. These vehicles will add to
congestion on US 15, especially during the busiest periods of the day. Also,
because of the heavy traffic volumes on US 15, a new traffic signal will likely be
required. (A full-scale traffic impact analysis and warrant analysis were not
completed at this step in the planning process. The traffic impact assessments
are based on roadway capacity and traffic volumes collected from VDOT).
Environmental Considerations
Haymarket Site 1 has the potential to impact water resources, including the
North Fork Stream, a designated Resource Protection Area (RPA), floodplains
and wetlands. Local ordinances prevent new development, including parking
lots, within a designated RPA. Soils at the site are mostly designated prime and
unique or soils of statewide importance. Because this area is undeveloped and is
in a relatively natural state, with the exception of the NS B Line, it likely provides
marginal habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial species. Based on the
environmental information presented, Haymarket Site 1 scored the lowest (3.2
out of 5.0). Table 4-2 provides a comparative matrix of potential impacts by site,
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
49
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
and Table 4-1 shows individual scoring for each site. Figures 4-12 through 4-19
show environmental resources identified within the study area.
Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
The site received a high score for compatibility with existing zoning and land
use. It is within Prince William County’s Light Industrial (M-2) zoning district,
in which parking lots as a primary use appear permissible, but may require a
special use permit. Adjacent land uses appear to be industrial or vacant forested
property. As a result, it is unlikely that a park and ride lot would create light or
noise problems for neighbors. Access to the park and ride lot would be directly
off a major roadway (US 15) and approximately 0.6 miles from the I-66 access
ramps.
Haymarket Site 1 received a low score for alternative transportation access.
Sidewalks and bike lanes do not appear to exist on nearby roadways. Residential
development exists within walking distance of the Haymarket Site 1, but there
are no sidewalks to provide safe pedestrian access. There is no local bus service
in the vicinity of the site.
This site received a medium score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development
potential. According to the Prince William County Comprehensive Plan, future
land use for the site is Community Employment Center (CEC), a suburban area
designation intended for low- to mid-rise (3 to 5 story) office, research and
development (R&D), lodging, and mixed-use development. Up to 25 percent of a
CEC development may be retail or residential (6to 12 units per acre) and should
be integrated into mixed-use structures. The Comprehensive Plan’s Illustrative
Guidelines for Office Development promote site layout and building designs that
are “human-scaled” and create street and sidewalk networks with adjacent residential and commercial development. The CEC concept meets the coordinated planning, mixed‐use, and pedestrian connectivity goals of a MTN, but does not promote the same intensity of development needed in an MTN. Haymarket Site 1 borders Prince William County’s Rural Crescent and semi‐rural residential uses. Acquisitions and Development Issues
This site received a score of (5) five for three subcategories (land acquisition,
property displacement, and topography issues) because no issues related to these
sub-categories were anticipated. The site received a score of four on unique
capital costs, because this site will require pedestrian bridges to cross the
wetlands and stream between the park and ride lot and station at this site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
50
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Operations and Implementation Issues
Haymarket Site 1 performed well relative to all of the sub-categories in this
evaluation criterion, except environmental considerations. The site received a (2)
two on this score. The stream and wetlands that run adjacent to the study
alignment would have to be bridged to connect the parking lot to the station. At
the very least, these site features would make implementation more difficult and
even more seriously, could be a significant impediment to implementation.
4.2.1.2
Haymarket Site 2
Access and Mobility
Haymarket Site 2 also received the highest score in this criterion for the same
reasons as Haymarket Site 1, specifically its connections to the regional roadway
network including connections to US 29 and I-66, as well as access to
developments along US 15. Pedestrian connections to the Town of Haymarket
would be relatively easy to implement if this site were developed as a station.
Traffic Congestion
This site scored better for this evaluation criterion than Haymarket Site 1 did,
because it does not appear that a traffic signal would be required for exits and
entrances onto Virginia Route 55 from the site. With the close proximity of the
sites to each other, it is estimated that the traffic impacts on the local roadway
network would be comparable between the two sites.
Environmental Considerations
The Haymarket Site 2 is within an area with a higher than average low‐income population. Housing does exist adjacent to the site, which warrants further investigation to determine if impacts to low‐income populations would occur. A small tributary and wetlands were also identified on and adjacent to the site. Additionally, soils at the site are mostly designated prime and unique or soils of statewide importance. Because this area is undeveloped and is in a relatively natural state, it likely provides marginal habitat for terrestrial species. Based on the environmental analysis conducted, the Haymarket Site 2 scored a 4.0 out of a possible 5.0. The highest score given for all of the 11 sites was a 4.4. Overall, this site scored well due to potentially limited impacts to environmental resources. Table 4‐2 provides a comparative matrix of potential impacts by site and Table 4‐1 shows individual scoring for each site. Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
Haymarket Site 2 received a medium to high score for park and ride compatibility with existing zoning and adjacent land uses. The site is within \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
51
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Prince William County’s Planned Mixed District (PMD) zoning designation, and parking as a primary use is not specifically prohibited. Adjacent land uses are primarily industrial or vacant forested property; however there appear to be five single‐family residences at the northwest corner of the site. It is unlikely the park and ride lot would create light or noise problems for the industrial neighbors; however mitigation measures might be necessary to protect the residences from potential traffic, light, and noise impacts. The park and ride driveway entrance would be approximately 0.6 miles from the I‐66 access ramps. Haymarket Site 2 received a low score for alternative transportation access. Sidewalks and bike lanes do not appear to exist on nearby roadways. Residential development exists within walking distance of the site, but there are no sidewalks to provide safe pedestrian access. There is no local bus service in the vicinity of the site. This site received a medium to high score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development potential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, future land use for this site is Regional Employment Center (REC), a designation intended for intense regional employment in urban areas. The REC calls for a minimum of 75 percent mid‐rise and/or high‐rise office, R&D, lodging, and mixed‐use development. Residential should be at a density of 16‐30 dwelling units per acre, shared/structured parking is encouraged, and drive‐through services are discouraged. The Comprehensive Plan’s Illustrative Guidelines for Office Development, promote site layout and building designs that are “human scaled” and create street and sidewalk networks with adjacent residential and commercial development. The REC designation can support an MTN vision. It is worth noting that, in this case, the REC area is surrounded on three sides by low‐density and semi‐rural residential and agricultural land use specifications. Acquisitions and Development Issues
This site received a score of 5 on all of the sub-categories comprising this
evaluation criterion because no major issues are anticipated in any of these subcategories.
Operations and Implementation Issues
Haymarket Site 2 received a score of 5 in all of the sub-categories in this
evaluation criterion, except for environmental considerations. The site received a
score of 4 in the environmental considerations category because of a small patch
of wetlands on the site, which would marginally increase the difficulty of
implementation on the site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
52
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
4.2.1.3
Gainesville Site 1
Access and Mobility
Gainesville Site 1 received a slightly lower score for this evaluation criterion than
the Haymarket Sites did. As with Haymarket Sites 1 and 2, the high score is the
result of direct connections to the regional highway network. Access into the
station will be via University Boulevard, which connects directly to US 29. US 29
provides direct access in both directions on I-66. University Boulevard also
provides access to Wellington Road, which connects with Linton Hall Road. The
reason for the slightly lower score is that pedestrian connections to the current
site will be difficult to create. If the proposed mixed use development on the site
moves forward, future pedestrian connections to the station would be very
strong, but this score is based on an assumed surface lot.
Traffic Congestion
Access to the Gainesville Site 1 will be directly from University Boulevard.
University Boulevard is relatively lightly traveled based on field observations
(no VDOT counts were available), so this site received a fairly high score for
traffic impacts (meaning estimated impacts will be low) but, to be conservative, a
new traffic signal was assumed when completing the scoring.
Environmental Considerations
The Gainesville Site 1 is within an area where previous historic events have been documented. While no known resources have been identified during the literature research, the potential may exist for archaeological resources to be present on or within the vicinity of the site. Soils at the site are mostly designated as prime and unique or soils of statewide importance, and the site is undeveloped. A tributary and wetlands have been identified at and adjacent to the site. The site likely provides marginal wildlife habitat. Past land use includes the Atlantic Research Corporation, an organization that manufactured rocket motor and generators. The research conducted for this analysis could not conclude whether or not all past contamination violations at the site have been resolved. Based on the environmental analysis conducted, the Gainesville Site 1 scored a 3.6 out of a possible 5.0. Table 4‐2 provides a comparative matrix of potential impacts by site and Table 4‐1 shows individual scoring for each site. Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
Gainesville Site 1 receives a high score for compatibility with existing zoning/land use. It is located within the Heavy Industrial (M‐1) zoning designation for Prince William County, which allows commercial parking as a primary use. The site appears to abut industrial and vacant properties, so it is unlikely that light, noise, or other environmental nuisance from the park and ride \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
53
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
would affect a neighboring population. I‐66 is located immediately to the north of the site; however the access ramp is approximately 1.6 miles from the site, via a newly extended University Blvd. and Lee Hwy. Gainesville Site 1 received a very low score for alternative transportation access. There are very few residential units within walking distance of the site, and there appear to be no pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. There is no local bus service in the vicinity of the site. The site received a low score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development potential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, future land use for this site is Industrial Employment (EI), a designation intended for economic base industries that may require screening and buffering to mitigate dust, particles, and emissions. Residential is not permissible, and stand‐alone offices as primary uses are discouraged. Retail may be present to support the needs of employees at EI facilities. The EI land use designation does not support the mixed‐use or high intensity development goals of a MTN. Acquisitions and Development Issues
This site received a 5 on all of the sub-categories comprising this evaluation
criterion because no major issues are anticipated. It should be noted that this site
is part of a larger proposed mixed use development called Prince William Station
that has pending development approvals with Prince William County. A VRE
station is part of the proposed plans.
Operations and Implementation Issues
Gainesville Site 1 received a 5 in all of the sub-categories in this evaluation
criterion, expect for environmental considerations. The site received a 4 in the
environmental considerations category, because it appears, based on other
investigations in the area, that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
would require an archaeological survey of the site before moving forward. If
resources are found, this could complicate and delay site implementation.
4.2.1.4
Dominion Station Site
Access and Mobility
The Dominion Station Site received a median score in comparison to the other
sites. This site has advantages and disadvantages in terms of access. The most
significant disadvantage is that direct access to the site would be via a long drive
on Randolph Ridge Lane, which may not be suited to the level of traffic
anticipated from a commuter rail station. The advantage of Randolph Ridge
Lane is that it connects to Balls Ford Road, which connects to Prince William
Parkway less than one-quarter of a mile from the intersection of Balls Ford Road
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
54
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
and Randolph Ridge Lane. Prince William Parkway provides direct access in
both directions on I-66 and US 29 via I-66. Balls Ford Road also provides a
connection to Wellington Road, which provides access into both Gainesville and
Manassas. Future pedestrian connections would be difficult and inconvenient,
so this site received a low score on this sub-criterion.
Traffic Congestion
The score for Dominion Station relative to this evaluation criterion is the highest
among the all alternatives (along with one other site), because access to the site
would be on a secondary road with currently minimal traffic volumes. This is
likely to result in limited traffic impacts. Also, because of the minimal volumes,
no additional traffic signals would be required.
Environmental Considerations
The Dominion Station Site is undeveloped and likely provides marginal habitat for wildlife. Wetlands were identified on the site. Soils at the site are also designated as prime and unique or soils of statewide importance. Based on the environmental analysis conducted, the Dominion Station Site scored a 3.7 out of a possible 5.0 due to potential impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, and noted Prime Farmland/Farmland of Statewide Importance soils. Table 4‐2 provides a comparative matrix of potential impacts by site, and Table 4‐1 shows individual scoring for each site. Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
The Dominion Station Site received a high score for compatibility with existing zoning/land use. It is located in Light Industrial (M‐2) zoning in which parking lots as a primary use appear permissible, but may require a special use permit. Adjacent properties appear to be industrial, vacant, or highway (I‐66 to the north). As a result, it is unlikely that a park and ride lot would negatively affect neighboring populations. Access to the park and ride lot would be off Route 234 at its intersection with I‐66, immediately adjacent to the site. Dominion Station Site receives a very low score for alternative transportation access. There are few residential units within walking distance of the site and appear to be no pedestrian or bicycle facilities. There is no local bus service in the vicinity of the site. As with Gainesville Site 1, the site received a low score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development potential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, future land use for this site is Industrial Employment (EI), a designation intended for economic base industries that may require screening and buffering to mitigate dust, particles, and emissions. Residential development is not permissible, and \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
55
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
stand‐alone offices as primary uses are discouraged. Retail may be present to support the needs of employees at EI facilities. The EI land use designation does not support the mixed‐use or high intensity development goals of a MTN. Acquisitions and Development Issues
This site received a 5 on all of the sub-categories comprising this evaluation
criterion because no major issues are anticipated. It should be noted that this site
is part of a larger proposed mixed use development called Dominion Station. A
Comprehensive Plan amendment request was denied approval by Prince
William County for Dominion Station, though the underlying land use in the
Comprehensive Plan still supports a mixed use development. A VRE station was
part of the proposed plans.
Operations and Implementation Issues
The Dominion Station Site received a 5 in all of the sub-categories in this
evaluation criterion except for environmental considerations. The site received a
score of 3 in the environmental considerations category because of three factors
that may make implementation more complex. The first factor is that it appears,
based on other investigations in the area, that the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources will require an archaeological survey of the site before
moving forward. If resources are found, this can complicate and delay site
implementation. The second factor is that there may be potential environmental
justice issues on this site based on the percentages of low income and minority
populations in the census block group in which the site resides. The final factor
that may impact implementation is the presence of a wetland extending across
the western edge of the site.
4.2.1.5
Gainesville Site 2
Access and Mobility
Gainesville Site 2 has nearly the same access advantages as Gainesville Site 1, but
it received a slightly lower score because it does not have direct access from
University Boulevard. Rather, it is located in the center of a large parcel, making
access to the site slightly less desirable than access to Gainesville Site 1.
Traffic Congestion
Access to Gainesville Site 2 would be the same as for Gainesville Site 1, so the
score for this evaluation criterion is comparable to Gainesville Site 1.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
56
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Environmental Considerations
Gainesville Site 2 is within an area where previous historic events have been
documented. While no known resources have been identified during the
literature research, the potential may exist for archaeological resources to be
present on or within the vicinity of the site. Soils at the site are mostly
designated as prime and unique or soils of statewide importance, and the site is
undeveloped. A tributary and wetlands have been identified at and adjacent to
the site. The site likely provides marginal wildlife habitat. Past land use
includes the Atlantic Research Corporation, an organization that manufactured
rocket motor and generators. The research conducted for this analysis could not
conclude whether or not all past contamination violations at the site have been
resolved. Based on the environmental analysis conducted, Gainesville Site 2
scored a 3.8 out of a possible 5.0. Table 4-2 provides a comparative matrix of
potential impacts by site, and Table 4-1 shows individual scoring for each site.
Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
Gainesville Site 2 received a medium to high score for park and ride
compatibility with existing zoning/land use. It is located within the Heavy
Industrial (M-1) zoning designation for Prince William County, which allows
commercial parking as a primary use. The site appears to abut industrial, vacant,
and a few (about ten) single-family residential properties. It is unlikely the park
and ride lot would create problems for the industrial neighbors; however,
mitigation measures might be necessary to protect the residences from potential
traffic, light, and noise impacts. I-66 is located immediately to the north of the
site; however the access ramp is approximately two miles from the site, via a
long access driveway, a newly extended University Blvd., and Lee Highway.
Gainesville Site 2 receives a very low score for alternative transportation access.
There are very few residential units within walking distance of the site and there
appear to be no pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. There is no local bus
service in the vicinity of the site.
As with Gainesville Site 1 and Dominion Station, Gainesville Site 2 received a
low score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development potential. According to
the Comprehensive Plan, future land use for this site is Industrial Employment
(EI), a designation intended for economic base industries that may require
screening and buffering to mitigate dust, particles, and emissions. Residential
development is not permissible, and stand-alone offices as primary uses are
discouraged. Retail may be present to support the needs of employees at EI
facilities. The EI land use designation does not support the mixed-use or high
intensity development goals of a MTN.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
57
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Acquisitions and Development Issues
This site also received a score of 5 on all of the sub-categories comprising this
evaluation criterion. As with Gainesville Site 1, this site is part of the proposed
Prince William Station development.
Operations and Implementation Issues
Gainesville Site 2 received a 5 in all of the sub-categories in this evaluation
criterion except for environmental considerations. The site received a score of 4
in the environmental considerations category. It appears, based on other
investigations in the area, that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
would require an archaeological survey of the site before moving forward. If
resources are found, this can complicate and delay site implementation.
4.2.1.6
Florida Rock Site
Access and Mobility
This site received a slightly lower scores than the Haymarket and Gainesville
Sites because its elongated shape makes internal circulation and access to the rail
platform less than optimum. If direct access from Prince William Parkway is
feasible, the Site would have excellent access to the regional roadway network,
which would provide direct access to I-66 in both directions and access to U.S. 29
via I-66.
Traffic Congestion
This site received the lowest score assigned (also received by two other sites),
because it would have traffic impacts on a heavily traveled roadway, and it
would require a new traffic signal. Specifically, the site would be directly
accessed from Prince William County Parkway, which would lead to impacts on
that roadway. Also, because of the heavy volumes on Prince William Parkway, a
traffic signal would likely be needed.
Environmental Considerations
Archaeological resources are known to occur on the Florida Rock Site. In
addition, a stream was noted at the site and wetlands were noted to be adjacent
to the site. Based on the environmental analysis conducted, the Florida Rock Site
scored a 4.1 out of a possible 5.0. Table 4-2 provides a comparative matrix of
potential impacts by site, and Table 4-1 shows individual scoring for each site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
58
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
The Florida Rock Site scoring and analysis is virtually the same as Gainesville Site 1: The Florida Rock Site received a high score for park and ride compatibility with existing zoning/land use. It is located within the Heavy Industrial (M‐1) zoning designation for Prince William County, which allows commercial parking as a primary use. The site appears to abut industrial and vacant properties, so it is unlikely that light, noise, or other environmental nuisance from the park and ride would effect a neighboring population. The I‐66 interchange is approximately 1.6 miles from the site park and ride location and is accessible via Balls Ford Road to Route 234. Florida Rock Site received a very low score for alternative transportation access. There are no residential units within walking distance of the site, and there appear to be no pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. There is no local bus service in the vicinity of the site. The site received a low score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development potential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, future land use for this site is Industrial Employment (EI), a designation intended for economic base industries that may require screening and buffering to mitigate dust, particles, and emissions. Residential development is not permissible, and stand‐alone offices as primary uses are discouraged. Retail may be present to support the needs of employees at EI facilities. The EI land use designation does not support the mixed‐use or high intensity development goals of a MTN. Acquisitions and Development Issues
This site received a score of 5 relative to three of the sub-categories comprising
this evaluation criterion, Topography Issues, Property Displacement, and Land
Acquisition. It received a 4 on the Unique Capital Costs sub-category because of
potential capital costs associated with potentially having to modify the siding
into the property (since the siding also serves adjacent properties, no
modifications that would impact access could occur).
Operations and Implementation Issues
The Florida Rock Site received a score of 5 in one sub-category in this evaluation
criterion, for potential impacts to adjacent properties, but received lower scores
in each of the other sub-categories. Under unique site considerations, the site
received a score of 3, because its limited frontage on the mainline would require
that the station platforms be located on an adjacent property east of the siding
that serves the Florida Rock Site. The Site received a score of 4 on the
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
59
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
environmental considerations sub-category, because there are two archaeological
sites identified and there are also potential environmental justice considerations,
which can complicate implementation. The site also received a score of 4 on
impacts to freight operations, because of the potential impacts to the siding into
the site.
4.2.1.7
Sudley/Innovation Site 1
Access and Mobility
Sudley/Innovation Site 1 scored slightly lower than the Haymarket and
Gainesville Sites because it does not have the same quality of access to the
regional roadway network. It is further away from I-66 and US 29 than the other
sites, but it still received a relatively high score because it has direct access to
Sudley Manor Drive and provides strong connections to local residential and
commercial development, as well as to Sudley Road and Wellington Road, two
key roadways within the study area roadway network. With its close proximity
to Wellington Road, strong pedestrian connections can be made easily if future
development occurs in the area.
Traffic Congestion
The score for Sudley/Innovation Site 1 relative to this evaluation criterion was
approximately in the middle of the scores for the full set of alternatives. The site
was given a score of 3 in the traffic impacts sub-category. There would be
impacts from station traffic on Sudley Manor Drive, which was assessed as
congested in the data collection phase of the study, but these impacts are
mitigated somewhat because exits and entrances from the station would be onto
Bethlehem Road, not directly onto Sudley Manor Drive. Also, because exits and
entrances would be onto lightly traveled Bethlehem Road, a requirement for a
traffic signal is not anticipated.
Environmental Considerations
Sudley/Innovation Site 1 is located within a census block group with higher than
average low-income populations. Housing does exist adjacent to the site, which
warrants further investigation to determine if impacts to low-income populations
would occur. Soils at the site are mostly designated as prime and unique or soils
of statewide importance, and the site is undeveloped. A tributary and wetlands
have been identified at and adjacent to the site. The site likely provides marginal
wildlife habitat. Based on the environmental analysis conducted,
Sudley/Innovation Site 1 scored a 4.0 out of a possible 5.0. Overall, this site
scored well. Table 4-2 provides a comparative matrix of potential impacts by
site, and Table 4-1 shows individual scoring for each site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
60
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
Sudley/Innovation Site 1 received a high score for park and ride compatibility with existing zoning/land use. It is located within the Heavy Industrial (M‐1) zoning designation for Prince William County, which allows commercial parking as a primary use. The site appears to abut industrial and vacant properties; therefore, it is unlikely that light, noise, or other environmental nuisance from the park and ride would affect the neighboring population. The park and ride lot would be located 0.4 miles from Route 234, which would then provide access to I‐66. The Sudley/ Innovation Site 1 received a very low score for alternative transportation access. There are no residential units within walking distance of the site, and there appear to be no pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. There is no local bus service in the vicinity of the site. This site received a high score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development potential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, future land use for this site is Regional Employment Center (REC), a designation intended for intense regional employment in urban areas. The REC calls for a minimum of 75 percent mid‐rise and/or high‐rise office, R&D, lodging, and mixed‐use development. Residential should be at a density of 16‐30 dwelling units per acre, shared/structured parking is encouraged, and drive‐through services are discouraged. The Comprehensive Plan’s Illustrative Guidelines for Office Development, promote site layout and building designs that are “human scaled” and create street and sidewalk networks with adjacent residential and commercial development. The REC designation can support an MTN vision. Sudley/Innovation 1 site is bordered on three sides by other areas with high‐density urban land use designations. Acquisitions and Development Issues
No major issues are anticipated with this site relative to this evaluation criterion,
so it received a score of 5 on all of the sub-categories.
Operations and Implementation Issues
Sudley/Innovation Site 1 received a 5 in all of the sub-categories in this
evaluation criterion except for environmental considerations. The site received
the poorest rating, a score of 1, in the environmental considerations sub-category,
because nearly the entire site is covered by wetlands. The large percentage of the
site covered by wetlands would make it very difficult to develop it as a rail
station and park and ride site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
61
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
4.2.1.8
Sudley/Innovation Site 2
Access and Mobility
Sudley/Innovation Site 2 has the same access characteristics as
Sudley/Innovation Site 1, but it received a lower score due to its irregular shape,
which would make internal circulation more difficult than within the other sites.
The other sites are typically square or rectangular, which allow for greater ease
of internal circulation as well as internal access to the roadway network. This
site did receive a high score on the pedestrian connections sub-criterion based on
its potential for pedestrian access to Sudley Manor Drive.
Traffic Congestion
The score for Sudley/Innovation Site 2 relative to this evaluation criterion was
lower than the score given to Sudley/Innovation Site 1. While there are
similarities, this site received a lower score because the concept design includes
entrances and exits onto congested Sudley Manor Drive. Because there is a
second entrance and exit onto lightly traveled Chatsworth Drive, it is assumed
that no traffic signal will be required on Sudley Manor Drive (a design
requirement could be that no left turns would be allowed out of the Sudley
Manor Drive exit). Because Chatsworth Drive is lightly traveled, it was also
assumed that no traffic signal would be required at that exit.
Environmental Considerations
Sudley/Innovation Site 2 is located within a census block groups with higher
than average minority and low-income populations. Housing does exist adjacent
to the site, which warrants further investigations to determine if impacts to
minority or low-income populations would occur. Wetlands have also been
identified at the site. Based on the environmental analysis conducted,
Sudley/Innovation Site 2 scored a 4.2 out of a possible 5.0. Overall, this site
scored well. Table 4-2 provides a comparative matrix of potential impacts by
site, and Table 4-1 shows individual scoring for each site.
Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
As with Sudley/Innovation Site 1, Sudley/Innovation Site 2 receives a high score for park and ride compatibility with existing zoning/land use. It is located within the Heavy Industrial (M‐1) zoning designation for Prince William County, which allows commercial parking as a primary use. The site appears to abut industrial and vacant properties, so it is unlikely that light, noise, or other environmental nuisance would affect a neighboring population. The park and ride lot would be located 0.8 miles from Route 234, which would then provide access to I‐66. \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
62
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Sudley/Innovation Site 1 received a medium score for alternative transportation access. There is a large area of high‐density residential development within walking distance (less than ¼ mile) to the northeast of the site. There appear to be pedestrian (i.e. sidewalk) accommodations linking this residential development to the site. There is no local bus service in the vicinity of the site. As with Sudley/Innovation 1 Site, this site received a high score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development potential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, future land use for this site is Regional Employment Center (REC), a designation intended for intense regional employment in urban areas. The REC calls for a minimum of 75 percent mid‐rise and/or high‐rise office, R&D, lodging, and mixed‐use development. Residential should be at a density of 16‐30 dwelling units per acre, shared/structured parking is encouraged, and drive‐through services are discouraged. The Comprehensive Plan’s Illustrative Guidelines for Office Development, promote site layout and building designs that are “human scaled” and create street and sidewalk networks with adjacent residential and commercial development. The REC designation can support an MTN vision. Sudley/Innovation Site 2 is bordered to the south and west by other REC designated areas, and to the east by a high‐density residential designation. Acquisitions and Development Issues
This site received a score of 5 on one of the sub-categories comprising this
evaluation criterion, Topography Issues, but received lower scores relative to the
other sub-categories. Relative to the Land Acquisition sub-category, it received a
score of 2 for two reasons: a property under active use would have to be
purchased and two different properties would have to be purchased. The site
received a score of 4 under the Unique Capital Costs sub-category, because there
would be costs associated with removing the existing uses (the additional
property cost is covered under the Land Acquisition sub-category). It received a
score of 1 under the Property Displacement sub-category, because active uses
would have to be moved on this site.
Operations and Implementation Issues
Sudley/Innovation Site 2 received a score of 5 in two of the sub-categories,
impacts to freight operations and potential impacts to adjacent properties, but
received a score of 1 in unique considerations and a score of 1 in environmental
considerations. The reason for the low unique site considerations score is that
the site is significantly occupied by existing uses that would have to be
displaced, thus making implementation much more difficult. The site also
performed poorly on the environmental considerations because a large portion of
the site that is not disturbed is covered by wetlands. As with Sudley/Innovation
Site 1, the large percentage of the undisturbed portion of the site covered by
wetlands would make implementation difficult.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
63
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
4.2.1.9
Williams Site
Access and Mobility
The Williams Site received a lower score than the other two Sudley/Innovation
Sites because its primary access would be off the secondary road, Wellington
Road, and access would not be as ideal as some of the other alternative sites. This
site did receive a relatively high score for future pedestrian access because of its
close proximity to Wellington Road, which will support strong pedestrian
connections if development occurs in the future.
Traffic Congestion
This site is also in the vicinity of the two Sudley/Innovation Sites. It received a
score comparable to Sudley/Innovation Site 1 because it has similar
characteristics. As with the Sudley/Innovation Site 1, the direct access via
Bethlehem Road would mitigate traffic impacts on Sudley Manor Drive. Also,
because Bethlehem Road is lightly traveled, it is anticipated that no traffic signal
would be required.
Environmental Considerations
Archaeological sites have been documented within the vicinity of the Williams
Site. Wetlands have also been identified on the site. Based on the environmental
information presented above, the Williams Site scored a 4.3 out of a possible 5.0.
Overall, this site scored well. Table 4-2 provides a comparative matrix of
potential impacts by site, and Table 4-1 shows individual scoring for each site.
Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
The Williams Site received a high score for park and ride compatibility with existing zoning/land use. It is primarily located within the Heavy Industrial (M‐
1) zoning designation for Prince William County, which allows commercial parking as a primary use. The site appears to abut industrial and vacant properties, so it is unlikely that light, noise, or other environmental nuisance from the park and ride would affect the neighboring population. The park and ride lot would be located 0.3 miles from Route 234, which would provide access to I‐66. The Williams Site received a very low score for alternative transportation access. There are no residential units within walking distance of the site, and there appear to be no pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. There is no local bus service in the vicinity of the site. The Williams Site received a very high score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development potential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, future land use \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
64
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
for this site is Regional Employment Center (REC), a designation intended for intense regional employment in urban areas. The REC calls for a minimum of 75 percent mid‐rise and/or high‐rise office, R&D, lodging, and mixed‐use development. Residential development should be at a density of 16‐30 dwelling units per acre, shared/structured parking is encouraged, and drive‐through services are discouraged. The Comprehensive Plan’s Illustrative Guidelines for Office Development, promote site layout and building designs that are “human scaled” and create street and sidewalk networks with adjacent residential and commercial development. The REC designation can support an MTN vision. The Williams Site is also located within the Innovation Sector Plan, also part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The intent of this Sector is to work in partnership with George Mason University to promote this area as a business destination and economic engine for the County. The detailed Innovation Sector Plan shows the Williams Site as Town Center Office/R&D and Town Center Transit Station. It specifically refers to a possible VRE station and bus transit hub on the site. It recommends a mixed‐use “town center” adjacent to the station and a network of pedestrian/bike trails serving the town center and the entire sector (as an alternative to the automobile). Acquisitions and Development Issues
No major issues are anticipated with this site relative to this evaluation criterion, so it received a score of 5 on all of the sub‐categories. Operations and Implementation Issues
The Williams Site received a score of 5 in every sub‐category comprising this evaluation criterion except environmental considerations, in which it received a score of 4. The 4 was given because there are two small wetlands on the property. 4.2.1.10
Vulcan Quarry Site
Access and Mobility
This site received the same overall score that Sudley/Innovation Site 1 received for this evaluation criterion. This is because the site has nearly the same access characteristics as Sudley Manor Site 1, including strong connections via Sudley Manor Drive to local residential and commercial development, as well as Sudley and Wellington Roads. It should be noted that the engineering analysis for this site indicated that the deep excavations at the site for quarrying operations make this site infeasible from an engineering point of view. \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
65
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Traffic Congestion
This site is in the vicinity of the two Sudley/Innovation Sites, but it received a lower score than them because its only access point would be via Sudley Manor Drive. This single access point would result in greater traffic impacts relative to the sites that also have access points on secondary roads, and it would also require the addition of a traffic signal. Environmental Considerations
The Vulcan Quarry Site is located within a census block group with higher than average minority and low‐income populations. Housing does exist adjacent to the site, which warrants further investigation to determine if impacts to minority or low‐income populations would occur. Ponds, streams, and wetlands exist on the site. The Vulcan Quarry Site is also located adjacent to a school that has athletic fields. It is undetermined if the fields are open to the public. The site is also designated by the EPA has handling/having hazardous materials. Based on the environmental information presented above, the Vulcan Quarry Site scored a 3.9 out of a possible 5.0. Table 4‐2 provides a comparative matrix of potential impacts by site, and Table 4‐1 shows individual scoring for each site. Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
The Vulcan Quarry Site received a low to medium score for park and ride compatibility with existing zoning/land use. The Site is primarily zoned Agricultural Zoning (A‐1), which does not allow parking lots as a primary use. The site appears to abut industrial, vacant, park, residential, and school properties. As a result, mitigation may be necessary to avoid potential traffic, light, and noise impacts to the residential, park, and school uses. The site is large, and the mitigation strategy would depend on the specific location of the park and ride lot within the site. The Vulcan Quarry Site received a low to medium score for alternative transportation access. There are several clusters of higher density residential units within walking distance of the site, and there appear to be some pedestrian (i.e. sidewalk) accommodations. There is no local bus service in the vicinity of the site. The site is large, and the pedestrian accommodations would depend on the specific location of the park and ride lot within the site. The Vulcan Quarry Site received a low score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development potential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, future land use for this site is Industrial Employment (EI), a designation intended for economic base industries that may require screening and buffering to mitigate dust, particles, and emissions. Residential development is not permissible, and stand‐
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
66
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
alone offices as primary uses are discouraged. Retail may be present to support the needs of employees at EI facilities. The EI land use designation does not support the mixed‐use or high intensity development goals of a MTN. It is worth noting that the Vulcan Quarry site is adjacent to parcels designated for high‐density residential and mixed‐use commercial development, in addition to an existing school. There appears to be very little developable land on the site, due to severe elevation changes. Acquisitions and Development Issues
This site received a score of 5 on two one sub‐categories in this evaluation criterion, Property Displacement and Land Acquisition It received a score of 1 on Unique Capital Costs, because it is anticipated that there would be major site preparation issues associated with the previous use as a quarry. It received a score of 1 on topography issues, again, based on its previous use as a quarry (preliminary engineering analysis indicates that the terrain left by the quarry operations make the site infeasible for development from an engineering perspective). Operations and Implementation Issues
The Vulcan Quarry Site received a score of 5 in two of the sub‐categories, impacts to freight operations and potential impacts to adjacent properties, but received a score of 1 in unique site considerations and a score of 3 in environmental considerations. The reason for the low unique site considerations score is related to the site’s previous use as a quarry, which make the engineering feasibility of the site very suspect. The environmental considerations score is related to the fact that the site has four freshwater ponds and a wetland, and it may also have environmental justice issues. Both of these factors can complicate and delay implementation. 4.2.1.11
Wellington Road Site
Access and Mobility
The Wellington Road Site received a lower score on this evaluation criterion
compared to the other sites because its access is generally less optimal than the
other sites. Wellington Road provides access to Prince William Parkway, but it is
approximately one mile away. This station also has the disadvantage of being
the closest to the existing Manassas Station, and it would be competing for
ridership. Strong pedestrian connections can be made given the site’s proximity
to Wellington Road if development occurs in the surrounding area.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
67
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Traffic Congestion
The scoring for this site was in the middle of all alternatives. In terms of
potential traffic impacts, Wellington Road is heavily traveled in the vicinity of
the station so impacts would be anticipated. These impacts would be somewhat
mitigated by the fact that vehicles can be spread over roadway network with
vehicles having the option of going west to Prince William Parkway and Sudley
Manor Drive or east to Godwin Drive. Because of the heavy volumes along
Wellington Road, it is anticipated that a traffic signal at the site would be
required.
Environmental Considerations
The Wellington Road Site is located within a census block groups with higher
than average low-income populations. Housing does exist on the site, which
warrants further investigations to determine if impacts to low-income
populations would occur. Soils at the site are mostly designated as prime and
unique or soils of statewide importance, and the site is mostly undeveloped. A
tributary and wetlands have been identified at and adjacent to the site. The site
likely provides marginal wildlife habitat. The site is also located adjacent to a
school that has athletic fields. It is undetermined if the fields are open to the
public. Based on the environmental information presented above, the
Wellington Road Site scored a 4.2 out of a possible 5.0. Table 4-2 provides a
comparative matrix of potential impacts by site, and Table 4-1 shows individual
scoring for each site.
Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
The Wellington Road Site received a medium score for park and ride compatibility with existing zoning/land use. It is located within the Heavy Industrial (M‐1) and the General Business (B‐1) zoning designations for Prince William County. M‐1 zoning allows commercial parking as a primary use and B‐
1 does not allow parking as a primary use. The site appears to abut industrial, vacant, and residential (about 10 single‐family houses) properties. A school is located across the railroad tracks, immediately to the north of the site. It is unlikely that light, noise, or other environmental nuisance from the park and ride would affect an industrial use, but these factors might need to be mitigated for the neighboring residential population. The park and ride lot would be located 1.3 miles from Route 234, which would provide access to I‐66. The Wellington Road Site received a low score for alternative transportation access. There are very few residential units within walking distance of the site, and there appear to be no pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. There is no local bus service in the vicinity of the site. \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
68
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
As with the Sudley/Innovation Sites 1 and 2, and the Williams Site, the Wellington Road Site received a high score for Mass Transit Node (MTN) development potential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, future land use for this site is Regional Employment Center (REC), a designation intended for intense regional employment in urban areas. The REC calls for a minimum of 75 percent mid‐rise and/or high‐rise office, R&D, lodging, and mixed‐use development. Residential development should be at a density of 16‐30 dwelling units per acre, shared/structured parking is encouraged, and drive‐through services are discouraged. The Comprehensive Plan’s Illustrative Guidelines for Office Development, promote site layout and building designs that are “human scaled” and create street and sidewalk networks with adjacent residential and commercial development. The REC designation can support an MTN vision. As with the Williams Site, the Wellington Road Site is located with the Innovation Sector Plan, providing a more detailed land use analysis within the Comprehensive Plan designation of REC. Acquisitions and Development Issues
This site received a score of 5 on Topography issues, but received a lower score
on the other sub-criterion. On the Land Acquisition sub-criterion, the site
received a score of 2 because there are multiple properties comprising the site,
which would make acquisition more difficult and time consuming. It received a
score of 3 on the unique capital costs sub-criterion because there will be some
removal of existing structures, and it received a score of 1 on property
displacements because there would be displacements of a number of residences.
Operations and Implementation Issues
This site received a score of 5 in three of the four sub-categories that comprise
this evaluation criterion. The score of 4 for the environmental considerations
sub-category is based on the presence of a small patch of wetlands on the site,
which could delay implementation.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
69
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Table 4-2: Summary Matrix of Environmental Considerations1
Site
Minority/Low
-Income
Populations
Historic
Resources
Parks and
Community
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
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
70
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Table 4-2: Summary Matrix of Environmental Considerations (cont’d.)
Sudley/
Innovation
Site 1
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, stream,
wetlands
Unlikely, EPA
reports no
releases/known
contamination at the
site; numerous sites
identified within
study buffer
Yes
Sudley/
Innovation
Site 2
Potentially, site
within census
block groups with
higher than
average minority
& low-income
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/
coordinati
on is
recomme
nded
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
& low-income
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 lowincome
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\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
71
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
PZ
E
AG
OL
D
L IN
CH L N
E RD
CENTREVIL L
QU
AR
CH
RY
ER
RD
RY
ST
MATH IS AVE
R
CT
IN
ST
ST
OW
BR
R
BA
RT
BY
RD
PI
EY
DR
RK
SH
R
ALLWO
OD
LN
T
HO O
E
ST
CL
OV
ER
IR
DR
D EA N
G
E
AV
BE
R DR
FOS TE
D
ILL
SV
KE
PL
AN
EN
TS
D
CK
ET
T
T LN
D
CT
NO
N
DR
BU R N
GODWIN DR
ER
RD
GT
ON
LIN
EL
W
MA
LN
TOWN LN
RD
RD
Y
LE
AG
OR
NE R
IL LE
D
TU
B UC K
TRE
V
PE
HI
LL
RD
C EN
GAINSFORD CT
PINEY
B R AN
BU T
T
MAL LO W
T ST
ER N
U
O D DR
WO
ER
NN
BA
RD
R DR
Y M ANO
SUD LE
WY
DS
EL
SH
LIVINGSTON RD
W
T
N
KI
MC
BR
E
AV
IA
LL
AS
WI
DR
M
PY
G RA N
1
Figure 4-12:
% of Minority Population
VRE Haymarket Extension
3% - 25%
Potential Park and Ride Sites
26% - 50%
500ft Buffer
51% - 55%
Minority Population
Waterbody
Roads
0
T AVE
ILL
OO
T
LS
N
CE
NO
SV
KE
Potential Station Locations
YD
H
E
SO
D
IN
1
D
ER
S
Legend
OL
OG
SC
AV
R
FE
RD
28
HN
LN
ST
TS
S
F
JE
TO
N
TE
C
O
NC
IN
ES
ER
NT
ST
M
ST
CT
IA
S
ILL
EA
LA
W
DL
E
UG
O
C
O
O
D
IN
W
PR
AS
T
NG
MA
W
VE
TA
CE
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
2,000
4,000
Feet
VE
ST
MANASSAS
T
E
AV
A
ST
T
AN
R ST
LS
L LI
CH
T
EE
TS
UR
YS
ED
ST
ES
CH
GR
E
LE
VI E
IR
B
ZE
IN
W
VE
TA
Y
L
WA
E
AV
SB
T
MA
ST
AN
CEN TE
R ST
E
LE
E LL R D
LE
TT
BA
GR
MO
ST
GS
FA
ST
RO
BNEL AVE
LN
CEN TE
MAPLE ST
IRV IN
T
Y
AV E
AVE
PARK
BALLS FO
RD RD
EG
T
TS
OD
UR
E
AV
ES
AB
N
A
BE
D
AR
R
Y RD
W
PE
SO
RE ET D
TAYLO
RS
LI
BL
R
LE Y
66
M AN A S
VI NT H IL L R D
VINT HILL RD
CT
Wellington
Road Site
DR
SU D
Y
Y
PR
H
LEE
BE A UR EG A RD
RD
D
PA N R
D
RD
WY
E
AV
AL L
G
THO N
SR
WE
N VALLEY
IN
VL
H
LEE
ET
NN CT
PY
RK
I AM
HAYD EN
RD
LEXINGTO
DE
LEE
HW Y
Y
RN
Z IMBR O A
ST
ALMOND
T
ILL
Williams Site
FRE EDO M CENTER
EW
FO
WY
15
EH
Y LE
WY
29
H
LEE
GA
U
ST
AR
SUD LE
ST
VE
DS
RD
I NC
E
FIV
EN
H
LEE
U
ST
T
AR
NELSO N L N NEL
PAR
K
ROBIN LY
CI
EM
PR
2
CT
COCKR
EH
HL
234
H
LEE
L HWY
D
B
A RD
AR SH AL
ON
GT
E
AV
T
TS
ET
LD G
JOHN M
RL
AN
PLA
ERATE TR
IN
N EW
GA
ST
LN
Sudley Manor
Site 1
HA Z
EW O
OD CT
WINTERWO
CON FED
SH
WA
GLADSTONE ST
MERIT CT
OS
OD
Vulcan Quarry Site
T
Sudley Manor
Site 2
CT
T
STO
T
W
LE
PY
DR
RI X
I AM
RT H
LE S
NC
CH
ILL
SW O
V IL
A S HE
SK
LON GST
Y RD
CT
DR
GO
URY
A
D AM
RA
B
W O OD
ST
I
R
TA
CT
BO N D
AV E
SWEE TB RIAR
OS
E
R
TON
A MB
ASH
R
TE D
YGA
CT
FIN
RUF
RO
R
SUN N
CR
CT
SD
SUD LE
D
ES
SE
G
EW
R
LE Y
LIBERTY ST
SU D
RD
PORT NER AVE
SUDLEY
DR
2
DR
QU
AR
N
ST
RO
EWEL L
HU
DY S
OO
D
E
TW
OU R R D
LE
HY
ST
E
LE
EAR LY
R
RD
29
E L DR
RD
LL
PEAB O
RNE
LI
HA
CT
AW
CG R
O
SC
TO
N
S RD
PL
HY
D
ARTO ST
M AN
KS
LI N
HY
DIGGE
CLA
ALE
PL
E S C O VE
WA
Y
EL
S
E
LE
G TON R
WEEMS RD
IB
Y
WEL LIN
ROLLING RD
CT
RK T
ON
E
LE
HW
E WA Y CE NTE R DR
SIDE
MERCURY AV
C
RD
HW
B RA NCH DR
N EW
CT
TE
R
RO
JAM
Y
ER
E
LE
TO N
DR
HW
RH
LING
NE
ON
L LE
T
GA
Y
WEL
HY
R
GILLIS WAY
OS
PL
H O AC
M AN A
Y
E
LE
Y
S TO
DI S
ILL
EV
BLE IGHT DR
DR
AUL
S AI N
TP
RI
TA
G
C AN
Y GR
ASH B
WALNUT PARK LN
JEFFERSON ST
MADIS ON ST
FAY ETT E ST
HE
TW
E
O VE
LL S
T
LP
S O N HW Y
ADI
ES M
JAM
Y
HW
ON
DIS
MA
ES
JAM
HY
ON
DIS
E
LE
ES
MA
HW
HY
HW
HY
D
S EY M
E
LE
Gainesville
Site 1
LR
MA
Gainesville Site 2
E
LE
HY
H AL
ES
C OT E BL
ON
R FD
IC
HW
E
LIM
PO N D
E
LE
Dominion
Station Site
L
TH
A
Y
ITY B
AL L
PRINCE WILLIAM PKWY
NT
JAM
DR
HE
E BL
C OT
TH
RS
IVE
UN
U NT
SH
AY
M
R
RIFIE
R
EH
AR
WILL IA M PY
AG
TR
AP
D
IN
SD
R
TE
ED
I NC
F ORD DR
M ER
PINEY B
HER I T
W
R AS S
S SING D R
W HA
DE
PR
A N CH LN
NM
L
GG
PR
AT
W ELLIN G
H
JOH
GA
NO
AN
RD
LL IAM PK WY
EA
W
CRO
L DR
L
RD
RR
NK
N
DO
TO
PRINC E WI
NP
WAY
HULFISH
N IN
TUR
ET
A L N U T H IL
E
LE
L
HI L
RS
Florida Rock
Site
RD
VO
DA
R ED H O U S E
WY
CL
SOM
E
VE
SO
VE
CUSHING
E
TR
EY
MA
GR O
G
PA
PIN RD
B
C AR
CT
YM
HA
A
RK
DR
RD
NEPTU N E
ET
A
OLD CAROLIN
VENUS CT
15
FN
P R I NC E
66
G
AF
AN
EL
CATH AR
K EY CL U
LN
Haymarket Site 1
N
DL
FORBES PL
N LP
EG
E N D DR
I LLS D R
E
LE
GAP WAY
J OC
BE R
A R T HU R H
L
N ST
NE W
R L W IT TON C L
PL
G H AM
EY
COLLIN
LP
ST
Y
R
U
JAN SB
M AC
ON G
R OV
E LN
AN LN
CART ERWO OD DR
WAS HING
TO
Haymarket
Site 2
S ST
66
LL HWY
HEATHC OTE BL
AVALON ISLE WAY
JOR D
T CL
CHARLE
JOH N MARSHA
RS
RD
WAY
SKIP TON
ABB E
H
T
TI
OC
RE C
AN
DAN EH U
IN
AY
I
HC O T R E D R
E BL
SH E
R
AM W
SH
GH
HEAT
NN
EM O
SLAT
PE
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville - Haymarket
PZ
E
AG
L IN
29
TO
N
LL
RD
CH L N
E RD
CENTREVIL L
RY
ST
MATH IS AVE
R
RK
SH
R
ALLWO
OD
RY
ER
QU
AR
CH
CT
ST
ST
R
BA
RT
OW
LN
HI
LL
BR
EY
PI
T
AN
EN
TS
D
CK
ET
T
T LN
D
BY
RD
DR
PL
HO O
ST
E
IR
DR
CL
OV
ER
BE
R DR
FOS TE
D
ILL
SV
KE
NO
D EA N
GODWIN DR
ER
RD
GT
ON
LIN
EL
W
N
DR
BU R N
LIBERTY ST
DY S
PEAB O
CT
MAL LO W
T ST
ER N
U
BU T
T
RD
O D DR
WO
ER
NN
BA
PORT NER AVE
TW
R DR
Y M ANO
SUD LE
WY
DS
EL
SH
RD
IL LE
TRE
V
E
AV
IN
TOWN LN
1
RD
C EN
MA
LN
NE R
6% - 11%
G
OR
B UC K
3% - 5%
500ft Buffer
Y
LE
AG
RD
Potential Park and Ride Sites
W
T
0% - 2%
D
TU
Figure 4-13:
% of Low-Income Population
VRE Haymarket Extension
N
KI
MC
BR
E
AV
Potential Station Locations
YD
H
OO
T
LS
N
Legend
OL
OG
SC
E
SO
RD
28
HN
AV
R
FE
TO
N
PE
F
JE
NG
TE
C
LN
ST
TS
ST
M
ST
CT
IA
S
ILL
EA
LA
W
DL
E
UG
O
C
O
O
D
IN
W
PR
AS
T
L LI
LI
O
NC
IN
ES
S
Low-Income Population
PY
Waterbody
G RA N
Roads
T AVE
0
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
2,000
4,000
Feet
VE
MA
W
VE
TA
ER
NT
A
ST
T
AN
CE
EE
TS
R ST
LS
D
PA N R
CH
T
ED
ST
ES
UR
YS
ST
MANASSAS
T
E
AV
VI E
IR
B
ZE
IN
W
E
LE
T
MA
ST
Y
L
WA
E
AV
SB
CH
GR
CEN TE
R ST
E
LE
E LL R D
LE
TT
BA
VE
TA
MO
ST
GS
FA
T
AN
RO
BNEL AVE
LN
CEN TE
MAPLE ST
IRV IN
GR
AV E
AVE
PARK
LIVINGSTON RD
EG
T
TS
ST
RD
N
UR
E
AV
ES
Y
AL L
CT
SO
A
BE
D
AR
R
Y RD
W
OD
BE A UR EG A RD
RE ET D
TAYLO
RS
AB
N EW
BALLS FO
RD RD
E
AV
PE
STO
M
DR
IA
LL
AS
WI
ILL
ET
ST
ALMOND
RN
VE
CE
NO
SV
KE
D
ER
S
T
AR
U
ST
AR
SUD LE
ST
Z IMBR O A
NN CT
D
IN
VI NT H IL L R D
VINT HILL RD
GA
BL
R
LE Y
PR
1
M AN A S
U
ST
Wellington
Road Site
DR
Y
66
SU D
Y
T
G
THO N
D
RD
H
LEE
DS
PY
SR
IN
VL
WY
Y
PLA
ERATE TR
ON
GT
NELSO N L N NEL
PAR
K
ROBIN LY
I AM
RK
WE
N VALLEY
DE
H
LEE
EH
Y LE
WY
29
H
LEE
CT
CI
ILL
Williams Site
FRE EDO M CENTER
EW
FO
LEXINGTO
HAYD EN
RD
RD
I NC
E
FIV
WY
LEE
HW Y
H
LEE
D
MERIT CT
EM
EN
15
H
LEE
HA Z
IN
GLADSTONE ST
COCKR
EH
HL
234
PR
2
L HWY
RL
AN
B
A RD
AR SH AL
GA
ST
LN
Sudley Manor
Site 1
SH
WA
EW O
OD CT
WINTERWO
CON FED
T
E
AV
T
TS
ET
LD G
JOHN M
T
Vulcan Quarry Site
NC
Sudley Manor
Site 2
CT
OS
LON GST
Y RD
CT
T
SK
OD
LE S
W
LE
PY
DR
RI X
I AM
RT H
V IL
A S HE
BO N D
DR
GO
URY
A
D AM
RA
B
W O OD
ST
I
R
TA
CT
SWEE TB RIAR
OS
E
AV E
R
TE D
YGA
CT
FIN
RUF
TON
R
ASH
A MB
CH
ILL
SW O
SUD LE
D
SUN N
RO
EW
R
LE Y
QU
AR
SU D
RD
ST
SUDLEY
DR
CR
CT
R
GAINSFORD CT
2
DR
EWEL L
N
ST
RO
EAR LY
HU
ES
SE
G
R
SD
PINEY
LI
HA
CT
OO
D
E
D
ARTO ST
DIGGE
CLA
OU R R D
LE
HY
G TON R
RD
OL
D
E L DR
E
LE
HY
B R AN
HY
M AN
KS
LI N
E
LE
WEL LIN
ROLLING RD
CT
RK T
ON
Y
E WA Y CE NTE R DR
S RD
R
WA
Y
EL
S
HW
RD
HW
B RA NCH DR
WEEMS RD
IB
ER
E
LE
TO N
SIDE
MERCURY AV
RH
LING
N EW
CT
TE
R
RO
JAM
Y
HW
L LE
T
GA
Y
WEL
HY
R
GILLIS WAY
OS
PL
H O AC
M AN A
Y
E
LE
Y
DR
ON
ILL
EV
BLE IGHT DR
DR
AUL
S AI N
TP
RI
TA
G
C AN
Y GR
ASH B
WALNUT PARK LN
JEFFERSON ST
MADIS ON ST
FAY ETT E ST
HE
TW
E
O VE
LL S
T
LP
S O N HW Y
ADI
ES M
JAM
Y
HW
ON
DIS
MA
ES
JAM
HY
ON
DIS
HW
ES
MA
AL L
HY
HW
HY
NE
DI S
E
LE
Gainesville
Site 1
S TO
MA
E
LE
E
LIM
ES
Gainesville Site 2
E
LE
HY
D
AW
CG R
L
C OT E BL
E
LE
PL
E S C O VE
RD
Y
ITY B
SH
E
LE
RNE
HW
LR
JAM
DR
AR
C
O
SC
E
LE
H AL
PL
E BL
ON
ALE
OT
HC
RS
IVE
UN
U NT
PO N D
AT
PRINCE WILLIAM PKWY
Dominion
Station Site
EH
HE
WILL IA M PY
NT
R FD
IC
D
IN
SD
R
RIFIE
R
AG
NM
AY
M
S EY M
TE
ED
I NC
F ORD DR
M ER
PINEY B
HER I T
W
H
JOH
L
W HA
DE
PR
A N CH LN
TR
AP
S SING D R
PR
AT
W ELLIN G
L DR
L
R AS S
NO
AN
RD
LL IAM PK WY
TH
W
CRO
GG
RR
NK
N
DO
TO
PRINC E WI
EA
GA
N IN
TUR
ET
A L N U T H IL
NP
WAY
HULFISH
RD
L
HI L
RS
Florida Rock
Site
RD
VO
DA
R ED H O U S E
WY
CL
SOM
E
VE
SO
VE
CUSHING
E
TR
EY
MA
GR O
G
PA
PIN RD
B
C AR
CT
YM
HA
A
RK
DR
RD
NEPTU N E
ET
A
OLD CAROLIN
VENUS CT
15
FN
P R I NC E
E
LE
G
AF
AN
EL
CATH AR
K EY CL U
LN
Haymarket Site 1
N
DL
FORBES PL
N LP
EG
E N D DR
I LLS D R
66
GAP WAY
J OC
BE R
A R T HU R H
L
N ST
NE W
R L W IT TON C L
PL
G H AM
EY
COLLIN
LP
ST
Y
R
U
JAN SB
M AC
ON G
R OV
E LN
AN LN
CART ERWO OD DR
WAS HING
TO
Haymarket
Site 2
S ST
66
LL HWY
HEATHC OTE BL
AVALON ISLE WAY
JOR D
T CL
CHARLE
JOH N MARSHA
RS
RD
WAY
SKIP TON
ABB E
H
T
TI
OC
RE C
AN
DAN EH U
IN
AY
I
HC O T R E D R
E BL
SH E
R
AM W
SH
GH
HEAT
NN
EM O
SLAT
PE
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville - Haymarket
PZ
E
AG
29
TO
N
LL
RD
E RD
CENTREVIL L
ST
RY
R
SH
RK
ALLWO
OD
CT
RY
ER
AR
CH
QU
ST
OW
ST
IN
HI
LL
EY
PI
EN
TS
D
CK
ET
T
T LN
D
T
AN
DR
RD
BY
LN
BR
RT
BA
R
PL
DR
N
HO O
ST
E
IR
DR
CL
OV
ER
BE
R DR
E
AV
R
FOS TE
D
ILL
SV
KE
NO
D EA N
GODWIN DR
ER
RD
GT
ON
LIN
GAINSFORD CT
CH L N
MATH IS AVE
PORT NER AVE
QU
AR
DY S
PEAB O
CT
CT
SIDE
BU R N
LIBERTY ST
BU T
T
ER
MAL LO W
T ST
O D DR
WO
ER N
U
Y M ANO
SUD LE
WY
DS
SH
EL
NN
RD
R DR
CR
ES
SE
EL
MA
LN
TOWN LN
1
RD
W
G
OR
NE R
RD
D
TU
B UC K
IL LE
ST
Y
LE
AG
RD
TRE
V
W
EE
N
KI
MC
BR
E
AV
YD
H
OO
T
LS
N
Legend
OL
OG
SC
E
SO
RD
28
HN
AV
R
FE
TO
N
PE
F
JE
NG
TE
C
ST
T
T
L LI
LI
LN
Figure 4-14:
Archaeologically Significant Sites
Potential Station Locations
VRE Haymarket Extension
D
IN
CE
S
M
DR
IA
LL
AS
WI
PY
G RA N
T AVE
ILL
D
ER
M AN A S
500ft Buffer
Waterbody
Roads
0
2,000
4,000
Feet
VE
IN
TS
S
A
MA
ER
NT
ES
VE
TA
W
AN
CE
ST
M
ST
CT
IA
S
ILL
EA
LA
W
DL
E
UG
O
C
O
O
D
IN
W
PR
AS
LS
D
PA N R
CH
T
ST
MANASSAS
T
E
AV
VI E
IR
T
UR
YS
ED
TS
R ST
O
NC
FA
B
ZE
ST
ES
CH
GR
E
LE
L
WA
E
AV
Y
T
IN
W
VE
TA
CEN TE
R ST
SB
ST
GS
MA
ST
AN
MO
E
LE
E LL R D
LE
TT
BA
GR
RO
BNEL AVE
LN
CEN TE
MAPLE ST
IRV IN
T
ST
AV E
AVE
PARK
C EN
EG
T
TS
UR
E
AV
ES
Y
N
A
BE
D
AR
R
Y RD
W
OD
RD
CT
SO
RE ET D
TAYLO
RS
AB
BE A UR EG A RD
AL L
ET
ST
ALMOND
RN
VE
LIVINGSTON RD
E
AV
PE
T
AR
U
ST
AR
SUD LE
ST
Z IMBR O A
NN CT
GA
BL
R
LE Y
PR
NO
VINT HILL RD
SV
KE
E
AV
T
TS
Potential Park and Ride Sites
1
VI NT H IL L R D
U
ST
Wellington
Road Site
DR
66
SU D
Y
T
G
THO N
D
RD
H
LEE
DS
PY
SR
IN
VL
WY
Y
ON
GT
NELSO N L N NEL
PAR
K
ROBIN LY
I AM
RK
WE
N VALLEY
DE
H
LEE
Y
CI
ILL
Williams Site
FRE EDO M CENTER
EW
FO
LEXINGTO
HAYD EN
RD
RD
I NC
E
FIV
WY
LEE
HW Y
EH
Y LE
WY
29
H
LEE
CT
MERIT CT
LN
EM
EN
15
H
LEE
H
LEE
D
PLA
ERATE TR
IN
GLADSTONE ST
COCKR
EH
HL
234
PR
2
L HWY
RL
AN
B
A RD
AR SH AL
GA
OD CT
WINTERWO
CON FED
HA Z
EW O
ST
W
LE
Vulcan Quarry Site
OS
OD
Sudley Manor
Site 2
CT
SH
WA
N EW
T
T
DR
LE S
NC
RT H
V IL
A S HE
SK
T
STO
DR
GO
URY
A
D AM
RA
B
W O OD
ST
I
R
TA
CT
LON GST
Y RD
CT
OS
E
AV E
BO N D
TON
SWEE TB RIAR
ASH
R
SW O
SUD LE
D
ET
LD G
JOHN M
R
LE Y
ST
SU D
RD
EWEL L
SUDLEY
DR
R
TE D
YGA
CT
FIN
RUF
R
B R AN
2
DR
ST
N
EAR LY
RO
E L DR
HU
SUN N
SD
PINEY
LI
HA
DIGGE
OO
D
E
D
RD
L IN
TW
OU R R D
LE
HY
G TON R
ARTO ST
M AN
KS
LI N
OL
D
ROLLING RD
CT
RK T
ON
CLA
EL
S
HY
S RD
E
LE
WA
Y
AW
CG R
R
HY
WEL LIN
WEEMS RD
IB
E
LE
E WA Y CE NTE R DR
BA
MERCURY AV
Y
B RA NCH DR
N EW
CT
TE
R
RO
JAM
Y
HW
ON
HW
RD
HW
TO N
DR
DI S
ER
E
LE
LING
NE
MA
RH
WEL
HY
T
GA
Y
Approximate Location of
Significant Site - 44PW1616
Y
S TO
ES
L LE
E
LE
HY
R
GILLIS WAY
OS
PL
H O AC
M AN A
Y
PL
E S C O VE
RD
HY
HW
Gainesville
Site 1
E
LE
HY
E
LIM
JAM
E
LE
RI X
BALLS FO
RD RD
ILL
EV
BLE IGHT DR
DR
AUL
S AI N
TP
RI
TA
G
C AN
Y GR
ASH B
WALNUT PARK LN
JEFFERSON ST
MADIS ON ST
FAY ETT E ST
HE
TW
E
O VE
LL S
T
LP
S O N HW Y
ADI
ES M
JAM
Y
HW
ON
DIS
MA
ES
JAM
HY
ON
DIS
HW
ES
MA
AL L
E
LE
RNE
L
E
LE
E
LE
C
O
SC
ITY B
Gainesville Site 2
A MB
CH
RIFIE
R
DR
C OT E BL
D
PL
HW
Y
LR
ALE
E
LE
Dominion
Station Site
RS
IVE
UN
U NT
PO N D
A
Sudley Manor
Site 1
F ORD DR
M ER
PINEY B
EH
HE
E BL
C OT
TH
H AL
RO
PY
AG
SH
PRINCE WILLIAM PKWY
ON
CT
I AM
HER I T
AR
WILL IA M PY
NT
G
R
ILL
W
H
NM
L
R FD
IC
D
IN
SD
R
EW
L DR
L
JOH
AY
M
S EY M
TE
ED
I NC
TH
W
W HA
Potential
Archaeological Site
PR
A N CH LN
TR
AP
S SING D R
PR
AT
W ELLIN G
R AS S
NO
AN
RD
LL IAM PK WY
CRO
GG
RR
NK
N
DO
TO
PRINC E WI
EA
GA
N IN
TUR
ET
A L N U T H IL
NP
WAY
HULFISH
RD
L
HI L
RS
DE
Florida Rock
Site
RD
VO
DA
R ED H O U S E
WY
CL
SOM
E
VE
SO
VE
CUSHING
E
TR
EY
MA
GR O
G
PA
PIN RD
B
C AR
CT
YM
HA
A
RK
DR
RD
NEPTU N E
ET
A
OLD CAROLIN
VENUS CT
15
FN
P R I NC E
E
LE
G
AF
AN
EL
CATH AR
K EY CL U
LN
Haymarket Site 1
N
DL
FORBES PL
N LP
EG
E N D DR
I LLS D R
66
GAP WAY
J OC
BE R
A R T HU R H
L
N ST
NE W
R L W IT TON C L
PL
G H AM
EY
COLLIN
LP
ST
Y
R
U
JAN SB
M AC
ON G
R OV
E LN
AN LN
CART ERWO OD DR
WAS HING
TO
Haymarket
Site 2
S ST
66
LL HWY
HEATHC OTE BL
AVALON ISLE WAY
JOR D
T CL
CHARLE
JOH N MARSHA
RS
RD
WAY
SKIP TON
ABB E
H
T
TI
OC
RE C
AN
DAN EH U
IN
AY
I
HC O T R E D R
E BL
SH E
R
AM W
SH
GH
HEAT
NN
EM O
SLAT
PE
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville - Haymarket
PZ
E
AG
L IN
29
TO
N
LL
RD
28B
32A
3A
49A
8C
500ft Buffer
13B
28C
33B
40B
4B
13C
2C
33C
40C
53B
17A
30B
33D
46B
54B
G RA N
T AVE
Source: Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database
2,000
4,000
Feet
CH L N
RK
CENTREVIL L
E RD
SH
R
ALLWO
OD
CT
RY
ST
RY
ER
AR
CH
QU
ST
OW
ST
IN
HI
LL
EY
PI
EN
TS
D
CK
ET
T
T LN
D
T
AN
DR
RD
BY
LN
BR
RT
BA
R
PL
DR
N
HO O
E
ST
CL
OV
ER
IR
DR
E
AV
BE
R DR
FOS TE
D
ILL
SV
KE
NO
11B
D EA N
GODWIN DR
ER
RD
GT
ON
LIN
EL
W
Potential Park and Ride Sites
0
GAINSFORD CT
MATH IS AVE
R
LIBERTY ST
BU R N
PORT NER AVE
DY S
PEAB O
CT
MAL LO W
T ST
ER N
U
RD
BA
NN
ER
BU T
T
WO
O D DR
RD
IL LE
TRE
V
C EN
QU
AR
TW
R DR
Y M ANO
SUD LE
WY
DS
EL
SH
LIVINGSTON RD
5C
MA
LN
TOWN LN
1
RD
48A
G
OR
NE R
38B
D
TU
B UC K
31C
W
27A
ST
MUSYM
EE
56A
Y
LE
AG
RD
46C
N
KI
MC
BR
E
AV
35B
YD
H
OO
T
LS
N
PY
31B
OL
OG
SC
E
SO
M
DR
IA
LL
AS
WI
1A
28
HN
AV
R
FE
Soils
PE
F
JE
TE
C
ST
T
T
RD
LI
LN
VE
IN
TS
S
A
MA
ER
NT
ES
VE
TA
W
AN
CE
ST
M
ST
CT
IA
S
ILL
EA
LA
W
DL
E
UG
O
C
O
O
D
IN
W
PR
AS
LS
D
PA N R
CH
T
ST
MANASSAS
T
E
AV
VI E
IR
T
UR
YS
ED
TS
R ST
O
NC
FA
B
ZE
ST
ES
CH
GR
E
LE
L
WA
E
AV
Y
T
IN
W
VE
TA
CEN TE
R ST
SB
ST
GS
MA
ST
AN
MO
E
LE
E LL R D
LE
TT
BA
GR
RO
BNEL AVE
LN
CEN TE
MAPLE ST
IRV IN
T
ST
AV E
AVE
PARK
BALLS FO
RD RD
EG
T
TS
UR
E
AV
ES
Y
N
A
BE
D
AR
R
Y RD
W
OD
RD
CT
SO
RE ET D
TAYLO
RS
AB
BE A UR EG A RD
AL L
CE
ILL
E
AV
PE
N EW
TO
N
Potential Station Locations
Roads
STO
NG
Legend
Waterbody
ET
ST
ALMOND
RN
VE
D
IN
NO
SV
KE
D
ER
S
T
AR
U
ST
AR
SUD LE
ST
Z IMBR O A
NN CT
R
LE Y
PR
1
VI NT H IL L R D
VINT HILL RD
GA
BL
L LI
VRE Haymarket Extension
M AN A S
U
ST
Wellington
Road Site
DR
66
SU D
Y
T
G
THO N
D
RD
H
LEE
DS
PY
SR
IN
VL
WY
PLA
ERATE TR
ON
GT
NELSO N L N NEL
PAR
K
ROBIN LY
I AM
RK
WE
N VALLEY
DE
H
LEE
CT
CI
ILL
Williams Site
FRE EDO M CENTER
EW
FO
LEXINGTO
HAYD EN
RD
RD
I NC
E
FIV
WY
LEE
HW Y
Y
D
MERIT CT
EM
EN
15
Y
WY
29
H
LEE
EH
Y LE
HA Z
IN
GLADSTONE ST
COCKR
EH
HL
234
H
LEE
H
LEE
RL
AN
B
PR
2
L HWY
GA
OD CT
WINTERWO
CON FED
SH
WA
EW O
ST
LN
Sudley Manor
Site 1
A RD
AR SH AL
OS
T
E
AV
T
TS
ET
LD G
JOHN M
CT
OD
W
LE
Vulcan Quarry Site
SK
LON GST
Y RD
CT
T
T
Sudley Manor
Site 2
DR
RI X
PY
RT H
LE S
NC
CH
I AM
SW O
V IL
A S HE
BO N D
DR
GO
URY
A
D AM
RA
B
W O OD
ST
I
R
TA
CT
SWEE TB RIAR
OS
E
AV E
R
TE D
YGA
CT
FIN
RUF
TON
R
ASH
A MB
R
SUD LE
D
SUN N
RO
ILL
R
LE Y
ST
SU D
RD
EWEL L
SUDLEY
DR
CR
CT
EW
B R AN
2
DR
ST
N
EAR LY
RO
E L DR
HU
ES
SE
G
SD
PINEY
LI
HA
CT
OO
D
E
D
ARTO ST
DIGGE
CLA
OU R R D
LE
HY
G TON R
RD
OL
D
M AN
KS
HY
S RD
E
LE
HY
WEL LIN
ROLLING RD
CT
RK T
ON
LI N
AW
CG R
R
WA
Y
EL
S
E
LE
E WA Y CE NTE R DR
WEEMS RD
IB
Y
B RA NCH DR
SIDE
MERCURY AV
HW
RD
HW
TO N
N EW
CT
TE
R
RO
JAM
Y
HW
ON
ER
E
LE
LING
DR
DI S
RH
T
GA
Y
WEL
HY
NE
MA
L LE
E
LE
Y
R
GILLIS WAY
OS
PL
H O AC
M AN A
Y
PL
E S C O VE
RD
HY
HW
HY
S TO
S EY M
E
LE
Gainesville
Site 1
E
LE
HY
D
ES
ILL
EV
BLE IGHT DR
DR
AUL
S AI N
TP
RI
TA
G
C AN
Y GR
ASH B
WALNUT PARK LN
JEFFERSON ST
MADIS ON ST
FAY ETT E ST
HE
TW
E
O VE
LL S
T
LP
S O N HW Y
ADI
ES M
JAM
Y
HW
ON
DIS
MA
ES
JAM
HY
ON
DIS
HW
ES
MA
AL L
E
LE
RNE
L
Gainesville Site 2
E
LE
E
LE
C
O
SC
ITY B
C OT E BL
LR
PL
HW
H AL
ALE
E
LE
Dominion
Station Site
E
LIM
PO N D
A
Y
ON
JAM
DR
HE
E BL
C OT
TH
RS
IVE
UN
U NT
SH
AY
M
R
RIFIE
R
EH
AR
PRINCE WILLIAM PKWY
AG
NM
WILL IA M PY
NT
R FD
IC
D
IN
SD
R
TE
ED
I NC
F ORD DR
M ER
PINEY B
HER I T
W
H
JOH
L
W HA
DE
PR
A N CH LN
TR
AP
S SING D R
PR
AT
W ELLIN G
L DR
L
R AS S
NO
AN
RD
LL IAM PK WY
TH
W
CRO
GG
RR
NK
N
DO
TO
PRINC E WI
EA
GA
N IN
TUR
ET
A L N U T H IL
NP
WAY
HULFISH
RD
L
HI L
RS
Florida Rock
Site
RD
VO
DA
R ED H O U S E
WY
CL
SOM
E
VE
SO
VE
CUSHING
E
TR
EY
MA
GR O
G
PA
PIN RD
B
C AR
CT
YM
HA
A
RK
DR
RD
NEPTU N E
ET
A
OLD CAROLIN
VENUS CT
15
FN
P R I NC E
E
LE
G
AF
AN
EL
CATH AR
K EY CL U
LN
Haymarket Site 1
N
DL
FORBES PL
N LP
EG
E N D DR
I LLS D R
66
GAP WAY
J OC
BE R
A R T HU R H
L
N ST
NE W
R L W IT TON C L
PL
G H AM
EY
COLLIN
LP
ST
Y
R
U
JAN SB
M AC
ON G
R OV
E LN
AN LN
CART ERWO OD DR
WAS HING
TO
Haymarket
Site 2
S ST
66
LL HWY
HEATHC OTE BL
AVALON ISLE WAY
JOR D
T CL
CHARLE
JOH N MARSHA
RS
RD
WAY
SKIP TON
ABB E
H
T
TI
OC
RE C
AN
DAN EH U
IN
AY
I
HC O T R E D R
E BL
SH E
R
AM W
SH
GH
HEAT
NN
EM O
SLAT
PE
Figure 4-15:
Soils
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville - Haymarket
PZ
E
AG
L IN
29
TO
N
LL
RD
RD
CH L N
E RD
CENTREVIL L
RY
ST
MATH IS AVE
R
RK
SH
R
ALLWO
OD
RY
ER
QU
AR
CH
CT
ST
ST
R
BA
RT
OW
LN
HI
LL
BR
EY
PI
T
AN
EN
TS
D
CK
ET
T
T LN
D
BY
RD
DR
PL
HO O
ST
E
IR
DR
D EA N
CL
OV
ER
BE
R DR
FOS TE
D
ILL
SV
KE
NO
N
DR
BU R N
GODWIN DR
ER
RD
GT
ON
LIN
EL
W
E
AV
IN
TOWN LN
1
RD
IL LE
MA
LN
NE R
TRE
V
G
OR
B UC K
Y
LE
AG
RD
C EN
D
TU
LIBERTY ST
DY S
PEAB O
CT
MAL LO W
T ST
ER N
U
RD
BA
NN
ER
BU T
T
WO
O D DR
LIVINGSTON RD
PORT NER AVE
TW
R DR
Y M ANO
SUD LE
WY
DS
EL
SH
BALLS FO
RD RD
W
ST
T
N
KI
MC
BR
E
AV
OO
T
LS
N
Legend
YD
H
E
SO
RD
OL
OG
SC
AV
R
FE
TO
N
PE
F
JE
NG
28
HN
ST
TS
T
L LI
TE
C
LN
Figure 4-16:
Water Resources
Potential Station Locations
VRE Haymarket Extension
D
IN
CE
S
M
DR
IA
LL
AS
WI
PY
G RA N
500ft Buffer
Waterbody
Roads
0
T AVE
ILL
D
ER
M AN A S
Source: http://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE/51_VIRGINIA/
2,000
4,000
Feet
VE
IN
ES
S
A
MA
W
VE
TA
ER
NT
EE
T
AN
CE
ST
M
ST
CT
IA
S
ILL
EA
LA
W
DL
E
UG
O
C
O
O
D
IN
W
PR
AS
LS
D
PA N R
CH
T
ST
MANASSAS
T
E
AV
VI E
IR
TS
UR
YS
ED
ES
CH
GR
R ST
O
NC
FA
B
ZE
ST
W
VE
TA
E
LE
L
WA
E
AV
Y
T
IN
ST
AN
CEN TE
R ST
SB
ST
GS
MA
LE
TT
BA
GR
AVE
PARK
MO
E
LE
E LL R D
IRV IN
T
ST
AV E
RO
BNEL AVE
LN
CEN TE
MAPLE ST
TS
Y
N
EG
T
ES
OD
RD
SO
UR
E
AV
W
AB
AL L
CT
PE
N EW
BE A UR EG A RD
A
BE
D
AR
R
Y RD
TAYLO
RS
LI
BL
R
LE Y
PR
NO
VINT HILL RD
SV
KE
E
AV
RE ET D
Potential Park and Ride Sites
1
VI NT H IL L R D
ET
Wellington
Road Site
DR
66
SU D
Y
RN
NN CT
G
THO N
D
RD
H
LEE
GA
Z IMBR O A
ST
ALMOND
T
PY
SR
IN
VL
WY
Y
T
AR
U
ST
AR
SUD LE
ST
VE
DS
I AM
RK
WE
N VALLEY
DE
H
LEE
Y
U
ST
STO
PLA
ERATE TR
ON
GT
NELSO N L N NEL
PAR
K
ROBIN LY
ILL
Williams Site
FRE EDO M CENTER
EW
FO
LEXINGTO
HAYD EN
RD
RD
I NC
E
FIV
WY
LEE
HW Y
EH
Y LE
WY
29
H
LEE
CT
CI
EM
EN
15
H
LEE
H
LEE
D
COCKR
EH
HL
234
PR
2
L HWY
RL
AN
B
A RD
AR SH AL
HA Z
IN
GLADSTONE ST
MERIT CT
LN
Sudley Manor
Site 1
SH
WA
E
AV
T
TS
ET
LD G
JOHN M
GA
OD CT
WINTERWO
CON FED
T
EW O
ST
T
Vulcan Quarry Site
NC
Sudley Manor
Site 2
CT
OS
LON GST
Y RD
CT
T
SK
OD
LE S
W
LE
PY
DR
RI X
I AM
RT H
V IL
A S HE
BO N D
DR
GO
URY
A
D AM
RA
B
W O OD
ST
I
R
TA
CT
SWEE TB RIAR
OS
E
AV E
R
TE D
YGA
CT
FIN
RUF
TON
R
ASH
A MB
CH
ILL
SW O
SUD LE
D
SUN N
RO
EW
R
LE Y
QU
AR
SU D
RD
ST
SUDLEY
DR
CR
CT
R
GAINSFORD CT
2
DR
EWEL L
N
ST
RO
EAR LY
HU
ES
SE
G
R
SD
PINEY
LI
HA
CT
OO
D
E
D
ARTO ST
DIGGE
CLA
OU R R D
LE
HY
G TON R
RD
OL
D
E L DR
E
LE
HY
B R AN
HY
M AN
KS
LI N
E
LE
WEL LIN
ROLLING RD
CT
RK T
ON
Y
E WA Y CE NTE R DR
S RD
R
WA
Y
EL
S
HW
RD
HW
B RA NCH DR
WEEMS RD
IB
ER
E
LE
TO N
SIDE
MERCURY AV
RH
LING
N EW
CT
TE
R
RO
JAM
Y
HW
L LE
T
GA
Y
WEL
HY
R
GILLIS WAY
OS
PL
H O AC
M AN A
Y
E
LE
Y
DR
ON
ILL
EV
BLE IGHT DR
DR
AUL
S AI N
TP
RI
TA
G
C AN
Y GR
ASH B
WALNUT PARK LN
JEFFERSON ST
MADIS ON ST
FAY ETT E ST
HE
TW
E
O VE
LL S
T
LP
S O N HW Y
ADI
ES M
JAM
Y
HW
ON
DIS
MA
ES
JAM
HY
ON
DIS
HW
ES
MA
AL L
HY
HW
HY
NE
DI S
E
LE
Gainesville
Site 1
S TO
MA
E
LE
E
LIM
ES
Gainesville Site 2
E
LE
HY
D
AW
CG R
L
C OT E BL
E
LE
PL
E S C O VE
RD
Y
ITY B
SH
E
LE
RNE
HW
LR
JAM
DR
AR
C
O
SC
E
LE
H AL
PL
E BL
ON
ALE
OT
HC
RS
IVE
UN
U NT
PO N D
AT
PRINCE WILLIAM PKWY
Dominion
Station Site
EH
HE
WILL IA M PY
NT
R FD
IC
D
IN
SD
R
RIFIE
R
AG
NM
AY
M
S EY M
TE
ED
I NC
F ORD DR
M ER
PINEY B
HER I T
W
H
JOH
L
W HA
DE
PR
A N CH LN
TR
AP
S SING D R
PR
AT
W ELLIN G
L DR
L
R AS S
NO
AN
RD
LL IAM PK WY
TH
W
CRO
GG
RR
NK
N
DO
TO
PRINC E WI
EA
GA
N IN
TUR
ET
A L N U T H IL
NP
WAY
HULFISH
RD
L
HI L
RS
Florida Rock
Site
RD
VO
DA
R ED H O U S E
WY
CL
SOM
E
VE
SO
VE
CUSHING
E
TR
EY
MA
GR O
G
PA
PIN RD
B
C AR
CT
YM
HA
A
RK
DR
RD
NEPTU N E
ET
A
OLD CAROLIN
VENUS CT
15
FN
P R I NC E
E
LE
G
AF
AN
EL
CATH AR
K EY CL U
LN
Haymarket Site 1
N
DL
FORBES PL
N LP
EG
E N D DR
I LLS D R
66
GAP WAY
J OC
BE R
A R T HU R H
L
N ST
NE W
R L W IT TON C L
PL
G H AM
EY
COLLIN
LP
ST
Y
R
U
JAN SB
M AC
ON G
R OV
E LN
AN LN
CART ERWO OD DR
WAS HING
TO
Haymarket
Site 2
S ST
66
LL HWY
HEATHC OTE BL
AVALON ISLE WAY
JOR D
T CL
CHARLE
JOH N MARSHA
RS
RD
WAY
SKIP TON
ABB E
H
T
TI
OC
RE C
AN
DAN EH U
IN
AY
I
HC O T R E D R
E BL
SH E
R
AM W
SH
GH
HEAT
NN
EM O
SLAT
PE
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville - Haymarket
PZ
E
AG
L IN
29
TO
N
LL
RD
CH L N
RK
CENTREVIL L
E RD
SH
R
ALLWO
OD
CT
RY
ST
RY
ER
QU
AR
CH
OW
ST
ST
HI
LL
EY
PI
EN
TS
D
CK
ET
T
T LN
D
T
AN
DR
RD
BY
LN
BR
RT
BA
R
PL
DR
N
HO O
ST
E
IR
DR
CL
OV
ER
BE
R DR
FOS TE
D
ILL
SV
NO
KE
W
D EA N
GODWIN DR
ER
RD
GT
ON
EL
LIN
GAINSFORD CT
MATH IS AVE
R
LIBERTY ST
BU R N
PORT NER AVE
DY S
PEAB O
CT
MAL LO W
T ST
ER N
U
RD
BA
NN
ER
BU T
T
WO
O D DR
RD
E
AV
IN
TOWN LN
1
RD
IL LE
MA
LN
NE R
TRE
V
G
OR
B UC K
C EN
QU
AR
TW
R DR
Y M ANO
SUD LE
WY
DS
EL
SH
LIVINGSTON RD
W
500 year Floodplain
Y
LE
AG
RD
Potential Park and Ride Sites
ST
T
100 year Floodplain
D
TU
Figure 4-17:
Floodplain Zones
VRE Haymarket Extension
N
KI
MC
BR
E
AV
Potential Station Locations
YD
H
OO
T
LS
N
Legend
OL
OG
SC
E
SO
RD
28
HN
AV
R
FE
TO
N
PE
F
JE
NG
TE
C
ST
TS
T
L LI
LI
LN
Floodplains
500ft Buffer
PY
Waterbody
G RA N
Roads
T AVE
0
Source: FEMA
2,000
4,000
Feet
VE
IN
ES
S
A
MA
W
VE
TA
ER
NT
EE
T
AN
CE
ST
M
ST
CT
IA
S
ILL
EA
LA
W
DL
E
UG
O
C
O
O
D
IN
W
PR
AS
LS
D
PA N R
CH
T
ST
MANASSAS
T
E
AV
VI E
IR
TS
UR
YS
ED
ES
CH
GR
R ST
O
NC
FA
B
ZE
ST
W
VE
TA
E
LE
L
WA
E
AV
Y
T
IN
ST
AN
CEN TE
R ST
SB
ST
GS
MA
LE
TT
BA
GR
MO
E
LE
E LL R D
MAPLE ST
IRV IN
T
ST
AV E
RO
BNEL AVE
LN
CEN TE
T
TS
EG
E
AV
ES
Y
UR
AVE
PARK
CT
N
A
BE
D
AR
R
Y RD
W
OD
RD
ET
SO
RE ET D
TAYLO
RS
AB
BE A UR EG A RD
AL L
BALLS FO
RD RD
E
AV
PE
N EW
M
DR
IA
LL
AS
WI
ILL
STO
RN
Z IMBR O A
ST
ALMOND
CE
NO
SV
KE
D
ER
S
T
AR
U
ST
AR
SUD LE
ST
VE
D
IN
VI NT H IL L R D
VINT HILL RD
GA
BL
R
LE Y
PR
1
M AN A S
U
ST
Wellington
Road Site
DR
Y
66
SU D
Y
ERATE TR
ON
GT
NELSO N L N NEL
PAR
K
NN CT
G
THO N
D
RD
H
LEE
T
PY
SR
IN
VL
WY
PLA
DS
I AM
RK
WE
N VALLEY
DE
H
LEE
Y
CT
ROBIN LY
ILL
Williams Site
FRE EDO M CENTER
EW
FO
LEXINGTO
HAYD EN
RD
RD
I NC
E
FIV
WY
LEE
HW Y
EH
Y LE
WY
29
H
LEE
D
CI
EM
EN
15
H
LEE
H
LEE
RL
AN
COCKR
EH
HL
234
PR
2
L HWY
GA
B
A RD
AR SH AL
HA Z
IN
GLADSTONE ST
MERIT CT
LN
Sudley Manor
Site 1
SH
WA
EW O
OD CT
WINTERWO
CON FED
T
E
AV
T
TS
ET
LD G
JOHN M
OS
ST
W
LE
Vulcan Quarry Site
CT
OD
Sudley Manor
Site 2
SK
LON GST
Y RD
CT
T
T
DR
RI X
PY
RT H
LE S
NC
CH
I AM
SW O
V IL
A S HE
BO N D
DR
GO
URY
A
D AM
RA
B
W O OD
ST
I
R
TA
CT
SWEE TB RIAR
OS
E
AV E
R
TE D
YGA
CT
FIN
RUF
TON
R
ASH
A MB
R
SUD LE
D
SUN N
RO
ILL
R
LE Y
ST
SU D
RD
EWEL L
SUDLEY
DR
CR
CT
EW
B R AN
2
DR
ST
N
EAR LY
RO
E L DR
HU
ES
SE
G
R
SD
PINEY
LI
HA
CT
OO
D
E
D
ARTO ST
DIGGE
CLA
OU R R D
LE
HY
G TON R
RD
OL
D
M AN
KS
HY
S RD
E
LE
HY
WEL LIN
ROLLING RD
CT
RK T
ON
LI N
AW
CG R
R
WA
Y
EL
S
E
LE
E WA Y CE NTE R DR
WEEMS RD
IB
Y
B RA NCH DR
SIDE
MERCURY AV
HW
RD
HW
TO N
N EW
CT
TE
R
RO
JAM
Y
HW
ER
E
LE
LING
DR
ON
RH
T
GA
Y
WEL
HY
NE
DI S
L LE
E
LE
Y
R
GILLIS WAY
OS
PL
H O AC
M AN A
Y
PL
E S C O VE
RD
HY
HW
HY
S TO
MA
E
LE
Gainesville
Site 1
E
LE
HY
D
ES
ILL
EV
BLE IGHT DR
DR
AUL
S AI N
TP
RI
TA
G
C AN
Y GR
ASH B
WALNUT PARK LN
JEFFERSON ST
MADIS ON ST
FAY ETT E ST
HE
TW
E
O VE
LL S
T
LP
S O N HW Y
ADI
ES M
JAM
Y
HW
ON
DIS
MA
ES
JAM
HY
ON
DIS
HW
ES
MA
AL L
E
LE
RNE
L
Gainesville Site 2
E
LE
E
LE
C
O
SC
ITY B
C OT E BL
LR
PL
HW
H AL
ALE
E
LE
Dominion
Station Site
E
LIM
PO N D
A
Y
ON
JAM
DR
HE
E BL
C OT
TH
RS
IVE
UN
U NT
SH
PRINCE WILLIAM PKWY
NT
R FD
IC
D
IN
SD
R
RIFIE
R
EH
AR
WILL IA M PY
AG
NM
AY
M
S EY M
TE
ED
I NC
F ORD DR
M ER
PINEY B
HER I T
W
H
JOH
L
W HA
DE
PR
A N CH LN
TR
AP
S SING D R
PR
AT
W ELLIN G
L DR
L
R AS S
NO
AN
RD
LL IAM PK WY
TH
W
CRO
GG
RR
NK
N
DO
TO
PRINC E WI
EA
GA
N IN
TUR
ET
A L N U T H IL
NP
WAY
HULFISH
RD
L
HI L
RS
Florida Rock
Site
RD
VO
DA
R ED H O U S E
WY
CL
SOM
E
VE
SO
VE
CUSHING
E
TR
EY
MA
GR O
G
PA
PIN RD
B
C AR
CT
YM
HA
A
RK
DR
RD
NEPTU N E
ET
A
OLD CAROLIN
VENUS CT
15
FN
P R I NC E
E
LE
G
AF
AN
EL
CATH AR
K EY CL U
LN
Haymarket Site 1
N
DL
FORBES PL
N LP
EG
E N D DR
I LLS D R
66
GAP WAY
J OC
BE R
A R T HU R H
L
N ST
NE W
R L W IT TON C L
PL
G H AM
EY
COLLIN
LP
ST
Y
R
U
JAN SB
M AC
ON G
R OV
E LN
AN LN
CART ERWO OD DR
WAS HING
TO
Haymarket
Site 2
S ST
66
LL HWY
HEATHC OTE BL
AVALON ISLE WAY
JOR D
T CL
CHARLE
JOH N MARSHA
RS
RD
WAY
SKIP TON
ABB E
H
T
TI
OC
RE C
AN
DAN EH U
IN
AY
I
HC O T R E D R
E BL
SH E
R
AM W
SH
GH
HEAT
NN
EM O
SLAT
PE
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville - Haymarket
PZ
E
AG
L IN
29
TO
N
LL
RD
CH L N
KE
NO
RK
CENTREVIL L
E RD
SH
R
ALLWO
OD
CT
RY
ST
RY
ER
QU
AR
CH
OW
ST
ST
HI
LL
EY
PI
EN
TS
D
CK
ET
T
T LN
D
T
AN
DR
RD
BY
LN
BR
RT
BA
R
PL
DR
N
HO O
ST
E
IR
DR
CL
OV
ER
BE
R DR
FOS TE
D
ILL
SV
EL
W
D EA N
GODWIN DR
ER
RD
GT
ON
LIN
GAINSFORD CT
MATH IS AVE
R
LIBERTY ST
BU R N
PORT NER AVE
DY S
PEAB O
CT
MAL LO W
T ST
ER N
U
RD
BA
NN
ER
BU T
T
WO
O D DR
RD
E
AV
IN
TOWN LN
1
RD
IL LE
MA
LN
NE R
TRE
V
G
OR
B UC K
Y
LE
AG
RD
C EN
QU
AR
TW
R DR
Y M ANO
SUD LE
WY
DS
EL
SH
LIVINGSTON RD
W
ST
T
D
TU
Figure 4-18:
Wetland Type
PY
VRE Haymarket Extension
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Potential Park and Ride Sites
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
500ft Buffer
Freshwater Pond
Waterbody
Other
Wetlands
G RA N
Roads
T AVE
0
Source: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov
N
KI
MC
BR
E
AV
Potential Station Locations
YD
H
OO
T
LS
N
Legend
OL
OG
SC
E
SO
RD
28
HN
AV
R
FE
TO
N
PE
F
JE
NG
TE
C
ST
TS
T
L LI
LI
LN
2,000
4,000
Feet
VE
IN
ES
S
A
MA
W
VE
TA
ER
NT
EE
T
AN
CE
ST
M
ST
CT
IA
S
ILL
EA
LA
W
DL
E
UG
O
C
O
O
D
IN
W
PR
AS
LS
D
PA N R
CH
T
ST
MANASSAS
T
E
AV
VI E
IR
TS
UR
YS
ED
ES
CH
GR
R ST
O
NC
FA
B
ZE
ST
W
VE
TA
E
LE
L
WA
E
AV
Y
T
IN
ST
AN
CEN TE
R ST
SB
ST
GS
MA
LE
TT
BA
GR
MO
E
LE
E LL R D
MAPLE ST
IRV IN
T
ST
AV E
RO
BNEL AVE
LN
CEN TE
T
TS
EG
E
AV
ES
Y
UR
AVE
PARK
CT
N
A
BE
D
AR
R
Y RD
W
OD
RD
ET
SO
RE ET D
TAYLO
RS
AB
BE A UR EG A RD
AL L
BALLS FO
RD RD
E
AV
PE
N EW
M
D
DR
IA
LL
ER
AS
WI
ILL
STO
RN
Z IMBR O A
ST
ALMOND
CE
NO
SV
KE
S
T
AR
U
ST
AR
SUD LE
ST
VE
D
IN
VI NT H IL L R D
VINT HILL RD
GA
BL
R
LE Y
PR
1
M AN A S
U
ST
Wellington
Road Site
DR
Y
66
SU D
Y
ERATE TR
ON
GT
NELSO N L N NEL
PAR
K
NN CT
G
THO N
D
RD
H
LEE
T
PY
SR
IN
VL
WY
PLA
DS
I AM
RK
WE
N VALLEY
DE
H
LEE
Y
CT
ROBIN LY
ILL
Williams Site
FRE EDO M CENTER
EW
FO
LEXINGTO
HAYD EN
RD
RD
I NC
E
FIV
WY
LEE
HW Y
EH
Y LE
WY
29
H
LEE
D
CI
EM
EN
15
H
LEE
H
LEE
RL
AN
COCKR
EH
HL
234
PR
2
L HWY
GA
B
A RD
AR SH AL
HA Z
IN
GLADSTONE ST
MERIT CT
LN
Sudley Manor
Site 1
SH
WA
EW O
OD CT
WINTERWO
CON FED
T
E
AV
T
TS
ET
LD G
JOHN M
OS
ST
W
LE
Vulcan Quarry Site
CT
OD
Sudley Manor
Site 2
SK
LON GST
Y RD
CT
T
T
DR
RI X
PY
RT H
LE S
NC
CH
I AM
SW O
V IL
A S HE
BO N D
DR
GO
URY
A
D AM
RA
B
W O OD
ST
I
R
TA
CT
SWEE TB RIAR
OS
E
AV E
R
TE D
YGA
CT
FIN
RUF
TON
R
ASH
A MB
R
SUD LE
D
SUN N
RO
ILL
R
LE Y
ST
SU D
RD
EWEL L
SUDLEY
DR
CR
CT
EW
B R AN
2
DR
ST
N
EAR LY
RO
E L DR
HU
ES
SE
G
R
SD
PINEY
LI
HA
CT
OO
D
E
D
ARTO ST
DIGGE
CLA
OU R R D
LE
HY
G TON R
RD
OL
D
M AN
KS
HY
S RD
E
LE
HY
WEL LIN
ROLLING RD
CT
RK T
ON
LI N
AW
CG R
R
WA
Y
EL
S
E
LE
E WA Y CE NTE R DR
WEEMS RD
IB
Y
B RA NCH DR
SIDE
MERCURY AV
HW
RD
HW
TO N
N EW
CT
TE
R
RO
JAM
Y
HW
ER
E
LE
LING
DR
ON
RH
T
GA
Y
WEL
HY
NE
DI S
L LE
E
LE
Y
R
GILLIS WAY
OS
PL
H O AC
M AN A
Y
PL
E S C O VE
RD
HY
HW
HY
S TO
MA
E
LE
Gainesville
Site 1
E
LE
HY
D
ES
ILL
EV
BLE IGHT DR
DR
AUL
S AI N
TP
RI
TA
G
C AN
Y GR
ASH B
WALNUT PARK LN
JEFFERSON ST
MADIS ON ST
FAY ETT E ST
HE
TW
E
O VE
LL S
T
LP
S O N HW Y
ADI
ES M
JAM
Y
HW
ON
DIS
MA
ES
JAM
HY
ON
DIS
HW
ES
MA
AL L
E
LE
RNE
L
Gainesville Site 2
E
LE
E
LE
C
O
SC
ITY B
C OT E BL
LR
PL
HW
H AL
ALE
E
LE
Dominion
Station Site
E
LIM
PO N D
A
Y
ON
JAM
DR
HE
E BL
C OT
TH
RS
IVE
UN
U NT
SH
PRINCE WILLIAM PKWY
NT
R FD
IC
D
IN
SD
R
RIFIE
R
EH
AR
WILL IA M PY
AG
NM
AY
M
S EY M
TE
ED
I NC
F ORD DR
M ER
PINEY B
HER I T
W
H
JOH
L
W HA
DE
PR
A N CH LN
TR
AP
S SING D R
PR
AT
W ELLIN G
L DR
L
R AS S
NO
AN
RD
LL IAM PK WY
TH
W
CRO
GG
RR
NK
N
DO
TO
PRINC E WI
EA
GA
N IN
TUR
ET
A L N U T H IL
NP
WAY
HULFISH
RD
L
HI L
RS
Florida Rock
Site
RD
VO
DA
R ED H O U S E
WY
CL
SOM
E
VE
SO
VE
CUSHING
E
TR
EY
MA
GR O
G
PA
PIN RD
B
C AR
CT
YM
HA
A
RK
DR
RD
NEPTU N E
ET
A
OLD CAROLIN
VENUS CT
15
FN
P R I NC E
E
LE
G
AF
AN
EL
CATH AR
K EY CL U
LN
Haymarket Site 1
N
DL
FORBES PL
N LP
EG
E N D DR
I LLS D R
66
GAP WAY
J OC
BE R
A R T HU R H
L
N ST
NE W
R L W IT TON C L
PL
G H AM
EY
COLLIN
LP
ST
Y
R
U
JAN SB
M AC
ON G
R OV
E LN
AN LN
CART ERWO OD DR
WAS HING
TO
Haymarket
Site 2
S ST
66
LL HWY
HEATHC OTE BL
AVALON ISLE WAY
JOR D
T CL
CHARLE
JOH N MARSHA
RS
RD
WAY
SKIP TON
ABB E
H
T
TI
OC
RE C
AN
DAN EH U
IN
AY
I
HC O T R E D R
E BL
SH E
R
AM W
SH
GH
HEAT
NN
EM O
SLAT
PE
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville - Haymarket
PZ
E
AG
CH L N
GAINSFORD CT
B R AN
PINEY
E RD
CENTREVIL L
QU
AR
CH
RY
ER
RD
RY
ST
MATH IS AVE
ST
EWEL L
R
QU
AR
LIBERTY ST
RK
SH
R
ALLWO
OD
CT
ST
OW
ST
IN
HI
LL
EY
PI
EN
TS
D
CK
ET
T
T LN
D
T
AN
DR
RD
BY
LN
BR
RT
BA
R
PL
DR
N
HO O
E
ST
CL
OV
ER
IR
DR
G
E
AV
BE
R DR
FOS TE
D
ER
ILL
SV
KE
NO
D EA N
GODWIN DR
PORT NER AVE
EAR LY
DY S
E L DR
PEAB O
CT
M AN
R
SIDE
BU R N
ST
S RD
DIGGE
ROLLING RD
BU T
T
ER
NN
BA
N EW
O D DR
WO
RD
CT
ES
CR
R DR
Y M ANO
SUD LE
WY
DS
EL
GT
ON
MA
LN
TOWN LN
1
RD
LIN
Y
LE
AG
OR
NE R
EL
D
TU
B UC K
W
PE
RD
RD
ST
ST
T
IL LE
W
EE
IN
TS
N
KI
MC
BR
Figure 4-19:
Hazardous Material Sites
Potentail Hazardous Material
& Contaminated Sites
(see table for listing)
S
M
DR
IA
LL
PY
G RA N
500ft Buffer
Waterbody
Roads
0
T AVE
ILL
D
ER
M AN A S
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency
2,000
4,000
Feet
VE
MA
OO
T
LS
A
ST
ES
VE
TA
YD
H
E
E
AV
OL
OG
SC
AV
N
28
HN
LN
SO
LI
O
NC
R
FE
1
Y
W
AN
ER
NT
F
JE
2
VI E
IR
T
CH
ED
ST
TS
CE
B
ZE
IN
ES
GR
UR
ST
M
ST
CT
IA
S
ILL
EA
LA
W
DL
E
UG
O
C
O
O
D
IN
W
PR
AS
3
TE
C
W
VE
TA
R ST
T
E LL R D
ST
AN
E
LE
E
AV
CH
E
MANASSAS
AV
ST
E
LE
LS
4
CEN TE
R ST
Y
L
WA
COCKR
CEN TE
MA
LE
TT
BA
GR
CT
SB
ST
FA
T
ST
ET
MO
AVE
PARK
TRE
V
TS
Y
RD
C EN
ES
OD
AL L
LIVINGSTON RD
W
AB
N EW
Potential Station Locations
PE
STO
RN
Z IMBR O A
ST
ALMOND
GA
N
RO
BNEL AVE
LN
ST
VE
Legend
VRE Haymarket Extension
AS
WI
NO
VINT HILL RD
SV
KE
ERATE TR
SO
2
Potential Park and Ride Sites
1
VI NT H IL L R D
CON FED
NELSO N L N NEL
PAR
K
NN CT
Y
D
Y
R
LE Y
H
LEE
66
SU D
WY
29
H
LEE
Y
WY
CE
H
LEE
H
LEE
EH
Y LE
IN
HW Y
H
LEE
PR
15
LEE
2
L HWY
T
DR
AR SH AL
PLA
DS
RD
JOHN M
CT
ROBIN LY
RD
D
CI
IN
VL
TO
N
OD CT
WINTERWO
RL
AN
MERIT CT
NG
GA
BL
N VALLEY
DE
L LI
CT
D
WE
BO N D
SR
LEXINGTO
FRE EDO M CENTER
12
RK
PY
FO
WY
I AM
E
FIV
EN
ILL
5
8
9
11 10
EW O
ST
EM
Williams Site
OS
OD
EH
HL
A RD
HAYD EN
RD
EW
T
LN
Wellington Road Site
RD
I NC
T
NC
Vulcan Quarry Site
B
PR
LE S
13 Branscome Paving Company
25 Larry F Terry SR T/A Bull Run Exxon
14 Eltex Chemical & Supply Co
26 Atlantic Research Corporation
15 Graphic Services Inc
27 Target Store #1873
16 Treasure Chest Advertising
28 Sunoco Service Station
17 Culbertson Co of Virginia
29 Suburban Propane Fleet Maint
SUD LE
LON GST
RE ET D
18 Prince William County - Balls Y R D
30 Gainesville Exxon
R
T
S
19 Randolph Ridge Industrial Park
31
Racetrac
#312
S
U
D LE Y R
T
E
R
D
AV
T
UA
N
ST
20 Chemung Contracting Corporation
32 Herndon
Lumber
& Millwork Inc
TO
TAYLO
NG
R ST
HI
S
E
HA Z Incorporated
V
21 Betco Block And Products
33
Annandale
Millwork
Corporation
E
WA
A
AV
RT
D
MA
UA
ST
AR
22 Superior Paving Corp
34 Hard RockREGConcrete
Limited LiabilityPLE
Co.
ST
GLADSTONE ST
IRV IN
AU
E
G
B
ST
23 CRuppert
Landscaping Co Inc
T
K
BE A UR EG A RD
M AS Northern Virginia Co Op
AV E
DA24
ST
GO
Sudley Manor
Site 2
Sudley Manor
Site 1
234
V IL
A S HE
W
LE
PY
6
7
ARTO ST
RA
DR
R
TA
URY
ST
B
W O OD
SWEE TB RIAR
AV E
R
TE D
YGA
CT
FIN
RUF
TON
MAL LO W
KS
SE
TW
DR
L
LR
D Crane Co
Morrow
Mobil Oil Corp
HU
ON
TownRCleaner
DR
Lockheed Martin Tactical Def Sys
BAE
RD
SUDLEY Jackson High
LE Y
Stonewall
RD
SU D
Vulcan Materials Company
Apac Manassas And Apac Occoquan
Virginia Concrete Company Incorporated
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc
OS Inc
Apac Virginia
EC
T
Williams Enterprises
Incorporated
SUN N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
29
D
LI
HA
T ST
CT
TE
R
RO
LI N
OO
D
E
HY
TO
N
R
SH
L IN
ER N
U
CT
RK T
ON
CLA
WA
Y
EL
S
OL
D
G TON R
WEEMS RD
IB
Y
RD
GILLIS WAY
OS
PL
H O AC
M AN A
MERCURY AV
ILL
EV
BLE IGHT DR
DR
AUL
S AI N
TP
RI
TA
G
C AN
Y GR
ASH B
WALNUT PARK LN
JEFFERSON ST
MADIS ON ST
FAY ETT E ST
HE
TW
E
O VE
LL S
T
LP
S O N HW Y
ADI
ES M
JAM
Y
HW
ON
DIS
MA
ES
JAM
HY
ON
DIS
MA
ES
JAM
Y
HW
ON
DI S
MA
ES
JAM
30
RI X
BALLS FO
RD RD
HW
WEL LIN
DR
31
27 GATE WAY CENT
NE
LE
HY
ET
LD G
R
RD
L IN GT ON B RANCH DR
S TO
E
LE
ASH
DR
L
ER
WE L
E
LIM
RH
21
DR
ER
L LE
20
HY
E
LE
Gainesville
Site 1
HY
26
23
22
25
24
I
O RTH
ITY B
E
LE
A MB
R
RS
IVE
UN
DR
R
OU R R D
19
Dominion
Station Site
Gainesville Site 2
D
AW
Y
E
LE
HY
LR
GR
HW
E
LE
H AL
PL
E S C O VE
RD
A
E
LE
29 28
Y
E
LE
RNE
U NT
HW
AY
O
SC
HE
E BL
C OT
TH
ON
PL
D ALE
AR F
EH
AL L
PRINCE WILLIAM PKWY
AG
SH
WILL IA M PY
NT
T
RIFIE
PINEY B
HER I T
W
SD
L DR
H
C OT E BL
C
A
CH
I AM
F ORD DR
M ER
A N CH LN
AR
L
RO
ILL
TH
W
CT
EW
L
HI L
G
13
I NC
IC
D
IN
R
15
14
PR
TR
AP
MC
SW
W ELLIN G
S SING D R
WH
DE
17
18
CRO
S EY M
SD
R
LL IAM PK WY
ET
R AS S
WY
RS
GG
PR
TE
ED
PRINC E WI
NM
GA
NO
AN
RD
Florida Rock
Site
RD
JOH
PO N D
P R I NC E
L
WAY
HULFISH
RD
RR
NK
N
DO
TO
CUSHING
NP
R ED H O U S E
N IN
TUR
C AR
SO
VE
16
CL
SOM
E
VE
DR
RD
A
T
CT
YM
HA
E
RK
A
OLD CAROLIN
NEPTU N E
EY
MA
GR O
PA
N
VO
DA
B
G
VENUS CT
15
FN
A L N U T H IL
EA
32
AF
DL
E
TR
Haymarket Site 1
N
LA
GE
PIN RD
K EY CL U
LN
34
FORBES PL
N LP
EG
E N D DR
I LLS D R
66
GAP WAY
J OC
CATH AR
33
BE R
A R T HU R H
L
N ST
NE W
R L W IT TON C L
PL
G H AM
EY
COLLIN
LP
ST
Y
R
U
JAN SB
M AC
ON G
R OV
E LN
AN LN
CART ERWO OD DR
WAS HING
TO
Haymarket
Site 2
S ST
66
LL HWY
HEATHC OTE BL
AVALON ISLE WAY
JOR D
T CL
CHARLE
JOH N MARSHA
RS
RD
WAY
SKIP TON
ABB E
H
T
TI
OC
RE C
AN
DAN EH U
IN
AY
I
HC O T R E D R
E BL
SH E
R
AM W
SH
GH
HEAT
NN
EM O
SLAT
PE
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville - Haymarket
4.3
Station Location Recommendations
The scoring referenced in Section 4.2 is summarized in Table 4-1. This summary
table shows the rating each site received for each of the criterion in the
evaluation framework. Scoring ranges from (1) one to (5) five, with (1) one
indicating that the site does not perform well relative to the criterion and (5) five
indicating that the site does perform well relative to the criterion (the evaluation
framework for comparing sites is described in greater detail in Appendix D2).
This evaluation 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 two 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\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
80
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
5
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
Chapter 4: Haymarket, Gainesville,
and Sudley/Innovation. Overnight
Existing NS B Line
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.
5.1
Corridor Conditions
Between Manassas Junction (MP B0) and Haymarket (MP B11), the NS B Line
corridor has a single main line track. The right-of-way varies, but is generally 60
to 66 feet wide throughout the corridor. There are 15 at-grade crossings, 11
industrial tracks, a storage track at Manassas Junction, two small yards at Vulcan
Materials and University Boulevard, and a runaround track between Lee
Highway (US 29) and MP B9 located along the 11-mile segment from Manassas
Junction to Haymarket.
5.2
Corridor Improvements
The Commonwealth of Virginia has funded several improvements along the NS
B Line. These improvements include passing sidings and signalization updates.
These are either complete or near completion. The proposed improvements
would build on these NS B Line projects.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
81
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
5.2.1
NS B Line Improvements
NS plans to construct a new passing siding in Gainesville between Balls Ford
Road (MP B5.8) and Wellington Road (MP B8.2).
In 2008, NS installed a new wayside signal system along the B Line.
5.2.2
Proposed 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.
Appendix F shows the overall improvements to support the commuter rail
service. The NS siding between
Balls Ford Road and Wellington
Road will be constructed prior to
any potential improvements. The
continuous second main line track
would tie into this siding, thus
lessening the amount of new track
needed for the service expansion by
Existing grade crossing on NS B Line
approximately two miles. Turnouts
installed as part of the siding project
would need to be removed or incorporated as part of a universal crossover if
warranted.
Appendix G shows a proposed Schematic Layout of the proposed VRE
extension. The Schematic Layout shows the existing NS B Line within the ROW
corridor and the proposed VRE second main line track.
5.3
Design Criteria
As part of the design development process, a basis for design to incorporate the
proposed commuter rail service to Gainesville-Haymarket into the NS B Line
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
82
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
corridor was established. This section provides a summary of the key design
criteria that were used to establish the engineering feasibility and infrastructure
cost of the service. The design criteria were used in the development of the
conceptual design (5 to 10%) supporting the Alternatives Analysis (AA) and
Feasibility Study (FS) processes. Should the proposed commuter rail service
project be advanced for further consideration and analysis, theses design criteria
along with the infrastructure cost estimates established as part of the AA and FS
will be the basis of the future project development.
Design of the railroad infrastructure shall conform to the requirements of the
following standards, codes, and guidelines as applicable:
h
h
h
h
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association
(AREMA), 2009 Manual for Railway Engineering Volumes 1 – 4 and
Portfolio of Trackwork Plans.
NS’s Criteria & Guidelines for Main Tracks and Detours
NS’s memorandum regarding Passenger Station Requirements on NSowned corridors.
NS’s Standard Specifications for Materials and Construction and the Special
Provisions.
The following key design criteria were established as the basis for the current
Conceptual (5 – 10%) Design development. The complete Project Corridor
Design Criteria is located is Appendix H.
h
h
h
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
83
Design Standard: AREMA recommended practices except where Norfolk
Southern standards supersede.
Design Typical Section: Minimum of 12 inches of ballast under ties and 12
inches of sub-ballast (Attachment No. 01 in Appendix H).
Ruling Grade: No change to ruling grade over the section of the NS B Line
from Manassas (MP B0.0) to Haymarket (MP B11).
¾ At Stations: Inter-track fences will be provided at all commuter rail
stations between the two main line tracks running at least the length of
the platforms. The top of this fence will be no higher than 3’ 6” above
the Top of Rail.
Track Centers: Main Line track centers are as follows:
¾ Outside of Station Areas: In tangent sections of alignment, the track
centers will be 14 feet as shown on NS Plan 1-19 (Attachment No. 01 in
Appendix H).
¾ Curved Alignment: These minimum clearances shall be increased along
the curved sections of track by 3.5 inches per inch of the super elevation
difference between tracks, plus 1.5 inches per degree of curvature.
Horizontal Curves: Designs based on chord definition of curvature. Spiral
length shall be based on both freight and passenger operating speeds.
Vertical Curves: Lengths based on freight and passenger speed as in
AFREMA Recommended Practice Chapter 5, Section 3.6.
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
84
Vertical/horizontal clearance: Per Norfolk Southern Plan 7-1 Clearance for
Tracks Located on Industrial Property (Attachment No. 02 in Appendix H).
Track Construction: Track will be Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) with
wood ties. All mainline tracks will be used for both freight and commuter
rail operations.
Main Line Turnouts: No. 20 turnouts with 39’ curved switch points or No.
15 turnouts with 30’ switch points depending on the selected design speed.
The assumed diverge/merge maximum operating speed through the
turnouts is 45 mph for passenger trains and 30 mph for freight trains
(assuming Eu = 3” for passenger trains and Eu = 1.0” for freights) for No.
20 turnouts and 30 mph passenger and 15 mph freight for No. 16
equilateral turnouts.
¾ For two turnouts in the same track diverging in opposite directions,
thereby creating a reverse curve situation, it will be necessary to provide
preferably 100 feet but a minimum of 70 feet between the points of
switches of the two turnouts.
¾ Main track turnouts must not be located on horizontal curves or spirals
and must be placed at least a 100’ beyond the end of the spiral.
¾ Main track turnouts shall not be located on vertical curves.
Universal Crossovers: The most likely locations for universal crossovers
will be at the southern end of the B Line in the vicinity of Manassas Junction
and between the stations as determined by an operational analysis.
Industrial/Storage Turnouts/Sidings: No. 10 turnouts or larger will be
used on main tracks for all industrial/storage sidings. Industrial/storage
sidings will be entirely separate from the mainline track.
Commuter Rail Station Platforms: The commuter rail platform design
criteria are as follows:
¾ All platforms will be low level boarding.
¾ Height of platform will not exceed 8 inches above top of rail.
¾ Horizontal clearance from the center line of the main line track to the
front face of the platform will be 5 ft – 2 inches.
¾ The platforms will be 650 feet in length.
¾ The desirable width of side platforms is 16 feet while a minimum of 12
feet may be considered if site conditions dictate. All access between
platforms will be accommodated using a cross-track pedestrian bridge or
tunnel.
¾ Canopies shall be located a minimum of 9 feet from the center of track
(tangent). Side clearance shall be increased by 1.5 inches per degree of
curvature.
¾ Canopies shall have gutters on the track side or be sloped away from the
track.
Signal System: The recently installed signal system through this corridor
will be modified to accommodate the second main line track.
Crossing Protection: All at-grade crossings will be protected as they are on
the existing track. Modifications related to the VRE expansion will be
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
h
h
5.4
limited to relocating signal equipment and upgrading the existing
operations system for the additional track.
Design Speed: The current maximum operating speed along the B Line
between Manassas Junction and MP 11.0 for freight traffic ranges from 15 to
45 MPH. The 15 MPH segment is located at Manassas Junction between MP
B0 and MP B1. The track speed increases to 25 MPH between MP B1 and
B2.5. Throughout the remainder of the corridor, the track speed is 45 MPH
except for one area where curves restrict the speed to 35 MPH (MP B3.2 to
B4.9) and 40 MPH between MP B8.5 and B9.3. Based on the maximum
operating speeds permitted today, NS maintains the track to the Federal
Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Class 4 standards (60 MPH maximum
allowable operating speed for freight trains and 80 MPH for passenger
trains). NS is planning an increase to a 50 mile per hour (mph) operating
speed in the near future for freight operations, with some modifications to
the existing super-elevation. This planned increase in operating speed
would still be within FRA’s Class 4 requirements. The commuter rail design
speed of 60 mph will be compatible with Class 4 track.
Even with the planned increases in allowable operating speeds, track
geometry and operational analyses will determine the ultimate operating
speeds. The design geometry should be set for maximum FRA Class 4
speeds, 80 mph passenger and 60mph freight trains. The spiral lengths for
the higher speeds can be set when the second track is constructed, but the
super elevation should be built for today’s operating speeds. When NS or
VRE implements speed increases, then the super elevation can easily be set
for the higher speeds since the proper length spirals will already be inplace.
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:
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
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
85
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
h
One storage yard along the alignment near the end of the line.
Note: As noted in Section 3.4.5.1, it is possible to relocate portions of the existing
mainline track and accommodate two tracks within the existing right-of-way.
This option would require negotiations with Norfolk Southern and a more
detailed determination of the most appropriate places along the corridor to do
this. It also may require the addition of retaining walls and other structural
modifications in order to accommodate two tracks within the existing right-ofway.
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.
A typical section of the proposed rail corridor improvements is shown in Figure
5-1.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
86
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Figure 5-1
5.5
Other Infrastructure Needs
Other improvements include parking expansions as needed at the existing
Manassas Line stations to accommodate the increase in ridership. There 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.
5.6
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. Physical impacts may exist along the B
Line where acquisition is necessary. Areas considered include: land use,
environmental justice communities, known historic and archaeological sites,
publicly owned parklands, surface waters, floodplains, wetlands, soils (focus on
prime and/or unique farmlands), and known hazardous/contaminated sites as
listed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
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 5-1 provides these calculations.
88
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Table 5-1: Linear Feet of Wetlands and Floodplains Identified Along the Rail
Line
Alignment
Manassas to
Haymarket
Manassas to
Gainesville
(to Route 29)
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
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.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
89
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
5.7
Train Storage Requirements
As previously discussed in Section 2.5, the existing Manassas Line service is
staged from an overnight storage facility located at Broad Run Station. This
facility, which will soon be expanded to include heavy maintenance and repair
functions, can store 62 units (one unit equals either one coach or one locomotive).
When the expansion project is complete, the yard will be capable of storing 67
units. The current Manassas Line service utilizes five sets of equipment (four six
car trains and one eight car train), totaling 37 units.
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.
5.7.1
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). Ideally, any storage facility that is
constructed would have expansion capabilities for the future. The train storage
facility options include the following:
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
90
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
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
between overnight storage at Broad Run Yard and the start of revenue
service in the Gainesville-Haymarket area.
5.7.2
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.
Figure 5-2 conceptually illustrates the single track facility.
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. Figure 5-2 conceptually illustrates a
typical layout of the seven track facility.
Potential Sites for a Storage Yard
The siting of a storage yard will be challenging. There are several factors to
consider including the size of the facility, the potential operational impacts on
the NS 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.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
91
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
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 (as discussed in Chapter 4) and/or a
storage yard.
End of Line Sites:
h Haymarket Site 1
h Haymarket Site 2
Mid-Corridor Sites:
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
h
Of these potential sites, there are a few that present unique challenges in
accommodating storage yards. Table 5-2 identifies the operational and
environmental/land use challenges associated with each potential site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
93
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Table 5-2 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)
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
94
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Table 5-2 Challenges Associated with Potential Storage Yard Sites Cont’d.
Potential Site
Miles from
Haymarket
Wellington Road
Miles from
Broad Run
Operational Challenges
Environmental/Land Use
Challenges
-Site close to existing Broad
Run Yard. Increased
deadhead miles.
-May impact minority/low-income
populations.
-May impact soils and wildlife
habitat.
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:
• Haymarket Site 2
• 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. Figure 5-3 shows the conceptual layout plan
for the storage yard at Haymarket Site 2. Figure 5-4 shows the conceptual layout
plan for the storage yard at the Dominion Station Site. For the Dominion Station
Site layout, if the storage yard is moved to the back side of the property, it is
likely that a station could also be located at this site.
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.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
95
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
98
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
6
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.
6.1
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. The
environmental review also demonstrates that Sudley/Innovation would be a
difficult location to site a station due to a significant number of wetland
resources in the vicinity of Sudley.
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. Terminating in Gainesville reduces
costs for the station development, land acquisition, and track construction.
6.2
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 6-1. The Phased Approach and Full Build-Out can be
implemented as constrained (within the overall system capacity constraint) or
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
99
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
unconstrained (assuming negotiations with CSX to overcome the 40 trains per
day maximum).
Table 6-1 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 Phase Approach Option. The second phase would be the Full Build-Out option to Haymarket.
6.3
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.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
100
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
h
h
h
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.
Since options with greater frequency yield the highest ridership numbers,
these options also yield the greatest revenue from fare collection.
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 (covered in Section 5.3).
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.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
101
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
102
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
7
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.
7.1
Funding Sources
Potential funding sources include:
h FTA grant through either the New Start or Small Starts programs
h Virginia Rail Enhancement Fund (REF) grant
h FTA or state earmarks (Federal earmarks would require compliance with
FTA program requirements)
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
103
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
Local jurisdiction funding
Dedicated funding sources such as local or state taxes
Partnering with private freight rail owner (NS)
Other private partners (developers/land owners financing of stations,
public-private partnerships and/or proffers)
Sale-Leaseback transactions
Developers/land owners financing of stations
Tax increment financing or other alternative financing techniques
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.
7.1.1
Federal Funding
Federal funding is generally considered to be the most stringent funding path.
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
has developed a process to evaluate applications received for funding. The
process, which has nine different areas of assessment, consists of two overriding
criteria: user benefits and cost effectiveness. Based on the nine areas of
evaluation, 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 GainesvilleHaymarket 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
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
104
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
or better. One disadvantage to a Small Starts application is that the federal share
is limited to $75 million of the total cost. In the New Starts Program, the federal
share can range up to 80 percent of the total cost.
There a few other limited federal funding programs that could potentially
provide a small portion of the funds needed. These programs include congestion
mitigation and air quality (CMAQ), grade crossing enhancements, and fixed
guideway modernization (a formula based program).
7.1.2
State Funding
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.
7.1.3
Local Funding/Other Funding Sources
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.
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
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
105
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
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
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.
7.2
Implementation Steps for Pursuit of
Federal Funding
There are many steps to implementing a new commuter rail service. These steps
include:
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
106
Develop the concept and determine feasibility (Complete)
Conduct an Alternatives Analysis (Complete)
Complete an Environmental Assessment (EA); select the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA); and incorporate into Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) (Underway)
Negotiate Railroad Agreements, Insurance Program, and Operating
Contract with NS and CSX (if needed)
Enlist public involvement (Underway)
Develop the Financial Plan
Preliminary Engineering
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
7.3
Selection of Rolling Stock
Selection of zones and fare structure
Station locations and design
Acquisition of right-of-way
Final Design
Full-Funding Grant Agreement with FTA
Bidding process
Construction and procurement
Testing and start-up
Environmental Review
Regardless of funding sources, the Gainesville-Haymarket extension will need to
complete the state environmental review process. The federal environmental
review process will also need to be addressed if a federal permit or action is
required and/or federal funds are sought. In both cases, preliminary
engineering (30% plan development) would need to be undertaken to support
the completion of the environmental review for the LPA.
7.3.1
State Review
Under the state review process, a joint permit application from the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (VDEQ) would be required for any land disturbing activities affecting
waters along the corridor. Applying for a joint permit application has several
requirements that include establishing the limits of jurisdictional wetlands with
the USACE, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, and an element of public involvement. This is required under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. It should be noted that if the project goes through the
NEPA process, permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would
apply. There are provisions that allow the Section 404 process and NEPA to be
integrated.
The Commonwealth of Virginia also requires an assessment of potential
environmental impacts for state funded projects. This evaluation is coordinated
through the (VDEQ). Based on the Virginia Code Sections 10.1-1188 et seq., state
agencies are required to prepare and submit environmental impact reports for
construction of facilities that cost $500,000 and land acquisitions for construction,
to include leases and expansions of facilities. Coordination with VDEQ would be
required determining if the proposed action meets the criteria established for
environmental impact reporting of state projects.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
107
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
7.3.2
Federal Review
If any Federal Permits or Actions are required, the project will follow the NEPA
process. Depending on activities planned, this could be in the form of a
Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or an Environmental Impact
Statement. Since any of the proposed Build Alternatives would share the track
with existing freight rail (NS), it is likely that both the FTA and Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) would be involved. Coordination with the FTA and FRA
would be required to determine the appropriate level of NEPA documentation.
7.4
Project Delivery Mechanisms
Design-build has become increasingly popular for the delivery of public sector
transportation projects. In this process, a project is designed to about the 30
percent level of completeness (preliminary engineering). The project then is
advertised for design-build. The selected contractor is responsible for
completing the design and constructing the project. The advantage of the
design-build process is time saved from inception to completion. The time
savings are assumed to result in cost savings since it takes less time to construct
the project. Design-Build is not for every project; the merits of this approach
would need to be carefully considered.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
108
Final Report (Feasibility Study)