Appendix A: Service Plans
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Appendix A (June 26, 2009)
EXISTING SERVICE PLAN (2008)
INBOUND
Ridership
Existing Percent of Counts
Total
Train No.
Equipment
Model
Capacity
VC Ratio
Consist
Set
Broad Run
Manassas
A
B
C
D
E
A
C
E
1069
29%
735
10%
5:05 AM
5:45 AM
6:15 AM
6:40 AM
7:20 AM
7:50 AM
2:45 PM
5:01 PM
625
17%
2356
31%
5:11 AM
5:51 AM
6:21 AM
6:47 AM
7:26 AM
7:56 AM
2:51 PM
5:16 PM
Union Station
L'Enfant Plaza
Daily Boardings (Actual)
Daily Boardings (Model)
322
324
326
328
330
332
336
338
SUB‐TOTAL
426
640
782
761
734
522
11
4
3880
11%
16%
20%
20%
19%
13%
0%
0%
100%
836
1256
1535
1494
1441
1025
22
8
7617
798
873
786
1089
798
798
786
798
53%
73%
99%
70%
92%
65%
1%
1%
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 8C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
Manassas Park
Burke Centre
Rolling Road
Backlick Road
733
20%
553
7%
5:16 AM
5:56 AM
6:26 AM
6:53 AM
7:31 AM
8:01 AM
2:56 PM
617
17%
1278
17%
5:28 AM
6:08 AM
6:38 AM
7:05 AM
7:43 AM
8:13 AM
3:08 PM
451
12%
1868
25%
5:33 AM
6:13 AM
6:43 AM
7:11 AM
7:48 AM
8:18 AM
142
4%
827
11%
5:40 AM
6:20 AM
6:50 AM
7:18 AM
7:55 AM
8:25 AM
0
0%
0
0%
5:52 AM
6:33 AM
7:03 AM
7:31 AM
8:08 AM
8:39 AM
3:30 PM
5:52 PM
Backlick Road
Rolling Road
Burke Centre
L'Enfant Plaza
Union Station
0
0%
0
0%
6:01 AM
6:43 AM
7:13 AM
7:41 AM
8:18 AM
8:48 AM
0
0%
0
0%
6:10 AM
6:53 AM
7:23 AM
7:49 AM
8:26 AM
8:58 AM
0
0%
0
0%
6:18 AM
7:00 AM
7:30 AM
7:55 AM
8:35 AM
9:05 AM
3:55 PM
6:25 PM
Manassas Park
Manassas
Broad Run
Alexandria Crystal City
TOTAL
3637
Train Miles
Layover
Trip
Layover
0.1
35
0.5
7617
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
OUTBOUND
Daily Alightings (Actual)
Daily Alightings (Model)
321
5
0%
325
125
3%
327
643
17%
329
830
21%
331
913
24%
333
776
20%
335
417
11%
337
155
4%
SUB‐TOTAL
3864
100%
TOTAL
7744
Crystal City Alexandria
0
798
786
798
786
1089
798
873
798
1%
16%
81%
106%
84%
97%
48%
19%
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 8C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
A
C
E
C
D
A
B
E
6:25 AM
1:15 PM
3:45 PM
4:25 PM
5:00 PM
5:30 PM
6:10 PM
6:50 PM
1:21 PM
3:51 PM
4:31 PM
5:06 PM
5:36 PM
6:16 PM
6:56 PM
1:26 PM
3:57 PM
4:37 PM
5:12 PM
5:42 PM
6:21 PM
7:01 PM
6:42 AM
1:33 PM
4:04 PM
4:44 PM
5:20 PM
5:49 PM
6:28 PM
7:08 PM
1:44 PM
4:15 PM
4:55 PM
5:32 PM
6:00 PM
6:39 PM
7:19 PM
1:51 PM
4:22 PM
5:02 PM
5:41 PM
6:07 PM
6:46 PM
7:26 PM
1:56 PM
4:27 PM
5:07 PM
5:46 PM
6:13 PM
6:52 PM
7:31 PM
0
2:11 PM
4:42 PM
5:22 PM
6:02 PM
6:28 PM
7:07 PM
7:46 PM
7:30 AM
2:19 PM
4:50 PM
5:30 PM
6:10 PM
6:36 PM
7:15 PM
7:54 PM
7:40 AM
2:28 PM
5:00 PM
5:39 PM
6:19 PM
6:45 PM
7:24 PM
8:03 PM
Totals
Total Daily
Annual Service Days
Total Annual Miles
7617
Source: VRE Train Consists Data Sheet September 2008
Source: VRE 2007 Passenger Survey Results
Train entering and exiting mid‐day storage
Train entering and exiting daily service
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submittal_6_19_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\A_Service_Plan.xls
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
560
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
5
566
250
141,500
Appendix A (June 26, 2009)
SPLIT‐SERVICE/CONSTRAINED (GAINESVILLE‐HAYMARKET TO DC AND BROAD RUN TO DC)
INBOUND
Existing Percent of Projected Count
Total
Count
Capacity
Daily Boardings (Model)
Train No.
Travel Time Btwn Stations
426
9%
513
640
13%
741
782
16%
912
761
17%
968
16%
912
734
15%
855
522
10%
570
4%
228
0%
1
4
0%
1
100%
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
SUB‐TOTAL
798
873
786
1089
1089
798
798
873
873
798
VC Ratio
64%
85%
116%
89%
84%
107%
71%
26%
0%
0%
Consist
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 8C
1L 8C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
Set
A
B
C
D
F
E
A
B
B
A
Haymarket
36
1%
Gainesville
6
0%
0:05
Sudley Manor
485
9%
0:08
5:30 AM
5:35 AM
5:43 AM
6:26 AM
6:31 AM
6:39 AM
7:05 AM
7:10 AM
7:18 AM
9:00 AM
4:30 PM
9:05 AM
4:35 PM
9:13 AM
4:43 PM
Broad Run
711
12%
0:08
5:05 AM
Manassas Park
425
7%
0:05
5:16 AM
5:56 AM
6:26 AM
6:52 AM
7:22 AM
7:31 AM
8:01 AM
9:26 AM
Burke Centre
900
16%
0:12
5:28 AM
6:08 AM
6:38 AM
7:04 AM
7:34 AM
7:43 AM
8:13 AM
9:38 AM
Rolling Road
1033
18%
0:05
5:33 AM
6:13 AM
6:43 AM
7:09 AM
7:39 AM
7:48 AM
8:18 AM
9:43 AM
Backlick Road
701
12%
0:07
5:40 AM
6:20 AM
6:50 AM
7:16 AM
7:46 AM
7:55 AM
8:25 AM
9:50 AM
Manassas
Broad Run
0:08
7:30 AM
8:12 AM
11:55 AM
4:50 PM
5:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:20 PM
6:40 PM
7:15 PM
7:55 PM
0:10
7:40 AM
5:10 PM
Manassas
1400
25%
0:06
5:11 AM
5:51 AM
6:21 AM
6:47 AM
7:17 AM
7:26 AM
7:56 AM
9:21 AM
4:51 PM
5:16 PM
Backlick Road
Rolling Road
Burke Centre
Manassas Park
0:11
0:07
0:05
0:15
6:15 AM
7:10 AM
7:49 AM
Alexandria
0
0%
0:13
5:53 AM
6:33 AM
7:03 AM
7:29 AM
7:59 AM
8:08 AM
8:38 AM
10:03 AM
5:27 PM
5:52 PM
Crystal City
0
0%
0:10
6:03 AM
6:43 AM
7:13 AM
7:39 AM
8:09 AM
8:18 AM
8:48 AM
10:13 AM
L'Enfant Plaza
0
0%
0:09
6:12 AM
6:52 AM
7:22 AM
7:48 AM
8:18 AM
8:27 AM
8:57 AM
10:22 AM
Union Station
0
0%
0:08
6:20 AM
7:00 AM
7:30 AM
7:56 AM
8:26 AM
8:35 AM
9:05 AM
10:30 AM
6:00 PM
6:25 PM
Sudley Manor
Gainesville
Haymarket
TOTAL
5697
Layover
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Train Miles
Trip
Layover
0.5
35
43
35
43
35
43
35
35
43
43
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
OUTBOUND
Union Station
Daily Alightings (Model)
Travel Time Btwn Stations
321
5
0%
323
325
327
643
17%
329
830
22%
331
333
913
24%
335
776
21%
337
417
11%
339
155
4%
SUB‐TOTAL
3739
100%
TOTAL
798
1%
1L 6C
798
786
81%
106%
1L 6C
1L 6C
1089
798
873
798
84%
97%
48%
19%
1L 8C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
A
B
B
A
E
C
D
F
B
A
6:25 AM
7:10 AM
10:50 AM
3:45 PM
4:25 PM
4:55 PM
5:15 PM
5:35 PM
6:10 PM
6:50 PM
L'Enfant Plaza
Crystal City
Alexandria
0:06
0:06
0:07
6:42 AM
7:29 AM
11:09 AM
4:04 PM
4:44 PM
5:14 PM
5:34 PM
5:54 PM
6:29 PM
7:09 PM
10:56 AM
3:51 PM
4:31 PM
5:01 PM
5:21 PM
5:41 PM
6:16 PM
6:56 PM
11:02 AM
3:57 PM
4:37 PM
5:07 PM
5:27 PM
5:47 PM
6:22 PM
7:02 PM
11:20 AM
4:15 PM
4:55 PM
5:25 PM
5:45 PM
6:05 PM
6:40 PM
7:20 PM
11:27 AM
4:22 PM
5:02 PM
5:32 PM
5:52 PM
6:12 PM
6:47 PM
7:27 PM
11:32 AM
4:27 PM
5:07 PM
5:37 PM
5:57 PM
6:17 PM
6:52 PM
7:32 PM
11:47 AM
4:42 PM
5:22 PM
5:52 PM
6:12 PM
6:32 PM
7:07 PM
7:47 PM
0:08
8:28 AM
12:11 PM
8:33 AM
12:16 PM
5:38 PM
5:46 PM
5:51 PM
6:28 PM
6:36 PM
6:41 PM
7:23 PM
7:31 PM
7:36 PM
6:10 PM
6:50 PM
8:05 PM
Totals
Total Daily
Annual Service Days
Total Annual Miles
Mileage
DC ‐ BR
DC ‐ H
Manassas ‐ Broad Run:
3
Haymarket ‐ Manassas:
11
11
3
Manassas ‐ DC:
32
32
32
43
35
SERVICE PLAN
Actual
IB Trains (AM, Mid‐Day, PM, Eve.):
OB Trains (AM, Mid‐Day, PM, Eve.):
G‐H
BR
G‐H
BR
3,1,1
4,0,1
1, 1, 3
1, 0, 4
EQUIPMENT NEEDS
Locomotives
Coaches
1 New Set F
10 New Set F ‐ 8; Set C ‐ 1; Set E ‐ 1
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submittal_6_19_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\A_Service_Plan.xls
35
43
43
35
43
35
43
35
43
35
5:00 PM
Train entering and exiting mid‐day storage
Train entering and exiting daily service
New Train Set
Additional Coaches Needed
TOTALS
0:05
8:20 AM
12:03 PM
3739
TRACK MILES
0:08
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
780
5
786.2
250
196,550
Appendix A (June 26, 2009)
SPLIT‐SERVICE CONSTRAINED (GAINESVILLE‐HAYMARKET TO DC AND BROAD RUN TO DC) PLUS RAIL SHUTTLE SERVICE (GAINESVILLE‐HAYMARKET TO ALEXANDRIA)
INBOUND
Existing Percent of Projected Counts
Total
Count
Capacity
Daily Boardings (Model)
Train No.
Travel Time Btwn Stations
426
5%
435
3%
261
640
9%
783
11%
957
782
11%
957
4%
348
761
11%
957
13%
1,131
734
10%
870
4%
348
522
7%
609
7%
609
2%
174
0.5%
44
0.25%
22
0.25%
22
0.25%
22
0.25%
22
0.25%
22
0.25%
22
11
0.25%
22
0.25%
22
0.25%
22
0.25%
22
0.25%
22
3865
100%
8,722
SUB‐TOTAL
798
393
873
873
786
393
1089
1089
798
393
798
798
393
393
393
393
393
393
393
393
873
393
393
393
393
VC Ratio
55%
66%
90%
110%
122%
89%
88%
104%
109%
89%
76%
76%
44%
11%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
2%
6%
6%
6%
6%
Consist
1L 6C
1L 3C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 3C
1L 8C
1L 8C
1L 6C
1L 3C
1L 6C
1L 6C
1L 3C
1L 3C
1L 3C
1L 3C
1L 3C
1L 3C
1L 3C
1L 3C
1L 6C
1L 3C
1L 3C
1L 3C
1L 3C
Set
A
S1
B
F
C
S2
D
G
E
S3
A
H
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
B
S3
S1
S2
S3
Haymarket
833
10%
Gainesville
321
4%
0:05
Sudley Manor
606
7%
0:08
5:07 AM
5:12 AM
5:20 AM
5:37 AM
5:42 AM
5:50 AM
Broad Run
766
9%
0:08
5:05 AM
5:35 AM
6:05 AM
6:07 AM
6:12 AM
6:20 AM
6:37 AM
6:42 AM
6:50 AM
7:07 AM
7:12 AM
7:20 AM
7:37 AM
8:07 AM
8:52 AM
9:37 AM
10:33 AM
11:18 AM
12:30 PM
1:33 PM
2:28 PM
7:42 AM
8:12 AM
8:57 AM
9:42 AM
10:38 AM
11:23 AM
12:35 PM
1:38 PM
2:33 PM
7:50 AM
8:20 AM
9:05 AM
9:50 AM
10:46 AM
11:31 AM
12:43 PM
1:46 PM
2:41 PM
3:03 PM
3:59 PM
4:59 PM
5:59 PM
3:08 PM
4:04 PM
5:04 PM
6:04 PM
3:16 PM
4:12 PM
5:12 PM
6:12 PM
Union Station
L'Enfant Plaza
6:35 AM
7:05 AM
7:35 AM
2:45 PM
Manassas
1400
16%
0:06
5:11 AM
5:26 AM
5:41 AM
5:56 AM
6:11 AM
6:26 AM
6:41 AM
6:56 AM
7:11 AM
7:26 AM
7:41 AM
7:56 AM
8:26 AM
9:11 AM
9:56 AM
10:52 AM
11:37 AM
12:49 PM
1:52 PM
2:47 PM
2:51 PM
3:22 PM
4:18 PM
5:18 PM
6:18 PM
Manassas Park
597
7%
0:05
5:16 AM
5:31 AM
5:46 AM
6:01 AM
6:16 AM
6:31 AM
6:46 AM
7:01 AM
7:16 AM
7:31 AM
7:46 AM
8:01 AM
8:31 AM
9:16 AM
10:01 AM
10:57 AM
11:42 AM
12:54 PM
1:57 PM
2:52 PM
2:56 PM
3:27 PM
4:23 PM
5:23 PM
6:23 PM
Burke Backlick Centre Rolling Road
Road
1505
1522
1150
17%
17%
13%
0:12
0:05
0:07
5:28 AM
5:33 AM
5:40 AM
5:43 AM
5:48 AM
5:55 AM
5:58 AM
6:03 AM
6:10 AM
6:13 AM
6:18 AM
6:25 AM
6:28 AM
6:33 AM
6:40 AM
6:43 AM
6:48 AM
6:55 AM
6:58 AM
7:03 AM
7:10 AM
7:13 AM
7:18 AM
7:25 AM
7:28 AM
7:33 AM
7:40 AM
7:43 AM
7:48 AM
7:55 AM
7:58 AM
8:03 AM
8:10 AM
8:13 AM
8:18 AM
8:25 AM
8:43 AM
8:48 AM
8:55 AM
9:28 AM
9:33 AM
9:40 AM
10:13 AM 10:18 AM 10:25 AM
11:09 AM 11:14 AM 11:21 AM
11:54 AM 11:59 AM 12:06 PM
1:06 PM
1:11 PM
1:18 PM
2:09 PM
2:14 PM
2:21 PM
3:04 PM
3:09 PM
3:16 PM
3:08 PM
3:13 PM
3:20 PM
3:39 PM
3:44 PM
3:51 PM
4:35 PM
4:40 PM
4:47 PM
5:35 PM
5:40 PM
5:47 PM
6:35 PM
6:40 PM
6:47 PM
Alexandria Crystal City
0
0
0%
0%
0:13
0:10
5:53 AM
6:03 AM
6:08 AM
6:23 AM
6:33 AM
6:38 AM
6:48 AM
6:53 AM
7:03 AM
7:08 AM
7:23 AM
7:33 AM
7:38 AM
7:48 AM
7:53 AM
8:03 AM
8:08 AM
8:23 AM
8:33 AM
8:38 AM
8:48 AM
9:08 AM
9:53 AM
10:38 AM
11:34 AM
12:19 PM
1:31 PM
2:34 PM
3:29 PM
3:33 PM
3:43 PM
4:04 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
L'Enfant Plaza
0
0%
0:09
6:12 AM
Union Station
0
0%
0:08
6:20 AM
6:42 AM
6:57 AM
7:12 AM
6:50 AM
7:05 AM
7:20 AM
7:42 AM
7:57 AM
8:12 AM
7:50 AM
8:05 AM
8:20 AM
8:42 AM
8:57 AM
8:50 AM
9:05 AM
3:52 PM
4:00 PM
TOTAL
8700
BR
Shuttle
BR
GH
BR
Shuttle
BR
GH
BR
Shuttle
BR
GH
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
BR
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Layover
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Train Miles
Trip
Layover
0.5
35
35
35
43
35
35
35
43
35
35
35
43
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
OUTBOUND
0:06
A
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
B
S3
S1
S2
S3
A
B
S1
C
F
D
S2
E
G
S3
H
0
TOTAL
0%
3865
Manassas Park
Manassas
Broad Run
0:08
7:30 AM
7:06 AM
8:06 AM
9:06 AM
10:06 AM
10:51 AM
11:36 AM
12:32 PM
1:17 PM
2:20 PM
2:29 PM
3:32 PM
4:27 PM
5:02 PM
5:20 PM
5:40 PM
5:58 PM
6:10 PM
6:20 PM
6:40 PM
6:58 PM
7:10 PM
7:20 PM
7:58 PM
8:10 PM
0:10
7:40 AM
Sudley Manor
Gainesville Haymarket
0:06
6:25 AM
1:15 PM
1:21 PM
1:27 PM
4:15 PM
4:35 PM
4:21 PM
4:41 PM
4:27 PM
4:47 PM
5:05 PM
5:15 PM
5:35 PM
5:11 PM
5:21 PM
5:41 PM
5:17 PM
5:27 PM
5:47 PM
6:05 PM
6:15 PM
6:11 PM
6:21 PM
6:17 PM
6:27 PM
7:05 PM
7:11 PM
7:17 PM
0:07
6:42 AM
6:20 AM
7:20 AM
8:20 AM
9:20 AM
10:05 AM
10:50 AM
11:46 AM
12:31 PM
1:34 PM
1:43 PM
2:46 PM
3:41 PM
4:16 PM
4:34 PM
4:54 PM
5:12 PM
5:24 PM
5:34 PM
5:54 PM
6:12 PM
6:24 PM
6:34 PM
7:12 PM
7:24 PM
0:11
0:07
0:05
0:15
6:31 AM
7:31 AM
8:31 AM
9:31 AM
10:16 AM
11:01 AM
11:57 AM
12:42 PM
1:45 PM
1:54 PM
2:57 PM
3:52 PM
4:27 PM
4:45 PM
5:05 PM
5:23 PM
5:35 PM
5:45 PM
6:05 PM
6:23 PM
6:35 PM
6:45 PM
7:23 PM
7:35 PM
6:38 AM
7:38 AM
8:38 AM
9:38 AM
10:23 AM
11:08 AM
12:04 PM
12:49 PM
1:52 PM
2:01 PM
3:04 PM
3:59 PM
4:34 PM
4:52 PM
5:12 PM
5:30 PM
5:42 PM
5:52 PM
6:12 PM
6:30 PM
6:42 PM
6:52 PM
7:30 PM
7:42 PM
6:43 AM
7:43 AM
8:43 AM
9:43 AM
10:28 AM
11:13 AM
12:09 PM
12:54 PM
1:57 PM
2:06 PM
3:09 PM
4:04 PM
4:39 PM
4:57 PM
5:17 PM
5:35 PM
5:47 PM
5:57 PM
6:17 PM
6:35 PM
6:47 PM
6:57 PM
7:35 PM
7:47 PM
6:58 AM
7:58 AM
8:58 AM
9:58 AM
10:43 AM
11:28 AM
12:24 PM
1:09 PM
2:12 PM
2:21 PM
3:24 PM
4:19 PM
4:54 PM
5:12 PM
5:32 PM
5:50 PM
6:02 PM
6:12 PM
6:32 PM
6:50 PM
7:02 PM
7:12 PM
7:50 PM
8:02 PM
0:08
0:08
7:14 AM
8:14 AM
9:14 AM
10:14 AM
10:59 AM
11:44 AM
12:40 PM
1:25 PM
7:22 AM
8:22 AM
9:22 AM
10:22 AM
11:07 AM
11:52 AM
12:48 PM
1:33 PM
2:37 PM
3:40 PM
4:35 PM
5:10 PM
5:28 PM
2:45 PM
3:48 PM
4:43 PM
5:18 PM
5:36 PM
2:30 PM
5:50 PM
6:06 PM
6:14 PM
6:28 PM
6:36 PM
7:06 PM
7:14 PM
7:28 PM
8:06 PM
7:36 PM
8:14 PM
6:20 PM
6:50 PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
8721.75
Mileage
Manassas ‐ Broad Run:
3
Haymarket ‐ Manassas:
11.5
Haymarket ‐ Alexandria:
35
Manassas ‐ DC:
32
TOTALS
Trips
Daily Miles
TOTAL DAILY MILES
Service Days
Burke Centre
0
Train entering and exiting mid‐day storage
Train entering and exiting daily service
New Train Set
Additional Coaches Needed
TRACK MILES
Backlick Road
Rolling Road
0
Daily Alightings (Actual)
Travel Time Btwn Stations
SUB‐TOTAL
Crystal City Alexandria
DC‐H
0:05
BR
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
BR
2:50 PM
Shuttle
3:53 PM
Shuttle
4:48 PM
Shuttle
5:23 PM
Shuttle
5:41 PM
Shuttle
BR
6:19 PM
GH
BR
6:41 PM
GH
BR
7:19 PM
Shuttle
BR
7:41 PM
GH
8:19 PM
Shuttle
BR
Totals
Total Daily
Annual Service Days
Total Annual Miles
7:27 AM
8:27 AM
9:27 AM
10:27 AM
11:12 AM
11:57 AM
12:53 PM
1:38 PM
EQUIPMENT NEEDS
Exist
DC‐BR
H‐A
3
11
Req
New
Set
A
B
L
1
1
C
6
6
L
1
1
C
6
6
L
0
0
C
0
0
C
1
6
1
8
0
2
D
1
8
1
8
0
0
E 1
6
1
7
0
1
32
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
6
8
6
3
3
3
64
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
8
6
3
3
3
32
35
32
32
43
6
258
35
14
490
35
30
1050
1798
250
449500
F
G
H
S1
S2
S3
TOTALS
5
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submittal_6_19_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\A_Service_Plan.xls
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.1
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
43
35
43
35
35
35
43
35
35
1798
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
9
1809.1
250
452,275
Appendix B: Operating and
Maintenance Cost Estimates
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Appendix B: Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost Summary (June 26, 2009)
Alternative
No. Service Days
Annual Miles
Unit Cost ($/Train Mile)
250
250
77,947
63,713
$138.71
$138.71 Annual Operating Cost
Minimum Operating Segment (with siding)
G‐H to DC
Broad Run to DC
Total:
$10,812,060.94
$8,837,597.66
$19,649,658.60
Total:
$14,429,056.34
$11,794,069.16
$26,223,125.50
Total:
$15,001,486.50
$12,261,964.00
$27,263,450.50
Phased Approach‐End in Gainesville
G‐H to DC
Broad Run to DC
250
250
104,023
85,027
$138.71
$138.71
Full Build‐Out Split Service Constrained
G‐H to DC
Broad Run to DC
Full Build‐Out Split Service Constrained Plus Shuttle
G‐H to Alexandria (Shuttle)
G‐H to DC
Broad Run to DC
250
250
250
250
250
108,150
88,400
263,000
65,275
124,000
$138.71
$138.71
$69.36
$138.71
$138.71
$18,241,680.00
$9,054,295.25
$17,200,040.00
$44,496,015.25
Total:
Notes
* Two 2‐Car consists are assumed to be used for the shuttle service
** The unit cost per train mile was obtained based on the VRE’s FY2008 actual operating expenses and the total annual train miles system‐wide, including revenue and nonrevenue miles, provided by Brett Shorter at VRE.
***The costs shown in this table represents the annual O&M costs for the entire Manassass Line service under each scenario.
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submitted_to_VRE_08_26_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\09182009_GS\Train‐Mileage_breakdown.xls
Appendix C: Fare Revenue
Forecasts
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Appendix C (June 26, 2009)
VRE Gainesville‐Haymarket Feasibilidy Study
Draft Revenue Estimates
2008
1B
1C
Revenue ($ per day)
$ 50,641 $ 65,393 $ 102,402
Revenue ($ per year) $ 12,660,253 $ 16,348,280 $ 25,600,612
Net Revenue (diff. from No‐Build)
$ 3,103,336 $ 12,355,668
1
2
3
4
5
6
Assumes all boarding riders are destined to the Zone 1 metro area.
% Ticket types were obtained from VRE based on FY 2009 up‐to‐dated data.
Current ticket fares (2009) for all ticket types were obtained from VRE's website.
Assumes the per‐ride‐fare for the 5‐day pass is the average of per‐ride‐fares for the ten trips and the monthly reduced passes.
Amtrak step‐up fare is calculated by taking the 2007 total system‐wide revenue from step‐ups divided into the total number of step‐ups.
250
was used as an annualization factor.
1B
Daily IB Boardings
36
6
466
699
1400
425
900
1033
701
1C
Daily IB Boardings
883
321
606
766
1400
597
1505
1522
1150
Two‐Trip $ 18.30
$ 17.20
$ 16.00
$ 13.60
$ 12.50
Ten‐Trip
$ 84.20
$ 78.80
$ 73.30
$ 62.60
$ 57.10
Five‐Day $ 73.20
$ 68.50
$ 63.80
$ 54.40
$ 45.00
Monthly $ 253.60
$ 237.30
$ 220.90
$ 188.50
$ 155.80
VRE Current Per‐Ride Ticket Fare and Boarding Percentage by ticket type (2009)
Single Ride
Two‐Trip Ten‐Trip
2.8%
3.6%
37.3%
% Boarding
Zone 8
$ 9.15 $ 9.15 $ 8.42
Per‐Ride Fare Zone 7
$ 8.60 $ 8.60 $ 7.88
(2009)
Zone 6
$ 8.00 $ 8.00 $ 7.33
Zone 4
$ 6.80 $ 6.80 $ 6.26
$ 6.25 $ 6.25 $ 5.71
Zone 3
Five‐Day 6.4%
$ 7.09
$ 6.64
$ 6.18
$ 5.27
$ 4.81
Monthly 48.9%
$ 5.76
$ 5.39
$ 5.02
$ 4.28
$ 3.91
Zone
Haymarket
8
Gainesville
7
Sudley Manor
7
Broad Run
6
Manassas
6
Manassas Park
6
Burke Center
4
Rolling Road
4
Backlick Road
3
Total Daily IB
Total Daily (bi‐directional)
Existing (2008)
Daily IB Boardings
873
927
582
645
936
447
VRE Current Ticket Fare by ticket type (2009)
Single Ride
Zone 8
$ 9.15
Ticket Fare Zone 7
$ 8.60
(2009)
Zone 6
$ 8.00
Zone 4
$ 6.80
Zone 3
$ 6.25
Existing (2008)
1B
1C
Revenue from Revenue from Revenue from Daily IB
Daily IB
Daily IB
$ ‐
$ 256 $ 6,269
$ ‐
$ 40 $ 2,136
$ ‐
$ 3,100
$ 4,032
$ 5,411 $ 4,332
$ 4,748
$ 8,677
$ 5,746 $ 8,677
$ 3,607 $ 2,634
$ 3,700
$ 3,422 $ 4,775
$ 7,984
$ 4,966 $ 5,480
$ 8,074
$ 2,169 $ 3,402
$ 5,581
$ 25,321 $ 32,697 $ 51,201
$ 50,641.01 $ 65,393.12 $ 102,402.45
Amtrak Step‐Up
1.1%
$ 9.95
$ 9.95
$ 9.95
$ 9.95
$ 9.95
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submittal_6_19_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\C_Revenue.xls
Appendix D1: Station Location
Evaluation Criteria
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Appendix D1:
Station Location Evaluation Criteria
In identifying sites for the potential location of a station and associated park and ride
facility on the proposed extension of VRE to Gainesville-Haymarket, all potentially
feasible sites along the NS B Line between Manassas and Haymarket were identified
in order to ensure that no potentially feasible site was left out.
To identify the subset of sites within the list of potential alternatives that would have
the greatest benefit and chance of success while also having the fewest possible
negative impacts, the sites were compared and evaluated within the context of an
evaluation framework that allowed for a consistent comparison. This framework
was used to compare each of the sites relative to a range of criteria that allowed for
an assessment of the feasibility and potential impacts, both positive and negative, of
developing a station and park and ride lot at each site.
This appendix describes the criteria used in the evaluation framework and the
methodology used to apply the framework, for the purpose of assessing the
feasibility and positive and negative impacts associated with the development of a
station and park and ride lot at each site.
Methodology
The evaluation and comparison of potential station sites was performed in a manner
that allowed a consistent comparison of each site relative to a comprehensive set of
evaluation criteria that covered the full range of potential impacts, both positive and
negative, that would be associated with the development of each site.
The purpose of this section is to outline the methodology that was used for the
comparison of each site identified as the potential location of a station and park and
ride lot. The evaluation and comparison of each site was based on a three step
process:
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc
1
Complete the technical analysis required to assess impacts in each evaluation
criterion and sub-criterion (described in greater detail in the next section). In
most instances this technical analysis relied on data collection and analysis that
occurred during the current conditions portion of the study process. For
instance, resources such as wetlands, historic and cultural resources, and
hazardous materials were identified as part of the environmental scan that was
Appendix D1
completed at the beginning of the study. The findings of the environmental scan
were then used to support the technical analysis associated with assessing
potential impacts in each resource area. Comparable data collection efforts and
analyses were done relative to traffic, land use, and relevant comprehensive land
use and economic development plans.
h
Based on the initial technical analysis, the potential impacts relative to each
evaluation criterion and sub-criterion were identified. For instance, traffic and
roadway capacity data collected during the current conditions phase of the study
was used to qualitatively assess potential traffic impacts associated with a station
and park and ride lot at a site. Comparable impact assessment analysis was
completed for each site relative to each evaluation criterion and sub-criterion.
h
Based on the impact analysis described above, each site was given a score
relative to each sub-criterion comprising an overall criterion (for instance, the
Access and Mobility overall criterion is comprised of three sub-criteria). This
score was based on a scale of 1-5, with a score of five representing the most
favorable score. If development of a site would result in a negative impact
relative to a sub-criterion (for instance impacts to wetlands), the greater the
negative impact, the lower the resultant score. For criterion and sub-criterion
related to positive impacts associated with site development, or to site
characteristics that make the site well suited to development, the higher the
positive, the higher the score a site received relative to that sub-criterion.
Once the scoring was completed, the scores for each sub-criterion, for each site, were
input into a spreadsheet matrix to calculate total scores for each site, by individual
criterion as well as over the full set of criteria (Table 4-1). It should be noted that
within each criterion, each sub-criterion that comprise the overall criterion received a
percentage weight to reflect its importance relative to the other sub-criterion within
the criterion. The percentage weights of the sub-criterion comprising each main
criterion add up to 100 percent.
Based on the scoring of each sub-criterion, the sub-criterion weights, the summing of
weighted sub-criterion scores to calculate a criterion score, and the summing of
criterion scores, each site received an overall score that provides an understanding of
how each site rates relative to the other sites in the list of potential alternatives. This
overall site score combines the site’s performance relative to both positive and
negative impacts. Preferred sites will not be selected during this study phase.
Rather, the scores for each site can be used to identify those sites within the list of
potential alternatives that appear to have the greatest potential for development as a
station and park and ride lot as the project moves forward.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc
2
Appendix D1
Evaluation Framework
Outlined below is a brief description of each of the evaluation criteria contained in
the evaluation framework used to assess and compare potential station and park and
ride lot sites along the proposed Gainesville-Haymarket extension. Each criterion
within the framework focuses on one area of the site’s potential feasibility, benefits,
and potential negative impacts. Each criterion, in turn, is composed of a series of
sub-criterion that in combination are used to assess how each site performs relative
to the main criterion. Each sub-criterion contains a weight that identifies the
importance of that sub-criterion within the overall criterion. Together the weights of
the sub-criterion add up to 100 percent. An example evaluation matrix is included as
Table 4-1.
The description of each criterion and associated sub-criterion are outlined below.
Access and Mobility
The Access and Mobility criterion evaluates each site relative to how well the site is
connected into the regional transportation network (all modes) as well as whether
there are any site characteristics that will impact on convenient and safe circulation
within the site. The sub-criteria used to evaluate each site relative to access and
mobility are outlined below.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc
h
Access and proximity to main travel routes – because each of the station areas
along the proposed Haymarket extension will be attracting riders arriving via
automobile, access to a station/park and ride site from main travel routes will be
an essential element in understanding the potential feasibility/success of the site.
This sub-criterion is used to qualitatively assess the connectivity of each site to
main travel routes within the project area. Because of the importance of this
connectivity in rider convenience and the overall success of the station, this subcriterion is assigned a weight of 60 percent within the Access and Mobility
criterion.
h
ADA Accessible and Sidewalk Linkages – because the study area is
predominantly suburban/undeveloped in nature, only a small number of the
sites being considered in the list of potential alternatives is currently pedestrian
accessible. Therefore, the scoring of this criterion is focused on the ease of
making future ADA pedestrian connections from off-site to a site if the site is
developed (ADA accessibility within the site will be designed as part of the final
design of the site). Because it is anticipated that the percentage of ridership
accessing a site as pedestrians will be relatively low, this sub-criterion is assigned
a relatively low weight of 20 percent within the Access and Mobility criterion.
h
Easy and Safe Internal Circulation – this sub-criterion focuses on the ease of
circulation within each site being evaluated. The primary factor that would
3
Appendix D1
negatively influence site circulation would be an irregular shape that would
make auto and pedestrian circulation within the site difficult and also present
potential safety issues. With the ability to at least partially mitigate this issue
through design, this sub-criterion is assigned a relatively low weight of 20
percent within the Access and Mobility criterion.
Traffic and Congestion
The Traffic and Congestion criterion evaluates each site relative to potential traffic
impacts on the site’s surrounding road network as well as the potential requirement
for additional traffic control infrastructure at the site. The sub-criteria used to
evaluate each site relative to traffic impacts are outlined below.
h
Traffic Impacts (qualitative) – this sub-criterion focuses on qualitatively assessing
potential traffic impacts associated with a station and new park and ride lot at
each site under consideration. Factors considered as part of this sub-criterion
include the current level of traffic on the site access roadway(s), traffic levels on
adjacent roadways, and whether the access roadway was identified as congested
during the current conditions analysis. Because traffic congestion can impact the
attractiveness of a site for riders and the public acceptance of a site, and also have
impacts on the operations of the overall transportation network, this subcriterion is assigned a weight of 75 percent within the Traffic and Congestion
criterion.
h
Does Access Require New Traffic Controls – this sub-criterion focuses on
qualitatively assessing whether traffic levels on the access roadways to each site
is heavy enough that new traffic controls would be required for the site. A
requirement for new traffic controls would have an impact on project cost and
would also impact the operations of the surrounding roadway network. This
sub-criterion has a relatively low weight of 25 percent within the Traffic and
Congestion criterion because of the significant importance of the traffic impacts
sub-criterion.
Environmental and Cultural Considerations
The Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion evaluates each site relative
to potential environmental and cultural resource impacts. The factors considered in
this criterion include the full range of resource areas typically considered in
preliminary environmental scans as well as environmental documents. The subcriteria outlined below generally relate to a specific resource area. In each instance
the ultimate intent of the evaluation of each sub-criterion was to determine whether
the presence of resources would negatively impact the ability to develop a site as a
station and park and ride facility.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc
4
Appendix D1
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc
h
Wetlands on or Adjacent to Site – this sub-criterion considered whether a site has
wetlands on it or adjacent to it, the extent of the wetlands if wetlands are present,
and whether this presence would negatively impact the ability to develop the site
as a station and park and ride lot. With the importance of wetlands in terms of
the feasibility of a site being effectively developed, this sub-criterion was
assigned a higher weight of 14 percent (relative to other sub-criterion assigned a
10 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations
criterion.
h
Floodplains on Site – this sub-criterion evaluated whether floodplains are located
on the site being evaluated, the extent of the floodplains if floodplains are
present, and whether the presence of floodplains would negatively impact the
ability to develop the site as a station and park and ride lot. With the importance
of floodplains in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively developed, this
sub-criterion was assigned a higher weight of 14 percent (relative to other
criterion assigned a 10 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural
Considerations criterion.
h
Hazardous Materials Identified on Site – this sub-criterion evaluated whether
hazardous materials have been identified on a site, the extent of the hazardous
materials if hazardous materials are present, and whether the hazardous
materials are of such significance that they may impact on the ability to develop
the site as a station and park and ride lot. With the importance of the presence of
hazardous materials in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively
developed, this sub-criterion was assigned a higher weight of 14 percent (relative
to other criterion receiving a 10 percent weight) within the Environmental and
Cultural Considerations criterion.
h
Site Provides Terrestrial or Aquatic Habitat – this sub-criterion evaluated
whether terrestrial or aquatic habitat has been identified on a site, the extent and
quality of that habitat if habitat is present, and whether the presence of extensive
and high quality habitat may impact on the ability to develop the site as a station
and park and ride lot. With the importance of the presence of terrestrial or
aquatic habitat in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively developed,
this sub-criterion was assigned a higher weight of 14 percent (relative to other
criterion receiving a 10 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural
Considerations criterion.
h
Historic and Cultural Resources on Site – this sub-criterion evaluated whether
historic or other cultural resources are potentially located on a site, the potential
extent of the resources if present, and whether these potential resources may
impact on the ability to develop the site as a station and park and ride lot. With
the importance of the presence of historic and cultural resources in terms of the
feasibility of a site being effectively developed, this sub-criterion was assigned a
higher weight of 14 percent (relative to other criterion receiving a 10 percent
weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.
5
Appendix D1
h
Soils/Prime Farmland of Statewide Importance – this sub-criterion evaluated
whether prime farmlands are located on a site and whether these prime
farmlands may impact the ability to develop the site as a station and park and
ride lot. With the relative importance of other resource areas in terms of the
feasibility of a site being effectively developed, this sub-criterion was assigned a
lower weight of 10 percent (relative to other criterion receiving a 14 percent
weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.
h
Community Facilities/Parks Adjacent to Site – this sub-criterion evaluated the
proximity of community facilities and parks adjacent to a site and whether this
proximity would impede development of the site as station and park and ride
lot. With the relative importance of other resource areas in terms of the
feasibility of a site being effectively developed as well as the ability to at least
partially mitigate impacts to community facilities, this sub-criterion was assigned
a lower weight of 10 percent (relative to other criterion receiving a 14 percent
weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.
h
Concentrations of Minority/Low Income Populations – this sub-criterion
evaluates the presence of minority and low income populations in proximity to
each site for the purposes of assessing potential environmental justice issues.
With the relative importance of other factors in terms of the feasibility of a site
being effectively developed, as well as the ability to mitigate impacts to
environmental justice communities, this sub-criterion was assigned a lower
weight of 10 percent (relative to other criterion receiving a 14 percent weight)
within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.
Land Use and Smart Growth Issues
The Land Use and Smart Growth criterion evaluates each site relative to how well
the site would fit into overall zoning conditions, land use plans, and smart growth
goals in Prince William County. The potential station sites were evaluated 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 sub-criteria used to evaluate each site relative to Land Use
and Smart Growth Issues are outlined below.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc
h
Park and Ride Compatibility with Existing Zoning and Adjacent Land Uses—this
sub-criterion evaluates the extent to which existing zoning allows for
construction of a park and ride lot, and the compatibility of a park and ride lot
with current adjacent land uses.
h
Alternative Transportation Conditions—this sub-criterion evaluates the extent to
which pedestrian and bicycle supportive infrastructure safely and conveniently
6
Appendix D1
links the station to nearby residential and commercial development. The scores
also reflect the amount of existing local bus service within ¼ mile of the site.
h
Mass Transit Node development potential—this sub-criterion evaluates the
likelihood that the site has Mass Transit Node (MTN) characteristics, as
described in the Prince William County Comprehensive Plan (March 2008), in the
future. This includes opportunities to live, work, and recreate in the same area;
non-auto transportation options; and higher-density mixed-use development
(residential, commercial, and office). This evaluation is based on Comprehensive
Plan future land use designations, associated design guidelines, sector plans, and
transportation conditions.
Acquisition and Development Issues
The Acquisition and Development Issues criterion evaluates each site relative to
current site characteristics and whether these characteristics might impede effective
development of the site as a station and park and ride lot. The sub-criteria used to
evaluate each site relative to Acquisition and Development issues are outlined below.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc
h
Land Acquisition is Acceptable – Cost and Schedule – this sub-criterion
qualitatively evaluates if there are any unique circumstances at a site that may
make land acquisition costs excessive or which may result in extensive schedule
delays. Factors considered in assessing this sub-criterion included whether there
are active uses on the property, what these uses are, are there multiple properties
required to create the overall site, and potential long-term plans for the site. This
sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 30 percent within the Acquisition and
Development issues criterion to reflect its relative importance within this
criterion.
h
Unique Capital Costs – this sub-criterion qualitatively evaluates whether there
may be unique capital costs associated with developing a site as a station and
park and ride lot. Unique capital costs would include whether existing
structures would have to be removed and whether there are other site
characteristics, such as extensive elevation changes that would require unique
capital expenditures. This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 20 percent
within the Acquisition and Development Issues criterion to reflect the fact that
this sub-criterion may not impede effective site development as much as issues
related to some of the other sub-criterion under the Acquisition and
Development Issues criterion.
h
Property Displacement – this sub-criterion qualitatively evaluates whether there
are existing active uses on a site that would require displacement. This subcriterion was assigned a relatively high weight of 30percent (relative to some
other sub-criterion, which are assigned a weight of 20 percent) within the
7
Appendix D1
Acquisition and Development issues criterion to reflect that property
displacement requirements can significantly impede effective site development.
h
Topography Issues – this sub-criterion qualitatively evaluates whether there are
unique topographic features on the site that my make site development more
difficult. This sub-criterion was assigned a lower weight of 20 percent than other
sub-criterion within the Acquisition and Development issues criterion to reflect
the fact that topography issues can be at least partially mitigated through site
design, though at a cost.
Operations and Implementation Issues
The Operations and Implementation Issues criterion evaluates each site relative to
the overall ease of developing the site as a station and park and ride lot. Elements of
this criterion are a summary of issues addressed in other criterion, but with a specific
focus on how these issues affect overall ease of site implementation. The sub-criteria
used to evaluate each site relative to operations and implementations issues are
outlined below.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc
h
Unique Site Considerations – this sub-criterion evaluates whether there are
unique site considerations that may impact the operational effectiveness of a site
once implemented, as well as make implementation more difficult than other
sites. Factors considered as part of this sub-criterion include site shape and the
type of frontage on the NS B Line, including whether the site is on a tangent or
curved portion of the track. This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 25
percent within the Operations and Implementations Issues criterion, a weight
equal to the other sub-criterion comprising the overall criterion.
h
Environmental Considerations – this sub-criterion evaluates/summarizes
whether there are unique or significant environmental issues that would make
site development difficult. Key factors considered in this evaluation are the
presence of resources that would be difficult to mitigate, such as wetlands, water
resources, and cultural resources. This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 25
percent within the Operations and Implementation Issues criterion.
h
Impacts to Freight Operations – given that the NS B Line is growing in terms of
freight volume, a site’s potential to negatively impact through freight operations
as well as pickup and delivery operations is represented by this sub-criterion.
This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 25 percent within the Operations and
Implementation Issues criterion.
h
Potential Impacts to Adjacent Properties – this sub-criterion
evaluates/summarizes whether there are unique circumstances on adjacent
properties that would delay development of a site or hinder operations on a site
once developed. Factors considered in this sub-criterion include the presence of
8
Appendix D1
sensitive receptors on adjacent properties, uses that are incompatible with a
station and park and ride facility and potential impacts from adjacent properties
on station and park and ride lots. This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 25
percent within the Operations and Implementation Issues criterion.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc
9
Appendix D1
Appendix D2: Station Location
Evaluations
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Appendix D2 Station
Location Evaluations
This technical appendix discusses the proposed station site alternatives for the
study and the evaluation of environmental considerations at each site conducted
as part of the station site evaluation. Each site was reviewed for potential
impacts to environmentally-sensitive resources such as wetlands, historic
resources, minority and low-income populations. Below is a description of the
environmental conditions at each site. Corresponding maps within the main text
of the document show the site plans and locations of environmentally-sensitive
resources in relation to each site.
1.1
1.1.1
Site Evaluations
Haymarket Site 1
Haymarket Site 1 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 onequarter of a mile south of Interstate 66 (I-66). This potential station site is also
located about 5 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.
Minority and Low-Income Populations
There is no housing on or adjacent to the site. The Haymarket Site 1 (and study
buffer area) is in census block groups with a minority population range of 3-25%
and a low-income population range of 0-2%. These percentages are below the
averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, Haymarket Site 1 is not
located in an area that would be considered a high concentration of minority or
low-income populations.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
1
Appendix D2
Historic Resources
No historic structures or archaeological sites are recorded in the Virginia Data
Sharing System (DSS) database either within the footprint of the proposed
facility or within 500 feet of the limits of disturbance. However, as planning for
the project progresses, more detailed analysis of the site may be warranted
depending on coordination with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
(VDHR).
Parks and Community Facilities
There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this
site.
Soil Conditions
Table A-1 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified. As shown in Table A-1,
approximately 48 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance
is within the site and buffer area. The site is currently undeveloped and in a
natural state, with the exception of the existing rail line. Further coordination
with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal
regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.
Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine engineering
feasibility.
Table A-1: Haymarket Site 1 Soils
Map
Symbol
11B
13B
13C
17A
28C
2C
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
2
Soil Type
Calverton silt loam, 0 to 7
percent slopes
Catlett-Sycoline complex,
2 to 7 percent slopes
Catlett-Sycoline complex,
7 to 15 percent slopes
Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Haymarket silt loam 7 to
15 percent slopes
Airmont-Weverton
complex, 7 to 15 percent
slopes
Appendix D2
Hydric
Soil
Designation
Acreage
within impact
buffer
8.66
Yes
3.33
Yes
1.82
Yes
All areas are prime
farmland
Farmland of statewide
importance
1.69
1.84
16.25
Table A-1: Haymarket Site 1 Soils (Continued)
Map
Symbol
31C
33B
33C
33D
35B
38B
3A
40C
46B
46C
49A
4B
5C
8C
Soil Type
Jackland-Haymarket
complex, 7 to 15 percent
slopes
Legore-Oakhill complex, 2
to 7 percent slopes
Legore-Oakhill complex, 7
to 15 percent slopes
Legore-Oakhill complex,
15 to 25 percent slopes
Manassas Silt Loam, 2 to
7 percent
Meadowville loam, 0 to 5
percent
Albano silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Montalto silty clay loam, 7
to 15 percent slopes
Panorama silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Panorama silt loam, 7 to
15 percent slopes
Rowland silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Arcola-Nestoria complex, 7
to 15 percent slopes
Braddock loam, 7 to 15
percent slopes
Hydric
Soil
Designation
Farmland of statewide
importance
Yes
Yes
All areas are prime
farmland
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of statewide
importance
All areas are prime
farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Yes
Acreage
within impact
buffer
11.35
2.05
6.59
5.24
2.00
6.47
12.17
3.69
Yes
Yes
All areas are prime
farmland
Farmland of statewide
importance
5.38
5.11
26.07
Yes
All areas are prime
farmland
Yes
10.25
30.15
Farmland of statewide
importance
Total Acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide importance:
2.13
48.4
Water Resources
The North Fork stream runs through the Haymarket Site 1. Impacts to this
surface water would likely be subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required
through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
3
Appendix D2
Resource Protection Areas
A Resource Protection Area (RPA) is associated with the North Fork Stream
(Prince William County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Chesapeake Bay Resource
Protection Area map). RPAs are corridors of environmentally sensitive land that
lie alongside or near the shorelines of streams, rivers and other waterways.
RPAs include tidal and non-tidal wetlands, tidal shores, and non-tidal wetlands
next to a tributary, and a 100-foot buffer along all waterways within the county.
The following activities are not permitted within a RPA: new development,
parking lots, clear-cutting trees, filling and grading activities, and establishing
lawns.
Floodplains
The Haymarket Site 1 is located within an area designated within the 100 year
floodplain (Zone AE). Approximately 33 acres fall within the 100 year
floodplain. Executive Order 11988, Floodplains Management, prohibits
floodplain encroachments that are uneconomic, hazardous, or result in
incompatible uses of the floodplain; it also prohibits any action which would
cause a critical interruption of an emergency transportation facility, a substantial
flood risk, or adverse impact to the floodplain’s natural resource values. More
detailed analysis of this site and potential impacts to the identified floodplain are
warranted.
Wetlands
A wetland area is associated with the stream and floodplain within the
Haymarket Site 1. Wetlands account for approximately 33 acres of the site. Any
fill or dredge of these wetlands would require coordination with the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.
With respect to anticipated impacts to wetlands and waterbodies, Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, as well as the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program,
require permits for activities which include placement of dredge and fill material
and/or mechanized land clearing, ditching, draining, channelization or other
excavation activities into the waters of the United States, including wetlands
adjacent to those waters. In Virginia, both the VDEQ and USACE have
jurisdiction over and decision-making participation regarding wetland impacts.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
indicates that the two registered facilities are located within the impact buffer of
the Haymarket Site 1. The first site is the Annandale Millwork Corporation,
located at 6612 James Madison Highway, Haymarket, Virginia. This site is
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
4
Appendix D2
registered as having or handling hazardous wastes. The second site is the Hard
Rock Concrete Limited, located at 6650 James Madison Highway, Haymarket,
VA. This site is registered as having a reported air release. It is recommended
that future planning phases determine if there are any other potential hazardous
materials/ contamination at or adjacent to the site.
Potential Habitat
In the vicinity of the Haymarket Site 1, both terrestrial and aquatic habitats for
plant and wildlife species exist. It is likely that the construction of a station and
park and ride lot at this location would likely impact these habitats. No
evaluation of the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for
this analysis.
No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during the
environmental scan for this station location. As planning for the project
progresses, coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of
Agricultural and Consumer Services to ascertain the potential existence of
protected species at this location and along the rail corridor.
1.1.2
Haymarket Site 2
Haymarket Site 2 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 for Haymarket Site 1. The site is in located on the
site of a proposed development called Midwood Center, though no plans for
Midwood Center have been finalized.
Minority and Low-Income Populations
There is no housing located on the site, however a small group of houses exist
adjacent to the site. The Haymarket Site 2 is in census blocks groups with a
minority population range of 3 -25% and a low-income population range of 611%. The percentage for minority populations is below the averages for Prince
William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
However, the percentage of low-income populations is slightly higher than the
average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, Haymarket 2 is not
located in an area that would be considered a high concentration of a minority
population but may be considered a higher-than-average concentration of a lowincome population. Consideration of the adjacent housing should be given as
planning for the project progresses.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
5
Appendix D2
Historic Resources
No historic structures or archaeological sites are recorded in the Virginia DSS
database either within the footprint of the proposed facility or within 500 feet of
the limits of disturbance. However, as planning for the project progresses, more
detailed analysis of the site may be warranted depending on coordination with
the VDHR.
Parks and Community Facilities
There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this
site
Soil Conditions
Table A-2 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified.
Table A-2: Haymarket Site 2 Site Soils
Map
Symbol
13B
13C
17A
30B
31C
35B
38B
3A
46B
48A
49A
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
6
Soil Type
Catlett-Sycoline complex, 2 to
7 percent slopes
Catlett-Sycoline complex, 7 to
15 percent slopes
Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Jackland-Haymarket complex,
7 to 15 percent slopes
Manassas Silt Loam, 2 to 7
percent
Meadowville loam, 0 to 5
percent
Albano silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Panorama silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Reaville silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Rowland silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Appendix D2
Hydric
Soil
Designation
Acreage
within impact
buffer
Yes
8.42
Yes
4.71
Yes
Yes
Yes
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if
drained
Farmland of statewide
importance
All areas are prime
farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Yes
Yes
Yes
4.85
0.48
0.04
10.64
1.07
3.76
All areas are prime
farmland
2.36
3.72
14.00
Table A-2: Haymarket Site 2 Site Soils (Continued)
Map
Symbol
4B
5C
Soil Type
Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7 percent
slopes
Arcola-Nestoria complex, 7 to
15 percent slopes
Hydric
Soil
Yes
Designation
All areas are prime
farmland
Yes
Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance:
Acreage
within impact
buffer
41.10
14.56
60.54
As shown in Table A-2, approximately 61 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination
with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal
regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.
Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine engineering
feasibility.
Water Resources
Available mapping for water resources does not show any surface waters on the
location for Haymarket Site 2. However, during limited field review, it appeared
that a small intermittent stream was running across the site, feeding into the
larger North Fork stream south of the railroad tracks. Depending on certain
attributes of this stream (water flow, source, connectivity to larger water bodies),
impacts to this surface water would likely be subject to federal permitting under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, permitting would also likely
be required through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program.
Resource Protection Areas
Based on the mapping available, it is unclear whether or not the small tributary
described under water resources would have an associated RPA. Wetlands
identified on the site would like have RPAs associated with them. More detailed
mapping and coordination with Prince William County is needed to determine if
in fact RPAs exist on the site.
Floodplains
There are no designated floodplains on this site.
Wetlands
There are wetlands at the eastern edge of the Haymarket Site 2, which appear to
be connected to the larger wetlands identified south of the railroad tracks. These
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
7
Appendix D2
wetlands account for approximately 17 acres of the site. Any fill or dredge of this
wetland would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely
require a permit and associated mitigation.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
indicates that there is no known hazardous materials/contamination at this site.
However, more detailed investigation of this site is recommended during future
planning phases to determine if indeed the site is free of hazardous
materials/contamination.
Potential Habitat
In the vicinity of the Haymarket Site 2, both marginal terrestrial and aquatic
habitats for plant and wildlife species exist. It is likely that the construction of a
station and park and ride lot at this location would likely impact these habitats.
No evaluation of the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted
for this analysis.
No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this
environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses,
coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Services to ascertain the potential existence of protected species along
the rail corridor.
1.1.3
Gainesville Site 1
Gainesville Site 1 is located on the south side of the NS B Line, 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 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 lot may ultimately be
replaced with structured parking in conjunction with the development.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
8
Appendix D2
Minority and Low-Income Populations
There is no housing on the site with the adjacent properties mostly consisting of
industrial uses. The Gainesville Site 1 is in census block groups with a minority
population range of 3-25% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. The
percentage for minority populations is below the averages for Prince William
County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, the
percentage of low-income populations is slightly higher than the average for
Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Based on this information, Gainesville Site 1 is not located in an area
that would likely be considered a high concentration of a minority population
but may be considered a higher-than-average concentration of a low-income
population.
Historic Resources
A review of the Virginia DSS reveals that no historic structures or archaeological
sites are reported within the footprint of the proposed station or access road.
Neither have any historic structures been documented within 500 feet of the
proposed improvements. However, an 1871 map of the First Battle of Bull Run
depicts the “Eastern Confederate Army” positioned south of the Norfolk
Southern rail line (then the Manassas Gap Railroad) between Gainesville and
Manassas. As planning for the project progresses, more detailed analysis of the
site may be warranted depending on coordination with the VDHR.
Parks and Community Facilities
There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this
site.
Soil Conditions
Table A-3 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified.
Table A-3: Gainesville Site 1 Soils
Map
Symbol
28B
28C
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
9
Soil Type
Haymarket silt loam 2 to
7 percent slopes
Haymarket silt loam 7 to
15 percent slopes
Appendix D2
Hydric
Soil
Designation
All areas are prime
farmland
Farmland of statewide
importance
Acreage
within impact
buffer
3.97
3.04
Table A-3: Gainesville Site 1 Soils (Continued)
Map
Symbol
30B
31B
31C
32A
40C
53B
54B
56A
W
Soil Type
Jackland silt loam, 2 to
7 percent slopes
Jackland-Haymarket
complex, 2 to 7 percent
slopes
Jackland-Haymarket
complex, 7 to 15
percent slopes
Kelly silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Montalto silty clay loam,
7 to 15 percent slopes
Sycoline-Kelly complex,
2 to 7 percent slopes
Urban land-Udorthents
complex, 0 to 7 percent
slopes
Waxpool silt loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes
Water Bodies
Hydric
Soil
Designation
Prime farmland if drained
Acreage
within impact
buffer
28.37
Prime farmland if drained
15.34
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of statewide
importance
2.06
7.41
2.49
All areas are prime
farmland
1.75
7.70
Yes
Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance:
47.86
0.80
61.94
As shown in Table A-3, approximately 62 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination
with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal
regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.
Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine engineering
feasibility of the soils.
Water Resources
A tributary to Rocky Branch runs east-west through the center of the Gainesville
Site 1.
Resource Protection Areas
Based on a review of the available RPA mapping from Prince William County, it
does not appear that there is a designated RPA on the site. As planning
progresses for the project, coordination with the County should continue to
determine if the tributary identified on the site has an associated RPA. The
wetlands identified within the 500-foot buffer may have an RPA associated with
them.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
10
Appendix D2
Floodplains
There are no floodplains identified on the Gainesville Site 1.
Wetlands
Wetlands have been identified at this site and within the 500-foot buffer area.
Approximately 14 acres of wetlands exist at this location. Any fill or dredge of
this wetland would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would
likely require a permit and associated mitigation.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available data from the EPA indicates that one business, Chemung
Contracting Corporation, located at 7201 Rail Line Court, Gainesville, Virginia,
within the impact area is registered as having a reported air release.
The Atlantic Research Corporation, a former rocket motor and generator
manufacturing business, was located at 5945 Wellington Road in Gainesville,
Virginia. Since 1951, the facility manufactured and assembled solid rocket
motors and gas generators, mostly as a contractor to the U.S. Department of
Defense. This facility was considered a large quantity generator of hazardous
waste with an EPA ID number of VAD023741705. The facility ceased all
production on April 17, 2005 and the last burn was conducted on July 6, 2005. In
September 2005, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality approved
the RCRA Facility Closure Plan. However, during compliance inspections,
violations were found to occur at the site. (Virginia Waste Management Board
Enforcement Action Order by Consent Issued to Atlantic Research Corporation
for Atlantic Research Corporation – Gainesville VAD023741705)
Given the history of the site, more detailed investigations should be conducted as
planning for the project progresses to determine the potential for the site or
adjacent properties to have hazardous materials/contamination and to
determine if all required remediation has occurred.
Protected Species
In the vicinity of the Gainesville Site 1 both marginal terrestrial and aquatic
habitats for plant and wildlife species exist. Based on aerial mapping, the site is
adjacent to an area that has already been cleared, likely for future development.
It is likely that the construction of a station and park and ride lot at this location
would impact the adjacent habitats that remain. No evaluation of the types of
species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.
No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this
environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses,
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
11
Appendix D2
coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along
the rail corridor.
1.1.4
Dominion Station Site
The Dominion Station 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 the Gainesville Sites 1 and 2, which are located south of the NS
B Line. The immediate area around the site is currently lightly developed. This
site is part of a proposed mixed-use development called Dominion Station,
which would be located on the north and south sides of I-66. This site had a
Prince William County Comprehensive Plan amendment for a mixed use
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 development
moves forward. The conceptual site plan for this site is shown in Figure 2-7. The
locations of environmentally sensitive resources for the Dominion Station Site are
shown in Figure 2-8.
Minority and Low-Income Populations
No housing exists on or immediately adjacent to this site. The Dominion Station
Site is in census block groups with a minority population range of 26-50% and a
low-income population range of 6-11%. The percentage for minority populations
is generally above the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas
and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The percentage of low-income populations
is also slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of
Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Given the census information,
Dominion Station is located in an area that would likely be considered a high
concentration of minority and low-income populations. However, a review of
the study area shows that there are no residential communities in the vicinity of
this site. Therefore it is assumed that there would be no potential adverse effects
on minority or low-income communities.
Historic Resources
A review of the Virginia DSS reveals that no archaeological resources or historic
structures are reported within the footprint or impact buffer of the proposed
station. However, as planning for the project progresses, coordination with
VDHR is recommended to verify if historic resources exist or if the potential for
resources exists.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
12
Appendix D2
Parks and Community Facilities
There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this
site.
Soil Conditions
Table A-4 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified.
Table A-4: Dominion Station Site Soils
Map
Symbol
30B
31B
32A
53B
54B
56A
W
Soil Type
Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Jackland-Haymarket
complex, 2 to 7 percent
slopes
Kelly silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Sycoline-Kelly complex,
2 to 7 percent slopes
Urban land-Udorthents
complex, 0 to 7 percent
slopes
Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Water Bodies
Hydric
Soil
Designation
Acreage
within impact
buffer
Prime farmland if
drained
20.00
Prime farmland if
drained
Farmland of statewide
importance
All areas are prime
farmland
4.73
5.44
9.89
10.34
Yes
Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance:
17.31
0.04
40.06
As shown in Table A-4, approximately 40 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination
with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal
regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.
Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine the engineering
feasibility of the soils.
Water Resources
There are no streams on the Dominion Station site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
13
Appendix D2
Resource Protection Areas
Based on the mapping available, there are no RPAs on the site.
Floodplains
There are no floodplains on the Dominion Station site.
Wetlands
There is, however, a wetland extending across the western edge of the site,
between I-66 and the railroad track. This wetland area is approximate 15 acres.
Any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require coordination with the
VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available EPA data shows that one business, the Randolph Ridge
Industrial Park located at 12801 Randolph Ridge Lane in Manassas, is permitted
to have discharges to water. More detailed analysis is recommended at the site
and on adjacent properties to determine if the potential for hazardous
materials/contamination exists.
Protected Species
The Dominion Station site is wooded and likely provides marginal terrestrial
habitat for transient species. It is likely that the construction of a station and park
and ride lot at the location would impact this habitat. No evaluation of the types
of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.
No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this
environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses,
coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along
the rail corridor.
1.1.5
Gainesville Site 2
Gainesville Site 2 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, and is the
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
14
Appendix D2
location of a proposed VRE Station within the Prince William Station Master
Plan. As with Gainesville Site 1, the planned park and ride facility is a surface lot
that would potentially be replaced with structured parking as part of the mixeduse development, if development moves forward. The conceptual site plan for
the site is shown in Figure 2-9. The locations of environmentally sensitive
resources for Gainesville Site 2 are shown in Figure 2-10.
Minority and Low-Income Populations
The Gainesville Site 2 is in census block groups with a minority population range
of 3-25% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. The percentage for
minority populations is below the averages for Prince William County, the City
of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, the percentage of
low-income populations is slightly higher than the average for Prince William
County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this
information, Gainesville Site 2 is not located in an area that would likely be
considered a high concentration of a minority population but may be considered
a higher-than-average concentration of a low-income population.
Historic Resources
A review of the Virginia DSS reveals that no historic structures or archaeological
sites are reported within the footprint of the proposed station or access road.
Neither have any historic structures been documented within 500 feet of the
proposed improvements. However, an 1871 map of the First Battle of Bull Run
depicts the “Eastern Confederate Army” positioned south of the Norfolk
Southern rail line (then the Manassas Gap Railroad) between Gainesville and
Manassas.
One archaeological site, 44PW1616, has been reported within 100 feet of the
proposed access road. This resource was reported during the course of a Phase I
archaeological survey conducted by CRI for the Atlantic Corporation Research
Tract. It is reported as a post-1850 outbuilding foundation, but no artifacts were
recovered from the area to further characterize the site. The area has apparently
been disturbed by earthmoving equipment. The next closest archaeological
resource is situated up to 1300 feet southeast of the station site, and is also
reported by CRI as a late 19th to early 20th century domestic site.
Unless the property has been previously surveyed, it is considered likely that
archaeological testing will be requested by the VDHR to determine whether any
archaeological deposits associated with 44PW1616 are present within the project
APE. Further research on the potential for archaeological materials associated
with the Battle of Bull Run, and possible testing, may also be requested.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
15
Appendix D2
Parks and Community Facilities
There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this
site
Soil Conditions
Table A-5 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified.
Table A-5: Gainesville Site 2 Soils
Map
Symbol
A
s
13B
s
h13C
o
30B
w
31B
A
33C
s
38B
s
h
40B
o
w
40C
n
53B
i
n
56A
Soil Type
Catlett-Sycoline complex, 2
to 7 percent slopes
Catlett-Sycoline complex, 7
to 15 percent slopes
Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Jackland-Haymarket
complex, 2 to 7 percent
slopes
Legore-Oakhill complex, 7 to
15 percent slopes
Meadowville loam, 0 to 5
percent
Montalto silty clay loam, 2 to
7 percent slopes
Montalto silty clay loam, 7 to
15 percent slopes
Sycoline-Kelly complex, 2 to
7 percent slopes
Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Hydric
Soil
Designation
Yes
3.09
Yes
3.71
Prime farmland if
drained
Prime farmland if
drained
Yes
Acreage
within impact
buffer
Farmland of
statewide importance
All areas are prime
farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
33.97
19.40
2.03
2.68
5.72
0.00
All areas are prime
farmland
Yes
TTotal Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance:
19.70
6.06
83.5
Table A-5, approximately 84 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide
Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the
NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal
regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.
Water Resources
There are no streams on the Gainesville Site 2.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
16
Appendix D2
Floodplains
There are no floodplains located on the Gainesville Site 2.
Wetlands
A small area of wetland was identified southeast of the proposed Gainesville Site
2 location within the impact buffer evaluated. This wetland area within the
buffer consists of approximately 1 acre. It is unlikely that this wetland area
would be impacted.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available data show that this site is free of hazardous
materials/contamination, however hazardous contamination is found in 29
scattered locations throughout the corridor study area. A large concentration of
contamination was found to be in the vicinity of Route 29.
The Atlantic Research Corporation, a former rocket motor and generator
manufacturing business, was located at 5945 Wellington Road in Gainesville,
Virginia. Since 1951, the facility manufactured and assembled solid rocket
motors and gas generators, mostly as a contractor to the U.S. Department of
Defense. This facility was considered a large quantity generator of hazardous
waste with an EPA ID number of VAD023741705. The facility ceased all
production on April 17, 2005 and the last burn was conducted on July 6, 2005. In
September 2005, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality approved
the RCRA Facility Closure Plan. However, during compliance inspections,
violations were found to occur at the site. (Virginia Waste Management Board
Enforcement Action Order by Consent Issued to Atlantic Research Corporation
for Atlantic Research Corporation – Gainesville VAD023741705)
Given the history of the site, more detailed investigations should be conducted as
planning for the project progresses to determine the potential for the site or
adjacent properties to have hazardous materials/contamination and to
determine if all required remediation has occurred.
Protected Species
The Gainesville Site 2 is partially wooded and likely provides marginal terrestrial
habitat for transient species. It is likely that the construction of a station and park
and ride lot at this location would likely impact this habitat. No evaluation of
the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.
No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this
environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses,
coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
17
Appendix D2
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along
the rail corridor.
2.1.6
Florida Rock Site
The Florida Rock 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 Ball’s 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 conceptual site plan for this site is shown in Figure 2-11. The
locations of environmentally sensitive resources for the Florida Rock Site are
shown in Figure 2-12.
Minority and Low-Income Populations
There is no housing on or adjacent to the site. The Florida Rock Site is in census
block groups with a minority population range of 26-50% and a low-income
population range of 6-11%. The percentage for minority populations is generally
above the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The percentage of low-income populations is also
slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas
and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Given the census information, the Florida
Rock Site is located in an area that would likely be considered a high
concentration of minority and low-income populations. However, a review of
the study area shows that there are no residential communities in the vicinity of
this site. Therefore it is assumed that there would be no potential adverse effects
on minority or low-income communities.
Historic Resources
A review of the VDHR DSS indicates two archaeological sites on the Florida
Rock Site. As planning for the project progresses, coordination with VDHR is
recommended to determine the extent of archaeological resources on the Florida
Rock site. VDHR will likely require field investigations and studies at this site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
18
Appendix D2
Parks and Community Facilities
There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this
site.
Soil Conditions
Table A-6 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified.
Table A-6: Florida Rock Site Soils
Map
Symbol
13B
13C
17A
27A
32A
35B
3A
48A
4B
53B
56A
5C
W
Soil Type
Catlett-Sycoline complex, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Catlett-Sycoline complex, 7 to
15 percent slopes
Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
Hatboro-Codorus complex, 0 to
2 percent slopes
Kelly silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Manassas Silt Loam, 2 to 7
percent
Albano silt loam, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
Reaville silt loam, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7 percent
slopes
Sycoline-Kelly complex, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Arcola-Nestoria complex, 7 to 15
percent slopes
Water Bodies
Hydric
Soil
Designation
Acreage
within impact
buffer
Yes
5.61
Yes
0.19
Yes
All areas are
prime farmland
Yes
Yes
32.14
1.12
Farmland of
statewide
importance
All areas are
prime farmland
14.88
4.10
Yes
0.24
Yes
24.82
Yes
All areas are
prime farmland
All areas are
prime farmland
67.85
0.98
Yes
8.60
Yes
9.40
0.07
Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance:
128.5
As shown in Table A-6, approximately 129 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination
with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal
regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
19
Appendix D2
Water Resources
There is a small stream, likely a tributary to Dawkins Branch that extends
partially east/west across the site. Impacts to this surface water would likely be
subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required through the Virginia
Water Protection Permit Program.
Resource Protection Areas
Based on the available mapping, there is no RPA designated on the site.
Floodplains
There are no floodplains identified on this site.
Wetlands
A small wetland area was identified outside of the site, but within the impact
buffer. The wetland is northwest of the site and approximately 0.2 acres in area.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available EPA data shows that three groups are registered as having
either toxic releases reported, handling hazardous materials or having an air
release. The first is listed as ELTEX Chemical & Supply Company located at 7940
Notes Drive in Manassas and is listed as having/handling hazardous materials.
The second site is Graphic Services Inc., located at 7910 Notes Drive in Manassas
and is listed as having/handling hazardous materials. The last site is listed as
Treasure Chest Advertising, located at 7619 Doane Drive in Manassas and is
listed as having reported a toxic release, having/handling hazardous materials
and having an air release. More detailed analysis of the site and adjacent
properties is recommended to determine the potential for hazardous
materials/contamination.
Protected Species
Given that this is a developed piece of land, it is unlikely that any wildlife species
or habitat exist on the site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
20
Appendix D2
1.1.7
Sudley/Innovation Site 1
Sudley/Innovation Site 1 is located on the southwest 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.
Minority and Low-Income Populations
There is no housing on the site. Some housing exists west of the site. The
Sudley/Innovation Site 1 is in census block groups with a minority population
range of 3-25% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. The percentage for
minority populations is below the averages for Prince William County, the City
of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, the percentage of
low-income populations is slightly higher than the average for Prince William
County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this
information, Sudley/Innovation Site 1 is not located in an area that would likely
be considered a high concentration of a minority population but may be
considered a higher-than-average concentration of a low-income population.
Historic Resources
No archaeological sites or historic structures are known within 500 feet of the
proposed station. The closest documented cultural resources are three historic
structures (076-076-0541; 076-0542; 076-0543) that stand from 800 to 1000 feet to
the northwest of the proposed station location. It would appear unlikely that
they would be visible from the station location, given the dense intervening
woods. The three structures range in date from the 1880s to the 1940s; none of
them have been evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic
Places.
The parcel selected for Sudley/Innovation Site 1 does not appear to have played
a part in the Battle of Bull Run, other than the fact that the rail line was used to
ferry confederate troops from the west to Manassas Junction. The parcel does
not appear to have any sensitivity for either above-ground or below-ground
cultural resources, and it is not anticipated that this area will be a concern to the
VDHR, although some documentation may be requested.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
21
Appendix D2
Parks and Community Facilities
There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this
site.
Soil Conditions
Table A-7 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified.
Table A-7: Sudley/Innovation Site 1 Soils
Map
Symbol
13B
A
s13C
s17A
h
o30B
w
n35B
Soil Type
Catlett-Sycoline complex,
2 to 7 percent slopes
Catlett-Sycoline complex,
7 to 15 percent slopes
Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Manassas Silt Loam, 2 to
7 percent
Albano silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Sycoline-Kelly complex,
2 to 7 percent slopes
Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Hydric
Soil
Designation
Yes
3.82
Yes
Yes
Yes
Acreage
within impact
buffer
5.65
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if
drained
All areas are prime
farmland
Yes
i3A
n
All areas are prime
4B
Yes
farmland
T
All areas are prime
farmland
a53B
b
Yes
l56A
eTotal Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance:
6.44
2.18
1.67
0.61
3.37
12.70
79.17
19.92
As shown in Table A-7, approximately 20 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination
with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal
regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.
Water Resources
Based on the source mapping, no streams appear on the Sudley/Innovation Site
1. However, upon further review of mapping available by the US Geological
Survey, a tributary to Broad Run is located on the site. During field reviews,
access to the site was not possible to verify if a stream exists. Impacts to this
surface water would likely be subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
22
Appendix D2
the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required
through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program.
Resource Protection Areas
Based on a review of available mapping, no RPAs are designated on the site.
Floodplains
There are no floodplains on the site.
Wetlands
Wetlands were identified on Sudley/Innovation Site 1. Based on available
mapping, the entire site seems to be wetland. Approximately 65 acres of wetland
are associated with this site. Any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require
coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and
associated mitigation.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available data show that this site is free of hazardous
materials/contamination, however hazardous contamination is found in 29
scattered locations throughout the corridor study area. A large concentration of
contamination was found to be in the vicinity of Route 29.
Protected Species
The Sudley/Innovation Site 1 likely provides terrestrial and aquatic habitat for
transient species. It is likely that the construction of a station and park and ride
lot at the location would likely impact this habitat. No evaluation of the types of
species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.
No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this
environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses,
coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along
the rail corridor.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
23
Appendix D2
1.1.8
Sudley/Innovation Site 2
Sudley/Innovation Site 2 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
northeast 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.
Minority and Low-Income Populations
There is no housing on the site. However, north of the site a large residential
community exists. The Sudley/Innovation Site 2 is in census block groups with a
minority population range of 26-50% and a low-income population range of 611%. The percentage for minority populations is generally above the averages
for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The percentage of low-income populations is also slightly higher than
the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, Sudley/Innovation Site 2
is located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of
minority and low-income populations.
As the project progresses, impacts to this area should be considered as they may
result in an adverse or disproportionate effect on the low-income and minority
communities. This analysis is not to be considered a determination of
Environmental Justice communities as defined by Executive Order 12898, but
rather an indicator that these communities may be present. Potential benefits of
the proposed expansion on these populations should also be considered.
Historic Resources
No archaeological sites or historic structures are known within 500 feet of the
proposed station. The closest documented cultural resources are three historic
structures (076-076-0541; 076-0542; 076-0543) that stand from 800 to 1000 feet to
the northwest of the proposed station location. It would appear unlikely that
they would be visible from the station location, given the dense intervening
woods. The three structures range in date from the 1880s to the 1940s; none of
them have been evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic
Places.
The parcel selected for the Sudley/Innovation Site 2 does not appear to have
played a part in the Battle of Bull Run, other than the fact that the rail line was
used to ferry confederate troops from the west to Manassas Junction. The parcel
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
24
Appendix D2
does not appear to have any sensitivity for either above-ground or below-ground
cultural resources and it is not anticipated that this area will be a concern to the
VDHR, although some documentation may be requested.
Parks and Community Facilities
There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this
site.
Soil Conditions
Table A-8 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified.
Table A-8: Sudley/Innovation Site 2 Soils
Map
Symbol
17A
30B
53B
56A
Soil Type
Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Jackland silt loam, 2 to
7 percent slopes
Sycoline-Kelly complex,
2 to 7 percent slopes
Waxpool silt loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes
Hydric
Soil
Yes
Designation
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if
drained
All areas are prime
farmland
Yes
Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance:
Acreage
within impact
buffer
7.10
2.07
15.74
45.12
24.91
As shown in Table A-8, approximately 25 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination
with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal
regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.
Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine engineering
feasibility of the soils.
Water Resources
There are no streams identified on this site.
Resource Protection Areas
Based on a review of available mapping, there are no designated RPAs on the
site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
25
Appendix D2
Floodplains
There are no floodplains identified on this site.
Wetlands
Wetlands were identified on the Sudley /Innovation Site 2. Based on available
mapping, approximately 49 acres of wetlands exist on the site. However, field
reviews and a review of recent aerial imagery of the site show that the majority
of the site is developed. Therefore it is unlikely that the available mapping is
accurate. For wetlands that likely remain on the site, any fill or dredge of these
wetlands would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely
require a permit and associated mitigation.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available data show that this site is free of hazardous
materials/contamination, however, hazardous contamination is found in 29
scattered locations throughout the corridor study area. A large concentration of
contamination was found to be in the vicinity of Route 29.
Protected Species
This site is mostly developed and therefore it is not likely that it provides habitat
for wildlife species.
1.1.9
Williams Site
The Williams Site is located on the southwest side of the NS B Line, directly to
the southeast of Sudley Manor Drive. The site is located across Sudley Manor
Drive from Sudley/Innovation Site 1. Access to this site would be off of Sudley
Manor Drive and Bethlehem Road. The area surrounding the site, southwest of
the NS B Line, is lightly developed, but it is more densely developed to the
northeast of the NS B Line.
Minority and Low-Income Populations
The Williams Site is in census block groups with a minority population range of
3-25% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. There is no housing on or
adjacent to the site. The percentage for minority populations is below the
averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the
Commonwealth of Virginia. However, the percentage of low-income
populations is slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the
City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information,
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
26
Appendix D2
the Williams Site is not located in an area that would likely be considered a high
concentration of a minority population but may be considered a higher-thanaverage concentration of a low-income population.
Historic Resources
There are no historic resources identified on or within 500 feet of this site. A
review of the VDHR DSS did indicate that an archaeological site was
documented southwest of the impact buffer. While it is unlikely that this site, if
it is still in existence, would be impacted, it may indicate that the potential exists
for other resources to be within the area. As planning for the project progresses,
coordination with VDHR is recommended to determine the potential for
additional resources to be found.
Parks and Community Facilities
There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this
site.
Soil Conditions
Table A-9 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified.
Table A-9: Williams Site Soils
Map
Symbol
Soil Type
Catlett-Sycoline complex, 7 to
15 percent slopes
Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Jackland-Haymarket complex,
2 to 7 percent slopes
Jackland-Haymarket complex,
7 to 15 percent slopes
Montalto silty clay loam, 7 to
15 percent slopes
Sycoline-Kelly complex, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Arcola-Nestoria complex, 7 to
15 percent slopes
13C
30B
31B
31C
40C
53B
56A
5C
Hydric
Soil
Designation
Yes
5.62
Prime farmland if drained
Prime farmland if drained
Farmland of statewide
importance
27
Appendix D2
36.41
7.10
0.50
0.11
All areas are prime
farmland
33.84
Yes
72.39
Yes
1.04
Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
Acreage within
impact buffer
77.96
As shown in Table A-9, approximately 78 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination
with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal
regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.
Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine the engineering
feasibility of the soils.
Water Resources
There are no streams identified on this site.
Resource Protection Areas
Based on a review of available mapping, there are no designated RPAs on the
site.
Floodplains
There are no floodplains identified on this site.
Wetlands
Wetlands were identified on this site using available mapping. Approximately
24 acres of wetlands exist on this site. However, the majority of this site is
developed and this acreage may not be accurate. Based on aerial imagery, it
appears that a wetland area may still exist along the eastern boundary of this site.
For wetlands that likely remain on the site, any fill or dredge of these wetlands
would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a
permit and associated mitigation.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available EPA data shows that this site (Williams Enterprises,
located at 8587 JD Reading Dr, in Manassas) is listed as having/handling
hazardous wastes. More detailed analysis of the site and adjacent properties is
recommended to determine the potential for hazardous
materials/contamination.
Protected Species
Given that the site is mostly developed, it is unlikely that this site provides
wildlife habitat. The area that may still be wetland on the site may provide some
marginal habitat for aquatic species. It is likely that the construction of a station
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
28
Appendix D2
and park and ride lot at this location would impact this habitat. No evaluation of
the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.
No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this
environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses,
coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along
the rail corridor.
1.1.10
Vulcan Quarry Site
The Vulcan Quarry Site is located on the north side of the NS B Line, to the east
of Sudley Manor Drive. Access based on the conceptual plan 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 that has shut down
operations. The immediate area is lightly developed, but denser development
exists to the north of the Vulcan Quarry site.
Minority and Low-Income Populations
The Vulcan Quarry Site is in census block groups with a minority population
range of 26-50% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. There is no
housing on the site, however residential communities exist west and north of the
site. The percentage for minority populations is generally above the averages for
Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The percentage of low-income populations is also slightly higher than
the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, the Vulcan Site is located
in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of minority and
low-income populations.
As the project progresses, impacts to this area should be considered as they may
result in an adverse or disproportionate effect on the low-income and minority
communities. This analysis is not to be considered a determination of
Environmental Justice communities as defined by Executive Order 12898, but
rather an indicator that these communities may be present. Potential benefits of
the proposed expansion on these populations should also be considered.
Historic Resources
A review of the VDHR DSS indicates that there are no historic resources
identified on or within 500 feet of this site. However, as planning for the project
progresses, coordination with VDHR is recommended to determine if the
potential exists for historic resources to be on or within the vicinity of this site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
29
Appendix D2
Parks and Community Facilities
The New Directions School is located off of Rixlew Lane, just north of the tracks
and east of the Vulcan Quarry Site. The school includes ball fields, tennis courts
and athletic tracks near the railroad tracks. Coordination with Prince William
County and the New Directions School should occur to determine if the
proposed Vulcan Station would have any effects on this school site. It was not
clear during this research if the athletic amenities of the school are open to the
public or if they are strictly for use by the school. If the athletic amenities are
used by the public, then there could be a potential for a Section 4(f) use of the
property should the proposed station require new right-of-way or if the property
would be adversely affected either temporarily or permanently.
Soil Conditions
Table A-10 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified.
Table A-10: Vulcan Quarry Site Soils
Map
Symbol
Soil Type
Hydric
Soil
13B
Catlett-Sycoline complex, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Yes
17A
30B
Yes
31C
Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Jackland-Haymarket complex, 2 to 7 percent
slopes
Jackland-Haymarket complex, 7 to 15 percent
slopes
32A
Kelly silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
33B
Legore-Oakhill complex, 2 to 7 percent slopes
33C
Legore-Oakhill complex, 7 to 15 percent slopes
35B
Manassas Silt Loam, 2 to 7 percent
Yes
38B
3A
Meadowville loam, 0 to 5 percent
Albano silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Yes
Yes
40B
40C
Montalto silty clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Montalto silty clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes
46B
Panorama silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
31B
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
30
Appendix D2
Designation
4.47
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if drained
Prime farmland if drained
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of statewide
importance
All areas are prime
farmland
Farmland of statewide
importance
All areas are prime
farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Yes
Acreage within
impact buffer
All areas are prime
farmland
18.91
105.38
15.07
21.60
7.13
3.35
2.95
5.36
6.05
10.25
9.78
3.17
1.73
Table A-10: Vulcan Quarry Site Soils (Continued)
Map
Symbol
Soil Type
Hydric
Soil
48A
Reaville silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Yes
4B
Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Yes
53B
Sycoline-Kelly complex, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Urban land-Udorthents complex, 0 to 7 percent
slopes
Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Arcola-Nestoria complex, 7 to 15 percent slopes
Water Bodies
54B
56A
5C
W
Designation
Acreage within
impact buffer
0.06
All areas are prime
farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Yes
Yes
Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance:
32.16
45.07
7.82
221.83
1.63
3.81
274.54
As shown in Table A-10, approximately 275 acres of Prime Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further
coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the
project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands
to other uses. Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine the
engineering feasibility of the soils.
Water Resources
The site contains four freshwater ponds. Based on available mapping, three
small tributaries to larger streams are located within the site. One stream is
located in the northeastern portion of the site; another is located in the
southeastern portion of the site; and the other is located along the south side of
the railroad tracks within the impact buffer. Impacts to this surface water would
likely be subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required through the Virginia
Water Protection Permit Program.
Resource Protection Areas
Based on a review of available mapping, there are no designated RPAs on the
site.
Floodplains
There are no floodplains located on this site.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
31
Appendix D2
Wetlands
Wetland areas have been identified on the site. Approximately 51 acres exist on
the site and within the impact buffer area. The majority of the wetlands appear
to be within the impact buffer west of the site. Any fill or dredge of these
wetlands would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely
require a permit and associated mitigation.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available EPA data shows that this site has six businesses that are
registered as either handling/having hazardous materials or having air releases.
The six sites are listed below:
h
h
h
h
h
h
Prince William County Service Authority, located at 8820 Rixlew Lane in
Manassas: reported air release
Vulcan Materials Company, located at 8537 Vulcan Lane in Manassas:
handles/has hazardous waste and air release
APAC Manassas and APA Occoquan, located at 8474 Vulcan Lane in
Manassas: reported air release
Virginia Concrete Company Incorporated, located at 8558 Vulcan Lane
in Manassas: reported air release
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc, located at 8738 Vulcan Lane in Manassas: permit to
discharge wastewater
APAC Virginia Inc, located at 8738 Vulcan Lane in Manassas:
handles/has hazardous waste
More detailed analysis is recommended at the site and adjacent properties to
determine the potential for hazardous materials/contamination.
Protected Species
This site is cleared for mining, and it is unlikely that suitable wildlife habitat
exists.
Active/Abandoned Mines
This is an active mine.
1.1.11
Wellington Road Site
The Williams Road 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
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
32
Appendix D2
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. Thus, construction
of a station on this site may require intrusion on adjacent properties.
Minority and Low-Income Populations
The Wellington Road Site is in census block groups with a minority population
range of 3-25% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. Housing exists on
the site. The percentage of minority populations is below the averages for Prince
William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
However, the percentage of low-income populations is slightly higher than the
average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, the Wellington Road site
is not located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of a
minority population but may be considered a higher-than-average concentration
of a low-income population.
Historic Resources
Based on a review of the VDHR DSS, there are no historic resources identified on
or within 500 feet of this site. However some resources were indicated around
the site. As planning for the project progresses, coordination with VDHR is
recommended to determine if potential for historic resources exists within the
site.
Parks and Community Facilities
The New Directions School is located off of Rixlew Lane, just north of the tracks
from the Wellington Road Site. The school includes ball fields, tennis courts and
athletic tracks near the railroad tracks. Coordination with Prince William
County and the New Directions School should occur to determine if the
proposed Wellington Road Station would have any effects on this school site. It
was not clear during this research if the athletic amenities of the school are open
to the public or if they are strictly for use by the school. If the athletic amenities
are used by the public, then there could be a potential for a Section 4(f) use of the
property should the proposed station require new right-of-way or if the property
would be adversely affected either temporarily or permanently.
Soil Conditions
Table A-11 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and
provides the acreage of each type identified.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
33
Appendix D2
Table A-11: Wellington Road Site Soils
Map
Symbol
13B
17A
32A
35B
3A
46B
4B
53B
54B
56A
W
Soil Type
Catlett-Sycoline
complex, 2 to 7 percent
slopes
Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Kelly silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Manassas Silt Loam, 2
to 7 percent
Albano silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Panorama silt loam, 2
to 7 percent slopes
Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
Sycoline-Kelly complex,
2 to 7 percent slopes
Urban land-Udorthents
complex, 0 to 7 percent
slopes
Waxpool silt loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes
Water Bodies
Hydric
Soil
Designation
Yes
Yes
Yes
0.42
All areas are prime
farmland
Farmland of statewide
importance
All areas are prime
farmland
Yes
Yes
Yes
Acreage
within impact
buffer
27.68
3.52
3.47
11.57
All areas are prime
farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
32.67
8.70
1.44
11.90
Yes
Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance:
2.69
0.09
80.17
As shown in Table A-11, approximately 80 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination
with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal
regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.
Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine engineering
feasibility of the soils.
Water Resources
A tributary to Cannon Branch runs north-south through the site. Impacts to this
surface water would likely be subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required
through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
34
Appendix D2
Resource Protection Areas
Based on a review of available mapping, there are no designated RPAs on the
site.
Floodplains
There are no floodplains identified on this site.
Wetlands
A small wetland area located along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to
the railroad tracks, exists on the site. This wetland is approximately 0.8 acres.
Any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require coordination with the
VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.
Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination
A review of available data show that this site is free of hazardous
materials/contamination, however, hazardous contamination is found in 29
scattered locations throughout the corridor study area. A large concentration of
contamination was found to be in the vicinity of Route 29.
Protected Species
This site appears to be mostly residential properties with a mix of single-family
housing and landscaped or wooded land. Some marginal habitat for wildlife
may exist on this site. It is likely that the construction of a station and park and
ride lot would impact any habitat that exists. No evaluation of the types of
species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.
No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this
environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses,
coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along
the rail corridor.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki
ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc
35
Appendix D2
Appendix E: Capital Cost
Estimates
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Appendix E: Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimates
Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate (August 21, 2009)
Gainesville‐Haymarket Feasibility Study
Gainesville, Haymarket, VA
Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) Option Project:
Location:
Project ID:
Description
Quantity
Unit
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS
10.01 Commuter Rail Track
33,000
TF
10.02 Commuter Rail Siding
10.03 Grade Crossings
8
LS
10.04 Turnouts
6
LS
10.05 Crossover
1
LS
Subtotal Track Elements:
20 STATIONS
20.01 At‐grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform
1
LS
20.02 Automobile structure parking
20.03 Automobile surface parking
400
EA SPACE
20.04 Elevators and escalators
20.05 Off‐site improvements, such as roadway and traffic
1
LS
Subtotal Stations:
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES
30.01 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building
30.02 Yard and Yard Track
1,200
TF
Subtotal Facilities:
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation
1
LS
40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal / mitigation, ground water 1
LS
40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, 0.75
ACRE
40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sounds walls
1,200
SF
40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accomodation, landscaping
1
LS
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parkings lots
40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during Subtotal Sitework:
50 SYSTEMS
50.01 Train control and signals
1
LS
50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection
8
LS
50.03 Communications
1
LS
50.04 Fare collection system and equipment
1
LS
Subtotal System:
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10 THROUGH 50)
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Track
400,000
SF
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Stations
1.33
ACRE
60.02 Relocation of existing household and businesses
0.5
LS
Subtotal Improvements:
70 VEHICLES
70.01a Commuter Rail: Locomotive
70.01b Commuter Rail: Gallery Car
70.02 Bus
70.03 Other
70.04 Non‐revenue vehicles
70.05 Spare parts
Subtotal Vehicles:
Subtotal 10 through 70:
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
80.01 Design
6.00%
Percent
80.02 Permitting
3.00%
Percent
80.03 Construction Phase
4.00%
Percent
80.04 Inspection and Project Management
2.50%
Percent
Subtotal Professional Services:
Subtotal 10 through 80:
90 CONTINGENCIES
90.01 Indirect Soft Costs
2.00%
Percent
90.02 Mitigation Contigency
10.00%
Percent
90.03 Construction Contingency
20.00%
Percent
Subtotal Contingencies:
Grand Total (2008$):
Grand Total if items with an asterik (*) are covered via a proffer:
* Represents costs that could potentially be covered through a proffer with a private developer
Total Cost (2008$)
Total Cost (2008$)Minus Potential Proffer Costs
$13,200,000
$0
$1,000,000
$600,000
$170,000
$14,970,000
$13,200,000
$0
$1,000,000
$600,000
$170,000
$14,970,000
$2,800,000 *
$0
$2,400,000 *
$0
$500,000 *
$5,700,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$420,000
$420,000
$0
$420,000
$420,000
$0
$100,000 *
$250,000 *
$1,350,000 *
$1,200,000 *
$52,740 *
$0
$0
$2,952,740
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,000,000
$150,000
$40,000
$40,000
$8,000,000
$1,200,000
$40,000
$40,000
$9,280,000
$33,322,740
$8,000,000
$1,200,000
$40,000
$40,000
$9,280,000
$24,670,000
$10
$800,000
$320,000
$4,000,000
$1,066,667 *
$160,000
$5,226,667
$4,000,000
$0
$160,000
$4,160,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$38,549,407
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$28,830,000
$1,999,364
$999,682
$1,332,910
$833,069
$5,165,025
$43,714,431
$1,480,200
$740,100
$986,800
$616,750
$3,823,850
$32,653,850
$874,289
$4,371,443
$8,742,886
$13,988,618
$57,703,049
$653,077
$3,265,385
$6,530,770
$10,449,232
Unit Cost (2008$)
$400
$125,000
$100,000
$170,000
$2,800,000
$6,000
$500,000
$350
$100,000
$250,000
$1,800,000
$1,000
$52,740
$43,103,082
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submitted_to_VRE_07_10_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\E_Capital_Cost_082009
Appendix E: Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimates
Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate (August 21, 2009)
Gainesville‐Haymarket Feasibility Study
Gainesville, Haymarket, VA
Phased Option: 2 Stations in Gainesville & Sudley/Innovation
Project:
Location:
Project ID:
Description
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS
10.01 Commuter Rail Track
10.02 Commuter Rail Siding
10.03 Grade Crossings
10.04 Turnouts
10.05 Crossover
Subtotal Track Elements:
20 STATIONS
20.01 At‐grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform
20.02 Automobile structure parking
20.03 Automobile surface parking
20.04 Elevators and escalators
20.05 Off‐site improvements, such as roadway and traffic
Subtotal Stations:
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES
30.01 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building
30.02 Yard and Yard Track
Subtotal Facilities:
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation
40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal / mitigation, ground water 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sounds walls
40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accomodation, landscaping
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parkings lots
40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction
Subtotal Sitework:
50 SYSTEMS
50.01 Train control and signals
50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection
50.03 Communications
50.04 Fare collection system and equipment
Subtotal System:
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10 THROUGH 50)
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Track
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Stations
60.02 Relocation of existing household and businesses
Subtotal Improvements:
70 VEHICLES
70.01a Commuter Rail: Locomotive
70.01b Commuter Rail: Gallery Car
70.02 Bus
70.03 Other
70.04 Non‐revenue vehicles
70.05 Spare parts
Subtotal Vehicles:
Subtotal 10 through 70:
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
80.01 Design
80.02 Permitting
80.03 Construction Phase
80.04 Inspection and Project Management
Subtotal Professional Services:
Subtotal 10 through 80:
90 CONTINGENCIES
90.01 Indirect Soft Costs
90.02 Mitigation Contigency
90.03 Construction Contingency
Subtotal Contingencies:
Grand Total (2008$):
Unit Cost (2008$) Total Cost (2008$)
Quantity
Unit
33,000
TF
$400
8
6
2
LS
LS
LS
$125,000
$100,000
$170,000
2
LS
$5,240,322
1,300
EA SPACE
$6,000
1
LS
$1,950,000
1
9,000
LS
TF
$125,000
$350
2
2
0.75
1,200
2
LS
LS
ACRE
SF
LS
$100,000
$250,000
$1,800,000
$1,000
$52,740
1
8
2
2
LS
LS
LS
LS
$8,000,000
$150,000
$40,000
$40,000
$8,000,000
$1,200,000
$80,000
$80,000
$9,360,000
$51,361,124
776,450
2.67
1
SF
ACRE
LS
$10
$800,000
$320,000
$7,764,500
$2,133,333
$320,000
$10,217,833
0
10
EA
EA
$4,500,000
$2,300,000
$0
$23,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$23,000,000
$84,578,957
6.00%
3.00%
4.00%
2.50%
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
$3,081,667
$1,540,834
$2,054,445
$1,284,028
$7,960,974
$92,539,932
2.00%
10.00%
20.00%
Percent
Percent
Percent
$1,850,799
$9,253,993
$18,507,986
$29,612,778
$122,152,710
$13,200,000
$0
$1,000,000
$600,000
$340,000
$15,140,000
$10,480,644
$0
$7,800,000
$0
$1,950,000
$20,230,644
$125,000
$3,150,000
$3,275,000
$0
$200,000
$500,000
$1,350,000
$1,200,000
$105,480
$0
$0
$3,355,480
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submitted_to_VRE_07_10_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\E_Capital_Cost_082009
Appendix E: Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimates
Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate (August 21, 2009)
Gainesville‐Haymarket Feasibility Study
Gainesville, Haymarket, VA
Full Build‐Out Option: Split Service Constrained (1B)
Project:
Location:
Project ID:
Description
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS
10.01 Commuter Rail Track
10.02 Commuter Rail Siding
10.03 Grade Crossings
10.04 Turnouts
10.05 Crossover
Subtotal Track Elements:
20 STATIONS
20.01 At‐grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform
20.02 Automobile structure parking
20.03 Automobile surface parking
20.04 Elevators and escalators
20.05 Off‐site improvements, such as roadway and traffic
Subtotal Stations:
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES
30.01 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building
30.02 Yard and Yard Track
Subtotal Facilities:
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation
40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal / mitigation, ground water 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sounds walls
40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accomodation, landscaping
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parkings lots
40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction
Subtotal Sitework:
50 SYSTEMS
50.01 Train control and signals
50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection
50.03 Communications
50.04 Fare collection system and equipment
Subtotal System:
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10 THROUGH 50)
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Track
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Stations
60.02 Relocation of existing household and businesses
Subtotal Improvements:
70 VEHICLES
70.01a Commuter Rail: Locomotive
70.01b Commuter Rail: Gallery Car
70.02 Bus
70.03 Other
70.04 Non‐revenue vehicles
70.05 Spare parts
Subtotal Vehicles:
Subtotal 10 through 70:
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
80.01 Design
80.02 Permitting
80.03 Construction Phase
80.04 Inspection and Project Management
Subtotal Professional Services:
Subtotal 10 through 80:
90 CONTINGENCIES
90.01 Indirect Soft Costs
90.02 Mitigation Contigency
90.03 Construction Contingency
Subtotal Contingencies:
Grand Total (2008$):
Unit Cost (2008$) Total Cost (2008$)
Quantity
Unit
48,890
TF
$400
11
11
4
LS
LS
LS
$125,000
$100,000
$170,000
3
LS
$5,240,322
2,100
EA SPACE
$6,000
1
LS
$1,950,000
1
9,000
LS
TF
$125,000
$350
3
3
1
1,200
3
LS
LS
ACRE
SF
LS
$100,000
$250,000
$1,800,000
$1,000
$52,740
1
11
3
3
LS
LS
LS
LS
$10,000,000
$150,000
$40,000
$40,000
$10,000,000
$1,650,000
$120,000
$120,000
$11,890,000
$72,355,186
1,026,450
4
1
SF
ACRE
LS
$10
$800,000
$320,000
$10,264,500
$3,200,000
$320,000
$13,784,500
0
10
EA
EA
$4,500,000
$2,300,000
$0
$23,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$23,000,000
$109,139,686
6.00%
3.00%
4.00%
2.50%
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
$4,341,311
$2,170,656
$2,894,207
$1,808,880
$11,215,054
$120,354,740
2.00%
10.00%
20.00%
Percent
Percent
Percent
$2,407,095
$12,035,474
$24,070,948
$38,513,517
$158,868,257
$19,556,000
$0
$1,375,000
$1,100,000
$680,000
$22,711,000
$15,720,966
$0
$12,600,000
$0
$1,950,000
$30,270,966
$125,000
$3,150,000
$3,275,000
$0
$300,000
$750,000
$1,800,000
$1,200,000
$158,220
$0
$0
$4,208,220
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submitted_to_VRE_07_10_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\E_Capital_Cost_082009
Appendix E: Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimates
Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate (August 21, 2009)
Gainesville‐Haymarket Feasibility Study
Gainesville, Haymarket, VA
Full Build‐Out Option: Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle (1C)
Project:
Location:
Project ID:
Description
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS
10.01 Commuter Rail Track
10.02 Commuter Rail Siding
10.03 Grade Crossings
10.04 Turnouts
10.05 Crossover
Subtotal Track Elements:
20 STATIONS
20.01 At‐grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform
20.02 Automobile structure parking
20.03 Automobile surface parking
20.04 Elevators and escalators
20.05 Off‐site improvements, such as roadway and traffic
Subtotal Stations:
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES
30.01 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building
30.02 Yard and Yard Track
Subtotal Facilities:
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation
40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal / mitigation, ground water 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sounds walls
40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accomodation, landscaping
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parkings lots
40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction
Subtotal Sitework:
50 SYSTEMS
50.01 Train control and signals
50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection
50.03 Communications
50.04 Fare collection system and equipment
Subtotal System:
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10 THROUGH 50)
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Track
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Stations
60.02 Relocation of existing household and businesses
Subtotal Improvements:
70 VEHICLES
70.01a Commuter Rail: Locomotive
70.01b Commuter Rail: Gallery Car
70.02 Bus
70.03 Other
70.04 Non‐revenue vehicles
70.05 Spare parts
Subtotal Vehicles:
Subtotal 10 through 70:
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
80.01 Design
80.02 Permitting
80.03 Construction Phase
80.04 Inspection and Project Management
Subtotal Professional Services:
Subtotal 10 through 80:
90 CONTINGENCIES
90.01 Indirect Soft Costs
90.02 Mitigation Contigency
90.03 Construction Contingency
Subtotal Contingencies:
Grand Total (2008$):
Unit Cost (2008$) Total Cost (2008$)
Quantity
Unit
48,890
TF
$400
11
11
4
LS
LS
LS
$125,000
$100,000
$170,000
3
LS
$5,240,322
2,100
EA SPACE
$6,000
1
LS
$1,950,000
1
9,000
LS
TF
$125,000
$350
3
3
1
1,200
3
LS
LS
ACRE
SF
LS
$100,000
$250,000
$1,800,000
$1,000
$52,740
1
11
3
3
LS
LS
LS
LS
$10,000,000
$150,000
$40,000
$40,000
$10,000,000
$1,650,000
$120,000
$120,000
$11,890,000
$72,355,186
1,026,450
4
1
SF
ACRE
LS
$10
$800,000
$320,000
$10,264,500
$3,200,000
$320,000
$13,784,500
3
32
EA
EA
$4,500,000
$2,300,000
$13,500,000
$73,600,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$87,100,000
$173,239,686
6.00%
3.00%
4.00%
2.50%
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
$4,341,311
$2,170,656
$2,894,207
$1,808,880
$11,215,054
$184,454,740
2.00%
10.00%
20.00%
Percent
Percent
Percent
$3,689,095
$18,445,474
$36,890,948
$59,025,517
$243,480,257
$19,556,000
$0
$1,375,000
$1,100,000
$680,000
$22,711,000
$15,720,966
$0
$12,600,000
$0
$1,950,000
$30,270,966
$125,000
$3,150,000
$3,275,000
$0
$300,000
$750,000
$1,800,000
$1,200,000
$158,220
$0
$0
$4,208,220
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submitted_to_VRE_07_10_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\E_Capital_Cost_082009
Appendix F: Rail Infrastructure
Improvements
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Appendix G: Schematic Layout
of Rail Corridor
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Appendix H: Design Criteria
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
This Page Left Blank Intentionally.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility
study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc
Final Report (Feasibility Study)
Appendix H: Virginia Railway Express Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study Project Corridor Design Criteria Prepared By: VHB, Inc. Transit & Rail Services 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700 Vienna, VA 22182 June 26, 2009
Virginia Railway Express Manassas Line: Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study Project Corridor Design Criteria The intent of this Project Corridor Design Criteria Memorandum is to establish a basis for design to incorporate the proposed VRE commuter rail service to Gainesville‐Haymarket into the NS B Line Corridor. This document will provide a summary of the key design criteria that will be used to establish the engineering feasibility and infrastructure cost of the service. The intent is for these design criteria to be 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. General Design Intent The general approach to the integration of commuter rail service along the 11 mile B Line Corridor between Manassas Junction and Haymarket can be summarized as follows: •
The existing main line track, which is generally centered within the ROW, will remain “as is”. •
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. •
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. Refer to Appendix F for a proposed Schematic Layout of the Rail Corridor. Basis For Design Criteria Design of the railroad infrastructure shall conform to the requirements of the following standards, codes, and guidelines as applicable: •
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way Association (AREMA), 2009 Manual for Railway Engineering Volumes 1 – 4 and Portfolio of Trackwork Plans. •
Norfolk Southern Criteria & Guidelines for Main Tracks and Detours •
Norfolk Southern’s memorandum regarding Passenger Station Requirements on Norfolk Southern. •
Norfolk Southern Standard Specifications for Materials and Construction and the Special Provisions. 2 \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\h_design_criteria\track design criteria_06_16_2009_rev.doc June 26, 2009 Virginia Railway Express Manassas Line: Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study Key Design Criteria The following key design criteria were established as the basis for the current Conceptual (5 – 10%) Design development: • 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 (see Attachment No. 01 and Track Centers below). •
Ruling Grade: No change to ruling grade over the section of the “B” Line from Manassas (MP B0.0) to Haymarket (MP B11). o
•
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: o
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). o
Curved Alignment: The clearances shall be increased along curved sections of track by 3.5 inches per inch of 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. •
Vertical/horizontal clearance: Per Norfolk Southern Plan 7‐1 Clearance for Tracks Located on Industrial Property (Attachment No. 02). •
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. 15 equilateral turnouts. 3 \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\h_design_criteria\track design criteria_06_16_2009_rev.doc June 26, 2009 Virginia Railway Express Manassas Line: Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study •
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. •
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. •
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: o
All platforms will be low level boarding. o
Height of platform will not exceed 8 inches above top of rail. o
Horizontal clearance from the center line of the main line track to the front face of the platform will be 5 ft – 2 inches. o
The platforms will be 650 feet in length. o
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. o
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. o
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 and upgraded for Positive Train Control. •
Crossing Protection: All at‐grade crossings will be protected as they are on the existing track. Modifications related to the VRE expansion will be 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 4 \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\h_design_criteria\track design criteria_06_16_2009_rev.doc June 26, 2009 Virginia Railway Express Manassas Line: Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study 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 VRE 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 in‐
place. 5 \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\h_design_criteria\track design criteria_06_16_2009_rev.doc June 26, 2009 Virginia Railway Express Manassas Line: Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study Attachments 6 \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\h_design_criteria\track design criteria_06_16_2009_rev.doc June 26, 2009 ATTACHMENT NO. 02
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT
NO. 03