FINAL REPORT
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket
Alternatives Analysis Report
Prepared for
Virginia Railway Express (VRE)
Alexandria, Virginia
Prepared by
Vienna, Virginia
in association with
AECOM
The Perspectives Group
Harris Miller Miller Hanson Inc.
May 29, 2009
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... v List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................. vi Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Overview of the Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................ 2 Historical Perspective ................................................................................................ 2 Overview of the Study Area ....................................................................................... 2 Relationship to the FTA Planning and Project Development Process ....................... 3 Community Involvement ............................................................................................ 4 1.5.1 Overview of Public Involvement Plan ............................................................ 5 1.5.2 Interagency Coordination Meetings .............................................................. 5 1.5.3 Public Involvement Meetings ........................................................................ 5 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 2.2 2.3 Project Purpose ......................................................................................................... 7 Need for Transportation
Improvements ............................................... 7 2.2.1 Regional Transit Access and Mobility ........................................................... 9 2.2.2 Regional Air Quality ...................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Smart Growth Development Initiatives ........................................................ 10 2.2.4 Economic Growth ........................................................................................ 10 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Enhance Mobility Options between Gainesville-Haymarket and DC .......... 11 2.3.2 Reduce Regional Traffic Congestion .......................................................... 11 2.3.3 Improve Regional Air Quality and Minimize Environmental Impacts........... 12 2.3.4 Advance Sustainable Development Land Use Goals ................................. 12 2.3.5 Determine Recommended Transportation Investment Strategy ................. 13 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 15 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
i
Description of Study Area ........................................................................................ 15 Source Documents .................................................................................................. 15 Transit Services in the Study Area........................................................................... 17 3.3.1 Commuter Rail Services ............................................................................. 17 3.3.2 Public Bus Services .................................................................................... 21 3.3.3 Private Commuter Bus & Van Pool Operations .......................................... 24 Freight Rail Services ................................................................................................ 25 Demographics and Travel Behavior......................................................................... 25 3.5.1 Population ................................................................................................... 25 3.5.2 Travel Behavior ........................................................................................... 26 FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
3.6 3.7 3.8 3.5.3 Travel Behavior for Existing VRE Riders .................................................... 29 Roadways ................................................................................................................ 33 3.6.1 Interstates ................................................................................................... 33 3.6.2 Regional Arterials ........................................................................................ 34 3.6.3 Secondary Arterials ..................................................................................... 36 Potential Areas of Environmental Review ................................................................ 39 3.7.1 Comprehensive Plan Summary .................................................................. 40 3.7.2 Environmental Considerations .................................................................... 41 Coordination with Other Initiatives ........................................................................... 54 3.8.1 Prince William County Mobility Committee ................................................. 54 3.8.2 Private Developments ................................................................................. 54 3.8.3 Transportation Improvement Projects ......................................................... 55 3.8.4 Planning Studies ......................................................................................... 56 Tier 1 Alternatives Analysis............................................................................................... 63 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Overview of Alternatives Identification and Evaluation Process .............................. 63 Tier 1 Build Alternatives ........................................................................................... 63 4.2.1 Commuter Rail Options ............................................................................... 64 4.2.2 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Options.................................................................. 66 4.2.3 Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) Options............................................................... 67 4.3.4 Automated People Mover (APM) Options ................................................... 68 4.2.5 Commuter Bus Options ............................................................................... 69 4.2.6 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Options................................................................ 70 Other Options Considered ....................................................................................... 71 4.3.1 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Options.................................................................. 71 4.3.2 Automated People Mover (APM) Options ................................................... 72 4.3.3 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Options................................................................ 73 Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................................... 74 Findings ................................................................................................................... 75 Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis............................................................................................... 83 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Development of Tier 2 Alternatives .......................................................................... 83 5.1.1 Identification of Tier 2 Alternatives .............................................................. 83 Evaluation of Tier 2 Alternatives .............................................................................. 86 5.2.1 Environmental Considerations .................................................................... 93 5.2.2 Noise and Vibration ..................................................................................... 96 5.2.3 Infrastructure Needs.................................................................................. 100 5.2.4 Operating Plan .......................................................................................... 106 5.2.5 Conceptual Capital Costs.......................................................................... 116 5.2.6 Conceptual Operating and Maintenance Costs ........................................ 118 Travel Demand Modeling and Ridership Forecasting ............................................ 119 5.3.1 Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................. 119 5.3.2 Model Findings .......................................................................................... 122 Tier 2 Findings ....................................................................................................... 124 Tier 2 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 127 Next Steps............................................................................................................................ 129 \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
ii
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
6.1 6.2 6.3 Key Decisions ........................................................................................................ 129 6.1.1 Federal Funding ........................................................................................ 129 6.1.2 State Funding ............................................................................................ 130 6.1.3 Other Funding Sources ............................................................................. 130 6.1.4 Project Delivery Mechanisms .................................................................... 130 Environmental Review ........................................................................................... 131 6.2.1 State Review ................................................................................................. 131 6.2.2 Federal Review ............................................................................................. 131 Other Considerations ............................................................................................. 132 Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 133 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
iii
Tier 1 Matrix........................................................................................................ A Conceptual Plan ................................................................................................. B Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate ......................................................... C Order of Magnitude Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate........................ D Ridership Forecasting......................................................................................... E VRE Haymarket Extension Model Update .......................................................... F FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
List of Figures
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 2-1
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6
Figure 5-1
Figure 5-2a
Figure 5-2b
Figure 5-3
Figure 5-4
Figure 5-5
Figure 5-6
Figure 5-7
Figure 5-8
Figure 5-9
Figure 5-10
Figure 5-11
Figure 5-12
Figure 5-13
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
iv
Study Area Cities and Towns................................................................................... 3
New Starts Planning and Project Development Process ......................................... 4
Study Area Locus Map............................................................................................. 8
Study Area United States Geological Survey (USGS) Map ................................... 16
VRE System Map................................................................................................... 18
Existing VRE Passenger Origins ........................................................................... 32
Study Area Key Transportation Corridors .............................................................. 38
Prince William County Comprehensive Plan ......................................................... 43
Grade Crossings .................................................................................................... 49
Commuter Rail Alternatives ................................................................................... 65
Light Rail Transit Alternatives ................................................................................ 67
Heavy Rail Transit Alternative................................................................................ 68
Automated People Mover Alternatives................................................................... 69
Commuter Bus Alternatives ................................................................................... 70
Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives............................................................................... 71
Trunk Transit Services in No-Build Scenario ......................................................... 87
Trunk Transit Services in Baseline Scenario 1 ...................................................... 88
Trunk Transit Services in Baseline Scenario 2 ...................................................... 89
Trunk Transit Services in Alternatives 1B .............................................................. 90
Trunk Transit Services in Alternative 1C................................................................ 91
Trunk Transit Services in Alternative 1D................................................................ 92
Environmental Constraints Map ............................................................................. 94
Generic Station Park and Ride Lot Commuter Rail Facility ................................. 102
Typical Cross Section for Rail Alternatives .......................................................... 103
Generic Park and Ride Lot Bus Facility ............................................................... 105
Alternative 1B Service Plan ................................................................................. 108
Alternative 1C Service Plan ................................................................................. 110
Alternative 1D Service Plan ................................................................................. 112
Baseline Scenario Service Plan ........................................................................... 115
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
List of Tables
Table 3-1:
Table 3-2:
Table 3-3:
Table 3-4:
Table 3-5:
Table 3-6:
Table 3-7:
Table 3-8:
Table 3-9:
Table 3-10:
Table 3-11:
Table 3-12:
Table 3-13:
Table 3-14:
Table 3-15:
Table 3-16:
Table 4-1:
Table 5-1:
Table 5-2:
Table 5-3:
Table 5-4:
Table 5-5:
Table 5-6:
Table 5-7:
Table 5-8:
Table 5-9:
Table 5-10:
Table 5-11:
Table 5-12:
Table 5-13:
Table 5-14:
Table 5-15:
Table 5-16:
Table 5-17:
Table 5-18:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
v
Estimated Unlinked Passenger Trips (EUPT) for VRE ............................................ 19
Average Daily and Average Annual Passenger Trips (Manassas Line) .................. 19
VRE Shared Stations ............................................................................................... 20
Transit Bus Service in the Study Area ..................................................................... 22
Transit Bus Service Loading Evaluations in the Study Area .................................... 23
Population and Demographics by Census Tract...................................................... 26
Commute Travel Behavior for Residents ................................................................. 27
Travel Modes to Work by Census Tract................................................................... 27
Travel Times for Work by Census Tract .................................................................. 28
VRE Rider Survey: Miles Traveled From Home ..................................................... 30
VRE Rider Survey: Zip Code of Residence ............................................................ 31
Traffic Volumes on Study Area Roadways .............................................................. 39
Minority and Low-Income Population ....................................................................... 42
Known Hazardous Material Sites ........................................................................ 47-48
Floodplain Acreage .................................................................................................. 51
Wetlands Acreage ................................................................................................... 52
Evaluation Criteria and Ratings for Tier 1 Alternatives ............................................ 76
Linear Feet of Wetlands and Floodplains Identified Along the Rail Line.................. 95
Linear Feet of Wetlands and Floodplains Identified Along the Bus Services........... 96
Noise Screening Distances for Commuter Rail and Bus Services........................... 97
Vibration Screening Distances for Commuter Rail and Bus Services...................... 98
Noise Screening Analysis ........................................................................................ 99
Vibration Screening Analysis ................................................................................... 99
Headway and Travel Time for Current VRE Manassas Line Operation ................ 106
Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Alternative 1B ....................................... 107
Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Alternative 1C ....................................... 109
Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Alternative 1D ....................................... 111
Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Baseline Scenario 1 (Bus) .................... 113
Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Baseline Scenario 2 (Bus) .................... 113
Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Baseline Scenario 2 (Rail) .................... 114
Summary of Ridership Model Findings .................................................................. 123
Change in Transit Trip and User Benefit Compared to Baseline 2 ........................ 123
Cost per User Benefit Hour for Build Alternatives .................................................. 124
Summary of Indicators Developed for Tier 2 Evaluation........................................ 125
Comparison of Tier 2 Alternatives.......................................................................... 126
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
List of Acronyms
AA:
AECOM:
AFD / AFDs:
BRT:
CFR:
CSX:
CTPP:
CWR:
CZMA:
DC:
DMU / DMUs:
DRPT:
EB:
EUPT / EUPTs:
FD:
FFGA:
FHWA:
FONSI:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
vi
The objective of the Alternatives Analysis program (49 U.S.C. 5339) is to assist in
financing the evaluation of all reasonable modal and multimodal alternatives and
general alignment options for identified transportation needs in a particular, broadly
defined travel corridor
Modeling consultant that developed the MWCOG model set.
Commonwealth of Virginia Agricultural and Forestal District(s)
Bus Rapid Transit, a term that describes a variety of enhanced bus transit services.
BRT can range from limited stop bus service in mixed flow traffic, to urban bus
transit in an exclusive travel guideway (reserved lane, travelway, elevated viaduct or
subway). As defined in this Alternatives Analysis, BRT is a rubber-tired transit mode
with distinct stations, branded vehicles, signal priority, and an exclusive guideway
where possible.
Code of Federal Regulations
CSX Corporation, a freight railroad operator in Virginia and elsewhere. CSX owns
the mainline between Washington DC and Richmond, VA, including the segment
between Alexandria and Union Station, Washington DC.
Census Transportation Planning Products
Continuous Welded Rail. Two or more rails welded together at their ends to form a
length of 400 or more feet.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as reauthorized in 1990.
District of Columbia
Diesel Multiple Unit, a self-propelled passenger rail car that is powered by small
diesel engines. DMUs can operate as single cars or coupled together as short
trains.
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
Eastbound
Estimated Unlinked Passenger Trip(s). A EUPT is a single boarding on a passenger
transit vehicle.
Final Design, a Federal Transit Administration term for the remainder of engineering
and architectural design required to complete a project following Preliminary
Engineering.
Full-Funding Grant Agreement, an agreement between the Federal Transit
Administration and a project sponsor that allocates all of a project’s federal funding
for local use.
Federal Highway Administration
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process consists of an
evaluation of the environmental effects of a federal undertaking including its
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
FRA:
FTA:
GIS:
HBW:
HBS:
HBO:
HOV lane:
HRT:
I-66:
I-95:
ITS:
LPA:
LRT:
LRV:
MARC:
MCD:
Metro:
MIS:
MPO:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
vii
alternatives. There are three levels of analysis. At the second level of analysis, a
federal agency prepares a written environmental assessment (EA) to determine
whether or not a federal undertaking would significantly affect the environment. If
the answer is no, the agency issues a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The
FONSI may address measures which an agency will take to reduce (mitigate)
potentially significant impacts.
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Geographic Information Systems, a variety of computer-based and interactive
mapping and geography-specific data technologies.
Home-based to Work trips in a transportation model.
Home-based to School trips in a transportation model.
Home-based trips in a transportation model to destinations other than work or
school.
High-occupancy vehicle lane, typically a highway lane dedicated to carpool and
multi-passenger vehicles, including commuter buses.
Heavy rail transit service. Also known as metro, subway, or rapid transit, HRT is an
electric railway with capacity for heavy passenger volumes. Unlike LRT, HRT must
be fully separated from cross traffic and cannot share its travelway with other
vehicle types. WMATA Metrorail is an HRT system.
Interstate 66
Interstate 95
Intelligent Transportation Systems, the incorporation of information technology into
transportation infrastructure, vehicles, and resources.
Locally Preferred Alternative, a formal name the Federal Transit Administration
assigns to the alternative selected by the project sponsor at the end of an
Alternatives Analysis.
Light rail transit service. LRT is the modern version of streetcar or trolley service. A
light rail vehicle (LRV) is a lightweight passenger rail car that operates singly or in
short trains on fixed rails, and most commonly in reserved right-of-way. LRT service
is typically electrified with an overhead wire power source.
A light rail transit vehicle, the modern version of a streetcar or interurban vehicle.
Commonly referred to as a “tram” in other countries.
Maryland Area Regional Commuter train and bus services. MARC is operated by
the Maryland Transit Administration, the Mass Transit Division of the State of
Maryland Department of Transportation.
2000 Census Minor Civil Division
Metro Rail, an electrified heavy rail transit (HRT) service operated by the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).
Major Investment Study, a term formerly used by the US Department of
Transportation for an initial transportation planning study.
Metropolitan Planning Organization, the agency that complies with federal
transportation and land use planning requirements for in an urbanized region within
the United States.
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
MTES:
NEPA:
NRHP:
NS:
NB:
NVTC:
O&M:
OP:
PE:
PEF:
PMP:
PRTC:
PWC :
ROD:
ROW:
SB:
SCCs:
Section 4(f):
SHPO:
SOV / SOVs:
SPUI:
TOD / TODs:
US 15:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
viii
Multimodal Transportation and Environmental Analysis Study
National Environmental Policy Act, the law that sets federal standards for
environmental review and compliance.
National Register of Historic Places
Norfolk Southern, owner and operator of the freight railroad between Alexandria and
Prince William County. The NS Alexandria-Atlanta main line is used by VRE for the
existing Manassas Line service between Broad Run and Alexandria. The NS B Line
connects Manassas to Front Royal, passing through Gainesville and Haymarket.
The VRE Gainesville-Haymarket commuter rail alternatives follow the B Line west
from Manassas.
Northbound
Northern Virginia Transportation Commission
Operating/operations and maintenance, often referenced as O&M costs for a
project.
Off-peak passenger transportation service. Refers to weekday service in times other
than the AM and PM peaks.
Preliminary Engineering. A Federal Transit Administration term for the initial
engineering necessary when environmentally clearing the Locally Preferred
Alternative.
Pedestrian Environment Factor, information about pedestrian conditions that
influences transportation modeling.
Project Management Plan, a Federal Transit Administration-required element when
applying for federal funding.
Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission
Prince William County
The ROD is the final step for agencies in the EIS process. The ROD is a document
that states what the decision is; identifies the alternatives considered, including the
environmentally preferred alternative; and discusses mitigation plans, including any
enforcement and monitoring commitments.
Right-of-way, the land and passage where a transportation service operates.
Southbound
Standard Cost Categories the Federal Transit Administration uses for Major Capital
Projects.
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act, as amended (49 USC.
303(c)). Section 4(f) states that the US Department of Transportation may not
approve the use of land from a publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or
waterfowl refuge, or historic site of national, state, or local significance unless there
is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of that land.
State Historic Preservation Office
Single-occupant vehicle(s)
Single point urban diamond highway interchange
Transit-oriented development(s)
United States Route 15, the James Madison Highway
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
US 29:
USC:
USACE:
USDA:
USEPA:
USGS:
VCAP:
VDEQ:
VDGIF:
VDOT:
VHB:
VRE:
WMATA:
WB:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
ix
United States Route 29, the Lee Highway
United States Code
US Army Corps of Engineers
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Geological Survey
Valley Commuter Assistance Program
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Virginia Department of Transportation
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., the lead planning consultant for the VRE
Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Virginia Railway Express
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Operator of Metrorail and
Metrobus
Westbound
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
x
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
1
Introduction
Interest in addressing the transit needs of the growing population along the
Gainesville-Haymarket (G-H) corridor is not a new idea, although it has increased as
residential and commercial development continues to experience significant growth
in the Gainesville and Haymarket areas. Several transit options have been discussed,
including a commuter rail extension to the Gainesville-Haymarket area. In 1999, the
Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and the
Department of Rail and Public
Transportation (DRPT)
completed the I-66 Major
Investment Study (MIS), which
concluded that a multimodal
solution was required to
address the growing
congestion concerns along the
22-mile segment of I-66 from its
intersection with the Capital
View of existing NS corridor.
Beltway to US 15 in
Haymarket. The study identified the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) service
extension to Gainesville-Haymarket, express and local bus service improvements,
and a Metrorail Orange Line extension from Vienna to Centreville as part of the
multimodal package of improvements. The G-H service extension was also one of
several VRE network expansion options evaluated in both phases of the Virginia
Railway Express Strategic Plan 2004-2025. Phase 1 of the Strategic Plan was
completed in 2002, and Phase 2 of the Strategic Plan was completed in 2004. In 2005,
the Gainesville-Haymarket Extension Implementation Plan was completed for VRE
to describe the opportunities and constraints of this new branch of service, estimate
the cost, outline the process to move forward, and determine the schedule.
The Gainesville-Haymarket Extension Implementation Plan identified the
Alternatives Analysis as an important step in moving forward. The VRE GainesvilleHaymarket Alternatives Analysis was initiated to fulfill this need.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
1
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
1.1
Overview of the Alternatives Analysis
The purpose of the VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis focuses on the
G-H commuter rail service extension component of the I-66 MIS multimodal
package. It is used to define the most appropriate transit investment strategies for
improving mobility and regional access for residents in the northern Virginia
communities of Gainesville, Haymarket, and Sudley Manor. This study investigates
cost-effective transit solutions that will increase transit accessibility, improve corridor
mobility, increase transit ridership, improve regional air quality, and support
opportunities for smart growth initiatives and sustainable development.
This study offers the opportunity to evaluate the various modes of transit services
that will meet the needs of the Gainesville-Haymarket corridor. The goal of this
study is to identify conceptual routing options, operational characteristics,
environmental issues, costs, and design constraints of alternatives that meet the
stated Purpose and Need for the project. Additionally, this study allows an
opportunity for stakeholders to participate in an open and collaborative planning
process.
1.2
Historical Perspective
VRE is a joint venture of the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC)
and the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC). NVTC is
a state-created entity of Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudoun counties and the cities of
Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church. PRTC’s member jurisdictions are Prince
William and Stafford counties and the cities of Fredericksburg, Manassas, and
Manassas Park. NVTC and PRTC jointly own and operate VRE.
VRE began service in 1992 as a result of the desire for convenient and energy-efficient
public transportation as a viable alternative for commuters from Virginia to
Washington DC. VRE’s primary market is long-distance commuter travel to the
Washington DC and northern Virginia central business districts located along the
VRE lines.
1.3
Overview of the Study Area
The study area for the VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis consists of
the corridor of Gainesville-Haymarket and its connection to Washington DC. This
includes approximately 11-miles along the existing NS B Line corridor that connects
Manassas, the Linton Hall/Sudley/Balls Ford area, Gainesville, and Haymarket.
This region has experienced significant growth in recent years. The communities of
Linton Hall, Sudley, Balls Ford, Gainesville, and Haymarket have been subject to
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
2
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
extensive growth in residential and commercial markets. These communities will be
the focus of the evaluation. Figure 1-1 shows the study area cities and towns.
Figure 1-1: Study Area Cities and Towns
Haymarket
Gainesville
Balls Ford
Sudley
Linton Hall
NS B Line
1.4
Manassas
Relationship to the FTA Planning and
Project Development Process
The VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis is a necessary first step in the
process to determine eligibility for federal funding through the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) New Starts program. FTA has an established Planning and
Project Development Process, and under FTA rules, any major transit capital
investments that may seek federal funds for new transit fixed guideways and/or
extensions are subject to the requirements of 49 USC 5309 New Starts. The New
Starts process is a competitive one where projects from all across the country
compete for limited capital resources. Federal review and approval are required to
advance from one stage of the process to the next stage. A potential new branch of
commuter rail service to Gainesville-Haymarket, or a new mode of transit in the
region, would likely be considered a major transit capital investment. The FTA’s
process for the planning and development of a New Starts project consists of four
steps: 1. System-wide planning, including corridor specific alternatives analyses; 2.
Environmental documentation/preliminary engineering; 3. Final design; and 4.
Construction. The end result of the VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
3
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Analysis will be a recommendation or a series of recommendations for transportation
investment strategies in the region. These recommendations will serve as a guide for
further study in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, which is the
next step in the FTA New Starts process. The overall New Starts Planning and
Project Development Process is depicted in Figure 1-2.
Figure 1-2: New Starts Planning and Project and Project Development Process
Alternatives Analysis
Select LPA, MPO Action, Develop Criteria, PMP FTA Evaluation for Approval into Preliminary Engineering
Project Management Oversight
PE‐Complete NEPA
Record of Decision/FONSI
Refine Financial Plan, PMP
Decision Point
FTA Action
FTA Evaluation for Approval into Final Design
Final Design‐Commitment of Non‐
Federal Funding, Construction Plans, ROW, PMP, FTA Evaluation for FFGA, Begin Negotiations
Construction
Preliminary Engineering
Final Design
Full Funding Grant Agreement
Construction
Additional funding options exist, including local and state funding resources, as well
as proffer opportunities with developers. These funding options will be considered
in conjunction with the FTA New Starts process. Funding through the New Starts
process is difficult to obtain and requires achieving certain thresholds in terms of cost
effectiveness and user benefits. Generally, the greater the number of new transit
trips and the lower the capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, the
better the alternative will score in the FTA process. Exploring all funding options is
critical to the study, although the format and process of the Alternatives Analysis
follows the FTA New Starts process as stated because it is the most stringent
potential funding source.
1.5
Community Involvement
Community involvement is a critical part of this study. VRE sought to provide a
process for stakeholder participation to support transportation decision-making on
the VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis. This was achieved by having
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
4
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
VRE riders, local residents, businesses, civic associations, Homeowners Associations,
local political leaders, other agency leaders, and other stakeholders identified and
brought into the process. Public participation needs to bring together a diverse
group of participants with varying needs, concerns, opinions, and issues.
1.5.1
Overview of Public Involvement Plan
The goal for public participation on this study is to keep the public continually
informed about the study, its findings and its results, as well as to seek public input
at key junctures to ensure that public values, interests, and concerns are considered
throughout the study.
To achieve this goal, the following major objectives have been identified:
h
h
h
h
h
1.5.2
Identify a broad and diverse cross-section of public interests to engage.
Develop educational and informational materials that will encourage and
support effective public participation.
Use effective venues and mechanisms for distributing information and receiving
comments and public input.
Engage the public in each phase of the VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives
Analysis.
Maintain and develop thorough knowledge of the stakeholders and their
expressed concerns.
Interagency Coordination Meetings
VRE identified potential stakeholders and stakeholder groups and at least one major
representative from each group. Small groups of stakeholder meetings were
conducted early in the study to gather input critical to the study. Stakeholder groups
were categorized into transportation and agency stakeholders. The transportation
stakeholders consist of NS; FTA, Region 3 (Philadelphia); Virginia Department of
Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT); PRTC; NVTC; and Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT). Agency stakeholders consist of Prince William County; City
of Manassas; Representatives of Gainesville; Town of Haymarket; National Park
Service; and Manassas National Battlefield.
1.5.3
Public Involvement Meetings
Three public involvement meetings, July 2008, October 2008, and May 2009 were
conducted as part of the public involvement process for this study. These were held
throughout the study to enlist support, hear concerns, and educate the public on the
goals of the study.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
5
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
6
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
2
Purpose and Need
This chapter establishes the Purpose and Need for the project and identifies a
number of related project goals. The Purpose and Need statement is a simple
method for outlining both the reasons for proposing a project and the underlying
need for the project.
2.1
Project Purpose
The Purpose of the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Gainesville-Haymarket
Alternatives Analysis is to develop the most appropriate transportation strategies for
improving mobility and regional access for residents in the Gainesville and
Haymarket areas of Prince William County in northern Virginia. Traffic congestion,
particularly along Interstate 66 (I-66) and US 29, the two primary regional roadways
in the study area, coupled with increased residential and commercial development in
the Gainesville and Haymarket areas, makes access into and out of primary
employment centers in the region, including the inner suburbs of Washington DC
and Washington DC itself, time-consuming from the study area. This study will
identify and compare costs, benefits, and impacts of a range of transportation
alternatives that fulfill the purpose of this study. Figure 2-1 shows an overall
location map of the study area.
2.2
Need for Transportation
Improvements
The Need for the VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Extension Alternatives Analysis is
demonstrated in four main areas. Within these categories, specific objectives for
transportation improvements within the study area to meet these needs have been
identified. They include the need to:
h
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
7
Improve Regional Transit Access and Mobility, including within the Study Area
Improve Regional Air Quality
Encourage Smart Growth Development Initiatives, including VRE TransitOriented Development Policy
Support Economic Growth
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\GIS\project\Base_Overview.mxd
M adis
Rd
on H w
y
ch
tio
An
234
es
n
pto
Com
Ja
m
John Marshall Hwy
55
Manassas
Manassas National
National Battle
Battle Park
Park
ton
St
29
Jo
hn
M
ar
sh
66
al
lH
Balls Ford Rd
nH
into
R
all
Gainesville
Bull
Bull Run
Run Regional
Regional Park
Park
wy
L
Old
15
Rd
Haymarket
wy
ley
Sud
Wa
sh
ing
H
Lee
Centreville
Rd
d
Sudley
Dr
an
or
Yorkshire
r
Su
dl
ey
M
Norfolk Southern ‘B’ Line
Lo
mo
nd
D
H
ton
Lin
Bull Run
West Gate
Lib
er
ia
LochAveLomond
R
all
d
vil
le
e
bur
nR
Rd
Av
ville
w
28
kes
No
e
rv i
d
Source: ESRI
Au
ll R
Hi
Rd
nt
Vi
Vint
Vint Hill
Hill Farms
Farms Station
Station
St
Center
F ai
Manassas
215
Ce
ntr
e
ve
Grant A
Linton Hall
Rd
Go
dw
in D
r
d
Lake
Lake Manassas
Manassas
0
2,000
4,000 Feet
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Figure 2-1
Study Area Locus Map
Norfolk Southern B Line and
Existing VRE Manassas Line
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville-Haymarket
The following sections contain discussions of Need in each of these areas.
2.2.1
Regional Transit Access and Mobility
Access between the study area and the Washington DC urban core is constrained by
a lack of sufficient public transit options and a congested roadway network. Transit
options are currently limited to the PRTC, which provides connecting bus service
between Manassas, the Pentagon, and downtown Washington DC on its OmniRide
service and connecting bus service between Gainesville, Manassas, and West Falls
Church Metro Station on its Metro Direct service. Regional factors also increase the
demand for adequately supplied transit services, including the high cost of parking
and a lack of parking. Residents of the study area would benefit from improved
access to employment, possible reduced commuting times, and reduced commuting
costs.
There are a few privately-owned bus operators in the region. For residents of the
Northern Shenandoah Valley area, including Woodstock and Front Royal, weekday
private commuter bus services, also known as the Valley Connector Regional Shuttle,
are provided to northern Virginia and Washington DC areas by S & W Tours. These
bus routes are along segments of I-66 and bus stops are located at the Vienna Metro
Station, Rosslyn Metro Station, Pentagon, and multiple locations within Washington
DC.
Transit access and mobility is increasingly important in the study area communities
due to recent growth. A study performed by Prince William County shows that the
county has experienced an average annual county-wide growth of 5.1% from 2000 to
2007 and forecasted that the population would reach 555,012 by 2030, doubling the
2007 estimates. Improvements to transit services would make public transportation a
more compelling travel choice by reducing transit travel times throughout the study
area and to employment centers in the inner ring suburbs around Washington DC
and into downtown Washington DC itself.
2.2.2
Regional Air Quality
The study area is currently experiencing fast-paced growth in a westerly direction
along I-66, specifically in the Gainesville area, with some additional high-density
growth anticipated in the Haymarket area in the Prince William County
Comprehensive Plan. Motor vehicles in the study area are the primary sources of
regional air quality degradation. Without public transit options, regional air quality
is likely to continue to diminish. Reducing auto pollution and cutting consequent
emissions of volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide compels the need to
improve transit options and promote a shift in travel mode from automobiles,
especially single occupant vehicles (SOV).
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
9
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
2.2.3
Smart Growth Development Initiatives
Development in the study area is relatively unconstrained at this time, centered
primarily around major roadways in the corridor. Local land use and zoning policies
encourage and make allowances for transit-oriented developments (TODs). TODs
are high density, mixed-use developments centered around public transit stations.
They provide opportunities for economic development, sustainable growth, and
healthier lifestyles for their residents. These developments also provide a foundation
for significantly less reliance on the automobile for travel by both residents and
workers, especially relative to the surrounding suburban development patterns that
currently dominate the study area. As much of the growth in the study area is still in
its planning stages, an opportunity exists to incorporate potential future transit
stations as an important driver of a denser and more sustainable study area land use
pattern.
Prince William County is working on a Land Use and Transportation Update to their
Comprehensive Plan that identifies areas for transit growth. The Land Use Update
outlines ten principles of smart growth. These principles are listed in Section 2.3.4.
VRE has established a TOD policy. Under this policy, VRE supports local
jurisdictions in developing public-private partnerships aimed at promoting livable
TODs. VRE’s TOD policy also supports land use designations near stations that
enhance transit system ridership and provide services for those living around VRE
stations. The policy also states that VRE will ensure that these developments meet
the needs of VRE and encourage the residents of those developments to use VRE or
other alternative modes to travel to their place of employment in order to minimize
SOV miles.
2.2.4
Economic Growth
The study area for the VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis has been
experiencing suburban growth. While TODs provide communities with sustainable
development opportunities, they also significantly contribute to the economic
potential of an area. TODs concentrate mixed-use retail development with housing
and other commercial businesses. This type of development can offer large returns
on relatively small tracts of land. The study area is composed of cities and towns
experiencing new growth, further reinforcing the need to plan development
appropriately to enhance the economic growth of this region and the rest of Prince
William County.
2.3
Goals and Objectives
The VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis is part of a list of action items
set forth in the VRE Phase 2 Strategic Plan, 2004, to address a number of goals, as
well as specific objectives, for improving the quality of transportation services and
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
10
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
equitable distribution of services within the study area. The goals, associated
objectives, and potential evaluation measures are identified as follows:
h
h
h
h
h
Enhance Mobility Options between Gainesville-Haymarket and Washington DC
Reduce Regional Traffic Congestion
Improve Regional Air Quality and Minimize Environmental Impacts
Advance Sustainable Development Land Use Goals within the Study Area
Determine Recommended Transportation Investment Strategies
These goals and objectives were derived from VRE policies, collaborative meetings
with the stakeholders, and the Prince William County Comprehensive Plan and use
part of the 2004 strategic planning process.
2.3.1
Enhance Mobility Options between GainesvilleHaymarket and DC
Mobility improvements and increased travel options in the study area should result
in significant improvements in the ability to move people through the study area and
to key employment centers within the region, including downtown Washington DC.
Increased mobility options means that study area residents and workers will have
alternatives other than relying on their automobile for travel purposes. Transit
improvements should increase accessibility for all users, including residents,
employees, students, visitors, and shoppers. Residents of the study area would
benefit from improved employment access and reduced commuting times, and
possibly, a reduction in travel costs. Improvements to the capacity, reliability, and
quality of the regional transit system will benefit some of the existing users of the
system. Measures that will be helpful in evaluating the improved transit access and
regional mobility include:
h
h
h
h
2.3.2
Projected ridership
User benefits, including travel time savings
Congestion relief
User costs/fare structure
Reduce Regional Traffic Congestion
Expanding the transit network and mode choice options will improve efficiency and
effectiveness of the region’s transportation system. Having additional transit options
other than the existing bus services and use of personal vehicles would benefit
commuters by improving mobility and flexibility in route choice. Factors to be used
in evaluating the effectiveness on reducing regional traffic congestion include:
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
11
Connection to other transit options
Projected ridership
Transit system capacity impacts
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
2.3.3
Improve Regional Air Quality and Minimize
Environmental Impacts
Mobility improvements should contribute to the attainment and long-term
maintenance of conformity with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Mobility
improvements should improve overall environmental conditions in the study area
and minimize negative impacts. Factors to be considered in evaluating
environmental impacts of alternatives include:
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
2.3.4
Regional/mesoscale air quality
Energy consumption
Vehicular travel/congestion
Noise
Vibration
Historical/archeological
Wetlands
Hazardous materials
Advance Sustainable Development Land Use
Goals
Proposed transportation improvements should advance the smart growth principles
for sustainable development. While transportation improvements alone will not
necessarily stimulate economic growth, congestion and the lack of access can be
major impediments to implementing a community’s smart growth vision of balanced
housing, economic development, and open space recreation. Prince William
County’s Long Range Land Use Plan identified ten principles of smart growth to
provide a sound basis by which the County can plan for its long term future. These
principles can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of different transportation
improvement alternatives relative to the project goal of advancing sustainable land
use. Prince William County’s ten principles are:
h
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
12
To create a range of housing opportunities and choices -- Development centered
around transit stations usually offers a wide range of housing opportunities,
encompassing a variety of income levels.
To create walkable neighborhoods -- Neighborhoods centered around transit
stations are typically walkable, with restaurants and businesses clustered to
allow for walking. Additionally, a friendly pedestrian environment is
established to encourage people to walk to the transit station.
To encourage community and stakeholder collaboration -- Throughout this
study, community and stakeholder involvement will remain an important
component in order to understand the objectives of community representatives.
To foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place -Transit stations encourage high-density developments nearby, or TODs, which
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
h
h
h
h
h
h
2.3.5
typically are designed with a strong sense of place, distinctive from other
commercial developments along arterial roads.
To make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective -- A strong
public transit corridor can assist in the definition of reasonable growth
boundaries, something that the study area does not currently have. This helps
make development decisions more predictable, especially if a set boundary is
established for new growth.
To mix land uses -- TODs establish high-density areas of growth around transit
and encompass mixed-use structures to provide places to live and places to do
business within walking distance of each other.
To preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental
areas -- By clustering development around public transit stations, nearby open
space and farmlands may be buffered from encroaching development, especially
if growth boundaries are established.
To provide a variety of transportation choices -- This study will evaluate
alternatives for public transit options to offer residents in the study area
additional transportation choices.
To strengthen and direct development towards existing communities -- Locating
public transit stations in areas of existing development should strengthen the
existing development and allow for additional, compact development in the
same area, possibly even redevelopment or infill opportunities.
To take advantage of compact building design -- By nature, TODs utilize
compact building design to achieve high-density mixed-use developments.
Determine Recommended Transportation Investment
Strategy
With the demonstrated transportation need in the study area and the limited funding
resources at all levels, the identified mobility improvements should be cost effective,
provide mobility benefits, and meet the project Purpose and Need outlined above.
Strategies for implementation of these improvements should conceive new and
creative ways to both fund and deliver project elements. Factors to be used in
evaluating this goal include:
h
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
13
Total capital cost
Annual operating and maintenance costs
User benefits
Funding opportunities
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
14
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
3
Existing Conditions
This chapter provides information on the existing conditions of the study area and
adjacent neighborhoods in the Gainesville and Haymarket regions. It includes
information on demographics, travel behavior, roadways and congestion
management areas, development patterns, and planned developments in the study
area.
3.1
Description of Study Area
The study area for the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Gainesville-Haymarket
Alternatives Analysis consists of the roadway network surrounding the GainesvilleHaymarket region and including the approximate 11-mile NS B Line corridor in
Prince William County, Virginia. This study corridor connects Manassas, the Linton
Hall/Sudley/Balls Ford area, Gainesville, and Haymarket. Figure 3-1 provides a
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Map of the study area.
3.2
Source Documents
A number of sources were utilized to compile information provided in this
document. The following is a brief summary of the source documents:
h
h
h
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
15
Virginia Railway Express, Phase 1 Strategic Plan, Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2002
Virginia Railway Express, Strategic Plan 2004-2025: Phase 2 Report, Parsons
Brinckerhoff, 2004
Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Station Design Guidelines-Northern Virginia, Vanasse
Hangen Brustlin, Inc., 2002
Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Service Extension Study (Woodside Consulting Group,
2003)
Virginia Railway Express Gainesville-Haymarket Extension Implementation Plan,
Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005
Virginia Railway Express, Station Access Study, Northern Virginia, Vanasse Hangen
Brustlin, Inc., 2006
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\GIS\project\Base.mxd
Existing
Manassas Station
Source: ESRI
Legend
VRE Manassas Line
Norfolk Southern B Line
Topo
0
2,000
4,000 Feet
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Figure 3-1
Study Area USGS Map
Norfolk Southern B Line and
Existing VRE Manassas Line
VRE Service Extension to
Gainesville-Haymarket
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
3.3
Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission, Long Range Bus Transit Plan
Final Report, 2007
2000 United States Census Data
Virginia Department of Transportation Jurisdiction Report, 2007
Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Volume Estimates, 2007
I-66 Major Investment Study (MIS)
I-66 Multimodal Transportation and Environmental Analysis Study (MTES)
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Long Range
Transportation Plan (2008)
Transit Services in the Study Area
Transit services within the study area include commuter rail, public bus, and
vanpool services.
3.3.1
Commuter Rail Services
VRE operates commuter rail service in northern Virginia on two lines: from
Washington DC to Fredericksburg on tracks owned by CSX Corporation (CSX) and
from Washington DC to Manassas on tracks owned by CSX and Norfolk Southern
(NS). From Union Station in Washington DC, these two lines share the same CSX
owned right-of-way for about 9.6 miles, to just south of Alexandria, Virginia, where
they diverge. The
Fredericksburg Line roughly
follows Interstate 95 (I-95)
and the Potomac River to the
City of Fredericksburg, and
the Manassas Line runs in a
westerly direction from
Alexandria, roughly
paralleling I-66
approximately five miles to
the south, into the cities of
Manassas Park and
Manassas. Figure 3-2 shows
Existing VRE Manassas Station.
the VRE system.
Virginia Railway Express (VRE) was formed to meet the need for convenient, energyefficient, public transportation as a viable alternative for commuters from Virginia to
Washington DC in the late 1980’s. Commuter services began in 1992, on existing
railroad infrastructure with an already established pattern of freight and intercity
passenger trains.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
17
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Figure 3-2 VRE System Map
The primary mission of VRE is to transport commuters between outlying suburbs
and Washington DC and its surrounding business districts. The service is heavily
oriented towards DC in the morning peak periods (5:00AM-8:00AM) and in the
opposite direction in the evening peak periods (4:00PM-7:00PM). The Manassas Line
provides service within the study area. It offers six morning trips into Washington
DC and six evening return trips from Washington DC. Reverse trips are limited to
one train on the Manassas line during morning and evening peak periods. Non-peak
service is limited to one mid-afternoon inbound train on the Manassas Line and two
mid-day outbound trips from DC on each line. There is no service on weekends.
Limited Amtrak intercity service supplements VRE peak service. Amtrak trains also
provide one northbound AM, one northbound PM, one southbound AM, and one
southbound PM train at selected VRE stations along the Manassas Line. Amtrak
trains are available only to VRE riders with a valid 10-Trip, Five Day, Monthly, or
TLC ticket. Amtrak does not accept VRE Single-Ride, Round Trip Tickets, or Free
Ride Certificates. To ride Amtrak trains, a multi-fare VRE ticket must be
accompanied by a Step-Up Ticket.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
18
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-1 shows monthly ridership totals for the years 2004 through 2008. Table 3-2
presents the 2007 Average Daily and Average Annual Passenger Trips along the
Manassas Line.
Table 3-1: Estimated Unlinked Passenger Trips (EUPT) for VRE System
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Year 2004
Year 2005
Year 2006
Year 2007
Year 2008
276,231
289,342
347,190
324,377
299,489
326,486
316,063
326,748
320,121
303,053
287,842
289,192
291,407
287,469
351,671
317,977
325,002
339,914
305,628
329,201
314,748
299,471
289,180
273,205
286,116
286,416
340,657
287,905
322,490
275,190
272,934
307,941
314,748
300,888
272,084
252,720
300,407
258,944
309,310
288,277
310,046
298,345
292,043
317,035
275,476
323,994
277,425
239,696
317,646
297,205
312,098
336,860
305,560
328,153
338,591
319,222
340,516
352,652
271,125
297,356
Yearly Total
3,706,134
3,724,873
3,520,089
3,490,998
3,816,984
Monthly Avg.
308,845
310,406
293,341
290,917
318,082
Source: Based on information provided by VRE.
The average daily ridership for the past three years is:
h
h
h
2006: 14,667
2007: 13,982
2008: 15,135
Table 3-2: Average Daily and Average Annual Passenger Trips Manassas Line
Stations
Broad Run
Manassas
Manassas Park
Burke Centre
Rolling Road
Backlick Road
Average Daily
Passenger Trips (2007)
699
622
604
714
374
148
Average Annual
Passenger Trips (2007)
201,711
150,627
155,923
175,029
98,570
42,758
Source: VRE Average Daily and Annual Passenger Trips by Station and Line for Calendar Year 2007.
NVTC website (2008).
VRE currently serves 18 stations. Four of the 18 stations are service by both lines.
Seven stations also serve as stops for Amtrak intercity trains. There are three stations
located near the study area: Manassas, Manassas Park, and Broad Run/Airport.
These stations provide free commuter parking. Manassas, Manassas Park, and Broad
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
19
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Run/Airport stations have 686, 600, and 885 available parking spaces, respectively.
A 532-space parking garage facility has recently been constructed adjacent to the
Manassas Station. The City of Manassas and VRE will share this facility, with 313
spaces reserved for VRE riders during commuting hours. Local bus routes provide
service to and connections with VRE at many stations, often with free transfer to
local buses. Connecting service information is readily available to the public through
the VRE website (www.vre.org) or by telephone. Only three VRT stations, Broad
Run, Brooke, and Leeland Road, lack a connection to some form of public
transportation.
Table 3-3 provides a list of all VRE stations and shows which service providers share
those stations.
Table 3-3: VRE Shared Stations
Union Station
L’Enfant
Crystal City
Alexandria
Backlick Road
Rolling Road
Burke Centre
Manassas Park
Manassas
Broad Run/Airport
Franconia/Springfield
Lorton
Woodbridge
Rippon
Quantico
Brooke
Leeland
Fredericksburg
Amtrak
VRE
Intercity
Passenger
Trains
Manassas Line
Fredericksburg Line
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: VRE website (www.vre.org).
VRE owns rail yards at the two southern ends of its system: Broad Run Yard at
Manassas Airport and the Crossroads Yard south of Fredericksburg. These provide
overnight storage of equipment. Daytime storage area is leased from Amtrak at their
Ivy City Yard at the Washington Union Terminal in Washington DC. During the
day, Amtrak does light servicing and maintenance on the VRE locomotives at this
facility. Full service maintenance and repair facilities are located at the Crossroads
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
20
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Yard. A similar facility is under construction at the Broad Run Yard. The Crossroads
Yard is equipped with a car wash to clean the exterior of the locomotives and
coaches. In the future, the Broad Run Yard will be equipped to do this as well.
3.3.2
Public Bus Services
Bus services in the study area are provided either from fixed-route or route deviation
bus services operated on behalf of PRTC. In association with Prince William
County, PRTC operates a group of public transportation services known as
OmniRide, Metro Direct, and OmniLink. OmniRide is a commuter bus service that
offers weekday scheduled rush hour service from locations throughout Prince
William County, the City of Manassas, and the Gainesville area along the I-66
corridor. OmniRide destinations shared by the VRE Manassas Line include the
Pentagon area of Arlington County and downtown Washington DC. OmniRide is
also in proximity to Rosslyn and Crystal City for riders from these areas.
Metro Direct offers connectivity services to the Vienna and West Falls Church Metro
Stations from Gainesville. Details of OmniRide and Metro Direct services in the
study area are summarized as follows.
h
OmniRide Manassas Line - Connecting service between Manassas, Pentagon,
and Washington DC
¾ AM: From Manassas to Pentagon and Washington DC
¾ PM: From Washington DC to Pentagon and Manassas
h
Linton Hall Metro Direct - Connecting service between Gainesville and West
Falls Church Metro Station
¾ AM: From Linton Hall To West Falls Church Metro Station
¾ PM: From West Falls Church Metro Station To Linton Hall
h
Manassas Metro Direct - Connecting service between Manassas and West Falls
Church Metro Station
¾ AM: From Manassas to Vienna & West Falls Church Metro (with AM only
service to Vienna Metro Service)
¾ PM: From West Falls Church Metro to Manassas
OmniLink offers local services in the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park to
complement these long-distance commuter bus operations, such as OmniRide and
Metro Direct. OmniLink is the local weekday (demand responsive) bus service that
operates in eastern Prince William County and the Manassas area. Unlike a
traditional public bus service that operates only along a designated route, with
advanced notice, OmniLink buses can be rerouted to serve locations up to threefourths of a mile off the route if time permits.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
21
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
h
OmniLink Manassas - Local bus service in Manassas between Oaks of
Wellington and the Northern Virginia Community College during AM, midday,
and PM periods.
h
OmniLink Manassas Park - Local bus service in Manassas Park to and from the
Manassas Shopping Center during AM, midday, and PM periods. This service is
further divided into two routes depending on the direction of the travel. Loop A
runs counter-clockwise along the specified route, while Loop B runs clockwise.
Table 3-4 summarizes the service provided by OmniRide, Metro Direct, and
OmniLink within the study area.
Table 3-4: Transit Bus Service in the Study Area
Route
AM
Peak*
PM
Peak*
Midday
Evening
OmniRide – Manassas
●
●
●**
●
Metro Direct – Manassas
●
●***
●
●
Metro Direct – Linton Hall
OmniLink – Manassas
OmniLink – Manassas Park
(Loop A)
OmniLink – Manassas Park
(Loop B)
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Sat
Sun
Weekday
Frequency (min.)
AM/Midday/PM
Weekday Span of
Service
●
●
20 to 30/103/14 to
30
30 to 80/75/30 to
40
45 to 60/-/50 to 60
60/60/60 to 75
4:45 am to 7:26 pm
5:30 am to 8:49 pm
●
●
60/60/60
6:10 am to 7:47 pm
●
●
60/60/60
5:05 am to 8:04 pm
4:50 am to 8:56 pm
4:20 am to 10:25 pm
*AM peak is between 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and PM peak is between 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
** Only two services provided from Downtown Washington to Pentagon and Manassas.
*** Only one service provided from West Falls Church Metro to Manassas.
Source: PRTC website (2008).
3.3.2.1
Bus Safety and Comfort
PRTC monitors the percentage of trips where bus seating is over capacity for bus
safety and passenger comfort. PRTC defines overcrowding as exceeding seating
capacity for an average of at least once per week for a month or more. When
necessary and possible, a new bus trip is added to alleviate overcrowding.
Based on data obtained from PRTC, information for the month of April 2008 is
summarized in Table 3-5 in terms of total passengers, passengers per trip, seat
capacity per service, and percent over seating capacity. This data demonstrates that
most of the commuting bus routes are operating close to or over capacity.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
22
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-5: Transit Bus Service Loading Evaluations in the Study Area
Route
Total Passengers
(AM/PM/Daily)
Average Passengers
per Trip (AM/PM)
Seat Capacity per
Service (Number
of seats)
Percent over
Seating
Capacity
(AM/PM)
OmniRide – Manassas
360/360/720
41/49
57
3%/4.5%
Metro Direct – Manassas
235/237/472
25/26 (peak direction)
7/5 (off peak direction)
45
2%/0%
Metro Direct – Linton Hall
OmniLink – Manassas
104/106/210
92/93
28/29
N/A
45
30
0%/4.5%
N/A
OmniLink – Manassas Park
76/90
N/A
30
N/A
Source: PRTC (April, 2008)
3.3.2.2
Service Reliability Standards and Schedule
Adherence
PRTC performs a number of standard monitoring and analysis efforts to evaluate
service performance and quality and make adjustments as needed. PRTC also hires
an independent firm that audits one-third of its bus fleet at random three times every
year, as well as conducting a vehicle ride and monitoring system performance on a
daily basis. PRTC receives, investigates, and responds to all customer complaints.
PRTC has a set of standards to evaluate the schedule adherence. Late service is
subject to penalties charged to the Operating Contractor. The schedule adherence
standards are defined as:
h
Early Trip – a service trip that departs more than one (1) minute in advance of
the scheduled departure time.
h
Late Trip >5 Minutes, <15 Minutes –a service trip that departs more than five (5)
minutes, but less than fifteen (15) minutes, following the scheduled departure
time.
h
Late Trip >15 Minutes –a service trip that departs more than fifteen (15) minutes
following the scheduled departure time.
At present, most schedule adherence evaluation is prompted by anecdotal evidence
provided by passengers, bus operators, and dispatchers. Once prompted, a more
comprehensive evaluation is conducted using vehicle locater software and field
observation to confirm and analyze adherence issues. Issues are addressed
according to their nature, and schedules are adjusted based on the results of the
evaluation.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
23
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
3.3.2.3
Bus System Improvements
PRTC’s plans to convert its Linton Hall Metro Direct route so that it provides service
directly into Washington DC and the Pentagon. PRTC also plans to begin a route
from Haymarket to West Falls Church Metro (4 AM and 4 PM trips). These routes
would share a park and ride lot on Cushing Road (near the intersection of Prince
William Parkway/Balls Ford Road/I-66) so that existing riders from the Gainesville
area would continue to have service to West Falls Church Metrorail Station. The
Cushing Park and Ride Lot has been funded and is expected to be completed in 2011.
If funding is available, the new routes would take place in 2012. A new park and
ride lot on Route 15 in Haymarket (Dominion Valley) is also planned. Land has been
proffered for this, and construction funding is currently being sought. This park and
ride lot would be the start/end location for the planned Haymarket route.
3.3.3
Private Commuter Bus & Van Pool Operations
PRTC offers a service called OmniMatch, which is a free, personalized ridematching
service for carpoolers and vanpoolers. Through the use of a regional database,
OmniMatch links commuters with similar work hours and origin and destination
points. There are OmniMatch carpools and vanpools originating from the Prince
William and Manassas area with destinations throughout northern Virginia and
Washington DC. PRTC also provides funding for VanStart and VanSave programs,
which provide financial assistance to vanpools.
For residents of the Northern Shenandoah Valley area, including Woodstock and
Front Royal, weekday private commuter bus services, also known as the Valley
Connector Regional Shuttle, are provided to northern Virginia and Washington DC
areas by S & W Tours. These bus routes are along the segments of I-66 and bus stops
are located at the Vienna Metro Station, Rosslyn Metro Station, Pentagon, and
multiple locations within the Washington DC area.
h
Vienna Metro, McLean Virginia SW – 48: Connecting service between Front
Royal and McLean area via Vienna Metro station. Only one service is provided
each during AM and PM peak period.
¾ AM : From Front Royal to McLean via Vienna Metro station
¾ PM : From McLean to Front Royal via Vienna Metro station
h
Rosslyn Metro / Pentagon / Washington DC SW - 46: Connecting service
between Woodstock, Virginia, and the Washington DC area via Front Royal,
Rosslyn Metro Station, Pentagon, and multiple stop locations in the urban area.
In addition to the private bus service, registered vanpools provide rideshare services,
which are administered through the Valley Commuter Assistance Program (VCAP).
Similar to that of the commuting bus service, the majority of the traveled routes of
these vans are along I-66 eastbound during AM peak periods and I-66 westbound
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
24
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
during PM peak periods. Routes vary depending on the operator of each individual
vanpool program.
3.4
Freight Rail Services
Norfolk Southern (NS) currently operates freight rail service along their Main Line
and on their B Line within the study area. The Main Line extends from south of
Broad Run to Alexandria, Virginia. VRE’s existing Manassas Line stations from
Broad Run to Backlick Road are located on the Main Line.
The NS B Line runs from Manassas to Front Royal and Edinburg. The single track B
Line diverges from NS’s AlexandriaAtlanta main line at the junction just
south of VRE’s Manassas station, and
continues west to Gainesville and
Haymarket, along Wellington Road
and Route 55. The B Line ultimately
connects with NS’s route to Front
Royal, the Virginia Inland Port,
Hagerstown, MD, and Harrisburg,
PA, where connections are made for
Existing NS freight traffic on B Line.
markets throughout the Northeast.
Norfolk Southern today operates about 14 to 16 trains per day on the B Line. NS and
the Commonwealth of Virginia are jointly funding improvements on the B Line that
will result in the addition of eight more freight trains by 2013 in connection with NS’s
“Crescent Corridor” initiative (the Crescent Corridor freight service is designed to
attract truck traffic to NS trains from I-81 and US 29). Among the proposed
improvements are passing sidings that are planned or currently under construction
and signalization upgrades.
3.5
Demographics and Travel Behavior
Census data, from the US Census Bureau and Prince William County, were reviewed
to identify population, employment, and travel behavior within the study area.
These characteristics are summarized in the following sections.
3.5.1
Population
A recent study conducted by Prince William County shows that the county-wide
population has been growing with an average annual growth rate of 5.1% as follows:
371,178 in 2006; 381,221 in 2007; and 388,269 in 2008.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
25
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-6 shows the relationship between population, land area, and population
density for the census tracts contained within the study area. Median age, housing
values, and household income are also provided. This data is from the 2000 US
Census, the most recent data available at the tract level.
Table 3-6: Population and Demographics by Census Tract
By Census Tract
Haymarket/
Gainesville
Tract 9015.01
Gainesville/
Linton Hall
Tract 9014.05
Manassas
Citywide
Sudley/Bull Run
Tract 9014.03
Unincorporated
Tract 9014.04
Tract 9015.02
Overall Study
Area
Total
Population
Land Area
(square
miles)
Population
Density
(population/
square mile)
7,224
43
4,474
Median Age
Median
Housing
Values
Median
Household
Income
168
38.4
$214,200
$80,547
18
254
32.9
$229,100
$89,828
35,135
9.93
3528
33.2
$154,500
$74,221
4,933
2
2,512
30.4
$122,000
$50,943
8,171
4,293
3
31
2,501
141
28.4
38.8
$106,000
$197,400
$47,729
$87,398
29,095
97
1,152 Avg.
33.8 Avg.
$173,740
Avg.
$71,289 Avg.
Sources: Data from 2000 United States Census.
3.5.2
Travel Behavior
Table 3-7 presents the travel characteristics at the county level. It shows the number
of commuters from Prince William County to each of the listed working locations.
The total commuter population for Prince William County, which includes the entire
study area, is 150,341. This information was obtained from the most recent Journey
to Work Tables in the 2000 US Census.
Travel behavior data for the labor force in Prince William County shows that the
majority of the residents, 87 percent, commute to another location within the
Commonwealth, while a significant portion of the residents, 11 percent, commute to
Washington DC for work. Further exploration into the journey to work data is
provided in subsequent tables.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
26
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-7: Commute Travel Behavior for Residents
Working Location
Total Commuters
Percentage of Total Commuters
Virginia Statewide
District of Columbia
Maryland
Other
130,241
15,368
4,073
659
87%
11%
2%
<1%
Totals:
150,341
100%
Sources: Data from 2000 Census Minor Civil Division (MCD) Journey to Work Tables.
Table 3-8 presents the travel mode to work of employed residents within the study
area, based on 2000 US Census Tract data. This table shows that only two percent of
employed residents take public transportation to work from the study area census
tracts. Seventy-seven percent of employed residents drive alone to their jobs, and
fifteen percent of employed residents reported carpooling as their means of
transportation to work.
Table 3-8: Travel Modes to Work by Census Tract
Mode of Transportation to Work
Public
Transportation
Bicycle
%
Pop.
%
Pop.
%
Pop.
%
Pop.
%
503
12%
62
2%
0
0%
39
1%
222
6%
75%
297
13%
44
2%
0
0%
0
0%
220
10%
2,237
74%
602
20%
67
2%
0
0%
75
3%
15
1%
3,262
2,020
75%
83%
810
208
18%
9%
103
12
2%
1%
0
0
0%
0%
97
57
2%
2%
137
123
3%
5%
Drive alone
Carpool
Census Tracts
Pop.
%
Pop.
Haymarket/
Gainesville
Tract 9015.01
3,184
79%
Gainesville/
Linton Hall
Tract 9014.05
1,718
Sudley/
Bull Run
Tract 9014.03
Unincorporated
County
Tract 9014.04
Tract 9015.02
Subtotal
Average
5,282
Overall Total
12,421
1,018
79%
Study Area
Average
115
14%
2,420
77%
0
2%
15%
154
0%
0
288
2%
Other/
Work at Home
Walk
260
2%
268
0%
4%
713
2%
6%
Sources: Data from 2000 Census Minor Civil Division (MCD) Journey to Work Tables.
Note: The Other/Work at Home category includes the US Census Bureau categories Other, Motorcycle, and Work at Home.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
27
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-9 demonstrates the average times it takes for residents to travel to work. The
travel times are based on the number of workers over the age of 16 in each census
tract and is categorized by the mode by which they travel either using public
transportation or other means. The percentage of workers and the time it takes to
travel to work were calculated for each community and for the overall study area.
Table 3-9: Travel Times to Work by Census Tract
% of Total
Gainesville/
Linton Hall
Tract 9014.05
% of Total
Sudley/
Bull Run
Tract 9014.03
% of Total
Unincorporated
County
Tract 9014.04
Tract 9015.02
Subtotals
788
1,384
1,838
624
2,462
% of Total
Overall Total
5,881
% of Study
Area Total
0%
37%
8
1,376
1%
45%
10
0
10
1,828
624
2,453
1%
37%
18
5,864
1%
36%
479
758
1,134
873
2,007
4,511
13
466
1%
22%
4
754
1%
25%
21
0
21
1,113
873
1,986
1%
30%
38
4,473
1%
28%
428
428
646
376
1,022
2,452
574
0%
15%
10
418
1%
19%
16
412
1%
14%
20
0
20
626
376
1,002
1%
14%
46
2,406
1%
16%
720
410
411
696
438
1,134
2,675
Other Means
788
33%
0
Public
Transportation
0
0%
574
Total
33%
1,267
60 or more minutes
Other Means
0%
0
Public
Transportation
1,267
Total
1,247
45 to 59 minutes
Other Means
0
Public
Transportation
Total
1,247
30 to 44 minutes
Other Means
Haymarket/
Gainesville
Tract 9015.01
Public
Transportation
Census Tracts
Total
Travel Time to Work
Less than 30 minutes
62
658
2%
17%
21
389
1%
19%
39
372
1%
12%
52
12
64
644
426
1,070
1%
15%
186
2,489
1%
16%
Sources: Data from 2000 Census Minor Civil Division (MCD) Journey to Work Tables.
Tables 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9 indicate the following travel behaviors for workers in Prince
William County and the study area:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
28
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
h
h
h
When they leave the County, most workers (87 percent) stay in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. When leaving the Commonwealth, most workers
(11 percent) go into Washington DC.
Most workers in the study area drive alone to work (77 percent). The next largest
group (15 percent) carpool to work. Few use public transportation or walk to
work (two percent each).
The length of time that it takes workers in the study area to get to work is
generally evenly distributed, with 36 percent traveling to work in 30 minutes or
less and 28 percent traveling to work in 30-44 minutes. Thirty-two percent of the
working population in the study area takes over 45 minutes to get to work, with
16 percent commuting for 45 to 59 minutes and another 16 percent commuting
for over 60 minutes. The Gainesville/Linton Hall area was rated as having the
longest one-way daily commute in the nation.
The US Census Bureau recently released OnTheMap Version 3.3, a Geographic
Information System (GIS) based program that establishes a worker shed and a
commuter shed to determine the split of workers in one region who are commuting
to another region. According to OnTheMap, the percentage of workers in the study
area commuting to the Washington DC area, including Arlington and Alexandria, by
year of data collection totals:
h 2006: 13,076
h 2007: 12,910
h 2008: 12,097
This data supplements the findings of Tables 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9 by demonstrating
significant number of workers that are traveling from the study area to the
Washington DC area.
3.5.3
Travel Behavior for Existing VRE Riders
Travel behavior for existing VRE riders, summarized from the 2007 Annual
Passenger Survey, shows the travel patterns of approximately 5,000 riders who
responded to the survey. One of the survey questions asked VRE riders how far they
travel from their home to the train station. Table 3-10 summarizes the total number
of riders traveling fewer than five miles to those traveling more than 25 miles.
Results from the 2006 VRE Passenger Survey indicate that the majority of existing
VRE riders, 52 percent, travel fewer than five miles to get to the train station. Only a
small minority, four percent, travel over 25 miles to get to the train station.
Another question on the VRE Passenger Survey asked riders what zip code they
reside in. Table 3-11 summarizes this information. Table 3-11 indicates that VRE
ridership is evenly split between the Manassas and Fredericksburg lines. Zip codes in
the vicinity of the proposed corridor (Haymarket, Gainesville/Linton Hall, and
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
29
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Sudley Manor/Bull Run) include 20136, 20155, 20109, 20169, and 20181, which
comprise 12 percent of the VRE riders on the Manassas Line.
Table 3-10 VRE Riders Survey: Miles Traveled from Home to Train Station
Miles traveled
Total # of people
Percent
Fewer than 5
5 – 10
11 – 15
16 – 20
21 – 25
More than 25
2,673
1,440
475
196
112
205
52%
28%
9%
4%
2%
4%
Grand Total
5,101
100%
Source: 2007 VRE Passenger Survey.
Figure 3-3 shows the origin and destinations for existing VRE riders based on the
2007 VRE Passenger Survey. Origins are color coded according to the station at
which the rider boards the train.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
30
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-11: VRE Riders Survey: Zip Code of Residence
VRE Ridership Percentage per Residential Origin Zip Codes
Manassas Line
Fredericksburg Line
Zip Code
Nearest Station
(Nearest Proposed)
% VRE
Riders per
Zip Code
Zip Code
Nearest Station
(Nearest Proposed)
% VRE
Riders per
Zip Code
22015
Burke Centre
7%
22405
Leeland Road
8%
20110
Manassas
7%
22554
Brooke
5%
20111
Manassas
7%
22407
Fredericksburg
5%
20136
Broad Run
6%
22408
Fredericksburg
4%
22112
Broad Run
4%
22191
Rippon
4%
22032
Burke Centre
4%
22401
Fredericksburg
3%
20155
Broad Run (Gainesville)
2%
22406
Leeland Road
2%
20109
Manassas (Sudley
Manor)
2%
22191
Woodbridge
2%
22151
Backlick Road
1%
22193
Woodbridge
2%
20181
Broad Run
1%
22556
1%
20186
Broad Run
1%
22152
Brooke
Franconia /
Springfield
1%
20187
Broad Run
1%
22485
Fredericksburg
1%
22030
Burke Centre
1%
22508
Fredericksburg
1%
20121
Manassas
1%
22546
Fredericksburg
1%
20169
Manassas (Haymarket)
1%
22551
Fredericksburg
1%
22553
Fredericksburg
1%
22026
Quantico
1%
22172
Quantico
1%
22025
Rippon
1%
22079
Woodbridge
1%
Total % VRE Riders
46%
Total % Other Zip Codes
8%
Total % VRE Riders
46%
Total % VRE Riders
100%
Source: 2007 VRE Passenger Survey.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
31
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Jefferson
Winchester
Winchester
Frederick
11
522
7
Clarke
340
Loudoun
340
Warren
Montgomery
Leesburg
Reston
15
522
Fairfax
123
7100
Centreville
Burke Centre
Warrenton
Manassas Park Burke
Manassas
Broad
Run
Manassas
28
Jefferson
Arlington
Arlington
Union Station
L'Enfant
Crystal City
Alexandria
Backlick Road
Alexandria
234
Lorton
Lorton
Fort Hunt
NewingtonMount Vernon 210
Woodbridge
Woodbridge
Rippon
Montclair
Quantico
Quantico Marine
Marine Corps
Corps Base
Base
15
Charles
Quantico
Culpeper
301
522
Summerduck
Madison
17
Stafford
Brooke
Lake of the Woods
Leeland Road
3
15
Orange
Prince
Franconia
Franconia/Springfield
600
Lake Ridge
Prince William
Dale City
28
495
123
215
Rappahannock
650
District of Columbia
Rolling Road
123
Bull Run
Fauquier
A
McLean
Vienna
Merrifield
29
Haymarket
29
267
Chantilly
17
Norfolk Southern
'B' Line
211
Wolf Trap
Herndon
66
97
355
50
Front Royal
How
270
Fredericksburg
20
522
218
Fredericksburg
3
206
King George
Spotsylvania
17
95
Fort
Fort A
AP
P Hill
Hill Military
Military Res
Res
Westm
1
33
Caroline
Louisa
Essex
64
Source: ESRI Streetmap 9.1 (2005)
Fluvanna
15
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket
Extension Feasibility Study/
Alternatives Analysis
Figure 3-3 Existing VRE Passenger Origins
360
Legend
Alexandria
Crystal City
Lorton
Rolling Road
Backlick Road
Franconia/Springfield
Manassas
Union Station
Broad Run/Airport
522
Fredericksburg
Manassas Park
Woodbridge
Brooke
L'Enfant
Quantico
VRE_Extension
Burke Centre
Leeland Road
Rippon
Goochland
Passenger origin - color coded by station of origin
(based on VRE Rider Survey 2008)
Hanover
0
1.5
295
3
4.5
6 Miles
King William
King and
3.6
Roadways
This chapter describes the major roadways that serve the study area. The roadways
include interstate, arterial, and local roadways. Some roadways serve as a major
commuter route, while others provide connections between key activity centers
within and beyond the study area. Brief descriptions of the major roadways serving
the study area are included in the following sections.
3.6.1
Interstates
I-66 is a heavily traveled commuter interstate system that runs through Prince
William County adjacent to the study area. It traverses Fairfax and Arlington
Counties and terminates at the Washington DC area. I-66 is a four to eight-lane
interstate highway, with a four-lane configuration west of the Route 234 Bypass and
an eight-lane configuration east of the Route 234 Bypass to Route 50. Currently, I-66
is under construction and being widened to an eight-lane configuration between
Route 234 Bypass to US 29. This project will also include adding one high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lane and one single-occupancy (SOV) lane to the I-66 east and
westbound approaches and will convert the existing four-lane divided highway to an
eight-lane divided interstate.
Within the study area, access to and egress from I-66 is possible at interchanges with
US 15, US 29, Route 234 Bypass, and Route 234 Business. The I-66/US 29 interchange
is currently being modified and rebuilt, along with plans to construct a grade
separated interchange at the existing US 29/Linton Hall Road intersection, creating a
fully limited access facility on US 29 between Virginia Oaks Drive and Heatcote
Boulevard. As part of this improvement, at-grade railroad crossings (Norfolk
Southern Railroad at Gallerher Road and at US 29 northbound and southbound) and
two traffic signals along US 29 are planned to be removed. More grade crossing
locations within the study area are discussed in Section 3.7.
A single concurrent flow HOV lane is enforced during the peak period for the
direction of travel from the Capital Beltway to Route 234 Bypass, operating from 5:30
AM to 9:30 AM in the eastbound direction for commuter vehicles headed toward
Washington DC and from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM in the westbound direction for
commuter vehicles headed in the opposite direction. Thus, during the peak period,
there are three general purpose travel lanes and one HOV lane in the peak travel
direction and four general purpose travel lanes in the off-peak direction. West of
Route 234 Bypass, I-66 consists of four general purpose travel lanes (two in each
direction).
Within the study area, I-66 carries 50,000 vehicles [Eastbound (EB) 26,000,
Westbound (WB) 24,000] per day between US 15 and US 29 and 85,000 vehicles (EB
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
33
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
47,000, WB 38,000) a day between US 29 and Route 234 Bypass. Between Route 234
Bypass and Route 234 Business, I-66 carries 93,000 vehicles (EB 49000, WB 44,000)
and 122,000 vehicles (EB 64,000, WB 58,000) between Route 234 Business and Fairfax
County line. These counts are based on the 2007 VDOT Jurisdiction Report.
3.6.2
Regional Arterials
There are four regional arterials within the study area that provide for regional
access for study area residents. These arterials include US 15 (James Madison
Highway), US 29 (Lee Highway), Virginia Route 234 (Prince William Parkway), and
Virginia Route 28 (Nokesville Road).
h US 15 (James Madison Highway)
The James Madison Highway is a principal arterial that is a major north-south
connector extending through the study area. It consists of a two-lane roadway and
provides access to a number of residential areas in the vicinity of Prince William and
Fauquier Counties. Through the interchange with I-66, US 15 is a four-lane divided
highway. Within the study area, James Madison Highway carries 12,000 vehicles per
day between Lee Highway and John Marshall Highway (Route 55), and it carries
27,000 vehicles per day between John Marshall Highway and I-66. Between I-66 and
the northern town limits of Haymarket, James Madison Highway carries 28,000
vehicles per day. Traffic volumes on US 15 near the study area are summarized in
Table 3-12. As shown in the table, a section of US 15 between Route 55 and Route 234
is congested during the peak hour on a weekday. The US 15 provides access to I-66
less than a mile from the rail corridor.
h US 29 (Lee Highway)
US 29 is a principal arterial roadway, generally running in an east-west direction,
parallel to I-66, within the study area. It is currently a four to six-lane roadway
which narrows to two lanes for a short distance between Bull Run in Fairfax County
through Manassas Battlefield National Park in Prince William County. US 29 is
connected to I-66 at two interchanges, one in Fairfax County and the other in Prince
William County. It runs parallel to the study rail line and crosses it in the same
vicinity as it crosses I-66.
Following the completion of the US 29/Linton Hall Road interchange, US 29 will be a
6-lane divided highway between I-66 and Virginia Oaks Drive and will operate
without signals or obstructions within this area. Within the study area, US 29 carries
13,000 vehicles per day between I-66, east of Gainesville and Fairfax County line.
Between John Marshall Highway (Route 55) and I-66 east of Gainesville, US 29
carries 59,000 vehicles per day. Also, between James Madison Highway (US 15) and
John Marshall Highway (Route 55), US 29 carries 42,000 vehicles per day. As shown
in Table 3-12, a section of US 29 between Route 55 and I-66 is congested during the
peak hour on a weekday.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
34
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
h Virginia Route 234 (Prince William Parkway)
Virginia Route 234 is a four-lane divided north/south highway that begins in the
southern portion of Prince William County. It bypasses the City of Manassas,
connecting I-66 to Dumfries Road and the Prince William Parkway south of the city.
The roadway splits south of Manassas, with Business 234 routed through downtown
Manassas and the Prince William Parkway bypassing it. The Parkway crosses the NS
B Line on a grade separated structure just south of its terminal point at I-66. Route
234 (Manassas Bypass) primarily passes through industrial and business parks, near
the Manassas Regional Airport, and has an interchange with Nokesville Road (Route
28) and Godwin Drive. Within the study area, Route 234 (Manassas Bypass) carries
33,000 vehicles per day between Nokesville Road (Route 28) and Wellington Road
(Route 674). Between Wellington Road (Route 674) and Balls Ford Road, Route 234
(Manassas Bypass) carries 35,000 vehicles per day. Between Balls Ford Road and I66, Route 234 (Manassas Bypass) carries 42,000 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes on
the Parkway portion of Virginia Route 234 are summarized in Table 3-12. As shown
in the table, a section of Virginia Route 234 between Balls Ford Road and I-66 is
congested during the peak hour on a weekday.
h Sudley Road (Route 234 Business)
Sudley Road is a principal arterial and runs from James Madison Highway (US 15) in
the north to Jefferson Davis Highway (US 1) in the south, near Dumfries in Prince
William County. The cross-section of Sudley Road varies between two, four, or six
lanes, depending on the segment. North of its intersection with Battlefield Parkway,
Sudley Road has two lanes, and south of the Manassas Battlefield National Park,
Sudley Road varies between four to six lanes to the City of Manassas. Sudley Road
changes to Dumfries Road south of the City of Manassas. Sudley Road (Route 234
Business) carries 31,000 vehicles per day between Grant Ave and northern city limits
of Manassas. Between northern city limits of Manassas and Sudley Manor Drive,
Sudley Road (Route 234 Business) carries 36,000 vehicles per day.
h Virginia Route 28 (Nokesville Road)
Virginia Route 28 is a two-lane north/south roadway that intersects the rail study
corridor within the city limits of Manassas. Route 28 is a key access point into
Manassas from the south. As shown Table 3-12, no section of Virginia Route 28 in the
study area is congested during the peak hour on a weekday.
h Wellington Road (Route 674)
Wellington Road (Route 674) is a minor arterial that runs from Linton Hall Road (US
619) in the north to Prince William Parkway in the south near the Manassas area,
providing a connection between Gainesville/Haymarket and the Manassas area.
Wellington Road has two or four lanes on different segments and mainly serves
industrial, business parks, and residential areas located along this roadway. The
previous connection from Wellington Road to US 29 via Wellington Branch Drive is
now closed and has been converted into a cul-de-sac. This closure was implemented
as part of the I-66 Widening (Route 234 Bypass to US 29) project, and instead of
Wellington Road connecting directly to US 29, connection is now provided to Linton
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
35
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Hall Road via New Wellington Road. Within the study area, Wellington Road
carries 17,000 vehicles per day between Limestone Drive and Piney Branch Lane.
Between Piney Branch Lane and Bethlehem Road, Wellington Road carries 16,000
vehicles per day, and between Bethlehem Road and Rixlew Lane, Wellington Road
carries 13,000 vehicles per day. Between Rixlew Lane and western city limits of
Manassas, Wellington Road carries 19,000 vehicles per day.
3.6.3
Secondary Arterials
h Virginia Route 55 (John Marshall Highway)
Within the study area, Virginia Route 55 runs between the Town of Haymarket and
US 29 in Gainesville and runs directly parallel to the NS B Line. Traffic volumes
within the study area are summarized in Table 3-12. As shown in the table, no
section of Virginia Route 55 in the study area is congested during the peak hour on a
weekday.
h Balls Ford Road
Balls Ford Road is an east-west two-lane roadway that crosses the study rail line in
the Gainesville area. Traffic volumes within the study area are summarized in Table
3-12. As shown in the table, the entire section of Balls Ford Road in the study area
(between Wellington Road and Groventon Road) is congested during the peak hour
on a weekday.
h Linton Hall Road
Linton Hall Road (Route 619) is a minor arterial that runs from Lee Highway (US US
29) in the north to Nokesville Road (Route 28) in the south near the Manassas area,
providing a connection between the Gainesville/Haymarket area and the Manassas
area. Linton Hall Road has two or four lanes on different segments and mainly
serves business parks and residential areas located along this roadway. Within the
study area, Linton Hall Road carries 21,000 vehicles per day between Lee Highway
and Glenkirk Road, and it carries 18,000 vehicles per day between Glenkirk Road and
Sudley Manor Drive. Also, between Sudley Manor Drive and Nokesville Road,
Linton Hall Road carries 14,000 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes within the study
area are summarized in Table 3-12. As shown in the table, the section of Balls Ford
Road between Lee Highway and Glenkirk Road is congested during the peak hour
on a weekday.
h Sudley Manor Road
Sudley Manor Road is a north/south two-lane roadway that is a key access path into
Manassas from the south. The section of Sudley Manor Road in the study area
between Ashton Avenue and Virginia Route 234 is congested during the peak hour
on a weekday.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
36
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
h John Marshall Highway (Route 55)
John Marshall Highway is a minor arterial that runs from Lee Highway (US 29) in
the south vicinity of the Gainesville area to the Town of Haymarket to the west. John
Marshall Highway continues west providing connection to western Prince William
County and Fauquier County. Within the study area, John Marshall Highway has
two lanes and carries 8300 vehicles per day between James Madison Highway west
of Haymarket and US 29 Lee Highway. Traffic volumes on each roadway near the
study alignment are summarized in Table 3-12. All corridors are shown in Figure 3-4.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
37
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-12: Traffic Volumes on Study Area Roadways
Route
Intersection
AADWT
Peak Hour
Volumes
Peak Hour
Peak Direction
Volumes
US 15
US 15
US 15
US 15
US 29
SR 55 (Haymarket)
I-66
SR 234
13,000
30,000
30,000
17,000
980
2,223
2,280
1,746
589
1,258
1,198
1,114
0.49
1.05
1.00
0.93
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
VA Route 234
VA Route 234
Wellington Rd.
Balls Ford Rd.
38,000
45,000
2,945
3,379
1,610
2,033
0.67
0.85
No
Yes
US 29
US 29
VA Route 55
I-66
60,000
13,000
3,864
1,201
2,310
927
0.96
0.39
Yes
No
VA Route 28
VA Route 28
VA Route 28
VA 234
Goodwin Drive
Wellington Road
31,000
19,000
25,000
2,340
1,473
1,957
1,356
811
1,069
0.57
0.34
0.45
No
No
No
VA Route 55
VA Route 55
VA Route 55
US 15
Haymarket
US 29
10,000
10,000
9,000
792
792
780
409
409
446
0.34
0.34
0.37
No
No
No
Balls Ford Road
Balls Ford Road
Balls Ford Road
Wellington Road
SR 234
Groventon Road
18,000
16,000
17,000
1,640
1,506
1,498
1,119
1,027
1,022
0.93
0.86
0.85
Yes
Yes
Yes
Linton Hall Road
Linton Hall Road
US 29
Glenkirk Road
22,000
19,000
1,824
1,640
1,116
900
0.93
0.75
Yes
No
Sudley Manor Dr
VA 234
26,000
2,340
1,374
1.14
Yes
V/T
Congested
Source: 2007 – Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates.
3.7
Potential Areas of Environmental Review
Potential areas for environmental review in the Alternatives Analysis include
development patterns and Prince William County’s Comprehensive Plan, minority
and low income populations, historic resources, parks and community facilities, soil
conditions, hazardous materials and contamination, traffic, water resources,
floodplains, wetlands, coastal zones, and protected species. These are representative
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
39
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
of what would comprise the NEPA environmental review in the next phase of FTA’s
Project Planning and Development process.
3.7.1
Comprehensive Plan Summary
A summary of the Comprehensive Plan within the study corridor is outlined in this
section and shown on Figure 3-5. The portion of the study area north and west of US
29 to US 15 is dominated by residential land uses in Prince William County’s
Comprehensive Plan. This includes a residential planned community designation
straddling US 15 north of the B Line, as well as traditional low-density residential
designation to the south and west of US 29. The Haymarket area, in vicinity of the B
Line and US 15, is designated as a regional employment center.
South of I-66 and east of US 29, the B Line runs through the middle of a large zone
designated for industrial uses. There is a combination of land uses directly east of
this area designated for industrial activity. North of the B Line, there is a designated
zone for high density residential. South of the B Line, there is a regional employment
designation. Further east to the Manassas City Line, there is a mix of use
designations, including general commercial and suburban medium residential.
Actual land use patterns observed include significant areas of residential
development along US 15 north of I-66, such as the Dominion Valley area, as well as
south of I-66 in the vicinity of US 15 and US 29. Additional new residential
development is noted along Route 215 and Route 619 in the Linton Hall area and
along Sudley Manor Road. A major commercial node, Virginia Gateway, exists at
the interchange of I-66 and US 29. The Manassas National Battlefield Park lies north
of I-66.
Relevant Approved Sector Plans
Two approved sector plans are relevant to the study area. These include the I66/Route 29 Sector Plan and the Innovation Sector Plan.
I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan
The I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan serves as a separate chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan, and the Sector Plan action strategies represent additions or modifications to any
previously adopted action strategies. The I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan incorporates the
Community Design Plan’s intent, goals, policies, and action strategies and states
additional action strategies, which apply specifically to the I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan
area. The Sector Plan is intended to provide general guidelines and strategies for the
effective and efficient design of new residential, commercial, and mixed-use
development. This development should be planned and developed in a
comprehensive, coordinated manner.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
40
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Innovation Sector Plan
The Innovation Sector Plan has been prepared to facilitate and enhance the continued
success of the Innovation Business Park in partnership with George Mason
University - Prince William Campus. Innovation has developed a successful
advanced technology business environment. As such, the Innovation Sector Plan is
intended to serve as a tool to bring the Innovation area to the next level of success as
a business destination and economic engine.
Updates to the Prince William County Comprehensive
Plan
As noted in Section 2.2.3, the County is currently updating the Land Use and
Transportation pieces of the Comprehensive Plan. Included in the Transportation
Update, is the County Thoroughfare Map. This map outlines the purpose of each
roadway segment in the County’s roadway network.
3.7.2
Environmental Considerations
There are a number of environmental considerations that must be reviewed in the
study area. This includes a number of areas of concern, such as historical structures,
wetlands, parks and community facilities, minority populations, and several other
considerations. These are representative of what would comprise the NEPA
environmental review in the next phase of FTA’s Project Planning and Development
process.
3.7.2.1
Methodology
The environmental screening methodology is based on practices accepted by FTA,
but is preliminary to the detailed research effort conducted through the NEPA
process. The methodology relies on readily available information, such as on-line
mapping, reports, and previous studies. A windshield survey of the study area was
conducted on May 2, 2008. No agency consultation or outreach was conducted for
this environmental screening.
To map existing environmental resources, a 1,000-foot study buffer was used along
the B Line. Descriptions of resources present along the B Line are described from
east, starting in Manassas, to west, ending in Haymarket.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
41
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
3.7.2.2
Areas of Specific Concern
Minority and Low Income Populations
Table 3-13 identifies the percentage of minority and low-income populations by
census tract and block group within the study area. The US Census defines a
minority as a person who is a member of one the following population groups:
African American; American Indian and Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian;
and Other Pacific Islander. Low income persons are defined as those whose “median
household income is below the US Department of Health and Human Services
poverty guidelines” per final DOT Order 5610.2.
Table 3-13: Minority and Low-Income Population
County/City
Census Tract
Blockgroup
Total
Population
Percent
Low Income
Population1
Percent
Minority
Population
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
683
683
683
683
901501
901501
901502
901404
901405
901405
901501
901502
901403
901403
910100
910100
910400
910400
4
6
3
1
1
2
5
4
1
2
1
2
2
5
237
5
5
866
26
109
78
7
321
137
345
46
72
234
2.91%
7.61%
9.31%
10.77%
3.76%
5.71%
3.95%
1.29%
8.33%
4.48%
7.86%
0.00%
2.49%
2.53%
15.52%
2.93%
9.95%
44.28%
9.61%
21.83%
16.21%
15.73%
38.72%
32.85%
37.28%
11.72%
24.88%
55.38%
254,890
2,343
5,166,427
4.59%
7.85%
9.43%
37.73%
37.22%
34.56%
Prince William County
Manassas City
Virginia
Source: US Census Data, 2000.
1.
Low Income as defined in the US Census Data (www.census.gov)
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
42
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
2008 Comprehensive Plan
Long Range Land Use Map
LOUDOUN DR
P&OS
JAMES MAD
ISON HWY
US 15
AE
Chestnut
LN
LTER
SHE
DR
DR
AV
AS
AS
S
River
AE
7C
US
-
95
ON
DA
VI S
HY
4
5
1. Slivers under 1,000 square feet will be adjusted administratively.
2. This map cannot be interpreted separately from the Comprehensive Plan text.
REC
O
ER
Qu
an
tic
o
ER
FEC
FULLE
R
BL
Quantico Marine
Corps Base
(Combat Development Command)
AE
P
D
TR
OIN
ER
1
CHARLES COUNTY, MD
UMU
EI
ER
CRHS
EI
RD
PL
US
-
ILL
ER
D
I - 95
ON
D
US AVIS
- 1 HY
R
RI
VE
PL
SRL
PL
ER
PL
ER
SRR
SRM
I-
FE
RS
P&OS
PL
O
SRH
SRL
PI T
CK
CO
NC
k
ee
k
ee
1
OAKWOOD DR
RD
R
US
-
URM
CEC
Neabsco
Creek
Powells
Creek
CEC
Cr
Cr
JE
F
ER
PL
4NC
Leesylvania
State
Park
SRM
SRM
Featherstone
National
Wildlife
Refuge
ER
ER
SRL
SRL
1 inch equals 1 mile
0
POSP
RD
SRR
SRR
SRH
RD
NT
P&OS
Scale in Miles
2
3
SRH
SRL
PL
POSP
PL
URL
URM
SRL
URM
NC
VMU
O
POSA
POSP
URM
PL
P&OS
TOWN OF
DUMFRIES
I
PO
Quantico
National
Cemetery
AE
PL
REC
M
SU
PL
MTN
P&OS
SRL
P&OS
S
PO
sic
PL
PL
PO
TO
MA
C
AE
MAIN
I - 95
ST
ER
AE
am
SRM
PL
1
D
MINE R
STAFFORD COUNTY
FE
RS
k
ee
CRHS
O
Occoquan
Bay
SRL
RPC
SRM
ER
Ch
op
aw
RCC
PL
FEC
PL
SRL
PL
GC
SRH
SRL
eek
SRM
PL
Occoquan Bay
National
Wildlife Refuge
P&OS
ER
PL
GC
CRHS
NEABSC
O
SRM
REC
Belmont
Bay
P&OS
PL
SRH
SRH
REC ER
ER
Cre
ek
CRHS
FEC
SRL
AE
Cr
SRH
ER
SRM
BLACKBURN RD
PL
FEC
SRH
NC
PL
SRL
NC
Quantico
AE
JOP
LIN
RD
PL
SRM
P&OS
SRL
CRHS
AE
SRM
PL
ER
PL
ER
CRHS POSA
POSA
RI
DG
E
Cr
South
k
SRL
O
IPPO
N
PL BL
RPC
NC
SRH URM
PL
ER
PL
PL FEA
SRL
THE SRM
RST
PL
ONEFEC
RD
GC
URH
O
PL
NC
Prince William
Forest Park
(NPS)
GC
FR
AL
EY
R
AE
PL
For
CAV
ALIE
DR
NDA
LE
HIL
LE
RPC
URM
PL
RPC
Po
we
lls
O
7B POSP RCRHS
RPC
SRL
PL
URM
SRL
POSA
POSP
GC
ER
PL
PL
SRH
BL
RCC
R
TD
Quantico
P&OS
JE
F
PL
k
PL
RPC WA
TE
RW
PL
AY
DR
SRL
DUM
SRM
FRI
PL
ES
P&OS
RD
POSP
O
ER
SRL
CRHS
ER SRH ER GC
SRM
SRH
UMU
ER
PL
PL
5
PL
NC
PL
Cree
URM RR
5
an
SRL
ER
Lake
Montclair
ER
ER
CRHS
SRL
SRL
URH
PL
I-9
D
RPC
REC PL
RPC
ES
CR
TW
OO
DD
eek
SRL
BL
ON
RA
CE
RD
SRL
SRL
RPC
OPIT
Z
SRL
P&OS
DALE B
L
PL PL P&OS
1
WO
OD
D
FLE
ET
Run
R
PAR
KG
ATE
DR
CARRIAGE FORD RD
BA
C
Cr
PL
R
LD
Quantico Marine
Corps Base
(Combat Development Command)
PL
FL
EE
PL
SRR
PL
DARBYDALE AV
SRH
SRL
AE
AE
ER
ER
E
ILL
LE RD
MINNIEVIL
RPC
RD
P&OS
PL
PL
ER
RCC
GC
SRL
7A
UMU
SRL PL
NC
P&OS
PL
RPC
SRH
URH
PL
PL
INA
RD
CA
AE
V
NIE
MIN
CR
NC
MIN
NIE
V
PY
Occ
CRHS
P&OS
RPC
RCC
PL
IP&OS
RNER
HOPL
SRH
REC
SRH CEC ER
PL
6* ER
ER
SRL
PL
95
REC
ER
GCPL
PL
O
ER
I-9
LIBERIA
AV
oqu
IES
RD
DUM
FR
MA
N
RD
VIL
LE
LIA
M
DR
EU
CL
ID
PL
FEC
P&OS
RD
SRL
SRM
SRL
RPC
PL
NC
PL
P&OS
SRH
SRH
PL
PL
O
ST
r
ve
Ri
P&OS
RD
ar
Ced
PL
PL
JOPLIN
ER
RD
RD
SRR
ER
PL
DEEPWOOD LN
AE
AE
TO
W
RD
ER
ADE
N
BR
IS
P&OS
O
SRH
NC
CEC
SRL
RPC
PL
PL PL ER
SRH
CRHS
SRL
O
SRH
P&OS
ER
CEC
GC
sco
CRHS
SRL
P&OS
TOWN OF
OCCOQUAN
SRL
PL
SRL
GC
PL
PL
SRL
PL
RPC
PL
SRL
P&OS
PL
RPC
SRM
RPC D
R
ALE
ND
E
D
LIN
Po
we
lls
P&OS
PL
SRL
NC
P&OS
ab
Ne
ER
DR
PL
DU
MF
RI ER
ES
R
FEC D
PL
SRR
RPC
PL DALE BL
E RD PL
O
WN
ETO
AE
PL
RD
SRL
PL
SRL ER
RD
AE
CRHS
HAZE
LWOO
D
FEC
ER
P&OS
PL
Y
NE
LA
DE
SRR
SRL
SP
RI
GG
S
PL
ER
P&OS
P&OS
AV
P&OS
PL
PL
SRM
SRL
PL
PL
SRL
CEC
O
DALE
RD
CRHS
AE
PL
RPC
OLD BRID
G
MI
LL
RPC
PL SRL
PL
P&OS
SRL
PL
RPC
SRR
PL
PL
ER
N
NC
RD
RPC
PL
PL
SRL
SRM
E
MAPL
CRHS
AD
E
AE
NC
ER
RPC
PL
SRH
SRM
NC
RPC
PL
PL
DR
LE
DA
ER
NC
ER
NC
LY
AD
HO
PL
RD
1*
CEC
PL
RPC
P&OS
PL
PL
P&OS
PL
K
SMO
CRHS
ER
SRR
NC
ER
SRL
E
INC
PR
AE
SRR
AE
KEY
S
O
PL
ER
PL
ASDEE LN
PKWY
PL
ER
n
Ru
SRR
IEL
DR
LD R
D
P&OS
SRR
RPC
an
qu
KFIE
O
IR
RPC
PRI
NC
E
KAHNS RD
BRO
O
PL
ER
WARRENTON RD
AE
SRR
NC
SINCLAIR MILL
RD
ER
VO
co
Oc
PARKGATE DR
SE
R
SRR
D
D
YR
OR
FL
DR
RD
ER
Ke
ttle
AE
P&OS
AE
PL
SRR
MORN
INGSID
E
OW
IST
BR
CRHS
ER
Lake
Jackson
ER
P&OS
CRHS
CR
RE
PL
LR
EL
RC
PU
TT
RD
AE
SRR
CR
D
ATH R
MCGR
AE
PL
P&OS
ER
FAUQUIER COUNTY
GA
LL
CR
OC
KE
PL
P&OS
ER
V
TS
EN
R
B
E
ILL
See Potomac Communities Revitalization Plan for
location of Environmental Resource (ER) Overlay
ER
PL
RD
PL
PL
RD
FO
RD
RD
RID
GE
F
LN
DU
MF
RI
ES
AE
DAV
IS
Village Mixed Use (VMU)
OCCOQUAN
SILVERDALE DR
PL
CRHS
SRR
CORNWELL DR
RD
ADE
N
CO
LVI
N
P&OS
PR
INC
E
R LN
D
ILLE R
ER
CRHS
ER
SPRINGWOODS DR
5
MA
CRHS
SRL
Urban Residential Medium (URM)
* Note: See Sector Plan Land Use Plan Map
for greater detail
YATES FORD RD
AM
SV
NOKE
PL
Ru
n
FEC
SRR
CEC
FEC
AE
RD
ER
PL
Urban Residential Low (URL)
Study Areas
7A - North Woodbridge
7B - Neabsco Mills
7C - Triangle
PL
SRL
Urban Residential High (URH)
(See text for boundary)
ER
LI
WIL
DR
LN
DR
ER
LL
DR
AE
TO
W
RD
R DR
NO
KE
ER
BR
IS
TE
RS
GO
DW
IN
PL
CEC PL
ER
SRR
SRL
CEC
PL
SRL
P&OS CRHS
O
DR
ID
RE
WA
TE
R
ER
SRR
O
WIL
CRHS
FEC
ER
Urban Mixed Use (UMU)
1 - Government Center*
2 - Innovation*
3 - I-66 / Route 29
4 - Neabsco Creek Waterfront
5 - Nokesville
6 - Parkway Employment Center*
7 - Potomac Communities
SRR
ER
PL
Sla
te
FIT
Z
SRL
HO
OE
SRL
CE
NT
RE
D
LIN
R
DE
V
AE
PL
HAST
INGS
DR
N
NW
I
PION
E
REID L
N
FEC
CEC
EFFE
GL
EN
KI R
KR
D
CH
RD
UR
NR
D
AU
B
GR
EE
RD
NC
RD
SRH
SO N
MANLEY
VINT H
ILL
PL
JACK
ER
AE
FA
UQ
UI
ER
PL P&OS
FEC
FEC
SRL
NC
D
NR
FAIRFAX COUNTY
P&OS
LAKE
LONESOME RD
SRL
PL
PL
RPC
DR
Railroad (RR)
CRHS
SRM
CEC
V
WA
LL RD
BURWE
AE
PL
PL
Parks and Open Space Passive (POSP)
1
ER
AS
POTOMAC COMMUNITIES LEGEND
Parks and Open Space Active (POSA)
PL
RD
RRY
QUA
O
GT
LIN
L
WE
ER CRHS
REC
SRL
SRM
NOK
RD
ILLE
ESV
AS
S
V
TA
AN
GR
D
RPC
RPC
D
LR
EST R
SRR
Run
ER
RPC
RD
SRL
P&OS
IE
RV
FAI
RD
OWLS
N
RPC
EI
PL
SRL
PL
SECTOR PLAN AREAS
SRL
MA
N
Prince William
County
Government
Offices PL
CEN
TER
ST
PL
SRH
GC
CITY OF
MANASSAS
PARK
PL
CITY OF
MANASSAS
WE
LL
IN
GT
ON
REC
PY
P&OS
2*
FEC
AL
NH
TO
LIN
ILL
TH
VIN
CRHS
REC
SRM
PL
PL
SRL
O
GC
ER
SRL
SRL
SRL
ER
SRM
PL
ER
Bro PL
ad
ER
PL
SRH
V
RIA A
LIBE
ER
RCC
ER
PL
AV
GRANT
PL
SRL
PL
EI
REC
M
LIA
RD
SRL
PL
SRH
WIL
VINT
HILL
RD
PL
SRL
P&OS
P&OS
PL
PL
P&OS
E
NC
PRI
AE
D
FOR
PL
V
NA
TO
S
LLIN
RO
ER
ER
H
AS
ER
P&OS
PL
PL
D
LR
Lake
Manassas
SRL
PL
FEC
ER
FEC
AL
NH
TO
LIN
SRR
ER
CRHS
ER
REC
GC
PL
Run
PL
PL
ANOR DR
UDLEY M
RPC
P&OS S
PL
CRHS
PL
PL D DR SRL
SRH
ON
LOM
P&OS
SRH
FEC
FEC
SRL
RPC
ER D
R
ER
PY
PL
EI
ER
CEC
RPC
EI
RD
ER
RD
O
RPC
AE
LIAM
PL
RPC
SRR
REC
Cities or Towns
ILLE
SRM
RPC
TO
N
D
DR
OR
F
FEC
LLS
SRM
EI
PL
BA
REC
FEC
WIL
CEC
ER
6
LUC
ASV
WE
LL
ING
RCC
PRI
NCE
PL
ER
CEC PL
I-6
OP
L
PL
PAGELAND LN
DR
E HUNT
HERITA
G
SRL
AE
I - 66
Public Land (PL)
PL
CRHS
PL
ANO
CEC
EI
PL
SRL
HY
LEE
9
S
U 2
CEC
I - 66
FEC
SCH
A
CA
R
OL
D
SRR
3
RCC
CEC
SRL
AE
Parks and Open Space (P&OS)
Manassas National
Battlefield Park
n
Ru
US 15
JAMES M
ADISON
SRL
SRH
PL
REC
CRHS
HY
LEE
9
US 2
REC
SUD
LEY
M
SRM
6
I-6
ER
P&OS
LE R
UN R
D
HY
OL
IN
AR
D
DR
SRM
ER
ll
Bu
T
RKE
PL
SRM
CATH
ARP
CEC
AE
Manassas National
Battlefield Park
CRHS
County Registered Historic Sites (CRHS)
HY
LEE
9
S
U 2
AE
VIRG
I
MAR NIA
YLAN
D
CRHS
BL
UNIVERSITY
n
Ru
CRHS
ee
k
Bu
ll
CRHS
RD
ad
Bro
SRH
CEC
MA
HAY
IN RD
ER
TOWN OF
HAYMARKET
SRR
ER
Ru
n
SRM
AE
AE
PL
SRL
CEC
SRL
Cr
Environmental Resource (ER) Chesapeake Bay RPA and 100-year floodplain
Specific boundary will be determined during development review
AE
PIPER LN
REC
COUNTY WIDE
LEY
SUD
Fork
PL
SRL
Bull
ER
OLD
CHU
RCH
RD
ER
KET
T
THOROU
GHFARE
RD
AE
I - 66
Bul
l
n
Ru
AE
SRR
SRM
Agricultural and Forestal Districts
AE
pi
n
SRR
RPC
Convenience Retail (CR)
Y RD
D
AE
Ca
th
ar
RPC
SRL
P&OS
Y
DR
ER
PL
SUDL
E
SR
MU
RSHALL H
AE
PL
TE
AR
JOHN MA
I - 66
EY
PL
PL
RPC
North
CRHS
M
DO
ALL
NV
INIO
tle
Lit
P&OS
PL
P&OS
RD
AE
ER
CH
TIO
AN
ER
SRH
RPC
CR
SV
Silver
Lake PL
PL
P&OS
AE
CRHS
Agricultural or Estate (AE)
P&OS
LIGHT
NER R
D
IEW DR
SRR
Residential Planned Community (RPC)
RURAL AREA
ND LN
AE
AE
Lit
tle
ER
General Commercial (GC)
Rural Area Boundary
PAGEL
A
ER
Suburban Residential Low (SRL)
Semi-Rural Residential (SRR)
VALLEY V
US 15
JAMES M
CRHS
RPC
Community Employment Center (CEC)
RI
VE
R
SUD
LEY
RD
CATHARPIN RD
RD
LL
ERFA
WAT
SRR
LAWNVALE
ADISON H
WY
Cre
ek
P&OS
ER
n
Ru
CR
CRHS
P&OS
CRHS
AE
ALDIE RD
n
Suburban Residential Medium (SRM)
1
AE
P&OS
rpi
Industrial Employment (EI)
SEMI-RURAL AREA
SANDERS LN
CRHS
D
LOGMILL R
Ca
tha
Suburban Residential High (SRH)
US
-
CRHS
ll
Bu
MOU
NTA
IN
RD
ER
Flexible Employment Center (FEC)
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Lick
PL
P&OS
SUBURBAN AREA
Office (O)
FEATHERBED LN
CRHS
ER
General Commercial (GC)
CRHS
GROVETON RD
LOGMILL
RD
ILL
ER
D
ER
AE
Regional Commercial Center (RCC)
LOUDOUN COUNTY
ER
PL
P&OS
Regional Employment Center (REC)
AE
ER
ER
Mass Transit Node (MTN)
Published May 16, 2008
MOUNTAIN RD
AE
URBAN AREA
TOWN OF
QUANTICO
Source:
Board of County Supervisors
Ordinance 08-021
Prepared by the Planning Office (rfh/jbm)
5 County Complex Court
Suite 210
Prince William, VA 22192
Phone 703-792-6830
FAX 703-792-4401
Historic Resources
Project pursuing FTA funding are required to take into account the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, 16 USC. 47 (f), as amended, in addition to NEPA requirements
(Section 101(b)(4)). Under Section 106, federal agencies are also required to provide
an opportunity for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), and other interested parties to comment on federal
undertakings.
36 CFR 800.16 defines historic properties to include archaeological sites, prehistoric
and historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or any object that may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as maintained by the
Secretary of the Interior. In order to qualify for inclusion, properties must meet
certain criteria and possess integrity as defined by the Secretary.
Historic properties are also protected under Section 4(f) of the US Department of
Transportation Act, as amended (49 USC. 303(c)). Section 4(f) states that the US
Department of Transportation may not approve the use of land from a publicly
owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site of national,
state, or local significance unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the
use of that land. If such land is required, then all possible measures to minimize
harm must be employed.
The potential for historic resources, including structures and archaeological sites,
exists within the study area. Manassas is known for its involvement in the Civil War,
especially with the First Battle of Manassas in 1861 and the Second Battle of
Manassas in 1862. The Manassas National Battlefield Park is located to the northeast
of the B Line and I-66. The B Line played a major role in the history and
development of Manassas, as it was a strategic crossing, providing connections to
Richmond, Virginia, Washington DC, and the Shenandoah Valley. While the B Line
being evaluated is not adjacent to or near the actual Manassas Battlefield, the rail line
itself may have historic significance and may warrant consideration in advancing this
project.
Similar to Manassas, much of the history of Gainesville is related to the railroad and
the Civil War. In the mid 1800’s, the town was a shipping point for various items,
and during the Civil War, the area served as a path for soldiers to reach the First and
Second Battles of Manassas.
Haymarket also has a significant history. One site within the study area that was
identified as a known historic resource is Saint Paul’s Episcopal Church, located at
6760 Fayette Street in Haymarket. With the history of this area, the potential for
more historic resources exists. Further coordination with the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources is recommended in the next phase of this study.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
44
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Parks and Community Facilities
No parks were identified immediately adjacent to the B Line. The Harris Pavilion is
east of where the B Line branches off from the main line. This park provides passive
recreation opportunities (i.e. music, events, etc.). It does not appear that this facility
is publicly owned. The New Directions School is located off of Rixlew Lane, just
north of the tracks. The school includes ball fields, tennis courts, and athletic tracks
near the B Line. Coordination with Prince William County and the New Directions
School should occur to determine if any proposed improvements along the B Line
would affect this 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 if any proposed work requires new right-of-way or if the
property would be adversely affected either temporarily or permanently.
A few places of worship were identified along the corridor, but none of these were
identified to be immediately adjacent to the B Line.
Potentially Noise Sensitive Areas
Potentially noise sensitive areas within the study area would include residential
properties adjacent to the B Line and may also include the New Directions School.
As planning for the project progresses, consideration of potential noise sensitive
receptors would need to be evaluated further.
Soil Conditions
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines prime farmland as
land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for
producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oil seed crops, and is also available for these
uses. Prime farmland can be cropland, pastureland, forestland, or other land, but not
urban built-up land or water. Land designated as “prime farmland” has the soil
quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce
sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable
farming methods.
The protection of prime farmland is promulgated under Title 7 of the US Code
(USC), Chapter 73—the Farmland Protection Policy. The purpose of the policy is to
minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary
conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses and to ensure that federal programs
are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect
farmland.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFDs) that
protect and enhance agricultural and forestal land as economic and environmental
resources. The AFD was enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1977. AFDs
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
45
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
consist of large tracts of forested land or farmland conserved for the production of
food, crop, timber, and other agricultural and forestal products. It is a special land
use set up and administered by localities, similar to zoning. Landowners who form
AFDs qualify for lower tax rates, avoid nuisance ordinance restrictions and protect
their land from governmental or other actions that encourage development.
Potentially Hazardous Materials and Contamination
The regulations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), and the Virginia Waste
Management Board govern the activities that surround the generation, handling, and
disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. These agencies regulate the
identification, investigation, and the remediation of contaminated sites in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
The governing USEPA regulations include: the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, including the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Toxic
Substances Control Act, and Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, as
codified in 40 CFR et al.
Based on the USEPA Envirofacts Warehouse, hazardous waste handlers exist within
the study area. Table 3-14 lists the businesses that are registered with USEPA as
being a hazardous waste handler, having reported a toxic release, having a permit to
discharge, toxic air releases, or having a known association with Superfund sites.
Due to the occurrence of these types of facilities within the study area, further
investigation of these sites and other potential unknown sites would be necessary in
the next phase of the study. Specifically, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,
based on the ASTM Standards, would need to be conducted.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
46
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-14: Known Hazardous Material Sites
Toxic
Releases
Reported?
Hazardous
Waste
Handler?
Active or
Archived
Superfund
Report?
Air
Releases
Reported?
Street
City
State
ZIP
Permitted
Discharges
to Water?
5945 Wellington
Road
Gainesville
VA
20155
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
5291 Wellington
Road
Gainesville
VA
20155
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Gainesville
VA
20155
No
No
Yes
No
No
Gainesville
VA
20155
No
No
Yes
No
No
Gainesville
VA
20159
No
No
Yes
No
No
Gainesville
VA
22065
No
No
Yes
No
No
Gainesville
VA
22065
No
No
Yes
No
No
Gainesville
VA
22065
No
No
Yes
No
No
Gainesville
VA
22065
No
No
Yes
No
No
Gainesville
VA
22065
No
No
Yes
No
No
Gainesville
VA
22065
No
No
Yes
No
No
Haymarket
VA
20169
No
No
No
No
Yes
7812 Bethlehem
Road
Manassas
VA
20108
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
9414 Battle
Street
Manassas
VA
20108
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Town Cleaner
9762 Center
Street
Manassas
VA
20108
No
No
Yes
No
No
APAC Manassas
and APAC
Occoquan
8474 Vulcan
Lane
Manassas
VA
20109
No
No
No
No
Yes
Facility Name
Atlantic Research
Corporation Gainesville
Betco Block and
Products
Incorporated
Gainesville Exxon
Northern Virginia Co
Op
Superior Paving
Corporation
Herndon Lumber &
Millwork
Incorporated
Larry F Terry SR
T/A Bull Run Exxon
Racetrac # 312
Ruppert
Landscaping Co
Incorporated
Suburban Propane
Fleet Maint
Sunoco Service
Station
Hard Rock Concrete
Limited Liability
Corporation
Branscome Paving
Company Manassas
New Method
Cleaners
Incorporated
14006 Lee
Highway
5399 Wellington
Road
5525 Wellington
Road
7412 Gallerher
Road
13705 Lee
Highway
14105 Lee
Highway
5451 Wellington
Road
14111 John
Marshall
Highway
13713 Lee
Highway
6650 James
Madison
Highway
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
47
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-14: Known Hazardous Material Sites (Cont’d.)
Toxic
Releases
Reported?
Hazardous
Waste
Handler?
Active or
Archived
Superfund
Report?
Air
Releases
Reported?
Facility Name
Street
City
State
ZIP
Permitted
Discharges
to Water?
Virginia Concrete
Company
Incorporated –
Manassas
8558 Vulcan
Lane
Manassas
VA
20109
No
No
No
No
Yes
BAE
9300 Wellington
Road
Manassas
VA
20110
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
9009 Center
Street
Manassas
VA
20110
No
No
No
No
Yes
9218 Prince
William Street
Manassas
VA
20110
No
No
Yes
No
No
Manassas
VA
22110
No
No
Yes
No
No
Manassas
VA
22110
No
No
Yes
No
No
Manassas
VA
22110
No
No
Yes
No
No
Manassas
VA
22110
No
No
Yes
No
No
Manassas
VA
22110
No
No
Yes
No
No
Manassas
VA
22110
No
No
Yes
No
No
Manassas
VA
22110
No
No
Yes
No
No
Manassas
VA
22111
Yes
No
No
No
No
MIFCO – Manassas
Ice and Fuel
Company
VAPCO Division
Scientific Products
Corporation
Culbertson
Company of Virginia
Didlake
Incorporated
Lockheed Martin
Tactical Def. Sys.
Manassas City of
City Hall
Mobil Oil
Corporation
Morrow Crane
Company
Virginia Tech
Occoquan Arec.
Prince William
County – Balls
12923 Balls
Ford Road
9102 Center
Street
9255 Wellington
Road
9027 Center
Street
9779 Center
Street
9415 Wellington
Road
9408 Prince
William Street
13000 Balls
Ford Road
Source: www.epa.gov.
Traffic
For any alternatives that propose using the B Line, traffic associated with existing atgrade crossings would be a significant environmental concern. The existing roadway
network crosses the B Line in several locations. Most of these locations are at-grade
crossings, where there are flashing lights and signalized gate controls to stop
roadway traffic when a train is coming. Along the NS B Line, west of Manassas,
there are a number of at-grade crossings. There are three grade-separated crossings:
Sudley Manor Drive, Prince William Parkway (Route 234), and University
Boulevard. Grade-separated crossings for Lee Highway (US 29) and Gallerher Road
are anticipated to be complete in the future. The at-grade crossings on the NS B Line
are shown in Figure 3-6.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
48
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
Nokesville Road
(Route 28)
Cockrell Road
Godwin Drive
Rixlew Lane
Vulcan Lane
Sudley Manor Drive
Bethlehem Road
Prince William Parkway
(Route 234)
Balls Ford Road
University Boulevard
Lee Highway (US 29)
Gallerher/Linton Hall Road (Route 619)
Jefferson/Carolina Road
James Madison Highway (US 15)
Existing US 29 at-grade crossing.
Water Resources
Based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping, the B Line
crosses Cannon Branch and a tributary to Cannon Branch in the vicinity of Vulcan
Quarry. In the vicinity of the at-grade crossing of the Route 234 Bypass, the B Line
crosses Dawkins Branch. In the vicinity of K Street in Gainesville, the B Line crosses
two unnamed tributaries to the North Fork of Broad Run. For the remainder of the
proposed expansion, the B Line parallels the North Fork and crosses two additional
unnamed tributaries to the North Fork.
Floodplains
Executive Order 11988, Floodplains Management, prohibits floodplain
encroachments that are uneconomic, hazardous, or result in incompatible uses of the
floodplain, as well as 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.
In the vicinity of the areas where the rail line crosses waterbodies, the potential for
flooding exists. Table 3-15 shows the floodplain acreage of the study area.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
50
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-15: Floodplain Acreage
Floodplain
Zone
Description
Acres
AE
An area inundated by 1% annual chance flooding (100 year floodplain)
124.52
X
Areas determined to be outside 500-year floodplain determined to be
outside the 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplains.
1243.70
X500
Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average depths of
less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas
protected by levees from 100-year flood. An area inundated by 0.2%
annual chance flooding.
11.29
Source: www.fema.gov.
Wetlands
Based on available mapping, approximately 200 acres of wetlands exist within the
potential impact buffer. Any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require
coordination with the VDEQ/USACE and would likely require a permit and
associated mitigation.
For impact to wetlands and waterbodies, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as well
as the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program, a permit is required for activities
that include placement of dredge and fill material and/or mechanized land clearing,
ditching, draining, channelization or other excavation activities into the waters of the
US, including wetlands adjacent to those waters. In Virginia, both the VDEQ and the
USACE have jurisdiction over and decision-making participation regarding wetland
impacts.
Table 3-16 shows the wetlands acreage within the potential impact buffer of the rail
line.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
51
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 3-16: Wetlands Acreage
Wetland Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Other
Attribute
Acres
PEM1/SS1Eh
PEM1B
PEM1E
PFO1/4A
PFO1/4B
PFO1/4Cd
PFO1/EM1Eh
PFO1A
PFO1B
PFO1C
PFO1Cb
PFO1Ch
PFO1E
PFO4/1A
PFO4/1B
PFO4B
PFO4Bd
PSS1/EM1C
PSS1C
PSS1Ch
PSS2/EM1Fh
PUB/FO5Fb
PUBFb
PUBFh
PUBFx
PUBHh
PUSCx
3.84
5.87
5.12
2.25
16.60
2.75
20.44
2.04
25.88
21.46
9.37
4.72
0.48
0.92
9.02
25.49
1.00
0.63
7.73
5.48
12.88
1.30
2.12
0.13
3.92
8.59
0.60
Total Acres Within Study Area
200.63
Source: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgu.gov.
Coastal Zone
Prince William County is located within Virginia’s designated Coastal Zone based on
mapping provided by the VDEQ
(http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/coastmap.html). Coastal zones are protected
and managed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as reauthorized in
1990 (CZMA). The CZMA provides legislation to “preserve, protect, develop, and
where possible, restore and enhance the resources of the coastal zone for this and
succeeding generations.” The act also encourages and assists states to protect the
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
52
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes barriers,
fish and wildlife, and their habitats, within the coastal zone.
In 1986, the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Area was established to protect
and manage Virginia’s Coastal Zone.
Federally approved Coastal Programs that authorize a state to implement federal
action within a coastal zone must be consistent with that State’s Coastal Program’s
laws and enforceable policies. Since Virginia has a federally-approved Coastal
Program, federal activities within the Coastal Zone require a Federal Consistency
Determination. The VDEQ is responsible for the Federal Consistency Determination
review and approval. If federal funding is pursued for this project, a Federal
Consistency Determination would be required.
Protected Species
Terrestrial habitats outside of private or public preserves, management areas, parks,
or other legally protected areas have no special regulations limiting their use.
However, plant and wildlife species within these areas are afforded legal protections.
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) regulates nonendangered wildlife at the state level. Federal protection also occurs for nonendangered wildlife under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, last amended in
1986. This Act provides protection for all native migratory game and non-game birds
with exceptions for the control of species that cause damage to agricultural or other
interests.
Aquatic habitats are protected under a variety of regulations that limit their use or
destruction. Aquatic habitats within the study area would include those water
resources previously identified.
No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during the
environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses,
coordination would need to be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the
VDGIF, 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.
3.7.2.3
Recommendations
Based on this preliminary assessment, the greatest potential for impacts associated
with improvements along the B Line from Manassas to Haymarket are related to
wetlands and floodplains. Wetlands and/or floodplains may be impacted if
proposed improvements require purchasing right-of-way for the addition of a
second track. Wetlands and floodplain impacts must also be evaluated in areas
where stations and yards may be proposed. Further coordination with the
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
53
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
appropriate agencies as well as more detailed field analysis is recommended for the
next phase of the project.
As previously mentioned, a Federal Consistency Determination would be required if
federal funding is pursued for this expansion.
3.8
Coordination with Other Initiatives
There are a number of initiatives and planned developments that are important to
consider throughout the Alternatives Analysis.
3.8.1
Prince William County Mobility Committee
The Prince William County has established a Mobility Committee to create a
Transportation Update to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. This Committee is
nominated by the Board of County Supervisors and is composed of stakeholders and
citizens. The Transportation Update is intended to find out how different transit
systems and facilities can work together to create a more efficient transportation and
transit network in Prince William County.
Key elements of the Mass Transit Plan that are relevant to VRE and this study
include:
h
h
h
h
3.8.2
Peak period commuting to jobs; includes non-residents commuting to Prince
William County as well as residents commuting out of the County
Provide multi-modal transportation network that offers safe and efficient
movement of goods and people throughout the County and into surrounding
jurisdictions
Encourage transit networks that support targeted industries and major activity
centers
Explore and promote innovative mechanisms of funding new mass transit
systems and expand existing systems
Private Developments
Growth in the study area is largely private development, with several residential and
commercial centers planned or underway.
3.8.2.1
Market Square/Virginia Gateway
Virginia Gateway is a new mixed-use development that is largely constructed and in
operation with some outparcels still being designed or constructed. It is located in
Gainesville, Virginia, adjacent to the intersection of the I-66/Route 29 Interchange.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
54
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Market Square is an upscale retail, office, dining, and entertainment component of
Virginia Gateway, developed by the Peterson Company and located in the southeast
corner of the intersection of Linton Hall Road and Wellington Road.
3.8.2.2
Midwood Center
Midwood Center is a planned residential, commercial, and business district located
on the south side of Route 55, about one-half mile west of Route 15, just outside the
Town of Haymarket. This development is planned to include a 250-acre lifestyle
mixed-use center, with at least two million square feet of office space, 120,000 square
feet of retail space, 14,000 housing units in immediate vicinity, and 8,000 housing
units.
3.8.2.3
Prince William Station
Prince William Station, formerly known as Brentswood, is east of Route 29/Interstate
66 intersection in Gainesville, Virginia, on the south side of the B Line. Prince
William Station is a 52-acre town center, with 1.45 million square feet of nonresidential development and up to 275 homes. Prince William Station is planned as a
transit-oriented development, with a commuter rail station at the center of the
development, incorporating surface and garage parking, as well as bus loading and
unloading areas.
3.8.2.4
Dominion Station
This development is planned for the north side of I-66 and B Line in Gainesville,
Virginia. It is planned as a mixed-use development by Clark Realty/Latsios
Property. Dominion Station is planned to resemble the Reston Town Center with
retail and restaurant venues. Dominion Station proposes to create 6,884 office jobs
and 2,666 retail jobs, adding 4,950 more residents to the site and establishing an
employment center.
3.8.3
Transportation Improvement Projects
As a result of the fast-paced growth experienced in the study area, a number of
transportation improvement projects are planned or underway.
3.8.3.1
Route 28/Wellington Road Interchange
VDOT will address this grade separation in conjunction with other I-66
improvements. In preparation for this project, all necessary right-of-way has been
acquired, the facilities on that right-of-way have been removed, and the utilities have
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
55
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
been relocated. The project design is progressing through pre-bidding stages. Once
funds become available, the project will be advertised for bidding.
3.8.3.2
I-66/Route 29 Interchange
A grade separation is being designed for the I-66/Route 29/Linton Hall Road
Interchange at the existing Route 29/Linton Hall Road intersection in the Gainesville
area. This will make Route 29 between Virginia Oaks Drive and Heatcote Boulevard
a fully limited access highway. The interchange will be a single point urban
diamond interchange (SPUI), with a braided ramp configuration along southbound
Route 29 between I-66, Linton Hall Road, and Gallerher Road.
This interchange will include four bridges: Route 29 and Ramp K over the B Line;
Linton Hall Road over Route 29; Route 55 over the B Line; and Ramp G over Ramp
K. The removal of at-grade railroad crossings ( Gallerher Road and Route 29
northbound and southbound) and two traffic signals along Route 29 must occur with
this project as well. Following completion of this project, Route 29 will be a six-lane
divided highway between I-66 and Virginia Oaks Drive and will operate without
signals or obstructions within this area.
3.8.3.3
Route 15 Improvements
Route 15 improvements are composed of two sections, a northern section and a
southern section. Under this project, both sections are being planned for roadway
widening and realignment work. These sections will create a four-lane divided
facility with median that will widen about 12,639 linear feet of Route 15. The
northern section will widen Route 15 north of Dominion Valley to the intersection of
Route 234. It will include the realignment of Route 234 and Waterfall Road to create
one intersection with Route 15. The southern section will widen Route 15 from north
of Route 66 to north of Utterback Lane.
The improvements will include extending Heathcote Boulevard from its intersection
with Route 15 east to its existing intersection with Old Carolina Road, and widening
Old Carolina Road from Heathcote Boulevard north to the existing Old Carolina
widened section. Three new four-lane bridges will be constructed on this project, one
on the northern section and two on the southern section.
3.8.4
Planning Studies
Several relevant planning studies have been completed and need to be accounted for
throughout the AA.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
56
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
3.8.4.1
VDOT Major Investment Study Multimodal Transportation and Environmental Study
The purpose of the I-66 Multimodal Transportation Study was to provide a
comprehensive Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluated
the benefits and impacts of several multimodal transportation improvements and
strategies for the I-66 corridor. The study area extended 24 miles from the US 15
interchange in Prince William County to the western limit of the I-495 interchange in
Fairfax County. This study was identified as the next step in developing and
implementing multimodal transportation improvements in the I-66 corridor. The
final recommendations of the study stated that a series of transportation
improvements are necessary in the region. One of these investments was an
extension of VRE service to the G-H corridor.
3.8.4.2
VRE Phase 1 Strategic Plan
The Phase 1 Strategic Plan was completed in June 2002 by VRE. The objectives of this
plan were to:
h Enable the service owners to establish a future vision for the VRE system
h Define an appropriate level of long-term public investment in VRE
commensurate with the ridership and mobility benefits realized
h Identify capital investment requirements in terms of short-term priorities and
long-term needs.
h Assist in the establishment of an organizational structure for VRE that enables
the vision to be achieved
VRE had been very successful since its start-up in 1992, and ridership surpassed
anticipated volumes. This Strategic Plan was needed to create a vision for the future
role of VRE in the region’s transportation system; develop an operating plan;
establish a tabulation of infrastructure and rolling stock fleet requirements;
determine estimates of projected ridership and fare revenue; determine estimates of
capital costs and annual operations and maintenance costs; and evaluate alternative
networks, service and investment ideas, including lower-cost and higher-cost
options.
This study discusses the VRE ridership market and its primary focus of bringing
people from the northern Virginia suburbs to work in the Washington DC-Arlington
urban core. Population growth and development in VRE corridors is projected to
remain strong in the future. The greater Washington DC business districts remain
popular places for employment and are well-served by VRE services. There are four
VRE stations in close proximity to much of the concentrated urban core of
Washington DC.
The VRE market share competes largely with the private automobile as a means of
reaching downtown Washington DC. Once VRE reaches the territory served by
Metrorail, VRE’s share of the transit trips decreases, while Metrorail’s share
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
57
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
increases. This indicates that VRE and Metrorail are complementary to one another,
not competitive. On the far ends of VRE service lines, there are High-Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-95 and I-66. This offers additional options to many
commuters that are competitive with VRE. Regardless, ridership remains strong at
the end of the lines.
An analysis of ridership in the Strategic Plan shows that the majority of riders
commute four miles or less to the VRE station. However, there are also a number of
riders that commute from ten miles or more, especially at the end stations.
Through the Strategic Plan, VRE established a list of short-term actions to reach its
target of 18,000 daily trips on VRE. However, the Strategic Plan anticipated that the
pressure of increasing population from nearby residential development, continuing
congestion on the region’s highways, and the increasing availability of subsidies for
public transportation fares would soon increase demand for VRE service past the
limits of its capacity. Strategic decisions regarding VRE’s ultimate size and extent;
the frequency and type of train to be offered; the total level of investment that is
appropriate; and investment priorities required more analysis. This was covered in
the Phase 2 Strategic Plan.
3.8.4.3
VRE Phase 2 Strategic Plan
The Phase 2 Strategic Plan, completed in 2004, was prepared to formulate a longrange vision for VRE through 2025. Phase 2 of the Plan determined the ultimate size
and extent of VRE and the frequency and type of train service; quantified the
magnitude of capital investment required through 2025; estimated potential
ridership benefits, capital costs, and other impacts of potential expansions of VRE
service; formulated alternative strategies for achieving long-term ridership
objectives; and prioritizing capital investment needs and service expansion options.
Drafts of the VRE Phase 1 and 2 Strategic Plans were reviewed by VRE staff and
other stakeholders, and a VRE Board Workshop was held on February 6, 2004 to
discuss the Phase 2 Strategic Plan. Board members indicated that they would like
VRE to meet its core needs for 2025, explore potential expansion of VRE service to the
Gainesville-Haymarket area, and work with counties to implement Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD).
For VRE to reach its market potential, Phase 2 of the Strategic Plan recommended
developing the core network to build up parking capacity, station facilities, and
railroad infrastructure; improve service and expand the coverage; and proactively
strive to establish development partnerships for funding.
The concluding list of initiatives derived from Phase 2 of the Strategic Plan is:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
h
Work towards a ridership goal of 26,000-30,000 trips per day.
58
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
h
h
h
h
3.8.4.4
Improve the core VRE network and expand its capacity to carry VRE riders
¾ Acquire additional rolling stock and locomotives
¾ Construct storage and maintenance facilities
¾ Improve parking and station access
Pursue expansion to Gainesville and Spotsylvania
Explore opportunities for partnerships, including transit oriented development
Update the plan in three to five years
VRE Station Access Study
In April 2006, a Station Access Study was completed, the purpose of which was to
address the growing demand on parking capacity and access at VRE’s commuter rail
stations. Recommendations were identified for paid parking, access improvements,
commuter incentives, and partnering with jurisdictions on promoting TOD at VRE
stations.
3.8.4.5
Gainesville-Haymarket Extension Implementation Plan
The VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Extension Implementation Plan, completed in 2005,
explored the opportunity for service expansion in the corridor, studied potential
station and storage sites, and researched public-private partnership funding
opportunities.
The proposed extension was for 11 miles from the City of Manassas to Haymarket, in
Prince William County, Virginia. Key project stakeholders were identified as VRE,
Norfolk Southern (NS), Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
(VDRPT), Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and Prince William
County (PWC).
Preliminary action items outlined in the Plan include:
h
h
h
h
Secure funding for and conduct an alternatives analysis, and environmental
review.
Develop corridor land use and station area plans and/or development guidelines
as a basis for all ongoing rail extension work
Secure right-of-way and property for stations and railroad yards
Formalize working arrangements among stakeholders
The Implementation Plan describes several items that should be incorporated into
the Alternatives Analysis:
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
59
Ridership projections for future VRE service incorporating the GainesvilleHaymarket Extension
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
3.8.4.6
Transit patronage projections for potential express bus services and other transit
services at the potential station locations to appropriate define parking needs at
each facility
Detailed railroad capacity analysis, using stimulation tools and methods
approved by CSX, NS, and Amtrak to verify the extent and configuration of
railroad infrastructure required to meet each provider’s needs.
Assessment of the impact of the extension on the existing railroad network
Conceptual engineering of the rail alignment to provide a basis for cost
estimating
Identification of appropriate solutions for all existing grade crossings, including
evaluating grade separation, improved crossing protection, and closure options
Analysis of impacts of alternative station locations and station area development
scenarios on potential VRE ridership, rail alignment, and rail infrastructure
requirements
Analysis of alternative implementation phasing plans
All-inclusive conceptual cost estimates, more precise than the estimates currently
available
Financial analysis of the project, to identify sources of capital funding and
determine the level of projected operating subsidies following completion of the
project
Close coordination with railroad stakeholders to ensure that the project emerging
from the feasibility study incorporate all of the elements required to meet the
needs and requirements of the railroads associated with the project
TransAction 2030
TransAction 2030 is an update to the Northern Virginia 2020 Transportation Plan and
is intended to guide the region’s transportation priorities and funding allocations.
The plan identifies transportation improvements beyond those in the Washington
DC area and includes a list of highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects to
improve mobility in northern Virginia. It is the starting point for the NVTA to select
projects to implement with new funding. The plan addresses a VRE service
extension from Manassas to the Fauquier County line.
The NVTA led the development of TransAction 2030, an 18 month effort in
collaboration with local jurisdictions and regional and statewide transportation
agencies. TransAction 2030 will continue to be updated, with the next update
scheduled to be complete in FY 2010.
3.8.4.7
FTA Cost Benefit Analysis
A study on FTA’s cost-benefit analysis, (A Comprehensive Cost-Benefit Analysis
Framework for Assessing Transit Investments, and Possible Implications for Transportation
Planning in the Washington Region, Prepared for the National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board by HDR, Inc., June 12, 2008), discussed the Cost-Benefit
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
60
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Analysis framework for transit projects that could be used to quantify various
sources of transit value in terms of economic benefits, including those that are not
amenable to forecasting with traditional transportation planning methods such as
non-ridership values. This article further identified three sources of transit benefit
that could be incorporated in the Cost-Benefit Analysis, mobility, congestion
management, and economic development.
The Cost-Benefit Analysis framework found in the article can be applied to the recent
planning studies encompassing the study area. These would be used to evaluate the
net costs and economic benefits associated with the proposed transportation
improvements.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
61
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
62
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
4
Tier 1 Alternatives Analysis
This chapter describes the initial set of alternatives identified to address the Purpose
and Need of the Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis. The first section
provides an overview of the two-tiered evaluation process for this study.
Subsequent sections summarize the Tier 1 alternatives, evaluation criteria, screening
process, and the findings.
4.1
Overview of Alternatives Identification and
Evaluation Process
The methodology used to identify and screen the proposed alternatives was a twotiered approach, designed to be consistent with FTA requirements. The process
began with a determination of suitable evaluation criteria based on fulfilling the
Purpose and Need. Following the selection of evaluation criteria, an initial collection
of alternatives was composed. This list of alternatives was derived from a review of
existing conditions, plans, and previous studies, as well as a Tier 1 Workshop that
was conducted to provide a forum for gathering input. Once the Tier 1 alternatives
were selected, the screening was performed to evaluate the ability of each alternative
to meet the goals and objectives outlined for the project. The Tier 1 evaluation
criteria are primarily qualitative and intended to narrow the range of alternatives to a
smaller set for further evaluation in Tier 2. A numerical score was assigned to each
alternative under each major evaluation category, allowing the alternatives to be
rated and compared to one another. From this screening process, alternatives with
an overall positive rating are carried forward into Tier 2 for further evaluation.
Conducting the evaluation in a two-step process will allow the study to consider the
full range of potential project benefits and impacts.
4.2
Tier 1 Build Alternatives
An initial set of alternatives to address the Purpose and Need of the study was
established through a review of previous studies and planning exercises, as well as a
collaborative workshop effort. This development of initial alternatives was as
comprehensive as possible to ensure that every potentially feasible alternative is
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
63
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
evaluated. Some of the alternatives in this initial set may appear challenging to
implement, but it is important that no potentially feasible alternative is left out prior
to the screening and evaluation process.
4.2.1
Commuter Rail Options
Commuter rail is an electric or diesel propelled railway for passenger train service,
consisting of travel operating between an urban core and adjacent suburbs. VRE
operates commuter rail trains propelled by diesel locomotives. This is the type of
service assumed in each commuter rail alternative.
In the development of the commuter rail alternatives, there were a few important
considerations to account for:
h
h
There is a 40 trains per day maximum on the stretch of VRE’s system between
Alexandria and Union Station. While VRE does not currently utilize the full 40
trains per day in this segment, it must effectively split service between its two
lines, Manassas and Fredericksburg, such that the total number of trains per day
does not exceed 40. To exceed the 40 trains maximum, VRE would need to work
with CSX, the owner of the rail corridor between Alexandria and DC, to reach an
agreement on the actions necessary to accommodate the desired service
expansion.
An option in each commuter rail alternative is for slight deviations as necessary
from the NS right-of-way. The most likely incentive for such a deviation would
be environmental constraints, which will be addressed in greater detail in the
next phase of the study.
Figure 4-1 shows the Commuter Rail Alternatives.
Alternative 1A: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC
This option would provide a new commuter rail service from Gainesville-Haymarket
to DC that overlays the existing VRE Manassas Line service from Broad Run to DC.
This option would utilize a portion of the existing B Line right-of-way and would
enable the collocation of service and additional infrastructure within this right-ofway. This option would exceed the VRE system-wide maximum of 40 trains per day
to accommodate additional off-peak and reverse direction service in the GainesvilleHaymarket to DC corridor. Exceeding the maximum of 40 trains per day would
require the negotiation of additional slots for VRE trains on the Alexandria to Union
Station segment of the line. By adding service to the off-peak period and by offering
reverse peak service, VRE may be able to attract other potential users that currently
do not find the predominately peak period, peak direction service attractive. Also,
by adding trains outside of the peak periods, the necessary capacity improvements
required to exceed the 40 train maximum may be less onerous. This option results in
a slight reduction in the peak period service frequency between Broad Run and
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
64
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Manassas, but increases the service frequency east of Manassas into Alexandria and
DC.
Figure 4-1: VRE Extension Project Commuter Rail Alternatives
Alternative 1B: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC
This option would provide a new commuter rail service from Gainesville-Haymarket
to DC that evenly divides the Manassas Line allocation of the VRE system 40 trains
per day maximum between the existing Manassas Line service from Broad Run to
DC and the new service from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC. This approach will
result in less frequent service for riders from Broad Run but more frequent service
(compared to today) east of Manassas on the existing Manassas Line service.
Alternative 1B also would offer less frequent off-peak and reverse direction service
for the Gainesville-Haymarket to DC segment than Alternative 1A. This option does
not require exceeding the VRE system-wide maximum of 40 trains per day.
Alternative 1C: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC
This option would provide the same type of new commuter rail service as outlined in
Alternative 1B, except that this alternative adds a commuter rail shuttle from
Gainesville-Haymarket to Alexandria. The shuttle, which would operate on a 20 to
30 minute frequency throughout the day, would offer a two-seat ride to DC through
a transfer at Alexandria to Metrorail. It would also provide an all-day reverse
commute service from Alexandria to the Manassas and the Gainesville-Haymarket
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
65
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
area. This shuttle service overlays just a short stretch of the VRE service area that is
limited to 40 trains per day. This approach will result in less frequent peak period
service for riders from Broad Run, but more frequent peak period service (compared
to today) east of Manassas on the existing Manassas Line service.
Alternative 1D: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket via Broad Run to DC
This option would provide a new commuter rail service from Gainesville-Haymarket
to DC via Broad Run. Service would originate in Gainesville-Haymarket, travel
south to Manassas then west to Broad Run. At Broad Run, the train would reverse
direction and travel into DC making all existing stops. This is an indirect route from
Gainesville-Haymarket to DC, since the service goes through Broad Run to reach DC,
but it does provide the same service frequencies for Gainesville-Haymarket and
Broad Run riders. This option reaches, but does not exceed, the 40 trains per day
maximum. This means that there would be a slight improvement in peak period
frequency on the existing line from Broad Run to DC.
4.2.2
Light Rail Transit (LRT) Options
LRT is the modern version of streetcar or trolley service. It uses a lightweight
passenger rail car that operates singly or in short trains on fixed rails and typically in
reserved right-of-way. Light rail vehicles are usually powered from overhead
electric lines.
While LRT and streetcar are essentially the same technology, they differ in function.
Streetcar generally designates single vintage/heritage or modern vehicles equipped
for street operation in mixed flow traffic and travelling short distances. This study
assumes LRT service with modern vehicles configured in small trains. These would
operate either in exclusive right-of-way or mixed-flow traffic and have priority or full
preemption at signals. Figure 4-2 shows the Light Rail Transit Alternatives.
Alternative 2A: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas; Transfer to DC
This option would provide a new light rail service from Gainesville-Haymarket to
Manassas along the existing B Line. This service would connect to VRE at Manassas
Station and would not require any change in the frequency of service on the existing
Manassas Line from Broad Run to DC. One of the advantages of a local LRT system
would be the potential to adjust the alignment to serve existing or future proposed
town centers along the corridor. The LRT system could potentially provide two
functions: 1) As a feeder service to the existing VRE service into DC; and 2) As a local
system providing connectivity between activity centers along the Haymarket to
Manassas corridor.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
66
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Figure 4-2: VRE Extension Project Light Rail Transit Alternatives
Alternative 2B: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas; Transfer to DC
This option would provide a new light rail service from Gainesville-Haymarket to
Manassas along the existing roadway network. This service would connect to VRE at
Manassas Station and would not require any change in the frequency of service on
the existing Manassas Line from Broad Run to DC, but it would require passengers
to transfer to the Manassas line to travel to DC.
4.2.3
Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) Options
HRT, also known as metro, subway, or rapid transit is an electric railway with
capacity for heavy passenger volumes. It is composed of powered passenger rail cars
operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails that are fully separated from
roadway and other railway traffic. HRT features full high-platform loading.
Metrorail is a HRT system. Figure 4-3 shows the Heavy Rail Transit Alternative.
Alternative 3A: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to Vienna; Transfer to DC
This option would provide an extension of the existing Metrorail system from Vienna
to the Gainesville-Haymarket area via the I-66 right-of-way. This option would have
intermediate stops in between Gainesville-Haymarket and Vienna and would not
result in any changes to the existing VRE system.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
67
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Figure 4-3: VRE Extension Project Heavy Rail Transit Alternative
4.3.4
Automated People Mover (APM) Options
An automated people mover (APM) is a guided passenger transport technology that
most typically features short rubber-tired trains operating on or suspended from a
single guideway, rail, beam, or tube. Most people movers are elevated, since they
require full separation from roadway and railway traffic. People movers also operate
in automated mode without drivers. One of the advantages of an automated people
mover system would be the potential to adjust the alignment to serve existing or
future proposed town centers along the corridor. The APM system could potentially
provide two functions: 1) As a feeder service to the existing VRE service into DC; and
2) As a local system providing connectivity between activity centers along the
Haymarket to Manassas corridor. Figure 4-4 shows the Automated People Mover
Alternatives.
Alternative 4A: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas; Transfer to DC
This option would provide a new elevated people mover service from GainesvilleHaymarket to Manassas along the B Line. This service would connect to VRE at
Manassas Station and would not require any change in the frequency of service on
the existing Manassas Line from Broad Run to DC.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
68
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Alternative 4B: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas; Transfer to DC
This option would provide a new elevated people mover service from GainesvilleHaymarket to Manassas along the existing roadway network. This service would
connect to VRE at Manassas Station and would not require any change in the
frequency of service on the existing Manassas Line from Broad Run to DC.
Figure 4-4: VRE Extension Project Automated People Mover Alternatives
4.2.5
Commuter Bus Options
Commuter bus is a highway “express” passenger bus service operating between an
urban core and its adjacent suburbs. The vehicles are typically powered by fossil
fuels (diesel or natural gas) and use existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities
to gain some advantage over general highway traffic. Commuter bus can operate as
a local collector/distributor at either end of the highway operation. The commuter
buses would be accessed at commuter park and ride facilities. Figure 4-5 shows the
Commuter Bus Alternatives.
Alternative 5A: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to Broad Run; Transfer to DC
This option would provide new feeder bus service from Gainesville-Haymarket to
Broad Run to connect to the existing VRE Manassas Line service from Broad Run to
DC. There would be no change in VRE service with this option.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
69
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Alternative 5B: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC
This option would provide direct bus service from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC
(Pentagon) via Cushing Park and Ride Lot and the State Department. This option
would utilize I-66 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes where possible. There
would be no change in VRE service with this option.
Figure 4-5: VRE Extension Project Commuter Bus Alternatives
4.2.6
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Options
BRT, as defined in this Alternatives Analysis, is a flexible rubber-tired rapid-transit
mode that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) elements into an integrated system. For the purposes
of Tier 1 of the Alternatives Analysis, BRT is limited to bus service operating on a
fixed guideway system. A fixed guideway is a permanent transit travelway, such as a
dedicated right-of-way, or an exclusive road. Figure 4-6 shows the Bus Rapid Transit
Alternatives.
Alternative 6A: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas; Transfer to DC
This option would provide a new BRT service from Gainesville-Haymarket to
Manassas along the B Line. This service would connect to VRE at Manassas Station
and would require no change in the frequency of service on the existing Manassas
Line from Broad Run to DC.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
70
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Alternative 6B: Service from Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas; Transfer to DC
This option would provide a new BRT service from Gainesville-Haymarket to
Manassas on the existing roadway network. This service would connect to VRE
commuter rail service in Manassas and would require no change in the frequency of
service on the existing Manassas Line from Broad Run to DC.
Figure 4-6: VRE Extension Project Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives
4.3
Other Options Considered
As part of the Tier 1 screening process, a number of individual modal options were
considered to address the Purpose and Need of the project. In addition to those in
Section 4.3, several other options were discussed, but determined to be infeasible
because they did not fit into the existing or future anticipated regional-wide
transportation network. The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of these
options and why they were not carried into the Tier 1 screening process.
4.3.1
Light Rail Transit (LRT) Options
For this study, LRT was considered as both a line haul service similar to commuter
rail or heavy rail and as a local circulator service similar to streetcar. Three LRT
options (two line haul and one local circulator), which were considered but
ultimately not advanced, are summarized in this section.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
71
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
LRT from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC
Construction of a brand new rail service either within the I-66 highway corridor or
close by the corridor was initially considered. Ultimately this option was removed
from the list because the I-66 corridor serves a broader travel shed than the study
area defined in this analysis. The I-66 corridor warrants a separate study to address
its unique role in the regional transportation network.
LRT from Gainesville-Haymarket to Vienna
Using LRT as an extension of the existing Metrorail Orange Line service from Vienna
to Haymarket was considered. While LRT is generally considered to be somewhat
less costly than heavy rail (Orange Line), the cost difference was considered to be
marginal when considering the infrastructure issues along the I-66 corridor between
Vienna and Haymarket that would be common to both modes. In addition, the Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) option that was considered in the Tier 1 screening is more
flexible than either LRT or heavy rail while carrying potentially lower capital
infrastructure costs.
LRT from Broad Run to Manassas
As envisioned, LRT from Broad Run to Manassas would replace the existing VRE
commuter rail service along this segment, thus allowing commuter trains to be
redirected to Gainesville-Haymarket. This option conflicts with a future VRE service
extension west of Broad Run to Bealeton, which is included in VRE’s Strategic Plan.
The LRT service would serve no purpose if VRE service was extended to Bealeton at
a future date. The route of the LRT service also does not appear to have the potential
to serve any intermediate points.
4.3.2
Automated People Mover (APM) Options
As noted in the modal definitions section, the strength of an APM system is as a local
circulator. The most successful APM applications have been in amusement parks or
as downtown circulator systems, in airport settings to move passengers between
terminals, or as point-to-point shuttles between major attractions. Compared to
conventional light or heavy rail transit systems, APM vehicles tend to be much
smaller, with trains shorter, and they operate on a shorter headway (greater
frequency). For this study, the greatest opportunity to utilize the APM technology is
as a local circulator in the Haymarket to Manassas corridor. Other applications were
considered but, ultimately, not included for evaluation because 1) either the
application did not fit the capabilities of the technology or 2) a more cost-effective
option (i.e. BRT) had potential.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
72
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
APM from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC
Construction of a brand new fixed-guideway service, either within the I-66 highway
corridor or somewhere near the corridor, was initially considered but, ultimately,
removed from the list of options because this application does not fit the capabilities
of APM technology.
APM from Gainesville-Haymarket to Vienna
Using APM technology as an extension of the existing Metrorail Orange Line service
from Vienna to Haymarket was considered. The cost of the APM technology would
be similar to the LRT and heavy rail costs while producing a lower line haul capacity.
In addition, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) option that was included in the Tier 1
screening is more flexible than the APM technology and offers a potentially higher
line haul capacity while carrying potentially lower capital infrastructure costs.
APM from Broad Run to Manassas
As envisioned, APM from Broad Run to Manassas would replace the existing VRE
commuter rail service along this segment, allowing commuter trains to be redirected
to Gainesville-Haymarket. This option conflicts with a future VRE service extension
west of Broad Run to Bealeton that is included in VRE’s Strategic Plan. The APM
service would serve no purpose if VRE service was extended to Bealeton in the
future. The route of the APM service also does not appear to have the potential to
serve any intermediate points.
4.3.3
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Options
One BRT option that was considered but not included in the Tier 1 screening is
summarized in this section.
BRT from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC
Construction of a brand new fixed-guideway bus service either within the I-66
highway corridor or close by the corridor was initially considered. Ultimately, this
option was removed from the list because it would serve a broader travel shed than
the Purpose and Need this Alternatives Analysis identifies. Additionally, a study is
currently underway through the DRPT to specifically address the I-66 corridor and
the potential transit options, such as BRT.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
73
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
4.4
Evaluation Criteria
The criteria used in the Tier 1 screening included several areas based on the Purpose
and Need of the study.
Access and Mobility
Would the proposed alternative improve regional transit and mobility options, both
locally in the Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas corridor and from the GainesvilleHaymarket area to Washington DC?
Traffic Congestion
Would the proposed alternative impact traffic congestion in the GainesvilleHaymarket to Manassas corridor and within the region?
Environmental Considerations
Would the proposed alternative improve the quality of the natural environment with
minimum adverse impacts? This includes considering items, such as historical and
archaeological elements, wetlands, floodplains, farmlands, air quality, global
warming, noise, vibration, view sheds, and environmental justice populations.
Smart Growth and Economic Development
Would the proposed alternative support smart growth and economic development
initiatives, particularly as defined by the County, including transit-oriented
development efforts?
Capital Costs and Effectiveness
Would the proposed alternative provide transportation system user benefits at a
reasonable capital and operating cost?
Would the proposed alternative attract a significant number of vehicle trips from the
roadway system relative to the expected project capital and operating costs?
Ease of Implementation
Can the proposed alternative be constructed in a reasonable and timely manner?
Are there significant constructability issues?
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
74
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Is there a need for implementation of supporting infrastructure projects, agreements
with third parties, and/or new governing agencies?
4.5
Findings
A Tier 1 Workshop was conducted on August 21st, 2008 to provide a forum for
gathering input from all team members and VRE staff. Collectively, workshop
participants determined the evaluation criteria for the Tier 1 Alternatives, as well as
the respective ratings for each alternative. Justification for each rating was
developed in a collaborative manner, gathering input from each participant.
The Tier 1 Alternatives include a No-Build Scenario, a Baseline Scenario with two
potential options, and 13 Build Alternatives. For each Build Alternative, a table was
developed showing criteria, individual ratings, a justification for the rating, and a
sum of all ratings for the alternative. Table 4-1 displays the Tier 1 Summary of
Rating Results. Detailed rating tables are included in Appendix A.
As shown in Table 4-1, specific numbers or quantities were not applied to items such
as traffic congestion, capital costs, and effectiveness. Ratings were based on a
qualitative analysis and general understanding of each alternative and its
implications. Descriptive terms have been used in the justification columns of each
table. These terms emerged from collaborative discussions and professional
judgment, as well as a comparison of each alternative to the other alternatives.
The applied rating system includes the values -2, -1, 0, 1, and 2. A negative number
demonstrates that the alternative would be expected to have an adverse affect on the
given criterion. A positive number represents an expected benefit on the given
criterion. Zero is neutral and implies that the alternative affects the criterion neither
positively nor negatively. For example, a negative capital cost number represents
substantial infrastructure costs, such as the addition of a new system versus the
expansion or improvement of an existing one.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
75
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 4-1: Evaluation Criteria and Ratings for Tier 1 Alternatives
From
To
Environmental
Smart Growth/Economic Dev.
Capital Costs/Effectiveness
Implementation
TOTAL
Evaluation
Traffic Congestion
Definition
Access/Mobility
Option
Commuter Rail
Alternative 1A
Alternative 1B
Alternative 1C
Alternative 1D
Gainesville‐Haymarket Gainesville‐Haymarket Gainesville‐Haymarket Gainesville‐Haymarket DC
DC
Alexandria/DC
DC
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
‐1
0
0
0
‐1
0
0
0
3
2
4
1
Light Rail
Alternative 2A
Alternative 2B
Gainesville‐Haymarket
Gainesville‐Haymarket
Manassas/DC
Manassas/DC
1
1
0
‐1
‐1
‐1
1
1
‐2
‐2
‐2
‐2
‐3
‐4
Heavy Rail
Alternative 3A Gainesville‐Haymarket
Vienna/DC
2
1
‐1
2
‐2
‐2
0
People Mover
Alternative 4A
Alternative 4B
Gainesville‐Haymarket
Gainesville‐Haymarket
Manassas/DC
Manassas/DC
1
1
1
1
‐1
‐1
1
1
‐2
‐2
‐2
‐2
‐2
‐2
Bus
Alternative 5A
Alternative 5B
Gainesville‐Haymarket
Gainesville‐Haymarket
Broad Run/DC
DC
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
4
4
Bus Rapid Transit
Alternative 6A
Alternative 6B
Gainesville‐Haymarket
Gainesville‐Haymarket
Manassas/DC
Manassas/DC
1
1
0
0
‐1
‐1
1
1
‐1
‐1
‐1
‐1
‐1
‐1
Name
Build Alternatives
Commuter Rail Alternatives
Each commuter rail alternative is expected to utilize a portion of the B Line right-ofway. Additional right-of-way would likely be needed. Thus, capital costs for each of
the commuter rail alternatives would include any additional right-of-way that is
needed, as well as required equipment purchases.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
76
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Alternative 1A
Alternative 1A provides new commuter rail services from Gainesville-Haymarket to
DC, overlaying the existing service on the VRE Manassas Line from Broad Run to
DC. This alternative exceeds the current 40 trains per day VRE allocation on the CSX
tracks between Alexandria and DC Union Station. Exceeding this limit allows for
more frequent service, but requires some additional negotiation and funding for
VRE. Based on the collaborative Tier 1 screening process, Alternative 1A is
anticipated to improve regional transit access and mobility, remove single occupancy
vehicles from highways connecting to DC, and support TOD as defined by the
County.
Implementation challenges include the need to negotiate for additional slots above
the 40 trains per day maximum and the ability to utilize a portion of the B Line rightof-way for increased peak service. Collectively, Alternative 1A achieved a positive
rating of 3.
Alternative 1B
This alternative provides new commuter rail services from Gainesville-Haymarket to
DC, but does not exceed the current 40 trains per day VRE allocation between
Alexandria and Union Station in DC. Alternative 1B is expected to increase regional
transit access and mobility, remove single occupancy vehicles from highways, and
support TOD as defined by the County. These benefits score lower than Alternative
1A because less service is provided.
Implementation challenges are slightly less for Alternative 1B than they are for
Alternative 1A, because it is not necessary to negotiate for additional slots beyond
the 40 trains per day maximum. Overall, Alternative 1B received a positive rating of
2.
Alternative 1C
This alternative provides new commuter rail service from Gainesville-Haymarket to
DC and a new commuter rail shuttle service from Gainesville-Haymarket to
Alexandria. Shuttle service to Alexandria overlays just a short stretch of the CSXowned track into DC on which VRE service is limited to 40 trains per day. With
coordination between VRE, CSX, and NS, a commuter rail shuttle service between
Prince William County and Alexandria offers the opportunity to increase frequency
from Gainesville-Haymarket into the greater DC area. Once in Alexandria,
passengers can connect to Metrorail to reach a wide range of destinations within DC.
This alternative is expected to increase regional transit access and mobility, as well as
remove single occupancy vehicles from roadways connecting to DC. This alternative
is also anticipated to support smart growth and TOD efforts in Prince William
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
77
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
County. Alternative 1C received a higher rating in these categories than Alternative
1B due to the frequency of commuter rail shuttle trips.
Implementation challenges include coordinating with NS and CSX to operate
expanded peak service and off-peak shuttle service within the NS corridor and
obtain access to Alexandria Station. Alternative 1C received an overall rating of 4.
Alternative 1D
This alternative provides a continuous commuter rail corridor from GainesvilleHaymarket to DC via Broad Run Station. Inbound service would originate in the
Gainesville-Haymarket area, travelling east toward Manassas. Short of Manassas
Station it would turn south, bypassing Manassas and proceeding to Broad Run
Station. After a station stop, the train would reverse direction, serve Manassas
Station, and continue toward DC along the current Manassas Line route, making all
of the existing stops along the way. Outbound trips would travel this same corridor
in the reverse direction.
Alternative 1D is expected to improve regional transit access and mobility and
reduce the number single occupancy vehicles on roadways connecting to DC. It is
also expected to contribute to smart growth and TOD initiatives established by
Prince William County. These benefits scored lower than Alternatives 1A and 1C
because the travel time for VRE riders from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC is
significantly increased compared to the other commuter rail alternatives. The
greatest benefit with Alternative 1D is for Broad Run riders. This alternative provides
the most peak service of any alternative to or from Broad Run.
Implementation challenges for Alternative 1D include the ability to share the NS
corridor. Alternative 1D received an overall rating of 1.
Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternatives
Alternative 2A
This alternative provides light rail transit (LRT) service from Gainesville-Haymarket
to the VRE Manassas Station along the B Line. In Manassas, riders could transfer to
VRE for service into DC. Alternative 2A is expected to increase transit access and
mobility in the region, remove single occupancy vehicles from roadways connecting
to DC, and promote TOD near stations. These benefits are limited because DC
passengers must transfer from one service to another in Manassas.
Light rail technology cannot operate on the same tracks as freight rail and Amtrak
trains. Thus, separate light rail tracks would be constructed parallel to the existing
train tracks. This would result in significant capital costs and implementation
challenges associated with Alternative 2A. In addition, no light rail systems
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
78
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
currently operate in the region. Independent infrastructure, a new fleet of different
technology vehicles, and new train operations and maintenance staff would be
needed. Alternative 2A received an overall rating of -2.
Alternative 2B
This alternative provides light rail service from Gainesville-Haymarket to the VRE
Manassas Station along existing roadways. In Manassas, riders could transfer to
VRE for service into DC. Alternative 2B is expected to increase transit access and
mobility in the region and remove single occupancy vehicles from roadways
connecting to DC. It does not rate as high as 2A for this criteria because it is subject
to more traffic congestion. The alternative is also expected to promote TOD near
stations. All of these benefits are limited because DC passengers must transfer from
one service to another in Manassas.
Similar to Alternative 2A, Alternative 2B would need extensive new infrastructure, a
new fleet of different technology vehicles, and new train operations and maintenance
staff. Capital costs would include these elements, as well as right-of-way
acquisitions. Alternative 2B received an overall rating of -4.
Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) Alternative
Alternative 3A would provide an extension of the existing Metrorail system from
Vienna to the Gainesville-Haymarket area via the I-66 right-of-way. This option
would have intermediate stops in between Gainesville-Haymarket and Vienna and
would not result in any changes to the existing VRE system other than an expected
decrease in VRE ridership.
This alternative is expected to significantly increase transit access and mobility in the
region. It is also anticipated to remove a significant number of single occupancy
vehicles from highways connecting to DC. At the same time, it is expected to
increase traffic on local roadways. Stations for this system would feature park and
ride facilities that would generate significant traffic in the AM and PM peak hours.
Alternative 3A is anticipated to promote TOD near stations. This development is
somewhat limited because the alignment is within an interstate highway corridor.
Alternative 3A received a low score in capital costs and implementation due to the
high anticipated costs and complexity of constructing this alternative. Heavy rail
technology cannot operate on the same tracks as freight rail or Amtrak, and cannot
be at the same level as cross streets and walkways. These tracks would be fully
separated from other trains and vehicular traffic. Thus, separate heavy rail tracks
would need to be constructed in the median of Interstate 66. This would result in a
major capital expenditure for a Metrorail extension that is seven miles longer than
the existing Metrorail Orange Line between Washington DC and Vienna. The new
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
79
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
railway constructed for this alternative would, at 18 miles, be longer than the current
longest Metrorail segment. In addition to track, stations, and new trains, the
alternative would require a large rail vehicle storage and maintenance facility, most
likely in Prince William County. Alternative 3A received an overall rating of 0.
Automated People Mover (APM) Alternatives
Alternatives 4A and 4B
These alternatives would provide a new elevated people mover service from
Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas. Alternative 4A would follow the B Line.
Alternative 4B would follow city streets. This service would enable passenger
transfers to and from VRE commuter rail trains in Manassas. It would not require
any change in the frequency of service on the existing Manassas Line from Broad
Run to DC.
These alternatives are expected to marginally increase transit access and mobility in
the region. They are also anticipated to remove some single occupancy vehicles from
highways connecting to DC. These benefits are limited by the disadvantage of
transferring from one service to another in Manassas.
Anticipated environmental benefits of the alternatives include some TOD near
stations. Environmental impacts include the visual impact of an elevated transit
guideway along the corridor.
Both alternatives received a low rating in capital costs and implementation.
Automated People Mover (APM) technology cannot operate on the same tracks as
freight rail or Amtrak trains and cannot be at the same level as cross streets and
walkways. Thus, elevated guideways and stations would need to be fully separated
from other trains and vehicular traffic. For Alternative 4A, a separate APM
guideway would be constructed adjacent to the existing railroad tracks along the B
Line. For Alternative 4B, the elevated guideway and columns would extend along
existing streets and possibly through private developments. This would result in
significant capital costs and implementation challenges associated with either
alternative. In addition, no APM systems currently operate in the region.
Independent infrastructure, a new fleet of different technology vehicles, and new
train operations and maintenance staff would be needed. Alternative 4A and
Alternative 4B each received an overall rating of -2.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
80
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Commuter Bus Alternatives
Alternative 5A
This alternative would create a new commuter bus service from Haymarket and
Gainesville to Broad Run Station, which is a distance of approximately 11 miles.
Passengers would access the commuter bus at select park and ride stations. At Broad
Run Station, inbound Washington DC passengers would transfer to VRE trains. This
alternative is expected to increase transit access and mobility in the region, but it is
not anticipated to remove a significant number of single occupancy vehicles from
surrounding roadways. This is due to limited bus capacity and few travel
advantages in comparison to driving to Broad Run. The required transfer to reach
downtown DC also lessens the attractiveness of this alternative.
Alternative 5A has the environmental and implementation advantage of using the
existing roadway and highway network in its corridor. This alternative requires new
park and ride facilities, which could have environmental impacts. An operational
disadvantage for the alternative is that roadway congestion may delay its service and
decrease its reliability.
This alternative is not anticipated to strongly promote TOD in Prince William
County. It is a cost-effective option, as the only capital costs would include the
purchase of new buses and the construction of expanded maintenance and storage
facilities. Alternative 5A received an overall rating of 4.
Alternative 5B
This alternative would create a new commuter bus service from Haymarket and
Gainesville to the Pentagon via downtown Washington DC, a distance of
approximately 40 miles. Inbound passengers would access the commuter bus at
select park and ride stations in the project area, including a proposed park and ride
facility at Route 234 Bypass and Balls Ford Road (Cushing Park and Ride). The
service would then enter Interstate 66 and proceed non-stop to Washington DC.
After serving downtown stops, the bus line would terminate at the Pentagon
Metrorail Station. The line would have the service advantage of using existing highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes along Interstate 66.
This alternative is expected to increase transit access and mobility in the region and
remove some single occupancy vehicles from the highway network into DC. It is
expected to generate some vehicular activity on local roads near park and ride
stations.
Alternative 5B has the environmental and implementation advantage of using the
existing roadway and highway network in its corridor. It has the operations cost and
environmental disadvantage of not facilitating a transfer to Metrorail (an opportunity
constrained by bus terminal capacity constraints at Vienna / GMU and other
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
81
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Metrorail stations). The alternative requires new park and ride facilities, which could
have environmental impacts.
The alternative is not anticipated to strongly promote transit-oriented development
in Prince William County. It is, however, a cost-effective option. Capital costs would
include the purchase of new buses and the construction of expanded maintenance
and storage facilities. Alternative 5B received an overall rating of 4.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternatives
Alternatives 6A and 6B
These alternatives would create a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) shuttle service from
Haymarket and Gainesville to Manassas. Alternative 6A would follow the B Line in
an exclusive right-of-way. Alternative 6B would follow the existing roadway
network in exclusive lanes or reserved right-of-way. This service would enable
passenger transfers to and from VRE at Manassas Station. It would not require any
change in the frequency of service on the existing Manassas Line from Broad Run to
DC.
Alternatives 6A and 6B are expected to increase transit access and mobility in the
region, but they not anticipated to remove a significant number of single occupancy
vehicles from surrounding roadways due to the transfer that is required to reach DC.
Alternatives 6A and 6B may promote TOD in Prince William County, but these
benefits are limited by the disadvantage of transferring from one service to another
in Manassas.
Construction of the exclusive busway and lease or acquisition of the right-of-way
would result in significant capital costs and implementation challenges associated
with Alternative 6A and 6B. In addition, no BRT systems currently operate in the
region. Thus, independent infrastructure, a new fleet of different technology
vehicles, and new bus operations and maintenance staff would be needed.
Alternatives 6A and 6B each received an overall rating of -1.
Alternatives Recommended for Tier 2 Analysis
Based on the Tier 1 screening results (summarized in Table 4-1), the positively-rated
alternatives are Alternative 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 5A, and 5B. These are the commuter rail
and bus alternatives and were identified to proceed to Tier 2 for further analysis. In
Tier 2, quantifiable analyses will be performed on elements such as ridership and
cost.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
82
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
5
Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis
This chapter describes the set of Tier 2 alternatives identified to address the Purpose
and Need of the VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis and the
methodology applied to evaluate these alternatives.
5.1
Development of Tier 2 Alternatives
This section describes how the Tier 2 alternatives were identified and briefly
summarizes how they were developed. This includes a description of the
methodology used in developing conceptual alignments, operating plans, capital
investment requirements, conceptual costs, and conceptual operating and
maintenance costs.
5.1.1
Identification of Tier 2 Alternatives
As described in Chapter 4, a two-tiered approach was used in the identification and
evaluation of alternatives for the Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis.
From the Tier 1 screening process, the initial range of alternatives was narrowed to a
smaller number of feasible options to be developed at a more detailed level of
analysis is Tier 2.
Based on the Tier 1 screening summary, six alternatives emerged with a positive
overall rating, and thus, were carried forward into Tier 2: Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C,
1D, 5A, and 5B. The set of Tier 2 alternatives started with these six Build
Alternatives. In addition to these six Build Alternatives, the No-Build and Baseline
Scenarios were identified for the purpose of evaluation and comparison.
No-Build and Baseline Scenarios
A No-Build and a Baseline Scenario are an integral part of the FTA Planning and
Project Development Process. In a No-Build Scenario, the existing transportation
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
83
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
systems are carried forward to the future committed transportation network in the
project area at a specified Forecast Year. A No-Build Scenario includes all
programmed and funded improvements to the existing highway and transit services.
In this Alternatives Analysis, the No-Build Scenario includes a bus route proposed
by PRTC from Dominion Valley Drive to Cushing Park and Ride Lot to Tysons East
Metrorail Station. Cushing Park and Ride Lot is a future committed project. The NoBuild Scenario also includes a modified bus route along Linton Hall to Cushing Park
and Ride Lot to Pentagon/State Department. The Forecast Year used is 2030. Figure
5-1 shows the Trunk Transit Services in the No-Build Scenario.
A Baseline Scenario is created to identify the best option for meeting the
transportation needs of the study area with smaller capital investments than are
proposed in the Build Alternatives. Two potential Baseline Scenarios were evaluated
in this Alternatives Analysis.
h
Baseline Scenario 1: A new I-66 commuter bus service from Haymarket to the
Pentagon Metrorail Station via Cushing Park and Ride Lot and the State
Department. Figure 5-2a shows the Trunk Transit Services in Baseline Scenario
1.
The specific program for this potential Baseline Scenario was refined through
several collaborative meetings with VRE and PRTC through the planning
process. This Baseline Scenario displaced Build Alternative 5B, which shared the
same service plan. Thus, Build Alternative 5B was removed from consideration.
h
Baseline Scenario 2: Feeder shuttle bus service from park and ride lots in
Haymarket, Gainesville, and Sudley Manor to Broad Run Station timed to meet
expanded VRE service. Figure 5-2b shows the Trunk Transit Services in Baseline
Scenario 2.
This expanded VRE service provides two additional AM peak inbound and two
additional PM peak outbound trains. This changes the total number of train trips
per day from 16 to 20.
After analyzing these two potential Baseline Scenarios, it was determined that
although Baseline Scenario 1 is a potentially more attractive alternative in terms of
direct transit service to downtown Washington, it is outside of the study area defined
in this Alternatives Analysis. It encompasses a broader travel shed than identified in
the Purpose and Need. There is also a separate study currently being conducted by
DRPT to evaluate transit options along I-66. Thus, it was determined that Baseline
Scenario 2 would better serve the goals and objectives of this study. Results of the
Baseline Scenario 1 are reported in the results tables within this chapter for
comparative purposes only. All analyses of the Build Alternatives are in comparison
to Baseline Scenario 2.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
84
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Baseline Scenario 2 displaced Build Alternative 5A, which shared the same service
plan. Thus, Build Alternative 5A was removed from consideration.
Build Alternatives
The remaining Build Alternatives include Alternative 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D. Further
analysis of these alternatives warranted some additional revisions. Alternative 1A
exceeds the 40 trains per day maximum per VRE’s agreement with CSX. While a
modification to this agreement is desirable, it cannot be done without significant
additional capital funding. Alternative 1A is similar to Alternative 1B in all other
aspects. Thus, Alternative 1A was removed from consideration. Alternatives 1B, 1C,
and 1D have the option to expand beyond the 40 trains per day maximum at a later
time, but for the purposes of this study, the frequency of these alternatives was kept
within the current limits set by VRE’s agreement with CSX.
Alternative 1B would provide a new commuter rail service from GainesvilleHaymarket to DC that divides the Manassas Line allocation of the VRE system 40
trains per day maximum between the existing Manassas Line service from Broad
Run to DC and the new service from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC. Figure 5-3
shows the Trunk Transit Services in Alternative 1B.
Alternative 1C would provide the same type of new commuter rail service as
outlined in Alternative 1B, except that this alternative adds a commuter rail shuttle
from Gainesville-Haymarket to Alexandria. The commuter rail shuttle service
utilizes only a short segment of the CSX-owned track subject to the 40 trains per day
maximum. The shuttle service would need to be coordinated with CSX and NS to
overcome this capacity constraint. Figure 5-4 shows the Trunk Transit Services in
Alternative 1C.
Alternative 1D would provide a new commuter rail service from GainesvilleHaymarket to DC via Broad Run. Service would originate in Gainesville-Haymarket,
travel south toward Manassas, but turn prior to reach Manassas Station, then head
west to Broad Run. At Broad Run, the train would reverse direction and then follow
the existing Manassas Line route of travel into DC, making all existing stops. This is
an indirect route from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC, since the service goes through
Broad Run to reach DC. Figure 5-5 shows the Trunk Transit Services in Alternative
1D.
To test the attractiveness of commuter rail service within the study area, two
additional alternatives were evaluated in terms of ridership potential only. These
two alternatives, 1G and 1H, were modeled with all service originating from
Gainesville (Alternative 1G) or Haymarket (Alternative 1H), and no service to/from
Broad Run. These alternatives were analyzed to test the model’s sensitivity to
frequency of service from the Gainesville-Haymarket area, and were only evaluated
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
85
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
in terms of ridership. Service frequency assigned to each of these alternatives in the
model was similar to the existing Manassas Line frequency originating in Broad Run.
The following is a list of the Tier 2 alternatives that were evaluated:
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
5.2
No-Build Scenario
Baseline Scenario 1
Baseline Scenario 2
Alternative 1B
Alternative 1C
Alternative 1D
Alternative 1G (Ridership Only)
Alternative 1H (Ridership Only)
Evaluation of Tier 2 Alternatives
The Tier 2 alternatives were developed in six main areas: environmental
considerations, noise and vibration analysis, conceptual plan, operating plan,
conceptual capital costs, conceptual operating and maintenance costs. The
methodology of how each criterion was applied is described in the following
sections. The results of the evaluation are summarized in the last section.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
86
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
267
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\GIS\project\VRE_and_Bus_NB.mxd
208
267
50
495
7
Reston
600
Vienna
Oakton
Chantilly
15
608
Fairfax
234
495
Manassas Line
Haymarket
Haymarket
Bull Run
Manassas Park
NS B Line
0
Rolling Road
Burke Centre
Manassas
NS Main Line
Burke
123
28
Lincolnia
401
420
458
5
Hillcrest Heights
414
241
Camp Springs
Newington
Manassas Regional/
Harry P Davis Field
Broad Run / Airport
1
Lorton
Oxon Hill-Glassmanor
Alexandria
Hybla Valley
600
218
637 Hill
Suitland-Silver
Groveton
123
Manassas Park
Crystal City
402
Rose Hill
Springfield
4
Coral Hills
Alexandria
Backlick Road
West Springfield
L'Enfant
395
120
395
244
Franconia
Manassas
215
27
Union Station
395
66
110
Arlington
Bailey's Crossroads
Annandale
236
Washington
295
237
29
66
237
Jefferson
Centreville
50
29
124
338
237
295
355
120
Idylwood
Falls Church
29
Merrifield
29
McLean
66
243
201
309
Tysons Corner
Wolf Trap
208
396
Friendly
400
Fort Hunt
Mount Vernon
223
Fort Washington
Fredericksburg Line
235
95
Nokesville
Nokesville
Lake Ridge
NS Main Line
210
373
242
867
227
Dale City
Woodbridge
600
228
Waldorf
210
St. Charles
0
Source: ESRI Streetmap 9.1 (2005)
Legend
Existing VRE Lines
Existing AMTRAK Lines
NS B Line
0.5
1 Miles
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
VRE Station/Yard
PRTC Park and Ride Lots
Figure 5-1 Trunk Transit Services
in No-Build Scenario
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket
Extension Feasibility Study/
Alternatives Analysis
267
208
267
50
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\GIS\project\VRE_and_Bus_Baseline1.mxd
495
7
Reston
600
Vienna
Oakton
Chantilly
15
608
Fairfax
Annandale
495
236
29
66
Manassas Line
Haymarket
Haymarket
Burke Centre
Bull Run
Manassas Park
NS B Line
0
NS Main Line
Manassas Park
Burke
123
Lincolnia
401
420
402
Rose Hill
Springfield
Crystal City
Alexandria
241
Broad Run / Airport
Lorton
458
5
Hillcrest Heights
414
Alexandria
Oxon Hill-Glassmanor
Groveton
1
218
637 Hill
Suitland-Silver
Camp Springs
Newington
Manassas Regional/
Harry P Davis Field
4
Coral Hills
295
Hybla Valley
600
Union Station
L'Enfant
395
120
395
123
Manassas
28
244
Franconia
Manassas
215
West Springfield
395
27
Backlick Road
Rolling Road
Washington
110
Arlington
Bailey's Crossroads
Centreville
234
237
Jefferson
237
50
29
124
338
237
295
355
120
Idylwood
Falls Church
29
Merrifield
29
McLean
66
243
201
309
Tysons Corner
Wolf Trap
208
396
Friendly
400
Fort Hunt
Mount Vernon
223
Fort Washington
Fredericksburg Line
235
95
Nokesville
Nokesville
Lake Ridge
NS Main Line
210
373
242
867
227
Dale City
Woodbridge
600
228
Waldorf
210
St. Charles
Source: ESRI Streetmap 9.1 (2005)
0
Existing VRE Lines
Existing AMTRAK Lines
NS B Line
1 Miles
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Legend
Baseline 1 Bus: Proposed Commuter Bus
from Haymarket to State Dept./Pentagon
0.5
VRE Station/Yard
PRTC Park and Ride Lots
Figure 5-2a Trunk Transit Services
in Baseline Scenario 1
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket
Extension Feasibility Study/
Alternatives Analysis
267
208
267
50
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\GIS\project\VRE_and_Bus_Baseline2.mxd
495
7
Reston
600
Vienna
Oakton
Chantilly
15
608
Fairfax
Annandale
495
236
29
66
Manassas Line
Haymarket
Haymarket
NS B Line
Burke Centre
Bull Run
Manassas Park
NS Main Line
Manassas Park
0
Burke
123
Lincolnia
401
420
241
Lorton
414
Oxon Hill-Glassmanor
Alexandria
Groveton
1
Broad Run / Airport
458
Camp Springs
Newington
Manassas Regional/
Harry P Davis Field
218
637 Hill
City Suitland-Silver
295
Hybla Valley
600
4
Coral Hills
5
Hillcrest Heights
402
Rose Hill
Springfield
L'Enfant
120
Alexandria
123
Manassas
28
West Springfield
395
Crystal
395
Franconia
Manassas
215
244
Union Station
395
27
Backlick Road
Rolling Road
Washington
110
Arlington
Bailey's Crossroads
Centreville
234
237
Jefferson
237
50
29
124
338
237
295
355
120
Idylwood
Falls Church
29
Merrifield
29
McLean
66
243
201
309
Tysons Corner
Wolf Trap
208
396
Friendly
400
Fort Hunt
Mount Vernon
223
Fort Washington
Fredericksburg Line
235
95
Nokesville
Nokesville
Lake Ridge
210
373
242
NS Main Line
867
227
Dale City
Woodbridge
600
228
Waldorf
210
St. Charles
Source: ESRI Streetmap 9.1 (2005)
0
Existing AMTRAK Lines
NS B Line
Baseline 2 Bus: Proposed Haymarket Shuttle Bus
Baseline 2 Bus: Proposed Gainesville Shuttle Bus
Baseline 2 Bus: Proposed Sudley Manor Shuttle Bus
1 Miles
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Legend
Existing VRE Lines
0.5
VRE Station/Yard
PRTC Park and Ride Lots
Figure 5-2b Trunk Transit Services
in Baseline Scenario 2
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket
Extension Feasibility Study/
Alternatives Analysis
228
267
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\GIS\project\VRE_and_Bus_1B.mxd
396
267
267
50
Reston
Wolf Trap
355 185
Oakton
Chantilly
15
29
608
NS B Line
55
Haymarket
Haymarket
29
Potential
Gainesville Station
Manassas Line
Potential
Haymarket Station
Burke Centre
Bull Run
600
Potential Sudley
Manor Station
600
215
Rolling Road
Manassas Park
Manassas
NS Main Line
123
Lincolnia
401
Backlick Road
420
Franconia
Manassas Regional/
Harry P Davis Field
1
Broad Run / Airport
Lorton
218
458
414
295
Oxon Hill-Glassmanor
Alexandria
Groveton
Hybla Valley
Newington
Friendly
Clinton
400
Fort Hunt
Mount Vernon
223
Fort Washington
Fredericksburg Line
235
95
Nokesville
Nokesville
Lake Ridge
210
373
242
NS Main Line
867
227
Dale City
Woodbridge
600
228
Waldorf
210
St. Charles
Montclair
Source: ESRI Streetmap 9.1 (2005)
Coral Hills
5
Hillcrest Heights
Alexandria
241
4
637
Suitland-Silver
Hill
120
402
Rose Hill
West Springfield Springfield
600
L'Enfant
Crystal City
395
123
Manassas Park
Manassas
28
Burke
395
27
244
Union Station
395
110
Bailey's Crossroads
Annandale
495
236
50
Washington
29
Arlington
Jefferson
237
Centreville
234
66
Fairfax
295
237
338
201
208
355
124
Idylwood
Falls Church
29
237
500
396
66
Merrifield
501
208
McLean
309
Tysons Corner
Vienna
212
410
211
212
Chillum Hyattsville
120
600
29
Bethesda
495
7
190
Legend
Existing VRE Lines
Existing AMTRAK Lines
NS B Line
Alternative 1B: Proposed VRE Line
from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC
0
0.5
1 Miles
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
VRE Station/Yard
PRTC Park and Ride Lots
Figure 5-3 Trunk Transit Services
in Alternatives 1B
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket
Extension Feasibility Study/
Alternatives Analysis
228
267
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\GIS\project\VRE_and_Bus_1C.mxd
396
267
267
50
Reston
Wolf Trap
355 185
Oakton
Chantilly
15
29
608
NS B Line
55
Haymarket
Haymarket
Manassas Line
Potential
Haymarket Station
Potential Sudley
Manor Station
215
Rolling Road
Burke Centre
Bull Run
600
Annandale
495
236
Manassas Park
NS Main Line
Manassas
28
Burke
Lincolnia
401
Backlick Road
420
Franconia
Alexandria
241
Manassas Regional/
Harry P Davis Field
1
Broad Run / Airport
Lorton
218
637
Suitland-Silver
Hill
458
414
295
Oxon Hill-Glassmanor
Alexandria
Groveton
Friendly
Clinton
400
Fort Hunt
Mount Vernon
223
Fort Washington
Fredericksburg Line
235
95
Nokesville
Nokesville
Lake Ridge
210
373
242
NS Main Line
867
227
Dale City
Woodbridge
600
228
Waldorf
210
St. Charles
Montclair
Source: ESRI Streetmap 9.1 (2005)
Coral Hills
5
Hillcrest Heights
Hybla Valley
Newington
4
120
402
Rose Hill
West Springfield Springfield
600
L'Enfant
Crystal City
395
123
Manassas Park
Manassas
123
395
27
244
Union Station
395
110
Bailey's Crossroads
29
Potential
Gainesville Station
600
237
Centreville
234
66
Fairfax
50
Washington
29
Arlington
Jefferson
201
295
237
338
237
500
208
355
124
Idylwood
Falls Church
29
Merrifield
501
396
66
243
212
410
211
208
McLean
309
Tysons Corner
Vienna
212
Chillum Hyattsville
120
600
29
Bethesda
495
7
190
0
Legend
Existing VRE Lines
Existing AMTRAK Lines
NS B Line
0.5
1 Miles
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
VRE Station/Yard
PRTC Park and Ride Lots
Alternative 1C: Proposed VRE Line
from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC
Alternative 1C: Proposed Commuter Rail Shuttle
from Gainesville-Haymarket to Alexandria
Figure 5-4 Trunk Transit Services
in Alternative 1C
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket
Extension Feasibility Study/
Alternatives Analysis
228
267
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\GIS\project\VRE_and_Bus_1D.mxd
396
267
267
50
Reston
Wolf Trap
355 185
Oakton
Chantilly
15
29
608
NS B Line
55
Haymarket
Haymarket
Manassas Line
Potential
Haymarket Station
Potential Sudley
Manor Station
215
Manassas Park
NS Main Line
Manassas Park
Manassas
123
244
Lincolnia
401
420
Franconia
Manassas Regional/
Harry P Davis Field
1
Broad Run \ Airport
Lorton
218
458
414
295
Oxon Hill-Glassmanor
Alexandria
Groveton
Hybla Valley
Newington
Friendly
Clinton
400
Fort Hunt
Mount Vernon
223
Fort Washington
Fredericksburg Line
235
95
Nokesville
Nokesville
Lake Ridge
210
373
242
NS Main Line
867
227
Dale City
Woodbridge
600
228
Waldorf
210
St. Charles
Montclair
Source: ESRI Streetmap 9.1 (2005)
Coral Hills
5
Hillcrest Heights
Alexandria
241
4
637
Suitland-Silver
Hill
120
402
Rose Hill
West Springfield Springfield
600
L'Enfant
Crystal City
395
123
Manassas
28
Burke
395
27
Backlick Road
Rolling Road
Burke Centre
Bull Run
600
Annandale
495
236
Union Station
395
110
Bailey's Crossroads
29
Potential
Gainesville Station
600
237
Centreville
234
66
Fairfax
50
Washington
29
Arlington
Jefferson
201
295
237
338
237
500
208
355
124
Idylwood
Falls Church
29
Merrifield
501
396
66
243
212
410
211
208
McLean
309
Tysons Corner
Vienna
212
Chillum Hyattsville
120
600
29
Bethesda
495
7
190
0
Legend
Existing VRE Lines
Existing AMTRAK Lines
NS B Line
Alternative 1D: Proposed VRE Line from
Gainesville-Haymarket to Broad Run
0.5
1 Miles
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
VRE Station/Yard
PRTC Park and Ride Lots
Figure 5-5 Trunk Transit Services
in Alternative 1D
VRE Gainesville-Haymarket
Extension Feasibility Study/
Alternatives Analysis
5.2.1
Environmental Considerations
A qualitative assessment of potential environmental effects was conducted to
determine the potential effects of each alternative on the human and natural
environment. For purposes of this analysis, the areas considered include: land use,
environmental justice communities, known historic and archaeological sites, publicly
owned parklands, surface waters, floodplains, wetlands, soils (focus on prime
and/or unique farmlands), and known hazardous/contaminated sites as listed by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
The methodology used to assess these potential environmental constraints included
field surveys (conducted by driving the rail corridor and surrounding roadway
networks) and review of readily available information such as maps, documents, and
GIS data from local, state, and federal sources. The findings of this survey are only
potential indicators of areas of concern. As planning for the project progresses, more
detailed analyses would be required to determine specific and quantitative impacts.
A buffer of 500 feet from either side of the B Line was established to identify
potential environmental concerns along the Build Alternatives. For consistency, a
buffer of 500 feet from either side of the Baseline Scenario routes was also established
to identify potential environmental concerns. Figure 5-6 includes a map that shows
the study area and potential identified environmental concerns.
Build Alternatives
Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D would potentially have similar environmental
considerations since they generally share the same corridor and planned
improvements.
The greatest potential for physical impacts would occur at station locations along the
Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas corridor. Other physical impacts may exist
along the B Line where acquisition is necessary. For example, several potentially
contaminated sites or hazardous waste generators were identified along the B Line.
The greatest concentration of these sites was noted in the vicinity of the US 29 and B
Line intersection.
Several streams traverse the B Line corridor, many of which have designated
floodplains associated with them. A large floodplain area was identified along the
southern side of the B Line west of the intersection with US 29 to just past Route 15 in
Haymarket. Wetland areas were also identified along the corridor. Large wetland
areas were identified in the vicinity of Sudley Manor Drive, along I-66 where the B
Line parallels the interstate, and west of Route 29 along the southern side of the B
Line. Portions of these streams, floodplains, and wetlands are adjacent to Resource
Protection Areas, which are protected under the Chesapeake Bay Act. These would
need to be evaluated further in the next phase of the project.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
93
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
For wetlands and floodplains, the linear feet associated with the Build Alternatives
were calculated using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Two scenarios are
presented: linear feet of wetlands and floodplains between Manassas and
Haymarket; and linear feet of wetlands and floodplains between Manassas and
Gainesville. Table 5-1 provides these calculations.
Table 5-1: Linear Feet of Wetlands and Floodplains Identified Along the Rail Line
Alignment
Length of
Alignment
(in Feet)
Wetlands
Linear Feet
Percentage
of Alignment
Floodplains
Linear Feet
Percentage
of Alignment
Manassas to
Haymarket
56,530
2,740
4.85%
7,270
12.86%
Manassas to
Gainesville
(to Route 29)
41,730
1,740
4.17%
300
0.72%
Based on the linear feet calculated, an alignment between Manassas and Gainesville
would have the potential to impact considerably fewer wetland and floodplain areas.
One potentially significant archaeological site was identified in the Gainesville area
south of the B Line. No other known sites were identified within the B Line corridor.
A review of census data for the study area identified that minority and low income
populations exist. Several larger concentrations of minority and low-income
populations were found in the vicinity of Sudley Manor Drive, north of the
intersection of Prince William Parkway and the B Line and along the south side of I66 as it parallels the B Line.
Based on the environmental factors indicated, potential impacts to water resources,
such as floodplains and wetlands, are the greatest concern. As the rail alignments for
Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D head west of US 29, large areas of wetlands and
floodplains have been identified. Impacts to these resources may occur from land
disturbing activities, such as acquiring additional right-of-way to construct a second
track, or the provision of stations and park and ride lots. Impacts to these resources
would require agency coordination, environmental permitting, and mitigation.
Impacting these resources could impact project schedule and costs. As such, a Build
Alternative that ends in the Gainesville area would be favorable to avoid potentially
significant impacts to the water resources identified.
At this level of analysis, significant changes in environmental considerations do not
occur from one Build Alternative to another since operational characteristics are
largely what defines each alternative.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
95
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Baseline Scenarios
Baseline Scenario 1 utilizes the existing roadway network and does not require land
acquisition for the alignment. It may require additional right-of-way for one new
park and ride lot and the expansion of PRTC’s proposed Cushing Park and Ride Lot.
Baseline Scenario 2 utilizes the existing roadway network and does not require land
acquisition for the alignment. The feeder bus service would be provided from new
park and ride lots in Gainesville, Haymarket, and Sudley Manor/Innovation and
would connect directly to the existing Broad Run Station with no intermediate stops.
Additional right-of-way would be required to accommodate the park and ride lots
that would serve these feeder bus routes. Additional right-of-way may also be
required to expand parking at existing VRE stations to accommodate increased
ridership.
Table 5-2 provides the calculations of linear feet of wetlands and floodplains along
the bus portion of Baseline Scenario 2. No other environmental considerations were
noted using the available aerial imagery.
Table 5-2: Linear Feet of Wetlands and Floodplains Identified Along the Bus
Services
Bus Shuttle
Length of
Alignment
(in Feet)
Wetlands
Linear
Feet
Percentage of
Alignment
Floodplains
Linear
Percentage
Feet
of Alignment
Haymarket Shuttle
55,875
1,960
3.51%
630
1.13%
Gainesville Shuttle
41,736
1,040
2.49%
630
1.51%
Sudley Manor shuttle
18,461
470
2.55%
0
0
The park and ride lots for Baseline Scenarios 1 and 2 may have potential
environmental impacts, including to wetlands. These will be evaluated when sites
are determined in the next phase of the project.
5.2.2
Noise and Vibration
The screening procedure for noise and vibration is based on the methodology
contained in the FTA guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment (FTA Report FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006). The FTA guidance manual
has three levels of noise and vibration analysis, depending on the stage of the project.
For this Alternative Analysis, the screening procedure is used to assess the potential
for noise and vibration impacts for different alternatives. The screening procedure
does not identify specific impacts, but allows a way to compare the potential for
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
96
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
noise and vibration impacts for various alternatives, and identifies locations where
further analysis would be needed as the project moves forward.
Table 5-3 shows the screening distances for the types of potential transit activity
identified for the Build Alternatives and the Baseline Scenarios. Screening distances
are shown for commuter rail and buses. Commuter rail is shown with and without
horns because the use of horns increases the project’s noise impacts.
The steps in conducting a noise screening are:
h
h
h
h
Determine the appropriate project type. If buildings occur in the sound paths,
then use the distances under “Intervening Buildings”. Otherwise, use the
distances under "Unobstructed”.
Note the distance in feet for service type. Apply this distance from the guideway
centerline for the project.
Within the distance noted above, locate any noise-sensitive land uses.
If it is determined that no noise sensitive land uses are within the distances noted
in Table 5-3, then no further noise analysis would be needed. However, if one or
more of the noise-sensitive land uses are within the screening distances noted in
Table 5-3 then further analysis would be needed in the next phase of the project.
Table 5-3: Noise Screening Distances for Commuter Rail and Bus Services
Screening Distance* (ft)
Type of Service
Commuter Rail Mainline
Commuter Rail with Horn Blowing
Bus Projects
Unobstructed
Intervening Buildings
750
1,600
200
375
1,200
100
*Measured from centerline of guideway/roadway.
Similar to the noise screening procedure, the vibration screening procedure is
designed to identify locations where a project alternative may cause vibration
impacts. The vibration screening procedure is designed to identify projects that have
little possibility of creating significant adverse impacts. If the screening procedure
does not identify any potential problem areas, it is usually safe to eliminate further
consideration of vibration impact from the environmental analysis. However, as is
the case with the noise screening procedure, for areas where potential vibration
impacts are identified within the screening distances, further analysis would be
required as the project moves forward. This approach allows the focus of further
vibration analysis on locations where impacts are likely.
The FTA guidance manual contains reference distances for the screening procedure
for various project types to assist in determining locations with the potential for
vibration impact. The screening distances are given in Table 5-4. These distances are
based on the criteria presented in the FTA guidance manual with a factor of safety
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
97
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
included. As a result of the safety factor, the screening distances will identify most of
the potentially impacted areas.
The steps in the vibration screening procedure are:
h
Determine the project type. If the project includes any type of steel-wheel/steelrail vehicle, there is potential for vibration impact. For projects that involve
rubber-tire vehicles (such as buses), vibration impact is unlikely except in
unusual situations. The following questions should be considered in determining
the potential for vibration impact from rubber-tire vehicles.
¾ Will there be expansion joints, speed bumps, or other design features that
result in unevenness in the road surface near vibration-sensitive buildings?
Such irregularities can result in perceptible ground-borne vibration at
distances up to 75 feet away.
¾ Will buses, trucks, or other heavy vehicles be operating close to a sensitive
building? Research using electron microscopes and manufacturing of
computer chips are examples of vibration sensitive activities.
¾ Does the project include operation of vehicles inside or directly underneath
buildings that are vibration sensitive? Special considerations are often
required for shared-use facilities, such as a bus station located inside an
office building complex.
h
If the result of the first step is that there is potential for vibration impact,
determine if any vibration-sensitive land uses are within the screening distances.
h
If there are any vibration-sensitive land uses within the screening distances, there
is the potential for vibration impact. If there are no vibration sensitive land uses
within the screening distances, there is no need for further vibration analysis.
Table 5-4: Vibration Screening Distances for Commuter Rail and Bus Alternative
Services
Type of Service
Screening Distance* for Land Use Categories (ft)
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Commuter Rail
600
200
120
Bus Projects
100
50
--
*Measured from centerline of guideway/roadway. Category 1 land use is very sensitive facilities, such as recording studios.
Category 2 land use is generally residential, and Category 3 land use is institutional (churches, schools, etc).
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
98
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Screening
Preliminary quantitative noise and vibration screening analyses were performed on
the Tier 2 alternatives, and their results are shown in Tables 5-5 and 5-6. More
detailed noise and vibration analyses would occur in the next phase of this project
and would differentiate potential impacts among the Build Alternatives based on
operational characteristics, such as headways, speeds, and hours of operation.
Table 5-5: Noise Screening Analysis Results
Type of Service
Commuter Rail
Bus
Location
Manassas
Prince William
Manassas
Prince William
Number of Noise Sensitive Receptors Within Screening
Distances
Dwelling Units
Structures
449
1,160
0
1
155
356
0
1
The Build Alternatives are anticipated to have more significant noise impacts than
the Baseline Scenarios, because they provide commuter rail service and have a higher
number of noise sensitive receptors identified within the screening distances. The
greatest noise impacts would be near grade crossings where a train’s horn would
sound. At locations where no noise sensitive receptors have been identified, such as
in Manassas under the Baseline Scenarios, no additional analysis would be needed.
Table 5-6: Vibration Screening Analysis Results
Type of Project
Location
Commuter Rail
Manassas
Prince William
Manassas
Prince William
Bus
Number of Vibration Sensitive Receptors Within
Screening Distances
Dwelling Units
Structures
4
105
0
0
4
72
0
0
The Build Alternatives are anticipated to have higher vibration impacts than the
Baseline Scenarios because they provide commuter rail service and have a much
greater number of vibration sensitive receptors identified within the screening
distances. No vibration sensitive receptors have been identified in Manassas or
Prince William under the Baseline Scenarios. Therefore, no further analysis would be
required.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
99
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Build Alternatives
The exact number of potentially affected sites for the Build Alternatives depends on
the specific land use and number of buildings located near the alignments. Build
Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D share the same alignment. Noise and vibration impacts
would vary among the Build Alternatives based on operational characteristics, such
as frequency.
Based on the Tier 2 screening, the Build Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D, have greater
potential for noise and vibration impact than the Baseline Scenarios. Alternative 1C
has the greatest number of trains in use and the most frequent service on the
corridor. Of the Build Alternatives, it would therefore have the greatest noise and
vibration impacts.
A greater amount of ambient noise can be observed in Gainesville versus Haymarket
as a result of denser and more commercial development. Haymarket has less
ambient noise and more residential development. Based on this information, the
Build Alternatives have the potential for the most noise impacts, but it is anticipated
that these impacts would be more apparent with an alignment that extends all the
way to Haymarket than one that ends in Gainesville.
Baseline Scenarios
Baseline Scenario 1 has significantly smaller screening distances than the Build
Alternatives, since it does not provide commuter rail service. Depending on the
configuration of the bus service, much of this distance might be within the road or
highway right-of-way, with little potential for noise impact.
Baseline Scenario 2 has a greater potential for noise and vibration impact than
Baseline Scenario 1, since it expands existing VRE service, and commuter rail services
have higher noise and vibration impacts than bus services. Overall, Baseline
Scenarios 1 and 2 have less potential for noise and vibration impact than the Build
Alternatives.
5.2.3
Infrastructure Needs
The conceptual alignments for the Tier 2 alternatives were developed based upon
established alignments for the Build Alternatives and are shown in Appendix B.
Baseline Scenario 1 occurs exclusively on the existing roadway network, and Baseline
Scenario 2 occurs on the existing roadway network and the existing VRE Manassas
Line. The Build Alternatives, 1B, 1C, and 1D, occur along the B Line. Conceptual
design assumptions include a double-track mainline primarily on the B Line right-ofway.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
100
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Build Alternatives
Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D share the same alignment. The only difference between
the Build Alternatives would be the operating parameters, such as service frequency.
For example, Alternative 1C adds a commuter rail shuttle service from GainesvilleHaymarket to Alexandria in addition to the proposed rail infrastructure
improvements.
The alignment for these Build Alternatives would originate at a station located in the
vicinity of the Town of Haymarket or Gainesville and would head southeast running
along the existing B Line and join the existing VRE Manassas Line at Manassas
Station. From Manassas Station, the alignment would follow the existing VRE
Manassas Line and continue into downtown Washington DC.
Proposed infrastructure improvements include building a new track at a 15 foot
offset from the existing B Line, with variations as needed to accommodate the
selected design speed. Right-of-way acquisition may be necessary along some
portions of the corridor to accommodate the second track. Although the distance
from Manassas Station to Haymarket is approximately 11 miles, the new, second
track would be a maximum of nine miles long if it extended all the way to
Haymarket, as it would tie into NS’s planned two-mile siding in Gainesville. The
new track would be Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) with wood ties and would
include an estimated 11 turnouts and four crossovers. The existing and the new
mainline track would be available for freight and commuter rail use. The new track
would include upgraded crossings and signaling systems designed in accordance
with NS’s recent signalization upgrades.
Infrastructure improvements include up to three stations with low level platforms,
elevators, fare collection equipment, and parking facilities. There would be one
storage yard along the alignment. Potential stations along the new branch of VRE
service from Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas under the Build Alternatives would
be located in the vicinity of:
h
h
h
Proposed Haymarket Station, Haymarket
Proposed Gainesville Station, Gainesville
Proposed Sudley Manor/Innovation Station, Sudley
There would be no changes to the stations along the existing Manassas Line service,
except for parking expansions to accommodate increases in ridership from the new
stations. Figure 5-7 shows an example of a station park and ride lot for the Build
Alternatives. A typical railroad section is shown in Figure 5-8.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
101
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Figure 5-7 Generic Station Park and Ride Lot Commuter Rail Facility
Figure 5-8: Typical Cross Section
Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D
Baseline Scenarios
Baseline Scenario 1 would originate service at a park and ride lot west of the Town of
Haymarket. It would travel on Route 15 to I-66, where it would use the HOV lane to
head east toward DC. It would then head south on Route 234 Bypass to Cushing
Park and Ride Lot. After picking up passengers at Cushing Park and Ride Lot, the
Baseline Scenario would route buses back onto I-66 in the HOV lane. The route
would follow I-66 into downtown Washington DC where it would stop at the State
Department and then proceed to the Pentagon Metrorail Station. There would be no
change to the existing VRE Manassas Line service.
The alignment for Baseline Scenario 2 would include three new feeder bus services
originating from Haymarket, Gainesville, and Sudley Manor/Innovation to connect
to the existing VRE Manassas Line service at Broad Run Station. All three routes
would require park and ride lots. Figure 5-9 shows a typical park and ride bus
facility.
The proposed Haymarket feeder bus would start its service just north of the
intersection of Route 15 and Route 66 and travel along Route 66 east, then Route 234
Bypass south to the existing Broad Run Station. The proposed feeder bus would be
an express bus service making no stops between Haymarket Park and Ride and
Broad Run Station.
The proposed Gainesville feeder bus would start its service on University Boulevard
just north of the intersection of University Boulevard and Wellington Road, and
travel south along University Boulevard, east on Wellington Road, north on Balls
Ford Road, south on Route 234 Bypass to the existing Broad Run Station. The
proposed feeder bus would be an express bus service making no stops between
Gainesville Park and Ride and Broad Run Station.
The proposed Sudley feeder bus would start its service on Sudley Manor Drive just
east of Route 234 Bypass, traveling west on Sudley Manor Drive, and south on Route
234 Bypass to the existing Broad Run Station. The proposed feeder bus would be an
express bus service making no stops between the Sudley Park and Ride and Broad
Run Station.
PRTC is currently in the process of locating a site in western Prince William County
for the storage and maintenance of vehicles. Buses required to service Baseline
Scenarios 1 and 2 would likely be stored and serviced at this facility, although this
may require an expansion of the facility.
Baseline Scenario 2 would not have any changes to the existing VRE Manassas Line
alignment. There would be changes to the frequency of VRE service on the Manassas
Line, thus resulting in the need for expanded parking lots as several stations.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
104
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Figure 5-9: Generic Park and Ride
Lot Bus Facility
5.2.4
Operating Plan
Operating plans for the alternatives were developed to allow the identification of
vehicle requirements, estimation of capital costs, estimation of operating &
maintenance costs and modeling of ridership. The conceptual operating plans for the
Build Alternatives consist of planned headway and travel times for each proposed
and modified existing corridor.
The operating plans were established based upon existing constraints, including
VRE’s current allotment of trains (40 per day maximum) on the CSX-owned portion
of VRE’s Manassas and Fredericksburg lines from Alexandria Station to Union
Station. The plans assume three stations in the study area: Sudley
Manor/Innovation, Gainesville, and Haymarket. It is important to note that the
operating plans for each alternative were developed to offer a fair comparison
between alternatives to the greatest extent possible.
Build Alternatives
VRE currently operates 16 daily service trips in the Manassas Line corridor. All of
the Build Alternatives would increase the number of service trips on the Manassas
Line between Manassas and Washington DC, and some of the alternatives increase
the number of service trips on the Manassas Line between Broad Run and Manassas.
All of the Build Alternatives establish a new commuter rail corridor along the B Line
between Manassas and Haymarket. The existing Manassas Line operation is shown
in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7: Headway and Travel Time for Current VRE Manassas Line Operation
Existing Commuter Rail Service from Broad Run to
Washington DC
AM Peak
In
Out
Headway (min)
33
180
Travel Time (min)
75
75
Off-Peak
In
Out
480
150
84
84
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
VRE operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM. This represents a 15-hour service day.
AM peak service operates from 5:00 AM to 8:00 AM. PM peak service operates from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM.
There are no pre-AM peak or post-PM peak train starts.
During the midday off-peak service (OP), there is one inbound and two outbound trips.
There is one reverse peak trip during both the AM and PM peak service periods.
106
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Alternative 1B
Alternative 1B would operate a total of 20 service train trips in the Manassas Line
corridor. The average anticipated headways on Alternative 1B are shown in Table 58.
Table 5-8: Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Alternative 1B
New Commuter Rail from Gainesville-Haymarket to
Washington DC
AM
Peak
In
Out
Headway (min)
52
180
OffPeak
In
Out
480
480
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Modified Existing Commuter Rail from
Broad Run to Washington DC
Travel Time (min)
89
85
Headway (min)
52
180
Travel Time (min)
75
75
84
84
480
480
70
73
VRE operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM. This represents a 15-hour service day.
AM peak service operates from 5:00 AM to 8:00 AM. PM peak service operates from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM.
There are no pre-AM peak or post-PM peak train starts.
During the midday off-peak service (OP), there is one inbound and one outbound trip.
There are up to two reverse peak trips during both the AM and PM peak service periods.
Total AM Peak travel time from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC is approximately 90
minutes (Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas = 20 minutes, Manassas to Alexandria
= 48 minutes, Alexandria to DC = 22 minutes).
Figure 5-10 shows the Alternative 1B Service Plan. The diagram is color-coded to
outline the Modified Existing Service, the New Service, and the sum of the two. Each
service is broken down to show the total, AM, mid-day, and PM trains. The diagram
shows the peak and off-peak travel times (calculated as indicated) for each segment
between stations. The operating plan for Alternative 1B would require the addition
of one new locomotive and 12 new coaches to the current VRE vehicle fleet (five
locomotives and 32 coaches).
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
107
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Figure 5‐10: Alternative 1B Service Plan
GH
20 min
5(1,1,3)
5(3,1,1)
5(1,0,4)
5(1,1,3)
10(2,1,7)
5(1,0,4)
Trains
BR
5(1,0,4)
5(1,1,3)
10(2,1,7)
M
5(4,0,1)
DC
A
5(4,0,1)
5(3,1,1)
10(7,1,2)
5(4,0,1)
5(3,1,1)
10(7,1,2)
Run Time (Peak)
__8__min
__48__min
__22__min
Run Time (Off‐Peak)
__8__min
__46__min
__23__min
Legend:
x(x,x,x) = Total(AM, MD, PM)
Station Abbreviations
BR = Broad Run Station
M = Manassas Station
GH = Gainesville‐Haymarket Station
Note: A = Alexandria Station
1) Run Time from Gainesville‐Haymarket Station to Manassas Station is a comprehensive estimate based on an 11 mile corridor, DC = Union Station (Washington, D.C.)
Color Coding 40 m.p.h. maximum travel speed, and 90 second dwell times at two stations along route.
2) Remaining Run Times (Peak and Off‐Peak) were calculated by averaging travel times taken from a Manassas Line VRE Run Times Table.
X(X,X,X) = Modified Existing Service
X(X,X,X) = New Service
X(X,X,X) = Total (Existing Modified Service + New Service)
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\tech\Service_Planning\Service Planning_2_27_2009
Alternative 1C
Alternative 1C would operate a total of 20 service train trips in the Manassas Line
corridor (six between Gainesville-Haymarket/DC and 14 between Broad Run/DC).
Alternative 1C would operate a total of 30 shuttle trips between GainesvilleHaymarket and Alexandria. The average anticipated headways on Alternative 1C
are shown in Table 5-9.
Table 5-9: Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Alternative 1C
New Commuter Rail
from GainesvilleHaymarket to
Washington DC
Modified Existing
Commuter Rail from
Broad Run to
Washington DC
New Commuter Rail
Shuttle from GainesvilleHaymarket to Alexandria
Travel
Time (min)
89
85
Headway
(min)
30
0
Travel
Time (min)
75
0
Headway
(min)
30
30
Travel
Time (min)
59
66
0
0
480
480
70
73
30
30
59
66
AM
Peak
In
Out
Headway
(min)
60
180
OffPeak
In
Out
0
0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
VRE operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM. This represents a 15-hour service day.
AM peak service operates from 5:00 AM to 8:00 AM. PM peak service operates from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM.
Alternative assumes no pre-AM peak or post-PM peak train starts—though the shuttle enables these.
During the midday off-peak service (OP), there is one inbound DC and on outbound Broad Run trip.
There is one reverse peak trip (Gainesville-Haymarket corridor) during both the AM and PM peak service periods.
Total AM Peak travel time from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC is approximately 90
minutes (Gainesville-Haymarket to Manassas = 20 minutes, Manassas to Alexandria
= 48 minutes, Alexandria to DC = 22 minutes).
Figure 5-11 shows Alternative 1C Service Plan. The diagram is color-coded to outline
the Modified Existing Service, the New Service, and the sum of the two. Each service
is broken down to show the total, AM, mid-day, and PM trains. The diagram shows
the peak and off-peak travel times (calculated as indicated) for each segment
between stations. The operating plan for Alternative 1C would require the addition
of six new locomotives and 30 new coaches to the current VRE vehicle fleet (five
locomotives and 32 coaches).
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
109
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Figure 5‐11: Alternative 1C Service Plan
**Shuttle Service Ends
GH
3(3,0,0)
Shuttle: 30(6,18,6)
33(9,18,6)
3(0,0,3)
Shuttle: 28(6,18,6) 20 min
32(6,18,9)
7(0,1,6)
3(0,0,3)
Shuttle: 28(6,18,6)
38(6,19,15)
7(0,1,6)
Trains
BR
7(0,1,6)
3(0,0,3)
10(0,1,9)
M
A
7(6,0,1)
7(6,0,1)
3(3,0,0)
DC
7(6,0,1)
3(3,0,0)
10(9,0,1)
Shuttle: 28(6,18,6)
38(15,18,7)
Run Time (Peak)
__8__min
__48__min
__22__min
Run Time (Off‐Peak)
__8__min
__46__min
__23__min
Legend:
x(x,x,x) = Total(AM, MD, PM)
Station Abbreviations
BR = Broad Run Station
M = Manassas Station
GH = Gainesville‐Haymarket Station
Note: A = Alexandria Station
1) Run Time from Gainesville‐Haymarket Station to Manassas Station is a comprehensive estimate based on an 11 mile corridor, DC = Union Station (Washington, D.C.)
Color Coding 40 m.p.h. maximum travel speed, and 90 second dwell times at two stations along route.
2) Remaining Run Times (Peak and Off‐Peak) were calculated by averaging travel times taken from a Manassas Line VRE Run Times Table.
X(X,X,X) = Modified Existing Service
X(X,X,X) = New Service
X(X,X,X) = Total (Existing Modified Service + New Service)
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\tech\Service_Planning\Service Planning_2_27_2009
Alternative 1D
Alternative 1D would include approximately 18 daily service trains on the Manassas
Line. The average anticipated headways on Alternative 1D are shown in Table 5-10.
Table 5-10: Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Alternative 1D
Modified Commuter Rail from Gainesville-Haymarket
to Broad Run to DC
AM
Peak
In
Out
Headway (min)
25
90
Travel Time (min)
101
101
OffPeak
In
Out
480
480
96
99
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
VRE operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM. This represents a 15-hour service day.
AM peak service operates from 5:00 AM to 8:00 AM. PM peak service operates from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM.
There are no pre-AM peak or post-PM peak train starts.
During the midday off-peak service (OP), there is one inbound and on outbound trip.
There is one reverse peak trip during both the AM and PM peak service periods.
Total AM Peak travel time from Gainesville-Haymarket to DC is approximately 98
minutes (Gainesville-Haymarket to Broad Run = 20 minutes, Broad Run to Manassas
= 8 minutes, Manassas to Alexandria = 48 minutes, Alexandria to DC = 22 minutes).
Figure 5-12 shows the Alternative 1D Service Plan. The diagram is color-coded to
outline the Modified Existing Service, the New Service, and the sum of the two. Each
service is broken down to show the total, AM, mid-day, and PM trains. The diagram
shows the peak and off-peak travel times (calculated as indicated) for each segment
between stations. The operating plan for Alternative 1D would require the addition
of two new locomotives and 26 new coaches to the current VRE vehicle fleet (five
locomotives and 32 coaches).
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
111
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Figure 5‐12: Alternative 1D Service Plan
GH
20 min
10(7,1,2)
10(2,1,7)
8(1,1,6)
Trains
8(1,1,6)
8(1,1,6)
2(1,0,1)
2(1,0,1)
2(1,0,1)
10(2,1,7)
10(2,1,7)
10(2,1,7)
M
BR
A
DC
8(6,0,2)
2(1,1,0)
10(7,1,2)
8(6,0,2)
2(1,1,0)
10(7,1,2)
8(6,0,2)
2(1,1,0)
10(7,1,2)
Run Time (Peak)
__8__min
__48__min
__22__min
Run Time (Off‐Peak)
__8__min
__46__min
__23__min
Legend:
x(x,x,x) = Total(AM, MD, PM)
Station Abbreviations
BR = Broad Run Station
M = Manassas Station
GH = Gainesville‐Haymarket Station
Note: A = Alexandria Station
1) Run Time from Gainesville‐Haymarket Station to Manassas Station is a comprehensive estimate based on an 11 mile corridor, DC = Union Station (Washington, D.C.)
Color Coding 40 m.p.h. maximum travel speed, and 90 second dwell times at two stations along route.
2) Remaining Run Times (Peak and Off‐Peak) were calculated by averaging travel times taken from a Manassas Line VRE Run Times Table.
X(X,X,X) = Modified Existing Service
X(X,X,X) = New Service
X(X,X,X) = Total (Existing Modified Service + New Service)
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\tech\Service_Planning\Service Planning_2_27_2009
Baseline Scenarios
Baseline Scenario 1
The average anticipated headways for Baseline Scenario 1 are shown in Table 5-11.
Table 5-11: Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Baseline Scenario 1 (Bus)
New Commuter Bus from Broad Run to DC (State
Department/Pentagon)
Peak
In
Out
Headway (min)
30
90
OffPeak
In
Out
180
180
Travel Time (min)
90
58
71
52
1. Using HOV lanes.
2. No intermediate stops.
The operating plan for Baseline Scenario 1 would require the purchase of 18 new
commuter buses.
Baseline Scenario 2
The average anticipated headways for the bus service portion of Baseline Scenario 2
are shown in Table 5-12.
Table 5-12: Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Baseline Scenario 2 (Bus)
New
Commuter
Bus Service
Peak
OffPeak
From Haymarket to Broad
Run VRE Station
From Gainesville to Broad
Run VRE Station
From Sudley Manor to
Broad Run VRE Station
Headway
(min)
Travel Time
(min)
Headway
(min)
Travel Time
(min)
Headway
(min)
Travel
Time (min)
In
23
17
23
16
23
7
Out
180
16
180
14
180
8
In
480
16
480
14
480
8
Out
240
18
240
16
240
7
1. Using HOV lanes.
2. No intermediate stops.
The feeder buses in Baseline Scenario 2 would correspond to VRE train times
departing from Broad Run. The travel time from Haymarket to Broad Run would be
17 minutes, while travel time from Gainesville and Sudley Manor to Broad Run
would be 16 minutes and 7 minutes, respectively. Travel times on the VRE train
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
113
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
from Broad Run to DC averages 75 minutes. Therefore, the total travel time from
Haymarket, Gainesville, and Sudley Manor to downtown, Washington DC would
range from 82 to 92 minutes.
The average anticipated headways for the modified VRE service portion of Baseline
Scenario 2 are as shown in Table 5-13. Existing service headways on the Manassas
Line are anticipated to be reduced from 30 minutes (current headway) to 23 minutes
(Baseline Scenario 2) in the peak periods.
Table 5-13: Estimated Headway and Travel Time for Baseline Scenario 2 (Rail)
Modified Commuter Rail from Broad Run to DC
AM
Peak
In
Out
Headway (min)
23
180
OffPeak
In
Out
480
240
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Travel Time (min)
75
75
70
73
VRE operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM. This represents a 15-hour service day.
AM peak service operates from 5:00 AM to 8:00 AM. PM peak service operates from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM.
There are no pre-AM peak or post-PM peak train starts.
During the midday off-peak service (OP), there is one inbound and on outbound trip.
There is one reverse peak trip during both the AM and PM peak service periods.
Figure 5-13 shows the Baseline Scenario 2 Service Plan. The diagram is color-coded
to outline the Modified Existing Service, the New Service, and the sum of the two.
Each service is broken down to show the total, AM, mid-day, and PM trains that run
along the existing Manassas Line. The feeder bus services proposed in the Baseline
Scenario 2 would connect passengers to the Broad Run Station of the Manassas Line.
The operating plan for Baseline Scenario 2 would require the purchase of five new
buses. It would also require the addition of two new locomotives and 26 new
coaches to the current VRE vehicle fleet (five locomotives and 32 coaches).
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
114
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Figure 5‐13: Baseline
Scenario Service Plan
A shuttle bus service originates from Haymarket, Gainesville, and Sudley Manor to meet trains at Broad Run Station.
10(1,2,7)
Trains
BR
10(1,2,7)
10(1,2,7)
M
A
DC
10(8,1,1)
10(8,1,1)
10(8,1,1)
Run Time (Peak)
__8__min
__48__min
__22__min
Run Time (Off‐Peak)
__8__min
__46__min
__23__min
Legend:
x(x,x,x) = Total(AM, MD, PM)
Station Abbreviations
Note: BR = Broad Run Station
1) Run Times (Peak and Off‐Peak) were calculated by averaging travel times taken from a Manassas Line VRE Run Times Table.
M = Manassas Station
GH = Gainesville‐Haymarket Station
A = Alexandria Station
DC = Union Station (Washington, D.C.)
Color Coding X(X,X,X) = Modified Existing Service
X(X,X,X) = New Service
X(X,X,X) = Total (Existing Modified Service + New Service)
\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\tech\Service_Planning\Service Planning_2_27_2009
5.2.5
Conceptual Capital Costs
Conceptual costs were estimated for the three Build Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D, and
the Baseline Scenarios in the Tier 2 alternatives screening process. These capital cost
estimates were developed based on the conceptual alignments and operating plans in
accordance with FTA guidelines for the preparation of capital cost estimates. The
items in the cost estimates are grouped into nine categories which are consistent with
the FTA’s Standard Cost Categories (SCCs) for Major Capital Projects. These
categories are:
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
Guideway and Track Elements
Station, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals
Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings.
Sitework and Special Conditions
Systems
ROW, Land, Existing Improvements
Vehicles
Professional Services
Unallocated Contingency
A list of assumptions included as part of the conceptual capital cost estimates are:
h
All capital cost estimates have been developed using current year (2008) dollars.
h
Base Year: 2008 was used as the Base Year for definition of the unit prices and
preparation of the capital cost estimates.
h
Unit costs used in the capital cost estimates are based on averages of costs for
similar recent construction in the mid-Atlantic region.
h
Unallocated Contingency: An unallocated contingency of 32% was used in the
estimates. This contingency is applied to the total capital cost for each
alternative.
h
Annualization Factors: Annualization factors are necessary to convert base year
capital cost estimates into annualized capital costs, which are used in calculation
of cost effectiveness measures. The FTA-required annualization factors (based
upon a 7% internal rate of return) were used for these estimates.
The capital cost estimates include infrastructure items, such as track installation, land
acquisition, station design and parking, signal system installation, and equipment
acquisition. The cost assumptions do not include grade separation projects along the
B Line. These are independent projects that VRE will coordinate with VDOT and
other agencies as required.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
116
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Infrastructure requirements were identified at a conceptual level based on the
proposed alignments. For example, the quantity of track that would be needed is
based on assumptions about the design speed, operating plan, and available track.
Site structures and the signal system to be installed were estimated based on
assumed or existing conditions, such as where retaining walls may be needed and
the capabilities of the current signal system on the corridor. Improvements made by
the Commonwealth of Virginia and NS, such as passing sidings and signalization
updates, were accounted for in the estimate. Improvement required to overcome
VRE capacity constraints (i.e. 40 trains per day maximum) associated with any of the
Build Alternatives are not included in the estimates.
Equipment requirements were estimated based on the modeling results, utilizing the
conceptual operating plans developed for each alternative. The number of vehicles
needed is a function of the length of the route, planned headways, the average speed
of the vehicle, and the turnaround times of the vehicles. Vehicle requirements are
estimated based on these factors and include accommodating for existing fleet, such
as VRE’s current train consists.
Vehicle parking requirements and lot sizes were estimated for each potential station
based on the modeling results.
Since design detail has not been completed at this stage, a contingency has been
added to the infrastructure costs. This contingency has been applied to address those
areas or items which may not be possible to identify at this level of design. Further
detail on the capital cost estimate for the Baseline Scenarios and Build Alternatives
1B, 1C, and 1D is included in Appendix C.
Build Alternatives
The conceptual capital costs of the Build Alternatives in 2008 dollars are:
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
h
Alternative 1B: $153 million. Of this cost, approximately $121 million
represents infrastructure, land acquisition, and contingency costs, and
approximately $32 million represents vehicle acquisition costs.
h
Alternative 1C: $244 million. Of this cost, about $148 million represents
infrastructure, land acquisition, and contingency costs, and $96 million
represents vehicle acquisition costs.
h
Alternative 1D: $203 million. Of this cost, approximately $134 million represents
infrastructure, land acquisition, and contingency costs, and approximately $69
million represents vehicle acquisition costs.
117
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Baseline Scenarios
The conceptual capital costs for Baseline Scenario 1 are $18 million. Of this cost, $10
million represents infrastructure, including contingencies, and $8 million represents
vehicle acquisition costs.
The conceptual capital costs for Baseline Scenario 2 in 2008 dollars is $102 million. Of
this cost, $31 million represents infrastructure costs, including contingencies, and $71
million represents vehicle acquisition costs.
5.2.6
Conceptual Operating and Maintenance Costs
Conceptual Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs were estimated for the three
Build Alternatives and two Baseline Scenarios considered in the Tier 2 alternatives
screening process. These costs are detailed in Appendix D. Operating and
maintenance costs are the expenses incurred to provide day-to-day operations and
maintenance of the transit system. Labor and direct expenses are two main
components of O&M costs. Labor expenses include salaries of management,
administrative, operations, and maintenance staff. The staffing level required for a
project is based on the fleet size and the hours of operation for the proposed service.
Direct expenses include costs for management, administration, operations,
equipment and right-of-way maintenance, power/utilities, spares/consumables,
cleaning/facilities maintenance, and other contingencies. These costs can be partially
offset by fare revenues, but fare revenues were not accounted for in this phase of the
study.
Based on historical data and costs received from VRE and PRTC, O&M cost models
for the comparison of each alternative were developed for the Alternatives Analysis.
Each O&M cost model is calibrated based on costs from the levels of service in the
FY2007 operating budgets. Based on this data, an average cost of $5.77 per bus mile
and $138.71 per train mile were derived for use in this study.
Conceptual operating and maintenance costs were calculated based on alignments,
operating plans, and service levels. Further detail on the O&M cost estimates for the
Baseline Scenarios and Build Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D is included in Appendix D.
Build Alternatives
The gross annual O&M costs for the Build Alternatives in 2008 dollars are:
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
118
Alternative 1B: $1.5 million per year.
Alternative 1C: $18.6 million per year.
Alternative 1D: $4.4 million per year.
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
These costs are represented as an incremental change from Baseline Scenario 2. FTA
requires that the Build Alternatives be compared to the Baseline Scenario. These
costs do not account for fare revenue or other sources of revenue that would offset
the cost.
Baseline Scenarios
The conceptual O&M cost for Baseline Scenario 1 in 2008 dollars is $24.4 million per
year. This is the gross annual O&M, without accounting for fare revenue or other
sources of revenue that offset the cost.
The conceptual O&M cost for Baseline Scenario 2 in 2008 dollars is $25.5 million per
year. This is the gross annual O&M, without accounting for fare revenue or other
sources of revenue that offset the cost.
No-Build Scenario
The conceptual O&M cost for the No-Build Scenario in 2008 dollars is $19.4 million
per year. Thus, the incremental O&M cost for Baseline Scenario 1 as compared to the
No-Build Scenario is $5 million, while the incremental O&M cost for Baseline
Scenario 2 as compared to the No-Build Scenario is $6.1 million.
5.3
Travel Demand Modeling and Ridership
Forecasting
A travel demand model forecasting process was developed as part of the Tier 2
analysis of this study in order to forecast the projected ridership and user benefits for
each build alternative. This process was based on the current Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) model set (Version 2.2), related
work on other projects in the Washington metropolitan area, and adjustments to
better match observed transit travel in the corridor of interest. Specific details about
the model and its enhancements can be found in Appendix E.
5.3.1
Methodology and Assumptions
The typical approach to forecasting demand for an Alternatives Analysis is to use the
regional travel demand model maintained by the area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) as the primary tool, or at least as a starting point. The current
approved, calibrated, and validated model set maintained by the MWCOG was used
as the starting point for a modified model set applied to prepare forecasts for the
alternatives. More specifically, an enhanced version of the MWCOG model has been
applied that includes refinements to improve model performance for predicting
transit trips.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
119
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
As noted in Section 5.1.1, two alternatives, Alternative 1G and Alternative 1H, were
evaluated in terms of ridership only to demonstrate the ridership potential when the
system-wide 40 trains per day limit is exceeded. These alternatives were needed to
further evaluate the market potential for improved transit service in the GainesvilleHaymarket corridor and confirm the model’s sensitivity to higher frequency. These
two alternatives were coded to eliminate all VRE service to Broad Run, with
Manassas coded as an end of line station and provide mainline service with 30
minute headways on the Gainesville-Haymarket corridor (B Line). Alternative 1G
used Gainesville as the end of line station, and Alternative 1H used Haymarket as
the end of line station. Both alternatives included a station at Sudley
Manor/Innovation.
Modeling Assumptions
Overview
The primary modeling assumptions made in the Alternatives Analysis include:
h
h
h
Operating plans were defined within the current VRE capacity constraints (i.e. 40
trains per day maximum on the CSX-owned segment from Alexandria Station to
Union Station).
Land use inputs for the model were consistent with current approved plans.
It should be noted that the model is very sensitive to service frequencies. It is
more closely calibrated to a frequent urban service like Metrorail or Metrobus
than a suburban commuter rail service.
Detailed Assumptions
Existing Calibration
h
h
h
h
h
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
120
CTPP 2000 Journey-to-Work data are the closest matching statistical data
available to compare with the estimated Home-Based-Work trips.
Base Year = 2008. AM Peak is from 5AM to 8AM.
The analysis includes seven origin districts (agglomerations of traffic analysis
zones) in western Prince William County (Manassas, Manassas Park, Wellington,
Nokesville, Gainesville, Lake Jackson, and Haymarket), two additional origin
districts for northern and southern Fauquier County, and six destination districts
in Arlington County, the City of Alexandria, and the District of Columbia
(Crystal City, Arlington Other, Old Town, Alexandria Other, DC Core, and DC
Other).
MWCOG Model Version 2.1D #50 (2005) with AECOM/FHWA refinements was
used to calibrate the existing conditions.
AECOM has incorporated several enhancements to the existing MWCOG Model
to better reflect the total/transit trip estimates. These include:
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Network Related Changes
h
h
h
h
h
h
Headway/run time adjustments based on the updated schedules for Metrorail
and commuter rail.
Regional commuter express buses in the network were coded with restrictions on
boardings and alightings.
The CBD routes were coded such that they allow alighting only once they enter
the downtown area.
The Metrorail station database was updated with the new park and ride
configurations.
Shadow prices were added to station database to redistribute the park and ride
demand at Metrorail stations.
Several enhancements were made to the highway networks to facilitate more
comprehensive access connectors around the VRE stations.
Software Related Changes
h
h
h
h
The auto access connector program “autoacc3.exc” was updated with revised
back-tracking restrictions. The back-tracking restrictions were relaxed slightly to
achieve better connectivity and improved assignment of survey-based trip tables.
The auto-connector program was updated to correct for error in coding
impedance on long kiss-n-ride links to the Pentagon Metrorail Station.
The program “a1format.exe” was updated to read additional input file to append
pedestrian environment factor in the master A2Deck file.
The program “stopsv2.exe” was updated to read the revised transit line coding
format.
Other Changes
h
A new Pedestrian Environment Factor (PEF) was introduced to accommodate the
influence of the pedestrian environment on the choice of mode.
Forecast
h
h
The 2030 HBW person trip table was developed using a FRATAR technique. The
MWCOG CTPP based year 2000 work trip table was used as the starting point.
This year 2000 trip table was split by income group based on data from CTPP
Part 1 and Part 2. Forecast year 2030 HBW productions and attractions were
taken from the marginals of a MWCOG trip distribution model run for 2030.
An adjustment factor of 1.35 was applied to the initial 2030 forecast results to
account for an underestimation of 2008 VRE boardings when compared with
observed data, and for the model’s inability to account for transit trips
originating outside the modeled region. Details on this adjustment and its
application may be found in Appendix E.
Transit system user benefits were initially computed for each alternative using FTA’s
Summit Software. The adjustment of the forecast trip tables as noted above required
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
121
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
the computation of additional user benefits. This second computation was done
exogenous to Summit and the specific methodology is detailed in Appendix E.
h
h
h
5.3.2
External travelers will access the transit system at the end of line stations.
The future headways and travel times for each alternative were assumed as
discussed in the report.
The mode choice component of MWCOG Model Version 2.2 (2008) with
AECOM/FHWA refinements as applied for the White House Transportation
Study and as further modified to reflect 2008 observed VRE ridership on the
Manassas line was used to forecast transit trips.
Model Findings
Alternative 1C shows the greatest number of forecast transit trips. This result is
expected, as this alternative provides the maximum level of transit service east of
Manassas, and the forecasting model is very sensitive to the frequency of service
provided. As previously noted, Build Alternatives 1C and 1D show increases in
transit trips relative to Baseline Scenario 2, as they offer the greatest service
frequency.
Alternatives 1G and 1H were only evaluated for testing purposes, and thus, are not
included in Tables 5-14, 5-15, and 5-16. Results for Alternatives 1G and 1H are
located in Appendix E.
Table 5-14 shows a summary of the ridership model findings. Total VRE Manassas
Line Trips include all VRE trips (inbound and outbound service). Total Manassas
Line Study Area Trips include all VRE trips (inbound and outbound service) to/from
the study area stations: Manassas Park, Manassas, Broad Run, Sudley
Manor/Innovation, Gainesville, and Haymarket. Total Study Area Commuter Bus
Trips include all bus trips (inbound and outbound service) to/from the study area
corridor.
Table 5-14 shows that expanding transit in the study corridor generates new transit
riders. The Total Manassas Line Study Area Trips show an increase in all Build
Alternatives and Baseline Scenario 2 as compared to the No-Build Scenario.
Alternatives with service headways of 25 minutes or less generates the highest
number of riders. Baseline Scenario 1 generates more Total Study Area Commuter
Bus Trips than the No-Build Scenario, but it generates few VRE riders due to
competition from bus services. Baseline Scenario 2 generates approximately 35%
more Total VRE Manassas Line Trips than the No-Build Scenario. Alternative 1C
generates approximately 90% more Total VRE Manassas Line Trips than the NoBuild Scenario.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
122
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Table 5-14: Summary of Ridership Model Findings
NB
Total VRE
Manassas
Line Trips
Total
Manassas
Line Study
Area Trips
Total Study
Area
Commuter
Bus Trips
Baseline 1
(I-66 bus)
Baseline 2
(Enhanced
VRE BR +
Feeder Bus)
1B
Split BR/GH Service
1C
VRE BR/GH Service +
G-H Rail
Shuttle
1D
VRE G-H +
BR
Turnback
Service
9,194
7,952
12,544
11,394
17,500
12,156
5,234
3,992
6,156
6,126
9,156
6,582
734
2,258
978
676
562
652
Table 5-15 shows the change in transit trips for all transit modes and user benefits as
compared to Baseline Scenario 2 for each alternative, based on the ridership forecast
documented in Appendix E (Table 29). The Baseline Scenario 2 numbers represent
the difference from the No-Build Scenario. Build Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D
numbers represent the difference from Baseline Scenario 2.
Table 5-15: Change in Transit Trips and User Benefits Compared to Baseline 2
(Peak Period Home-Based Work Trips from Study Area to DC Area)
Baseline 2
(Compared to
No-Build)
Change in Transit Trips
User Benefits (hours)
464
878
1B (Compared
to Baseline 2)
1C (Compared
to Baseline 2)
1D (Compared
to Baseline 2)
-88
-153
474
1,055
95
222
Table 5-15 shows that Alternative 1C has the greatest Change in Transit Trips. This is
due to its frequent service. Alternative 1B has a negative Change in Transit Trips,
which means that it has fewer transit trips than Baseline Scenario 2. This is due to its
less frequent service west and south of Manassas as a result of splitting the Manassas
Line allocation of the 40 trains per day maximum between G-H and Broad Run.
Table 5-16 shows the cost per user benefit hour for the build alternatives. The cost
per user benefit serves as part of the equation to determine cost effectiveness, one of
the “qualitative” New Starts criteria under FTA’s Project Planning and Development
process. User benefits are the equivalent hours of traveltime savings associated with
improvements in transit service levels for all users of the transportation system and
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
123
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
are expressed in hours. The other piece of the cost effectiveness equation is the
annualized capital and operating costs. Together, the user benefit hours and the
annualized costs result in a cost effectiveness measure in the form of total project cost
per hour of transportation system user benefits.
Table 5-16: Cost per User Benefit Hour for Build Alternatives
Total Annualized Capital
Cost ($2008)
Total Annual Operating
Cost ($2008)
Annual User Benefits
(Hours)
Cost per Hour of User
Benefit (Incremental from
Baseline 2)
Baseline 2
1B
1C
1D
$9,058,605
$9,183,603
$15,895,306
$12,558,951
$25,522,013
$27,048,450
$44,145,770
$29,961,360
223,856
-38,966
269,029
56,638
-
-$42
$95
$140
Table 5-16 shows that Alternative 1C has the highest Annual User Benefits, but it also
has the highest Total Annualized Capital Cost and Total Annual Operating Cost.
The Cost per Hour of User Benefit is higher than expected due to the model’s
sensitivity to service frequency.
The forecasting results confirm that there is a demand for improved transit service in
the G-H area. Specifically, there are an estimated 1,000 to 3,600 trips attributable to
the G-H branch, as determined by the difference in the number of trips forecasted in
the Build Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D versus the No Build Scenario. The test model
runs, Alternatives 1G and 1H show that the G-H branch attracts more riders than the
existing Broad Run alignment.
Based on the alternatives evaluated, further refinement is needed to determine the
most appropriate operations plan between termini (Gainesville-Haymarket and DC),
as well as the probability of increasing VRE’s system wide capacity beyond the
current 40 trains per day maximum. This would enable greater service frequency,
thus increased ridership.
5.4
Tier 2 Conclusions
In the Tier 1 screening process, a number of alternatives were developed at a
conceptual level to address the Purpose and Need identified for the study. An initial
set of Tier 1 alternatives were developed and screened using primarily qualitative
indicators to identify a smaller set of alternatives to be explored in greater detail. The
Tier 1 process and evaluation findings are summarized in Chapter 4 of this report.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
124
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
In the Tier 2 evaluation, a set of three Build Alternatives, two Baseline Scenarios, and
a No-Build Scenario were developed at a greater level of detail. Conceptual
alignments, operating plans, infrastructure requirements, capital costs, and operating
and maintenance (O&M) costs were developed for each alternative. The ridership
forecast was modeled for each of the alternatives to estimate the ridership and user
benefits for each alternative. While fare revenues were not projected, it is reasonable
to treat the forecast ridership as a proxy for revenue, particularly since the majority
of new riders will access the system at the end of line stations.
At this stage of the evaluation, it was possible to develop a number of qualitative and
quantitative indicators to measure the alternatives against, based on the conceptual
operating plans, cost estimates, and the model results for each alternative. These
indicators were developed in five main areas of evaluation: Ridership Potential,
Infrastructure Costs, Operations and Maintenance, Environmental Considerations,
Noise and Vibration, and User Benefit. Table 5-17 summarizes the indicators that
were developed in each category.
Table 5-17: Summary of Indicators Developed for Tier 2 Evaluation
Category
Regional Transit
Access and Mobility
Infrastructure Costs
Operations and
Maintenance
Environmental
Considerations
Indicator
Definition
Ridership Potential/
Transit Share
How many new transit trips are generated by the
proposed alternative?
User Benefit
What is the estimated user benefit of the
proposed alternative? (FTA method for measuring
reductions in travel time and undesirable travel
conditions for transit users. The more points, the
better.)
Capital Cost Estimate
What is the estimated conceptual capital cost of
the proposed alternative?
Operating
Plan/Equipment
What are the anticipated equipment purchases
that are required for the proposed alternative?
O&M Cost Estimate
What is the conceptual annual O&M cost of the
proposed alternative?
Environmental
Assessment
What is the total number of linear feet of wetland
impacts anticipated for the proposed alternative?
Noise and Vibration
Analysis
What are the anticipated noise and vibration
impacts associated with the proposed alternative?
Table 5-18 presents a comparison of the Tier 2 alternatives. The results demonstrate
how well each alternative meets the Purpose and Need of the proposed project.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
125
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
The Tier 2 results provide some definitive results regarding ridership, capital cost
estimates, O&M cost estimates, and preliminary environmental assessments. In
terms of ridership, it has been determined that the G-H corridor attracts additional
riders to VRE service from the region. It is also clear that the model responds more
favorably to increased frequencies than any other modification to an alternative. The
G-H branch would add needed capacity and choice to the study area corridor. This
branch has the potential to generate trips in the range of 1,000 to 5,000 per day, based
on the projections developed for this study and the earlier VRE Strategic Plan.
The capital cost estimates demonstrate that Alternative 1C has the highest cost due to
the amount of equipment that would be needed. With Gainesville as the terminus
for the G-H branch of service, the cost range of alternatives drops to $127 million to
$218 million (from the full build to Haymarket range of $153 million to $244 million).
Terminating in Gainesville reduces costs for the station development, land
acquisition, and track construction. The O&M cost estimate for Alternative 1C is
highest due to the frequency of service throughout the day.
Table 5-18 Comparison of Tier 2 Alternatives
Indicator
No-Build
Baseline 2
Alt. 1B
Alt. 1C
Alt. 1D
Total Manassas
Line Study Area
Trips*
5,234
6,156
6,126
9,156
6,582
User Benefits*
(Hours)
-
878
-153
1,055
222
Capital Cost
Estimate**
$6 Million
$153 Million
$244 Million
$202 Million
Equipment
Needed
2 Coaches
$102 Million
2 Locomotives
26 Coaches
5 Buses
1 Locomotive
12 Coaches
6 Locomotives
30 Coaches
2 Locomotives
26 Coaches
O&M Cost
Estimate**
$19 Million
$25 Million
$27 Million
$44 Million
$30 Million
Cost per Hour of
User Benefit***
-
-
N/A
Potential wetland
impacts at station
sites
$-42
Potential wetland
impacts along
alignment and at
station sites
$95
Potential wetland
impacts along
alignment and at
station sites
$140
Potential wetland
impacts along
alignment and at
station sites
N/A
Lower Impact for
Bus Service
Higher Impact for
Rail
Highest Impact for
Rail-Greatest
Frequency
Lowest Impact for
Rail-Lowest
Frequency
Environmental
Assessment
Noise and
Vibration
*Computation details in Appendix E.
**Gross Annual Estimate.
***Incremental to Baseline 2.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
126
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Preliminary environmental assessments demonstrate that an end of line station in
Gainesville is more favorable for the Build Alternatives than an end of line station in
Haymarket. This is a result of potential water resources impacts along the south side
of the B Line west of US 29, as well as the potential for greater noise and vibration
impacts. The environmental assessment also demonstrates that Sudley
Manor/Innovation would be a difficult location to site a station due to a significant
number of water resources in the vicinity of Sudley.
5.5
Tier 2 Recommendations
The concept of a rail extension to Haymarket or Gainesville has merit based on the
initial ridership and user benefit results shown in this report. The three specific
alternatives, Alternative 1B, 1C, and 1D, shown in this Alternatives Analysis
represent different ways of delivering the service, but all three include the extension
of service to the Gainesville-Haymarket area. Future project development
documents will look more closely at how the rail service is provided.
It is recommended that Baseline Scenario 2 and Build Alternatives 1B and 1C move
forward into the next phase of study for more detailed analyses. Baseline Scenario 1,
the I-66 bus service, has merit and should be considered as part of the overall I-66
Transit Study being conducted by DRPT. Differences in the Build Alternatives are
primarily operational, as the rail alignment for each alternative is the same.
Environmental screening suggests that the rail corridor between a Gainesville Station
and a Haymarket Station has a higher potential for wetland impacts if expansion of
the rail right-of-way is required. Ridership forecasts for Alternatives 1G and 1H (test
options) suggest that there is a relatively small different in daily boardings between a
Haymarket and Gainesville terminus. This end of the line option can be applied to
any of the three Build Alternatives. Although it helps demonstrate the merit of the
proposed extension, Alternative 1D should be eliminated from further consideration
because it presents a challenging operational plan.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
127
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
128
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
6
Next Steps
This final chapter of the AA presents the key decisions and permitting/design steps
that need to be addressed in order to advance a transit investment strategy for the
Gainesville-Haymarket corridor. The following sections presents a summary of these
two issues and a brief assessment of key considerations involved.
6.1
Key Decisions
The most significant challenge in advancing a strategy is two-fold: 1) the GainesvilleHaymarket area is a part of the I-66 transportation corridor which requires a
multimodal solution to the transportation and mobility issues; and 2) there are more
funding needs than there is funding available at both the federal and state levels.
This challenge underscores the need to make decisions in a regional context.
6.1.1
Federal Funding
The immediate challenge that needs to be addressed is to decide whether federal
funding will be sought. There is one primary source of federal funds for major
capital investment transit projects – the FTA’s New Starts Program. This program is
highly competitive with projects across the country competing for a limited pool of
funding. FTA has developed a process to evaluate the many applications for funding
they receive. The process, which has nine different areas of assessment, generally
boils down to two overriding criteria: user benefit and cost effectiveness. Based on
the nine areas of evaluation, FTA assigns a rating designating a project’s eligibility
for funding. The ratings are: High; Medium High; Medium; Medium Low; and Low.
A project general needs to achieve a Medium rating to qualify for federal funds
through the New Starts Program. The initial assessment of user benefit conducted as
part of this AA suggests that Build Alternatives will likely be in the Medium Low to
Low range making funding through the New Starts program unlikely. It is possible
that adjustments to the travel demand forecasting process and a refinement of the
cost estimates may improve the rating. At this point however, New Starts funding
appears unlikely.
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
129
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
In recent years, FTA has administered a second program called Small Starts. This
program is for projects under a total capital cost of $250 million. One advantage of
the Small Starts Program is that FTA relaxes some of the more stringent modeling
requirements allowing more flexibility in how the forecasts are prepared. An initial
assessment of the Build Alternatives with respect to the Small Starts Program criteria
indicates that the ratings could improve to Moderate or better. The one drawback to
a Small Starts application is that the federal share is limited to $75 million of the total
cost. In the New Starts Program, the federal share can range up to 80 percent of the
total cost.
There a few other limited federal funding programs that could potentially provide a
small portion of the funds needed. These programs include congestion mitigation
and air quality (CMAQ), grade crossing enhancements, and fixed guideway
modernization (a formula based program).
6.1.2
State Funding
The primary source of state funding would be through the Rail Enhancement Fund
(REF). The Commonwealth has already invested in the NS owned B Line corridor
using monies from the REF. This program is a competitive process that uses a cost
benefit analysis approach developed by DRPT. Other state options include a budget
line item appropriation or dedicated funding source being created.
6.1.3
Other Funding Sources
One advantage of a fixed guideway transit system is that it can attract investment
around its stations. This presents a funding opportunity if this potential for
development can be channeled into a funding stream. Some areas have created
special assessment districts around stations to capture value which is returned to
help pay for the transit investment. The funding from special assessment districts
typically help to repay funds borrowed up-front to pay for the project and/or fund
the on-going maintenance and upkeep of the service and facilities.
Private sector investment is also a possibility particularly around the station sites.
There has been some initial interest expressed to VRE by developers in partnering to
develop the stations. This could present an opportunity up-front to fund the
construction of the stations.
6.1.4
Project Delivery Mechanisms
In the past, most all public sector transportation projects were delivered in the
traditional design, bid, build process. In this process, the project is fully designed,
the public agency advertises for the construction through a competitive procurement
process, and a contract is awarded for the construction. Over the past 10 to 15 years,
a process known as design-build has become increasing popular for the delivery of
some public sector transportation projects. In this process, a project is designed to
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
130
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
about the 30 percent level of completeness (preliminary engineering). The project
then is advertised for design-build. The selected contractor is responsible for
completing the design and constructing the project. The advantage of the designbuild process is time saved from inception to completion. The time savings are
assumed to result in cost savings since it takes less time to construct the project.
Design-Build is not for every project; the merits of this approach would need to be
carefully considered.
6.2
Environmental Review
No matter what funding sources are ultimately tapped, the project will need to
complete the state environmental review process. The federal environmental review
process will also need to be addressed if a federal permit or action is required and/or
federal funds are sought. In both cases, preliminary engineering (30% plan
development) would need to be undertaken to support the environmental review.
6.2.1 State Review
Under the state review process, a joint permit application from the US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VDEQ) would be required for any land disturbing activities affecting waters along
the corridor. Applying for a joint permit application has several requirements that
include establishing the limits of jurisdictional wetlands with the USACE,
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and an
element of public involvement. This is required under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. It should be noted that if the project goes through the NEPA process,
permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would apply. There are
provisions that allow the Section 404 process and NEPA to be integrated.
The Commonwealth of Virginia also requires an assessment of potential
environmental impacts for state funded projects. This evaluation is coordinated
through the (VDEQ). Based on the Virginia Code Sections 10.1-1188 et seq., state
agencies are required to prepare and submit environmental impact reports for
construction of facilities that cost $500,000 and land acquisitions for construction, to
include leases and expansions of facilities. Coordination with VDEQ would be
required determining if the proposed action meets the criteria established for
environmental impact reporting of state projects.
6.2.2 Federal Review
If any Federal Permits or Actions are required, the project will follow the NEPA
process. Depending on activities planned, this could be in the form of a Categorical
Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or an Environmental Impact Statement. Since
any of the proposed Build Alternatives would share the track with existing freight
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
131
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
rail (NS), it is likely that both the FTA and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
would be involved. Coordination with the FTA and FRA would be required to
determine the appropriate level of NEPA documentation.
6.3
Other Considerations
VRE also needs to consider whether a Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) to
Gainesville should be pursued, and if so, whether Haymarket should be studied
further.
The next step that VRE needs to take to advance the project includes initiating the
formal environmental review process through either the federal or the state
regulations based upon funding decisions. The next step would also include
initiating Preliminary Engineering of the selected alternative(s).
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
132
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Appendix
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
133
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Appendix A Tier 1 Matrix
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
A
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Appendix B Conceptual Plan
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
B
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Appendix C Order of Magnitude Capital Cost
Estimate
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
C
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Appendix D Order of Magnitude Operating and
Maintenance Cost Estimate
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
D
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Appendix E Ridership Forecasting
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
E
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis
Appendix F VRE Haymarket Extension Model
Update
\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\phase
2\report\draft_report_05-29-09.doc
F
FINAL Gainesville-Haymarket Alternatives Analysis