VRE Gainesville ‐ Haymarket Extension Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis
advertisement
VRE Gainesville‐Haymarket Extension Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis Public Workshop Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:30 – 9:00 pm Gravely Elementary School 1 Agenda Background Schedule Study Process Findings Summary Decision Points/Next Steps 2 G‐H Corridor History 1999 VDOT MIS and Multimodal Transportation and Environmental Study » Considered highway improvements, VRE expansion, Metrorail extension, bus service » A mix of transportation improvements best serves the corridor 2004 VRE Strategic Plan ‐ Recommended G‐H extension 2005 G‐H Implementation Plan ‐ Investigated possible implementation strategies and preliminary costs 2008 G‐H Alternatives Analysis and Feasibility Study 2009 DRPT I‐66 Transit/TDM study 3 G‐H Study Corridor 4 Study Schedule Stakeholder Meetings – June 2008 through Jan. 2009 Public Workshops – July and Oct. 2008 and May 5, 2009 Draft AA to DRPT – Feb. 27, 2009 Final AA to DRPT – May 29, 2009 5 Study Purpose Consider the range of transportation alternatives to improve mobility and regional access in the Gainesville and Haymarket areas: Reduce regional traffic congestion Improve regional air quality and minimize environmental impacts Advance sustainable development land use goals Inform recommended transportation investment strategies 6 Study Method Evaluate environmental impacts, infrastructure needs, ridership, and cost Tier 1 screening reduced initial set of alternatives to those that meet the Purpose and Need Tier 2 screening evaluated five alternatives in detail FTA New Starts criteria applied to the model results Modeling results allow comparison to earlier planning efforts Decision points include future funding requests and project limits 7 Environmental and Infrastructure Findings Potential impacts to wetlands and floodplains; noise and vibration impacts are also a concern Non‐rail alternatives have less potential for environmental impacts Rail alternatives can generally be implemented within the existing ROW with additional land for stations/parking Commonwealth of Virginia REF investment has reduced infrastructure needs Existing capacity constraint between Alexandria and Union Station limits VRE frequency 8 Existing VRE Rider Origins Insert graphic of study area 9 Ridership and Cost Findings No Build I‐66 Bus Enhanced VRE BR service + Feeder Bus VRE Split BR/GH service VRE BR/GH service + GH rail shuttle VRE GH + BR turnback service Baseline 1 Baseline 2 1B 1C 1D Total VRE Manassas Line Trips Total Manassas Line Study Area Trips Total Study Area Commuter Bus Trips 9,194 5,234 7,952 3,992 12,544 6,156 11,394 6,126 17,500 9,156 12,156 6,582 734 2,258 978 676 562 652 Capital Cost $6 M $18 M $102 M $153 M $244 M $203 M 2 Coaches 18 Buses 2 Locos 26 Coaches 5 Buses 1 Loco 12 Coaches 6 Locos 30 Coaches 2 Locos 26 Coaches $19 M $25 M $25 M $27 M $44 M $30 M Equipment Needed Gross O&M Cost 10 Alternatives Comparison Expanding/enhancing transit in the study corridor generates new transit riders Gainesville is more favorable than Haymarket as an end of the line station VRE service at headways of 25 minutes or less generates the highest number of riders BR/GH service + GH rail shuttle (Alternative 1C), generates approx. 90% more VRE riders than the NB I‐66 bus (Baseline 1) generates more transit riders than the NB, but fewer VRE riders Enhanced VRE service plus feeder bus (Baseline 2) generates approx. 35% more VRE riders than the NB 11 VRE G‐H AA Results Estimated 1,000 to 3,600 trips attributable to G‐H extension Based on approved regional model Model Assumptions » Operating plans defined within current VRE capacity constraints » Land use consistent with current approved forecasts » Model very sensitive to service frequencies 12 VRE Strategic Plan Results Estimated 3,000 to 5,000 trips attributable to G‐H extension Forecasts developed for different purpose; results cannot be applied to FTA process Model assumptions » No constraint on number of trains to/from Union Station » Approximately 30 minute headways on both BR and G‐H branches = 15 minute headways from Manassas » Model waiting time calculations tailored to commuter rail 13 Summary Findings Rail extension would add needed capacity and choice to corridor G‐H ridership potential refined » Low – 1,000 trips » High – 5,000 trips Enhanced Manassas Line service + feeder bus and an extension of VRE service to G‐H should advance into the next phase of study Gainesville terminus has merit as an initial phase » Range of alternatives drops from $127 M to $218 M versus $153 M to $244 M 14 Decision Points/Next Steps Federal Funding » Full New Starts? Not likely » Small Starts? Potential candidate » Other federal sources? Potential candidate State Funding » Rail Enhancement Fund » Other Local Funding » Local jurisdictions » Private sector contributions » Innovative financing opportunities 15 Decision Points/Next Steps Study Terminus » Should a Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) to Gainesville be pursued? Study vs. Implementation » Should Haymarket continue to be studied if MOS is pursued? VRE Ops. Board, Commissions, and stakeholder guidance will be sought » Potential start next phase in fall 2009 16 Feedback? For more information contact us at: Phone (703) 684‐1001 Email: gotrains@vre.org Internet: www.vre.org Train Talk List Serve: Sign up on www.vre.org Thank you for your participation! 17 Questions? 18
