ATTACHMENT U.1
2015 VRE Station Assessment Study Report
M E M O R A N D U M
Station Assessments for Virginia Railway Express (VRE)
March, 2015
______
1. Introduction
Virginia Railway Express (VRE) operates commuter rail service on the CSX railroad between Fredericksburg, VA and Washington, DC (Fredericksburg Line) and on the Norfolk Southern railroad between Manassas, VA and Alexandria, VA (Manassas Line). The Manassas Line merges with the Fredericksburg Line in Alexandria. In fall 2014 VRE hired Gannett Fleming to conduct a preliminary assessment of station improvements at five stations on the Fredericksburg Line. The stations included in the study are: Lorton, Rippon, Quantico, Brooke and Leeland Road. The Quantico Station not only serves VRE but is also an Amtrak station. In the vicinity of those stations there are two tracks, approximately 15 feet on center within a 150 to 200 foot wide right ofe way. Th Lorton, Rippon, Brooke and Leeland Rd. stations consist of a single platform, approximately 400 feet long, located on the eastern side of the railroad serving only one track (Track #2). The Quantico station includes platforms on each side of the railroad. The eastern platform is approximately 460 feet long and is used primarily by VRE trains. The western platform (Track #3) is used more often by Amtrak trains and is approximately 440 feet long.
This area of Virginia is growing fast with new residential and commercial development occurring along the entire VRE corridor. VRE long range plans as outlined in the VRE System Plan 2040 call for more frequent service, longer trains and improved facilities at stations. Some parking lots are reaching capacity and have limited growth potential without either building a parking structure or acquiring additional land for more surface parking. There are private sector development proposals affecting the VRE station at several locations including Rippon and Leeland Road. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) is advancing plans to add a third main track to the Fredericksburg Line corridor from Spotsylvania County (where a new, terminal VRE Fredericksburg Line station is currently under construction) to Franconia ‐Springfield. The third track would provide additional capacity to accommodate growth in VRE, intercity passenger rail (including high speed rail) and freight traffic within the CSX rail corridor. Initial plans for the third track have assumed construction of the third track west of Tracks 2 and 3, at the western eside of th railroad right‐of‐way (ROW). A second, side platform would be built at VRE stations to serve the new track. This configuration would leave VRE stations with access to only two of the three tracks and no space within the ROW to modify the station configuration at a later date to add an island platform.
1 VRE Station Assessments
The purpose of this task was to make a preliminary assessment of each station to include recommendations for :
Extending the existing platforms to platform 8 car trainsets (650 feet) and ultimately 10 car trainsets if possible (850 feet), Placing an island platform to serve the second track and a future third track, Whether to extend the existing platform to the north or south, How to provide ADA access to both platforms, The preferred side of the right of way to add the third track at VRE stations, Ways to integrate the station with existing or proposed surrounding development.
Each of the five stations has a different configurations and somewhat different issues associated with it. Recommendations for each station are based on available data which in most cases is minimal consisting of Google aerials and Stafford and Prince William County GIS data.
2. Design Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made for the development of concepts for all the stations:
All platforms shall be a minimum of 650 feet with the ability to extend to 850 feet if possible, Side platforms will be 16 feet wide Island platforms will be 25 feet wide Spacing between tracks at stations will be 18’‐6” to accommodate an inter‐track fence to discourage people walking across the tracks A single elevator and stair tower will be used for ADA access where ramps are not appropriate All pathways will have a maximum 1:20 slope to meet ADA requirements All ramps will have a maximum 1:12 slope and 30” rise to meet ADA requirements Minimum width of stairs will be 44 inches clear Elevator tower will be a minimum of 10 feet wide (except Quantico) Platform edge is 5’‐4” from centerline of track
3. NFPA 130
NFPA 130 states the maximum travel distance to a means of egress leaving a platform is 325 feet. This is assumed to mean that a ‘means of egress’ includes a safe refuge at the end of platforms between tracks where passengers can wait until escorted to safety across tracks. Assuming this is the case, only one elevator and stair tower will be required per island platform if it is located within 650 feet of the farthest end of the platform. A person standing on the platform would have to travel no more than 325 feet to one or the other egress point. This should be examined in more detail during design and pedestrian flows calculated to ensure one stair tower is adequate for the volume of passengers.
2 VRE Station Assessments
4. Stations
A. Lorton Station
a) Existing Conditions
The existing Lorton Station is located behind frontage development on Lorton Station Road and approximately 3,000 feet north of the Amtrak Auto Train station and yard, on the west side of the railroad. Of the five stations studied, Lorton in surrounded by the highest density and most ‘transit‐ friendly’ adjacent development. The Lorton Station Town Center is a mixed use three story development on Lorton Station Road with retail on the ground floor and office above. The buildings are situated close to the road with generous sidewalks. Parking is behind the buildings, contiguous with the station. Buses, including Fairfax Connector local buses and the Vamoose Inter‐City Bus serving New York City, stop close to the station entrance in the parking lot in front of the station platform entrance (Fig. 1).
The Lorton Station currently consists of a single platform approximately 400 feet in length located on the east side of the railroad right of way. The platform serves only the eastern track. The western track is located approximately 26’‐4” to the west. Passenger access to the platform is via a walkway from the parking lot close to the southern end of the platform. Approximately 85 feet ofm the platfor is covered by a canopy. The Plantation Pipeline, a 12 inch petroleum pipeline, roughly parallels the railroad on the east side of the tracks.
3 VRE Station Assessments
N
Fig 1: Lorton Station Area
b) Alternative Concepts Developed
Five concepts have been prepared which include three tracks, one 25‐foot wide island platform and one 16‐foot wide side platform. All platforms are shown at the ultimate 850‐foot length, though they would likely be constructed at 650 feet initially. The alternatives explore adding the third track on either the west or east side of the existing tracks. Initial plans by DRPT indicate adding the third track on the west side of the railroad; VRE has initiated coordination with DRPT to determine the optimal location for the third track at the Lorton station.
4 VRE Station Assessments
Alternative 1:
Fig. 2: Lorton Station Alternative 1
In this alternative (illustrated in Fig. 2) Track #2 remains in its existing location and the existing platform is widened to 16 feet and extended to the north to create an 850‐foot long platform. Track #3 is moved to the east to provide the required 18’‐6” separation from Track #2. A new 25‐foot wide island platform is constructed to the west of Track #3 and a third track is constructed on the west side of the island platform. The two platforms are connected by a bridge with two elevator and stair towers serving the side and center platforms. At grade access is provided to the east side platform and the stair tower from the northern end of the station parking lot.
Advantages Disadvantages Only requires two elevator and stair towers New track on west could impact Amtrak Auto Train facility to the south Retains Track 2 and existing platform (widened) New track to west impacts steep slopes at the in current location western side of the railroad ROW and north and south of station. A 15‐foot+ retaining wall would be required in the vicinity of the station. No anticipated impacts to the Plantation Pipeline Platform extension to the north creates a long walking distance from southern end of existing parking lot
5 VRE Station Assessments
Alternative 2:
Fig. 3: Lorton Station Alternative 2
This alternative also retains the existing platform which is widened to 25 feet and lengthened to the north to create a 850‐foot long platform. The new track is located on the east side of the widened existing platform and Track #3 is relocated to be 18’‐6” from Track #2. A new 16‐foot wide side platform is located to the west of relocated Track #3 (Fig. 3).
Advantages Disadvantages Side platform to the west can be built with Requires three elevator/stair towers minimal impact to the hillside at the western edge of the ROW. A retaining wall would be required at elevator/ stair tower only Retains Track 2 and existing platform (widened) in Platform extension to the north creates a long current location walking distance from southern end of existing parking lot Eastern elevator/stair tower location may impact Plantation Pipeline but sufficient space appears to be available to shift the elevator/stair tower to minimize impacts to pipeline
6 VRE Station Assessments
Alternative 2A:
Fig. 4: Lorton Station Alternative 2A
This is exactly the same as Alternative 2 except that Track #3 is left in its existing location, approximately 26’‐4” from Track #2. This pushes the west side platform further into the hillside at the western edge of the railroad ROW (though not as far as Alternative 1). However, this saves on track relocation costs (Fig. 4).
Advantages Disadvantages Retains Track 2 and 3 and existing platform Requires three elevator/stair towers (widened) in current location Side platform and elevator/stair tower have somewhat greater impact (than Alternative 2) to hillside at western side of the ROW Platform extension to the north creates a long walking distance from southern end of existing parking lot Eastern elevator/stair tower location may impact Plantation Pipeline but sufficient space appears to be available to shift the elevator/stair tower to minimize impacts to pipeline
7 VRE Station Assessments
Alternative 3:
Fig. 5: Lorton Station Alternative 3
This alternative has a similar configuration to Alternative 2 but the platform is extended to the south instead of to the north. Access to the platforms remains in its existing location, where buses stop to pick up and drop off passengers .(Fig. 5)
Advantages Disadvantages Center of platform is opposite bus drop off area Requires three elevator/stair towers and better located in relation to existing parking lot Side platform to the west can be built with The platform extension to the south impacts a minimal impact to the western hillside. Retaining small intermittent stream/drainage ditch (may be wall would be required at elevator/ stair tower a wetland impact) only Retains Track 2 and existing platform (widened) in current locations
8 VRE Station Assessments
Alternative 4:
Fig. 6: Lorton Station Alternative 4
This alternative places the new track and a new side platform to the east of the existing platform. The existing platform would be demolished once the new east side platform and track are in place. Track #2 would remain in its current location and Track #3 would be relocated to the west to accommodate the island platform between Tracks #2 and relocated Track #3 (Fig. 6).
Advantages Disadvantages Only requires two elevator and stair towers The platform extension to the south impacts a small intermittent stream/drainage ditch (may be a wetland impact) Center of platform is opposite bus drop off area Requires demolition of existing platform and better located in relation to existing parking Retains Track 2 and minimizes track relocation. New track to the west may impact steep slopes at the western edge of the ROW but is not anticipated to require any retaining walls Appears to be easily phased based on high level sketch analysis
9 VRE Station Assessments
c) Conclusions
From this high‐level sketch analysis it would appear that Alternative 4 is the preferred option. This alternative is the easiest to phase while the station is in use and has the least impacts to the hillside at the western side of the railroad ROW. However, further analysis and preliminary engineering should explore the concept in more detail especially the impact of adding the third track to the east of the existing tracks rather than to the west as has been assumed in prior studies.
a) Existing Conditions
At the Rippon Station the railroad is situated between an area of residential and commercial development and the Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge. There are two tracks within the CSX railroad right of way, only one of which is served by a platform at the station. The CSX ROW is approximately 200 feet in width through this station. The existing platform is on the east side of the ROW, the opposite side to the station parking lots and adjacent development. There are two interconnected parking lots serving the station; the northernmost lot is located on private property and leased from the property owner. The platform is located approximately 30 feet below the parking lots, down a steep embankment. A retaining wall supports the embankment at the western edge of the ROW. The platform is accessed via a pedestrian bridge from the parking lot over the railroad. The bridge is eat th same elevation as the parking lot while at the eastern end of the bridge an elevator and stair tower lead down to the platform (Fig. 7).
10 VRE Station Assessments
ADDITIONAL N STATION PARKING
STATION PARKING
STATION PLATFORM
PEDESETRIAN BRIDGE OVER TRACKS
Fig. 7: Rippon Station Area
The bridge and elevator/stair tower also provide access to the wildlife refuge as well as to the station platform. The developer of the property has received approvals from Prince William County to build a multi‐family residential development on the northernmost lot currently used for station parking. A proffer by the developer has been approved to construct a parking garage on the remaining station parking lot to replace the lost parking.
b) Alternative Concepts Developed
Several alternatives were considered to add an island platform and a third track at this station. The objective was to provide platform access from all three tracks with as little disruption to existing infrastructure and to the steep slope on the west side of the railroad ROW as possible.
Alternative 1:
In this alternative the existing platform would be widened by 4 feet and lengthened to the north to create a standard 16‐foot wide 650‐foot (ultimately 850‐foot) long side platform serving existing Track 2. The existing stair and elevator tower serving the platform would remain in place. Existing Track 3would be relocated a few feet to the west to accommodate an inter‐track fence and a new 25‐foot wide island platform to its west. The additional, third track would be added on the west side of this new island platform (Fig. 8).
11 VRE Station Assessments
Track 2 to Remain Relocated Track 3
New Third Track
N
Fig. 8: Rippon Station Alternative 1
The project would be phased such that the existing platform would be widened and lengthened as Phase 1, then the island platform constructed. Ideally the new, third track would then be constructed although the timing of the third track implementation is beyond VRE control. Finally Track 3 would be relocated to serve the island platform.
Advantages Disadvantages Retains existing platform and vertical circulation The new, third track and the southern end of the (elevator and stair tower) to bridge island platform would impact the steep slope and retaining wall on the west side of the ROW, requiring a new, much taller retaining wall to be constructed Requires only one additional elevator/stair tower Track 3 relocation would take place between two to serve the island platform active tracks
Alternative 2:
In this alternative the existing platform is widened to create an island platform and the third track added to the east of the widened platform. The existing pedestrian bridge would be extended east across the new track and additional vertical (elevator) access constructed at the eastern side of the ROW to maintain the pedestrian connection to the Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge. The platform is lengthened to the north. Existing Track 2 remains in its existing location serving the west side of the island platform. Existing Track 3 is relocated a few feet to the west to accommodate an inter‐track fence eat th station and a new, side platform built to serve this track on the west side of the ROW (Fig. 9).
12 VRE Station Assessments
New Third Track
TrackTrack 2 1
N
Fig. 9: Rippon Station Alternative 2
The first phase of this alternative would be to widen the existing platform and build the new stair/elevator tower to serve it as well as the new elevator connection to the wildlife refuge. Then the existing elevator/stair tower could be demolished and the third track built. Finally the western, side platform would be constructed and Track 3 relocated to serve it.
Advantages Disadvantages Minimizes disturbance to the steep slope and Requires three new elevator/stair towers retaining wall on the west side of the ROW by the platform construction Constructing the new elevator /stair towers to the island platform and wildlife refuge while maintaining existing access could be a challenge
Alternative 3:
Alternative 3 is based on Alternative 2 and was developed to address some of the negative issues with that Alternative. The concept is basically the same except the side platform to the west of the ROW has been shifted to the north to minimize impacts to the steep slope and retaining wall.The island platform and the side platform are, therefore, somewhat offset from one another. In addition, the stair and elevator tower that gives access to the wildlife refuge in Alternative 2 has been replaced by an ADA compliant ramp which will allow cyclists to ride or walk their bicycles down to the trail. The location of the existing stair and elevator tower was studied further in order to determine that building the island platform and the new stair and elevator access to it could be phased so that use of the existing, eastern platform could be maintained during construction (Fig. 10).
An additional ADA compliant ramp is also proposed to link the northern parking lot to the island platform giving passengers a direct route to that platform and to the elevator and stairs, on the
13 VRE Station Assessments southern end of the platform to access the island platform and wildlife refuge. This ramp may be reconfigured or replaced when future development is constructed on the northern parking lot parcel.
N
New Third Track
Existing Track 2 Relocated Track 3
Fig. 10: Rippon Station Alternative 3
Advantages Disadvantages No disturbance to the steep slope on the west side of the ROW at the southern end of the new side platform Only requires two new elevator and stair towers The ramp provides better access for cyclists to the trail system than an elevator and/or stairway
c) Conclusions
Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative as it avoids disturbing the steep slope and retaining wall and provides better access to the wildlife refuge without the expense of an additional elevator and stair tower. However, it should be noted that the significant modifications to the existing platform must be phased to allow continued operation of the platform during construction.
14 VRE Station Assessments
C. Quantico Station
a) Existing Conditions
This station is located within the Quantico Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico and is both an Amtrak and a VRE station. The station consists of a station building with a café, waiting room and rest rooms on the east side of the tracks and a platform on eboth th east and west side of a two track railroad, although the eastern platform is used most often (Fig. 11). The concrete surface of the platform on the west side of the railroad ROW is in a deteriorated condition. It is virtually inaccessible during inclement weather due to extensive ponding of stormwater at the northern end of the platform. Trains do however, stop on both tracks so both platforms are in use. The station is immediately south of Potomac Avenue, the primary access road to the Town of Quantico and the MCB Hospital Point area. While the crossing gates at Potomac Ave. are in the down position when trains dwell in the station, passengers on the platform walk around the gates and cross the two existing tracks behind a train dwelling at the station (and must do so if they are to board a train at the western platform), creating an unsafe condition. This condition will be exacerbated with the addition of the planned third track through the station area.
N
Fig. 11: Quantico Station Area
15 VRE Station Assessments
There is station parking on both sides of the tracks. On the west side there are approximately 100 spaces alongside the tracks which are not well marked and which are partly within the CSX railroad right of way and partly on land leased by Prince William County from the MCB for VRE use. The northern end of this parking lot also experiences drainage problems and ponding of stormwater. On the east side of the tracks, south of the station building, there is an irregularly shaped parking lot which holds approximately 193 cars on land owned by VRE. A small lot forE VR parking is also located north of Potomac Ave., between the railroad tracks and C Street. The lot holds about 25 to 30 cars although the spaces are not well marked and the pavement is in poor condition.
PRTC buses currently drop passengers off at the station building, returning to Potomac Ave. via 5th Ave. and Broadway St. The MCB operates a base shuttle that drops passengers off in the base parking lot at the corner of Barnett Ave. and Potomac Ave. To access the station from this bus stop passengers must walk down Potomac Avenue, where there is no sidewalk, and across the railroad grade crossing.
The MCB Quantico is undergoing its own master planning and development process. As part of this process the base is planning to build a new parking garage to serve the Marine Corps University adjacent to the VRE parking lot on the eastern side of the tracks. This precludes any expansion of the VRE parking lot to the east but may offer opportunities for shared use. VRE has initiated discussions with the MCB to explore such opportunities. A Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan is also in development that outlines opportunities to better integrate those modes throughout the base.
Construction of a segment of third main track, from the Arkendale signal interlocking, south of the Quantico station, to Powell’s Creek, north of the station, is underway as a design‐build project by CSX, DRPT and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The initial design for the Quantico station area assumed the western platform would be pushed to the far edge of the ROW and reconstructed as a side platform with three tracks between it and the eastern, station side platform. VRE has initiated discussions with CSX, DRPT and FRA to implement an island platform instead with the third track located at the western edge of the ROW. This would allow trains to service the station from any of the three tracks. The CSX ROW is on a curve at the Quantico station and the ROW is constricted to only 100 feet in width. The narrow ROW width presents a challenge for adding a third track and an island platform, however (Fig.12).
Fig.12: Quantico Station Platform and Track Configuration
16 VRE Station Assessments
In addition, the third track project will utilize the western portion of the CSX ROW currently used for parking for construction staging, thereby displacing about half of the parking spaces and constraining the driveway access to the remaining spaces in the lot (located on the leased parcel).
b) Alternative Concepts Developed
Island Platform Feasibility
The first issue at Quantico was to explore whether an island platform of only 15 feet‐4 inches (15’‐4”) could accommodate the stair and elevator access required for ADA accessibility and satisfy NFPA 130 egress requirements.
In order to provide VRE and Amtrak passengers safe, grade‐separated access to the island platform from the station across active railroad tracks (rather than routing passengers via the Potomac Ave. at‐grade crossing) and for ADA purposes a stair and elevator will be required. There must be a minimum of 6 feet clear from the edge of the platform to any vertical obstacle eon th platform, consistent with Amtrak standards. Using a standard configuration of a stair and elevator tower in the center of the platform will not work at Quantico since with a 6‐foot clearance on either side, on a 15’‐4” wide platform, only 3’‐4” would be left for either the stair or elevator. A configuration was developed which places the stair and elevator at the end of the island platform with access from only one side of the platform to maintain a minimum 6‐foot walkway on the platform (see Fig.12). It should be noted that this configuration requires an elevator shaft with an overall outside maximum dimension of 9 feet, and assumes that the stair to the bridge and station can provide the access to a safe refuge as required by NFPA 130 (Fig.13).
Since the elevator and stairs are at the very end of the platform, the platform cannot be any longer than 650 feet without requiring an additional egress to comply with NFPA 130, which would be difficult, if not impossible, in the middle of the platform due to the dimensional constraints described above. It would appear this platform will never be longer than 650 feet without relocating tracks to create a greater width.
17 VRE Station Assessments
New Third Track N
Track 3
Fig. 13: Quantico Station Elevator and Stair Configuration at Platform Northern End
Three alternative layouts were developed to reconfigure the parking lot on the west side of the tracks:
Alternative 1: N
Fig.14 : Quantico Station West Side Parking Alternative 1
18 VRE Station Assessments
This alternative assumed that the lease line between VRE parking and base parking would remain in its existing location. However, a new agreement with MCB Quantico would be needed addressing the new use of this area by VRE and PRTC. Under this alternative all the parking on this side of the tracks would be eliminated. The island platform and third track would extend all the way to the western ROW limits. The remaining space beyond the CSX ROW currently occupied by parking would be utilized for pedestrian access and a one‐way (northbound) bus loop and bus layover facility. It is proposed to route the PRTC buses and the MCB shuttle that currently circulates through the adjacent base parking lot to this facility. Bus passengers would be able to use the bridge and elevator/stair tower to access either platform and the station and MCB or Town of Quantico destinations on the east side of the tracks (Fig.14).
Alternative 2:
Alternative 2 assumes an expansion of the area currently leased for VRE parking into the adjacent base parking lot. This would require a new lease or similar agreement with MCB Quantico addressing the expanded use of base property. A portion of the base lot could be restriped with a resultant loss of one parking space, and a portion of the green space within the parking lot would be used to expand parking for the VRE station. This arrangement would accommodate 58 parking spaces west of the tracks (a loss of approximately 42 spaces from current conditions) as well as the one‐ways bu loop similar to that described in Alternative 1 (Fig.15).
N
Fig.15: Quantico Station West Side Parking Alternative 2
19 VRE Station Assessments
Alternative 3:
This alternative assumes the entire green space within the parking lot would be paved for parking and the area currently leased for VRE parking expanded into the adjacent base parking lot (to the west). This would also require a new lease agreement with MCB Quantico. In this scenario the base would gain one parking space over their existing supply and VRE would have 110 parking spaces (10 more than existing) (Fig.16). N
Fig. 16: Quantico Station West Side Parking Alternative 3
c) Conclusions
Following discussion with the Quantico Base planning staff, it was determined that Alternative 1 was the preferred option because it eliminates any disruption to the base parking lot and consolidates buses to a dedicated area with improved safety and amenities. The one‐way bus loop also improves Potomac Avenue traffic circulation since it eliminates the possibility of westbound vehicles making a turn into the parking lot. These vehicles could result in traffic backed up across the railroad tracks at the grade crossing.
Since the preferred alternative on the west side of the station results in the permanent loss of 100 parking VRE spaces and to accommodate future, albiet currently undefined, VRE parking demand, a concept was developed to add parking on the east side of the station. The proposed layout would provide approximately 300 parking spaces using the existing lot plus additional land behind the proposed parking garage. This concept was discussed with Marine Corps Base planners in general but has not been approved be the Marine Corps Base or the Marine Corps University. This would provide approximately 300 spaces for VRE and Amtrak passengers, approximately the same number of spaces that exist today (Fig. 17).
20 VRE Station Assessments
N
Fig.17: Quantico Station East side Parking Lot Expansion
If additional spaces are required to address future demand,a driveway could be built from the existing parking lot south across the Martin Street viaduct and additional spaces provided behind the second Marine Corps University parking garage south of Martin Street. Depending on the number of additional spaces required some of this parking could be over 1000 feet from the station. While not ideal this is not unheard of at stations on other systems. A better alternative may be to to explore opportunities to develop shared MCB‐VRE parking facilities in the area which could have advantages for both parties as well as minimize the amount of paved surfaces surrounding the station and base. It should be noted that any of these concepts are contingent on coordination with the future plans for the Marine Corps University area of the base just east of the VRE station and obtaining the appropriate agreements with the Marine Corps.
As sketched the expanded parking lot will also accommodate the multi‐use trail which is proposed to run roughly parallel to the railroad tracks through the Quantico Marine Base.
21 VRE Station Assessments
a) Existing Conditions
The Brooke Station is in the least developed area of the corridor. The area surrounding the station is not densely developed and no new, higher density development is planned for the station area based on conversations with Stafford County planners. The station has two parking lots both accessed from a single driveway onto Brooke Road. There are approximately 656 parking spaces. Parking utilization as of November 2014 is about 80 percent. It would appear that the need for parking expansion is not immediate, though there could be a need for more parking in the future. The railroad has two tracks, only one of which is served by a platform which is on the south side of the ROW, the same side as the parking lots. The CSX ROW is irregular in the vicinity of the station (based on property information from Stafford County GIS). It narrows to an effective width of approximately 100 feet due to its irregular configuration at the eastern end of the station platform. Approximately 140 feet east of the station platform, the railroad passes over Andrew Chapel Road on a bridge. The southern portal of the bridge is close to the intersection of Andrew Chapel Road and Brooke Rd (Fig.18).
Bridge over Andrew Chapel Road
N
Fig. 18: Brooke Station Area
22 VRE Station Assessments
b) Alternatives Considered
There are several challenges to adding a third track and island platform at the Brooke station because of the constrained ROW width and the adjacent bridge over Andrew Chapel Road. Two alternatives were developed that explored adding the third track to the north and south of the existing infrastructure.
Alternative 1:
In this alternative the existing platform would be widened to create an island platform and the third track built south of that platform. Existing Track 2 would remain in its current location. Existing Track 3 would be moved a few feet to the north to accommodate an inter‐track fence at the station and the new side platform built to the north to serve Track 3. Because of the proximity of the station to Andrew Chapel Road, the bridge over that road would need to be widened. The south portal of the bridge would move approximately 45 feet closer to the intersection, placing it only about 50 feet from the façade of a building at the corner of Brooke Road and Andrew Chapel Road (Fig. 19).
N
Fig. 19: Brooke Station Alternative 1
Advantages Disadvantages No impact to ROW (to be confirmed with future Southern bridge portal too close to the survey) intersection and the building on the opposite side of the street. May impact north side of right of way at back of side platform
23 VRE Station Assessments
Alternative 2:
In order to avoid impacting the south portal of the bridge over Andrew Chapel Road, an alternative was developed to add the third track on the north side of the ROW. This would require moving the north portal of the bridge farther to the north. There appear to be no major impediments to moving this portal other than the cost of reconstruction. In this alternative a new island platform would be built north of Track 3 and the new, third track would be built to the north of it. Once the third track is operational, Track 3 could be relocated so that it would be served by the island platform and an inter‐ track fence could be placed between it and Track 2. The existing platform would be widened towards the south to meet the 16‐foot width criteria for side platforms (Fig.20).
N
Fig. 20: Rippon Station Alternative 2
Advantages Disadvantages Northern bridge portal relocated to the north The western end of the island platform and third with few impacts. track would be outside the CSX right of way.
The need to locate the third track and a portion of the island platform outside the CSX ROW is considered a fatal flaw for this alternative even though the Andrew Chapel Bridge configuration is much improved over Alternative 1.
24 VRE Station Assessments
c) Conclusions
Both alternatives for widening to three tracks and adding platform access to all tracks create major challenges. It has been the assumption of this project that no additional right of way would be acquired for any of the proposed improvements, making Alternative 1 the only viable solution. An additional step to further vet the feasibility of Alternative 1 would be to discuss the roadway configuration at the intersection with Stafford County staff to determine whether, with the bridge portal so close, the modifications identified would be approved by the County and/or the Virginia Department of Transportation or what additional improvements would be necessary to get it approved.
a) Existing Conditions
Gravel lot
Approximate area of developer proffer for N additional parking
Fig. 21: Leeland Station Area
The Leeland Road Station is located on Leeland Road in Stafford County just north of the City of Fredericksburg. Suburban development, centered on Fredericksburg is rapidly changing the area surrounding the station. The station incorporates a large parking lot which has been expanded several times and now accommodates approximately 825 vehicles. In addition there is an unpaved overflow parking lot with an additional 200 spaces on a separate, privately owned parcel on the corner of Leeland Road and Primmer House Road which VRE leases from the property owner. This lot can be accessed either from Primmer House Road or via a driveway connecting it to the main VRE parking lot. The gravel lot provides an alternative access/exit point for station traffic onto Primmer House Road. The railroad consists of two tracks, only one of which is served by a platform. The platform ise on th south side of
25 VRE Station Assessments the ROW, the same side as the parking lots. A developer is proposing to develop the corner of Primmer House Road and Leeland Road for commercial development, including the gravel overflow lot. The development plan has received preliminary approval by Stafford County. The approved plan has several impacts on VRE’s station (see Fig.22):
The gravel parking lot will be eliminated with a loss of 200 parking spaces. An area adjacent to the southwest corner of the main VRE parking lot is designated on the developer’s plan as “Future Parking or Park”. This parcel is part of a development proffer to Stafford County although the future use is not clear. Additionally, the parcel includes an area of steep slope that would make it difficult to develop for parking.
Station Parking Lot
Proffer Area
N
Fig.22: Leeland Station Developer Plan
While the developer’s plan would continue to allow access to the VRE main parking lot from the commercial development at the corner of Leeland Road and Primmer House Road, the new configuration of the parcel makes access to Primmer House Road much more difficult and circuitous than the current access through the overflow parking lot.
26 VRE Station Assessments
The developer’s plan utilizes the Leeland Road entry driveway to the main VRE parking lot as a secondary access to its development, interfering with circulation in and out of the lot for VRE passengers.
N
Fig. 23: Recommended Changes to Developer Plan
An alternative layout was prepared that shows some minor modifications to the developer’s plans that could address some of the potential impacts to the VRE station. A connection between the two parcels is restored in the approximate location of the current connection that retains direct access to Primmer House Road from the VRE main parking lot. In addition this plans shows how the VRE lot may be extended to add approximately 200 spaces, although further investigation is needed to determine the viability of the expansion. Expanding parking into this area would eliminate a stormwater management basin and require an alternative solution for dealing with stormwater, such as underground storage beneath the parking lot (Fig.23).
27 VRE Station Assessments
b) Alternative Concepts Developed
Two alternatives were developed to add a third track and provide platform access to all three tracks.
Alternative 1:
In this alternative the existing platform would be widened to create the island platform and the third track would be added to the south side of the platform. Track 2 would remain in its current location. Track 3 would be moved a few feet to the north to accommodate an inter‐track fence and a new side platform build beyond that track on the north side of the ROW. Both platforms are lengthened to the west (Fig. 23). Lengthening the platforms to the east is not a viable option because the piers supporting the Leeland Road bridge appear to be in the way, although no information is available to accurately locate the bridge piers and abutments. The only information available is Google Aerial photography from which the locations of bridge piers and abutments were estimated.
N Fig. 24: Leeland Road Alternative 1
Advantages Disadvantages None Requires three sets of elevators and stair towers to access the platforms from the parking lot Possible impacts to the south abutment of the Leeland Road bridge
28 VRE Station Assessments
Alternative 2:
In this alternative the existing platform would be widened to the back of the platform to a width of 16 feet and lengthened to the west as in Alternative 1. Track 2 would remain in its current location. Track 3 would be moved a few feet to the north to accommodate an inter‐track fence. The new island platform would be built to the north of Track 3 and a new track then built to the north of the new island platform (Fig.25).
N
Fig. 25: Leeland Road Alternative 2
Advantages Disadvantages Requires only two sets of elevators and stair Possible impacts to the north abutment of the towers to access the platforms from the parking lot Leeland Road bridge
c) Conclusions
Alternative 2 appears the better alternative since it requires two rather than three elevator and stair towers. However, further investigation of the Leeland Road bridge is recommended before an alternative is finally chosen to ascertain whether Alternative 2 impacts the bridge piers to a lesser or greater degreen tha Alternative 1.
29 VRE Station Assessments