COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment Volume I May 2012 Abstract Comment Submission Your comments are important. If you cannot attend one of the public meetings, you can submit your comments on the AA/EA between May 22, Arlington County and Fairfax County, Virginia, in cooperation with the Federal 2012, and June 21, 2012, to the following address: Columbia Pike Transit Transit Administration (FTA), are proposing to implement high-quality, high- Initiative, P.O. Box 3915, Oakton, VA 22124, or by email to capacity transit service along a 5-mile corridor, running mainly along Columbia [email protected]. The project website, www.piketransit.com, also Pike, between the Pentagon/Pentagon City area in Arlington County and the provides an on-line comment form to submit comments. To ensure that Skyline complex located in the Baileys Crossroads Community Business Center comments will be considered, the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative must (CBC) in Fairfax County. The proposed project, known as the Columbia Pike receive written comments by June 21, 2012. Transit Initiative, supports the transportation goals of the counties and fosters their vision for a multimodal corridor, linking its walkable, mixed-use, mixed- Next Steps income neighborhoods and connecting these to the Washington, DC area transit network, and thus, the region’s major activity centers. After the public meetings and the close of the comment period, the Arlington County Board and Fairfax County Board of Supervisors will select a Locally The project is seeking federal funding for a portion of the proposed Preferred Alternative (LPA). Thereafter, FTA will review the findings of the improvements through the FTA Capital Investment Grant Program (49 U.S.C. AA/EA and responses to comments. FTA will make its formal NEPA 5309) New Starts/Small Starts program. In order to meet the requirements of determination and the comments will be formally addressed in the NEPA the program and maintain eligibility for federal funding, FTA, as the lead finding. federal agency, in coordination with Arlington County and Fairfax County, is preparing this combined Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment If the Streetcar Build Alternative is selected as the LPA, Arlington County and (AA/EA). The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is Fairfax County would apply to enter the next phase, “preliminary engineering” providing technical oversight of the AA/EA. or “project development,” of FTA’s New Starts/Small Starts program.
This AA/EA compares the ability of four alternatives to satisfy the project Additional Information is available by contacting: purpose and need and analyzes the potential effects of the alternatives on the built and natural environment. The AA/EA will be available for review and John Dittmeier, Planning Manger comment for 30 days, beginning on May 22, 2012. The 30-day public review WMATA Office of Long Range Planning period will close on June 21, 2012. 600 5th Street NW, Room 6F-16 Washington, DC 20001 Public Meetings (202) 962-1027
Arlington County and Fairfax County will hold two public meetings on the AA/EA. Comment forms will be available for attendees to submit comments for the public record. The first meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 6, 2012, at Patrick Henry Elementary School, Cafeteria/Gymnasium, 701 South Highland Street, Arlington, VA 22204. The second meeting will be held on Thursday, June 7, 2012, at Goodwin House Bailey’s Crossroads, Auditorium, 3440 South Jefferson Street, Falls Church, VA 22041. Both meetings will be held from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM.
May 2012
References Arlington County, 2010. Crystal City Sector Plan. AECOM, May 2005. District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Arlington County Comprehensive Plan. Analysis Return on Investment Report, DDOT. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/plan/CPHDPlanningP lanMain.aspx
AECOM, October 2010. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Traffic Report. Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Arlington Virginia Columbia Pike Initiative. American Automobile Association, Accessed Sept. 2011. Your Driving Costs, http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/forums/columbia/CPHDForum 2010. sColumbiaColumbiaPikeInitiativeMain.aspx http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/201048935480.Driving%20Costs%2 02010.pdf Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Columbia Pike Land Use & Housing Study. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/forums/columbia/current/Col American Society for Testing Materials. Standard Practice for Environmental umbia_Pike_LandUse_Housing_Study.aspx Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. ASTM E1527- 05, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. Arlington County, Accessed Sept.2011. Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvements. http://www.pikemultimodal.com/ American with Disabilities Act of 1990. 42 United States Code 12101. Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Columbia Pike Special Revitalized Arlington County Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources, Accessed 2010. District Form Based Code. Champion Trees. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/forums/columbia/current/CP http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/parksrecreation/scripts/parks/page5 HDForumsColumbiaCurrentCurrentStatus.aspx 9353.aspx Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Columbia Pike Street Space Planning Arlington County, 1997. Pentagon City Planning Task Force Report. Task Force Report. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/docs/pdf/file57656. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/forums/columbia/street_spac pdf e/CPHDForumsColumbiaStreetSpace.aspx Arlington County, 2004. Master Plan for the North Tract Park and Recreational Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Columbia Pike Super Stops. Facilities and the Surrounding Area. http://www.columbiapikeva.us/super-stops/ http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/ParksRecreation/Documents/7465ta sk_force_report.pdf Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2010. Development Highlights- Updated July Arlington County, 2005. Columbia Pike Initiative – A Revitalization Plan, 2010. Update. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/data_maps/develop http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/forums/columbia/CPHDForum ment/page68143.aspx sColumbiaRevitalize.aspx Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. General Land Use Plan. Arlington County, December 2007. Development Capacity in Arlington’s Metro http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/docs/CPHDPlanning Corridors. DocsGLUP.aspx Arlington County, 2008. FY2009-FY2014 Capital Improvement Program. Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Historic Preservation Master Plan. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/ManagementAndFinance/CapitalImp http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/forums/historic/CPHDForums rovementProgram/page66006.aspx HistoricPreservationMain.aspx Arlington County, 2008. Pentagon Centre Site Guiding Principles. Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Maps and Data. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/docs/pdf/file70103. http://magellan.co.arlington.va.us/GIS/gis_MapsandData.asp pdf Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Master Transportation Plan. Arlington County, 2010. Arlington Reports Drop in Commercial Real Estate http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/dot/planning Assessments, Modest Residential Decline. /mplan/mtp/MTP_Draft.aspx http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/realEstate/news/2010%20Press%20R elease.pdf
May 2012 i Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Master Transportation Plan Streets City of Alexandria, Accessed Sept. 2010. GIS & Maps. Element. http://alexandriava.gov/GIS http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/dot/planning Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Zoning Ordinance. /mplan/mtp/images/file77496.pdf http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/cphd/planning/zoning/cphdplanning zoningordinancecode.aspx Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Neighborhood Conservation. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/ons/CPHDOnsConservation.as px Clean Air Act of 1963. 42 United States Code 7401. Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Planning Research and Analysis Team. Clean Water Act of 1977. Public Law 95-217. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/data_maps/CPHDPla nningDataandMapsMain.aspx Clean Water Act of 1977, Section 303. 33 United States Code 1313. Clean Water Act of 1977, Section 400. 33 United States Code 1340. Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Property Tax Assessment Maps. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/realestate/reassessments/scripts/dr Clean Water Act of 1977, Section 401. 33 United States Code 1341. eadefault.asp Clean Water Act of 1977, Section 402. 33 United States Code 1342. Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Real Estate Assessments. Clean Water Act of 1977, Section 404. 33 United States Code 1344. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/realestate/reassessments/scripts/dr eadefault.asp Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 United States Code 1451-1456. Arlington County, Accessed Sept. 2011. The Vision- Arlington’s Main Street. Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization, Accessed Sept. 2010. Website. http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/CPHD/forums/columbia/concept/CP http://www.columbia-pike.org/ HDForumsColumbiaConceptTheConcept.aspx Council on Environmental Quality, 1970. Regulations for Implementing NEPA. Arlington Transit, Accessed August 2011. ART Schedules. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500-1508. http://www.arlingtontransit.com/pages/schedules/ Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f). 23 United States Code Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Accessed Sept. 2011. Housing and 138 and 49 United States Code 303. Transportation Affordability Index. http://htaindex.cnt.org/ Dominion Virginia Power, Accessed Sept. 2011.Website. Center for Transit Oriented Development, November 2008. Capturing the http://www.dom.com/dominion-virginia-power/index.jsp Value of Transit. Dover, Kohl, & Partners, et al, May 2011. Columbia Pike Land Use & Housing http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ctodvalcapture11 Study, Arlington County. 0508v2 Center for Transportation Analysis, 2011. Transportation Energy Data Book, Executive Order 11988, 1977. Floodplain Management. 42 Federal Register 29th Edition. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN. 26951. Cervero, R. and Duncan, M., 2001. Real Estate Market Impacts of TOD. Executive Order 11990, 1977. Protection of Wetlands. 42 Federal Register http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/nm/RealEstateImpacts.pdf 26961. City of Alexandria, 1992. Alexandria Master Plan. Executive Order 12898, 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental http://alexandriava.gov/planning/info/default.aspx?id=7518 Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 59 Federal Register, No. 32. City of Alexandria, 1992. Alexandria West Small Area Plan. http://alexandriava.gov/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=7488 Fairfax County, 1998. Baileys Crossroads Revitalization District. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/revitalization/maps/baileys.pdf City of Alexandria, 2008. Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan. http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedfiles/tes/info/tes_tmp_complete.pdf Fairfax County, 2009. Fairfax County Transportation Policy Plan. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/comprehensiveplan/policyplan/transporta City of Alexandria, Accessed Sept. 2010. Beauregard Corridor Plan. tion.pdf http://alexandriava.gov/planning/info/default.aspx?id=24024
ii Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Fairfax County, 2009. FY2010-FY2014 Capital Improvement Program. Federal Transit Administration, 1987. Environmental Impact and Related http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dmb/adopted/fy2010/fy10_adopted_cip.htm Procedures. 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 771. Fairfax County, February 2010. 2010 Real Estate Assessment Notices Mailed Federal Transit Administration, 2007. Norfolk LRT Project Sheet. Feb 23. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/2010/2010-real-estate- www.fta.dot.gov/documents/VA_Norfolk_LRT_07.doc assessment-change-notices-mailed.htm Federal Transit Administration, 2005. Rail Fixed Guideway Systems; State Fairfax County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Baileys Crossroads Planning Study. Safety Oversight. 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 659. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/baileys/ Federal Transit Administration, 1970. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Fairfax County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan. Property Acquisitions Policies Act. 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 24. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/comprehensiveplan/ Fairfax County, Accessed Sept.2010. GIS & Mapping. Google, Inc., Accessed Sept. 2011. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com/ http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/maps/ Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., August 2009. The Phase I Environmental Site Fairfax County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Search by Property Location. Assessment Columbia Pike (VA Route 244) ROW from Carlyn Springs Road to http://icare.fairfaxcounty.gov/Search/GenericSearch.aspx?mode=ADDRESS South Joyce Street Arlington, VA. Fairfax County, Accessed Sept. 2011. Zoning Ordinance. InfoMap Technologies, July 2010. Environmental FirstSearch Report, East http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/zoningordinance/ Extension Arlington/Fairfax City VA 22202. InfoMap Technologies, July 2010. Environmental FirstSearch Report Mid- Fairfax County, Amended July 2010. Comprehensive Plan, 2011 Edition for the Alignment Alternative, Arlington/Fairfax City, VA 22211. Baileys Planning District. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/comprehensiveplan/area1/baileys.pdf InfoMap Technologies, July 2010. Environmental FirstSearch Report West Extension, Arlington/Fairfax City VA 22041. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Sept. 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Isolated Wetland of Minimal Ecological Value. Virginia Administrative Code 9VAC25-660-10. Federal Highway Administration, 1987. Environmental Impact and Related Kimbley-Horn & Associates, 2010. Columbia Pike Multimodal Improvements Procedures. 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 771. Transportation Study. Federal Highway Administration. Location and Hydraulic Design of Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Section 6(f). 16 United States Encroachments on Floodplains. Federal Aid Policy Guide 23 CFR 650 A. Code 4601-4608. Federal Noise Control Act of 1972. Public Law 92-574. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, November 2009. Population and Employment Round 7.2a Forecasts. Federal Transit Administration, 2007. 2007 Transit Safety and Security Standards. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 2009. FY2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program for the Washington Metropolitan Region. Federal Transit Administration, 2010. Annual Report on Funding http://www.mwcog.org/clrp/projects/tip/fy1015tip/FY_2010-2015_TIP.pdf Recommendations: Fiscal Year 2011 New Starts, Small Starts, and Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 2009. Update to the http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/NewStarts_mainText_Jan_2010.pdf Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region. Federal Transit Administration, Accessed Sept. 2011. Capital Investment Grant Program (49 U.S.C. 5309) New Starts/Small Starts Program. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 United States Code 4332(2)(c). http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/13094_3559.html National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 106. 16 United States Code 470. Federal Transit Administration, 1979. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Assessments. UMTA 5620.1
May 2012 iii National Park Service, Accessed Sept. 2011. Land and Water Conservation U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Fund Project List by County and Summary Reports. http://waso- Transportation, & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed Sept. 2011. lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/#partnershipagreement National Transit Database, 2009. WMATA Metrobus Ridership Summary. http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2009/agency_profiles U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. Floodplain Management and /3030.pdf Protection. US DOT Order 5650.2. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, Accessed Sept. 2011. Designated Wild U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997. Order to Address Environmental and Scenic Rivers. http://www.rivers.gov/ Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Order 5680-1, 62 Federal Register, No. 72. NatureServe, Accessed Sept. 2011. Website. http://www.natureserve.org/ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, Accessed Sept. 2010. TransAction Planning and Environment, May 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact 2030. http://www.thenovaauthority.org/transoverview.html Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Washington, DC. NOVA Community College, 2009. Alexandria Campus 20-Year Master Plan. U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 2011. The Value of Travel Time Pivo, G. & Fischer, J., 2010. The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Savings: Departmental Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations Revision Estate Investments. 2. http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gpivo/Walkability%20Paper%208_4%20draft.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. National Primary and Secondary Puentes, R. & Warren, D., February 2006. One Fifth of America: A Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 50. Comprehensive Guide to America’s First Suburbs: Data Report. Brookings Institution: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Conformity to State or Federal http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2006/02metropolitanpo Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Funded, licy_puentes/20060215_firstsuburbsdata.pdf. Developed or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 93. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 United States Code 6901 et seq. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed Sept. 2011. All Appropriate Inquires. http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/aai/index.htm RICS, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister & Department of Transport, May U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed Sept. 2011. Airdata Website. 2004. Land Value and Public Transport, Stage Two- Testing the Methodology http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html on the Croydon Tramlink. http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=2916&fileExtension=PDF U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed Sept. 2011. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10. 33 United States Code 403. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. 2005-2010 American Community Survey 5-year Standards, November 1992. Guidelines for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from estimates. Roadway Intersections. Research Triangle, NC. U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. 1990 U.S. Census Data. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Accessed Sept. 2011. Endangered Species Program. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 2000 U.S. Census Data. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Accessed Sept. 2011. National Wetlands U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. 2010 U.S. Census Data. Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Census Transportation Planning Package for 2000 Employment. U.S. Geological Survey, Accessed Sept.2011. Virginia Seismic Hazard Map. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/virginia/hazards.php U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Accessed Sept. 2011. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. U.S. Geological Survey, Accessed Sept.2011. Topographic Maps. http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/ http://nationalmap.gov/ustopo/index.html
iv Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Accessed Sept. Virginia Department of Labor and Industry Asbestos Notification and Permit 2010. Website. http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/ Program, Virginia Code §§ 40.1-51.20 to 51.22.
Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation, Accessed Sept. 2010. Virginia Waste Management Act, Virginia Code §§ 10.1-1400 et seq. Natural Heritage Program. http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, October 2001. Storage Tank Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 1999. Transit Service Program Technical Manual. Expansion Plan Transit Study. http://www.deq.state.va.us/tanks/pdf/techman.pdf Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2002. Columbia Pike and Leesburg Pike- Phase I Report. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, October 2008. 305(b) Annual Report. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2003. Pentagon City Metro Station Enhancements (Updated 2005). Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Accessed Sept. 2010. Petroleum Releases. http://www.deq.state.va.us/tanks/fnf.html#forms Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, July 2005. Columbia Pike Transit Alternatives Analysis. http://www.piketransit.com/downloads/PTI- Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Accessed Sept. 2010. Final-Rpt-Cover.pdf Physiographic Provinces of Virginia. http://www.deq.state.va.us/gwpsc/geol.html Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, May 2008. Manual of Design Criteria for Maintaining and Continued Operation of Facilities and Systems. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Accessed Sept. 2011. Pollution Response Program. http://www.deq.state.va.us/prep Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, April 2010. Automatic Passenger Count Data. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Accessed Sept. 2011. Solid Waste Facilities. http://www.deq.state.va.us/waste/activepermits.html Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, April 2010. Metrobus April P103 Report- Ridership by Line Route and Schedule Type. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Accessed Sept. 2011. State Implementation Plan. http://www.deq.state.va.us/vrp/public.html Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, April 2010. Route 16 Farebox Report. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Accessed Sept. 2011. Tank Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Accessed August 2010. Registration Files (USTs and ASTs). Metrobus Schedule. http://www.wmata.com/bus/timetables/timetables- http://www.deq.state.va.us/tanks/fnf.html#forms state.cfm?State=VA Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Accessed Sept. 2011. Volunteer Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Accessed Sept. 2011. Pike Remediation Cleanup Sites (Completed and Planned). Transit Initiative. http://www.piketransit.com/ http://www.deq.state.va.us/vrp/public.html Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 16 United States Code 1271-1287. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Accessed Sept. 2010.Website. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/
May 2012 v Lists of Acronyms and Terms CO carbon monoxide Acronym Definition CP-FBC Columbia Pike Form-Based Code CPRO Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization AA Alternatives Analysis CRMP Coastal Resources Management Program AA/EA Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 AAI All-Appropriate Inquiry dB decibel ACM asbestos containing material dBA A-weighted decibel ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended DISA Defense Information Systems Agency AECOM AECOM Corporation DMU diesel multiple unit AGT automated guideway transit DoD Department of Defense APC Automated Passenger Count DOE Department of Energy APE Area of Potential Effect DMV Department of Motor Vehicles ART Arlington Transit DRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation AST aboveground storage tank EA Environmental Assessment ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials EIS Environmental Impact Statement BACT Best Available Control Technologies EJ Environmental Justice BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis EO Executive Order BMP Best Management Practice EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency BRT bus rapid transit ESA Environmental Site Assessment BTU British thermal unit FAA Federal Aviation Administration CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency CCC Community Coordination Committee FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission CEQ Council on Environmental Quality FFGA Full Funding Grant Agreement CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration CERCLIS Comprehensive Emergency Response Compensation and Liabilities FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map Information System FMVECP Federal Motors Vehicles Emission Control Program CFR Code of Federal Regulations FOIA Freedom of Information Act CIP Capital Improvement Program FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact CLRP Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan FTA Federal Transit Administration CNG compressed natural gas FY fiscal year
vi Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I GIS geographic information systems NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service GPS Global Positioning System NO nitric oxide HC hydrocarbons NOx nitrogen oxides HOV high-occupancy vehicle NO2 nitrogen dioxide I-395 Interstate 95 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ICC Interstate Commerce Commission NOI Notice of Intent ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 NOVA Northern Virginia Community College ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System IWOMEV Isolated Wetland of Minimal Ecological Value NPL National Priority List JD Jurisdictional Determination NPS National Park Service JPA Joint Permit Application NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service KGP KGP Design Studios NRHP National Register of Historic Places
Ldn 24-hour day-night noise level NTD National Transit Database
Leq(h) hourly equivalent noise level NVTA Northern Virginia Transportation Authority Lmax maximum noise level during an event NVTC Northern Virginia Transportation Commission LBP lead-based paint NWI National Wetlands Inventory LOS level of service O&M operations and maintenance LPA Locally Preferred Alternative O3 ozone LRT light rail transit OCS overhead catenary system LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan OMB Office of Management and Budget LUST leaking underground storage tank Pb lead L&WCF Land and Water Conservation Fund PC Policy Committee mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter PCB polychlorinated biphenyl Mpg miles per gallon PM particulate matter mph miles per hour PM Preventative Maintenance MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization PMT Project Management Team MSA metropolitan statistical area PM2.5 particulate matter of 2.5 microns in diameter or less MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments PM10 particulate matter of 10 microns in diameter or less NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards ppm parts per million NEPA National Environmental Policy Act PRTC Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission NFIP National Flood Insurance Program PSI Preliminary Site Investigation
May 2012 vii RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act USDA United States Department of Agriculture REC Recognized Environmental Condition USDOT United States Department of Transportation RIMSII Regional Input-Output Modeling System USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service RMA Resource Management Area USGS United States Geological Survey RMS root mean square USPS United States Postal Service ROD Record of Decision UST underground storage tank ROW right-of-way V/C Volume-to-Capacity Ratio RPA Resource Protection Area VAC Virginia Administrative Code Rt 7 Virginia State Route 7 (Leesburg Pike) VAFWIS Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service RTP Regional Transportation Plan VCP Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A VdB vibration decibel Legacy for Users VDACS Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area VDCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation SHPO State Historic Preservation Office VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality SIP State Implementation Plan VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries SOx sulfur oxide VDHR Virginia Department of Historic Resources SO2 sulfur dioxide VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation SO3 sulfur trioxide VLR Virginia Landmarks Register SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission TAC Technical Advisory Committee VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone VOC Volatile Organic Compound TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century VPDES Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System TIP Transportation Improvement Program VRE Virginia Railway Express TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load VRP Voluntary Remediation Program TPSS traction power substation VWP Virginia Water Protection Permit TSM Transportation Systems Management W&OD Washington and Old Dominion Railroad TSS total suspended solids WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ULSD ultra-low sulfur diesel YOE year-of-expenditure UMTA Urban Mass Transit Administration g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code
viii Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Glossary of Terms information every ten years. The census tract boundaries, which are nested within counties, generally follow visible features and often follow 100-year floodplain – The areas along or adjacent to a stream or body of governmental unit boundaries or invisible features. water that are capable of storing or conveying floodwaters during a 100-year frequency storm event. Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) – Legislation mandating the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national air quality standards to protect the accessibility – A measure of how reachable locations or activities are from a public against common pollutants. State governments are required to devise given site; it is influenced by changes in travel time, safety, vehicle operating clean-up plans to meet these EPA standards. costs, and transportation choice. Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 (CAAA) – A strategy for the U.S. to address adverse effect – Defined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation the problem of urban smog. It requires states and the Federal government to Act (NHPA) (36 CFR 800.5(a) (1)). An adverse effect to a historic property reduce emissions from automobiles, trucks, buses, ships, barges, and occurs when the project under consideration alters any characteristic that consumer products, and to meet air quality standards. It particularly qualifies the property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places addresses the urban problem of ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property. matter. It defines how areas are designated “attainment” and allows the EPA affected environment – Ambient conditions at the time an Environmental to classify “non-attainment” areas as those that do not meet the federal air Impact Statement is prepared. quality standards. alignment – The ground plan of a roadway, railway or other fixed route. coastal plain - An area of flat, low-lying land adjacent to a seacoast and separated from the interior by other features Alternatives Analysis – A study designed to examine all viable transit options to address a local preferred alternative. Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) – A seventeen-member board appointed by the Governor of Virginia that is primarily responsible for locating ambient air – A physical and chemical measure of the existing concentration routes, approving construction contracts, creating traffic regulations, naming of various chemicals in the outside air, usually determined over a specific time highways, and administering and allocating transportation funds in Virginia. period (e.g., one hour, eight hours). Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ambient background noise – The existing cumulative noise that is (CERCLA) – Commonly known as Superfund, this law was passed in 1980 to characteristic of an area based on current activity levels. create a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provide broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or hazardous substances that Area of Potential Effect (APE) – For purposes of complying with Section 106 of may endanger public health or the environment. the NHPA, a geographic area or areas where an undertaking (e.g., the Richmond/Hampton Roads High Speed Rail Project) may directly or indirectly Comprehensive Plan – A plan required by state law to be used by local cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such municipalities as a guide to decision-making about the natural and built properties are located in the area of the project. environment. at-grade – level with the ground surface. Conformity – A designation given to transportation plans, programs, and projects that conform to federally mandated state air-quality plans. Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Specific standards utilized during construction and design to minimize the impact on surrounding resources. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) – Authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA), this law provided $6 build alternative – The alternative being evaluated as the proposed action billion in funding for surface transportation and other related projects that during the EIS process. contribute to improvements in air-quality and reduce congestion. bus bunching – buses arriving at stops within 30 seconds of each other Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) – Established in the Executive Office capital costs – The cost to construct a transportation system such as passenger as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the council rail. Costs include design fees, vehicle procurement, environmental coordinates federal environmental efforts, policies, and initiatives, and mitigation, property acquisition, construction materials, and labor for the ensures that federal agencies meet NEPA requirements. construction of a project. cumulative impact - The impact on the environment which results from the census tract – A small statistical subdivision of a county defined by a local incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and committee of census data users for the purpose of presenting census reasonably foreseeable future actions.
May 2012 ix decibel – A unit of measure of sound pressure used to describe the loudness of grade-separated – Used to describe an alignment that is elevated or below sound on the A-weighted scale. ground, or crossings that use an overpass or an underpass. Grade separation allows traffic or transit vehicles to pass through intersections without stopping determination of eligibility – The decision made by the State Historic for opposing traffic. Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding whether historic buildings or district are eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). ground-borne vibration and noise – The vibration-induced levels that propagate over ground between the source and a receptor such as a building; direct effects - Effects that occur as a direct result of the project. typically assessed indoors. dwell time – the time a bus takes to load and unload passangers habitat - The area or environment where an organism or ecological community effects – Synonymous with impact, includes the result from actions that may normally lives or occurs. have a beneficial or detrimental outcome. headways – a measurement of the time between vehicle frequency on a endangered species – A species whose prospects for survival are in immediate transit route danger based on a loss of habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, hydric soils - A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or or disease. An endangered species requires immediate attention or extinction ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic will likely follow. conditions in the upper part. Environmental Assessment – A prepared document used find the significant hydrology indicators - The presence of water at or near the surface for a impacts of a transportation project. If significant impacts are found, then an designated amount of time. environmental impact statement should commence. hydrophytic vegetation - Plant-life that thrives in wet conditions. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – A comprehensive study of potential environmental impacts related to federally assisted projects. Projects for Intelligent Transportation Systems – information and communications which an EIS is required are defined in the National environmental Policy Act technology that allows real time reporting, location tracking, and signal timing of 1969, as amended. to improve the transportation network Environmental Justice (EJ) – Provides for equal protection from Jurisdictional determination (JD) – Regulatory review of previously identified environmental hazards and fair treatment for all people regardless of race, wetlands and waters of the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) in ethnicity, or economic status, with respect to the development, compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and land use – Classification providing information on land cover and the types of policies. Fair treatment implies that no population of people bear an unequal share of negative environmental impacts of pollution or environmental hazard human activity occurring on a parcel of land, such as “commercial,” “industrial,” “residential,” or “open space.” resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, or local policies. level of service (LOS) – A letter grade designation used to describe given roadway conditions with “A” being at or close to free-flow conditions and “F” Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – As part of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the FHWA is charged with the broad being at or close to over-saturation of the roadway; usually based on the progression of vehicles through the green phase of a signal, driver responsibility of ensuring that America’s roads and highways continue to be safe and technologically up-to-date. discomfort/frustration, lost travel time, and fuel consumption. low-income – Any household with income at or below the U.S. Bureau of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) – The agency of the USDOT responsible Census poverty thresholds. for regulation and funding of public transportation. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) – A system of computer software and Major Investment Study (MIS) – Also called Alternatives Analysis, a study that seeks to find the best capital improvement within a given corridor to solve the hardware, data, and personnel to manipulate, analyze and present geographically referenced information or data that is identified according to need for additional transportation investment. their locations. mass transportation - Transportation that provides regular and continuing grade crossing - An intersection where a roadway crosses a railway at the general or special transportation to the public; does not include school buses, charters, or sightseeing transportation. same elevation.
x Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I master plan – An exhaustive plan for a community’s future development ridership - The number of people using a public transportation system during activities. a given time period. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) – The forum for cooperative right-of-way (ROW) – Land available for operation of transportation facilities transportation decision-making for a metropolitan area. Title 23 USC Section (roadways or rail lines). The land is typically government-owned (local, state, 134 requires that (1) a MPO be designated for each Urbanized Area (UZA) or federal). A transportation facility may occupy all or a portion of the right- containing 50,000 or more persons based on the latest US Census, and (2) the of-way. ROWs can be grade-separated or at-grade. metropolitan area has a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive scoping - The effort taken at the beginning of a study to consider all issues transportation planning process. that should be addressed in the study. It is the first phase of activity to micron - A unit of length equal to one millionth (10-6) of a meter. prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. minority – A member of the following races: (1) Black or African American, (2) secondary impact – The effect of an action that takes place some time after a American Indian or Alaska Native, (3) Asian, (4) Native Hawaiian or other primary event has occurred. Pacific Islander, (5) Hispanic or Latino Origin. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – A state administrative agency mitigation – The actions necessary to reduce or eliminate an impact and responsible for carrying out consultation in accordance with the National thereby restoring the affected environment. Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and other state historic preservation regulations. mixed-use – Combination of land uses, such as residential uses combined with office, retail, public, entertainment, or even manufacturing uses. study area – The special limits within which alternatives are considered. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) – Requires federal threatened species - A species that may become endangered if surrounding agencies to consider the environmental impacts of major federal projects or conditions begin or continue to deteriorate. decisions, to share information with the public; to identify and assess reasonable alternatives; and to coordinate efforts with other planning and topography – The surface features of a place or region. environmental reviews taking place. Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) – a geographic area delineated by state and/or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) – A federal list of buildings, sites, local transportation officials for tabulating traffic-related data. district or other properties that have a historic significance. The National Transportation Systems Management (TSM) - Different actions and activities Register of Historic Places is maintained by the Keeper of the National designed to make an existing transportation system more efficient. Register. vehicle miles traveled (VMT) – The number of miles traveled by an No Build Alternative – a do nothing alternative to compare as a benchmark to automobile per individual within a given area. other alternatives wetlands – Tidal areas or swamps with water saturated soil characteristics and off-peak period – Used to describe times where travel is not at its peak, or associated vegetation that meet certain criteria on which filling and highest level, during the day. Off-peak travel usually occurs in the midday and development are federally- and/or state-regulated. evenings in most cities. zoning ordinance – A local land use ordinance that identifies and regulates operating costs – The periodic and usual expenses a company incurs to the use of property within a given municipality. Zoning ordinances prescribe generate revenues. land use type, relationships to nearby uses, densities, height and setback park-and-ride facility – A parking facility that is part of a transportation requirements, parking requirements and related elements. facility; an access mode for patrons to drive private vehicles to a transportation facility. PikeRide: The name given to Metrobus 16 Line service and ART-Arlington Transit routes serving the Columbia Pike corridor and the surrounding Arlington neighborhoods. Record of Decision (ROD) – A formal decision made by a lead federal agency based on its interpretation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
May 2012 xi This Page Intentionally Left Blank
xii Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 3.5.3 Public Involvement ...... 3-41 3.5.4 Minimization and Mitigation Measures...... 3-41 Contents 3.6 Economic Development...... 3-44 3.6.1 Introduction ...... 3-44 1.0 Purpose and Need ...... 1-1 3.6.2 Key Findings...... 3-46 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 3.6.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures...... 3-51 1.1.1 Corridor Description ...... 1-1 3.7 Visual and Aesthetic Conditions ...... 3-52 1.1.2 Planning Context ...... 1-1 3.7.1 Introduction ...... 3-52 1.1.3 Project History...... 1-3 3.7.2 Key Findings...... 3-55 1.2 Purpose for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative ...... 1-3 3.7.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures...... 3-57 1.3 Need for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative ...... 1-3 3.8 Cultural Resources ...... 3-57 1.4 Project Goals and Objectives ...... 1-5 3.8.1 Introduction ...... 3-57 1.5 Document Content and Organization ...... 1-5 3.8.2 Key Findings...... 3-61 3.8.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures...... 3-61 2.0 Alternatives Considered ...... 2-1 3.9 Parklands ...... 3-62 2.1 Definition of Alternatives ...... 2-1 3.9.1 Introduction ...... 3-62 2.1.1 No Build Alternative ...... 2-1 3.9.2 Key Findings...... 3-62 2.1.2 Transportation Systems Management 1 Alternative- 3.9.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures...... 3-62 Enhanced Bus ...... 2-7 3.10 Air Quality ...... 3-66 2.1.3 Transportation Systems Management 2 Alternative- 3.10.1 Introduction ...... 3-66 Articulated Bus ...... 2-7 3.10.2 Key Findings...... 3-67 2.1.4 Streetcar Build Alternative ...... 2-10 3.10.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures...... 3-67 2.2 Streetcar Build Alternative Design Options related to O&M 3.11 Noise and Vibration ...... 3-69 Facilities ...... 2-18 3.11.1 Introduction ...... 3-69 3.11.2 Key Findings...... 3-69 3.0 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-1 3.11.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures...... 3-69 3.1 Transportation Effects ...... 3-7 3.12 Water Resources...... 3-70 3.1.1 Introduction ...... 3-7 3.12.1 Introduction ...... 3-70 3.1.2 Transit Operations ...... 3-7 3.12.2 Key Findings...... 3-70 3.1.3 Traffic Operations ...... 3-12 3.12.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures...... 3-72 3.1.4 Parking and Building Access...... 3-16 3.13 Contaminated Materials ...... 3-75 3.1.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Conditions ...... 3-17 3.13.1 Introduction ...... 3-75 3.1.6 Minimization and Mitigation Measures ...... 3-18 3.13.2 Key Findings...... 3-75 3.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Consistency with Local Plans ...... 3-19 3.13.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures...... 3-76 3.2.1 Introduction ...... 3-19 3.14 Secondary and Cumulative Effects...... 3-79 3.2.2 Key Findings ...... 3-21 3.14.1 Introduction ...... 3-79 3.2.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures ...... 3-27 3.14.2 Secondary Effects ...... 3-79 3.3 Land Acquisitions ...... 3-30 3.14.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-79 3.3.1 Introduction ...... 3-30 3.14.4 Minimization and Mitigation Measures...... 3-80 3.3.2 Key Findings ...... 3-30 3.15 Safety and Security ...... 3-81 3.3.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures ...... 3-31 3.15.1 Introduction ...... 3-81 3.4 Neighborhoods and Community Facilities ...... 3-32 3.15.2 Key Findings...... 3-81 3.4.1 Introduction ...... 3-32 3.15.3 Minimization and Mitigation ...... 3-83 3.4.2 Key Findings ...... 3-32 3.16 Construction Impacts and Potential Permits ...... 3-85 3.4.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures ...... 3-33 3.16.1 Introduction ...... 3-85 3.5 Environmental Justice Communities ...... 3-36 3.16.2 Key Findings...... 3-85 3.5.1 Introduction ...... 3-36 3.16.3 Permits and Approvals ...... 3-87 3.5.2 Key Findings ...... 3-40 3.16.4 Project Commitments ...... 3-88
May 2012 TOC1 -1 4.0 Financial Analysis...... 4-1 List of Figures 4.1 Capital Funding Strategy ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Capital Cost Estimate ...... 4-1 Figure 1.1-1: Project Corridor ...... 1-2 4.1.2 Funding for Other New Starts Projects ...... 4-5 Figure 2.1-1: Multimodal Project Proposed Typical Cross-Section ...... 2-2 4.1.3 Capital Funding Sources for the TSM Alternatives ..... 4-7 Figure 2.1-2: Potential Columbia Pike Realignment at Joyce Street ..... 2-5 4.1.4 Capital Funding Sources for the Build Alternative ..... 4-7 Figure 2.1-3: No Build Alternative Route Network ...... 2-6 4.2 Operating and Maintenance Funding Strategy...... 4-8 Figure 2.1-4: TSM Alternatives Route Network ...... 2-9 4.2.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs...... 4-8 Figure 2.1-5: Streetcar Alignment and Background Bus Service Route 4.2.2 Operating Funding Sources ...... 4-8 Network ...... 2-14 4.3 Risks and Uncertainties ...... 4-9 Figure 2.1-6: Streetcar Alignment and Facilities ...... 2-15 4.3.1 Construction Cost and Revenue Risk ...... 4-10 Figure 2.1-7: Western Terminus Design Options ...... 2-16 4.3.2 Operating Cost and Revenue Risk ...... 4-10 Figure 2.2-1: Initial Streetcar Build Alternative Design Options ...... 2-19 4.3.3 Risk Assessment and Mitigation...... 4-10 Figure 3.1-1: No Build Alternative Route Network ...... 3-9 Figure 3.1-2: TSM and Streetcar Build Alternatives Alignments ...... 3-11 5.0 Evaluation of Alternatives...... 5-1 Figure 3.1-3: Level of Service: Study Intersections ...... 3-13 5.1 Methodology of Evaluation ...... 5-1 Figure 3.2-1: Existing Land Use ...... 3-22 5.2 Ability to Meet Project Purpose & Need ...... 5-1 Figure 3.2-2: Future Land Use ...... 3-24 5.2.1 Limited Roadway Capacity ...... 5-1 Figure 3.2-3: Zoning ...... 3-28 5.2.2 Insufficient Transit Capacity to Support Growth and Figure 3.4-1: O&M Facility Concept Plan ...... 3-33 Development ...... 5-2 Figure 3.4-2: Neighborhoods and Community Facilities ...... 3-34 5.2.3 Improve Transit Access to Skyline ...... 5-5 Figure 3.5-1: Environmental Justice Populations – Low-Income Populations 5.3 Ability to Support Project Goals and Objectives ...... 5-5 (2000) ...... 3-38 5.3.1 GOAL 1: Improve Mobility for Corridor Residents, Figure 3.5-2: Environmental Justice Populations - Minority Populations Employees, Customers, and Visitors...... 5-5 (2010) ...... 3-39 5.3.2 GOAL 2: Contribute to and Serve as a Catalyst for Figure 3.5-3: Transit Operations Change from No Build - Low-Income Economic Development...... 5-6 Populations (2000) ...... 3-42 5.3.3 GOAL 3: Enhance Livability and Long-Term Economic and Figure 3.5-4: Transit Operations Change from No Build - Minority Environmental Sustainability of the Corridor...... 5-6 Populations (2010) ...... 3-43 5.3.4 Goal 4: Support Development of an Integrated Regional Figure 3.7-1: Skyline Complex, looking Northwest ...... 3-52 Multimodal Transportation System...... 5-7 Figure 3.7-2: South Jefferson Street looking North ...... 3-53 5.3.5 Goal 5: Provide a Safe Environment for all Modes of Figure 3.7-3: Columbia Pike looking East towards South Oakland Street .... Travel ...... 5-8 ...... 3-53 5.4 Evaluation Synthesis ...... 5-8 Figure 3.7-4: Columbia Pike at South Randolph Street looking West .... 3-53 Figure 3.7-5: Columbia Pike looking East towards Walter Reed Drive ... 3-53 6.0 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ...... 6-1 Figure 3.7-6: Columbia Pike at South Wayne Street, looking West ...... 3-54 6.1 Coordination with Other Projects ...... 6-1 Figure 3.7-7: Columbia Pike at Four Mile Run, looking West ...... 3-54 6.2 Agency Coordination and Project Management Structure .... 6-2 Figure 3.7-8: Columbia Pike at the Navy Annex, looking West ...... 3-54 6.2.1 Project Management Team ...... 6-2 Figure 3.7-9: United States Air Force Memorial ...... 3-54 6.2.2 Policy Committee ...... 6-2 Figure 3.7-10: Hayes Street looking North towards Army Navy Drive ..... 3-55 6.2.3 Technical Advisory Committee ...... 6-4 Figure 3.7-11: 12th and Eads Streets, looking West ...... 3-55 6.2.4 Community Coordination Committee ...... 6-5 Figure 3.7-12: Streetcar, Tracks, and OCS (Artist’s Rendering) ...... 3-56 6.3 Public Involvement ...... 6-5 Figure 3.7-13: TPSS (Artist’s Rendering) ...... 3-56 6.3.1 Public Meetings ...... 6-5 Figure 3.8-1: Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity...... 3-59 6.3.2 Community and Stakeholder Meetings ...... 6-6 Figure 3.8-2: Historic Architectural Resources in the APE ...... 3-60 6.3.3 Project Website ...... 6-6 Figure 3.9-1: Public Parklands ...... 3-63 6.3.4 Project Mailing List ...... 6-7 Figure 3.12-1: Water Resources ...... 3-73 6.3.5 Future Public Involvement Activities ...... 6-7 Figure 3.13-1: Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) Sites ...... 3-77 Figure 3.15-1: Bicycle and Streetcar Tracks Crossing Caution Sign ...... 3-83
TOC-2 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 6.0-1: Public Involvement and Agency Coordination ...... 6-1 Table 3.15-1: Transit Safety and Security Findings (2007)...... 3-82 Figure 6.3-1: Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Website ...... 6-6 Table 3.16-1: Project Commitments ...... 3-89 Table 4.1-1: Total Capital Costs for the TSM Alternatives (thousands of List of Tables 2011 dollars, including allocated contingency)...... 4-2 Table 4.1-2: Total Capital Costs for the Build Alternative Design Options Table 1.3-1: Problems and Needs ...... 1-4 (thousands of 2011 dollars, including allocated contingency) Table 1.4-1: Project Goals and Objectives ...... 1-5 ...... 4-2 Table 2.1-1: Overview of Alternatives ...... 2-1 Table 4.1-3: Capital Costs for TSM 1 (thousands of YOE dollars) ...... 4-3 Table2.1-2: Current and Planned Projects Along the Corridor and Table 4.1-4: Capital Costs for TSM 2 (thousands of YOE dollars) ...... 4-3 Included in the No Build Alternative ...... 2-4 Table 4.1-5: Capital Costs for Skyline Route 7 Design Option (thousands of Table 2.1-3: Characteristics of Alternatives...... 2-17 YOE dollars) ...... 4-4 Table 2.2-1: Initial Streetcar Build Alternative Design Option Screening Table 4.1-6: FY2013 New Starts Funding Recommendations ...... 4-6 Matrix ...... 2-20 Table 4.1-7: Preliminary Estimate of Capital Funding Sources for TSM 1 Table 3.1-1: Comparison of Key Transit Operations Indicators (2016) ... 3-8 (000s of YOE dollars) ...... 4-7 Table 3.1-2: Comparison of Key Transit Operations Indicators (2030) ... 3-8 Table 4.1-8: Preliminary Estimate of Capital Funding Sources for TSM 2 Table 3.1-3: Relationship between Delay/Vehicle and Intersection LOS .... (000s of YOE dollars) ...... 4-7 ...... 3-12 Table 4.1-9: Preliminary Estimate of Capital Funding Sources for Skyline Table 3.1-4: Level of Service ...... 3-14 Route 7 Design Option (000s of YOE dollars)...... 4-7 Table 3.2-1: Applicable Local and Regional Plans ...... 3-20 Table 4.2-1: Annual Operating Costs for Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Table 3.3-1: Potential ROW Impacts by Alternative...... 3-31 Alternatives (thousands of YOE dollars) ...... 4-8 Table 3.5-1: Minority and Low-Income Populations in Study Corridor, Table 4.2-2: Operating Costs and Revenues in the Opening Year (2016) Arlington County, and Fairfax County ...... 3-37 (thousands of YOE dollars) ...... 4-9 Table 3.6-1: Remaining Development Potential along Columbia Pike Table 4.2-3: Operating Costs and Revenues in the Design Year (2030) (2010) ...... 3-44 (thousands of YOE dollars) ...... 4-9 Table 3.6-2: Remaining Development Potential in Baileys Crossroads Table 5.2-1: The need to increase transit capacity and improve transit (2011) ...... 3-45 mode share ...... 5-2 Table 3.6-3: Relative Housing and Transportation Costs in the Study Area Table 5.2-2: The need to invest in transit service that supports growth ...... 3-45 and economic development ...... 5-4 Table 3.6-4: Construction Impacts for the Washington, DC MSA ...... 3-46 Table 5.2-3: The need to improve connection from Skyline to the regional Table 3.6-5: Annual O&M Impacts for the Washington, DC MSA ...... 3-47 transit network ...... 5-5 Table 3.6-6: Total Assessed Value of Property Acquisitions...... 3-50 Table 5.4-1: Evaluation Synthesis: Project Needs ...... 5-9 Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-7: Annual Value of Table 5.4-2: Evaluation Synthesis: Project Goals ...... 5-10 Travel Time Savings in 2030 (in 2011 dollars) ...... 3-50 Table 6.2-1: FTA Meetings for Current Study ...... 6-2 Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-8: Annual Value of Table 6.2-2: Policy Committee Meetings ...... 6-3 Travel Cost Savings in 2030 (in 2011 dollars) ...... 3-50 Table 6.2-3: Technical Advisory Committee Meetings ...... 6-5 Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-9: Increases in Property Table 6.2-4: Community Coordination Committee Meetings ...... 6-5 Values of Streetcar Build Alternative Design Options in 2030 Table 6.3-1: Public Meeting Attendance Summary ...... 6-6 (in 2011 dollars) ...... 3-51 Table 6.3-2: Community and Stakeholder Meetings ...... 6-7 Table 3.9-1: Parklands ...... 3-65 Table 3.9-2: Potential Effects on Parklands ...... 3-65 Table 3.10-1: Predicted Maximum One-Hour Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations at Selected Intersections (ppm) ...... 3-68 Table 3.10-2: Predicted Maximum Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations at Selected Intersections (ppm) ...... 3-68 Table 3.10-3: Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled by Alternative (2016) .... 3-68 Table 3.10-4: Regional Miles Traveled by Alternative (2030) ...... 3-68 Table 3.12-1: Water Resources Associated with Surface Waters in the Study Corridor ...... 3-71
May 2012 TOC3 -3 Volume II – (contained on the CD fixed to the back cover of this document)
1 Detailed Definition of Alternatives 2 Environmental Constraints Map 3 Transportation Conditions 4 Land Acquisition 5 Environmental Justice 6 Economic Development and Economic Impacts 7 Cultural Resources 8 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Documentation 9 Noise and Vibration 10 Air Quality 11 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Certification 12 Contaminated Materials 13 Energy 14 Capital Cost Estimate Methodology 15 Operations and Maintenance Cost Calculations 16 Agency Correspondence 17 Examples of Public Involvement
TOC-4 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I abutting Columbia Pike, the predominant use is lower-density residential. Recent redevelopment along Columbia Pike has transformed single-story strip 1.0 Purpose and Need commercial centers into multi-story, mid-rise, mixed-use buildings fronting on streets with pedestrian and bicycle amenities. 1.1 Introduction At the eastern end of the corridor is Pentagon City, a mixed-use area that has Arlington County and Fairfax County, Virginia, in cooperation with the Federal developed rapidly over the past 20 years to include two regional shopping Transit Administration (FTA), are proposing to implement high-quality, high- malls, offices, and residential development. The Pentagon is located at the capacity transit service along a 5-mile corridor, running mainly along Columbia northeastern end of the corridor. Pike, between the Pentagon/Pentagon City area in Arlington County and the Skyline area in the Baileys Crossroads Community Business Center (CBC) in Transportation Network Fairfax County. The proposed project, known as the Columbia Pike Transit The primary transit services in the corridor are the Metrobus 16 line and the Initiative, supports the transportation goals of the counties and fosters their associated Arlington Transit (ART) bus services, collectively known as vision for a multimodal corridor, linking its walkable, mixed-use, mixed- PikeRide. With 16,000 daily riders, PikeRide carries more passengers than any income neighborhoods and connecting these to the Washington, DC area other bus service in Northern Virginia (WMATA 2010, Arlington County 2010). transit network, and thus, the region’s major activity centers. Figure 1.1-1 In addition, Columbia Pike is among the most heavily used roadways of its size shows the location of the project corridor. in Virginia with an average of 31,000 vehicles per weekday (Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2010). The project is seeking federal funding for a portion of the proposed improvements through the FTA Capital Investment Grant Program (49 U.S.C. Arlington County and Fairfax County are currently upgrading pedestrian 5309) New Starts/Small Starts program. In order to meet the requirements of infrastructure as well as improving overall pedestrian safety and comfort along the program and maintain eligibility for federal funding, FTA, as the lead the corridor. There are designated bike routes within the corridor on streets federal agency, in coordination with Arlington County and Fairfax County, is parallel to Columbia Pike. preparing a combined Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA). The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is 1.1.2 Planning Context providing technical oversight of the AA/EA. Regional and Corridor Growth 1.1.1 Corridor Description For more than a decade, Arlington County and Fairfax County have been aware The project corridor (“corridor”) includes the Baileys Crossroads/Skyline area of the potential for economic growth in the corridor. As a result, both counties of Fairfax County, a portion of Columbia Pike from Jefferson Street to Joyce have successfully engaged in transportation and land use planning initiatives Street, Pentagon City, and the northernmost portion of Crystal City in that ensure redevelopment and infrastructure improvements are consistent Arlington County. with community goals. Columbia Pike is a major east-west roadway in Northern Virginia, providing Both counties have also engaged in transportation improvement studies and access to the District of Columbia via Washington Boulevard and I-395. successfully implemented bus service improvements. In addition, the counties Columbia Pike is experiencing rapid growth as a mixed-use employment, have adopted policies, plans, and zoning laws supportive of high-quality, high- commercial, and residential corridor. The Skyline and Pentagon City areas, capacity transit to promote transit-oriented development. anchoring the western and eastern ends of the corridor, are high-density regional activity and employment centers. Land Use A wide variety of land uses exist along the corridor, including residences, commercial offices, retail establishments, parkland, and federal government facilities. The western end of the corridor includes the Skyline complex, a center of high-rise, high-density commercial offices and residences, and the Baileys Crossroads area, a mix of regional and local-serving retail establishments. Along Columbia Pike within Arlington County, the predominant uses are local commercial establishments and multi-family residences. In the neighborhoods
May 2012 1-1 Figure 1.1-1: Project Corridor
1-2 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I “Priority for Enhanced Transit” Identification as the preferred alternative in the local AA process, is the basis of the Multiple agencies, including Arlington County and Fairfax County, WMATA, the “Streetcar Build Alternative” presented and evaluated in this document. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) and its Currently, Arlington and Fairfax Counties, in coordination with FTA, are Transportation Planning Board, the Northern Virginia Transportation preparing this document to evaluate alternatives and identify the Commission (NVTC), and the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority environmental impacts of the proposed solution in compliance with FTA New (NVTA), have identified the corridor as a priority for transit investment based Starts/Small Starts requirements. This document is also being prepared to aid on current demand and expected growth. Plans and studies that identify the local decision-makers in selecting a locally preferred alternative (LPA) that corridor as a priority for enhanced transit include: best serves the current and expected transportation needs of the corridor and x The Comprehensive Plan for Fairfax County, Virginia Area I, Baileys supports the project goals and objectives, described in the next section. Planning District, Baileys Crossroads Community Business Center (amended 2010); 1.2 Purpose for the Columbia Pike Transit x MWCOG, Update to Fiscally Constrained Long-Range Transportation Initiative Plan for 2030 (2009); x Fairfax County Transportation Plan (amended 2007); The purpose of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative is to: x Arlington County Master Transportation Plan Map (2007); x Implement higher-quality and higher-capacity transit service in the x NVTA TransAction 2030 (2006); corridor in order to provide more capacity; x Arlington County Columbia Pike Initiative – A Revitalization Plan, x Enhance access within the corridor and provide connections to the Update (2005); regional transit network; and x Arlington County Columbia Pike Street Space Planning Task Force x Support economic development along the corridor. Report (2004); x WMATA Transit Study for Columbia Pike and Leesburg Pike (2002); Premium transit service would improve regional accessibility by enhancing the and quality of transportation options along the corridor, which in turn, would x WMATA Transit Service Expansion Plan (1999). make the corridor a more attractive location for redevelopment. In addition, enhanced transit would support the emerging mixed-use, walkable 1.1.3 Project History environment by offering a convenient, dependable, and frequent option for traveling the corridor without using an automobile, while also serving existing After recognizing the increased demand of the emerging transit market, and future low-income and transit-dependent populations residing along the Arlington County and Fairfax County initiated a local Columbia Pike corridor. This “main street,” walkable, mixed-use environment is consistent Alternatives Analysis in 2004 (local AA) to consider the development of an advanced transit system connecting the Pentagon/Pentagon City area to with Arlington County and Fairfax County’s vision for the corridor. Skyline. At the time, the counties were not seeking federal funding and a federally approved AA was not required; therefore, the local AA was not 1.3 Need for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative submitted for approval by FTA. The goal of this local AA was to examine a Transit is not only a vital component of what makes the corridor function, but wide-range of possible transit solutions and identify the solution that best is also important to the future vision for the corridor. Within a quarter-mile served the needs of the corridor. The selected transit system and mode would of the corridor, there are transit-dependent populations, clustered around increase transit capacity, improve mobility, and spur economic development Jefferson Street, in Pentagon City, and southeast of Four Mile Run.1 along the corridor. The local AA included agency, stakeholder, and citizen Furthermore, the corridor carries the most bus riders of any corridor in input throughout the process. Northern Virginia, with average weekday ridership of approximately 16,000 The local AA process yielded a “Modified Streetcar Alternative,” which boardings per day (WMATA 2010, Arlington County 2010). included a combination of streetcar and bus service as the preferred The need for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative stems from existing and transportation solution that best served the needs of the corridor. expected transportation problems along the corridor related to limited Subsequently, the Arlington County Board and Fairfax County Board of roadway and transit capacity to accommodate increasing travel demand as the Supervisors endorsed the “Modified Streetcar Alternative” in 2006. In 2008, population grows and development increases. Additionally, the Skyline area the two counties decided to seek federal funding, thereby requiring a of the corridor is underserved by transit, limiting the employment center’s federally approved AA. In 2010, the two counties submitted a Project Initiation package to FTA to officially state their interest in pursuing federal funding from FTA. The “Modified Streetcar Alternative,” which was selected 1 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2005-2010.
May 2012 1-3 regional connectivity. These problems and needs are summarized in Table x Provide higher-capacity transit service to cope with underlying 1.3-1 and described below. growth; and x Increase transit mode share while decreasing single-occupancy Table 1.3-1: Problems and Needs vehicle use along the corridor. Problem Need Limited roadway capacity to handle x Improve transit capacity; and The Baileys Crossroads Revitalization Commercial District in Fairfax County an increase in automobile trips. x Improve transit mode share. and Arlington County’s Columbia Pike Initiative have provided the necessary land use plans and zoning codes to encourage higher density redevelopment Existing transit capacity is insufficient x Invest in transit service that along Columbia Pike. These efforts have resulted in two major redevelopment to support future growth and supports growth and economic projects in the Baileys Crossroads area of Fairfax County and six major development within the corridor. development. residential redevelopment projects completed in the Arlington County portion of the corridor since 2002.4 Additionally, ten projects, mostly mixed-use Skyline, a regional center of office, x Improve transit access and developments, are either under construction or approved along the overall commercial and residential activity, is regional connectivity to and from corridor. poorly connected to the regional Skyline. transit network. The continued success of redevelopment efforts is dependent upon a robust transportation system to connect the new developments with existing population and employment centers. Most critically, improved transit service Continued population and employment growth will increase transportation will demonstrate a permanent and on-going commitment to transportation by demand along the corridor. According to the MWCOG forecasts, population the public sector. Sustaining and improving the level of transit service within a quarter-mile of the corridor is projected to increase by 21 percent 2 investment will reassure developers that higher-density, transit-oriented, and from 2010 to 2030, while employment is projected to increase by 23 percent. mixed-use projects are worth the risk in the real estate market, and given this The population and employment growth (spurred by redevelopment) and reassurance, jobs, housing, and services will continue to flow into the operational improvements to existing transit service have generated a 45 corridor. As a result, both Arlington County and Fairfax County need to percent increase in corridor weekday transit ridership since 2004. As land identify potential transit investments that will: along the corridor continues to be redeveloped with medium- to large-scale mixed-use projects, and population and employment increases and x Improve mobility and accessibility of the corridor in a way that development intensifies, the demand for transit will also increase. Anticipated supports growth and economic development. baseline growth of 16 percent will add another 80,000 daily trips to the corridor by 2030, assuming relatively minimal change to the distribution of Furthermore, at the western end of the corridor, the existing transit network trips between commute and non-commute. However, Arlington County has provides relatively limited service to the Skyline area in Fairfax County, an an explicit policy against adding additional automobile through-capacity to the area of high-density office, residential, and retail. Only one Metrobus line Columbia Pike corridor.3 provides a direct connection from Skyline to the Pentagon Metrorail station and there is no direct connection to Pentagon City. Both Arlington County and Arlington County initially addressed this emerging problem with Fairfax County need to identify potential transit investments that will: implementation of the PikeRide program. The PikeRide program has been successful by improving bus stop locations and providing convenient and x Improve transit access; and reliable transit service along the corridor. Currently, the Metrobus and ART x Improve regional connectivity to and from Skyline. bus routes on Columbia Pike operate at combined 2- to 3-minute headways during peak-hours. However, this high transit frequency limits the ability to improve service quality and reliability by simply adding more buses to the schedule, leading to bus bunching and decreased service reliability. Both Arlington County and Fairfax County need to identify potential transit investments that will:
2 Metropolitan Washington Council on Governments (MWCOG) Round 7.2a Land Use Projections. 3 Arlington County. (2011). Arlington County Transportation Master Plan Streets 4 The six projects are the Halstead at Arlington, Siena Park, Gramercy at Metropolitan Element, p. 7. Park, Majestic Oak Townhouses, 55 Hundred, and Alcova Row.
1-4 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 1.4 Project Goals and Objectives 1.5 Document Content and Organization Goals and objectives for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative are shown in This AA/EA is being prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Safe, Table 1.4-1. The project goals and objectives are based on the problems and Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU), needs and are consistent with goals of the regional long-range transportation Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant Funding and related plans. The project purpose and need as well as the project goals and guidance/procedures, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as objectives provide measures to evaluate the proposed alternatives (described amended, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered). An overall evaluation of the implementing NEPA, the joint Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit alternatives is presented in Chapter 5, Evaluation of Alternatives. Administration Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 106 of the National Table 1.4-1: Project Goals and Objectives Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and other regulations regarding Goals Objectives environmental permitting and approval for the project. x Provide additional transportation capacity to meet current and future travel demand. This document is organized into two volumes, Volume I, and Volume II, Improve mobility for x Provide more transportation choices. Technical Memoranda. Volume I includes: corridor residents, x Provide high-quality service for local- x Chapter 1 presents a description of the project, the project purpose employees, customers, and corridor trips. and need, and the purpose of the AA/EA document. visitors. x Address the transportation needs of the x Chapter 2 outlines the various planning and screening steps transit-dependent populations in the undertaken to identify the project alternatives. It also describes the corridor. No Build, Transportation Systems Management (TSM), and Streetcar x Support continued population and Build Alternatives. employment growth in the corridor. Contribute to and serve as a x Chapter 3 presents existing environmental conditions in the study x Support county economic development catalyst for economic corridor, includes an assessment of impacts of the No Build, TSM, and initiatives. development. Streetcar Build Alternatives, and discusses mitigation strategies to x Maximize local economic impact of minimize unavoidable impacts. transportation investments. x Chapter 4 discusses the potential capital and operating costs as well x Support lifestyle choices for environmentally as funding strategies for the project. sustainable communities. x Chapter 5 provides an overall evaluation of the alternatives. Each x Support long-term private investment in alternative presented is compared against the evaluation measures, Enhance livability and long- transit-friendly development. based on the project purpose and need as well as goals and term economic and x Minimize adverse environmental impacts of objectives. environmental sustainability transportation investments. x Chapter 6 summarizes agency coordination and public participation. of the corridor. x Serve households at a range of income levels. Supporting information for material presented in Volume I is provided in x Promote pedestrian-and bicycle-focused Volume II, Technical Memoranda. Technical Memoranda provided in Volume II communities. include: x Provide enhanced connections to intermodal Support the development of x Detailed Definition of Alternatives centers. an integrated regional x Environmental Constraints Map x Provide improved service to regional activity multimodal transportation x Transportation Conditions centers. system. x Land Acquisition x Increase transit ridership and mode share. x Environmental Justice x Enhance personal security for travelers in x Economic Development and Economic Impacts the corridor. x Cultural Resources x Provide safe operations for travelers in the Provide a safe environment x Section 4(f) and 6(f) Documentation corridor. for all modes of travel. x Noise and Vibration x Provide a safe environment for x Air Quality transportation operations staff and x Federal Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Certification employees.
May 2012 1-5 x Contaminated Materials x Energy x Capital Cost Estimate Methodology x Operations and Maintenance Cost Calculations x Agency Correspondence x Examples of Public Involvement A CD containing the following materials is provided on the back cover: x Volume I of the AA/EA x Volume II of the AA/EA x Preliminary Alignment Conceptual Plans
1-6 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I A more detailed definition of each alternative, including additional operational and physical characteristics of each alternative, is available in 2.0 Alternatives Considered Volume II: Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Memorandum. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires a comparison of alternatives to satisfy a project’s purpose and need. Additionally, the FTA Table 2.1-1: Overview of Alternatives New Starts/Small Starts Program requires an alternatives analysis to support No Streetcar the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). As part of the project Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Build development process, FTA requires the development of a Transportation Planned Service Enhancements 9 9 9 9 Systems Management (TSM) alternative that can serve as a baseline alternative Increased Span of Service 9 9 9 for comparison to the proposed build alternative. A TSM alternative provides Consolidated Stop Locations 9 9 9 for modest investments that can improve the existing transit system without along Columbia Pike higher capital investments. This allows both FTA and decision-makers an Improved Service Coverage (to opportunity to compare alternatives to see if similar transit benefits can be and from Skyline) 9 9 9 achieved with a lower capital investment. Off-vehicle Fare Collection and Multi-door Boarding 9 9 To meet both the NEPA and New Starts/Small Starts requirements, the Increased Vehicle Passenger Columbia Pike Transit Initiative is evaluating four alternatives, ranging in Capacity 9 9 investment levels, which seek to address the transportation needs of the corridor. The alternatives include: Full Program of Stop Upgrades (Including transfer center and 9 9 x No Build Alternative near- level boarding) x TSM 1 Alternative – Enhanced Bus Rail Vehicles and Associated 9 x TSM 2 Alternative – Articulated Bus Performance Characteristics x Streetcar Build Alternative 2.1.1 No Build Alternative This chapter is organized into two parts. The first section provides descriptive NEPA requires consideration of a No Build Alternative to provide a basis for definitions of the alternatives, including their physical and operational comparison of the alternatives. The No Build Alternative includes existing characteristics as well as estimated capital and operations costs. The second highway and transit networks, plus committed transportation improvements section describes the previously considered Streetcar Build Alternative Design within the corridor. These transportation improvements are listed in the Options, related to the western terminus. following documents: 2.1 Definition of Alternatives x Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) 2009 Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) for This section describes the four evaluated alternatives: No Build, TSM 1, TSM 2, the National Capital Region; and Streetcar Build. Table 2.1-1 provides a brief summary of the key x MWCOG FY2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for characteristics associated with each alternative, while Table 2.1-3 provides a the Washington Metropolitan Region; more detailed comparison of the transit characteristics of each alternative. x Fairfax County’s FY2010-FY2014 CIP; The No Build Alternative includes all existing and future transit and highway x Arlington County’s FY2009-FY2014 Capital Improvement Program transportation facilities and projects anticipated to be operational by the year (CIP); 2030. The TSM Alternatives are intended to provide mobility improvements x Arlington County Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvements without constructing a new transit guideway. Lower-cost investment Project 2011; and improvements to improve transit bus service could include, re-routing of x Arlington County Columbia Pike Super Stops Program 2011. existing bus routes and consolidation of bus stops along the alignment. For purposes of this project, two TSM Alternatives are presented for evaluation Any such improvements that are anticipated to occur by 2030, the project and differ in terms of fare collection, vehicle capacity, and station stop horizon year, whether physical or operational, are assumed to be part of the amenities. Lastly, the Streetcar Build Alternative proposes a fixed guideway No Build Alternative. Improvements anticipated to occur by 2015 are also solution to address the corridor transportation needs. identified to serve as a basis for comparison for the Streetcar Build Alternative in its opening year. All projects included in the No Build Alternative are listed and described in Table 2.1-2.
May 2012 2-1 Several transportation improvements are currently being advanced in the Transit Operations corridor. The projects that will have the greatest effect on the physical The No Build Alternative would continue current transit service along conditions of the corridor include the Arlington County Columbia Pike Columbia Pike in accordance with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Multimodal Street Improvements Project (“Multimodal Project”) and the Authority (WMATA) and Arlington Transit (ART) plans. This service includes the planned improvements included in MWCOG’s 2009 CLRP and FY2010-2015 TIP current Metrobus 16 Line as well as ART services that run along portions of the (listed in Table 2.1-2). The Multimodal Project involves a wide range of corridor. Metrobus 16 Line service consists of four primary service patterns pedestrian and infrastructure improvements to the streetscape to create a that terminate near the eastern termini at the Pentagon Metrorail Station or multimodal environment, including standardizing the street into a consistent Pentagon City. Figure 2.1-3 shows the No Build Alternative bus route network. five lane cross section along Columbia Pike (two travel lanes in each direction with a center median or left-turn lane). Figure 2.1-1 shows the proposed To increase transit efficiency, the No Build Alternative also assumes full typical cross-section. implementation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies along Columbia Pike, which will improve reliability and performance by allowing Figure 2.1-1: Multimodal Project Proposed Typical Cross-Section transit vehicles to move through congested intersections with signal priority. The No Build Alternative continues on-board fare collection and front-door boarding. The majority of Metrobus service in the corridor is currently provided using 40- foot buses fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG). The majority of ART service in the corridor is provided using 30- and 35-foot CNG buses. For efficient use of operating resources, the Metrobus and ART fleets are managed on a system-wide basis. Metrobuses and ART buses that perform service runs along the Columbia Pike corridor also serve other areas. WMATA and Arlington County have plans in place to purchase replacement buses on a regular basis as the fleet ages. The No Build Alternative assumes continuation of these fleet replacement plans. The No Build Alternative would continue ART local branding and “PikeRide” branding on buses that serve the corridor. Bus “branding” is a marketing technique that identifies a transit service line by applying visual design elements to all vehicles that serve a specific line or station stop, allowing users to easily identify the transit line’s operating characteristics, such as service frequency and operation hours. Bus branding is one element that has contributed to the recent growth in ridership on ART and Pike Ride services. Another notable project along the corridor is the possible realignment of Columbia Pike near South Joyce Street. In connection with plans for expansion Service Hours of Arlington National Cemetery, the Department of Defense has proposed a Metrobus would provide service along the corridor seven days per week. permanent realignment of the eastern end of Columbia Pike near its Weekday service begins by 5:00 a.m. and extends to 12:00 a.m. Saturday intersection with Joyce Street. The realigned roadway would more closely service begins by 5:15 a.m. and extends to 11:15 p.m., and Sunday service parallel I-395, with a new Columbia Pike/Joyce Street intersection Figure 2.1- begins by 6:00 a.m. and extends to 10:00 p.m. ART also provides service along 2 shows the potential realignment. the corridor seven days per week. Weekday service begins by 5:30 a.m. and extends to 12:00 a.m. Saturday service begins by 7:00 a.m. and extends to 12:00 a.m., and Sunday service begins by 8:00 a.m. and extends to 11:00 p.m. Transit Service Frequency The No Build Alternative bus service along the central portion of Columbia Pike operates at a combined two-to-three minute headway (the time between buses) that provide service to the Pentagon or Pentagon City during peak periods, with a combined six-minute headway during off-peak periods.
2-2 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Service frequencies by destination are listed below: x Pentagon City: An average of 11 Metrobus buses per hour during peak periods and four buses per hour during off-peak periods run along Columbia Pike from Jefferson Street to the Pentagon City Metrorail station. x Pentagon: Combined service frequency, including Metrobus and ART service, averages approximately 15 buses per hour during peak- periods and 6 buses per hour during off-peak periods, along Columbia Pike from Jefferson Street to the Pentagon Metrorail station. x Downtown Washington, DC: An average of 11 Metrobus buses per hour during peak periods run along Columbia Pike to Farragut Square (bypassing the Pentagon and Pentagon City). x Ballston/Court House/Rosslyn: An average of 10 ART buses per hour run throughout the day along Columbia Pike to Court House or Rosslyn. Station Stops The No Build Alternative assumes that bus service in the corridor will continue to use existing stops, which are located at most intersections, approximately 1/8 mile apart. The alternative also assumes full implementation of Arlington County’s Super Stops program, which includes 24 enhanced stops along Columbia Pike. Super Stops will be approximately 90 to 120 feet in length (to accommodate two buses simultaneously) and include real-time passenger information, and improved shelters and waiting areas. Facilities A small park-and-ride lot owned by Arlington County exists along the corridor, located at Columbia Pike and Four Mile Run Drive adjacent to an existing PikeRide bus stop, and would continue to provide parking under the No Build Alternative. Metrobus 16 Line vehicles would continue to be stored and maintained at the WMATA Four Mile Run Bus Garage, located at the intersection of South Eads Street and South Glebe Road in southeast Arlington County. ART buses would continue to be stored and maintained at the ART House bus operations facility, located at South Eads Street and 32nd Street South, adjacent to the WMATA Four Mile Run Bus Garage. Operating Cost Estimates Based on the WMATA average cost per platform hour (the total number of hours that buses are on the road), the annual No Build Alternative operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated to be $14.4 million in 2011 dollars and $16.7 million in 2016 dollars.1
1 The estimated 2016 O&M costs assume a 3% annual inflation rate for cost per platform hour for years 2012 through 2016.
May 2012 2-3 Table 2.1-2: Current and Planned Projects Along the Corridor and Included in the No Build Alternative Project and Lead Agency Project Definition/Key Elements Timeline Baileys Crossroads Streetscape Improvements Landscaping, lighting, and sidewalk construction (based on roadway Fairfax Co. CIP, ongoing. (Fairfax Co.) cross-section developed in the Baileys Crossroads Planning Study). Construct larger bus shelters with electronic and printed information, wireless access, enhanced lighting and new security features, improved landscape treatments and sidewalks, Arlington Co. CIP 2009, construction Columbia Pike Super Stops (Arlington Co.) accommodation of off-vehicle fare payment vending machines. started 2011. Implementation along Columbia Pike from Navy Annex to Greenbrier Street. Street improvements to Columbia Pike with the goal of providing a standardized street cross-section (two travel lanes in each direction 80% funded ($70M) in the current TIP, will Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvements with a center median or left-turn lane), on-street parking, bicycle be fully funded for Fiscal Year 2013; (Arlington Co.) accommodations, wider sidewalks, enhanced pedestrian crossings, phased construction. landscaped median areas, and street trees where practicable. Implementation along the entire Columbia Pike Corridor. Bus Information Technology Deployment and Install a Bus Transit Signal Priority technology at Columbia Pike TIP, ongoing. Technology already Signal Prioritization (Arlington Co.) signalized intersections. installed at 10 intersections. Establish a communications network for transit vehicles, traffic Transit, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) signals and control centers to improve performance and reliability TIP, Arlington Co. CIP, ongoing. (Arlington Co.) as well as safety. Columbia Pike Streetscape Improvements Landscaping, lighting, and sidewalk construction. TIP, ongoing. (Arlington Co.) Construct bicycle path from Joyce Street to Army Navy Drive and Expected to be included in Arlington Co.’s Bicycle Path Construction (Arlington Co.) Army Navy Drive to 12th Street. next CIP. Construct shared use path to connect Washington Boulevard path to Shared Use Path Construction (Arlington Co.) Air Force Memorial and existing path to Pentagon along Columbia CLRP 2013. Pike. Includes improvements to bus circulation, pedestrian and passenger Pentagon City Multimodal Improvements amenities, traffic turning movements, signal improvements, ITS TIP, Arlington Co. CIP 2013. (Arlington Co.) technologies, and streetscape in the Pentagon City area. Washington Boulevard (VA 27) Bridge and Interchange (Virginia Department of Interchange modifications and bridge replacement. TIP, Arlington Co. CIP 2013; CLRP 2013. Transportation (VDOT)) In connection with plans for expansion of Arlington National Realignment of Columbia Pike at Joyce Street Cemetery, the Department of Defense has been negotiating with Ongoing negotiations. (Arlington Co. and Department of Defense) Arlington County a permanent realignment of the eastern end of Columbia Pike near its intersection with Joyce Street.
2-4 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 2.1-2: Potential Columbia Pike Realignment at Joyce Street
May 2012 2-5 Figure 2.1-3: No Build Alternative Route Network
2-6 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 2.1.2 Transportation Systems Management 1 Alternative- Compared to the No Build Alternative, the TSM 1 Alternative provides one Enhanced Bus additional bus per hour to Pentagon City during the peak periods and six additional buses during non-peak periods. The TSM 1 Alternative also provides For purposes of this project, two TSM Alternatives are presented for four additional buses per hour from Columbia Heights West to Court House evaluation. The TSM 1 Alternative– Enhanced Bus (“TSM 1 Alternative”) throughout the day. includes a number of enhancements to the No Build Alternative bus network that would focus service on high-density development along the corridor. All Service frequencies by destination are listed below: projects assumed under the No Build Alternative would be included in the TSM x Pentagon City: An average of 12 Metrobus buses per hour during peak 1 Alternative. periods and four buses per hour during off-peak periods run along Transit Operations Columbia Pike from Jefferson Street to the Pentagon City Metrorail The TSM 1 Alternative assumes similar service provided under the No Build Station. Alternative with WMATA Metrobus and ART lines, but alters the bus routes to x Pentagon: Combined service frequency, including Metrobus and ART improve service to Skyline by extending the 16G and 16H routes. The Metrobus service, averages 15 buses per hour during peak periods and six buses 16G route, which now terminates in Columbia Heights West, would be per hour during off-peak periods along Columbia Pike from Jefferson extended to the Skyline area to provide an additional connection between this Street to the Pentagon Metrorail Station. area and Columbia Pike. Service would be extended down Leesburg Pike and x Downtown Washington, DC: An average of 11 Metrobus buses per terminate along George Mason Drive. This modification would remove the 16G hour during peak periods run along Columbia Pike to Farragut Square from the Columbia Heights West area of Arlington, which is currently served (bypassing the Pentagon and Pentagon City). by the 16G and the ART 41. ART 41 service would be increased to offset the x Ballston/Court House/Rosslyn: An average of 10 ART buses per hour service lost from the rerouting of the 16G. Figure 2.1-4 shows the route run throughout the day along Columbia Pike to Court House or network and stop locations. Rosslyn. The TSM 1 Alternative would require purchasing five 40-foot (standard) Station Stops Metrobus buses. Similar to the No Build Alternative, the TSM 1 Alternative The TSM 1 Alternative would consolidate many of the existing bus stops to includes on-board fare collection and front-door boarding. improve corridor travel time. Bus stop locations along Columbia Pike would be approximately ¼ to ½ mile apart. Stop locations are shown in Figure 2.1-4. In addition to the branding described in the No Build Alternative, the Pentagon City “trunk” lines (16G, 16H, 16J) would be specially branded to distinguish The TSM 1 Alternative assumes full implementation of the Arlington County them from other Metrobus buses operating in the corridor. In addition, lines Super Stops program, which includes 24 enhanced stops along Columbia Pike. that serve the Pentagon (16A, 16B, and 16D) and the express service lines to Additional consolidated stops that are not on Columbia Pike (in the Skyline downtown Washington (16Y and 16F) would apply “Metro Extra” branding, area and in Pentagon City) would be standard, non-enhanced stops. which would include special painting to designate Metrobus express routes. Facilities Service Hours Park-and-ride and bus maintenance facilities would be the same as in the No Metrobus and ART would provide service along the corridor seven days per Build Alternative. week. The TSM 1 Alternative would modify the span of bus service of the 16G and H lines to more closely match Metrorail opening and closing times to Capital and Operating Cost Estimates provide connections to early and late Metrorail trains. For the Metrobus 16G The estimated capital cost for the TSM 1 Alternative is $4 million in 2011 and H Lines, weekday service would begin by 5:30 a.m. and extend to 1:00 dollars and $5 million in 2015 dollars (midpoint of construction). The a.m. Saturday service would begin by 6:30 a.m. and extend to 1:00 a.m., and estimated operations and maintenance costs are $20.1 million in 2011 dollars Sunday service would begin by 6:00 a.m. and extend to 11:30 p.m. Service and $23.3 million in 2016 dollars. hours of all other routes are maintained identical to the No Build Alternative. Transit Service Frequency The TSM 1 Alternative bus service along the central portion of Columbia Pike operates at a combined two-to-three minute headway that provides service to the Pentagon or Pentagon City during peak periods, with a combined four minute headway during off-peak periods.
May 2012 2-7 2.1.3 Transportation Systems Management 2 Alternative- provides service to the Pentagon or Pentagon City during peak periods, with a Articulated Bus combined four-minute headway during off-peak periods. Due to off-vehicle fare collection, corridor travel times are shorter; therefore, the same levels of The TSM 2 Alternative- Articulated Bus (“TSM 2 Alternative”) includes the transit service are provided in a more efficient manner. transit operation changes assumed under the TSM 1 Alternative, plus enhancements that increase transit efficiency and improve travel time. Station Stops Similar to the TSM 1 Alternative, the TSM 2 Alternative includes bus operations Under the TSM 2 Alternative, all consolidated bus stops along the full in mixed traffic, consolidated stops, and improved service to Skyline. In alignment (including those in the Skyline area and in Pentagon City) would be contrast with the TSM 1 Alternative, the TSM 2 Alternative includes off-vehicle implemented with platform sizes and amenities similar to those proposed in fare collection, multi-door boarding, and upgraded stops and passenger the Arlington County Super Stops program. Stops would have 90 to 120-foot amenities—features typically associated with an Arterial Bus Rapid Transit long platforms and would incorporate off-vehicle fare collection machines to system. This is the best that transit can be improved in the corridor without improve transit efficiency. Stops would also provide real-time passenger building a fixed guideway. All projects assumed under the No Build information and improved shelters and waiting areas. Stop locations would be Alternative would be included in the TSM 2 Alternative. the same as those proposed in the TSM 1 Alternative with the exception of the stop at the Jefferson Street Transit Center (described in more detail below) Transit Operations and the western terminus stop location, which would be located in the Skyline Like the TSM 1 Alternative, the TSM 2 Alternative includes the service Complex. provided under the No Build Alternative with WMATA Metrobus and ART lines, but alters the bus routes to improve service to Skyline by extending the 16G Facilities and 16H routes. The TSM 2 Alternative alignment would be similar to the TSM The TSM 2 Alternative would include the addition of a new intermodal transit 1 Alternative; however, TSM 2 Alternative terminates at the Skyline Complex, center called the Jefferson Street Transit Center. To provide increased transit to provide a more direct link to the center of activity. Figure 2.1-4 shows the passenger convenience, the facility would include a 200-space surface park- route network. and-ride lot, daily and short-term parking spaces, bays for connecting buses, and a curbside pick-up/drop-off area. The facility would be located in the The TSM 2 Alternative includes several changes from the TSM 1 Alternative to large existing parking area of the shopping center west of Jefferson Street increase transit capacity and improve transit efficiency. To increase transit near the intersection with Leesburg Pike, subject to agreements with property capacity, the TSM 2 Alternative would require purchasing 18 60-foot owners. articulated Metrobus buses to deploy on the 16G and 16H routes. Articulated buses would replace the existing standard buses on the 16G and 16H routes; Because it is assumed for this analysis that WMATA would operate the all other routes would continue to use standard buses, as described under the articulated Metrobus buses, articulated buses would be stored and maintained No Build and TSM 1 Alternatives. It is assumed for this analysis that WMATA at WMATA’s Cinder Bed Road Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility. would operate the TSM 2 Alternative articulated buses. Standard 40-foot buses Standard buses would continue to be stored and maintained at the existing would be deployed on all other WMATA routes. To improve transit efficiency Four Mile Run Bus Garage. and minimize dwell time, the TSM 2 Alternative includes off-vehicle fare collection with proof of payment and multi-door boarding and alighting. Capital and Operating Cost Estimates The estimated capital cost for the TSM 2 Alternative is $47 million in 2011 Bus branding would be the same as described in the TSM 1 Alternative. dollars and $53 million in 2015 dollars (midpoint of construction). The Service Hours estimated operations and maintenance cost for the TSM 2 Alternative is $19.4 million in 2011 dollars and $22.5 million in 2016 dollars. Service hours would be the same as described in the TSM 1 Alternative. Transit Service Frequency Transit service frequency would be the same as described in the TSM 1 Alternative, operating at a combined two-to-three minute headway that
2-8 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 2.1-4: TSM Alternatives Route Network
May 2012 2-9 2.1.4 Streetcar Build Alternative begin by 6:00 a.m. and extend to 11:30 p.m. All other routes service hours are maintained identical to the No Build Alternative. Transit Operations The Streetcar Build Alternative would include both a modern streetcar service Transit Service Frequency and continued bus service between the Skyline area of Fairfax County and Overall, streetcar and bus service frequency would provide the same Pentagon City in Arlington County. The streetcar alignment would run along combined headways to the Pentagon or Pentagon City Metrorail station during the length of Columbia Pike from Jefferson Street to Joyce Street and peak and off-peak periods as described in the TSM Alternatives. terminate in Pentagon City at 12th Street and South Eads Street. If Columbia Service frequencies by destination are listed below: Pike were realigned near South Joyce Street, the streetcar alignment would follow the realigned street. A Construction Staging and Permanent Equipment x Pentagon City: An average of 10 streetcar vehicles per hour and two Storage Site in the vicinity of the existing Navy Annex would also be Metrobus buses per hour run throughout the day along Columbia Pike constructed. Figure 2.1-5 shows the streetcar alignment, station stops, from Jefferson Street to the Pentagon City Metrorail Station. facilities, and background bus service, while Figure 2.1-6 shows only the x Pentagon: Combined service frequency, including Metrobus and ART streetcar alignment, station stops, and facilities. All projects assumed under service, averages approximately 15 buses per hour during peak the No Build Alternative would be included in the Streetcar Build Alternative. periods and six buses per hour during off-peak periods along Columbia Pike from Jefferson Street to the Pentagon Metrorail Station. Streetcar vehicles would operate mostly in mixed traffic within the outside x Downtown Washington, DC: An average of 11 Metrobus buses per travel lanes along Columbia Pike and in the inner lanes along Jefferson Street hour during peak-periods run along Columbia Pike to Farragut Square and throughout Pentagon City. The only areas where streetcar vehicles would (bypassing the Pentagon and Pentagon City). operate in exclusive right-of-way would be on short segments near the western and eastern termini. x Ballston/Court House/Rosslyn: An average of 10 ART buses per hour run throughout the day along Columbia Pike to Court House or The Streetcar Build Alternative would introduce changes to increase transit Rosslyn. capacity and improve transit efficiency. The alternative would modify the project area bus network to reflect the addition of streetcar service along Station Stops Columbia Pike. Standard buses would be deployed on all bus routes. The key Bus and streetcar stops would be consolidated (in a manner comparable to the changes to the bus network would be the removal of the bus lines that follow TSM Alternatives) and would be located approximately ¼ to ½ mile apart. the same routing as the proposed streetcar service (16G and 16H). Metrobus Platform design would be similar in design to the Super Stops, with improved Line 16J(PC) would also be added, which provides service from Culmore and shelter areas and amenities. Passenger station stops would consist of a 90 to Skyline to Pentagon City. 120-foot boarding area with a low platform to accommodate near-level boarding. Curbside stops would be able to accommodate a streetcar vehicle The Streetcar Build Alternative would require purchasing 13 modern streetcar and 40-foot bus, simultaneously. Station stops would also provide real-time vehicles. The Streetcar Build Alternative includes off-vehicle fare collection passenger information. As noted under “Transit Operations,” the station stops with proof of payment and multi-door boarding and alighting. would include additional fare collection and boarding amenities. In addition to the branding strategies described under the No Build Facilities Alternative, special streetcar branding for Pentagon City service would be The use of an electrified streetcar would require placement of an overhead applied. Similar to the TSM Alternatives, “Metro Extra” branding would be contact wire system; five traction power substations (TPSS) would be located applied to the Pentagon lines and express service lines to Downtown along the alignment. The proposed locations of the TPSSs are shown in Figure Washington (16Y, 16F). 2.1-6. Service Hours The system would require a vehicle O&M facility with an operations control Streetcar, Metrobus, and ART service would be provided along the corridor center. The O&M facility would be located in Pentagon City at 12th Street and seven days per week. The Streetcar Build Alternative would provide streetcar South Eads Street where daily maintenance will be performed. As needed, service to closely match Metrorail opening and closing times to provide vehicle “mid-life” overhauls and heavy repairs would involve transporting connections to early and late Metrorail trains. Metrobus and ART service would vehicles to an existing maintenance facility capable of completing this work, be provided along the corridor seven days per week. On a weekday, streetcar such as light rail transit facilities in Baltimore, Maryland, and Norfolk, Virginia. service would begin by 5:30 a.m. and extend to 1:00 a.m. Saturday service would begin by 6:30 a.m. and extend to 1:00 a.m., and Sunday service would Bus maintenance facilities would be the same as assumed in the No Build Alternative.
2-10 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I If Columbia Pike were realigned near South Joyce Street, the streetcar alignment would follow the realigned street. A Construction Staging and Permanent Storage Site in the vicinity of the existing Navy Annex would also be constructed. Park-and-ride facilities would be the same as under the TSM 2 Alternative, which would include a small, existing park-and-ride facility near Four Mile Run as well as the new Jefferson Street Transit Center, as described in the TSM 2 Alternative subsection on “Facilities.” Western Terminus Design Options The Streetcar Build Alternative has three design options for the western terminus: x Skyline Central Plaza x Skyline Route 7 x Jefferson Street Transit Center The Skyline Central Plaza design option extends the streetcar alignment over Leesburg Pike (also referred to as “Route 7”) and into the center of the Skyline Complex. The Skyline Route 7 design option is similar in that the alignment crosses Leesburg Pike; however, the station stop would be located in front of the Skyline complex. The Jefferson Street Transit Center design option terminates in the median adjacent to the proposed Jefferson Street Transit Center and does not cross Leesburg Pike. Figure 2.1-7 shows the three western terminus design options. Additional Engineering Requirements This alternative would require superstructure and substructure improvements to the bridge over Four Mile Run. At the eastern terminus, the streetcar would cross over the Pentagon City Metrorail Station; thus, the project would need to perform further construction analysis at this location. If implemented, the Skyline Central Plaza design option would require extensive deck rehabilitation and substructure reinforcement related to the proposed station stop location. In addition, the Skyline Route 7 design option would require retained fill along a portion of Leesburg Pike. Capital and Operating Cost Estimates The capital cost estimate for the Streetcar Build Alternative is contingent on the western terminus design option, but would range from $214-231 million in 2011 dollars and $242-261 million in 2015 dollars (midpoint of construction). Estimated operations and maintenance costs would range from $19.4-$25.5 million in 2011 dollars and $22.5-$29.6 million in 2016 dollars (Refer to Technical Memoranda on Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimates and Capital Cost Estimates in Volume II, Chapter 15).
May 2012 2-11 Figure 2.1-5: Streetcar Alignment and Background Bus Service Route Network
2-14 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 2.1-6: Streetcar Alignment and Facilities
May 2012 2-15 Figure 2.1-7: Western Terminus Design Options
2-16 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 2.1-3: Characteristics of Alternatives No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Streetcar Build Standard buses; Articulated Streetcars and standard Vehicle Fleet Type* Standard buses Standard buses buses on selected routes: buses 16G, 16H Total Vehicles per hour (peak): 39 44 44 44 Total Vehicles per hour (off-peak) 16 26 26 26 To Pentagon (peak) 15 15 15 15 To Pentagon (off-peak) 6 6 6 6 12 12 To Pentagon City (peak) 11 12 (10 articulated buses) (10 streetcar vehicles) 10 10 To Pentagon City (off-peak) 4 10 (10 articulated buses) (10 streetcar vehicles) 13 17 17 17 To Other Destinations (peak) (7 WMATA buses; (7 WMATA buses; (7 WMATA buses; (7 WMATA buses; 6 ART buses) 10 ART buses) 10 ART buses) 10 ART buses) 6 10 10 10 To Other Destinations (off-peak) (ART buses) (ART buses) (ART buses) (ART buses) Average Service Frequency 2-3 min peak; 2-3 min peak; Along Columbia Pike Same as TSM 1 Same as TSM 1 6 min off-peak 4 min off-peak 4 min peak; To Pentagon Same as No Build Same as No Build Same as No Build 10 min off-peak 5.5 min peak; 5 min peak; To Pentagon City Same as TSM 1 Same as TSM 1 15 min off-peak 6 min off-peak Off-vehicle payment and SmarTrip and cash: on- Fare collection Same as No Build validation; on-board Same as TSM 2 vehicle payment random inspections Stops located at most Consolidated stops located intersections, Transit Stops 1/4 to 1/2 mile apart Same as TSM 1 Same as TSM 1 approximately 1/8 mile along corridor apart Implementation of Super Stops Program Yes Yes Yes Yes Enhanced Stops not along Columbia Pike No No Yes Yes Boarding Areas Raised along Columbia Pike Same as No Build Raised along full alignment Same as TSM 2 Boarding and Alighting Front door boarding Same as No Build All door boarding Same as TSM 2 • Existing Site at Columbia Existing Site at Columbia Pike and Four Mile Run Park-and-Ride Facility Pike and Four Mile Run Same as No Build Drive Same as TSM 2 Drive • Jefferson Street Transit Center *Unless otherwise noted, peak-period vehicles are standard 35-foot or 40-foot buses.
May 2012 2-17 sensitive receptors, and property acquisition in the vicinity of the O&M 2.2 Streetcar Build Alternative Design Options facility. Design Option B would require 4.9 acres of right-of-way. No unique related to O&M Facilities engineering constraints were identified for the Pentagon City Site. In order to operate and maintain a streetcar system, an operations and Design Option C (NOVA via George Mason Drive) maintenance (O&M) facility is required for storage and maintenance of Design Option C proposed an O&M facility on the Northern Virginia Community streetcar vehicles and on-site control of system operations. At the onset of the College Campus (NOVA) via George Mason Drive from Skyline. This design current study, three locations for an O&M facility were identified. The three option proposed accessing the proposed O&M facility site via a portion of the locations for a possible Streetcar Build O&M facility yielded variations in the Skyline Condominiums property. During preliminary discussions, the Skyline alignment in order to reach the proposed sites. During the evaluation of these Condominium property owners stated that they opposed this design option and sites, an additional O&M site was presented for evaluation, yielding another use of their properties. Environmental concerns for this design option include design option. The four identified Streetcar Build Design Options are listed an adjacent private park, potential impacts to nearby water resources, and below and shown in Figure 2.2-1. noise impacts to minority and low-income populations. Design Option C would x Design Option A (North Tract) require 10.4 acres of right-of-way. Unique engineering constraints include a x Design Option B (Pentagon City) possible structural enclosure of tracks between the Skyline Condominiums and McDonalds and another structure across a stream to connect to Dawes Avenue. x Design Option C (Northern Virginia Community College (“NOVA”) via George Mason Drive) Design Option D (NOVA via Route 7) x Design Option D (NOVA via Route 7) Design Option D proposed the same O&M facility on the NOVA campus as These initial Streetcar Build Design Options were evaluated using the following Design Option C, via a different alignment along Route 7 from Skyline. Design factors: Option D would require slightly less right-of-way, then Design Option C at 10.1 acres. This design option would have the same issues as those described for x Ability to meet the stated purpose and need of the project; Design Option C. x Stakeholder feedback; Screening Results x Environmental constraints; x Right-of-Way needs; and Based primarily on stakeholder feedback, right-of-way needs, unique engineering constraints, and environmental concerns, initial Design Options A, x Engineering constraints. C and D were not advanced for further evaluation at this time. Design Option Each of the initial Streetcar Build Design Options was determined to meet the B is the initial Streetcar Build design option advancing for further evaluation in project’s purpose and need. The stakeholder feedback, environmental this AA/EA. constraints, and engineering constraints for each Streetcar Build Design Option are discussed below and summarized in Table 2.2-1. Design Option A (North Tract) Design Option A proposed an O&M facility at the North Tract site along Old Jefferson Davis Highway at the eastern end of the project and north of Crystal City. During preliminary discussions, the North Tract location property owners stated that they were unwilling to sell their property. Environmental concerns for this design option include the acquisition and displacement of one business, and the known hazardous waste sites documented in the vicinity of the site. Design Option A would require 5.3 acres of right-of-way. No unique engineering constraints were identified for the North Tract Site. Design Option B (Pentagon City) Design Option B proposed an O&M facility within a mixed-use development area, centrally located in Pentagon City. During preliminary discussions, the Pentagon City property owners expressed openness to the concept of an O&M facility at this location and interest in potential joint development of the site. Environmental concerns at this location include proximity to the historic Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O)/Alexandria Canal, potential noise impacts to nearby
2-18 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 2.2-1: Initial Streetcar Build Alternative Design Options
May 2012 2-19 Table 2.2-1: Initial Streetcar Build Alternative Design Option Screening Matrix Right-of-Way Needs Design Option Stakeholder Feedback Environmental Constraints Engineering Constraints (Total ROW) Status x Property acquisition Owner unwilling to sell Option A x Identified known hazardous Not advanced for property for use as an O&M None 5.3 acres (North Tract) waste sites in vicinity of further evaluation Facility O&M facility Option B Discussions with property x Historic C&O Canal near Advanced for further (Pentagon owners and Arlington proposed O&M facility None 4.9 acres evaluation City) County x Potential noise impacts x Private park near proposed x Possible structural alignment enclosure of tracks Option C Opposition to design option x Potential noise impacts on between Skyline (NOVA via from nearby property Not advanced for minority and low-income Condominiums and 10.4 acres George Mason owners further evaluation populations McDonalds* Dr.) x Potential stream and x Structure across stream to wetland impacts Dawes Avenue x Private park near proposed x Possible structural alignment enclosure of tracks Opposition to design option x Potential noise impacts on between Skyline Option D NOVA Not advanced for from nearby property minority and low-income Condominiums and 10.1 acres via Rt. 7 further evaluation owners populations McDonalds* x Potential stream and x Structure across stream to wetland impacts Dawes Avenue *Contingent on selected western terminus design option
2-20 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I specific facilities, such as the Jefferson Street Transit Center, Traction Power Substations (TPSS), the O&M facility, and the Construction Staging and 3.0 Environmental Consequences Permanent Equipment Storage Site, a conservative footprint for each was This chapter evaluates the effects on the human and natural environment that used. A list of all data sources used to conduct analysis for Chapter 3 can be could result from implementation of the alternatives presented in Chapter 2. found in the References section, located in the beginning of the document. The evaluation presented focuses on those resources that were identified as Technical memoranda have been prepared for resource areas where being affected. appropriate, and are included in Volume II. Resource Areas Evaluating Impacts and Identifying Minimization and Mitigation Measures The following resources were found to be affected and are described herein: This AA/EA assumes that projects included as part of the No Build Alternative have been cleared through separate environmental analysis and any effects x Transportation associated with those projects included under the No Build Alternative are the x Land Use, Zoning and Consistency with Local Plans responsibility of the implementing party. The No Build Alternative includes a x Land Acquisitions potential land swap between Arlington County and the Department of Defense x Neighborhood and Community Facilities (DOD), which would lead to realignment of Columbia Pike near Joyce Street x Environmental Justice Communities (see Figure 2.1-2). x Economic Development x Visual and Aesthetic Conditions Should the land swap with the Department of Defense (DOD) occur and x Cultural Resources Columbia Pike be realigned at Joyce Street, all alternatives would follow the realigned roadway. However, there would be no distinguishable effects on x Parklands resource areas as a result of the alternatives operating along the realigned x Air Quality roadway, except for transportation effects, visual and aesthetic conditions, x 1 Noise and Vibration and cultural resources. x Water Resources x Contaminated Materials For adverse impacts identified under the TSM 1, TSM 2, and Streetcar Build x Safety Alternatives, minimization and mitigation measures are proposed. As planning x Secondary and Cumulative Effects for the project progresses and a locally preferred alternative is identified, x Construction Impacts and Potential Permits specific minimization and mitigation measures will be coordinated with the overseeing regulatory agency. A summary of the environmental resources For those resources below that were found not to be in the study corridor or affected is presented in Table 3.0-1. As reflected in Table 3.0-1, there are no for which there would be no effect or negligible effects, no detailed effects associated with any of the alternatives that are anticipated to be evaluation is presented: significant. Furthermore, all identified negative effects will be minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Table 3.16-1 lists the project x Energy commitments that would be implemented for each alternative, if selected as x Protected Species the Locally Preferred Alternative. Additional details are contained in the text x Geologic Resources following the table. Reference to the project corridor is provided in Figure x Wild and Scenic Rivers 1.1-1. x Navigable Waterways x Wetlands Data and Methodology The resource definitions, study corridor, and methodology used for evaluating impacts are discussed by resource, within the introduction of each section of this chapter. For some resources, the study corridor was designated as the area within a ¼ mile from either side of the centerline of the proposed transit alignment. Other analyses to assess potential physical impacts were limited to where permanent infrastructure would be located or construction activities would take place. Such potential impacts were accounted for within 100 feet of either side of the centerline of the existing roadway alignment or within an 1 otherwise defined area of potential effect. To assess impacts associated with See Section 3.1 Transportation Effects, Section 3.7 Visual and Aesthetic Conditions, and Section 3.8 Cultural Resources.
May 2012 3-1 Table 3.0-1: Identified Potential Effects Summary2 Potential Effects Resource No Build TSM 1 Alternative TSM 2 Alternative Streetcar Build Alternative x Total transit capacity (2016, x Total transit capacity (2016, x Total transit capacity (2016, x Total transit capacity (2016, 2030 in the peak hour, peak 2030 in the peak hour, peak 2030 in the peak hour, peak 2030 in the peak hour, peak direction): 1,974. direction): 2,073. direction): 2,654. direction): 2,802. x Average weekday ridership x Average weekday ridership x Average weekday ridership x Average weekday ridership (Metrobus and ART): 17,800 (Metrobus and ART): 21,700 (Metrobus and ART): 25,100 (Metrobus/Streetcar and ART): 3.1.2 (2016); 20,700 (2030). (2016); 25,000 (2030). (2016); 28,900 (2030). 26,200 (2016); 30,500 (2030). Transit 3 x Transit Travel Time: 29 min. x Transit travel time: 26 min. x Transit travel time: 23 min. x Transit travel time: 23 min. Operations (2016); 30 min. (2030). (2016); 28 min. (2030). (2016); 25 min. (2030). (2016); 23 min. (2030). x Service reliability: 19-25% of x Service reliability: 23-29% of x Service reliability: 16-24% of x Service reliability: 14-21% of transit vehicles bunched in transit vehicles bunched in transit vehicles bunched in vehicles bunched in 2016 and 2016 and 18-28% of transit 2016 and 20-26% of transit 2016 and 14-21% of vehicles 17-22% of vehicles bunched in vehicles bunched in 2030. vehicles bunched in 2030. bunched in 2030. 2030. x No LOS change at most x No LOS change at most x No LOS change at most x No LOS change at most intersections. intersections; LOS improvement intersections; LOS improvement intersections; LOS improvement at some intersections. at some intersections. at some intersections. x LOS change from D to E at two x LOS change from D to E at two x LOS change from D to E at two x LOS change from D to E at intersections. intersections. intersections. three intersections. 3.1.3 x Effects on street network due x No effects on street network. x No effects on street network. x Effects on street network, Traffic to Columbia Pike Multimodal including: vertical Operations project, including new realignments, elimination and medians, turn lanes, signs, and reconfigurations of left turn streetscape improvements. lanes, and addition of transit- only phases to accommodate streetcar.
2 This table summarizes identified potential impacts associated with the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative project (“project”), which proposes transit improvements along the Columbia Pike corridor. This table is a reference; refer to the Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment for detailed description of alternatives and impacts. Any determinations based on capital costs are subject to change. 3 All definitions associated with transit operations, including total transit capacity, ridership, travel time, service, reliability, and bus bunching, are provided in Section 3.1.
3-2 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Potential Effects Resource No Build TSM 1 Alternative TSM 2 Alternative Streetcar Build Alternative x Effects on parking, including x No effects on parking x Effects on parking, including x Effects on parking, including addition of on-street parking x No effects on driveways/access the displacement of 40-50 on- the displacement of 40-50 on- along Columbia Pike between points. street parking spaces in street parking spaces in Frederick and Jefferson Pentagon City. Pentagon City. Streets. Parking conditions x Net loss of 120-220 parking x Net loss of 120-220 parking along Columbia Pike are spaces near the Jefferson spaces near the Jefferson comparable to existing Street Transit Center. Street Transit Center. 3.1.4 conditions. x No effects on driveways or x Displacement of 15-20 spots at Parking and x Closure of several existing access points. Skyline (only associated with Building access points along Columbia the Skyline Central Plaza design Access Pike, due to Columbia Pike option) Multimodal Project and the x Potential closure and relocation construction of Super Stops. of an existing service driveway along South Jefferson Street, and modification of left-turn access to uses along Joyce Street. x Improvements to pedestrian x No effects on pedestrian or x No effects on pedestrian or x Improvements to pedestrian facilities, including new bicycle facilities. bicycle facilities. facilities, including mid-block signage, improved crossings, crossings to accommodate pedestrian-only signal phase, pedestrians at median stops on shared use paths, and a denser, Jefferson and Joyce streets. 3.1.5 more interconnected street x Potential effects on cyclists as Bicycle and network in Pentagon City and a result of streetcar tracks. Pedestrian near Baileys Crossroads. Conditions x Improvements to bicycle facilities, including additional bike paths and sharrows along and adjacent to Columbia Pike, bicycle racks at transit stops and enhanced signage.
May 2012 3-3 Potential Effects Resource No Build TSM 1 Alternative TSM 2 Alternative Streetcar Build Alternative x Committed transportation x No conversion of land uses or x Jefferson Street Transit Center x Jefferson Street Transit Center projects to document effects required re-zoning. an allowable land use requiring an allowable land use requiring on land uses and zoning. special exception. special exception. x Not consistent with local plans x Not consistent with local plans x Consistent with local plans that x Consistent with local plans that that include enhanced transit that include enhanced transit include enhanced transit include enhanced transit service. service. service. service. x TPSS locations to require access 3.2 easements; allowable land uses Land Use, requiring special exception. Zoning, and x Construction Staging and Consistency Permanent Equipment Storage with Local Plans Site an allowable land use but would require re-zoning. x O&M facility as part of mixed- use building an allowable land use but would require re- zoning.
3.3 x Minor land x No land acquisitions. x Minimal land x Minor land Land acquisitions/easements. acquisitions/easements. acquisitions/easements. Acquisitions x No isolation of neighborhoods x No isolation of neighborhoods x No isolation of neighborhoods x No isolation of neighborhoods 3.4 through the creation of through the creation of through the creation of through the creation of Neighborhoods barriers. barriers. barriers. barriers. and Community x No restriction of access or x No restriction of access or x No restriction of access or x No restriction of access or Facilities direct impact to community direct impact to community direct impact to community direct impact to community facilities. facilities. facilities. facilities. 3.5 x No disproportionate adverse x No disproportionate adverse x No disproportionate adverse x No disproportionate adverse Environmental effects on minority and/or low- effects on minority and/or low- effects on minority and/or low- effects on minority and/or low- Justice income communities. income communities. income communities. income communities. Communities
3-4 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Potential Effects Resource No Build TSM 1 Alternative TSM 2 Alternative Streetcar Build Alternative x No construction jobs or x 8 person-year construction jobs x 380 person-year construction x 2,314 to 2,571 person-year earnings. ($343,000 earnings). jobs ($16.9M earnings). construction jobs ($105M to $117M earnings). x 369 person-year operations jobs x 439 person-year operations jobs x 425 person-year operations jobs x 482 person-year operations jobs ($10.1M earnings). ($14.0M earnings). ($13.6M earnings). ($15.4 M earnings). x No travel cost savings. x Yearly travel cost savings: x Yearly travel cost savings: x Yearly travel cost savings: $0.34M. $0.73M. $0.92M. x No travel time savings. x Yearly value of travel time x Yearly value of travel time x Yearly value of travel time 3.6 savings: $2.2M. savings: $4.5M. savings: $5.1M. Economic x No change in property values. x No change in property values. x Potential minor increase in x Projected property Development property values. appreciation of 4% ($84M to $95M increased assessed value). x Projects sustain the economic x Limited potential to attract x Some potential to attract new x Greatest potential to attract vitality of the corridor, but not new development or increase development and increase pace new development and increase expected to attract new pace of corridor investment of corridor investment. pace of corridor investment. development or increase pace of redevelopment. x Projects result in changes to x Minor changes in visual x Changes in visual character x Changes in visual character visual character of corridor. elements related to related to new transit stops, related to new transit stops, consolidation of transit stops. the Jefferson Street Transit Jefferson Street Transit Center, x Changes consistent with x Changes consistent with Center, and the use of modern streetcar vehicles, 3.7 existing visual character. existing visual character. articulated buses. streetcar tracks and overhead Visual and x Design of proposed facilities to wire, O&M facility, TPSSs, and Aesthetic be consistent with existing Construction Staging and Conditions visual character. Permanent Equipment Storage Site. x Design of proposed facilities to be consistent with existing visual character. x Potential impacts to x Potential impacts to one x Potential impacts to one x Potential impacts to 16 archaeologically sensitive areas archaeologically sensitive area. archaeologically sensitive area. archaeologically sensitive associated with the committed areas. transportation improvements. x Potential to encounter 3.8 archaeological deposits Cultural associated with historic Resources Columbia Pike turnpike. x Potential direct adverse effect on NR Listed Boundary Marker SW6 at Jefferson Street. x No effects on parklands. x No effects on parklands. x No effects on parklands. x Temporary effects to Four Mile 3.9 Run Trail, Glencarlyn Park, and Parklands the W&OD Railroad Regional Park.
May 2012 3-5 Potential Effects Resource No Build TSM 1 Alternative TSM 2 Alternative Streetcar Build Alternative x No exceedances of NAAQS x No exceedances of NAAQS x No exceedances of NAAQS x No exceedances of NAAQS 3.10 standards. standards. standards. standards. Air Quality x Conformity with the State Implementation Plan. x No exceedances of FTA noise or x No exceedances of FTA noise or x No exceedances of FTA noise or x FTA “moderate” noise impacts 3.11 vibration impact criteria. vibration impact criteria. vibration impact criteria. at three residential buildings Noise and and one office building. Vibration x No exceedances of FTA vibration impact criteria. x Minimal increase in impervious x No increase in impervious x Minimal increase in impervious x Minor increase in impervious 3.12 surface. surface. surface. surface. Water Resources x No direct impacts to water x No direct impacts to water x No direct impacts to water x Minor impact on Four Mile Run resources. resources. resources. and associated floodplain. 3.13 x Potential direct impacts to x No potential impacts to REC x Potential direct impacts to REC x Potential direct impacts to REC Contaminated Recognized Environmental sites. sites. sites. Materials Condition (REC) sites. x No notable secondary effects. x No notable secondary effects. x No notable secondary effects. x Beneficial and adverse x Cumulative Effects include x Cumulative Effects may result x Cumulative Effects include secondary effects related to 3.14 ROW/land acquisition, water from improved mobility along ROW/land acquisitions, corridor growth and Secondary and resources, transportation. the corridor. transportation. development. Cumulative x Cumulative Effects include Impacts ROW/land acquisitions, water resources, and transportation. x Improved personal security for x Improved personal security for x Improved personal security for x Improved personal security for travelers due to Super Stops. travelers due to Super Stops. travelers due to additional travelers due to additional Super Stops. Super Stops. x Improved ADA accessibility due x Improved ADA accessibility due x Improved ADA accessibility due x Improved ADA accessibility due to Super Stops. to Super Stops. to additional Super Stops. to additional Super Stops, and x Traffic, pedestrian, bicycle x Traffic, pedestrian, bicycle x Traffic, pedestrian, bicycle wider doors and wheelchair facilities improved over current conditions similar to No Build. conditions similar to No Build. ramps associated with streetcar 3.15 conditions. x Improved emergency x Improved emergency vehicles. Safety x Improved emergency communications at Super Stops. communications at additional x Traffic, pedestrian, bicycle communications at Super Stops. Super Stops. conditions changed with in- street tracks and median Super Stops. x Improved emergency communications at additional Super Stops.
3-6 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Potential Effects Resource No Build TSM 1 Alternative TSM 2 Alternative Streetcar Build Alternative x Temporary construction effects x Minor temporary construction x Temporary construction effects x Temporary construction effects as a result of various effects as a result of bus stop due to additional Super Stops due to additional Super Stops, transportation improvement consolidation. and Jefferson Street Transit Jefferson Street Transit Center, projects. Center: regrading of Jefferson Street, í Construction noise and streetcar tracks and overhead vibration wire, O&M facility, TPSSs, and í Air Quality Construction Staging and í Temporary effects on Permanent Equipment Storage water quality Site: í Temporary lane closures í Construction noise and 3.16 í Temporary sidewalk vibration Construction closures í Air Quality Impacts í Temporary utility í Temporary effects on service interruptions water quality í Temporary effects on í Temporary lane closures businesses í Temporary sidewalk closures í Utility relocations and temporary service interruptions í Temporary effects on businesses
May 2012 3-7 3.1 Transportation Effects 3.1.2 Transit Operations For each alternative, a number of transit characteristics are described in 3.1.1 Introduction Section 2.2 and summarized in Table 2.1-3 including service frequency, This section discusses existing and future transportation conditions in the routing, vehicle type, stop location and design, fare payment, park-and-ride corridor and assesses the potential transportation effects of the No Build, facilities, and operations and maintenance facilities. These characteristics TSM, and Streetcar Build Alternatives. Areas of transportation service and influence user experience as well as provide key measures of transit performance evaluated include: effectiveness and efficiency. These transit measures of effectiveness include: x Transit operations and services, including routes, hours of service, x Ridership service frequency, vehicle types, stop locations, fare payment type, x Transit Capacity travel times, ridership, passenger loads, and total transit capacity; x Transit Travel Time x Roadway network characteristics, including streets, lane x Service Reliability configuration, and intersection levels of service; x Conditions for bicycles and pedestrians; and Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 summarize key transit operations indicators by alternative in 2016 and 2030. Indicators include: x Parking and private driveway access. The analysis of the changes relative to existing conditions relies on computer x Average weekday ridership: The total number of persons using simulation models and analysis of transit schedules, run times, service transit service along the corridor in a single day. frequencies, bus volumes, and ridership. Findings for the project opening year x Transit capacity: The maximum number of persons that can be (2016) and the project horizon year (2030) are provided. For purposes of this transported past a point in the peak hour and in the peak direction by analysis, the am peak period is from 6:00 am to 9:00 am, with the heaviest the Metrobus and ART lines that serve the corridor. For this study, volumes traveling in the eastbound direction; and the pm peak period is from the peak capacity point is along Columbia Pike between George 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm, with the heaviest volumes traveling in the westbound Mason Drive and Glebe Road. direction. For performance measures related to roadway network x Volume-to-capacity ratio: A ratio of passenger volume over transit characteristics, such as level of service, the model assumed the am peak hour line capacity that reflects how well the Metrobus 16 lines are being is from 7:30 am to 8:30 am and the pm peak hour is from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm. utilized in the peak hour and in the peak direction for this project. For specific analysis methodologies, detailed existing conditions information, This indicator is also known as capacity utilization or load factor. and transit operation term definitions, please refer to the Transportation Higher values are associated with high levels of utilization. However, Technical Memorandum in Volume II. as the ratio approaches a value of 1, the more crowded vehicles become, which lowers rider comfort. A ratio of less than 0.8 still The corridor is served by Arlington Transit (ART) and Metrobus lines with reflects a comfortable standing load, assuming loads are distributed connections to the WMATA Metrorail system. These transit services provide evenly across all buses during the peak travel period. access to regional employment and activity centers, including downtown x Travel time: The travel time of a transit vehicle running on lines 16G Washington, Pentagon City, the Pentagon, Skyline, and the Rosslyn-Ballston and 16H in the am peak period and in the peak direction (eastbound) corridor in Arlington. from Jefferson Street to Pentagon City. x Transit vehicle bus bunching: An indicator of service reliability expressed as the percentage of the maximum number of possible transit vehicle bunching occurrences. These bunching occurrences are measured at every transit stop throughout the AM peak hour for all routes along Columbia Pike in the eastbound direction. For purposes of this study, “bunching” occurs when two transit vehicles arrive at a given stop within 30 seconds of each other. This metric is further discussed in the Transportation Memorandum in Volume II (p. 3-8).
3-8 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 3.1-1: Comparison of Key Transit Operations Indicators (2016) No Build Alternative Streetcar The No Build Alternative transit network is comparable to the current network No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Build in terms of the routes in service, service frequencies, and other network Ridership characteristics. The No Build Alternative continues to use standard buses, with Average weekday ridership passenger loading through the front door using SmarTrip and cash payment on- 12,500 16,300 19,500 20,500 (Metrobus/Streetcar only) board. Average weekday ridership 17,800 21,700 25,100 26,200 The No Build Alternative assumes that transit service uses existing stop (ART buses included) locations; it also assumes full implementation of the Arlington County Super Capacity Stops program at selected locations along Columbia Pike. The Super Stops Transit capacity (peak hour, include substantial boarding areas and passenger shelters and sufficient space peak direction, at peak- 1,974 2,073 2,654 2,802 to accommodate two buses simultaneously. The No Build Alternative Route capacity point) Network is shown in Figure 3.1-1. Volume-to-capacity ratio 0.61 0.66 0.65 0.62 Ridership and Capacity: Total average weekday ridership for the No Build (peak hour, peak direction) Alternative is forecasted to be 17,800 riders in 2016 and 20,700 riders in 2030. Transit Travel Time Total peak hour capacity is 1,974 passengers in 2016 and 2030. Travel time, Jefferson Street In the 2016 am peak hour, the volume-to-capacity ratio would be 0.61. In the to Pentagon City (am peak 29 min. 26 min. 23 min. 22 min. 2030 am peak hour, the volume-to-capacity ratio would be 0.67. This volume- hour, peak direction) to-capacity ratio reflects a comfortable standing load, assuming loads are Service Reliability distributed evenly across all buses during the peak travel period. Transit Vehicle Bunching (peak hour, averaged, peak 19-25% 23-29% 16-24% 14-21% Transit Travel Times and Service Reliability: Transit travel times for the No direction) Build Alternative average about 28 and 30 minutes from Jefferson Street to Pentagon City in the am peak period in 2016 and 2030, respectively. Table 3.1-2: Comparison of Key Transit Operations Indicators (2030) Should the land swap with the Department of Defense (DOD) occur and Streetcar Columbia Pike be realigned at Joyce Street, the No Build Alternative would No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Build follow the realignment; there is about a one minute improvement in corridor Ridership travel time associated with the realignment. Average weekday ridership 13,800 18,100 21,800 23,400 (Metrobus/Streetcar only) With regard to service reliability, the No Build Alternative is more susceptible to bus bunching compared with the other alternatives. The model found that Average weekday ridership 20,700 25,000 28,900 30,500 19 to 25 percent of all transit vehicles (all Metrobus and ART lines that serve (ART buses included) the corridor) bunched within an hour in the 2016 am peak-hour and 18 to 28 Capacity percent bunched within an hour in the 2030 am peak-hour. This bunching is Transit capacity (peak hour, most likely due to closely scheduled headways of buses, combined with effects peak direction, at peak- 1,974 2,073 2,654 2,802 of traffic congestion. capacity point) Volume-to-capacity ratio 0.67 0.72 0.73 0.74 (peak hour, peak direction) Transit Travel Time Travel time, Jefferson Street to Pentagon City (am peak- 30 min. 28 min. 25 min. 23 min. period, peak direction) Service Reliability Transit Vehicle Bunching (peak-hour, averaged, peak 18-28% 20-26% 14-21% 17-22% direction)
May 2012 3-9 Figure 3.1-1: No Build Alternative Route Network
3-10 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I TSM 1 Alternative – Enhanced Bus ART lines that serve the corridor) bunched within an hour in the 2016 am peak-hour and 20 to 26 percent bunched within an hour in the 2030 am peak- In addition to the features included with the No Build Alternative, the TSM 1 hour. This bunching is most likely due to closely scheduled headways of buses, Alternative includes: combined with effects of traffic congestion. x An adjusted bus network to enhance service along Columbia Pike TSM 2 Alternative- Articulated Bus between Skyline and Pentagon City; and In addition to the features described for the TSM 1 Alternative, the TSM 2 x Consolidated transit stops. Alternative includes: The TSM 1 Alternative includes a number of enhancements that would focus x Use of articulated buses combined with standard buses to increase service on high-density development along the corridor. It features an available capacity; adjusted bus network which enhances service along Columbia Pike between Skyline and Pentagon City. In particular, the 16G would run from Skyline to x Additional enhanced transit stops, in keeping with the Arlington Pentagon City. This modification would remove the 16G from the Columbia County Super Stops, along the western and eastern ends of the Heights West area of Arlington, which is currently served by the 16G and the alignment; ART 41. ART 41 service would be increased throughout the day to offset the x Off-board fare payment on all transit buses, with random on-board service lost from the rerouting of the 16G. The TSM 1 Alternative alignment is fare validation; shown together with the TSM 2 Alternative and Streetcar Build Alternative x Multi-door loading and alighting; and the alignments in Figure 3.1-2. x Addition of the Jefferson Street Transit Center. The TSM 1 Alternative continues to use standard buses, with passenger loading Ridership and Capacity: The TSM 2 Alternative would result in increased through the front door using SmarTrip and cash payment on-board. The TSM 1 transit capacity for riders in the corridor and an increase in forecasted Alternative includes consolidated stops, and assumes full implementation of ridership. Ridership is forecasted to increase by about 40 percent over the No the Super Stops program along Columbia Pike. Build Alternative in both 2016 and 2030. Due to the deployment of articulated buses on key routes, the total peak-hour capacity would increase by about 34 Ridership and Capacity: Total peak hour capacity on Columbia Pike between percent over the No Build Alternative in both 2016 and 2030. George Mason Drive and Glebe Road would be slightly greater than the No Build Alternative due to one additional bus per hour. Average weekday In the 2016 am peak hour the volume-to-capacity ratio would be 0.65, and in ridership, including ART and Metrobus lines, is forecasted to increase about 20 2030 am peak hour the volume-to-capacity ratio would be 0.73, which is percent over the No Build Alternative in 2016 and 2030. slightly higher relative to the No Build Alternative. The higher ridership would generally offset the increased capacity, resulting in higher passenger loads per In the 2016 and 2030 am peak hour, the volume-to-capacity ratio would vehicle than in the No Build Alternative. slightly increase over the No Build Alternative. The data in Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show that ridership and associated passenger loads in the corridor would Transit Travel Times and Service Reliability: 2016 and 2030 am peak-period increase slightly with the TSM 1 Alternative relative to the No Build eastbound transit travel times would improve by an average of five minutes Alternative. The slight increase in passenger loads contributes to the slightly (about 17 percent) over the No Build Alternative. This travel time higher volume-to-capacity ratio, but this ratio still reflects a comfortable improvement is mainly due to the introduction of off-board fare payment and standing load, on average. multi-door loading and alighting, decreasing dwell time. Transit Travel Times and Service Reliability: 2016 and 2030 am peak-period Should the land swap with DOD occur and Columbia Pike be realigned at Joyce eastbound transit travel times would improve by about two minutes (about 7 Street, the TSM 2 Alternative would follow the realignment; there is about a percent) when compared to the No Build Alternative. Travel time savings one minute improvement in corridor travel time associated with the result primarily from the consolidation of stops along the corridor. realignment. Should the land swap with DOD occur and Columbia Pike be realigned at Joyce The factors described above that decrease dwell time would also lessen the Street, the TSM 1 Alternative would follow the realignment; there is about a potential opportunities for buses to lag behind schedule, thus reducing the one minute improvement in corridor travel time associated with the potential for bus bunching and increasing service reliability. The model found realignment. that 16 to 24 percent of transit vehicles (all Metrobus and ART lines that serve the corridor) bunched within an hour in the 2016 am peak-hour and 14 to 21 Implementation of the TSM 1 Alternative would slightly improve transit percent could bunch within an hour in the 2030 am peak-hour. This bunching is reliability, as measured by bus bunching, relative to the No Build Alternative. most likely due to closely scheduled headways of buses, combined with effects The model found that 23 to 29 percent of transit vehicles (all Metrobus and of traffic congestion.
May 2012 3-11 Figure 3.1-2: TSM and Streetcar Build Alternatives Alignments
3-12 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Streetcar Build Alternative lines that serve the corridor) bunched within an hour in the 2016 am peak- The Streetcar Build Alternative includes: hour and 17 to 22 percent of transit vehicles bunched within an hour in the 2030 am peak-hour. This bunching is most likely due to closely scheduled x Use of modern streetcars combined with standard buses to increase headways of buses, combined with effects of traffic congestion. available transit capacity along the corridor (streetcar service would replace Metrobus 16G and 16H); 3.1.3 Traffic Operations x Addition of a Metrobus 16J(PC) to increase service frequency to This section provides information on planned changes to the street network, Pentagon City (assumes WMATA 40-foot standard bus) such as new medians, street extensions, street realignments, and new turn x Additional enhanced transit stops, in keeping with the Arlington lanes as well as the changes in intersection performance. For the purpose of County Super Stops, along the western and eastern ends of the this analysis, corridor intersection performance is measured based on alignment; intersection level of service (LOS), which in turn, is based on the average x Off-board fare payment on all transit buses, with random on-board stopped delay per vehicle at intersections. Table 3.1-3 defines LOS based on fare validation; observed delay per vehicle. Figure 3.1-3 shows studied intersections along x Multi-door loading and alighting; and the the proposed alignment and Table 3.1-4 provides a summary of the LOS in x Addition of the Jefferson Street Transit Center. 2016 and 2030 am and pm peak hours for the respective intersections. Ridership and Capacity: Total daily ridership on Columbia Pike services is Arlington County’s goal is to maintain an overall LOS D or better at its forecasted to increase by 47 percent over the No Build Alternative. The intersections during peak periods. Fairfax County’s goal is to maintain an Streetcar Build Alternative would result in increased transit capacity for riders overall LOS D or better at intersections and roadway segments along Leesburg in the corridor, mainly due to the use of higher-capacity streetcar vehicles. Pike and a LOS E or better throughout the rest of the Baileys Crossroads Total peak hour capacity of the Streetcar Build Alternative would increase by Community Business Center. Most of the corridor intersections considered in 42 percent over the No Build Alternative. this analysis operate with a LOS D or better during the morning and afternoon peak periods in both 2016 and 2030. This section highlights only those In the 2016 am peak hour, the volume-to-capacity ratio would be 0.62. In the intersections that would experience changes from LOS D to LOS E due to the 2030 am peak hour, the volume-to-capacity ratio would be 0.74. This volume- transit alternatives, while a complete discussion of LOS results is available in to-capacity ratio still reflects a comfortable standing load. the Transportation Technical Memorandum. The observed delay (seconds per Transit Travel Times and Service Reliability: 2016 am peak period vehicle) is also provided for intersections that experience a change from LOS D eastbound transit travel times would improve by approximately six minutes to LOS E. (about 22 percent) relative to the No Build Alternative. In 2030, am peak- Table 3.1-3: Relationship between Delay/Vehicle and Intersection LOS period eastbound transit travel times would improve by about seven minutes Delay Per Vehicle (seconds) Level of Service (LOS) when compared to the No Build Alternative. This travel time improvement is 10 A mainly due to the introduction of off-board fare payment and multi-door > 10 - 20 B loading and alighting, decreasing dwell time. > 20 - 35 C Should the land swap with DOD occur and Columbia Pike be realigned at Joyce > 35 - 55 D Street, the Streetcar Build Alternative would follow the realignment; there is > 55 - 80 E about a one minute improvement in corridor travel time associated with the > 80 F realignment. Source: Highway Capacity Manual The factors described above that decrease dwell time would also lessen the potential opportunities for transit vehicles to lag behind schedule, thus reducing the potential for bunching and increasing service reliability. The model found that 14 to 21 percent of transit vehicles (all Metrobus and ART
May 2012 3-13 Figure 3.1-3: Level of Service: Study Intersections
3-14 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 3.1-4: Level of Service 2016 A M Peak - Hour 2030 A M Pe ak -Hour 2016 PM Peak Hour 2030 PM Peak Ho ur No No No No Node Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Build Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Build Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Build Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Build No. Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS 1 Rt7 & Jefferson CCCDCCCDDDDDEEEE 2 Jefferson & Plaza BBBCBBBCCCCDDDDE 3 Columbia Pike & Jefferson B B B B B B B B C B B B B B B B 4 Columbia Pike & Greenbrier C C C C C C C C C D D D C D D D 5 Columbia Pike & Columbus C C C C C C C B B B B B B B B C 6 Columbia Pike & Four Mile Run B B B B B B B B B C B B B C B C 7 Columbia Pike & Buchanan B B B B C B B B C C B C C C C C 8 Columbia Pike & Wakefield B B B B B B B B B B B B C C B C 9 Columbia Pike & Thomas C C C C C C C C A A A A A B A A 10 Columbia Pike & Taylor AAAAAABAAAAAAAAA 11 Columbia Pike & George Mason D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 12 Columbia Pike & Quincy CBBBCBBBBBBBCBBB 13 Columbia Pike & Oakland A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 14 Columbia Pike & Monroe C C C C C D D C B B B B C B B B 15 Columbia Pike & Glebe DDDDDEDDDEEEDEEE 16 Columbia Pike & Highland A A A A A A A A A C C C B C C C 17 Columbia Pike & Walter Reed D D D D D D D D D E E D E E E D 18 Columbia Pike & Barton BBBBBBBBBBBBBBCC 19 Columbia Pike & Wayne AAAAAAAAAAAAABBB 20 Columbia Pike & Courthouse C C C C C C C C B C C C C B C C 21 Columbia Pike & Scott AAAAAAAAAAAAABBB 22 Columbia Pike & Rolfe AAAAAAAAAAAAABAA 23 C o lumbia Pik e & O r me BBBBBBBBBBBBCBCC 24 Columbia Pike & Navy Annex A A A A A A A A B A A A B B A A 25 Columbia Pike & Joyce BBBCBBBCDDDDDBDD 26 Joyce & Army Navy CCBCCCCCCCCDCBCD 27 Army Navy & Garage BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBC 28 Army Navy & Hayes CCCCDDDDDDDDDBDE 29 Hayes & 12th BBBBBBABCCCCCBCC 30 Fern & 12th BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBC 31 Eads & 12th BBBBBBBBBBBBBBCB
Level of Service Change from the No Build Alternative: *Note: The LOS data provided assumes the worst LOS among the Streetcar Build design options. Delay increases by one level Delay increases by two levels
May 2012 3-15 No Build Alternative o 9 second increase in delay (2016 pm peak hour); and Street Network: The No Build Alternative includes improvements under the o 14 second increase in delay (2030 pm peak hour). Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvements Project (“Multimodal Project”) Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): Compared to the No Build which are required to accommodate a standard cross-section for Columbia Alternative, the average weekday VMT is reduced by 5,700 miles in 2016 and Pike. These include new medians, turn lanes, signals, and streetscape 6,300 miles in 2030, respectively. improvements. In addition, the No Build Alternative includes: TSM 2 Alternative x The addition of a second left turn lane from eastbound Leesburg Pike Street Network: There are no changes in the project area street network onto northbound Jefferson Street (assumed in 2030); between the No Build and the TSM 2 Alternatives. x Realignment of Buchanan Street at Columbia Pike; x Replacement of the Washington Boulevard Interchange; Intersection Performance: Intersection performance in the TSM 2 Alternative x Extension of 12th Street South between Fern Street and Eads Street would see slight changes. LOS at most intersections would not change, and to include two travel lanes in either direction; some would see improvement. One intersection in the 2016 pm peak hour x Realignment of Jefferson Street at Columbia Pike (pending Arlington would decrease in performance from LOS A to LOS C (delays would increase by County land exchange with the US Department of Defense); and 17 seconds). The intersection of Jefferson Street and Leesburg Pike would x Elimination of an eastbound through-lane along Army Navy Drive and continue to operate at LOS E in the 2030 pm peak-hour. In addition, the a slight roadway shift to the north. following intersections would see a decrease in performance from LOS D to LOS E: Intersection Performance: In the 2016 am peak-hour; all intersections would operate at LOS D or better, while one intersection would operate at LOS E in x Columbia Pike and Glebe Road the 2016 pm peak-hour. In the 2030 am peak-hour, all intersections would o 8 second increase in delay (2016 pm peak-hour); and operate at LOS D or better. However, in the 2030 pm peak-hour, two o 7 second increase in delay (2030 pm peak-hour). intersections would operate at LOS E: x Columbia Pike and Walter Reed Drive o 10 second increase in delay (2016 pm peak-hour). x Jefferson Street and Leesburg Pike (57 second delay, 2030 pm peak- hour) Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): Compared to the No Build x Columbia Pike and Walter Reed Drive (55 second delay, 2030 pm Alternative, the average weekday VMT is reduced by 13,700 miles in 2016 and peak-hour) 15,200 miles in 2030, respectively. Streetcar Build Alternative Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): In 2016, the VMT on an average Street Network: Under the Streetcar Build Alternative, several changes to weekday would be approximately 141,000,000 miles, while in 2030, the VMT on an average weekday would be approximately 160,000,000 miles. the roadway network and signal system would be implemented in order to accommodate streetcar service. The following intersections or areas would be TSM 1 Alternative affected: Street Network: There are no changes in the project area street network x South Jefferson Street and Columbia Pike; between the No Build Alternative and the TSM 1 Alternative. x Columbia Pike between Jefferson Street and Greenbrier Street; Intersection Performance: Intersection performance in the TSM 1 Alternative x Columbia Pike and Greenbrier Street; would be slightly affected by increased bus dwell time at stops due to x Joyce Street between Columbia Pike and I-395; increased transit ridership compared to the No Build Alternative. LOS at most x Joyce Street and Army Navy Drive; and intersections would not change. The intersection of Jefferson Street and x The area around Hayes and 12th Streets. Leesburg Pike would continue to operate at LOS E in the 2030 pm peak-hour. The following intersections would see a decrease in intersection performance Intersection Performance: Intersection performance in the Streetcar Build from LOS D to LOS E: Alternative would see slight changes relative to the No Build Alternative. The LOS at most intersections would not change, and some would see x Columbia Pike and Glebe Road improvement. In both the 2016 and 2030 am peak-hour, only one intersection o 8 second increase in delay (2016 pm peak hour); would see a delay increase by more than 10 seconds. The intersection of o 8 second increase in delay (2030 pm peak hour); and Jefferson Street and Leesburg Pike would continue to operate at LOS E in the o 9 second increase in delay (2030 am peak hour). 2030 pm peak-hour. For purposes of this discussion, the LOS data provided x Columbia Pike and Walter Reed Drive
3-16 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I assumes the worst LOS among the Streetcar Build design options. The Private Driveways and Access Points: No impacts on private driveways and following intersections would decrease in performance from LOS D to LOS E: access points would occur as a result of the implementation of the TSM 1 Alternative. x Columbia Pike and Glebe Road o 6 second increase in delay (2016 pm peak-hour); and TSM 2 Alternative o 7 second increase in delay (2030 pm peak-hour). Parking: The improvements associated with the TSM 2 Alternative would x Jefferson Street & Leesburg Pike Plaza shopping center displace on-street parking (10 to 15 spaces) at one location along the corridor o 23 second increase in delay (2030 pm peak-hour). at the proposed Super Stop locations: along the north and south sides of 12th x Army Navy Drive & Hayes Street Street South between Hayes and Fern Streets. The TSM 2 Alternative would o 8 second increase in delay (2030 pm peak-hour). include the addition of a 200- to 300-space surface park-and-ride and bus transfer facility near the intersection of Jefferson Street and Leesburg Pike As noted above, by 2030, the Baileys Crossroads area is expected see an Plaza shopping center. At this location, 315 existing parking spaces would be increase in congestion under the No Build Alternative conditions. The converted for use as park-and-ride spaces and bus bays and result in a loss of intersection of Jefferson Street and the existing shopping centers would parking at the Bailey’s Crossroads shopping center as the proposed vehicle operate at LOS D in the No Build Alternative. Streetcar operation would cause parking at the Jefferson Street Transit Center would be designated for users of increased delay at this intersection from LOS D to LOS E under all three the transit system. However, the remaining parking at the shopping center Streetcar Build Alternative design options. However, this intersection would still provide parking for patrons of the shopping center. performance is still acceptable by Fairfax County’s intersection performance standards. Private Driveways and Access Points: No impacts on private driveways or access points would occur as a result of the TSM 2 Alternative. Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): Compared to the No Build Alternative, the average weekday VMT is reduced by 16,300 miles in 2016 and Streetcar Build Alternative 18,700 miles in 2030, respectively. Parking: The improvements associated with the Streetcar Build Alternative would displace on-street parking (40 to 50 spaces) along the north and south 3.1.4 Parking and Building Access sides of 12th Street South between Hayes and Fern Streets, and (20 to 30 The following section describes each alternative’s effect on parking as well as spaces) along southbound South Jefferson Street near the intersection of driveways and access points. Potential effects include the addition or removal Columbia Pike. If the Skyline Central Plaza design option is selected, (15-20) of on-street parking spaces as well as closures and relocations of driveways parking spaces in Skyline along the alignment would be displaced. and access points. The Streetcar Build Alternative also provides for the addition of a 200- to 300- No Build Alternative space surface park-and-ride and bus transfer facility adjacent to the Parking: The parking element of the No Build Alternative transportation intersection of Jefferson Street and Route 7. At this location, 315 existing network is comparable to current parking in the project area. There is some parking spaces would be converted for use as park-and-ride spaces and bus on-street parking along Columbia Pike, but most on-street parking is located bays and result in a loss of parking at the Bailey’s Crossroads shopping center on side streets. The No Build Alternative would also include the addition of as the proposed vehicle parking at the Jefferson Street Transit Center would some on-street parking along Columbia Pike between Jefferson and Frederick be designated for users of the transit system. However, the remaining parking Streets and between Taylor Street and Glebe Road as part of the Columbia at the shopping center would still provide parking for patrons of the shopping Pike Multimodal Project. On-street parking would also be included on both center. sides of the extension of 12th Street between Fern and South Eads Streets in Private Driveways and Access Points: Two access points would be impacted Pentagon City. under the Streetcar Build Alternative. These impacts are described below. Private Driveways and Access Points: The No Build Alternative would The vertical realignment of South Jefferson Street would result in closure and potentially require relocation or closure of several existing driveways in order relocation of an existing service driveway along South Jefferson Street for the to allow for construction of the proposed Super Stops. Implementation of the Wildwood Park Apartments (5550 Columbia Pike) located in Arlington County. Columbia Pike Multimodal Project would also require closure or consolidation Internal circulation within the existing parking and loading areas would not be of several existing access points along Columbia Pike. affected. In addition, the potential future stop location along Joyce Street TSM 1 Alternative may require modification of left-turn access to the existing parking lot. Parking: The TSM 1 Alternative would have no impact on existing or planned parking along the corridor.
May 2012 3-17 3.1.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Conditions Bicycle Network: The bicycle network and bicycle facilities under the TSM 2 Alternative would be comparable to the No Build Alternative. As described No Build Alternative under the No Build Alternative, the proposed 10-foot shared use path on the Pedestrian Facilities: The pedestrian element of the No Build Alternative north side of Columbia Pike would be compatible with the TSM 2 Alternative. transportation network would be comparable to the current pedestrian The shared use path is one component of Arlington County’s development of a network, but would also involve selected improvements to pedestrian access continuous bike facility parallel to and along Columbia Pike. to transit stops. Improvements would include new signage directing pedestrians to stops, wider sidewalks, pedestrian amenities, and improved Streetcar Build Alternative crossings across Columbia Pike to access stops, including better crossing Pedestrian Facilities: The pedestrian element of the Streetcar Build markings (reflecting the most-up-to date design standards). In addition, the Alternative would be comparable to the No Build pedestrian network. Columbia Pike Multimodal Project includes the construction of shared-use In addition to the projects assumed under the No Build Alternative, the paths at various locations along Columbia Pike. For pedestrians, these Streetcar Build Alternative includes the addition of median stops at Jefferson, improvements would result in improved and safer conditions to access the Joyce, and Hayes streets. At the Hayes Street intersection, pedestrians would corridor’s transit system. utilize the existing pedestrian crossing at 12th Street. Mid-block crossings Improvements associated with the Baileys Crossroads Master Plan and the would be provided to accommodate pedestrians at Jefferson Street and Joyce extension of 12th Street in Pentagon City will also add to pedestrian amenities. Street. No other changes to the Streetcar Build Alternative pedestrian In general, implementation of the Baileys Crossroads Master Plan will result in network relative to the No Build Alternative are proposed. a denser network of interconnected streets and a more pedestrian-friendly Bicycle Network: The bicycle network and bicycle facilities under the streetscape in the Baileys Crossroads area. Streetcar Build Alternative would be comparable to the No Build Alternative. Bicycle Network: The No Build Alternative bicycle network would include As described under the No Build Alternative, the proposed 10-foot shared use bicycle racks at transit stops, enhanced signage for bicyclists, and bicycle and path on the north side of Columbia Pike would be compatible with the pedestrian improvements such as improved crossings across Columbia Pike and Streetcar Build Alternative. The shared use path is one component of pedestrian/bicycle signals. The No Build Alternative would also include a 10- Arlington County’s development of a continuous bike facility parallel to and foot shared use path on the north side of Columbia Pike between South Joyce along Columbia Pike. Street and South Orme Street, between South Quinn Street and South Embedded streetcar tracks present potential hazards to bicyclists crossing or Courthouse Road, and between the Four Mile Run Bridge and South Frederick riding along the transit lane. A cyclist’s tires can become stuck in the narrow Street. flangeway gap next to the running surface of each rail. Bicycle turning The Army Navy Drive Bicycle Path construction project includes a shared use movements across tracks are a particular focus of attention, especially where path along Army Navy Drive between Joyce and 12th Street. Arlington County riders cross tracks at shallow oblique angles. is in the final stages of developing expansion plan for Capital Bikeshare in the County, and Columbia Pike is a natural area for increased growth of the 3.1.6 Minimization and Mitigation Measures system. Minimization and mitigation measures for identified adverse effects on transportation conditions are described below by alternative. Construction TSM 1 Alternative related effects on transportation resources and construction mitigations are Pedestrian Facilities: The pedestrian element of the TSM 1 Alternative would described in Section 3.18. be comparable to the No Build Alternative pedestrian network. No Build Alternative Bicycle Network: The bicycle network and bicycle facilities under the TSM 1 The No Build Alternative does not assume implementation of the Columbia Alternative would be comparable to the No Build Alternative. As described Pike Transit Initiative. However, various transportation improvements are under the No Build Alternative, the proposed 10-foot shared use path on the included as part of the No Build Alternative. It is assumed that adverse north side of Columbia Pike would be compatible with the TSM 1 Alternative. effects resulting from those projects will be identified and appropriate The shared use path is one component of Arlington County’s development of a minimization and mitigation measures will be implemented by the sponsoring continuous bike facility parallel to and along Columbia Pike. party. TSM 2 Alternative Pedestrian Facilities: The pedestrian element of the TSM 2 Alternative would be comparable to the No Build Alternative pedestrian network.
3-18 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I TSM 1 Alternative 3.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Consistency with Local No adverse effects on transportation resources have been identified for the TSM 1 Alternative; therefore no minimization or mitigation measures are Plans proposed. 3.2.1 Introduction TSM 2 Alternative This section describes the effects of the alternatives described in Chapter 2 on No adverse effects on transit operations, traffic operations, driveway access existing land use, future land use, and zoning and assesses consistency with or bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been identified for the TSM 2 local plans. For effects on land use and zoning, the analysis focuses on those Alternative. However, as previously identified in Section 3.1.4, the TSM 2 areas where a new use is proposed or where a need for additional right-of-way Alternative would displace parking. Mitigation for the minor loss of on-street (ROW) has been identified for any of the alternatives. Local and regional parking along 12th Street would not be warranted because there is adequate adopted plans were reviewed to assess whether or not the alternatives parking available to support the commercial properties. presented are consistent with those plans in terms of transportation and land The Jefferson Street Transit Center would result in a loss of parking spaces use policy. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the relevant Arlington County, Fairfax specifically for the commercial properties at Bailey’s Crossroads. However, no County, and regional plans with regard to transit. mitigation is proposed for the loss of parking due to the transit center as it is Existing and future land use conditions were identified through site visits, assumed that there is existing adequate adjacent parking to support the recent aerial photographs, studies by Arlington County and Fairfax County, the commercial properties, particularly on weekends, when demand for parking Arlington County General Land Use Plan (GLUP) (adopted 1961, amended spaces at the transit center would be lowest. through December 2011), the Fairfax County Baileys Planning District Land Use Streetcar Build Alternative Concept (amended through July 2010), and GIS data provided by Arlington County and Fairfax County. Parking and Driveway Access: As with the TSM 2 Alternative, no adverse effects on transit operations, traffic operations, driveway access or bicycle Zoning information was identified from the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance and pedestrian facilities have been identified for the Streetcar Build (amended through December 2011), the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance Alternative. However, as previously identified in Section 3.1.4, the Streetcar (amended through July 2011), and GIS data provided by Arlington County and Build Alternative would displace parking. Mitigation for the minor loss of Fairfax County. parking along 12th Street would not be warranted because there is adequate parking available to support the commercial properties, particularly on Consistency with local adopted plans was assessed by examining local plans weekends, when demand for parking spaces at the transit center would be adopted by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), lowest. Arlington County, Fairfax County, Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA), and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). No mitigation is warranted for the affected driveway access to Wildwood Park Plans reviewed are listed in the Reference section. Apartments at 5500 Columbia Pike, near the corner of Jefferson Street since an additional access point off of Columbia Pike provides access to this Land Use and Zoning: A wide variety of land uses exist within the study apartment complex. corridor, and can be broadly characterized as residential, office, retail/commercial, government/institutional, parks, cemeteries, and Bicycle Network: As noted in Section 3.1.5, embedded streetcar tracks industrial uses. The underlying zoning categories of the study corridor include present potential hazards to bicyclists. Arlington County is currently residential, commercial office and retail, industrial, and parkland. The study conducting a study on streetcar and bicycle interactions, which includes case corridor also includes a number of overlay zoning categories. Existing land studies from other cities that confront the types of issues anticipated with uses and zoning are depicted in Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-3 for areas where implementation of a Columbia Pike streetcar system. In keeping with additional ROW is needed or where a new facility is proposed. recommendations of the “Best Practices in Providing Bicycle Facilities in Streetcar Corridors” prepared by Arlington County, a range of mitigation Consistency with Local Plans: Land use and transportation plans relevant to strategies from education programs for cyclists and motorists, to physical the project corridor largely focus on the creation of a multimodal environment separation between bicycle and streetcar facilities, to design treatments that along Columbia Pike and in the Baileys Crossroads area. Additional recurring facilitate bicycle turns over streetcar tracks at safe angles. Design and themes across these plans include improved transit service and the construction of the Streetcar Build Alternative would make use of multiple implementation of higher-capacity transit improvements in these areas. strategies to minimize potential cycling hazards. Section 3.15, Safety and A number of plans, summarized in Table 3.2-1, explicitly include enhanced Reliability, discusses bicycle safety in further detail. transit service (bus rapid transit, light rail, or streetcar) for the corridor.
May 2012 3-19 3.2.2 Key Findings potential impacts identified for the Streetcar Build Alternative in this section would be consistent across all western terminus Design Options. No Build Alternative Land Use and Zoning: The No Build Alternative would have various minor Land Use: The existing and proposed land use designations at proposed property impacts, consisting of ROW/land acquisition for multiple roadways, facilities are shown in Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2. Specific land use effects transit and streetscape enhancement projects (See Section 3.3). Committed associated with proposed facilities under the Streetcar Build Alternative are transportation projects included in the No Build Alternative are assumed to be described below: allowable with existing and future land uses and zoning. x Jefferson Street Transit Center – The transit center would not result Consistency with Local Plans: While the existing and committed in a conversion of land use or require any amendments to adopted transportation network along the corridor is robust, it would not fully satisfy local plans. It would be a permitted land use subject to the Fairfax the intent of the plans applicable to the project corridor. The Columbia Pike County special exception process. Multimodal Street Improvements Project intends to bring a wide range of x TPSS locations at Columbia Pike and S. Randolph Street, Columbia pedestrian and infrastructure improvements to the streetscape towards the Pike and S. Oakland Street – As proposed, the TPSS site at S. creation of a multimodal environment, but it does not by itself bring the Randolph Street is located on a parcel currently designated as a enhanced transit service called for in many of the land use and transportation commercial land use. The TPSS site at S. Oakland Street is located plans. on two parcels, one currently designated as a commercial land use and the other designated as vacant. The parcel at S. Randolph and TSM 1 Alternative both of the parcels at S. Oakland are designated for commercial land Land Use and Zoning: Improvements included in the TSM 1 Alternative would use in the future. However, it is not expected that these TPSS sites not extend outside of the public street ROW and would not result in any would result in a conversion of land use due to the fact that inclusion conversion of land use, rezoning, or amendments to adopted local plans. of these TPSS sites would not preclude the existing or proposed commercial land use designations. During future phases of project Consistency with Local Plans: Similar to the No Build Alternative, the TSM 1 planning and design, the site would be more closely reviewed by Alternative would not fully satisfy the intent of plans which explicitly include Arlington County Planning. enhanced transit service (bus rapid transit, light rail, or streetcar). x TPSS locations at Columbia Pike and S. Washington Boulevard and TSM 2 Alternative Columbia Pike and S. Fern Street – These sites are located within Land Use and Zoning: The improvements included under the TSM 2 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) public roadway ROW. Alternative would not result in any conversion of land use, rezoning, or The future land use designation by Arlington County for these sites is amendments to adopted local plans. As proposed, the Jefferson Street Transit Public future land use. It is not expected that these facilities would Center is a permitted land use that would require Fairfax County review and result in a conversion of use because the sites are within roadway approval through a special exception. Arlington County and Fairfax County interchange areas that will likely continue to remain roadway will review where enhancements to transit stops are proposed and require interchange areas/transportation uses. Coordination with VDOT and additional ROW in the Jefferson Street/Skyline and the Pentagon City areas, to the ongoing Washington Boulevard Interchange Project would occur determine whether special exceptions are required. to determine the appropriate terms of any easement agreement between the project and VDOT for these TPSS locations. Consistency with Local Plans: The TSM 2 Alternative has many characteristics of arterial bus rapid transit and would therefore satisfy the intent of Arlington County plans which explicitly include enhanced transit service (bus rapid transit, light rail, or streetcar). However, the TSM 2 Alternative would not be consistent with the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan which envisions the Jefferson Street Transit Center supporting a streetcar system. Streetcar Build Alternative Effects of the Streetcar Build Alternative on land use and zoning, and its consistency with local plans are described in separate subsections below. The
3-20 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 3.2-1: Applicable Local and Regional Plans Plan Date Description of transit plans along project corridor Arlington County x The plan calls for the development of a “Primary Transit Network (PTN) of high-frequency and quality transit services along major corridors” which would “include new surface transit services, Arlington County Master Transit Element such as streetcar and bus rapid transit.” Transportation Plan* adopted 2009 x Columbia Pike is designated as one of the key corridors of the PTN and the plan calls for the implementation of the “Columbia Pike streetcar to provide service along the Pike and link the Pentagon City Metrorail station to the Bailey’s Crossroads area of Fairfax County.” x The plan states that a “corridor-wide concept revolves around an enhanced and improved ‘Main Street’ linked by a future bus rapid transit or streetcar system and consisting of four, major mixed- use development nodes linked together by existing apartment and townhouse residential communities.” Columbia Pike Initiative’s A 2005 x The plan states that “both [streetcar and bus rapid transit] alternatives would operate on Columbia Revitalization Plan-Update 2005 Pike in mixed traffic, connecting the Pentagon/Pentagon City area with the Baileys Crossroads area of Fairfax County.” x The plan recommends “that discussions continue regarding a higher-capacity form of transit service the Pike in the future.” Fairfax County x The plan notes the “implementation of the Pike Transit Initiative, which is planned to introduce a streetcar route from the Pentagon to Baileys Crossroads CBC, [as] an integral factor to providing Amended through increased mobility and accommodating additional transit ridership demand created by Baileys Planning District Area Plan* 3-6-2012 redevelopment within the Baileys Crossroads Community Business Center as well as reducing vehicle dependency.” x The plan envisions a transit center along Jefferson Street that would be served by a streetcar. Amended through x The plan designates Jefferson Street as part of an “Enhanced Public Transportation Corridor” Fairfax County Transportation Plan* 3-9-2009 utilizing Light Rail Transit or Bus Rapid Transit. Regional MWCOG Constrained Long Range Plan x The plan includes a Columbia Pike Streetcar project from Skyline to Pentagon City as a regionally 2011 (CLRP) significant major transit project. x The plan recommends constructing “Light Rail along Columbia Pike Corridor from Baileys Crossroads/Skyline to Pentagon.” NVTA TransAction 2030 2006 x The plan assumes Columbia Pike light rail transit or bus rapid transit in an inventory of future multimodal transfer stations within Northern Virginia. *Component of county Comprehensive Plan
May 2012 3-21 Figure 3.2-1: Existing Land Use
3-22 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I May 2012 3-23 Figure 3.2-2: Future Land Use
3-24 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I May 2012 3-25 x Construction Staging and Permanent Equipment Storage Site – The public utilities and services, such as static transformer stations. availability of this site is contingent upon negotiations between Based on this noted special exception, it is expected that the Arlington County and DOD. The site for the Construction Staging and proposed TPSS at these locations would be allowable, if upon review, Permanent Equipment Storage Site currently is a parking lot that are approved by Arlington County. In addition, obtaining an access serves the Navy Annex buildings. The site is designated as a easement for service vehicles would be required. These sites are also commercial land use and is noted as a public future land use by subject to the Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District Form Arlington County. The future public land use designation is a broad Based Code that “regulates land-development, setting careful and category that allows a variety of public land uses. Coordination with clear controls on building form—with broad parameters on building Arlington County Planning and Zoning indicates that a Construction use…” along certain areas in the Arlington portion of the Columbia Staging and Permanent Equipment Storage Site is allowable under this Pike corridor. land use designation and no conversion of use would occur. x Construction Staging and Permanent Equipment Storage Site – The x O&M Facility - The site for the O&M facility currently serves a Public site for the Construction Staging and Permanent Equipment Storage Service Corporation and a vacant commercial land use and is Site is zoned by Arlington County as S3-A – Special Districts. This designated by Arlington County as a high-density Office-Apartment- zoning designation allows for conditional uses such as “public utilities Hotel (High O-A-H) future land use. The O&M facility would not and services related to railroads, trolleys, buses, air or boat require a conversion of use and would not require an amendment to passenger stations; ROW and tracks, but specifically excludes car the GLUP because it will be incorporated into a future mixed-use barns, garages, railroad yards.” Therefore it is unlikely that this site development. would be allowable within this zoning category and rezoning would likely be required. In addition, the western terminus design options which have short guideway x O&M Facility - The site for the O&M facility is zoned by Arlington segments and stops located outside of public street ROW within the Baileys County as C-O-2.5 – Commercial Office Building, Hotel, and Crossroads CBC and the Skyline complex, would require further review by Apartment Districts and RA-H-3.2 – Multiple Family Dwelling and Hotel Fairfax County during future stages of project development and design to Districts. The site is also subject to the Crystal City Coordinated determine approval. Redevelopment District regulations that increase allowable densities Zoning: Zoning at proposed facilities is shown in Figure 3.2-3. Specific zoning and allow properties within the district to be eligible for special effects associated with proposed facilities under the Streetcar Build regulations and incentives recommended in the Crystal City Sector Alternative are described below: Plan, subject to special design guidelines. Based on a review of the current zoning ordinance, a “car barn, garage, railroad yards, sidings x Jefferson Street Transit Center – As noted above, the Jefferson and shops” would not be permitted under this zoning category and a Street Transit Center is a permitted land use that would require a rezoning would be required. As planning for the O&M facility special exception from Fairfax County for. progresses, coordination with Arlington County would be required to x TPSS Sites at Columbia Pike and S. Washington Boulevard and Army determine if the proposed facility would be allowable either by right Navy Drive and S. Fern Street – These TPSS sites are zoned by or through special exception. Arlington County as S3-A – Special Districts. The purpose of the S-3A zoning designation is to encourage the retention of certain properties Arlington County and Fairfax County will review where enhancements to in a relatively undeveloped state. Since the sites are within VDOT transit stops are proposed and require additional ROW in the Jefferson public roadway ROW, the proposed use would require obtaining an Street/Skyline and the Pentagon City areas to determine whether special easement from VDOT for use of these sites as well as for vehicle exceptions are required. access to the sites. In addition, obtaining an access easement for Consistency with Local Plans: The Streetcar Build Alternative would be service vehicles would be required. consistent with Arlington local plans. It would satisfy the intent of plans x TPSS Sites at Columbia Pike and S. Randolph Street and Columbia which explicitly include enhanced transit service cited in both Arlington and Pike and S. Oakland Street – These TPSS sites are zoned by Arlington Fairfax County plans. For example, the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan County as an R-6 – One-Family Dwelling District and R-5 – One-Family, notes the implementation of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, which plans Restricted Two-Family Dwelling District, respectively. Within the to introduce a Streetcar route from the Pentagon to Baileys Crossroads (CBC). Arlington County Zoning Ordinance, the R-6 and R-5 designations allow for uses also allowable under the R-8 and R-20 zoning categories. Specifically noted within the R-20 designation, a special exception may also be permitted, subject to use permit approval, for
3-26 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 3.2.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures No adverse effects on land use or zoning have been identified for any of the alternatives; therefore no minimization or mitigation measures are proposed.
May 2012 3-27 Figure 3.2-3: Zoning
3-28 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I May 2012 3-29 Jefferson Street Transit Center, as well as potential ROW impacts associated 3.3 Land Acquisitions with the proposed stops, O&M facility, and TPSS from Pentagon City to Jefferson Street. The differences in the potential ROW impacts between the 3.3.1 Introduction western terminus Design Options, shown in Table 3.3-1, would be attributed This section identifies potential ROW acquisition needs of the project to the following: alternatives. ROW acquisition could constitute any of various forms of site x Jefferson Street Transit Center– Potential ROW impacts to adjacent control that would be needed for the locations and operations of permanent parcel along Jefferson Street associated with the Jefferson Street project facilities over the lifetime of the project, including fee simple land roadway realignment. acquisition, easement, lease, proffer, or other means. No displacements or x Skyline Central Plaza– Potential ROW impacts along Jefferson Street relocations were identified for any of the project alternatives. and in Skyline Central Plaza associated with the Jefferson Street A GIS analysis assessed the footprints of proposed project facilities and roadway realignment, the guideway, and stop. Less ROW would be guideway and their relationship to existing public ROW and land parcels. The needed for the Jefferson Street Roadway Realignment in this option analysis then identified the portions of land parcels where permanent ROW compared to the Jefferson Street Transit Center Design Option. acquisition would be needed to accommodate project facilities. The total x Skyline Route 7– Potential ROW impacts to adjacent parcel potential ROW impacts of each alternative are reported below; more detailed associated with the guideway (including center platform Terminal information regarding the ROW analysis is reported in Volume II, Chapter 4. Stop). Note that Section 3.16 Construction Impacts assesses potential temporary ROW Additional Streetcar Build Alternative Impacts needs during construction. Proposed Construction Staging and Permanent Equipment Storage Site: 3.3.2 Key Findings Potential acquisition of this proposed facility site for the Streetcar Build Alternative would be implemented through a land exchange arrangement ROW Impacts to Land Parcels under a separate project. The site is not included in the findings in Table 3.3- Table 3.3-1 summarizes potential ROW impacts of the alternatives. None of 1. the alternatives would incur full parcel acquisition, displacements of buildings Public ROW Impacts: The Streetcar Build Alternative assumes the use of or other permanent structures, or displacements of residences or businesses. VDOT-owned ROW for the TPSS site on I-395 ROW in Pentagon City and the The No Build, TSM 2, and Streetcar Build Alternatives would have ROW needs TPSS site at the Washington Boulevard Interchange. This proposed use of that would affect portions of some land parcels in the study corridor as public ROW is not included in the land parcel impacts in Table 3.3-1. follows: No Build Alternative: The Columbia Pike Super Stops Program and Multimodal Project would widen sidewalks and realign portions of roadway requiring land or easement acquisition of portions of parcels along the length of Columbia Pike. Other planned roadway projects assumed in the No Build Alternative would have localized ROW impacts to parcels in the corridor, such as the extension of 12th Street South from Fern Street to Eads Street in Pentagon City and the realignment of Buchanan Street at Columbia Pike. TSM 1 Alternative: The TSM 1 Alternative would have no ROW impacts. TSM 2 Alternative: The TSM 2 Alternative would require land or easement acquisition for the proposed Jefferson Street Transit Center site and some curbside stops in Pentagon City and Fairfax County. Streetcar Build Alternative: The Streetcar Build Alternative would require land or easement acquisition primarily for the proposed O&M facility and the Jefferson Street Transit Center, as well as minor land or easement acquisition for other proposed project facilities, including some curbside stops, TPSS sites, the Skyline terminus options, and minor roadway realignment at Jefferson Street near Leesburg Pike. All western terminus Design Options would have the same potential ROW impacts associated with the proposed
3-30 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 3.3.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures the construction of federally-funded projects are treated fairly, consistently and equitably and that they do not suffer disproportionate injuries. Any land acquisition under any alternative would be subject to the provisions Additionally, any state or local policies relating to relocation and property of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies acquisition will be adhered to. Act of 1970 as amended, which ensures that property owners, residents, and businesses affected by the acquisition or demolition of real property during Table 3.3-1: Potential ROW Impacts by Alternative Number and Types of Parcels Total Area of Parcel Alternative Facility Type Affected Impacts (acres) Various minor property impacts, consisting of ROW/land acquisition for multiple roadway, transit and No Build Alternative streetscape enhancement projects. TSM Alternatives TSM 1 Alternative Stop enhancements within existing public ROW 0 0.0 10 (4 commercial, 2 residential, 3 0.2 TSM 2 Alternative Stops institutional, 1 mixed-use) Transit Center 1 (commercial) 2.2 TOTAL 11 2.4 Streetcar Build Alternative Guideway 0 0.0 Main Line – Pentagon City to Jefferson Street Stops 2 (1 mixed-use, 1 institutional) 0.1 (All Design Options) Operations and Maintenance Center 3 (commercial) 1.0 Traction Power Substations 3 (commercial) 0.2 SUBTOTAL 8 1.3 Transit Center + Jefferson Street Roadway 1 (commercial) 2.4 Realignment Jefferson Street Transit Center Design Option Main Line ROW Impacts (see detail above) 8 1.3 TOTAL 9 3.7 Transit Center + Jefferson Street Roadway 1 (commercial) 2.2 Realignment Guideway (includes side platform Terminal 5 (commercial) 0.5 Skyline Central Plaza Design Option Stop) Main Line ROW Impacts (see detail above) 8 1.3 TOTAL 14 4.0 Transit Center 1 (commercial) 2.2 Jefferson Street Roadway Realignment 0 0.0 Guideway (includes center platform Terminal Skyline Route 7 Design Option 1 (commercial) 0.4 Stop) Main Line ROW Impacts (see detail above) 8 1.3 TOTAL 10 3.8 Source: AECOM 2011
May 2012 3-31 an adverse effect on neighborhoods or affect community facilities in the study 3.4 Neighborhoods and Community Facilities area. The TSM 2 Alternative would not result in the isolation or the creation of barriers in neighborhoods located within the study area nor would there be 3.4.1 Introduction any direct impacts on community facilities located within the study area; This section describes the effects of the proposed alternatives on therefore no adverse impacts on neighborhoods would result from the TSM 2 neighborhoods and community facilities within the study corridor. Existing Alternative. information on neighborhoods and community facilities was gathered through Streetcar Build Alternative site visits; examination of recent aerial photographs; other studies undertaken by Arlington County and Fairfax County, including the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods and community facilities would benefit from the increased Multimodal Improvements Study; other secondary sources of information, such mobility and improved transit service that would be provided by the Streetcar as the Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization (CPRO) website, the Build Alternative. The Streetcar Build Alternative would not result in the Arlington County Neighborhood Conservation website; and GIS data layers isolation or the creation of barriers within neighborhoods, nor would it result obtained from Arlington County and Fairfax County. in direct impacts to community facilities. Additional effects of the Streetcar Build Alternative and proposed facilities are discussed below. For purposes of this analysis, the study corridor was designated as the area within a ¼-mile from either side of the centerline of the proposed transit Under the Streetcar Build Alternative, regrading of Jefferson Street would alignment. An adverse effect on neighborhoods was found if an alternative affect an access point to the Wildwood Apartments in the Columbia Forest presented a situation that resulted in a neighborhood being isolated through neighborhood. However, access to the apartment community would be the creation of barriers that would dramatically change typical travel patterns maintained via an existing driveway access point along Columbia Pike. The for that neighborhood. An adverse effect on a community facility would result temporary construction effects of the regrading of Jefferson Street are from an alternative restricting access to a community facility or one that described in Section 3.16. would result in a direct impact on that facility rendering it unusable. Figure Provision of the Construction Staging and Permanent Equipment Storage site in 3.4-1 shows neighborhoods and community facilities located within the study the vicinity of the Navy Annex area would have no adverse effects on corridor. Community facilities generally include: schools, places of worship, neighborhoods or community facilities. No structure is proposed, only fencing government facilities, hospitals, museums, libraries, and community centers. around a paved area is planned. 3.4.2 Key Findings The Streetcar Build Alternative would also require traction power that would be provided by several TPSS locations along the proposed alignment. The No Build Alternative locations of these have been selected based on the need for spacing Of the transportation-related improvements documented for the No Build approximately every mile and through the identification of areas that would Alternative, none were identified that would isolate or create barriers for have the least potential impact on the surrounding community. Two proposed neighborhoods within the study corridor. No direct impacts to community TPSS locations are located within the Alcova Heights neighborhood. Both facilities or access to those facilities would occur. Improvements associated locations are proposed within commercial areas, outside of the residential with the No Build Alternative are assumed to provide some benefit to areas. No adverse effects on neighborhoods or community facilities would neighborhoods along the corridor. occur as a result of the TPSS facilities. TSM 1 Alternative The O&M facility planned for the Streetcar Build Alternative located in Neighborhoods and community facilities would benefit from the increased Pentagon City would not have adverse effects on the surrounding mobility and improved transit service that would be provided by the TSM 1 neighborhoods or community facilities located in the study area. As proposed, Alternative. The TSM 1 Alternative would not result in the isolation or the the O&M facility would be part of a mixed-use development and activities at creation of barriers in neighborhoods within the study area nor would there be the O&M facility would occur in the interior of the facility. Figure 3.4-1 direct impacts on community facilities located within the study area; shows a concept plan for the O&M facility. therefore, no adverse impacts on neighborhoods or community facilities would result from the TSM 1 Alternative. TSM 2 Alternative Neighborhoods and community facilities would benefit from the increased mobility and improved transit service that would be provided by the TSM 2 Alternative. Additional transit stops that would be provided under the TSM 2 Alternative and the proposed Jefferson Street Transit Center would not have
3-32 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 3.4-1: O&M Facility Concept Plan 3.4.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures No adverse effects on neighborhoods or community facilities were identified for any of the proposed alternatives; therefore, no minimization or mitigation measures would be required.
May 2012 3-33 Figure 3.4-2: Neighborhoods and Community Facilities
3-34 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I May 2012 3-35 at or below the Department of Health and Human Service’s poverty guidelines 3.5 Environmental Justice Communities for the 2000 U.S. Census. The federal definition of poverty level varies by the 3.5.1 Introduction number of related children under 18 years and overall family size. According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty line for a family of four in 2000 This section identifies and assesses the potential effects of the proposed was $17,603. alternatives on Environmental Justice communities in the study corridor. More detailed information on the evaluation of potential environmental This assessment relies on the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data to identify high justice communities is provided in Volume II, Chapter 5. concentrations of low-income populations in the study area and 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data to identify high concentrations of minority populations. It Environmental Justice is defined by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to should be noted that that Census block boundaries changed between 2000 and Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 2010. There were more Census blocks in the study area in 2010 than in 2000. Populations. Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies identify For purposes of this analysis, the study corridor was designated as the area and address disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low- within a ¼-mile from either side of the centerline of the proposed transit income communities. alignment. Individual Census block group data were compared to county data The US Department of Transportation is committed to the principles of to identify whether any of the block groups have large concentrations of Environmental Justice, which include: minority or low-income populations as identified above. The threshold standards for identifying minority or low-income populations are as follows: x To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and x Areas where 50 percent or more of the population of a Census block economic effects, on minority populations and low-income group is minority or living below the poverty level; or populations. x Areas where the percentage of minority and/or low-income x To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected population of a Census block group is at least 10 percent higher than communities in the transportation decision-making process. the county percentage. x To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the Table 3.5-1 lists the percentages of minority and low-income residents in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations. study corridor and within the entire jurisdictions of Arlington County and Fairfax County to use as a comparison for identifying minority and low-income United States Department of Transportation Order 5680.1 defines a populations. In 2000, approximately 11 percent of the study corridor disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income population was considered low-income and 57 percent of the study corridor populations as an impact that “(1) is predominately borne by a minority population was considered minority in 2010. The study corridor has a higher and/or low-income population, or (2) will be suffered by the minority percentage of minority and low-income population than each of the two population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or jurisdictions that make up the corridor. By following the methodology outlined greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non- above, 28 block groups were found to meet the thresholds for high minority population and/or low-income population.” concentration of minority populations in 2010 and five block groups met the A minority person is defined by the U.S. Census as someone identified as: (1) thresholds for high concentration of low-income populations in 2000. Areas of Black; (2) Hispanic; (3) Asian; (4) American Indian and Alaskan Native; or (5) low-income populations are shown in Figure 3.5-1, while areas of minority Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A low-Income population is defined populations are show in Figure 3.5-2. as any readily identifiable group of persons whose median household income is
3-36 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 3.5-1: Minority and Low-Income Populations in Study Corridor, Arlington County, and Fairfax County Population Type Study Corridor Arlington County Fairfax County 1,081,726 Total Population in 2010 39,617 207,627 Minority Population in 2010 22,669 74,666 491,104 (% of Total Population) (57%) (36%) (45%) Population for whom low- 33,938 185,295 958,484 income is determined in 2000 Low-Income Population in 2000 3,857 14,371 43,396 (% of Population for whom low- (11%) (8%) (5%) income is determined*) *The population for whom poverty is determined is determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. For the 2000 U.S. Census, poverty status was determined for all people except for unrelated individuals under 15 years old, and people in institutional group quarters, college dormitories, military barracks, and living situations without conventional housing. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010.
May 2012 3-37 Figure 3.5-1: Environmental Justice Populations – Low-Income Populations (2000)
3-38 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 3.5-2: Environmental Justice Populations - Minority Populations (2010)
May 2012 3-39 3.5.2 Key Findings generate property premium impacts. No changes to the current fare structure are proposed. The potential effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the study corridor were identified. All communities along the study corridor would In addition to the proposed service changes, the TSM 2 Alternative proposes a benefit from the TSM 1, TSM 2, and Streetcar Build Alternatives due to new transit facility along Jefferson Street in the Baileys Crossroads shopping improved mobility, transit reliability and access along and through the center, within the Baileys Crossroads neighborhood, an area where there are corridor. These communities would see a minor benefit in terms of mobility high concentrations of low-income and minority populations. The proposed and transit accessibility under the No Build Alternative. The effects of each transit facility would provide parking for transit users and include bus bays. alternative are described below and proposed service changes that would The displacement of commercial parking (315 spaces) in this location would occur under each alternative are shown in Figures 3.5-3 and 3.5-4. not result in an adverse disproportionate effect because there is adequate parking at the shopping center to accommodate patrons. ROW impacts No Build Alternative associated with the TSM 2 Alternative would not be disproportionately No disproportionate adverse effects on identified minority and/or low-income concentrated within identified minority and/or low-income populations. populations were identified under the No Build Alternative. However, these communities would see a minor benefit in terms of mobility and transit Streetcar Build Alternative accessibility under the No Build Alternative. No disproportionate adverse effects on minority and/or low-income populations are anticipated under the Streetcar Build Alternative. Overall, TSM 1 Alternative the low-income and minority populations in the study corridor would benefit No disproportionate adverse effects on identified minority and/or low-income from improved mobility, transit reliability, and accessibility along the populations were identified under the TSM 1 Alternative. Service changes and corridor. These travel cost savings are not likely to encourage significant stop consolidation is proposed as part of the TSM 1 Alternative along the redevelopment nor generate property premium impacts. Specifically, in the corridor. Those service changes would result in improved mobility, transit Columbia Heights West neighborhood, an area with high concentrations of low- reliability, and accessibility along the corridor. In addition to the proposed income and minority populations, the Metrobus 16G service would be rerouted transit improvements under the TSM 1 Alternative, service for Metrobus 16G, to better serve Skyline. Additionally, local Art 41 service would be increased which serves the Columbia Heights West neighborhood, an area with high to offset the rerouting of the Metrobus 16G. concentrations of low-income and minority populations, would be rerouted to better serve Skyline. Additionally, local ART 41 service would be increased to The proposed changes to the transit network under the Streetcar Build offset the rerouting of the Metrobus 16G. The proposed changes to the transit Alternative would result in travel time and travel cost savings, which would network under the TSM 1 Alternative would result in minor travel time and support livability in the corridor and would be consistent with each county’s travel cost savings, which would support livability in the corridor and would be efforts to reduce households’ dependency on personal vehicles. These travel consistent with each county’s efforts to reduce households’ dependency on time and cost savings encourage redevelopment and generate property personal vehicles No changes to the current fare structure are proposed. premium impacts; however housing affordability is expected to be maintained through local housing policy. Given that this alternative is likely to encourage TSM 2 Alternative redevelopment, some job creation along the corridor is likely to result. No No disproportionate adverse effects on minority and/or low-income changes to the current fare structure are proposed. populations are anticipated under the TSM 2 Alternative. As described for the In addition to service changes associated with the Streetcar Build Alternative, TSM 1, service changes and stop consolidation are proposed as part of the TSM several physical improvements are proposed as part of this alternative. As 2 Alternative, but those changes would result in improved mobility, transit described for the TSM 2 Alternative, a new transit facility is proposed along reliability, and accessibility along the corridor. Specifically, in the Columbia Jefferson Street in the Baileys Crossroads shopping center, within the Baileys Heights West neighborhood, which contains high concentrations of low-income Crossroads neighborhood, which is an area with high concentrations of low- and minority populations, the Metrobus 16G service would be rerouted to income and minority populations. The transit facility would provide parking better serve Skyline. Additionally, local ART 41 service would be increased to for transit users and include bus bays. A TPSS would also be located within offset the rerouting of the Metrobus 16G. the transit facility. The displacement of commercial parking (about 315 The proposed changes to the transit network under the TSM 2 Alternative spaces) in this location would not result in an adverse disproportionate effect would result in travel time and travel cost savings, which would support because there is adequate existing parking at the shopping center to livability in the corridor and would be consistent with each county’s efforts to accommodate patrons. ROW impacts associated with the Streetcar Build reduce households’ dependency on personal vehicles. These travel time and Alternative would not be disproportionately concentrated within identified cost savings are not likely to encourage significant redevelopment nor minority and/or low-income populations.
3-40 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Jefferson Street would also be regraded as part of the Streetcar Build of upcoming public meetings through and along the corridor. As requested, Alternative to accommodate streetcar operations. While most of the effects the project team has also met with a variety of neighborhood associations and associated with the regrading would be temporary and only last during stakeholders along the corridor. Input from these meetings has been critical construction activities, one effect of the regrading would be the closure of a in the planning and development of the project. The project team will driveway access point off of Jefferson Street to the Wildwood Apartments continue outreach to the communities along the corridor throughout the within the Columbia Forest neighborhood, an area with high concentrations of planning and design of the project. minority populations. The closing would be necessary due to inconsistent elevations between the proposed roadway and existing driveway. Access to 3.5.4 Minimization and Mitigation Measures this apartment building would be maintained off of Columbia Pike. On-street As previously mentioned no disproportionate adverse impacts to low-income or parking would also be displaced along Jefferson Street and would result in a minority populations were identified. Expanding the ART 41 service to the minor effect on parking within this area. However, parking losses would be Columbia Heights West neighborhood is proposed to minimize the effects of mitigated where practicable and feasible, along the transit alignment. the rerouting of the Metrobus 16G service. The temporary effects of the Identification of replacement parking would be identified during subsequent regrading of Jefferson Street on the Columbia Forest neighborhood would be design phases. minimized through open communications with residents of the abutting residential buildings to develop construction hours and tools to reduce 3.5.3 Public Involvement inconveniences to the community. More detail is provided in Section 3.16, As part of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, a robust public involvement Construction Impacts and Potential Permits, on how effects of the regrading program has been implemented. Public involvement activities include and construction activities related to the Four Mile Run Bridge would be regularly updating the project website, with Spanish translation available; handled should the Streetcar Build Alternative be selected as the LPA. presenting at a Latino Roundtable discussion; and posting notifications/flyers
May 2012 3-41 Figure 3.5-3: Transit Operations Change from No Build - Low-Income Populations (2000)
3-42 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 3.5-4: Transit Operations Change from No Build - Minority Populations (2010)
May 2012 3-43 Crossroads. As articulated in the Columbia Pike Initiative: A Revitalization 3.6 Economic Development Plan—Update 2005, the goal for Arlington County and the partner jurisdictions 3.6.1 Introduction is the transformation of the corridor from an “aging auto-oriented, suburban, commercial strip” back into the more vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, “Main This section identifies and assesses the potential economic and fiscal effects Street” destination that it originally was. Similarly, the Fairfax County associated with the proposed alternatives. The analysis documents the Comprehensive Plan for the Baileys Planning District—2011 Edition includes a following types of potential impacts: vision of a “pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development with a pedestrian scale and urban character that will complement the adjacent residential areas x Beneficial and adverse economic impacts associated with the and promote transit usage.” Given the already high transit usage and density construction of the alternatives; in the Columbia Pike corridor and Baileys Crossroads, the Columbia Pike x Beneficial and adverse economic impacts associated with the Transit Initiative is intended to help foster this recapitalization of the aging operation of the alternatives; corridor. 6 x Fiscal impacts associated with losses to the tax base due to property acquisitions and displacements required to construct the alternatives, Un-Built Development Capacity: As Arlington County does not have many as well as the tax base gains associated with the property premiums large undeveloped greenfield sites, most new development would have to take experienced by parcels adjacent to the corridor; and advantage of parcels that could be put to a higher valued use.7 As a result, x Economic development impacts related to livability such as the value Arlington County has planned for ‘second generation’ redevelopment in of travel time saved and travel costs avoided, property premiums for downtown corridors such as Crystal City, Rosslyn, and Clarendon. In addition, adjacent properties, opportunities for new development investment mixed use development projects are also being established for Pentagon City, to the counties and the corridor, and the opportunity to increase the Potomac Yard, Courthouse, and Ballston. The Columbia Pike corridor and pace of economic revitalization. Baileys Crossroads are also in position to accommodate growth due to their location, transportation improvements, and community character. Table 3.6- For more detail on the methodology used to analyze the economic impacts of 1 and Table 3.6-2 show existing development and remaining capacity along the project, please refer to the Economic Development Technical Columbia Pike and in Baileys Crossroads. Memorandum in Volume II, Chapter 6. Table 3.6-1: Remaining Development Potential along Columbia Pike (2010) Existing Conditions Existing or Remaining Un- % Land Use and Economic Development: The residential and commercial Type of Under Full built Build- building stock along Columbia Pike was largely built between 1961 and 1972 Development Construction Build-Out Capacity Out along the Arlington County segment of Columbia Pike; new commercial Office (sf) 2,029,326 3,860,623 1,831,297 53% construction in the 1970s and 1980s consisted primarily of free-standing drive- Retail (sf) 742,485 1,016,107 273,622 73% through banking facilities, fast food restaurants, and convenience stores. Residential Units 17,120 20,988 3,868 82% Collectively, these building patterns have yielded an older, auto-oriented 4 Hotel Rooms 491 658 167 75% suburban commercial strip. Source: Planning Research and Analysis Team (PRAT) of the Arlington County Planning Similarly, Baileys Crossroads in Fairfax County is home an older commercial Division, Development Capacity in Arlington's Metro Corridors, September 2010 center that is showing some signs of deterioration due to the age of the infrastructure and roadways that fragment the Baileys Crossroads region.5 As a result, the area has been primarily developed as strip commercial centers and shopping centers. These centers are separated from each other and are structured to accommodate auto traffic rather than pedestrian access. Arlington County and Fairfax County have each introduced a similar strategy to help foster the revitalization of the Columbia Pike corridor and Baileys
6 Robert Puentes and David Warren. February 2006. “One Fifth of America: A 4 Arlington County. 2005. “Columbia Pike Initiative: A Revitalization Plan—Update,” Comprehensive Guide to America’s First Suburbs: Data Report” Brookings Institution. pages 5-7. Accessed at 5 Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2011 Edition for the Baileys Planning District, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2006/02metropolitanpolicy_puent Amended through 07-27-2010, p.1. es/20060215_firstsuburbsdata.pdf, page 57. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/comprehensiveplan/area1/baileys.pdf 7 Ibid., p.1.
3-44 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 3.6-2: Remaining Development Potential in Baileys Crossroads (2011) Table 3.6-3: Relative Housing and Transportation Costs in the Study Area Existing or % Housing Area Type of Under Development Build + Housing Development Construction Build Out Remaining Out Transp. + Transp. Area Office (sf) 3,484,379 5,108,000 1,623,621 68% Housing Cost as Transp. Cost as Transp. Retail (sf) 1,375,473 1,547,000 171,527 89% Cost as Share Cost Share Cost Industrial (sf) 292,693 0 na na Share of of Relative of Relative Institutional (sf) 28,865 102,000 73,135 28% Income Income to MSA Income to MSA Residential Units 4,569 8,660 4,091 53% Block Groups (%) (%) Average (%) Average Note: This is not the full development potential for all of the Baileys Crossroads Community 510131022001 17.1 31.9 0.73 14.8 0.84 Business Center, which is broken out into three districts: Baileys East, Town Center, and 510131023002 29.9 44.8 1.03 14.9 0.85 Baileys West. The table above includes development potential associated with Baileys East 510131023003 23.1 38.4 0.88 15.3 0.87 and most of Town Center (except land-units B-1 and B-2). Source: Fairfax County, based on the Comprehensive Plan for the Baileys Planning District, 510131023004 31.2 47.6 1.09 16.4 0.93 2011 Edition. 510131027001 15.3 29.7 0.68 14.4 0.82 510131028001 19.0 33.6 0.77 14.6 0.83 The Columbia Pike corridor and Baileys Crossroads offer significant 510131028004 16.6 31.0 0.71 14.4 0.82 opportunities for office, retail, residential, and hotel expansion; however, 510594515004 27.0 43.0 0.99 16.0 0.91 given the demand in the Washington, DC metropolitan area for housing and 510594528002 23.1 37.8 0.87 14.7 0.84 commercial development that is accessible by a range of high-quality transportation options, it will be difficult to reach the full development 510594528003 20.6 35.1 0.81 14.5 0.82 potential without additional investment in projects that increase mobility and 515102001011 15.9 32.1 0.74 16.2 0.92 enhance access, particularly transit and additional bicycle/pedestrian 515102001015 29.8 46.4 1.06 16.6 0.94 improvements. 510594528004 20.3 35.1 0.81 14.8 0.84 510131022002 16.5 30.9 0.71 14.4 0.82 Housing and Transportation Affordability: Two Census block groups within 510131025001 22.2 35.7 0.82 13.5 0.77 the study corridor currently exceed the Center for Neighborhood Technology’s 510131025002 18.3 32.6 0.75 14.3 0.81 combined Housing and Transportation Index affordability threshold of 45 510131025003 25.7 41.0 0.94 15.3 0.87 percent as shown in Table 3.6-3—both of which are near Baileys Crossroads. 510131026001 20.6 35.4 0.81 14.8 0.84 Without measures to improve transportation options and mobility, particularly 510131032004 18.5 34.4 0.79 15.9 0.90 in inner-ring suburbs, the combined housing and transportation costs are 510131033001 20.4 35.1 0.81 14.7 0.84 expected to increase throughout the study corridor and region. This trend will make it more difficult for low-to-moderate income and transit-dependent 510131034011 13.6 30.8 0.71 17.2 0.98 households to remain and thrive in the study corridor. 510131034021 29.9 42.6 0.98 12.7 0.72 510131035002 21.0 34.1 0.78 13.1 0.74 510131034023 27.3 40.6 0.93 13.3 0.76 Washington, DC MSA 26.0 43.6 1.00 17.6 1.00 Source: Center for Neighborhood Technologies’ (CNT) Housing + Transportation (H+T) Index, 2011
May 2012 3-45 3.6.2 Key Findings Table 3.6-4: Construction Impacts for the Washington, DC MSA TSM Alternatives Streetcar Build Alternative The results described below highlight the construction, operations, travel cost, ROW acquisition, and property value impacts associated with each of the Jefferson alternatives. Collectively, a number of broader trends emerge across the Skyline Street individual findings as described below. 8 Central Skyline Transit Plaza Route 7 Center Construction-related Employment Impacts Design Design Design The construction of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives may have Impacts 1 2 Option Option Option substantial impacts on the regional and local economy due to the construction Employment expenditures and hiring associated with each alternative. Construction jobs (person-year 8 380 2,571 2,417 2,314 and earnings supported in the region increase with the cost of each jobs) Earnings (in alternative. $343 $16,889 $116,631 $109,616 $104,947 000s of 2011$) The impacts for the Washington, DC Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are Note: The impacts shown in this table reflect all construction expenditures, as all expenses summarized in Table 3.6-4 and represent the full impact which would result occur within the Washington, DC MSA. from the construction of the Streetcar Build and TSM Alternatives in Source: AECOM calculation using RIMS II Multiplier comparison to the No Build Alternative. The impacts for Arlington County and No Build Alternative: The capital expenditures developed for the TSM and Fairfax County may be found in the Economic Development Technical Streetcar Build Alternatives are relative to the No Build Alternative. Memorandum in Volume II; Chapter 6; however, note that the impacts for the Therefore, no construction jobs or earnings are estimated for the No Build counties are included in the Washington, DC MSA impacts shown in Table 3.6- Alternative. 4. These are one-time impacts that last for the duration of the construction period. One job is defined as a job for one person of one year’s duration. As TSM 1 Alternative: The TSM 1 Alternative would have limited capital an example, a job for one person that had a duration of three years would be expenditures, mostly for vehicles; therefore, the impacts shown in Table 3.6- defined as three person-year jobs. 4 would be small. During the construction period, eight person-year jobs and $343,000 in earnings would be supported by this alternative. Depending on In order to isolate the potential economic effects of the alternatives on the the funding sources used, these impacts would be new jobs and earnings, local economy, it is necessary to distinguish those resources that are new to supported jobs and earnings, or some combination of both. the economy (and that would not be invested in the MSA but for the alternative), from those that would still be spent in the region with similar TSM 2 Alternative: The construction expenditures for the TSM 2 Alternative economic effects, even without the construction of one of the alternatives. would fall in between TSM 1 and the Streetcar Build Alternatives. As a result, Depending on the funding sources used, these impacts would be new jobs and the construction impacts would be greater than the TSM 1 Alternative, but less earnings, supported jobs and earnings, or some combination of both. than the Streetcar Build Alternative. During the construction period, 380 person-year jobs and $16.9 million in earnings would be supported by this alternative. Depending on the funding sources used, these impacts would be new jobs and earnings, supported jobs and earnings, or some combination of both. Streetcar Build Alternative: The Streetcar Build Alternative would have the largest capital expenditures associated with it; therefore, it would support the largest number of temporary jobs and earnings during the construction period. During the construction period, between 2,314 and 2,517 person-year jobs and between $104.9 million and $116.6 million in earnings would be supported by this alternative (depending on the design option). Table 3.6-4 includes the impacts for each design option. Depending on the funding sources used, these impacts would be new jobs and earnings, supported jobs and earnings, or 8 The focus of this summary is on the travel cost, ROW acquisition, and property value some combination of both. impacts as they are recurring, net new impacts to the corridor communities. By contrast, construction impacts are temporary and expenditure driven; operations impacts are recurring but not net new impacts as they rely on local funds that would be spent in the community independent of the transit project status.
3-46 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Operations-related Employment Impacts be an adverse impact, it is insignificant, as the total value of the acquisitions The operations and maintenance (O&M) of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative is 0.000 percent of the total property tax base in Arlington County and 0.001 Alternatives have varying impacts on the regional and local economy due to percent in Fairfax County. new annual O&M expenditures and direct jobs created. Similar to the Streetcar Build Alternative: The ROW acquisition and associated tax base construction impacts, the recurring O&M job and earnings impacts increase loss would be greater for the Streetcar Build Alternative than for the TSM with the cost of each alternative. Alternatives as there are 9 to 14 partial land acquisitions depending on the The impacts are summarized in Table 3.6-5 for the Washington, DC MSA. The design option selected. The Streetcar Build Alternative with the Skyline impacts for Arlington County and Fairfax County may be found in the Economic Central Plaza design option would result in the greatest tax base loss, Development Technical Memorandum in Volume II, Chapter 6; however, note followed by the Skyline Route 7 design option and the Jefferson Street Transit that the impacts for the counties are included in the Washington, DC MSA Center design option. While this would be an adverse impact, it is impacts. These impacts are long-term annual impacts that continue for the insignificant, as the total value of the acquisitions for the Skyline Central life of the service. Plaza design option is 0.005 percent of the total property tax base in Arlington County and 0.001 percent in Fairfax County. In order to isolate the potential economic effects of the alternatives on the local economy, it is necessary to distinguish those resources that are new to Economic Development Impacts from Mobility the economy and that would not be invested in the MSA but for the The Columbia Pike Transit Initiative corridor revitalization strategy is to alternative, from those that would still be spent in the region with similar migrate the strip commercial to new commercial nodes along the corridor, economic effects. Depending on the funding sources used, these impacts encouraging compact commercial development around the nodes to form would be new jobs and earnings, supported jobs and earnings, or some village or town centers. This strategy would help to make the Columbia Pike combination of both. Transit Initiative corridor more walkable and the nearby commercial opportunities more accessible. One of the key findings of the emerging “local Table 3.6-5: Annual O&M Impacts for the Washington, DC MSA accessibility” research is that “accessibility is a function of both proximity and Build connectivity.”9 Impacts No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 (Medium) Employment (person-year Transit’s role in connecting residents to nearby and proximate retail and 316 439 425 482 jobs) entertainment opportunities (fostering corridor interaction and accessibility) Earnings (in 000s of would be reinforced by the recognition that the average non-work trip length $10,098 $14,035 $13,585 $15,414 2011$) for person-trips to/from the corridor (within ¼-mile of the corridor alignment) 10 Source: AECOM calculation using RIMS II Multipliers is 6.2 miles. If only trips within the corridor are considered, the average trip length is one mile.11 Thus, many of these very short auto-based trips are good Tax Base Impacts candidates for walk and transit modes. Substituting walking- and transit-based Construction of the No Build, TSM 2, and Streetcar Build Alternatives would trips for auto-based trips would yield a cost savings for residents who take require the purchase of some private land and/or structures for easements, these trips. Collectively, this would improve the livability of the Columbia Pike rights-of-way, and station facilities. This purchase would remove these corridor. properties from the existing local tax base. However, none of the tax base losses would be significant given the size of each county’s tax base. The estimated assessed values of the required parcels by county for each alternative are summarized in Table 3.6-6. No Build Alternative: The construction of the No Build Alternative would result in 71 partial land acquisitions in Arlington County. While this would be an adverse impact, it is insignificant, as the total value of the acquisitions is 9 0.003 percent of the total property tax base in Arlington County. Gary Pivo and Jeffry Fisher. 2010. “The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate investments,” forthcoming in Real Estate Economics. The research found that a 10 point TSM 1 Alternative: The construction of the TSM 1 Alternative would not increase in a location’s walkability score increased commercial property values by one result in any land acquisitions. As a result, there would be no tax base to nine percent for office, retail and apartment buildings. No impact was observed for industrial properties. impacts for this alternative. 10 Average length of all non-work trips to/from the corridor was provided by the AECOM travel demand model. TSM 2 Alternative: The construction of the TSM 2 Alternative would results in 11 11 partial land acquisitions in Arlington and Fairfax counties. While this would Average length of all non-work trips within the corridor was provided by the AECOM travel demand model.
May 2012 3-47 The potential economic development impacts from the improved mobility the corridor more attractive to residential and commercial developers and evaluated in this analysis include: help with the counties’ revitalization efforts in the corridor. However, not all development attracted to the corridor as a result of the alternatives would be x Travel cost time/cost savings “new” development from the perspective of the counties. It is likely that a x Property premiums for properties immediately adjacent to the portion of any residential or commercial development would be a transfer alignment from another location within Arlington or Fairfax Counties. To determine the x Opportunity for new development investment to the counties likelihood of each alternative to attract “new” development (from outside the x Opportunity for new development investment to the corridor counties/region) to the corridor, the analysis relied on preliminary developer x Opportunity for an increase in the pace of corridor revitalization survey and workshop findings identified as part of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Return on Investment Study. A description of each is provided below. Opportunity for New Development Investment to the Corridor. The Travel Time/Travel Cost Savings. The operation of the TSM 1, TSM 2, or operation of the alternatives would provide improved access to the Columbia Streetcar Build Alternative would improve mobility within the project area relative to the No Build Alternative. These would be recurring benefits to Pike corridor as well as the broader metropolitan economy, which could make the corridor more attractive to residential and commercial developers and corridor travelers that grow over time with ridership. There are some travel help with the counties’ revitalization efforts in the corridor. Some of the time savings associated with each alternative, and there would be travel cost development attracted to the corridor would be “new” development from the savings associated with diverting travelers from auto to transit. The annual perspective of the corridor, as it would not have been previously located along travel time and travel cost savings are shown in Tables 3.6-7 and 3.6-8 for the corridor in the absence of the alternative. To determine the likelihood of 2030 for the TSM and Streetcar Build Alternatives. each alternative to attract “new” development to the corridor, the analysis Property Premium for Properties Adjacent to the Alignment. The operation relied on preliminary developer survey and workshop findings identified as of all Alternatives would provide the property parcels immediately adjacent to part of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Return on Investment Study. the alignment with greater access to the Columbia Pike corridor as well as the broader metropolitan economy. Because the TSM Alternatives would not add Opportunity to Increase the Pace of Corridor Revitalization. Both Arlington permanent infrastructure investment along the corridor, large property value County and Fairfax County have economic revitalization plans for the corridor impacts are not anticipated for these alternatives; developers are less likely to encourage a neighborhood-focused mix of commercial and residential to invest private capital when there is a risk that buses can be readily development that is walkable and transit-friendly. The operation of the rerouted.12 The economic impact of streetcar access and the value of walkable alternatives could help move this revitalization effort forward by providing community centers indicate that there are often positive impacts on property improved transit access to and from the corridor. Due to improved transit values associated with such investments.13 Recent research has demonstrated access, each alternative could potentially encourage development that is a “walkability premium” for real estate investments between one and nine planned for the corridor to occur sooner than it would without transportation percent, depending on property type.14 Meaning, the Streetcar Build investment. In this case the development is not new, but would be in place Alternative could have the greatest influence on property values along the (and attracting residents, businesses, and employees) earlier than planned. corridor. Table 3.6-9 presents the potential increases in property values for To determine the likelihood of each alternative to increase the pace of each of the Streetcar Build Alternative design options. All increases in corridor revitalization, the analysis relied on preliminary developer survey and property value from the No Build Alternative and TSM Alternatives are workshop findings identified as part of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative assumed to be less than the Streetcar Build Alternative, if any. Return on Investment Study. Opportunity for New Development Investment to the Counties. The No Build Alternative: The No Build Alternative would not implement any operation of the alternatives would provide improved access to the Columbia transit service improvements that would attract new riders to the system, Pike corridor as well as the broader metropolitan economy, which could make improve travel times, or lower the cost of travel in the study area. Rather the No Build Alternative serves as the basis for evaluation of the TSM 1, TSM 2, and Streetcar Build Alternatives.
12 AECOM, District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis Return on The No Build Alternative includes many transportation investments; these are Investment Report, DDOT, May 2005. Interview results indicated that developers concentrated on amenities and improving the pedestrian and bicycle preferred the fixed assets associated with the streetcar system. connections to the existing transit and street network. Thus, the 13 Center for Transit Oriented Development, Capturing Value from Transit, November improvements would generally improve the quality of the traveler’s 2008; and Robert Cervero and M. Duncan, “Real Estate Market Impacts of TOD,” 2001. 14 experience, helping to sustain the economic vitality of the corridor even as Gary Pivo and Jeffry Fisher. 2010. “The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real other jurisdictions elsewhere in the region are also making infrastructure Estate investments,” forthcoming in Real Estate Economics.
3-48 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I investments. As the No Build investments would largely improve the quality of Streetcar Build Alternative: The travel cost savings associated with the the travel experience rather than generate mobility gains, the No Build is not Streetcar Build Alternative would be greater than the savings associated with expected to attract new development (to counties or corridor) or increase the the TSM Alternatives. The Streetcar Build Alternative attracts 1,300,200 new pace of the corridor revitalization efforts beyond what is already projected. riders annually compared to the No Build Alternative and generates $5,180,148 The No Build investments would help sustain existing commercial investment in annual travel time savings and $915,525 in annual travel cost savings for by updating the public infrastructure and improving the public amenities 2030. These travel time and travel cost savings support livability in the enjoyed by commercial and household residents of the corridor. corridor and would be consistent with each county’s efforts to reduce households’ need to own cars. TSM 1 Alternative: The TSM 1 Alternative would attract 432,000 new riders annually compared to the No Build Alternative and would generate $2,218,922 The combination of mobility gains and permanent investment is anticipated to in annual travel time savings and $341,717 in annual travel cost savings for increase the value of existing properties in a way that the other alternatives 2030. These travel time and travel cost savings support livability in the cannot—conservatively estimated at 4 percent given findings in economic corridor and would be consistent with each county’s efforts to reduce research.16 The Streetcar Build Alternative accomplishes the mobility gains in households’ need to own cars; however, these impacts are not great enough to a manner that are more consistent with the community’s vision of a Main encourage redevelopment along the corridor or generate property premium Street commercial district. The qualities of the Streetcar Build Alternative are impacts. perceived to add to the “ambience of the urban cluster” in a way that expanded bus service does not—in part because they are more closely aligned Modest travel time, cost and capacity gains are anticipated if the TSM 1 with the desired character of the business districts. The greater integration Alternative is implemented. While these improvements would support between the type of transportation investment and community vision for a economic development in the corridor, the modest size of these mobility gains walkable Main Street yields a more supportive business climate in the corridor. limits their influence on existing property values, as well as the amount and Collectively, the mobility gains, the permanence of the investment, and the pace of corridor investment. Like the No Build investments, the TSM 1 close alignment with the nature of commercial district are anticipated to Alternative investments would help sustain existing commercial investment by provide the greatest support for attracting investment and accelerating supporting the quality of life in the corridor and accommodating a small revitalization in the corridor. fraction of projected growth in the corridor. Existing land parcels immediately adjacent to the corridor could yield an TSM 2 Alternative: The TSM 2 Alternative would attract 1,065,900 new riders increase in value that ranges between $84 million and $95 million across the annually compared to the No Build Alternative and would generate $4,548,273 Streetcar Build Alternative design options, well above the value of land in annual travel time savings and $727,377 in annual travel cost savings for rerouted from the tax base for acquisitions. The Skyline Central Plaza design 2030. These travel time and travel cost savings support livability in the option could yield the greatest property value impact, followed by the Skyline corridor and would be consistent with each county’s efforts to reduce Route 7 design option, and then the Jefferson Street Transit Center design households’ need to own cars. The TSM 2 Alternative investments improve option. mobility in the corridor to a greater extent than the No Build and TSM 1 Alternative, supporting property values and investment in the corridor. While While the Streetcar Build Alternative is expected to increase the value of land these mobility impacts are greater than those of TSM 1 Alternative, their in the corridor, the potential impact on housing affordability would depend on ability to accelerate redevelopment, attract investment or generate property the counties’ policies towards housing. As a result, Arlington and Fairfax premium impacts is tempered by the fact that the bus improvements are not County are studying potential policy changes that may be necessary to entice permanent (i.e. bus routes are easy to change). To encourage redevelopment developers and owners to maintain the neighborhoods’ stock of affordable and generate property premium impacts, developers and property owners housing.17 While rising property values pose a risk to the corridor’s favor fixed route transit investments (i.e. those with fixed track investments affordability; loss of affordable housing stock due to disinvestment and that are not easily moved), including streetcar service.15 physical distress poses a similar risk. The modest average property premium anticipated for the Streetcar Build Alternative suggests that the The travel time, cost and capacity gains are two or more times greater than those projected for TSM 1 Alternative. 16 Gary Pivo and Jeffry Fisher. 2010. “The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate investments,” forthcoming in Real Estate Economics. The research found that a 10 point increase in a location’s walkability score increased commercial property values by one to nine percent for office, retail and apartment buildings. No impact was 15 AECOM, District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis Return on observed for industrial properties. 17 Investment Report, DDOT, May 2005. Interview results indicated that developers Dover, Kohl, & Partners, et al, Columbia Pike Land Use & Housing Study, Arlington preferred the fixed assets associated with the streetcar system. County, May 2011.
May 2012 3-49 recapitalization of the corridor can be managed with proactive policies that Arlington and Fairfax Counties, which translates into an increase in the annual preserve affordability while yielding a more livable corridor for residents of all property tax revenues received by each county. income levels. The increase in property values immediately adjacent to the Streetcar Build Alternative alignment would result in the increase in the tax bases for both Table 3.6-6: Total Assessed Value of Property Acquisitions Streetcar Build Alternative Construction Total Assessed Staging and Value of All Jefferson Street Skyline Skyline Route Permanent Property in No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Transit Center Central Plaza 7 Design Equipment the County Alternative Alternative Alternative Design Option Design Option Option Storage Site County (in 000s) (in 000s) (in 000s) (in 000s) (in 000s) (in 000s) (in 000s) (in 000s) Arlington County $ 57,399,066 $ 1,812 $ 0 $133 $3,150 $3,150 $3,150 $1,746 Fairfax County $ 193,900,000 $ - $ - $1,588 $1,585 $2,418 $1,694 $ - Sources: AECOM and Arlington County and Fairfax County Property Tax Assessment Maps18
Table 3.6-7: Annual Value of Travel Time Savings in 2030 (in 2011 dollars) Annual Average Annual Value Time Annual Wage of Travel Savings per Hour Time Savings Alternatives (Hours) ($/Hour) Value of Time (2011$) TSM 1 Alternative Work 51,649 $32.73 100% $1,690,604 Non-Work 32,281 $32.73 50% $528,317 TSM 2 Alternative Work 110,670 $32.73 100% $3,622,512 Non-Work 56,565 $32.73 50% $925,761 Streetcar Build Alternative Work 125,524 $32.73 100% $4,108,730 Non-Work 65,465 $32.73 50% $1,017,417 Sources: AECOM calculation using the Travel Demand Model results, average wage for the Washington, DC MSA, and US DOT Guidance on Values of Time 19
Table 3.6-8: Annual Value of Travel Cost Savings in 2030 (in 2011 dollars) Average Auto Auto Operating Auto Travel Annual Annual Travel Annual Trip Length Cost per Mile Cost Savings Transit Trip Cost Savings Alternatives New Riders (Miles) ($/Mile) (2011$) Cost (2011$) (2011$) TSM 1 Alternative 432,000 6.2 $0.29 $795,317 $453,600 $341,717 TSM 2 Alternative 1,065,900 5.9 $0.29 $1,846,572 $1,119,195 $727,377 Streetcar Build Alternative 1,300,200 6.0 $0.29 $2,280,735 $1,365,210 $915,525 Sources: AECOM calculation using the Travel Demand Model results and AAA’s “Your Driving Costs, 2010” for variable auto operating costs 20
18 http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/realestate/reassessments/scripts/dreadefault.asp and http://icare.fairfaxcounty.gov/Search/GenericSearch.aspx?mode=ADDRESS 19 http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf 20 http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/201048935480.Driving%20Costs%202010.pdf
3-50 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 3.6-9: Increases in Property Values of Streetcar Build Alternative Design Options in 2030 (in 2011 dollars) Annual Additional Land Assessed Improvement Value of Land Value of Property Tax Value Assessed Value Premium Improvement Revenues (2011 (2011) (2011) (2011) Premium (2011) tax rate) Jefferson Street Transit Center Design Option Arlington County $728,324,300 $1,235,776,000 $29,132,972 $49,431,040 $752,643 Fairfax County $30,526,990 $100,038,830 $1,221,080 $4,001,553 $57,501 Total $758,851,290 $1,335,814,830 $30,354,052 $53,432,593 $810,144 Skyline Central Plaza Design Option Arlington County $728,324,300 $1,235,776,000 $29,132,972 $49,431,040 $752,643 Fairfax County $60,687,100 $347,352,890 $2,427,484 $13,894,116 $179,701 Total $789,011,400 $1,583,128,890 $31,560,456 $63,325,156 $932,344 Skyline Route 7 Design Option Arlington County $728,324,300 $1,235,776,000 $29,132,972 $49,431,040 $752,643 Fairfax County $37,667,260 $117,535,240 $1,506,690 $4,701,410 $68,351 Total $765,991,560 $1,353,311,240 $30,639,662 $54,132,450 $820,994 Note: Arlington County excludes parcels that were labeled inactive starting in tax year 2010 and umbrella parcels including: 28034PCB, 28035PCA, 26026PEA, 23039PCF, 23039PCE, 23039PCB, 23039PCD, 23039PCA, 22014PCA, 25021PCA, 34017PLA, 32001PCC, 23034PCB, 22011PCA, 28003PCA, 28004PCA, 28004PEA, and 35005PAA. These umbrella parcels could represent a significant portion of property values not captured in the analysis as many are condominium or multi-family residential properties. The annual additional property tax revenues received due to the land and improvement premiums is based on the 2011 residential tax rates for Arlington and Fairfax counties. The residential tax rates are lower than commercial tax rates; therefore, the estimate provided is conservative. Please note that these revenues would change as the tax rates in each county change. Sources: AECOM calculation using assessed property values from Arlington County and Fairfax County. Property values accessed using the following websites: http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/realestate/reassessments/scripts/dreadefault.asp http://icare.fairfaxcounty.gov/Search/GenericSearch.aspx?mode=PARID
3.6.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures Operations-Related Impacts: No negative impacts on the region’s economy have been identified for the TSM 1 Alternative; no mitigation would be No Build Alternative required as a consequence. Construction-Related Impacts: Construction associated with the No Build Alternative would be minimal. As a result, no negative impacts on the Tax Base Impacts: No adverse impacts were identified for the TSM 1 region’s economy have been identified in this analysis; no mitigation would be Alternative; therefore, no additional mitigation would be required. required as a consequence. Economic Development Impacts: No adverse impacts were identified for the Operations-Related Impacts: No negative impacts on the region’s economy TSM 1 Alternative; no additional mitigation would be required. have been identified for the No Build Alternative; no mitigation would be TSM 2 Alternative required as a consequence. Construction-Related Impacts: Construction for the TSM 2 Alternative would Tax Base Impacts: No adverse impacts were identified for the No Build have temporary impacts on commercial businesses, particularly those near or Alternative; no additional mitigation would be required. adjacent to construction sites. However, these impacts can be minimized or mitigated. For more detailed discussion of construction-related impacts, refer Economic Development Impacts: No adverse impacts were identified for the to Section 3.16. No Build Alternative; no additional mitigation would be required. Operations-Related Impacts: No negative impacts on the region’s economy TSM 1 Alternative have been identified for the TSM 2 Alternative; no mitigation would be Construction-Related Impacts: Construction associated with the TSM 1 required as a consequence. Alternative would not be significant enough to generate any impacts on commercial businesses. As a result, no negative impacts on the region’s Tax Base Impacts: No adverse impacts were identified. Temporary mitigation economy have been identified in this analysis, and no mitigation would be would be needed to address disruption caused by construction of the TSM 2 required as a consequence. Alternative. No additional mitigation would be required.
May 2012 3-51 Economic Development Impacts: No adverse impacts were identified. Temporary mitigation would be needed to address disruption caused by 3.7 Visual and Aesthetic Conditions construction of the TSM 2 Alternative. No additional mitigation would be 3.7.1 Introduction required. This section describes potential changes in the visual and aesthetic character Streetcar Build Alternative related to each of the alternatives. The focus of the analysis is on new Construction-Related Impacts: Construction for the Streetcar Build elements that are included by each of the alternatives that would result in a Alternative would have temporary impacts on commercial businesses, change or introduce a new visual element. The assessment makes a particularly those near or adjacent to construction sites. However, these determination whether or not the new element(s) are consistent with the impacts can be minimized or mitigated. For more detailed discussion of visual character of the corridor. construction-related impacts, refer to Section 3.16. The study corridor is typical of an urban, inner-ring suburb. It is characterized Operations-Related Impacts: No negative impacts on the region’s economy by a mix of retail, commercial, office and residential development. The have been identified for the Streetcar Build Alternative; no mitigation would corridor also has a mix of old and new buildings. In the western (Skyline) and be required as a consequence. eastern (Pentagon City) ends of the project, several high-rise buildings are present. One notable visually sensitive resource along the corridor includes Tax Base Impacts: No adverse impacts were identified. Temporary mitigation the Air Force Memorial, located along Columbia Pike adjacent to the Navy would be needed to address disruption caused by construction of the Streetcar Annex buildings. Further north of Columbia Pike in this same area is the Build Alternative. No additional mitigation would be required. Arlington National Cemetery. Some historic districts have also been identified Economic Development Impacts: If the potential property premium gains and along the corridor that may be considered visually sensitive. Figures 3.7-1- revitalization are realized, there is a risk that the amount of affordable 3.7-11 provide a visual overview of the character of the corridor. housing along the Streetcar Build Alternative corridor could decline. In Figure 3.7-1: Skyline Complex, looking Northwest anticipation of this risk, Arlington County is studying potential means to adjust and enforce their affordable housing policies to ensure that the current residents of the corridor can remain in the corridor and share in the benefits offered by the alternative.21 Additionally, temporary mitigation would be needed to address disruption caused by construction of the Streetcar Build Alternative and any associated revitalization. No additional mitigation would be required.
Date: October 2009.
21 Dover, Kohl, & Partners, et al, Columbia Pike Land Use & Housing Study, Arlington County, May 2011.
3-52 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 3.7-2: South Jefferson Street looking North Figure 3.7-4: Columbia Pike at South Randolph Street looking West
Date: January 2010. Date: January 2010. Figure 3.7-3: Columbia Pike looking East towards South Oakland Street Figure 3.7-5: Columbia Pike looking East towards Walter Reed Drive
Date: August 2010. Date: July 2010.
May 2012 3-53 Figure 3.7-6: Columbia Pike at South Wayne Street, looking West Figure 3.7-8: Columbia Pike at the Navy Annex, looking West
Date: July 2010. Date: January 2010. Figure 3.7-7: Columbia Pike at Four Mile Run, looking West Figure 3.7-9: United States Air Force Memorial
Date: October 2009. Date: January 2010.
3-54 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 3.7-10: Hayes Street looking North towards Army Navy Drive 3.7.2 Key Findings No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative includes the existing transportation network, as well as committed transportation improvements that would change the visual character of the study corridor by introducing Super Stops, streetscape improvements, standard cross-sections, and additional roadway improvements. While many of these improvements would introduce negligible changes in visual character, some may introduce new visual elements along the corridor; however it is expected that none of these elements would be out of character for the corridor. TSM 1 Alternative No new construction is proposed as part of the TSM 1 Alternative; however, some enhancements to existing transit stops are proposed. The TSM 1 Alternative would result in negligible changes in the visual character and it is not expected that any change would be out of character for the corridor. TSM 2 Alternative In addition to those improvements included under the TSM 1 Alternative, the TSM 2 Alternative would introduce the following visual elements and have the following effects on the visual character of the corridor:
Date: August 2010. x New transit stops in the Jefferson Street/Skyline area and Pentagon City: New transit stops would introduce new visual Figure 3.7-11: 12th and Eads Streets, looking West elements, but would not be out of character for the corridor. x The Jefferson Street Transit Center: The transit center would be placed within the parking lot of the existing Baileys Crossroads shopping center. The facility would ultimately be integrated with redevelopment of the area and is not expected to result in adverse visual effects. x Articulated buses: Articulated buses would introduce a new transit vehicle traversing the corridor, but would not result in any adverse visual effect that is out of character for the heavily traveled urban corridor. Streetcar Build Alternative In addition to the new transit stops and the Jefferson Street Transit Center listed under the TSM 2 Alternative, the Streetcar Build Alternative would introduce the following visual elements: x Streetcar tracks: Streetcar tracks along the corridor would have minimal visual impacts because they would be embedded in existing travel lanes. x Modern streetcar vehicles: Modern streetcar vehicles would be larger than vehicles currently running along the corridor, but would not be expected to adversely affect the visual character of the corridor. Date: May 2010. x Overhead contact system (OCS) wires, supports, and coverings: The streetcar system would run on electric power supplied by a single
May 2012 3-55 overhead wire. Residents along the corridor have expressed concern Figure 3.7-13: Streetcar, Tracks, and OCS (Portland, Oregon) regarding the visual impact of these wires, particularly since Arlington County is in the process of undergrounding utility wires along Columbia Pike. The OCS would include catenary supports spaced approximately 100 to 150 feet apart along the alignment and would somewhat resemble overhead lighting poles along the roadway. Figure 3.7-12 provides a rendering of how the tracks, streetcar, and OCS would interact with the current aesthetic character of the corridor. Figure 3.7-13 is a photo of a streetcar, tracks, and OCS from Portland, Oregon. Because the proposed streetcar would run in a highly-urbanized corridor, the OCS would introduce a minor visual change in character to the surrounding environment. x O&M Facility: The proposed O&M facility would be located in a highly developed mixed-use area. As proposed, the O&M facility would be part of a mixed use development. Most activities associated with the facility would be indoors, and visual effects are expected to be minimal. x Traction power substations: TPSSs located approximately one mile apart along the corridor would present new visual elements along the corridor. The design of these facilities would be in keeping with existing structures along the corridor and would, therefore, be consistent with the existing character of the corridor. These Figure 3.7-14: TPSS (Artist’s Rendering) facilities were sited specifically to minimize impacts on visual and aesthetic quality. Figure 3.7-14 provides a rendering of how a TPSS could look, located on Oakland Street.
Figure 3.7-12: Streetcar, Tracks, and OCS (Artist’s Rendering)
3-56 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I x Construction Staging and Permanent Equipment Storage Site: This site would be located in an existing surface parking lot and would 3.8 Cultural Resources likely consist of a fenced area to store materials needed for streetcar 3.8.1 Introduction operations. A structure is not currently proposed for the site. Although the Air Force Memorial and proposed Arlington Heritage This section identifies cultural resources within proposed Areas of Potential Center are nearby, it is unlikely that it would detract from a visitors’ Effect (APE) of the project and assesses potential effects of the project. The experience at these resources. It is also unlikely that the assessment has been conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Construction Staging and Permanent Equipment Storage Site would be Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800), as amended. For a detailed visible from the current limits of the Arlington National Cemetery. description of the assessment methodology, please refer to the Cultural x Jefferson Street Regrading: The regrading of Jefferson Street in Resources Technical Memorandum in Volume II, Chapter 7. general would not change the visual character of the area; however, Resources were assessed within the following separate defined APEs for a retaining wall is proposed along the west side of Jefferson Street archaeology and architecture. that would introduce a new visual element. x APE for Archaeology – The proposed APE for archaeology consists of a Any potential impacts identified for the Streetcar Build Alternative would be 15-meter area around the following facilities: both sides of the consistent across all western terminus Design Options. centerline of the proposed alignment (based on the Streetcar Build Should the land swap with DOD occur and Columbia Pike be realigned at Joyce Alternative alignment), the construction footprints for proposed Street, the Streetcar Build Alternative would follow the realignment. As TPSS, the O&M facility, the Construction Staging and Permanent described for the rest of the corridor, this segment would also require the use Equipment Storage Site, and the Jefferson Street Transit Center. The of the OCS system described above, which would result in minor visual effects proposed APE for archaeology has been developed to be sufficiently in this segment of the corridor. large to encompass any areas of potential direct impact that might be required for the current undertaking. Such areas include, but are not 3.7.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures limited to, permanent and temporary rights-of-ways and easements, No adverse visual impacts are expected that would be out of character of the construction staging areas and materials storage areas, as well as the existing corridor. All consolidated stops along the full alignment (including locations of all proposed improvement options. those in the Skyline area and Pentagon City) proposed under the TSM 2 and x APE for Architecture - The APE for architecture is the area within Streetcar Build Alternative would be consistent with the design of planned which the proposed undertaking could reasonably be expected to Super stops occurring under the No Build Alternative. However, context- have a physical or visual effect on historic properties. Based on a sensitive design for facilities such as TPSS would be used to ensure elements walkover and automobile survey of the corridor and a review of the of the Streetcar Build Alternative are in keeping with the visual character and conceptual engineering, the proposed APE includes: aesthetic quality of the corridor and to minimize visual effects. In addition, o All buildings fronting the proposed alignment; impacts related to OCS poles and supports would be minimized as they would o Any buildings expected to be visible from the proposed alignment be designed to complement overhead lighting poles along the roadway and be (e.g. buildings fronting on intersecting streets from which the integrated with existing lighting poles where possible. These elements would proposed alignment would likely be visible); and be designed to respond to or blend into the surrounding environment and o Any buildings/properties that have the potential to be physically minimize negative features such as light and glare. or visually affected by a station stop, O&M facility, Jefferson Street Transit Center, or TPSS. Any substantive changes to the location of the proposed alignment or facilities would require a reassessment of the proposed APE.
May 2012 3-57 Archaeological Resources - A single previously documented archaeological resource, the Alexandria Canal (Site #44AX0028) has been recorded with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) within the current APE. The majority of the proposed study corridor has been subjected to significant 20th century commercial, residential and industrial development and attendant ground disturbance. However, sixteen areas of moderate to high archaeological sensitivity were identified in the APE based on the following criteria: x Areas that appear to be testable open ground not currently occupied by standing structures, sidewalks, paved parking areas, etc.; x Areas proximate to historically documented structures identified through historic map research; and x Areas proximate to physiographic features and landforms typically associated with prehistoric site locations (e.g. stream confluences, upland terraces, etc.). Additionally, the current right-of-way of Columbia Pike (Washington Graveled Turnpike toll road) has the potential to contain archaeological deposits associated with the original construction of the turnpike circa 1810. Figure 3.8-1 shows the areas of archaeological sensitivity. The Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum in Volume II, Chapter 7 provides details regarding each area. Historic Architectural Resources - The Reconnaissance Level Historic Architectural Survey identified and evaluated every resource over 50 years of age within the APE that has the potential to be affected by the proposed project. Based upon preliminary background studies and a preliminary site visit, the APE contains approximately 106 historic architectural resources that are 50 years of age or older. These resources include: x Two (2) National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed historic districts (000-0024 and 000-8823); one (1) NRHP-listed object (000- 0022); and one (1) NRHP-listed themed multiple property district (MPDF) (000-8825); x Four (4) NRHP-eligible historic districts (000-0042, 000-7818, 053- 0276, and 000-9419), and one (1) NRHP-eligible building (000-3371); x Eight (8) resources that contribute to one of the NRHP-listed or eligible historic districts listed above; x Thirteen (13) resources that are potentially NRHP-eligible as individual resources, as historic districts, or as contributing resources as part of a historic district; and x Seventy-six (76) resources not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Figure 3.8-2 shows National Register Listed or Eligible Properties and properties recommended eligible for listing in the National Register.
3-58 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Figure 3.8-1: Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity
May 2012 3-59 Figure 3.8-2: Historic Architectural Resources in the APE
3-60 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 3.8.2 Key Findings monitoring developed in consultation with VDHR is recommended to identify intact archaeological resources that may exist within the study corridor and No Build Alternative evaluate their potential eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Roadway, transit and streetscape projects included in the No Build Alternative Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks Register. In addition, the one could potentially affect areas of archaeological sensitivity identified along registered archaeological site, the Alexandria Canal (44AX0028), is not visible Columbia Pike. on the surface and would likely require further survey to determine the canal’s location and degree of integrity. TSM 1 Alternative Historic Architectural Resources – Should final engineering include potential Potential effects would be equivalent to the No Build Alternative. The TSM 1 direct adverse impacts to Boundary Marker SW6, it is recommended that VDHR Alternative would include new transit stops along 12th Street South near Eads be consulted on a mitigation program that may include: Street, but these would consist of minor improvements that would be incorporated into the streetscape planned under the No Build Alternative. x Conditions assessment. TSM 2 Alternative x Protection, stabilization, and temporary relocation and storage plan. x Preservation plan consisting of conservation, maintenance, and repair The TSM 2 Alternative would include new transit stops along 12th Street South of historic fabric. near Eads Street, which would involve larger footprints and infrastructure than the TSM 1 Alternative stops and would have potential effects on the x Returning the boundary marker and historic signage to the median post-construction. Alexandria Canal area. If engineering associated with the alternatives changes, a re-evaluation of Streetcar Build Alternative effects to historic architectural resources in the project area would be The Streetcar Build Alternative would have potential effects on the following resources: required. x All 16 identified areas of archaeological sensitivity in the APE; x Potential archaeological deposits associated with the historic Columbia Pike turnpike within the ROW of the current roadway; and x Boundary Marker Southwest #6 of the Boundary Markers of the original District of Columbia (MPDF), a NRHP-listed resource, which is located within a median on Jefferson Street, approximately 615 feet south of its intersection with Columbia Pike. Regrading proposed for this section of Jefferson Street would require temporary removal of the median and the boundary marker, potentially resulting in a direct adverse effect. Should the land swap with DOD occur and Columbia Pike be realigned at Joyce Street, the Streetcar Build Alternative would follow the realignment and would have additional potential effects on two areas of archaeological sensitivity near the potential realignment. 3.8.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures Once FTA, with assumed concurrence of State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), has made a determination of effect of the LPA on cultural resources, minimization and mitigation measures would be discussed and agreed upon by the project sponsor and VHDR. Typical minimization and mitigation measures for effects on cultural resources include the following: Archaeological Resources - Should final engineering indicate potential direct impacts to the previously identified areas of archaeological sensitivity, a program that may include additional background research, sensitivity analysis, limited subsurface testing, geomorphological testing and construction
May 2012 3-61 3.9 Parklands Glencarlyn Park, the Four Mile Run Trail and the W&OD Railroad Regional Park (W&OD Trail). 3.9.1 Introduction Streetcar Build Alternative This section identifies publicly-owned parklands along the study corridor. The Proposed streetcar service and improvements to existing nearby stops under analysis is intended to identify those publicly-owned parklands that would be the Streetcar Build Alternative are expected to provide increased access to affected by the alternatives presented. Affected parklands are further Glencarlyn Park, the Four Mile Run Trail, and the W&OD Railroad Regional evaluated in Volume II, Chapter 8 to determine if a “use” would occur as Park (W&OD Trail). No permanent effects on publicly owned parklands would defined by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as occur as a result of the Streetcar Build Alternative. Pedestrian and bicycle amended or if a conversion of use would occur as defined by the Land and protection would be provided by pedestrian crossing signals, which would be Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (Section 6(f)). coordinated with the streetcar signals at the intersection of Columbia Pike and Temporary impacts to Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources were identified the W&OD Trail. Four Mile Run Trail and Glencarlyn Park would not be as a result of the Streetcar Build Alternative; therefore, a Section 4(f) and affected by the streetcar operations as Four Mile Run Trail crosses Columbia Section 6(f) documentation is provided as part of this AA/EA (See Chapter 8, Pike below grade and Glencarlyn Park would likely be accessed from the Four Volume II). The following effects are identified therein: Mile Run Trail, not directly from Columbia Pike. However, this alternative would result in temporary construction effects on x Temporary construction effects would occur to Four Mile Run Trail Four Mile Run Trail, Glencarlyn Park, and the W&OD Trail. The temporary and Glencarlyn Park. However, based on the analysis conducted, construction effects would result from the following: these temporary effects are not considered to be adverse under the x In-street track work in the vicinity of the W&OD Trail where it crosses conditions set forth by Section 4(f). Columbia Pike x Temporary construction effects would also occur to the W&OD Trail, x Four Mile Run Bridge improvements. a property that is protected under the provisions of Section 6(f). However, there would be no conversion of use of the property and Details pertaining to the temporary construction effects related to these therefore no Section 6(f) impact would occur. activities are provided in Section 3.16. Table 3.9-2 presents a summary of potential effects on parklands in the study Existing parks were identified through site visits, recent aerial photographs, corridor. Any potential impacts identified for the Streetcar Build Alternative and GIS data and other information provided by Arlington County and Fairfax would be consistent across all western terminus Design Options. County. For purposes of this analysis, a 100-foot buffer from the centerline of the existing roadway alignment was used to identity publicly owned parklands 3.9.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures adjacent to the proposed alignment and to assess impacts of the proposed There would be no permanent adverse effects on parklands as a result of the alternatives on the identified resources. Figure 3.9-1 shows publicly-owned No Build, TSM 1, TSM 2 or Streetcar Build Alternatives; therefore no parklands adjacent to the proposed alignment. These parklands are listed and minimization or mitigation measures are proposed. described in Table 3.9-1. To minimize the temporary construction effects on parklands/trails, signage 3.9.2 Key Findings temporarily redirecting trail/park users away from construction activities and alternate routes would be provided when necessary. Construction activities No Build, TSM 1, and TSM 2 Alternatives would be coordinated with the park/trail owner to assess how best to The No Build, TSM 1, and TSM 2 Alternatives would have no effects on minimize impacts to trail/park users. parklands identified adjacent to the project alignment. Proposed improvements to bus service and existing nearby stops proposed under the TSM 1 and TSM 2 Alternatives are expected to provide increased access to
3-62 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I This Page Intentionally Left Blank
May 2012 3-63 Figure 3.9-1: Public Parklands
3-64 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I May 2012 3-65 Table 3.9-1: Parklands Resource Address Jurisdiction Size Use Adjacent to Four Mile Run Four Mile Run Trail Arlington County 6.2 mile trail Paved multi-use trail through public parks and easements stream Glencarlyn Park 301 South Harrison Street Arlington County 97 acres Passive recreation facilities and natural areas Paved multi-use trail and linear park (This park has 45-mile linear W&OD Railroad Regional Park Parallel to Four Mile Run stream Arlington County received grants from the Land and Water Conservation park Fund Act.) Source: Arlington County, Fairfax County, and National Park Service
Table 3.9-2: Potential Effects on Parklands No Build Streetcar Build Resource Relationship to Alternatives Alternative TSM 1 Alternative TSM 2 Alternative Alternative No permanent impacts No effects expected. No effects expected. Perpendicularly crosses expected. Temporary Proposed improvements Proposed improvements Columbia Pike underneath effects expected due to No effects to bus service and to to bus service and to Four Mile Run Trail existing roadway bridge; construction. Proposed expected. existing nearby stops existing nearby stops runs adjacent and parallel to streetcar service to provide increased access provide increased access Four Mile Run stream. nearby stops provide to trail. to trail. increased access to trail. No permanent impacts No effects expected. No effects expected. expected. Temporary Proposed improvements Proposed improvements Within proximity of the effects expected due to No effects to bus service and to to bus service and to Glencarlyn Park existing roadway bridge over construction. Proposed expected. existing nearby stops existing nearby stops Four Mile Run. streetcar service to provide increased access provide increased access nearby stops provide to park. to park. increased access to park. No permanent impacts expected. Temporary effects expected due to Perpendicularly crosses No effects expected. No effects expected. construction. Proposed Columbia Pike at-grade in Proposed improvements Proposed improvements streetcar service to W&OD Railroad Regional the vicinity of Four Mile Run; No effects to bus service and to to bus service and to nearby stops provide Park runs parallel to Four Mile expected. existing nearby stops existing nearby stops increased access to trail. Run stream and Four Mile provide increased access provide increased access Safety for trail users Run Trail. to trail. to trail. would continue to be controlled by a signal- timed pedestrian crossing.
3-66 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 3.10 Air Quality Pollutants of Concern: For the current study, the air quality analysis focuses on three pollutants: particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide 3.10.1 Introduction (CO), and ozone (O3). Although recent ambient measurements in the project area do not exceed the NAAQS for Particulate matter (PM and PM ), the This section identifies and assesses the potential effects of the Columbia Pike 10 2.5 metropolitan Washington area overall is in non-attainment for PM due to Transit Initiative alternatives on air quality at the localized and regional 2.5 violations elsewhere in the region. Particulate matter (PM ) is made up of levels. "Air Pollution" is a general term that refers to one or more chemical 2.5 small solid particles and liquid droplets with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 substances that degrade the quality of the atmosphere. Individual air microns and smaller. The majority of PM emissions from mobile sources are pollutants degrade the atmosphere by reducing visibility, damaging property, attributed to diesel vehicles. reducing the productivity or vigor of crops or natural vegetation, or reducing human or animal health. The methodology for evaluating air quality effects is Although the metropolitan Washington area is in attainment for CO, it is the provided below. primary pollutant used to indicate the potential for adverse air quality impacts from motor vehicles in general, and at roadway intersections in Regulations and Evaluation Criteria: The Clean Air Act, as amended, is the particular. This is because roadway motor vehicles produce most of the basis for most federal air pollution control programs. The EPA under the ambient CO, and emission rates of CO from vehicles are relatively high in Clean Air Act regulates air quality nationally. The EPA delegates authority to comparison to emissions of other pollutants. the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) for monitoring and enforcing air quality regulations in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Virginia Because O3 is a regional pollutant that is formed in the presence of other State Implementation Plan (SIP), developed in accordance with the Clean Air pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX, O3 is evaluated Act, contains the major state-level requirements with respect to indirectly through its precursors. As a result, the regional effects of the transportation in general. project were evaluated as part of the SIP conformity process, which were determined by the MWCOG to conform with the NAAQS. Any project constructed in the Commonwealth of Virginia has to achieve compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), a set of Rationale for Evaluation: The evaluation of potential localized effects of the standards established by the EPA under the authority of the Clean Air Act for alternatives considered PM2.5 and CO analyses. According to Section 2.2 of various “criteria” air pollutants. Presently, there are NAAQS for seven criteria EPA’s 2010 guidance, hot-spot analysis for particulate matter (PM) is required pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur only for projects of air quality concern. Projects of concern for PM2.5 are dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (Pb). defined in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1) as those that have a significant number of diesel vehicles or propose significant increases in the number of diesel The Clean Air Act also requires the EPA to specify geographic areas of the vehicles. The Columbia Pike Transit Initiative alternatives do not meet any of country that have measured pollutant concentrations exceeding the levels these definitions; therefore, no PM hot-spot analysis is required. prescribed by the air quality standards (non-attainment areas). It classifies 2.5 non-attainment areas and specifies compliance deadlines for these areas. The Motor vehicles emit CO at the highest rates when they are operating at low Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Project is located in both Arlington County and speeds or idling. For this reason, the potential for adverse air quality impacts Fairfax County, which are part of the EPA-defined Metropolitan Washington Air is greatest at intersections where traffic is most congested. The two Quality Designation Area. The greater metropolitan Washington area is intersections with the highest levels of traffic delay within the study corridor currently designated as moderate non-attainment for 8-hour ozone (O3) and (Seminary Road / George Mason Drive and Army Navy Drive / Eads Street) non-attainment for annual average PM2.5. However, the metropolitan were used to perform a hot spot modeling analysis. Washington area is in attainment for all other criteria pollutants including CO, PM , NO , SO , and Pb. For regional effects of the alternatives, the analysis used relative levels of 10 2 2 VMT reduction as an indication of the degree to which the alternatives would Under the Clean Air Act, it is the responsibility of federal agencies, such as contribute positively to air quality. the FTA, to ensure that a proposed project conforms to the SIP. Transportation conformity is a process required of the Metropolitan For more information on the methodology employed, including information on Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) as the region’s metropolitan relevant pollutants, evaluation criteria, modeling methodology, intersection planning organization, to ensure that those transportation activities that are screening, and existing conditions, please refer to the Air Quality Technical consistent with air quality goals receive federal funding and approval. The Memorandum in Volume II, Chapter 10. EPA promulgated the Transportation Conformity Rules under the Clean Air Ambient air quality conditions were established by reviewing data from Act, as amended (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93). existing air quality monitoring stations. These conditions are described below.
May 2012 3-67 Closest Air Quality Monitoring Stations: The VDEQ maintains an area-wide eight hours. The maximum one- and eight-hour CO levels for the 2030 No Build network of monitoring stations that routinely measure pollutant Alternative are also lower than the corresponding levels for the 2016 No Build concentrations in the ambient air. These stations provide data to assess Alternative. This decrease in CO concentrations is mainly due to the decrease compliance with the NAAQS and to evaluate the effectiveness of pollution in the exhaust emission factors from 2016 to 2030, as older and more polluting control strategies. The relevant monitored pollutants are ozone (O3), nitrogen vehicles in the nation’s fleet are replaced. This reduction in the vehicle dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), fine particulate matter (PM), and sulfur emission rates more than offsets the increase in traffic volumes from 2016 to dioxide (SO2). The Air Quality Technical Memorandum reports the measured 2030. ambient air quality data for the region, including the overall Columbia Pike Transit Initiative study corridor, based on the three closest monitoring TSM 1 Alternative stations, which are located in Pentagon City, the City of Alexandria (Old Town Although traffic delays are expected to increase slightly at selected area), and the City of Fredericksburg. intersections due to the TSM 1 Alternative, the differences in CO concentrations under the No Build and TSM 1 Alternatives would be Current Ambient Air Quality Conditions: The eight-hour O3 concentrations at insignificant. Site M1 (the monitoring station at South 18th and Hayes Streets in Arlington County) exceeded the new limit of 0.075 ppm in two of the previous three TSM 2 Alternative years. However, the 24-hour PM10 concentration at Site M3 in Fredericksburg Although traffic delays are expected to increase slightly at selected (the closest VDEQ monitoring site for PM10) did not exceed the criterion limit intersections due to the TSM 2 Alternative, the differences in CO of 150 µg/m3 in any of the previous three years. Similarly, recent concentrations under the No Build and TSM 2 Alternatives would be concentrations of PM2.5 are also reported below the new more stringent 24- insignificant. hour standard of 35 µg/m3 in each of the previous three years. All of the Streetcar Build Alternative other pollutants, including CO, are reported to be well below their respective standards. Although traffic delays are expected to increase slightly at selected intersections due to the addition of streetcar service the differences in CO 3.10.2 Key Findings concentrations under the No Build and Streetcar Build Alternatives would be insignificant. Moreover, the CO concentrations under all western terminus As described above, a PM2.5 hot spot analysis is not required due to the nature of the alternatives. Results of the CO hot spot analysis indicate that none of Design Options of the Streetcar Build Alternative are predicted to be the modeled CO concentrations are predicted to exceed the NAAQS one- or equivalent to the No Build Alternative. eight-hour standards during any of the analysis years. Therefore, the Columbia With respect to regional emissions and conformity, the Streetcar Build Pike Transit Initiative alternatives comply with the federal Transportation Alternative conforms to the SIP as it is included in the conforming MWCOG Conformity Rule since they would not create or contribute to any new or Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) for projects existing CO violations of the NAAQS, and would conform to the purpose of the planned between 2010 and 2040. The Streetcar Build Alternative is also regional SIP. Table 3.10-1 shows the predicted maximum one-hour CO included in the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which concentrations at the selected intersections, and Table 3.10-2 shows the was approved by the Transportation Planning Board (TPB) on November 17, predicted maximum eight-hour CO concentrations at the selected 2011. intersections. 3.10.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures With respect to regional emissions and conformity, the TSM 1, TSM 2, and Streetcar Build Alternatives are associated with predicted reductions in Because all predicted 2016 and 2030 CO concentrations for the No Build, TSM vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as shown in Tables 3.10-3 and 3-10-4. With 1, TSM 2, and Streetcar Build Alternatives are within the NAAQS thresholds, no reduced automobile travel, pollutants associated with vehicle emissions would mitigation strategies would be required. Similarly, no mitigation measures are be reduced proportionally. While improved air quality is not a primary goal of necessary with respect to compliance with the transportation conformity the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, the expected reductions in automobile requirements. travel and related emissions indicate no negative effects of the alternatives at the regional level. No Build Alternative All predicted CO concentrations for the 2016 and 2030 No Build Alternative are less than the NAAQS of 35 parts per million (ppm) for one hour and 9 ppm for
3-68 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 3.10-1: Predicted Maximum One-Hour Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations at Selected Intersections (ppm) TSM 1 and Streetcar No Build TSM 2 Build Traffic Intersection Alternative Alternatives Alternative 2016 2030 2016 2030 2016 2030 Seminary Road and George Mason Drive, Fairfax County 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 Army Navy Drive and Eads Street, Arlington County 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 Source: Estimate using EPA CAL3QHC Version 2.0 dispersion model, January 2011.
Table 3.10-2: Predicted Maximum Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations at Selected Intersections (ppm) TSM 1 and No Build Streetcar Build TSM 2 Traffic Intersection Alternative Alternative Alternatives 2016 2030 2016 2030 2016 2030 Seminary Road and George Mason Drive, Fairfax County 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 Army Navy Drive and Eads Street, Arlington County 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 Source: Estimate using EPA CAL3QHC Version 2.0 dispersion model, January 2011.
Table 3.10-3: Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled by Alternative (2016) 2010 Base 2016 No Build 2016 TSM 1 2016 TSM 2 2016 Build VMT 130,011,227 141,173,009 141,167,357 141,159,310 141,156,686 VMT Change (vs. No Build) -5,652 -13,699 -16,323
Table 3.10-4: Regional Miles Traveled by Alternative (2030) 2030 No Build 2030 TSM 1 2030 TSM 2 2030 Build VMT 159,630,921 159,624,581 159,615,713 159,612,181 VMT Change (vs. No Build) -6,341 -15,208 -18,740
May 2012 3-69 Noise impacts were identified for the Streetcar Build Alternative in relation to 3.11 Noise and Vibration the proposed O&M facility in Pentagon City. The predicted noise level at the representative receptor at the O&M facility is 62dBA, which qualifies the 3.11.1 Introduction effect as a moderate noise impact based on FTA’s criteria. Within the vicinity This section describes potential noise and vibration effects of the proposed of the measured noise receptor, the following buildings would be affected: alternatives. Noise is “unwanted sound”; by this definition, the perception of x Three residential buildings adjacent to and within the vicinity of the noise is a subjective process. However, federal guidelines for noise assessment proposed O&M facility are categorized as FTA Category 2 land uses, or do exist. Ground-borne vibration associated with vehicle movements is usually buildings used for sleeping such as residences, hospitals, hotels and the result of uneven interactions between wheels and the road or rail other areas where nighttime sensitivity to noise is important; and surfaces. The noise and vibration assessment was prepared in accordance with the guidelines set forth by FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact x One office building adjacent to the O&M facility categorized as a FTA Assessment. For a detailed description of methodology, please refer to the Category 3 land use, or institutional land uses with primarily daytime Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum in Volume II, Chapter 9. and evening uses including schools, libraries, churches, etc. Using FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual The high-rise apartment buildings and hotel near the proposed O&M facility sensitive land uses were identified and evaluated. Ambient noise include primarily indoor uses, and, as a result, no interior noise impacts are measurements were taken at multiple sensitive receptor locations, expected due to the shielding provided by the windows and walls. Where representative of the sensitive land use categories. Four (4) locations were balconies may exist, it should be noted that not all individual units would be measured. Ambient noise within the study corridor is affected by traffic affected the same. For example, units furthest from the noise source would along major arterial streets (Columbia Pike, Leesburg Pike) and highways (I- be less affected than those units closer to or facing the O&M facility. Refer to 395). In addition, flyovers from Washington Reagan National Airport Chapter 2, Figure 2.1-6, for the Streetcar Build Alternative station stops and contribute to existing noise levels. Existing ambient noise levels noted at the facilities’ locations. representative receptors range from 65 dBA to 66 dBA. For comparison, an The No Build, TSM 1, TSM 2, and Streetcar Build Alternatives would comply outdoor noise source such as a lawn mower is perceived by the human ear with local noise ordinances, including Arlington County “Noise Control Code” around 70 dBA within 50 feet of the lawn mower. (Chapter 15) and Fairfax County “Noise Code” (Article 4, Section 108). No existing vibration measurements were conducted because no rail activity Vibration exists along the study corridor, currently. No vibration impacts are predicted at any residences, parks or institutions 3.11.2 Key Findings under the No Build, TSM 1, TSM 2, or Streetcar Build Alternatives. Noise 3.11.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures No Build, TSM 1, and TSM 2 Alternatives: Future noise levels in the Study There would be no temporary or permanent adverse effects on noise vibration Area under the No Build, TSM 1, and TSM 2 Alternatives are expected to be as a result of the No Build, TSM 1 or TSM 2 Alternatives; therefore no similar to those measured under the existing conditions. The TSM alternatives minimization or mitigation measures are proposed. would add efficiencies to local bus service, but the improvements would not Since no noise and vibration impacts are predicted along the proposed result in significant changes to the frequency of bus pass-bys or levels of alignment under the Streetcar Build Alternative, no mitigation measures are activity at transit stops as compared with the No Build Alternative. Therefore, required. However, noise control measures are recommended as part of the the TSM 1 and TSM 2 Alternatives are not expected to cause additional design of the proposed O&M facility in Pentagon City to avoid the moderate operational noise impacts. noise impacts predicted at the three adjacent residential apartment buildings Streetcar Build Alternative: Analysis of potential noise effects associated and one office building. Typically, strategic layout of the facility buildings with the Streetcar Build Alternative considered transit vehicle pass-bys and and enclosing all maintenance equipment indoors would eliminate any activity at proposed transit stops and facilities. Since streetcars are designed potential for noise impacts from the O&M facility. to operate along narrow urban streets, the onset of wheel squeal at tight- radius curves is not expected. At transit stops, noise associated with idling buses would be reduced relative to the No Build Alternative due to introduction of quieter streetcar vehicles.
3-70 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I The only VDEQ-listed impaired water in the study corridor is Four Mile Run, 3.12 Water Resources which is impaired by Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria contaminants from 3.12.1 Introduction illicit connections to storm sewers, and wastes from pets and waterfowl. It is classified as a Category 5 impaired water, which requires a Total Maximum This section identifies Waters of the U.S., coastal resources, floodplains and Daily Load to be developed to calculate the maximum amount of contaminants flood hazard zones, and assesses the potential effects of the proposed that the stream can receive and still safely meet VDEQ water quality alternatives on these water resources and water quality. Detailed information standards. The water quality in Four Mile Run is monitored at several regarding regulations applicable to this analysis is provided in the Federal monitoring stations, including two within the study corridor. Consistency Certification Package in Volume II, Chapter 11. Additional water resources within the study corridor include Flood Zone D Existing information for these water resources was gathered from the National areas associated with properties along the eastern portion of Columbia Pike Wetlands Inventory (NWI); the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood and a Freshwater Forested/Shrub wetland area located in the eastern portion Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs); GIS data and other information provided by of the study corridor at the existing Pentagon City Fashion Centre shopping Arlington County, Fairfax County and the City of Alexandria; maps, including mall. This wetland is not adjacent to the proposed transit alignment. the United States Geological Survey topographical maps (Alexandria, VA-DC- Furthermore, all areas located outside of an RPA, but within the City of MD and Annandale, VA quadrangles); examination of recent aerial Alexandria, Arlington County and Fairfax County are designated as Resource photographs; and field visits. Preliminary field investigations for the presence Management Areas (RMA). Therefore, the entire study corridor, with the of wetland habitat were conducted during July 2010. Impaired waters were exception of those areas located within an RPA, is located within an RMA. identified using the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) 305(b) Annual Report (October 2008). For purposes of this analysis, the study 3.12.2 Key Findings corridor was designated as the area within a ¼-mile from either side of the No Build Alternative centerline of the proposed transit alignment. Potential effects on water resources and water quality were evaluated based on physical changes being Under the No Build Alternative, various transportation improvement projects proposed on or in the vicinity of identified water resources, and potential may affect water resources within the project corridor. Impacts to water changes in stormwater runoff or altered surface or sub-surface drainage resources by projects included in the No Build Alternative would be (or have patterns. been) documented by separate environmental documentation. All water resources within the study corridor are shown in Figure 3.12-1. It is assumed that all projects under the No Build Alternative would meet both Many of these resources are associated with the three surface waters local and state requirements in terms of sediment and erosion control and identified and described in Table 3.12-1. Water resources within the project stormwater management and that actions considered as part of the No Build corridor are subject to the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Alternative requiring coastal zone certification are consistent with the Enforceable Policies of the Virginia Coastal Program (VCP). Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) exist in the vicinity of Four Mile Run, Doctors Branch, and Long Branch. In addition, two Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) TSM 1 Alternative are located within the study corridor; only one of them crosses the proposed The TSM 1 Alternative would have no greater effects than the No Build transit alignment. SFHAs are defined as the areas that will be inundated by Alternative as it would not result in the addition of any impervious surface in the flood event having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in the study corridor. No direct impacts to water resources identified within the any given year (also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood). SFHAs project corridor would result from the TSM 1 Alternative. are labeled as Zone AE (100 year); moderate flood hazard areas are labeled The TSM 1 Alternative is expected to be consistent with the Enforceable Zone X (500 year); and unstudied areas where flood hazards are Policies of the VCP. undetermined, but flooding is possible are labeled as Zone D.
May 2012 3-71 Table 3.12-1: Water Resources Associated with Surface Waters in the Study Corridor Surface Water Description Location within Study Corridor Associated Resources x Flood Zones AE and Flood Zone X cross Columbia Pike within the bridge span over Tributary of the Crosses under the Columbia Pike Four Mile Run Bridge Four Mile Run Four Mile Run Potomac River structure x VDEQ-listed impaired riverine x Resource Protection Areas Crosses under Columbia Pike and adjoining parcels within a Tributary of Four Doctors Branch culvert. Near northern edge of study corridor, it is an open x Resource Protection Areas Mile Run stream channel within Alcova Heights Park. Tributary of Four A tributary of Long Branch passes under Columbia Pike at the Mile Run, includes Washington Boulevard interchange within a culvert. South of x Flood Zones AE and Flood Zone X exist south several the interchange, it continues in an open stream channel east of the Columbia Pike interchange with Long Branch intermittent of Queen Street. North of Columbia Pike, it continues along Washington Boulevard, east of Queen Street unnamed tributary the east side of the Washington Boulevard interchange in an x streams within the Resource Protection Areas open stream channel. study corridor Source: U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, Arlington County data, FEMA FIRMs (Preliminary Update 9/23/2009), and AECOM field observations
TSM 2 Alternative In addition to proposed facilities that affect noted water resources, No adverse impacts to water resources or water quality are expected. The TSM improvements to the Four Mile Run Bridge may have minor permanent impacts 2 Alternative would contribute to minor increases in impervious surface along on Four Mile Run and the associated floodplain and RPA due to the expansion the project corridor due to proposed stations and improvement to existing bus of pier footings within the stream. Should the Streetcar Build Alternative be stops in the Jefferson Street/Skyline and Pentagon City areas. All of the selected as the LPA, a hydraulic and hydrologic analysis would be required to proposed stations and facilities under the TSM 2 Alternative would be within assess the potential effects on Four Mile Run creek and the associated already developed, mostly impervious surface areas. No direct impacts to floodplain and RPA. water resources identified within the project corridor would result from the It is expected that the Streetcar Build Alternative would be consistent with TSM 2 Alternative. the enforceable policies of the VCP and therefore not have an adverse impact All improvements would be constructed in compliance with both local and on the designated coastal zone. Correspondence with VDEQ and Virginia state requirements in terms of sediment and erosion control and stormwater Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) is provided in Volume II, management. It is expected that the TSM 2 Alternative would be consistent Chapter 16. The Federal Consistency Certification package is included in with the enforceable policies of the VCP and therefore not have an adverse Volume II, Chapter 11. impact on the designated coastal zone. Streetcar Build Alternative Much of the study corridor is developed with some landscaped and natural areas interspersed. However, the Streetcar Build Alternative would contribute to minor increases in impervious surface along the project corridor due to proposed improvements to transit stops, TPSSs, the O&M facility, and the Construction Staging and Equipment Storage Area. Two of the proposed TPSS locations are within undeveloped areas. One is proposed within the interchange of Washington Boulevard and Columbia Pike, within a designated RPA to Long Branch. Development within a RPA requires approval and a Water Quality Impact Assessment from Arlington County. The other TPSS site is located in a landscaped area at Army Navy Drive/I-395.
3-72 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 3.12.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures No adverse impacts on water resources would occur as a result of the No Build, TSM 1, or TSM 2 Alternative. For potential minor permanent impacts associated with the Streetcar Build Alternative on Four Mile Run, activities would be coordinated with the applicable local and state agencies to determine what, if any, mitigation is appropriate. All applicable permits and approvals would be obtained to ensure consistency with the enforceable policies of the VCP and VDEQ. Should the Streetcar Build Alternative be selected as the LPA, subsequent phases of planning and design may be able to minimize potential effects on Four Mile Run stream and the identified RPA.
May 2012 3-73 Figure 3.12-1: Water Resources
3-74 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I May 2012 3-75 3.13 Contaminated Materials TSM 2 Alternative 3.13.1 Introduction The TSM 2 Alternative would have potential direct impacts on identified RECs This section identifies hazardous materials and contaminated material sites within the project study corridor due to the construction of transit stops in the and assesses potential effects on them from the alternatives. The assessment vicinity of: comprised a historical records search, public agency file review, and site reconnaissance of the study corridor, focusing on properties within the x Columbia Pike and Barton Street; proposed transit alignment, proposed facilities, or immediately adjacent to x Columbia Pike and Walter Reed Drive; the proposed alignment. For a detailed description of the assessment x Columbia Pike and South Glebe Road; methodology, please refer to the Contaminated Materials Technical x Columbia Pike and South George Mason Drive; and Memorandum in Volume II, Chapter 7. x Columbia Pike and South Buchanan Street. Seventy-five existing hazardous and contaminated material Recognized The TSM 2 Alternative would also have potential direct impacts on identified Environmental Condition (REC) sites were identified within the proposed RECs in the vicinity of the proposed Jefferson Street Transit Center. transit alignment or contained within the properties immediately adjacent to the corridor. Figure 3.13-1 shows the locations of these sites; the Streetcar Build Alternative Contaminated Materials Technical Memorandum lists detailed information on The Streetcar Build Alternative would have potential direct impacts on RECs the sites, including site name, address, database reference, description, and within the project study corridor due to the construction of: map identification numbers used in the figure. x Track bed; 3.13.2 Key Findings x Transit stops (same as identified for the TSM 2 Alternative); x Jefferson Street Transit Center; and A total of 75 REC sites were identified along the project alignment; however, the TSM 1, TSM 2, and Streetcar Build Alternatives would have limited x O&M facility. potential to encounter contaminated or hazardous materials. Impacted media or materials that could possibly be encountered include the site soils, groundwater, underground or aboveground storage tank systems, and asbestos containing materials. The at-grade or near-grade construction of the majority of the alignments of the alternatives greatly limits potential impacts. The most likely scenario for encountering contaminated or hazardous materials would be related to the construction of the proposed O&M facility, station stops, traction power TPSSs, and/or at locations where deeper-seated excavations related to foundations and/or utility realignments or installations in close proximity to potential contaminated sites would occur. The activities may also require removal of materials which could include disposal of solid and contaminated waste. No Build Alternative Impacts to identified RECs along the project study corridor associated with the No Build Alternative, such as the Columbia Pike Super Stops Program and Multimodal Project, would be documented as part of these projects. TSM 1 Alternative The TSM 1 Alternative would have the same effects on RECs as the No Build Alternative.
3-76 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 3.13.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures Encountering any contaminated materials during the development of the No Build, TSM 1, TSM 2, or Streetcar Build Alternatives would require mitigation, remediation, and/or removal, as well as protection from those contaminants during project construction. Any remedial investigations or actions during the project would depend on the types, frequencies, and amounts of contamination encountered, if any. Potential mitigation measures are described in detail in the Contaminated Materials Technical Memorandum and include the following: x Environmental investigations – Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), and if required, a Phase II ESA, would be completed in conjunction with the design of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative to determine the presence/absence of any contaminated or hazardous materials which could impact the construction of the project. x Project Design – Project designers would work with environmental professionals to design the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative to avoid impacts to and from known contaminated and hazardous material sites. x Best Management Practices - Best management practices, industry standards, and regulatory-approved methods would be used during any investigation and upon handling any materials. x Operations – Operations and maintenance activities would use, where feasible, self-contained storage systems, and regulatory-approved systems and techniques and would incorporate monitoring programs, spill response plans and organizational responsibilities to proactively handle petroleum products, hazardous materials and waste, and contaminated materials associated with the operation of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative.
May 2012 3-77 Figure 3.13-1: Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) Sites
3-78 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I May 2012 3-79 Another aspect of potential secondary effects along the corridor pertains to 3.14 Secondary and Cumulative Effects the property premiums. The economic analysis shows that under the No Build, 3.14.1 Introduction TSM 1 and TSM 2 Alternatives that property values are unlikely to be notably influenced by transit. The Streetcar Build Alternative is expected to lead to This section summarizes potential secondary effects of the project and the increases in value (conservatively estimated at four percent for this study) for cumulative effects of the project combined with other ongoing and planned properties immediately adjacent to the corridor, resulting in an increase in projects included in the No Build Alternative. the local tax bases. Over time, property values could continue to increase as Secondary effects, or indirect effects, are defined as those that are “caused the corridor gains in attractiveness. This in turn would have a positive by the action and are later in time or farther rerouted in distance, but are still secondary effect on the local tax base. reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects An adverse secondary effect of redevelopment may be the continued threat of and other effects related to induced changes in the patterns of land use, retaining affordable housing for low-income residents currently residing along population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and the corridor. In anticipation of this potential effect, Arlington County is other natural systems, including ecosystems” (40 CFR 1508.8(b)). For potential studying potential means to adjust and enforce affordable housing policies to secondary effects, the assessment identified resources that would be affected ensure that the current residents of the corridor can remain in the corridor by long-term patterns of land use related to population and employment and share in the benefits offered by the alternative (see also Section 3.6). growth expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the project alternatives. 3.14.3 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined as “the impact on the environment which The assessment examined potential effects on resources within the study results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, corridor by projects identified in the No Build Alternative and evaluated if the present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency Columbia Pike Transit Initiative would add to those effects. The following (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative resource areas were identified as having potential cumulative effects. In this impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions section, unless otherwise noted, any potential cumulative effects identified taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). For potential cumulative for the Streetcar Build Alternative would be consistent across all western effects, the assessment identified resources with potential effects terminus Design Options. documented in previous sections that would also be potentially affected by Transportation other projects included in the No Build Alternative, summarized in Table 2.2- Potential cumulative effects related to other transportation improvements are 2. examined in the analyses in Section 3.1, which considers future traffic and 3.14.2 Secondary Effects transit conditions based on planned future transportation networks. All of the projects considered under the No Build Alternative are intended to make Potential secondary effects identified for this project are described below. improvements to the overall transportation network. Provision of the Unless otherwise noted, any potential secondary effects identified for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative would also result in beneficial cumulative Streetcar Build Alternative in this section would be consistent across all effects to Columbia Pike corridor transportation network. Specifically, the western terminus Design Options. TSM 1 Alternative would have a minimal cumulative effect on the Potential secondary effects are primarily related to corridor growth that may transportation network. The TSM 2 Alternative would provide greater occur in response to improved mobility and accessibility along the corridor. beneficial cumulative effects on the transportation network, by further The analysis in this AA/EA shows that it is unlikely that the No Build, TSM 1 or increasing capacity and mobility. The Streetcar Build Alternative would have TSM 2 Alternative would contribute to changes in the corridor that would the greatest beneficial cumulative effect on the transportation network by result in notable secondary effects. However, implementation of the Streetcar providing the most capacity and best ability to respond to future transit Build Alternative may result in secondary effects associated with increased growth. land value and greater levels of growth and development along the corridor. Land Acquisitions Arlington County and Fairfax County have both implemented planning policies Several projects of the No Build Alternative would have potential land that would be supportive of a higher-quality, higher-capacity transit investment along the corridor that would be able to respond to redevelopment acquisition requirements that would affect parcels along the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative corridor. These projects include the following: and potentially new development should it occur. However, with more people potentially concentrated along the corridor, Arlington and Fairfax County may x Columbia Pike Multimodal Improvements Project need to review the adequacy of county services such as schools, libraries, and x Columbia Pike Super Stops Program emergency services that serve the corridor.
3-80 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I x Baileys Crossroads Streetscape Improvements Project 3.14.4 Minimization and Mitigation Measures x Realignment of South Buchanan Street To lessen the cumulative effects on identified resources, the following x 12th Street South connection between Fern Street and Eads Street minimization measures are proposed: Some of the parcels potentially affected by these projects would have additive x Land Acquisitions– For the TSM 2 and Streetcar Build Alternatives, effects on parcels affected by the TSM 2 or the Streetcar Build Alternatives identification of parcels where land acquisition needs overlap among along the proposed alignment. The TSM 1 Alternative does not result in any two or more projects is needed to limit acquisition costs and land acquisitions. However, it is not expected that either the TSM 2 or the disruption to property owners. Streetcar Build Alternative would contribute to land acquisitions that would x Water Quality – For the Streetcar Build Alternative, coordination of result in the eventual displacement of residents or businesses or render a the Washington Boulevard TPSS site location with designs for the parcel unusable. rebuilt Washington Boulevard Interchange is needed to assess Water Resources potential cumulative adverse effects on the RPA. The Washington Boulevard Bridge and Interchange Replacement Project would x Construction Impacts – For the Streetcar Build Alternative, potentially affect the RPA located within the northeast quadrant of the coordination of projects during construction phases will be critical to interchange. One of the proposed TPSS locations for the Streetcar Build avoid redundant utility relocations and roadway reconstruction Alternative is within the northeast quadrant of the intersection and within the activities and also to maintain adequate traffic operations and access boundaries of the RPA, although outside of the portion with natural to residences and businesses along the corridor. vegetation. The two projects are likely to cumulatively affect the Long Branch Stream and associated RPA. Many of the projects provided under the No Build Alternative likely have the potential to increase impervious surface within the study corridor, which could result in effects to water quality. Provision of new transit stops, the Jefferson Street Transit Center, TPSSs, the Construction Staging and Permanent Equipment Storage Site, and the O&M facility under the TSM 2 and/or Streetcar Build Alternatives could also contribute to minor increases in impervious surface that could have a minor effect on water quality. Construction Impacts The Columbia Pike Multimodal Improvements Project and Washington Boulevard Bridge and Interchange Replacement Project would involve roadway reconstruction and would likely have temporary but significant effects on traffic along portions of Columbia Pike during construction due to temporary lane closures. In addition, the Baileys Crossroads Streetscape Improvements Project could involve minor construction activities in the vicinity of Jefferson Street and Leesburg Pike. The Streetcar Build Alternative would have similar effects on Columbia Pike and the Jefferson Street/Leesburg Pike area during construction.
May 2012 3-81 3.15 Safety and Security 3.15.2 Key Findings 3.15.1 Introduction Personal Security of Travelers For this AA/EA, assessment of personal security relates to how changes in the This section identifies safety and security considerations associated with the physical environment may affect a person’s perception and experience of proposed alternatives and the design features that will be incorporated to safety. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards aim maximize safety and security. The section is organized into four categories: to reduce opportunity for crime through design using five strategies: natural x Personal Security for Travelers; surveillance; natural access control; territorial reinforcement (using buildings, x Accessibility; fences, pavement, signs and landscaping to express ownership); activity x Safe Operations for Travelers; and support (placing the right activity in the space); and maintenance (addressing 22 x Reliability and Emergency Response. the inspection, repair and general housekeeping of the space). CPTED emphasizes using the structures, spaces, lighting and people around an area to The corridor is characterized by high levels of transportation activity of all prevent crime and to reduce loss. modes. Most intersections along the corridor are signalized and the roadway handles heavy volumes of automobile traffic a day. Pedestrian signals are For transit systems, this often means incorporating design elements that present at most major intersections, and current transit passengers in the increase visibility to and from stops and station stops (riders can see what is corridor use curbside bus stops. Bicycle activity is fairly low along the going on around them, and passers-by can see riders) and maintaining corridor; Arlington County has encouraged cyclists to use alternate routes to cleanliness to improve the perception of safety. Strategies include better avoid the busy auto- and transit- oriented corridor. lighting, the use of transparent rather than opaque design and building materials, and the use of graffiti-resistant materials. Within their respective counties, the Fairfax County Police Department and the Arlington County Police Department have jurisdiction over public safety. No Build Alternative: Super Stops would be designed in consideration of Within the Metrorail and Metrobus systems, WMATA Transit Police lead law personal safety of transit riders. Station stops are well lit, positioned to enforcement activities and coordinate with local jurisdictions. maximize visibility, and use transparent glass. Emergency phones would be available at each stop, with operations staff always available to field calls. Resources used to assess the alternatives with regard to safety and security Arlington County and Fairfax County would clean and maintain the areas include: around the stops on an ongoing basis. x Personal Security for Travelers: American Public Transportation TSM 1 Alternative: Similar to No Build Alternative, Super Stops would be Association. (2010). Recommended Practice: 2010 Crime Prevention designed in consideration of personal safety of transit riders. The TSM 1 through Environmental Design (CPTED) for Transit Facilities. Alternative would consolidate bus stops along the corridor. Consolidated bus x Safe Operations for travelers: Federal Transit Administration (FTA). stops lead to slightly higher numbers of transit passengers at a stop, which (2007). 2007 Transit Safety and Security Statistics. contributes to a sense of increased personal security, especially during evening and late-night hours. Emergency phones would be available at each Analysis of accident rates for transit vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and stop, with operations staff always available to field calls. automobiles was constrained by the available data. FTA’s 2007 Transit Safety TSM 2 Alternative: All stops including the Super Stops along the entire TSM 2 and Security Statistics provides accident rate data for commuter rail, heavy alignment, would be designed in consideration of personal safety of transit rail (rapid transit), light rail (streetcar), motor bus, and automated guideway. riders. The TSM 2 Alternative would consolidate bus stops along the corridor. For purposes of this analysis, the “motor bus” mode was used to best Consolidated bus stops would lead to slightly higher numbers of transit represent the No Build, TSM 1, and TSM 2 Alternatives and the “light rail passengers at stops, which contributes to a sense of increased personal (streetcar)” was assumed for the Streetcar Build Alternative; however, this security, especially during evening and late-night hours. The TSM 2 also publication defines “light rail (streetcar)” as “Urban transit which uses includes the Jefferson Street Transit Center, which would be designed in predominately reserved but not always grade-separated rights-of-way.” The consideration of personal safety of transit riders, by incorporating sufficient Streetcar Build Alternative does not assume travel in its own right-of-way. lighting and other CPTED standards. Emergency phones would be available at each stop, with operations staff always available to field calls.
22 http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Security_pdfs/APTA-SS-SIS-RP-007- 10_CPTED.pdf
3-82 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Streetcar Build Alternative: All station stops, including the Super Stops along in one calendar year and normalized by vehicle miles. The 2007 findings are the entire Streetcar Build alignment, would be designed in consideration of summarized in Table 3.15-1, below: personal safety of transit riders. The Streetcar Build Alternative would consolidate bus stops along the corridor. Consolidated bus stops would lead to Table 3.15-1: Transit Safety and Security Findings (2007) slightly higher numbers of transit passengers at stops, which contributes to a Category Motorbus Light Rail sense of increased personal security, especially during evening and late-night Total Incidents 11, 053 983 hours. The Streetcar Build Alternative would include the Jefferson Street Collisions with vehicles, objects, and people 7,186 577 Transit Center, which would be designed in consideration of personal safety of Injuries 12,859 838 transit riders, by incorporating sufficient lighting and other CPTED standards. Derailments/Running off Road 47 56 Emergency phones would be available at each stop, with operations staff Source: FTA’s 2007 Transit Safety and Security Statistics. always available to field calls. It is assumed that if the Streetcar Build Alternative is selected as the Locally Accessibility Preferred Alternative, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) would oversee the safety and security of the system in All vehicles and stops would comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act accordance with 49 CFR Part 659: Rail Fixed Guideway Systems; Safety (ADA) to facilitate convenience and safety of disabled passengers. Transit Oversight. vehicles for each alternative would provide allocated space and/or priority seating for individuals who use wheelchairs. No Build Alternative No Build Alternative: The No Build Alternative would assume standard 40-foot Traffic: The No Build Alternative would assume a similar environment of Metrobuses and 35-foot ART buses. Both of these transit vehicles are wheel- pedestrian and traffic interactions as today. However, as general levels of chair accessible. The Super Stops would include the installation of ADA traffic continue to increase, the likelihood for conflicts increase. compliant pedestrian pads at stops and the removal of center panels from the Pedestrians: The No Build Alternative would assume a similar environment of front of shelters to improve ADA access. pedestrian and traffic interactions as today. However, as general levels of TSM 1 Alternative: Similar to No Build Alternative. traffic continue to increase, the likelihood for pedestrian and automobile conflicts increase. TSM 2 Alternative: The TSM 2 Alternative would deploy articulated buses on the 16G and 16H routes and standard 40-foot Metrobuses and 35-foot ART Bicycles: The No Build Alternative would assume an enhanced and safer buses on all other routes. All of the transit vehicles would be wheel-chair environment for cyclists, given the planned continuous bike facility parallel to accessible. The articulated buses would be low-floor buses that are ADA and along the corridor. The No Build Alternative would include a multi-use compliant and include a kneeling and raising system to meet various curb path at east (Joyce Street to Courthouse Road) and west (Four Mile Run to heights, a wheelchair ramp, and two wheelchair positions. Low-floor with South Jefferson Street) ends of Columbia Pike in Arlington County; and bicycle wheelchair ramps and kneeling features allow for easier boarding. boulevards are planned along parallel streets between Courthouse Road and Four Mile Run. More discussion on bicycle facilities is included in Section 3.1. The stops would include the installation of ADA compliant pedestrian pads at stops and the removal of center panels from the front of shelters to improve TSM 1 Alternative ADA access. Traffic: Similar to No Build Alternative. Streetcar Build Alternative: The Streetcar Build Alternative would deploy Pedestrians: Similar to No Build Alternative. streetcars, as well as 40-foot Metrobuses and 35-foot ART buses. The Bicycles: Similar to No Build Alternative. streetcars would be low-floor vehicles with three doors per side, two of which would be equipped with ramps for ADA accessibility. Streetcar vehicle doors TSM 2 Alternative are also wider than bus doors, which would provide easier access. There is Traffic: Similar to No Build Alternative. ample low-floor area within the vehicle for two wheelchair locations. Pedestrians: The majority of stops would be curb-side and provide raised Safe Operations for Travelers boarding areas, allowing easy entry and exits off transit vehicles. When various modes of transportation share the right-of-way, there is potential for adverse interactions. FTA’s 2007 Transit Safety and Security Bicycles: Similar to the No Build Alternative. Statistics provided incident, collision, and injury data related to various Streetcar Build Alternative modes of travel. The results represent the total number of incidents reported Traffic: Because the streetcar would operate in mixed traffic, traffic control signage and protocols would be similar to what travelers experience today.
May 2012 3-83 Along the majority of the corridor, streetcar vehicles would operate along the Figure 3.15-1: Bicycle and Streetcar Tracks Crossing Caution Sign outside lanes of Columbia Pike. At the east and west ends of the Streetcar Build Alternative alignment, streetcar vehicles would operate along the inside lanes along with other traffic. Special signage and signal phases would be used to facilitate streetcar vehicle movements in the following locations: x Jefferson Street and Columbia Pike (to allow the streetcar vehicles to turn onto South Jefferson Street) x Greenbrier Street and Columbia Pike (to allow streetcar vehicles to move into the inside lane for left turns onto South Jefferson Street) x Columbia Pike at Scott Street (to allow streetcar vehicles to transition away from the Washington Boulevard exit ramp) x 12th and Eads Streets (to allow access to the O&M facility) Streetcar vehicles would be equipped with turn signals, side view mirrors, and emergency braking systems to aid the driver and avoid collisions. All vehicles would be equipped with a speed governor, to ensure that vehicles stay within the designated speed limits. Motorists would interact with streetcars similarly to buses, keeping a safe distance behind the streetcar vehicle and avoiding sudden turns in front of the streetcar vehicle. Pedestrian: The majority of station stops would be curb-side and provide raised boarding areas, allowing easy entry and exits off transit vehicles. Reliability and Emergency Response Access to center platform stops would be via signal-protected crosswalks at No Build: Both counties would be prepared to respond appropriately and intersections and special crossing locations. Center platform stops are located develop response plans if a transit vehicle breaks down. The Super Stops th along 12 Street, South Hayes Street, South Joyce Street, and South Jefferson would include centralized communication system and real-time information Street. displays to alert passengers to any emergencies. Bicycles: As noted in Section 3.1.5, embedded streetcar tracks present TSM 1: Similar to No Build. potential hazards to bicyclists crossing or riding along the transit lane. A cyclist’s tires can become stuck in the narrow flangeway gap next to the TSM 2: All station stops along the full alignment would be equipped with a running surface of each rail. Bicycle turning movements across tracks are a centralized communication system and real-time information displays to alert particular focus of attention, especially where riders cross tracks at shallow passengers to any emergencies. oblique angles. Arlington County in coordination with the National Capital Streetcar Build: If a streetcar or bus breaks down, the counties would quickly Region Transportation Planning Board and the Transportation and Land-Use respond to remove the vehicle from the right-of-way. In addition, if a car or Connections Program, recently conducted a study on streetcar and bicycle object is blocking the streetcar tracks, the Counties would remove the interactions. The study identified a range of mitigation strategies, from impediment. The Streetcar Build Alternative would tow vehicles and ensure education programs for cyclists and motorists, to physical separation between operation throughout the daily period of transit service. The station stops bicycle and streetcar facilities, to design treatments that facilitate bicycle would also have a full-time operations control center to respond and alert turns over streetcar tracks at safe angles. Figure 3.15-1 shows an example of passengers to any emergencies. a warning sign, alerting cyclists to cross streetcar tracks at a right-angle in Portland, Oregon. As described in the No Build Alternative, Arlington County is 3.15.3 Minimization and Mitigation developing a continuous bike facility parallel to and along Columbia Pike. No impacts have been identified that require minimization or mitigation for the No Build or TSM Alternatives. Streetcar Build: For bicycle use under the Streetcar Build Alternative, potential effects would be mitigated through the following measures:
3-84 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I x Information campaigns to highlight the continuous bike facilities along the corridor; 3.16 Construction Impacts and Potential Permits x Specialized signage and pavement markings would be placed related 3.16.1 Introduction to track crossings to alert pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists to potential hazards and encourage crossings at right angles to in-street This section identifies and assesses the potential impacts that could be rails; and created by construction of the alternatives and identifies the permits and x Openings for the streetcar wheel flanges along the track shall meet approvals that may be required to undertake the project. minimum standards to minimize injury to pedestrians, bicyclists, and 3.16.2 Key Findings motorcyclists traveling across or along the tracks. The physical features that characterize each alternative are listed below by alternative, followed in each case by descriptions of the type or nature of impacts associated with constructing the physical features. No Build Alternative Temporary construction effects are likely to occur along the corridor, as a result of the various transportation improvement projects proposed and planned under the No Build Alterative. The construction effects of those projects are not documented in this AA/EA. It is assumed that for each individual project conducted as part of the No Build Alternative, construction activities have been approved and all applicable permits would be acquired. TSM 1 Alternative Potential construction impacts would be minimal for implementation of the TSM 1 Alternative. Construction activities under this alternative would be focused on the consolidation of existing transit stops along the corridor. These minor construction effects may result in: x Construction noise and vibration x Air Quality x Light pollution/glare x Temporary effects on water quality x Temporary lane closures x Temporary sidewalk closures x Temporary utility service interruptions x Temporary effects on businesses To offset these potential effects, construction activities would be coordinated to occur at times that would have the least effect on corridor activities and persons living along the corridor. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used to minimize the temporary effects associated with construction activities. In addition, site-specific environmental health and safety plans would be used to ensure the protection of workers at construction sites and of residents whose properties are adjacent to the site Construction Noise and Vibration: Temporary impacts due to construction activities could occur, but several noise and vibration control measures would be available to eliminate these potential impacts, including, equipment shrouds, temporary barriers, and shifting the loudest equipment operations to less-sensitive periods of the daytime.
May 2012 3-85 Noise levels from construction vehicles and equipment could create a establishments. Several mitigation measures could be undertaken to diminish temporary nuisance at some receptors along the corridor, but sound levels are these impacts. County staff and construction personnel could: not expected to enter into a range that would be unsafe for human hearing. Contractors would be required to comply with all local noise ordinances. x Contact and interview individual businesses to identify business Currently, both Arlington and Fairfax County allow noise levels of up to 90 dBA usage, delivery, and shipping patterns, as well as critical times of the for construction activities during the daytime period from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm. day or year for business activities to aid in developing Worksite In the event that air quality or noise levels become hazardous, temporary Traffic Control Plans and to ensure that critical business activities are barriers may be erected between sources and receptors. Additionally, not disrupted. vibration-based equipment rather than impact-based equipment could be used x During construction, develop, fund, and maintain a telephone hotline during construction to minimize noise, dust, and other potential effects. and one or more County Field Offices with staff to address community issues and concerns as they arise. The office would provide a physical Air Quality location where information pertaining to construction can be Construction could result in temporary impacts to air quality, which could be exchanged. unsafe for sensitive groups. Sources of these potential impacts include direct x Sponsor local events to promote awareness of the project. emissions from construction equipment and trucks, increased emissions from x Notify property owners, businesses, and residences of major motor vehicles on streets due to disruption of traffic flow, and fugitive dust construction activities (e.g., utility relocation/disruption and emissions. These impacts would be temporary, and would affect only the milestones; re-routing of delivery trucks). immediate vicinity of the construction sites and their access routes. Emissions x Provide literature to public and news media, schedule promotional from project-related construction equipment and trucks would be much less displays, participate in community committees, and make than the total emissions from other industrial and transportation sources in presentations, as needed, about the project. the region, and therefore are expected to be insignificant with respect to x Coordinate business outreach programs, and implement promotions NAAQS compliance. for businesses most affected by the construction. Temporary Effects on Water Quality: Detailed sediment and erosion control TSM 2 Alternative and stormwater management plans would be developed for construction Construction impacts related to the TSM 2 Alternative would be primarily activities to minimize effects on water quality. focused on stop consolidation along Columbia Pike and the implementation of Temporary Lane Closures: In the event that temporary lane closures are Superstops in the Skyline and Pentagon City areas. Another area of required, appropriate signage and notification to travelers would be provided. construction impacts associated with this alternative is the proposed Jefferson Street Transit Center. Construction of the transit center would include a Temporary Sidewalk Closures: Temporary sidewalk closures may result from structure to accommodate bus bays and surface parking for transit users. construction activities. In areas where a sidewalk closure is necessary, Construction would be staged on-site or adjacent to the proposed facilities. pedestrians would be provided appropriate signage to safely navigate the The types of temporary construction effects and possible BMPs to minimize construction area or provided a detour route to avoid the construction site. those effects would be similar to those described for the TSM 1 Alternative. Appropriate separation from construction activities will be provided to ensure pedestrian safety at all times. Streetcar Build Alternative Construction effects related to the Streetcar Build Alternative would result Temporary Utility Service Interruptions: Construction activities may also from proposed transit stops, the Jefferson Street Transit Center, regrading of result in temporary service interruptions to utility service along the corridor. Jefferson Street, structural reinforcement of the Four Mile Run Bridge, the Prior to conducting any construction activities, outreach to utility provides O&M facility and the Construction Staging and Permanent Equipment Storage along the corridor would occur. Service interruptions, if required would be Site. timed to occur outside of peak usage time. Structural work would be required for tow of the three Western Terminus Temporary Effects on Businesses Design Options: reinforcement of the existing roadway deck for the Skyline In addition to taking action to prevent or control the construction-related Plaza Option, and erection of a retaining structure parallel to the proposed impacts mentioned above, mitigation measures will also be considered in alignment for the Route 7 Option. averting impacts to businesses along the corridor. Sidewalk space and on- street parking spaces might be occupied temporarily for station stop and The Streetcar Build Alternative would have all of the same types of alignment construction, thereby reducing access. Reduced visibility of construction effects as described for the TSM Alternatives, with the addition commercial signs and businesses could occur. These construction impacts of the following: could, in turn, produce adverse economic impacts to commercial
3-86 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I x Temporary effects on Four Mile Run Trail, W&OD Trail, and 3.16.3 Permits and Approvals Glencarlyn Park; and x Utility modification and relocation. Land Use & Zoning Proposed improvements within Arlington County and Fairfax County would Temporary Effects on Parklands: The Streetcar Build Alternative would have require review under local zoning ordinances. The following types of permits temporary effects on the Four Mile Run Trail and the W&OD trail during the may be required, depending on the nature of the development activity: zoning construction phase of the Four Mile Run Bridge structure improvements. The exemption, zoning permit, special use permit, conditional use permit, special mitigation plan would include developing temporary rerouting of the trails and exception permit, rezoning approval, or approval of an amendment to the appropriate signage. Appropriate barriers between trail users and construction approved Final Development Plan (Fairfax County only). activities would be maintained to ensure safety of the trail users. Upon completion of the construction activities, the trails would be returned to the Water Resources previous conditions. The project sponsor would coordinate with the owners of Several potential permits have been identified for construction activities that trails to further develop a minimization and mitigation plan for the temporary would affect noted water resources. Applicable permits may include, but are effects. not necessarily limited to: Utility Modification and Relocation: In keeping with the WMATA Tram/LRT x US Army Corps of Engineers Nation Wide Permit - Proposed Guideline Design Criteria, conceptual design work has identified locations substructure work on the Four Mile Run Bridge may require a United along the Streetcar Build Alternative alignment where parallel and crossing States Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit for Temporary utilities may need to be modified or relocated to allow for necessary access to Construction, Access, and Dewatering. utility lines and adequate spacing between utility features and streetcar x National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – An EPA infrastructure. Existing utilities include publicly operated water, electric, permit would be required under the NPDES stormwater program for storm water, and sanitary sewer lines; and privately operated gas, electric, construction activities that disturb one acre of more. Preparation of a and communications lines. stormwater pollution prevention plan is also required. If the Streetcar Build Alternative were advanced to the next level of design x Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) – A VDCR and development, coordination with utility operators would be needed to permit would be required under the VPDES permit program for refine the extent of necessary modifications and relocations and to minimize construction activities that disturb an area of 2500 square feet or potential utility service disruptions during construction. Careful design, more within areas designated as subject to the Chesapeake Bay Area routing service onto temporary lines, and installing new utility infrastructure, Designation and Management Regulations. A Stormwater Pollution as appropriate, would minimize and mitigate construction-related impacts. Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required prior to general permit registration to VDCR. Construction Staging: Construction activities related to the Streetcar Build x Local Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinances – The project would Alternative would require areas for staging of equipment and materials. For require review under the local ordinances of Arlington County and the proposed O&M facility, TPSS, and Jefferson Street Transit Center, Fairfax County for proposed improvements within their jurisdictions. construction could be staged on-site, adjacent to the work. Guideway Potential land disturbance activities in RPAs would require special elements would require additional temporary lay-down and staging areas; review and approval. preliminary locations have been identified, including the proposed equipment x Local Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinances – The project would storage site near the Navy Annex, the existing Arlington County park and ride require review under the local ordinances of Arlington County and lot near Four Mile Run Drive, and a portion of the proposed Jefferson Street Fairfax County for proposed improvements within their jurisdictions. Transit Center parking area. Contaminated Materials As work progresses along the Streetcar Build alignment, construction activities Permits, approvals, or listed programs with regard to contaminated or would be restricted to short segments, and sequenced such that hazardous materials would be required or considered should the materials be civil/structural work, then track work, then systems work can progress in turn. encountered during the planning, design, or construction of the project. Roadways would be open to traffic during construction, with temporary Potential mitigation measures may include: closures at intersections and locations where the alignment transitions from one roadway to another (such as from Columbia Pike to South Jefferson x Voluntary Remediation – The project could require the acquisition of Street). properties which are known to be contaminated and or encounter previously unidentified petroleum releases within the proposed ROW. The project sponsors could enter into a Voluntary Remediation
May 2012 3-87 agreement with VDEQ to streamline and ascertain the appropriate 272, Virginia Waste Management Act, Virginia Code §§ 10.1-1400 et remediation of any sites that could be encountered on the project in seq., and the Virginia Administrative Code 9 VAC 20-60-270.61 (40 accordance with Chapter 160, Voluntary Remediation Regulations, of CFR 270.61). the Waste Regulations effective July 1, 2002 (9 Virginia x Asbestos and Lead – In accordance with Section 40.1-51.20 to 51.22 of Administrative Code (VAC) 20-160). the Code of Virginia, permits for the removal of ACM and/or LBP x Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) – The project could encounter would be required should the project require the demolition of a known or previously unknown USTs on properties to be acquired or building or structure which may contain these hazardous materials. within the proposed ROW. In accordance with Chapter 580 of the x Air Permits – The traction power substations and maintenance Virginia Administrative Code, the requirements for the Storage Tank facilities could require air permits because they may emit regulated Program is included under the State Water Control Board and pollutants and to ensure that these emissions do not harm public overseen by the VDEQ. In accordance with these requirements and health or cause significant deterioration in areas that presently have the Storage Tank Program Technical Manual (VDEQ Guidance clean air. The facilities will be evaluated to determine whether they Document #01-2024), the removal of regulated USTs would require meet the criteria included in the Virginia Air Pollution Control Law the Project to follow all rules and regulations; obtain a local building and the Commonwealth’s responsibilities under the federal CAA. permit; complete a closure assessment; and submit a closure packet within 30 days of closure of the UST. 3.16.4 Project Commitments x Releases of Petroleum or Regulated Substances – In accordance with This AA/EA identifies specific effects and potential mitigations associated with the Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation regulations (9 the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative alternatives. As an LPA is selected and VAC 25-580-190), suspected and confirmed releases from USTs, advanced toward implementation, further actions are necessary. Table 3.16- Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) and other sources (as applicable) 1 below identifies various commitments and coordination activities, by would be required to be reported to VDEQ Northern Field Office upon alternative, which would be undertaken as the project advances. Multiple discovery of a release during the development of the project. projects led by different parties are concurrently taking place along the x Hazardous Materials – Though not anticipated, any hazardous Columbia Pike corridor. This emphasizes the need to develop a coordination materials encountered or released during construction of the Project plan that details the interface with other ongoing projects, but also with could require a hazardous waste and management permit in potentially affected communities and stakeholders along the corridor. accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Federal Regulations 40 CFR 260- Table 3.16-1: Project Commitments Commitments Related Sections of Topic the AA/EA TSM 1 Alternative TSM 2 Alternative Streetcar Build Alternative Vol. I, Section x During the design phase of the proposed 3.10; O&M facility when specific activities and Vol. II, locations of required equipment are Section 9 identified, a more detailed noise analysis is Engineering recommended. Plans x Upon selection of a rail vehicle and final design of streetcar track and systems, a Noise Analysis None None detailed assessment of the potential for wheel-related noise impacts should be conducted at the following locations: o 12th Street & Eads Street (entrance to proposed maintenance facility) o Columbia Pike & Joyce Street o Columbia Pike & Jefferson Street
3-88 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Commitments Related Sections of Topic the AA/EA TSM 1 Alternative TSM 2 Alternative Streetcar Build Alternative Vol. I, Section x Hydraulic analysis may be required for 3.12 placement of expanded pier footings within Hydrologic & Vol. II, Four Mile Run. The project will continue Hydraulic None None Section 11 coordination with Arlington County, DEQ, Analysis Engineering and FEMA to determine appropriate Plans analysis, if required. Vol. I, Section x During subsequent phases of design, 3.8 archaeological testing would be conducted Archaeological Vol. II, and coordinated with VDHR for areas None None Testing Section 7 identified as archaeologically sensitive Engineering along the study corridor. Plans x Coordinate with utility owners and with x Coordinate with utility owners and with other ongoing projects in the study area to: other ongoing projects in the study area to: o Identify utilities that could be o Identify utilities that could be Engineering affected by implementation of the affected by implementation of the Utilities None Plans alternative, and alternative, and o Develop applicable utility o Develop applicable utility modification designs or modification designs or approaches. approaches. x Coordinate with Arlington County regarding temporary effects on Four Mile Run Trail and Glencarlyn Park due to necessary Vol. I, Section improvements to Four Mile Run Bridge. Parks 3.9 None None x Coordinate with the NVRPA regarding temporary effects on W&OD trail/property due to necessary improvements to Four Mile Run Bridge. x Continue public x Continue public involvement and outreach x Continue public involvement and outreach involvement and with affected communities and with affected communities and Public Vol. I, Section outreach with stakeholders. stakeholders. Involvement 6.0 affected communities and stakeholders. Vol. I, Section x More specifically define limits of right-of- x More specifically define limits of right-of- 3.3 way needs. way needs. Right-of-Way Vol. II, None x Coordination with potentially affected land x Coordination with potentially affected land coordination Section 4 owners. owners. Engineering Plans
May 2012 3-89 Commitments Related Sections of Topic the AA/EA TSM 1 Alternative TSM 2 Alternative Streetcar Build Alternative x Develop a coordination plan that details x Develop a coordination plan that details the the interface between the implementation interface between the implementation of of the alternative and other ongoing the alternative and other ongoing projects projects in the study area, including but in the study area, including but not limited not limited to Super Stops, Multimodal to Super Stops, Multimodal roadway roadway improvements, Columbia Pike improvements, Columbia Pike realignment realignment at the Navy Annex, Washington at the Navy Annex, Washington Boulevard Vol. I, Section Construction- Boulevard Interchange reconstruction, and Interchange reconstruction, and 12th Street 3.15 th related None 12 Street South reconstruction. South reconstruction. Engineering Documents x Develop appropriate stormwater, erosion x Develop appropriate stormwater, erosion Plans and sediment control plans for construction and sediment control plans for construction activities. activities. x Develop a list of construction related x Develop a list of construction related permits required for project facilities. permits required for project facilities. x Develop maintenance of traffic plan for in- street track and systems construction.
x The design phase should include an x The design phase should include an adjacent Vol. I, Section adjacent construction analysis to ascertain construction analysis to ascertain effects of Pentagon City 3.15 None effects of the Pentagon City Super Stops the streetcar station and line upon the Metrorail Station Engineering upon the underground Metrorail station and underground Metrorail station and line. Plans line. Vol. I, Section x Reconstruction of existing parking lot will x Reconstruction of existing parking lot will Jefferson St. 3.15 require continued coordination with require continued coordination with None Transit Center Engineering property owners, tenants and stakeholders. property owners, tenants and stakeholders. Plans x The Skyline station and alignment will x The Skyline station and alignment and their Skyline Area Vol. I, Section require coordination with property owners structural elements will require None Design Option 3.1; and stakeholders. coordination with property owners and stakeholders.
3-90 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Section 4.3 is a Risk Assessment of the capital and operating funding strategies. The risks are identified in a qualitative manner, given the current 4.0 Financial Analysis stage of project planning. This chapter describes the initial financial analysis and planning for the construction and operation of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative. The financial analysis and planning documented in this AA/EA reflect a level of detail appropriate for a project in the Alternatives Analysis phase. Subsequent Both Arlington and Fairfax Counties have included a “Columbia Pike Streetcar” phases (specifically, Project Development for a Small Starts project or project in their Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs).1 The inclusion of the Preliminary Engineering for a New Starts project) will define the project at a project in the CIP demonstrates a commitment by each County to provide the greater level of detail and result in more reliable cost estimates and ridership necessary local capital funding for the project. However, the implementation estimates. From these subsequent estimates, a final financial plan will be schedule and capital costs for the project included in the current CIPs are generated. based on earlier rounds of project planning that were completed prior to this Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA) effort. Therefore, 4.1 Capital Funding Strategy the costs and revenues in this chapter differ from what is presented in the CIPs. 4.1.1 Capital Cost Estimate There are currently three design options under consideration as the Build The capital cost estimates for the two TSM Alternatives and the three Alternative. The three options are substantially similar in most respects, but Streetcar Build Alternative design options are order-of-magnitude estimates they differ in the location of the proposed terminus at the western end of the based on the project scope and definition as of April 2012. As the project alignment. The three options, which have been described in detail in Chapter continues to evolve and decisions are finalized regarding alignment, location 2 of this AA/EA document, “Alternatives Considered,” are referred to as the of stops and facilities, and level of service, these cost estimates will be Skyline Central Plaza Design Option (“Skyline Central”), the Skyline Route 7 updated accordingly. Design Option (“Skyline Route 7”), and the Jefferson Street Transit Center The capital cost estimates are based on an implementation schedule that Design Option (“Jefferson Street”). The design option presented for assumes an opening date for the TSM Alternatives and the Build Alternative in substantive analysis in this chapter is the Skyline Route 7 option. The other 2016. Capital costs are estimated in year 2011 (or “base year”) dollars and two options have estimated capital costs that are within five percent (or less) then escalated to year-of-expenditure (YOE) dollars. This financial analysis of Skyline Route 7, and therefore it is assumed that the funding approaches assumes an annual 3 percent rate of inflation for all costs using the assumed that would be pursued for those options would be substantially similar to the construction schedule. Based on previous experience with capital and approaches presented here for Skyline Route 7. operating cost growth, this is a reasonable assumption at this stage, but more Section 4.1 is the Capital Funding Strategy. This section summarizes the detailed inflation forecasts (which are specific to each cost category and to overall capital cost estimate for each of the three Build Alternative options as Northern Virginia and the Washington metropolitan region) will be utilized in well as the TSM alternatives; presents a preliminary expenditure schedule of future financial analyses. capital costs by major cost category; reviews the funding assumptions of other Table 4.1-1 summarizes the projected base year (2011) costs for the two TSM projects currently receiving or nearing agreement on FTA New Starts or Small Alternatives, while Table 4.1-2 summarizes the projected base year costs for Starts funding; and identifies the preliminary capital funding sources and each of the three Build Alternative options. The Build Alternative design funding shares for the Build Alternative and for the TSM alternatives. options range in cost from $214 million to $231 million, depending on the Section 4.2 is the Operating Funding Strategy. This section summarizes the alignment, while TSM 1 costs $4 million and TSM 2 costs $47 million. There is projected operating and maintenance costs for the opening year and design no capital cost associated with the No Build Alternative. year and identifies the preliminary funding sources (including passenger revenues) that will support the ongoing operation and maintenance of the project.
1 The FY11-FY16 CIP for Arlington County is available online at http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/ManagementAndFinance/documents/file78592 .pdf. The FY12-FY16 Advertised CIP for Fairfax County is available online at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dmb/fy2012/advertised/cip.htm.
May 2012 4-1 Table 4.1-1: Total Capital Costs for the TSM Alternatives (thousands of 2011 dollars, including allocated contingency) Cat. No Description TSM 1 TSM 2 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEM ENTS $0 $0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL $0 $7,634 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADM IN. BLDGS $0 $11,400 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $0 $0 50 SYSTEMS $0 $0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $0 $3,959 70 VEHICLES $3,718 $18,322 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Calc. on Subtotal 10 - 50) $0 $2,082 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY (Calc. on Subtotal Cat. 10 - 80) $507 $3,522 Total Project $4,225 $46,918
Table 4.1-2: Total Capital Costs for the Build Alternative Design Options (thousands of 2011 dollars, including allocated contingency) Cat. Skyline Central Plaza Skyline Route 7 Design Jefferson Street Transit No Description Design Option Option Center Design Option 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEM ENTS $43,871 $37,154 $33,094 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL $5,803 $5,803 $5,397 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADM IN. BLDGS $14,398 $14,398 $14,398 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $16,739 $16,656 $16,851 50 SYSTEMS $29,753 $29,543 $29,169 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $12,101 $12,417 $12,133 70 VEHICLES $51,597 $51,597 $51,597 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Calc. on Subtotal 10 - 50) $33,930 $31,821 $30,410 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY (Calc. on Subtotal Cat. 10 - 80) $22,543 $21,626 $21,003 Total Project $230,735 $221,014 $214,052 Total Route Miles 5.0 4.9 4.7 Cost Per Mile $46,485 $44,809 $45,193
4-2 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 4.1-3 and Table 4.1-4 provide the projected YOE costs for the TSM construction begins are not included in these estimates. A more detailed Alternatives, while Table 4.1-5 summarizes the same information for Skyline implementation schedule and refined cost estimate for the locally preferred Route 7, given a preliminary assessment of the likely implementation schedule alternative will be developed during subsequent phases. The costs of Project (i.e., the timing of expenditures in each major cost category) for each Development are included in Category 80, in addition to insurance, Alternative. The total YOE cost for Skyline Route 7 is estimated at $246 environmental mitigation, program and construction management, and other million, given an assumption of 3 percent annual inflation, while the YOE costs professional services costs. The development of the capital estimate for TSM 1 and 2 are $5 million and $53 million, respectively. Any financing methodology and the categories used for reporting are consistent with FTA costs that might be necessary to cover delays or shortfalls in funding once guidelines.
Table 4.1-3: Capital Costs for TSM 1 (thousands of YOE dollars)
Cat. Description Total 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 No. 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEM ENTS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERM ODAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 50 SYSTEMS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 70 VEHICLES $4,185 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,185 $0 $0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Calc. on Subtotal 10 - 50) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY (Calc. on Subtotal Cat. 10 - 80) $571 $0 $0 $0 $0 $571 $0 $0 TOTAL PROJECT $4,755 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,755 $0 $0
Table 4.1-4: Capital Costs for TSM 2 (thousands of YOE dollars)
Cat. Description Total 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 No. 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEM ENTS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERM ODAL $8,594 $0 $0 $0 $2,780 $2,864 $2,950 $0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS $12,835 $0 $0 $0 $4,152 $4,277 $4,405 $0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 50 SYSTEMS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $4,457 $0 $0 $0 $1,442 $1,485 $1,530 $0 70 VEHICLES $20,627 $0 $0 $0 $6,674 $6,874 $7,080 $0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Calc. on Subtotal 10 - 50) $2,344 $0 $0 $0 $758 $781 $805 $0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY (Calc. on Subtotal Cat. 10 - 80) $3,966 $0 $0 $0 $1,283 $1,321 $1,361 $0 TOTAL PROJECT $52,822 $0 $0 $0 $17,090 $17,602 $18,130 $0
May 2012 4-3 Table 4.1-5: Capital Costs for Skyline Route 7 Design Option (thousands of YOE dollars)
Cat. Description Total 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 No. 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEM ENTS $41,293 $0 $0 $5,912 $13,398 $13,800 $8,184 $0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERM ODAL $6,449 $0 $0 $923 $2,092 $2,155 $1,278 $0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS $16,003 $0 $0 $2,291 $5,192 $5,348 $3,171 $0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $18,511 $0 $0 $2,651 $6,006 $6,186 $3,669 $0 50 SYSTEMS $32,834 $0 $0 $4,701 $10,653 $10,973 $6,507 $0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $13,177 $0 $4,263 $4,391 $4,523 $0 $0 $0 70 VEHICLES $58,525 $0 $0 $0 $14,095 $19,358 $19,938 $5,134 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Calc. on Subtotal 10 - 50) $35,016 $1,591 $3,278 $6,752 $6,954 $7,163 $7,378 $1,900 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY (Calc. on Subtotal Cat. 10 - 80) $24,140 $0 $0 $4,589 $5,908 $6,085 $6,268 $1,291 TOTAL PROJECT $245,949 $1,591 $7,541 $32,210 $68,822 $71,067 $56,393 $8,325
4-4 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 4.1.2 Funding for Other New Starts Projects As Table 4.1-6 demonstrates, New Starts projects vary widely in their total capital costs, from less than $200 million for the Draper Transit Corridor in This chapter is a prelude to a formal Financial Plan within a federal New Utah to many billions of dollars for major commuter rail and rapid transit Starts/Small Starts (Section 5309) funding application. Given the size of the investments in metropolitan New York and Northern Virginia. The amount of Skyline Route 7 Design Option of the Streetcar Build Alternative and the federal funding requested (as a percentage of the total capital cost) also amount of federal funding requested by the Counties (less than $75 million, as varies widely, from as low as 24 percent to as high as 60 percent. The average explained below), the Columbia Pike project may be eligible for New Starts or federal funding share across all 21 New Starts projects shown in Table 4.1-6 is Small Starts funding consideration. This will require that the project compete 39 percent. However, this figure is heavily influenced by the multi-billion with other transit capital projects for this limited discretionary federal capital dollar New York and Northern Virginia projects, which have relatively low funding. Therefore, it is instructive to examine the projects that are currently federal funding on a percentage basis. The median federal funding share, on a receiving or nearing agreement with FTA on New Starts or Small Starts percentage basis, is 50 percent. discretionary funding in order to understand what federal funding may be available to the project. Even within the subset of Small Starts projects (the final nine projects listed in Table 4.1-6), the projects vary substantially in their total capital costs and New Starts is the federal government’s primary discretionary funding program in the federal funding share of the project cost. The two largest projects have for supporting locally-planned, implemented, and operated transit "fixed total capital costs of $198 million and $205 million, and both projects guideway" capital investments. Through this program, FTA provides grants to requested the maximum $75 million in Small Starts funding, resulting in a state and local governments and transit agencies for the development of new federal funding share of 38 and 36 percent, respectively. The seven remaining and improved transit facilities and services. Although the funding for New projects are smaller, ranging from $24 million to $125 million, and all have Starts is substantial – SAFETEA-LU originally authorized $6.6 billion in New requested federal funding shares greater than 50 percent, with three at the Starts/Small Starts funding through FY09 – the demand for funding is even statutory maximum of 80 percent. greater, and the program is highly competitive. Table 4.1-4 summarizes 30 major transit projects from across the country that have received recommendations for funding in FTA’s FY2013 Annual Report on Funding Recommendations for Capital Investment and Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Programs.
May 2012 4-5 Table 4.1-6: FY2013 New Starts Funding Recommendations Overall Project Total New or Small New or Small Starts 1 # State Project Category Rating Total Project Cost Starts Funding Funding Percentage 1 CO Denver Eagle Commuter Rail Existing FFGA $2,043,143,000 $1,030,449,000 50% 2 CT Hartford New Britain - Hartford Busway Existing FFGA $567,053,000 $275,300,000 49% 3 FL Orlando Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit Existing FFGA $357,225,011 $178,612,505 50% 4 MN St. Paul-M inneapolis Central Corridor LRT Existing FFGA $956,900,000 $473,950,000 50% 5 NY New York Long Island Rail Road East Side Access Existing FFGA $7,386,003,583 $2,632,113,826 36% 6 NY New York Second Avenue Subway Phase I Existing FFGA $4,866,614,468 $1,300,000,000 27% 7 TX Dallas Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS Existing FFGA $1,406,215,977 $700,000,000 50% 8 TX Houston North Corridor LRT Existing FFGA $756,008,000 $450,000,000 60% 9 TX Houston Southeast Corridor LRT Existing FFGA $822,919,000 $450,000,000 55% 10 UT Salt Lake County Draper Transit Corridor Existing FFGA $193,641,000 $116,184,600 60% 11 VA Northern Virginia Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Existing FFGA $3,142,471,634 $900,000,000 29% 12 WA Seattle University Link LRT Extension Existing FFGA $1,947,682,000 $813,000,000 42% 13 CA Sacramento South Sac ramento Corridor Phase 2 Pending Medium $270,000,000 $135,000,000 50% 14 CA San Francisco Third Street Light Rail Phase 2 - Central Subway Pending M edium-High $1,578,300,000 $942,200,000 60% 15 CA San Jose Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension Project Pending Medium $2,330,021,971 $900,000,000 39% 16 HI Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project Pending M edium-High $5,125,955,000 $1,550,000,000 30% 17 OR Portland Portland-M ilwaukie Light Rail Project Pending M edium-High $1,490,350,173 $745,175,087 50% 18 NC Charlotte LYNX Blue Line Extension - Northeast Corridor New M edium-High $1,069,217,178 $534,608,570 50% 19 CA Los Angeles Regional Connector Transit Corridor Other M edium-High $1,342,541,000 $671,265,090 50% 20 CA Los Angeles Westside Subway Extension Other Medium $5,662,347,180 $2,399,524,000 42% 21 WA Vancouver Columbia River Crossing Project Other M edium-High $3,507,872,000 $850,000,000 24% 22 AZ Mesa Central Mesa LRT Extension Small M edium-High $198,490,000 $74,999,999 38% 23 CA Fresno Fresno Area Express Blackstone/Kings Canyon BRT Small Medium $48,188,000 $38,550,000 80% 24 CA Oakland East Bay BRT Small High $205,481,000 $74,999,999 36% 25 CA San Francisco Van Ness Avenue BRT Small M edium-High $125,633,000 $74,999,999 60% 26 FL Jacksonville JTA BRT North Corridor Small Medium $33,482,000 $26,785,000 80% 27 FL Jacksonville JTA BRT Southeast Corridor Small Medium $23,877,000 $19,101,000 80% 28 MI Grand Rapids Silver Line BRT Small Medium $35,285,000 $28,228,000 80% 29 OR Eugene West Eugene EmX Extension Small Medium $95,567,000 $74,999,999 78% 30 TX El Paso Dyer Corridor BRT Small Medium $35,251,663 $20,407,094 58%
Source: Federal Transit Administration, FY2013 'Annual Report on Funding Recommendations,' Table 1
1 'Existing' indicates a project with a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) that is under construction or open for service. 'Pending' indicates a project which was first recommended for funding in prior year reports 'New' indicates a project that is being recommended for an FFGA in the FY13 New Starts report. 'Other' indicates a project that "may receive an FFGA should [it] make the necessary progress during FY 2013." 'Small' indicates a project that is being recommended for Small Starts funding in the FY13 New Starts report.
4-6 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 4.1-9: Preliminary Estimate of Capital Funding Sources for Skyline 4.1.3 Capital Funding Sources for the TSM Alternatives Route 7 Design Option (000s of YOE dollars) Neither the TSM 1 nor TSM 2 Alternatives have been included in the CIP of Funding Funding either County; therefore, no formal guidance is available on how these Source Amount Share Alternatives might be funded if either were selected as the locally preferred FTA New Starts or Small Starts (Section 5309) $73,785 30% alternative. However, based on informal guidance from Arlington County and Commonwealth of Virginia $34,433 14% Fairfax County transportation staff, the following funding plans for the TSM Arlington and Fairfax Counties $137,731 56% Alternatives appear reasonable for AA/EA planning purposes: TOTAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL COSTS $245,949 100% x The TSM 1 Alternative would be funded entirely through local capital funding sources, such as Arlington County’s Transportation Capital These funding amounts are preliminary and approximate, and they would be Fund [see subsequent section for a more complete description]. expected to change in the future as the project moves through Project x The TSM 2 Alternative would receive approximately one-third of the Development and as cost allocation agreements are negotiated between the necessary capital funding from the Virginia Department of Rail and various parties. However, at this stage of planning, these figures provide a Public Transportation (DRPT). This represents the typical rate of useful reference point. The assumed share for FTA New Starts or Small Starts reimbursement received from the Commonwealth of Virginia for bus funding ($73.8 million, 30 percent) is slightly below the maximum potential purchases. The remaining capital funding would come from local funding amount of $75 million under the Small Starts program. funding sources. The assumption of 14 percent funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia is The TSM 1 and TSM 2 funding plans are summarized below in Table 4.1-7 and drawn from the recent experience of The Tide light rail transit project in Table 4.1-8. Norfolk, Virginia. This project, which opened for service in August 2011, has received capital funding support from both the New Starts program and the Table 4.1-7: Preliminary Estimate of Capital Funding Sources for TSM 1 Commonwealth. At this stage of planning, it is assumed that the (000s of YOE dollars) Commonwealth continues to find this funding support appropriate for major Funding Funding transit projects that successfully compete for federal New Starts funds.2 The Source Amount Share state funding is expected to come from Virginia’s Mass Transit Fund, which is FTA New Starts or Small Starts (Section 5309) $0 0% managed by DRPT and which supports transit operations, capital, and special Commonwealth of Virginia $0 0% programs. The Mass Transit Fund receives its revenues, in turn, from the Arlington and Fairfax Counties $4,755 100% state’s Transportation Trust Fund. TOTAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL COSTS $4,755 100% The remaining 56 percent of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative’s capital costs will be borne by the Counties of Arlington and Fairfax. A formal Table 4.1-8: Preliminary Estimate of Capital Funding Sources for TSM 2 agreement will ultimately be required in order to allocate the remaining (000s of YOE dollars) capital costs between the two counties, but project planning and design are not yet sufficiently advanced to know exactly what that allocation will be. The Funding Funding source or sources of the local funding are also not yet fully committed. Both Source Amount Share Counties have expressed their intent (as noted in their CIPs) to fund their local FTA New Starts or Small Starts (Section 5309) $0 0% share of the capital costs with proceeds from a real estate tax on commercial Commonwealth of Virginia $17,607 33% properties. This funding source is described in the Arlington County CIP as Arlington and Fairfax Counties $35,215 67% follows: TOTAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL COSTS $52,822 100% Arlington County’s Transportation Investment Fund [subsequently renamed the Transportation Capital Fund] is a source of funding 4.1.4 Capital Funding Sources for the Build Alternative authorized by the General Assembly in 2007 enabling the County to If the Streetcar Build Alternative is selected as the locally preferred alternative and the project is successful in its proposed pursuit of New Starts or Small Starts grant funding, then the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2 As of the writing of this document, the capital cost for the Norfolk Tide LRT project is the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Arlington County and Fairfax County will substantially higher than was estimated in the original FFGA, and all parties have provide the capital funding for the project. The proposed amount of capital contributed additional resources to fill the funding gap. The original project sheet for the Norfolk Tide LRT is available at funding from each party is shown in Table 4.1-9 below. www.fta.dot.gov/documents/VA_Norfolk_LRT_07.doc.
May 2012 4-7 levy an additional real estate tax on industrial and commercial 4.2.2 Operating Funding Sources properties for transportation initiatives. In April 2008, the Arlington Table 4.2-2 summarizes the projected sources of operating funding for the County Board adopted a tax of $0.125 per $100 of assessed value, alternatives in 2016 (the opening year). Table 4.2-3 provides the same yielding projected revenues of $19.7 million in FY 2011 for information for the design year of 2030. As in the previous section on capital transportation projects. The commercial real estate tax is proposed, costs, the Skyline Route 7 design option for the Build Alternative is presented beginning in FY 2013, to support bond financing. Proceeds of the tax as the focus for analysis, on the assumption that a similar funding approach are held in a separate fund. would be used if any of the three design options for the Build Alternative were Arlington County has also expressed interest in tax increment financing (TIF) selected. The key assumptions for this forecast include: as a way to capture the value produced by a premium transit investment and support the project capital costs. This approach may be considered as a source x Ridership: Daily ridership figures are taken directly from the travel of “back-up” funding in case federal or state funding falls short of planned demand forecasting results presented in Section 3.1 of the AA/EA document. This consistency between the ridership forecasting results levels. These and other funding options will be explored in more detail as the and the cost and revenue estimation is a critical linkage that will be project planning progresses. closely followed by FTA throughout the project evaluation process.4 x Annualization: The average weekday ridership figures from the 4.2 Operating and Maintenance Funding Strategy ridership forecasting models are annualized using figures derived 4.2.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs from the National Transit Database (NTD) 2009 summary of WMATA’s Metrobus ridership.5 Table 4.2-1 summarizes the estimated operating and maintenance (O&M) x Average Fare Paid: The average fare paid by WMATA Metrobus riders costs for each alternative in both 2016 (the project opening year) and 2030 in FY2011 was $1.05, as reported in WMATA’s FY12 Budget Book. This (the design year or horizon year for ridership forecasting) and provides a range figure is used as the basis for projecting fare revenue and is assumed of costs for the Build Alternative. Only the ‘Medium’ estimate for the Build to grow with inflation throughout the analysis period. Alternative is presented in detail. The O&M costs have been escalated to year- x State Operating Support: The Commonwealth of Virginia supports the of-expenditure (YOE) dollars using the same 3 percent annual inflation rate operations of transit systems across the state through a formula assumption as was used to inflate the capital cost projections. As with that assistance program. In the past, this program has supported analysis, future projections of O&M costs will utilize more detailed inflation approximately 20 percent of agencies’ total transit operating costs. forecasts. The methodology for estimating the O&M costs for the Build However, this support has been declining in recent years, and given Alternative, as well as for the No-Build and TSM1 and TSM2 alternatives, is the growth in transit service in the state and reductions in available described in detail in Volume 2 (technical appendices) of the AA/EA 3 funding, an assumption of 15 percent state operating support appears document. more reasonable at this time. Table 4.2-1: Annual Operating Costs for Columbia Pike Transit Initiative x Federal Grant Funds for Preventive Maintenance (PM): After seven Alternatives (thousands of YOE dollars) years of operations of a new fixed guideway system, transit agencies Build Alternative may apply for and receive Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization funds from the FTA. These grant funds are provided on No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Low Medium High a formula basis that depends on the amount of fixed guideway service Annual Operating $16,749 $23,281 $22,533 $22,536 $25,568 $29,611 provided (as measured by annual vehicle revenue miles and Costs - 2016 directional route miles). As with Section 5307 Urbanized Area Funds, Annual Operating the Fixed Guideway Modernization funds may be used to offset $25,334 $35,214 $34,083 $34,087 $38,674 $44,789 Costs - 2030
4 As noted, the O&M cost estimates do not include ART bus service in the corridor (with the exception of a small incremental amount of ART 41 service in the TSM and Build Alternatives). Therefore, the daily ridership figures in Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-3 also do not include ART bus ridership in the corridor. This ensures that the projected fare revenue is 3 The O&M cost estimate for the No Build Alternative includes only WMATA bus services comparable to the projected operating cost for each alternative. in the corridor and not ART bus services that directly serve the corridor. The TSM and 5 In the Build Alternative, both bus and streetcar modes will operate in mixed traffic Build Alternatives include a small incremental amount of service on ART route 41 (to along the corridor. Therefore, it is assumed that the streetcar will have operational ensure continued service to the Columbia Heights West neighborhood following the characteristics (relating to ridership and fare revenue) that are similar to the existing proposed modification of WMATA’s 16G service), but no other ART bus services are bus service. For example, the streetcar will not be a “premium priced” service with included in the O&M cost estimates. higher fares than the buses.
4-8 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I preventive maintenance expenses. Should the project sponsors or Table 4.2-3: Operating Costs and Revenues in the Design Year (2030) local jurisdictions choose to use the new funding in this manner, it (thousands of YOE dollars) would be available to offset a modest amount of operating expenses. Build The estimate presented for 2030 for the Build Alternative assumes No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 (Medium) that the current unit grant amounts (i.e., dollar amount per vehicle Total Annual Operating $25,334 $35,214 $34,083 $38,674 revenue mile and per fixed guideway directional route mile) grow Costs with inflation and thus stay constant in real terms. The additional Ridership & Fare Revenue Fixed Guideway Modernization funds would not be available if the No Total Daily Ridership 13,758 18,136 21,794 23,376 Build or TSM1/TSM2 alternatives are selected. The first year of Annualization Factor 300 300 300 300 availability of these funds would be 2023, assuming an opening year Total Annual Ridership 4,127,400 5,440,800 6,538,200 7,012,800 of 2016 for the Build Alternative. Average Fare Paid $1.84 $1.84 $1.84 $1.84 Total Fare Revenue $7,599 $10,017 $12,038 $12,912 Table 4.2-2: Operating Costs and Revenues in the Opening Year (2016) Farebox Recovery Ratio 30% 28% 35% 33% (thousands of YOE dollars) State Operating Support (Formula) Build DRPT Operating Assistance No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 (Medium) 15% 15% 15% 15% (%) Total Annual Operating $16,749 $23,281 $22,533 $25,568 DRPT Operating Assistance Costs $3,800 $5,282 $5,112 $5,801 ($) Ridership & Fare Revenue Federal Grant Funds (Used Total Daily Ridership 12,455 16,306 19,465 20,537 $0 $0 $0 $1,517 for PM)* Annualization Factor 300 300 300 300 Local Funding Requirement $13,935 $19,915 $16,932 $18,444 Total Annual Ridership 3,736,500 4,891,800 5,839,500 6,161,100 Local Funding Increase Over Average Fare Paid $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 -- $5,980 $2,997 $4,509 No Build Total Fare Revenue $4,548 $5,954 $7,108 $7,500 * Only available after 7 years of operation. Estimate based on route miles and revenue vehicle Farebox Recovery Ratio 27% 26% 32% 29% miles. State Operating Support (Formula) This preliminary analysis does not include any other operating revenue sources DRPT Operating that could be used to offset the public subsidy required, such as joint 15% 15% 15% 15% Assistance (%) development revenues, parking revenues, advertising, or concessions. DRPT Operating Subsequent financial analyses will examine these potential revenue streams. $2,512 $3,492 $3,380 $3,835 Assistance ($) However, the initial results appear reasonable when considering the estimated Federal Grant Funds farebox recovery ratios. In FY2011, Metrobus recovered approximately 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 (Used for PM)* percent of its operating costs from passenger revenues, as compared to an Local Funding estimate of 27 percent for the No Build bus-only option in 2016. $9,688 $13,834 $12,045 $14,233 Requirement As indicated in the final line of each table, the key figure for the local Local Funding Increase -- $4,146 $2,356 $4,545 jurisdictions is the increase in local funding over the No Build Alternative. Over No Build That is, the local jurisdictions are already supporting significant transit * Only available after 7 years of operation. services in the Columbia Pike corridor, so the costs of the TSM1, TSM2, and Build Alternative will not be entirely new costs. For example, for the Build Alternative in 2016, the total local contribution is projected at $14.2 million, but the net additional contribution will be $4.5 million. 4.3 Risks and Uncertainties The funding strategy outlined in this chapter is intended to provide a reasonable starting point for project planning that is based on recent experience at both the federal and state levels. However, beyond the overall uncertainty associated with funding sources of federal and state partners,
May 2012 4-9 several risks could affect the feasibility of the current project funding plan. If a streetcar alternative is selected, there are broader risks associated with These risks exist for both the capital and operating strategies. the fact that the streetcar mode of transit is not currently operated in the Washington metropolitan area. Although lessons can be learned from streetcar 4.3.1 Construction Cost and Revenue Risk services in other parts of the country, there still is likely to be a “learning As noted earlier, the project capital costs presented in this EA document are period” for a Northern Virginia streetcar that may be associated with higher relatively high-level, and the cost estimates will be refined and updated as costs, disruptions, and other uncertainties. the project moves through the preliminary engineering and final design In addition, a streetcar would be a joint effort by Arlington County and Fairfax phases. The capital cost estimate for the Build Alternative has already been County, and would likely be delivered and operated by a new entity, rather subjected to a peer review by consultants and operators that have recently than by an existing transit operator such as WMATA, ART, or Fairfax designed and built similar street-running streetcar and light rail projects. Connector. This could potentially generate additional institutional and funding However, even as the cost estimates become more refined, actual risks, although both Arlington County and Fairfax County currently are federal construction costs may differ from estimates for a number of reasons, grantees and have extensive experience delivering and operating public including: transit, which should help mitigate those risks. x Unforeseen conditions, such as utility relocations or environmental mitigation 4.3.3 Risk Assessment and Mitigation x Real cost inflation (either overall or for specific cost categories) As the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative progresses through the preliminary which exceeds projections engineering and final design phases, the project sponsors must examine x Scope or design changes various responses that can be taken to mitigate risks and to preserve the x Schedule delays financial viability of the project. These responses might include adjusting the project implementation schedule and staging; adjusting service growth; Costs may also increase if committed grant funding from federal, state, or reviewing potential changes to fare policy; and exploring alternative project local partners is not available on schedule, thus delaying the project. delivery structures. FTA has established procedures and processes for identifying, assessing, and mitigating these risks, and the project sponsors will 4.3.2 Operating Cost and Revenue Risk work closely with FTA in developing appropriate strategies. The actual net annual operating subsidy that must be covered by the local jurisdictions may vary from planning projections for a number of reasons, including: x Real cost inflation for key operating cost drivers (e.g., fuel, operator wages and fringes) may exceed projections. x Fare policies and transit and roadway levels of service may change, which may have a significant impact on transit ridership, fare revenue, and operating costs.
4-10 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I The needs of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative include: 5.0 Evaluation of Alternatives x Improve transit capacity and transit mode share; x Invest in transit service that supports growth and economic This chapter provides an evaluation of the alternatives presented in Chapter 2 development; and and analyzed in Chapter 3. The intent of this chapter is to provide information x Improve transit access and regional connectivity to and from Skyline. to assist the Arlington County Board and the Fairfax County Board of The following subsections summarize the results of the qualitative and Supervisors in selecting the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for quantitative measures developed to assess how well each alternative meets advancement under the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts/Small the project purpose and need. Starts program. 5.2.1 Limited Roadway Capacity As the lead federal agency for the project, FTA is providing oversight of 1) the Alternatives Analysis and project development process; and 2) environmental Problem: Limited roadway capacity to handle an increase in automobile documentation in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of trips. 1969. Both of these functions are important in advancing the Columbia Pike Need: Increase transit capacity and improve transit mode share. Transit Initiative towards implementation. The corridor’s roadway network is constrained to handle projected population 5.1 Methodology of Evaluation and employment growth. Arlington County’s Master Transportation Plan Streets Element precludes widening roadways to increase roadway capacity1, The goal of the evaluation is to assess how well each alternative addresses the and current transit capacity is limited, given the close headways of buses and Columbia Pike Transit Initiative’s purpose and needs and goals and objectives. levels of current usage. Increasing both transit capacity and the number of The evaluation is performed using two assessments: persons using transit (increasing transit mode share) would help address and The first assessment evaluates the ability of each alternative to meet the serve the anticipated transit and roadway demand. As shown in Table 5.2-1, project purpose and need, as described in Chapter 1. This is performed using the TSM 2 Alternative and Streetcar Build Alternative provide similar, higher identified evaluation measures that provide either quantitative or qualitative levels of transit capacity and transit mode share. The evaluation measures data on how well each alternative meets the stated need. used are described below: The second evaluation is a qualitative assessment of how well an alternative x Total person throughput: projected total number of transit users supports the project goals and objectives defined in Chapter 1, relative to the and automobile passengers at the point of maximum ridership during other alternatives. the peak period at the peak point (peak point is along Columbia Pike between George Mason Drive and Glebe Road). The final section, Section 5.4, provides a synthesis of the two evaluation x Transit capacity per peak period: the total maximum “comfortable assessments, and presents the estimated costs along with risks and benefits standing load” for the Metrobus/Streetcar and ART lines that serve associated with each alternative. Each alternative provides certain benefits at the corridor. varying degrees of investment. The county boards will consider the benefits x Transit ridership mode share: projected percentage of travelers and risks and weigh the costs of each alternative in order to select the using transit (considers all trips to and from areas along the corridor alternative that best satisfies the counties’ vision for the corridor and best throughout the entire day). meets the project purpose and need as well as goals and objectives. x Total daily transit ridership: projected number of travelers using Detailed methodologies for specific topics included in this evaluation can be transit per day. found in Volume II: Supporting Technical Memoranda. x Reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): the reduction of the total number of regional VMT during a typical weekday, relative to 5.2 Ability to Meet Project Purpose & Need the No Build Alternative. As described in Chapter 1, the purpose of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative is to: x Implement higher-quality and higher-capacity transit service along the corridor in order to provide more capacity; x Enhance access within the corridor and provide connections to the regional transit network; and 1 Arlington County. (2011). Arlington County Master Transportation Plan x Support economic development along the corridor. Streets Element. p. 7.
May 2012 5-1 Table 5.2-1: The need to increase transit capacity and improve transit mode share Evaluation Measure: No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Streetcar Build 2016 person throughput (at peak-load 3,101 3,229 3,489 3,524 point) (automobile and transit) (37% transit) (40% transit) (44% transit) (45% transit) 2030 person throughput (at peak-load 3,349 3,745 3,795 3,916 point) (automobile and transit) (39% transit) (41% transit) (46% transit) (48% transit) Transit capacity (peak hour, peak 1,974 2,073 2,654 2,802 direction) 2016 transit ridership (total average weekday for Metrobus/ streetcar and 17,800 21,700 25,100 26,200 ART) 2030 transit ridership (total average weekday for Metrobus/ streetcar and 20,700 25,000 28,900 30,500 ART) 2016 transit mode share (daily total) 11.70% 11.82% 12.01% 12.07% 2030 transit mode share (daily total) 12.91% 13.04% 13.23% 13.31% 2016 Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and savings compared to the No 130M -5,652 -13,699 -16,323 Build Alternative 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and savings compared to the No 160M -6,341 -15,208 -18,740 Build Alternative
5.2.2 Insufficient Transit Capacity to Support Growth and The evaluation measures used are described below: Development x Volume-to-capacity ratio: A ratio of passenger volume over transit Problem: Existing transit service is insufficient to support future growth line capacity shows how well the corridor transit lines are being and development within the corridor. utilized in the peak hour and in the peak direction. This indicator is also known as capacity utilization or load factor. Higher values are Need: Invest in transit service that supports growth and economic associated with high levels of utilization. As the ratio approaches a development. value of 1, vehicles become more crowded, which lowers rider comfort. A volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.8 still reflects a comfortable Potential to increase the transit system capacity: standing load. However, the assessment averages loadings across the Based on Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) peak hour of travel. estimates, the total population within a quarter-mile of the corridor is x Capacity of the transit fleet to expand to adapt to corridor expected to grow by approximately 10,000 people by 2030. Similarly, population and employment growth: As demand for transit grows, employment along the corridor is expected to grow by approximately 12,000 and additional transit vehicles are added, the transit system is more jobs. Therefore, the corridor needs a transit system that is able to expand and prone to inefficiency. This characteristic is expressed in terms of the adapt to accommodate future growth by increasing system capacity and fleet’s susceptibility to bus bunching. For the purposes of this study, service frequency without compromising operational efficiency. On many “bunching” occurs when two transit vehicles arrive at a given stop maturing transit corridors, operational efficiency is compromised as transit within 30 seconds of each other. service frequency increases, resulting in inconsistent service headways or “bus bunching.” As reflected in both the volume-to-capacity ratio and the potential Potential Economic Development Effect: capacity of the transit fleet in Table 5.2-2, the TSM and Streetcar Build Unless some investment in higher-quality, higher-capacity transit is made, the Alternatives are better able to adapt to population and employment growth in projected population and employment growth would not be addressed and the corridor. would result in increased congestion. This congestion could discourage future development along the corridor. As shown in Table 5.2-2, the TSM Alternatives and Streetcar Build Alternative provide increased transit
5-2 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I capacity, which would help alleviate potential congestion and encourage from existing routes, percentage of trips that are work trips, and the development along the corridor. The Streetcar Build Alternative has the average annual wage per hour for the Washington, DC MSA. This greatest potential to have a positive economic development effect. The measure is shown in dollars. permanent nature of streetcar guideway leads to the increased potential to x Value of Annual Travel Cost Savings: The operation of the shape growth and boost the counties’ tax base. The evaluation measures used alternatives would improve mobility within the project area relative to are described below: the No Build – generating travel cost savings for travelers diverting from autos to transit. The value of the travel cost savings is based on x Land Value Premium (existing assets more valuable): Research the number of new riders, average length of the previous auto trip, indicates that people are willing to pay more for properties where average auto operating cost per mile, and the cost of the new transit transportation access and walkability are improved. The extent of the trip. This measure is shown in dollars. land value premium is based on the permanence of the transportation x Location Efficiency: The operation of the alternatives would investment as well as the size of the mobility benefits associated with contribute to the ability to maintain housing and transportation each alternative. Alternatives that offer permanent investments (i.e. affordability within the project corridor. The CNT calculates the those that cannot be moved or shifted to another route easily) are affordability index as the combined neighborhood housing and more likely to yield land value premiums because there is less risk that transportation costs divided by average neighborhood income. (Volume the transportation investment and its associated improvements could II, Chapter 6 provides greater detail on location efficiency.) be moved from the corridor. x Pace of Development: Due to improved transit access, each alternative could potentially encourage development that is planned for the corridor to occur sooner than it would without transportation investment. In this case the development is not new, but would be generating benefits (and attracting residents, businesses, and employees) earlier than planned. This measure relies on preliminary developer survey and workshop findings identified as part of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Return on Investment Study, conducted in spring 2012, to determine the likelihood of each alternative to increase the pace of corridor revitalization. Economic Effects for Travelers As summarized in Table 5.2-2, the TSM Alternatives, and to a greater degree, the Streetcar Build Alternative, provide annual travel time savings and travel cost savings. A review of housing and transportation affordability along the project corridor found that the majority of corridor U.S. Census Block Groups are currently within the affordable range, as defined by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT); based on average household income, residents are paying less than 45 percent of their income on housing and transportation costs. As the region continues to grow, congestion levels increase, and housing and transportation expenditures rise, it is likely that the 45 percent threshold would be exceeded in areas along the corridor. This risk highlights the need for continued access to inexpensive public transportation for corridor residents, and the need for Arlington County and Fairfax County to provide adequate affordable housing. The evaluation measures used are described below: x Value of Annual Travel Time Savings: The operation of the alternatives would improve mobility within the project area relative to the No Build – generating travel time savings for those passengers diverting from current bus routes. The value of the travel time savings is based on the time saved per trip, the percentage of riders diverted
May 2012 5-3 Table 5.2-2: The need to invest in transit service that supports growth and economic development Evaluation Measure: No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Streetcar Build 2016 transit volume to capacity ratio (average 0.61 0.66 0.65 0.62 weekday ridership, peak hour, peak direction) 2030 transit volume to capacity ratio (average 0.67 0.72 0.73 0.74 weekday ridership, peak hour, peak direction) x Ability to expand fleet in x Ability to expand fleet in x Ability to expand fleet in the future. the future. the future. Capacity of the transit Greatest levels of bus x Reduced bus x Greater levels of bus x Reduced bus fleet to expand to adapt to bunching/inefficiency (19-25% bunching/inefficiency bunching/inefficiency bunching/inefficiency corridor population and buses bunched in 2016; 18- (14-21% of transit vehicles (23-29% of buses bunched (16-24% of buses bunched employment growth 28% buses bunched in 2030). bunched in 2016; 17-22% in 2016; 20-26% of buses in 2016; 14-21% of buses of transit vehicles bunched in 2030). bunched in 2030). bunched in 2030). Land Value Premium Negligible impacts on property Negligible impacts on property Slight impacts on property 4% increase in property values (Existing assets more values adjacent to right-of- values adjacent to right-of- values adjacent to right-of- adjacent to right-of-way. valuable) way. way. way. Some potential to increase More potential to increase Pace of Development No Effect. No Effect. pace of development. pace of development. Value of Annual Travel No travel time savings. $2.2M $4.5M $5.1M Time Savings
Value of Annual Travel Annual travel cost savings for Annual travel cost savings for Annual travel cost savings No travel cost savings. Cost Savings 2030 identified ($0.3M). 2030 identified ($0.7M). identified for 2030 ($0.9M).
Housing costs likely to Housing costs likely to Housing costs likely to increase with overall increase increase for reasons increase for reasons Housing and transportation in property values due to independent of transportation independent of transportation costs likely to increase alternative, but impact Location Efficiency investment; travel cost investment; annual travel cost without travel time or travel mitigated by housing policies; savings for 2030 ($0.3M) savings for 2030 ($0.7M) cost savings. travel cost savings for 2030 identified to offset housing identified to offset housing ($0.9M) identified to offset cost. cost. housing cost.
5-4 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 5.2.3 Improve Transit Access to Skyline Table 5.2-3: The need to improve connection from Skyline to the regional transit network Problem: Skyline, a regional center of office, commercial, and residential No Streetcar activity, is poorly connected to the regional transit network. Evaluation Measure: Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Build Need: Improve transit access and regional connectivity to and from Intra-corridor Trips: Skyline. Frequency of transit service that serves Skyline to In order to improve mobility and transit service for existing riders and to 8 14 14 14 Pentagon or Pentagon City attract new riders to the system, efficient and accessible transit during peak (peak period vehicles per and off-peak periods must be available. Retail and employment centers within hour) the corridor must also be well served. One area that is particularly Jefferson Jefferson underserved by transit within the corridor is Skyline. The Skyline area contains Additional facilities to Street Street a high concentration of residents, employees, and visitors who would benefit improve transit connectivity None None Transit Transit from a more direct route to the Pentagon/Pentagon City area and a more and access convenient connection to the regional Metrorail system. As reflected in Table Center Center 5.2-3, the TSM and Streetcar Build Alternatives provide the greatest transit 2016 Corridor Travel Time: service frequency to and from Skyline. Additionally, the proposed Jefferson Jefferson Street to Pentagon 29 min. 26 min. 23 min. 23 min. Street Transit Center, which would provide a park-and-ride and bus transfer City (am peak period) facility under the TSM 2 Alternative and Streetcar Build Alternative, would 2030 Corridor Travel Time: further improve transit connectivity and access. Jefferson Street to Pentagon 30 min. 28 min. 25 min. 23 min. City (am peak period) Under the No Build Alternative, due to inconvenient and infrequent transit Peak period, weekday service connections between Skyline and Columbia Pike, total ridership ridership: To Skyline (trip 17 447 877 931 estimates for the Skyline area are low. However, with improved service under attraction) the TSM 1 Alternative, and even more so under the TSM 2 and Streetcar Build Alternatives, ridership estimates to and from the Skyline area increase. Peak period, weekday Providing this “missing link” to the regional transit system for residents and ridership: From Skyline (trip 231 217 784 785 workers in Skyline would have a profound effect on transit usage, as evident in production) the peak period weekday ridership projections to and from Skyline. As reflected in Table 5.2-3, the Streetcar Build Alternative provides the best travel time from Skyline to Pentagon City. The evaluation measures used are described below: x Intra-corridor Trips: frequency of transit service that serves Skyline to Pentagon or Pentagon City (vehicles per hour, peak period). x Additional facilities to improve transit connectivity and access: number of current or planned intermodal transfer centers within the corridor. x Corridor Travel Time: the travel time of a transit vehicle running on lines 16G and 16H in the peak period and in the peak direction from Jefferson Street to Pentagon City. x Ridership: the transit ridership calculated for the peak period (6:00- 9:00am), during a typical weekday to and from Skyline.
May 2012 5-5 5.3 Ability to Support Project Goals and dependent populations in the corridor by increasing service frequency throughout the day and providing additional service to the Skyline area. The Objectives TSM 2 and Streetcar Build Alternatives better address the needs of the transit At the onset of this project, goals and objectives were established to help dependent by providing more passenger amenities, greater improvements in guide development of the alternatives. The goals and objectives were created corridor travel time, and the greatest service reliability (as measured by bus through extensive public and stakeholder involvement and reflect the bunching). underlying locally adopted land use and transportation plans and policies of both counties. The goals and objectives represent the combined vision of 5.3.2 GOAL 2: Contribute to and Serve as a Catalyst for policy-makers, stakeholders, and members of the community. Economic Development. Both Arlington County and Fairfax County have adopted policies and plans that The following subsections summarize the results of a qualitative evaluation of encourage economic development along the corridor, such as Fairfax County’s how well each of the alternatives supports the project goals and objectives. redevelopment plan for Baileys Crossroads and Arlington County’s Columbia 5.3.1 GOAL 1: Improve Mobility for Corridor Residents, Pike Initiative and form-based code implementation. These plans have Employees, Customers, and Visitors. provided the necessary zoning codes and land use plans to encourage higher- density redevelopment, first floor retail/commercial development, and Mobility is improved by increasing transit system capacity and accessibility, development of public spaces that enliven streets and create a “sense of improving transit service, and providing high-quality intra-corridor trips. place” for residents and visitors. To support both Arlington and Fairfax Through increased mobility, all travelers, including the transit-dependent, are Counties’ vision of an easily navigable, walkable community with vibrant retail better served. spaces, the corridor must be easily accessible and served by transit. In Objective 1- Provide additional transportation capacity to meet current general, a transit service that improves mobility by increasing accessibility and future travel demand: Relative to the other alternatives, the TSM 2 and and service for intra-corridor trips, and providing high-quality service, can Streetcar Build Alternatives provide the greatest increases in transit system support and encourage economic development. capacity. The TSM 1 Alternative somewhat increases transit capacity, while Objective 1- Support continued population and employment growth in the the No Build Alternative does not increase capacity of the existing transit corridor: To support the increase in population and employment growth, service. transit service along the corridor must be able to accommodate an increase in Objective 2- Provide more transportation choices: All alternatives provide ridership and provide reliable transit service. Because Arlington County’s more transportation choices for residents and visitors of the corridor by plans preclude adding additional travel lanes for automobiles, and existing promoting alternative transportation modes, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit service already operates at high frequency, Arlington County and and transit facilities. The TSM and Streetcar Build Alternatives provide more Fairfax County must address the potential future demand with additional transportation choices than the No Build Alternative due to increased service transit capacity. Both the TSM 2 Alternative and the Streetcar Build frequency throughout the day and improved transit service to Skyline. Alternative support continued population and employment growth in the corridor by providing significant increases in transit capacity. The TSM 1 Objective 3- Provide high-quality service for local trips along the corridor: Alternative somewhat supports this goal by slightly increasing transit capacity. The TSM 2 and Streetcar Build Alternatives provide higher-quality transit than The No Build Alternative does not increase current transit capacity. An the No Build and TSM 1 Alternatives, due to the enhanced station stops along enhanced transit service can provide the transit capacity and service needed the full alignment and features that increase transit efficiency and improve to support the types of development densities envisioned in the local plans. corridor travel time, including off-board vehicle fare collection, multi-door boarding, and low-floor vehicles. However, the streetcars provide a higher- Objective 2- Support County economic development initiatives: To support quality ride and increase rider comfort due to the smooth acceleration and County economic development initiatives, the transit service must improve deceleration of the electric propulsion and the ease and convenience of mobility and enhance access. Relative to existing conditions and to the No boarding and alighting from the wide doors and larger lower floor areas. The Build Alternative, the TSM and Streetcar Build Alternatives better improve Streetcar Build Alternative best meets the objective of providing higher- mobility by providing increased transit capacity, improving travel time, and quality and higher-capacity transit service along the corridor. increasing travel frequency. Because developers see rail as more permanent, and are thus more likely to invest in an area with rail, the Streetcar Build Objective 4- Address the transportation needs of transit-dependent populations in the corridor: All alternatives support the needs of the transit- dependent populations by providing safe transit service. However, the TSM and Streetcar Build Alternatives better serve the needs of the transit-
5-6 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Alternative could support economic development initiatives to a greater in-street tracks. Developers recognize that bus routes can change, while in- degree than the other alternatives.2 street rail tracks are permanent.3 Objective 3- Maximize local economic impact of transportation Objective 3- Minimize adverse environmental impacts of transportation investments: The Streetcar Build Alternative supports the objective to investments: In developing each alternative, planners have worked to “maximize local economic impact of transportation investments.” The minimize adverse impacts on the environment. However, due to the capital Streetcar Build Alternative would have a more pronounced effect on the local investment required for the Streetcar Build Alternative, including the economy than the other alternatives, by increasing property values along the construction of the O&M facility, additional stops, track work, traction power corridor, which could provide greater opportunities to shape future growth substations, and regrading of Jefferson Street, the Streetcar Build Alternative and development (Section 3.6 provides more information on economic would have a greater effect on the built and natural environment than the development). This increase in property values would increase the tax bases other alternatives. While the Streetcar Build Alternative would result in some for both Arlington County and Fairfax County, which would translate into an environmental impacts, none of the impacts identified would result in severe increase in annual property tax revenues received by each county. or adverse effects that could not be mitigated. Associated impacts for each alternative are described in detail in Chapter 3 and in Volume II. 5.3.3 GOAL 3: Enhance Livability and Long-Term Economic and Environmental Sustainability of the Corridor. Objective 4- Serve households at a range of income levels: All alternatives provide service to households at a range of income levels and assume the Providing communities with high-quality transit investments that connect same fare structure. However, the TSM 2 and Streetcar Build Alternative offer people to desired destinations is vital to enhancing livability and supporting the greatest travel cost savings due to the improved travel time. Given the environmental sustainability. By improving mobility through increasing transit predicted increase in housing costs for the region, travel cost savings can help frequency and improving transit service, households at a range of income support livability and affordability along the corridor. levels have better access to transit. With improved accessibility and convenience, more people will choose to ride transit rather than drive to Objective 5 Promote pedestrian and bicycle focused communities: In their reach their destinations along the corridor, which would reduce single- policies, plans, and projects, Arlington County and Fairfax County are working occupancy vehicle trips and VMT. to create and sustain communities where people can choose to walk or bike. All alternatives promote pedestrian-and-bicycle-focused communities. All Objective 1- Support lifestyle choices for environmentally sustainable alternatives would include additional bicycle facilities near and along the communities: All alternatives support lifestyle choices for environmentally corridor and provide an enhanced pedestrian environment (through the sustainable communities by providing transit service for short, intra-corridor, Multimodal Project). However, the Streetcar Build Alternative best promotes local trips and for connecting to the regional transit network. The TSM and pedestrian- and bicycle-focused communities by being most consistent with Streetcar Build Alternatives better support lifestyle choices for Arlington County’s land use plans that envision Columbia Pike as a “main environmentally sustainable communities by providing enhanced transit street” pedestrian environment. Arlington County’s vision for Columbia Pike is service, increasing off-peak service frequency, and improving transit service predicated on an enhanced transit service that helps foster a multi-modal to Skyline. Service enhancements contribute to a community environment environment. where residents and visitors can access local and regional services and activities without a private automobile. The TSM and Streetcar Build 5.3.4 Goal 4: Support Development of an Integrated Alternatives reduce regional VMT (See Section 3.1 for results). The TSM 2 and Regional Multimodal Transportation System. Streetcar Build Alternatives provide the greatest annual travel cost savings for 2030, which would reduce household transportation costs and support The corridor connects and serves several concentrations of residential, retail, and business activity. All alternatives support an integrated, regional, livability in the corridor. multimodal transportation system by providing transit service along the Objective 2- Support long-term private investment in transit-friendly corridor that links and provides connections to the regional Metrorail system. development: The Streetcar Build Alternative would best support long-term private investment in transit-friendly development due to the permanence of Objective 1- Provide enhanced connections to intermodal centers: The TSM 2 Alternative and the Streetcar Build Alternative enhance connections to intermodal centers by providing significant improvements in travel time from Jefferson Street to Pentagon City and the Pentagon City Metrorail station. Furthermore, the TSM Alternatives and the Streetcar Build Alternative provide 2 AECOM, District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis Return on Investment Report, DDOT, May 2005. Interview results indicated that BRT improvements were not enough to entice additional development. The developers 3 preferred the fixed assets associated with the streetcar system. IBID.
May 2012 5-7 increased transit service to and from Skyline, a regional activity center that is 5.4 Evaluation Synthesis currently underserved. In addition, the TSM and Streetcar Build Alternatives extend weekend and late night service hours to match Metrorail service. The As described earlier in this chapter, the purpose of this document is to provide TSM 2 and Streetcar Build Alternatives provide for higher levels of transit appropriate information for the public and decision-makers to consider the ridership and increase transit mode share along and within the corridor, as advantages and disadvantages, as well as the trade-offs for each alternative as compared with the No Build Alternative and the TSM 1 Alternative. they prepare to select an LPA. Objective 2- Provide improved service to regional activity centers: The TSM Section 5.4.1 summarizes the results of the two assessments: the ability to and Streetcar Build Alternatives provide the greatest improvement in service meet the project purpose and need, and the ability to meet the project goals to regional activity centers, such as Skyline and Pentagon City. This is mainly and objectives. due to increased service frequency throughout the day and improved travel Estimated costs of each alternative are summarized in Section 5.4.2. time. Anticipated risks and benefits associated with implementing a higher-quality, Objective 3- Increase transit ridership and mode share: Because the TSM 2 higher-capacity transit service are discussed in Sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4. and Streetcar Build Alternative provide greater levels of passenger 5.4.1 Purpose and Need; Goals and Objectives convenience and travel time savings, both alternatives increase transit ridership and mode share more than the TSM 1 and No Build Alternatives. Tables 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 summarize the results of the two evaluations: the ability to meet the project purpose and need, and the ability to meet the 5.3.5 Goal 5: Provide a Safe Environment for all Modes of project goals and objectives. Travel This goal represents the desire of both Arlington County and Fairfax County to continue providing a safe environment for vehicles, bicycles, transit vehicles and pedestrians. Each alternative supports the goal and the following objectives: Objective 1- Enhance personal security for travelers in the corridor: All alternatives enhance personal security for travelers in the corridor. All Super Stops along Columbia Pike are designed in consideration of personal safety of transit riders. Stops are well lit, positioned to maximize visibility, and use transparent glass. Emergency phones are available at each stop, with operations staff always available to field calls. Objective 2- Provide safe operations for travelers in the corridor: All alternatives provide the appropriate measures for safe operations for travelers in the corridor. To enhance safety for cyclists, the No Build Alternative includes plans for a continuous bike facility parallel and along the corridor. Section 3.15 provides more information regarding the characteristics of each alternative to provide safe operations for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Objective 3- Provide a safe environment for transportation operations staff and employees: Both Arlington County and Fairfax County will ensure a safe environment for transportation operations staff and employees under all alternatives. If the Streetcar Build Alternative is selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) will oversee the safety and security of the system and will follow all guidelines under 49 CFR Part 659: Rail Fixed Guideway Systems; Safety Oversight.
5-8 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 5.4-1: Evaluation Synthesis: Project Needs
Project Needs Measures No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Streetcar Build x Transit system capacity Increase transit capacity x Person throughput (2016 and 2030) and improve transit mode x Transit ridership (2016, 2030) share x Transit mode share x Regional VMTreduction x Travel time savings Invest in transit service x Travel cost savings that supports growth and economic development x Premium property values (increase) x Permanence of investment (ability to attract investment) x Intra-corridor trips: frequency of transit service that serves Skyline to Pentagon or Pentagon City Improve connectivity and x Additional facilities to improve transit connectivity and transit service to and access from Skyline x Corridor travel time (peak period, weekday ridership: to Skyline (trip production))
Rating Legend:
No improvement over Greatest improvement existing conditions over existing conditions
May 2012 5-9 Table 5.4-2: Evaluation Synthesis: Project Goals Streetcar Project Goals Objectives No Build TSM 1 TSM 2 Build x Provide additional transportation capacity to meet current and future travel demand. Improve mobility for corridor x Provide more transportation choices. residents, employees, customers and x Provide high-quality service for inter-and intra- visitors. corridor trips. x Address the transportation needs of the transit- dependent populations in the corridor. x Support continued population and employment Contribute to and serve as a catalyst growth in the corridor. for economic development. x Support county economic development initiatives. x Maximize local economic impact of transportation investments. x Support lifestyle choices for environmentally sustainable communities. x Support long-term private investment in transit- Enhance livability and long-term friendly development. economic and environmental x Minimize adverse environmental impacts of sustainability of the corridor. transportation investments. x Serve households at a range of income levels. x Promote pedestrian and bicycle focused communities. x Provide enhanced connections to intermodal Support development of an integrated centers. regional multimodal transportation x Provide improved service to regional activity system. centers. x Increase transit ridership and mode share. x Enhance personal security for travelers in the corridor. Provide a safe environment for all x Provide safe operations for travelers in the modes of travel. corridor. x Provide a safe environment for transportation operations staff and employees.
Rating Legend: Marginally Satisfies Fully Satisfies Goals Goals and Objectives and Objectives
5-10 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 5.4.2 Estimated Costs TSM 2: The TSM 2 Alternative would replace standard buses with articulated buses on Metrobus 16G and 16H routes; however, there are no maintenance Capital Costs: The projects included in the No Build Alternative are facilities in Northern Virginia capable of servicing articulated buses. investments in transportation infrastructure along Columbia Pike that set the Construction of the planned WMATA Cinder Bed Road Maintenance Facility, stage for higher-quality, higher-capacity transit improvements. capable of servicing articulated buses, is currently on hold pending resolution The TSM 1 Alternative includes additional standard buses for deployment along of a legal dispute. If the TSM 2 Alternative were selected as the LPA, the the corridor. The TSM 2 Alternative includes a new fleet of articulated buses project could incur the cost of building a new facility capable of servicing and an assumed share in construction of a maintenance facility that articulated buses. accommodates the larger bus vehicles. The Streetcar Build Alternative, with The TSM 2 Alternative also assumes off-vehicle fare collection and WMATA as its in-street guideway, modern streetcar vehicles and supporting facilities, is the service provider. However, WMATA does not plan to introduce off-vehicle the most costly to construct. Estimated Streetcar Build Alternative capital fare collection for Metrobus service before the project implementation year, costs vary according to the three different Western Terminus Design Options. 2017. Consequently, introduction of off-vehicle fare collection, the main Estimated capital costs for the alternatives are as follows: contributor to the travel time improvement, would not be feasible without a change in WMATA policy. x TSM 1: $4M (2011); $5M (2015). x TSM 2: $47M (2011); $53M (2015). Streetcar Build Alternative: Arlington County and Fairfax County are jointly x Streetcar Build: $214 to $231M (2011); $242 to $261M (2015). implementing the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative. County staff and officials have worked closely together during the planning phase, but will need to Operations & Maintenance Costs: The No Build Alternative, equivalent to the resolve project sponsorship, governance, and operations organization issues existing levels of service along the corridor, would cost approximately $16.7 which could lead to delays in implementation. million to operate in 2016. Estimated annual operations and maintenance costs for the other alternatives are as follows: 5.4.4 Benefits x TSM 1: $23.3M (2016); $35.2 (2030). For each alternative, there are benefits associated with long-term operation. Chapter 3 details mobility and economic benefits, which are also summarized x TSM 2: $22.5M (2016); $34.1M (2030). above in Tables 5.4-1 and 5.4-2. An ongoing Return on Investment study4 x Streetcar Build: $22.5 to $29.6M (2016); $34.1 to $44.8M (2030). documents input from local property owners and developers related to Cost differences between the No Build and TSM 1 Alternatives are due to anticipated corridor-specific economic development benefits. The discussion additional service provided throughout the average weekday and on below summarizes some of the potential benefits related to long-term weekends. Service levels between the TSM 1 and TSM 2 Alternatives are operation of the alternatives. comparable; improved corridor travel times for the TSM 2 Alternative yield No Build: The No Build Alternative includes infrastructure investment, O&M cost savings as compared with the TSM 1 Alternative. The Streetcar Build including Super Stops, that will support transit service improvements into the Alternative provides the same frequency and span of service as the TSM future. alternatives. Unit O&M costs for streetcar systems tend to be incrementally higher than O&M costs for bus systems. The range in estimated O&M costs for TSM 1: As compared with the No Build Alternative, the TSM 1 Alternative the Streetcar Build Alternative relate to different hourly unit costs derived provides more frequent service during weekdays and weekends. The TSM 1 from peer U.S. streetcar and LRT systems. alternative is limited in its potential to add transit capacity in response to ridership demand. 5.4.3 Risks TSM 2: Like the TSM 1 Alternative, the TSM 2 Alternative provides more For each alternative, there are risks to successful implementation. Chapter 3 frequent service during weekdays and weekends. With the TSM 2 Alternative, details risks in the form of potential effects across the range of environmental categories, and related to construction activities. Chapter 4 details risks the counties could add passenger capacity in response to increasing ridership with little increase in operating costs by replacing standard buses with related to financing and operation of the transit system alternatives. The discussion below highlights some of the potential risks related to articulated buses. implementation of the alternatives. No Build and TSM 1: There are no known implementation risks associated with these alternatives. 4 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative: Return on Investment Study (Draft), AECOM for Arlington County and Fairfax County, May 2012.
May 2012 5-11 Streetcar Build: A streetcar system would be the most amenable to accommodating growth in ridership. Like the TSM Alternatives, the Streetcar Build Alternative provides more frequent service during weekdays and weekends. As a fixed guideway system, the Streetcar Build Alternative could add significant passenger capacity with little increase in operating costs by replacing buses with higher-capacity streetcar vehicles. In the future, capacity could be increased further—again with little increase in operating costs— through the use of multiple-car consists. Because of its capacity to accommodate growth, and because of the permanent nature of its guideway and facilities, the Streetcar Build Alternative would exert the greatest long-term leverage to create and sustain walkable, mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods.
5-12 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I 6.1 Coordination with Other Projects 6.0 Agency Coordination and Public Several projects are ongoing in the Columbia Pike corridor. Coordination with the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative has ensured that the projects progress in a Involvement complementary fashion. Projects happening concurrently with the Columbia Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies as well as with key Pike Transit Initiative have included: stakeholders and the public has been integral to the project planning and development process and has been a key component of the Columbia Pike x Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvements Project: Transit Initiative AA/EA. Representatives from this project have been included as part of the Project Management Team (PMT) and attended relevant public and This chapter describes coordination with projects happening concurrently in committee meetings. Representatives from the Columbia Pike Transit the Columbia Pike corridor; coordination with agencies at all levels; and past, Initiative have likewise attended regular meetings of the Multimodal present, and future public involvement activities for local citizens and Project. stakeholder groups. Volume II, Chapters 16 and 17 provides the agency x Baileys Crossroads Planning Study: Staff representatives from Fairfax correspondence and examples of the types of outreach materials provided, County conversant on the Baileys Crossroads Planning Study have respectively. participated in Pike Transit Initiative team meetings to inform the PMT about the progress of the Baileys Crossroads study. As with the Public participation for the project was designed to be proactive and in Multimodal Project, Pike Transit Initiative representatives have compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of attended public meetings conducted by the Baileys Crossroads 1969, as amended (NEPA). Planning Study. Figure 6.0-1 shows the relationship between the Project Management Team x Crystal City Planning Process: Agency staff from Arlington County and (PMT), stakeholder groups, the public, and committees in the context of the PMT are coordinating and sharing information about the Crystal coordination with other projects. City redevelopment and vision and the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative project. Figure 6.0-1: Public Involvement and Agency Coordination x Route 27/244 Interchange Modification Project: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has awarded a design-build contract for the replacement of the 70-year-old bridge and interchange of Columbia Pike and Washington Boulevard. As the design will impact possible Columbia Pike cross-sections in areas adjacent to the interchange, representatives from both projects are meeting periodically to discuss relevant issues. The bridge replacement is expected to begin in 2011 and be complete by 2015. x NOVA Master Plan for Alexandria Campus: The PMT coordinated with officials from the Alexandria campus of the Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA) and City of Alexandria representatives about the feasibility of locating station stops and a vehicle storage and maintenance facility on campus. x Department of Defense Study of Realignment of Columbia Pike: The Department of Defense, Arlington National Cemetery, and Arlington County are negotiating a land swap to expand the cemetery property and provide land (part of the Navy Annex site) to Arlington County for a future museum. The PMT is closely monitoring this issue as a cemetery expansion could result in a realignment of Columbia Pike near its intersection with Joyce Street.
May 2012 6-1 6.2 Agency Coordination and Project Management 6.2.2 Policy Committee The Policy Committee has met as often as project activities required. Table Structure 6.2-2 lists the meetings of the Policy Committee. The committee’s role has Four policy, advisory, and coordinating committees with different perspectives been to advise the PMT and provide policy direction. The co-chairs were from have provided structure and guidance in facilitating public and agency the Arlington County Board and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Mason coordination during the planning process. The PMT, Policy Committee, District. Other members have included: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Community Coordination Committee (CCC) are described in the following sections. x Chairs of the Arlington County Board and Fairfax County Board of Supervisors 6.2.1 Project Management Team x Arlington County Manager The PMT has been responsible for providing direction on project work x Arlington County Transportation Division Director activities and study materials. Members include representatives from x Fairfax County Department of Transportation Director Arlington County, Fairfax County, WMATA, FTA, the consultant team, and the x Virginia Department of Transportation, Northern Virginia District Columbia Pike Multimodal Project. In addition, representatives of the City of Administrator Alexandria were invited to participate in project management meetings. The x Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Director PMT meets monthly. x Commonwealth Transportation Board, Northern Virginia District member Outside of the monthly PMT meetings, the team has met various times with x Virginia State Senate (31st District) member FTA to discuss the development of the AA/EA, the development of the TSM x Virginia House of Delegates (49th District) member Alternatives, travel demand forecasting, and to provide tours of the study corridor. Table 6.2-1 lists the meetings held with FTA for the current study. Table 6.2-1: FTA Meetings for Current Study Meeting Date Topic August 25, 2009 FTA - Project Re-Introduction September 9, 2009 FTA - Tour of Study Corridor March 10, 2010 FTA - Small Starts Initiation June 21, 2010 FTA – Travel Demand Forecasting October 4, 2010 FTA – Travel Demand Forecasting December 20, 2010 FTA – Travel Demand Forecasting February 8, 2011 FTA & VDHR Tour of Study Corridor May 5, 2011 FTA – AA/EA Status Update September 20, 2011 FTA – Multimodal Project Elements October 24, 2011 FTA – Draft AA/EA Walk-Through
6-2 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 6.2-2: Policy Committee Meetings Meeting Date/Time Location Attendance PC Members: 10 Marsha Allgeier (Arlington County) Dennis Leach (Arlington County) Christopher Zimmerman (Co-Chair, Arlington County) Douglas Kolemay (CTB) Corey Hill (DRPT) Mason District Governmental Center, Conference November 4, 2009, 2-4 PM Kathy Ichter (Fairfax County) Room Penny Gross (Co-Chair, Fairfax County) Sharon Bulova (Fairfax County) Morteza Salehi (VDOT) Mary Margaret Whipple (VA State Senate)
PMT/Other Attendees: 13 PC Members: 9 Christopher Zimmerman (Co-Chair, Arlington County) Jay Fisette (Arlington County) Marsha Allgeier (Arlington County) Dennis Leach (Arlington County) Arlington County Government Center, Conference Douglas Kolemay (CTB) May 5, 2010, 1-3 PM Rooms C & D Corey Hill (DRPT) Penny Gross (Co-Chair, Fairfax County) Kathy Ichter (Fairfax County) Robert McDonald (VDOT)
PMT/Other Attendees: 18 PC Members: 12 Christopher Zimmerman (Co-Chair, Arlington County) Jay Fisette (Arlington County) Tamara Galliani (for Marsha Allgeier, Arlington County) Wayne Wentz (for Dennis Leach, Arlington County) Douglas Kolemay (CTB) Corey Hill (DRPT) Mason District Governmental Center, Conference October 29, 2010, 2-4 PM Penny Gross (Co-Chair, Fairfax County) Room Sharon Bulova (Fairfax County) Kathy Ichter (Fairfax County) Adam Ebbin (VA House of Delegates) Mary Margaret Whipple (VA State Senate) Valerie Pardo (VDOT)
PMT/Other Attendees: 14
May 2012 6-3 Meeting Date/Time Location Attendance PC Members: 9 Christopher Zimmerman (Co-Chair, Arlington County) Penny Gross (Co-Chair, Fairfax County) Sharon Bulova (Fairfax County) Jay Fisette (Arlington County) Marsha Allgeier (Arlington County) December 2, 2011, 2-4 PM Arlington County Government Center, Room 311 David Awbrey (DRPT) Tom Biesiadny (Fairfax County) Douglas Kolemay (CTB) Dennis Leach (Arlington County)
PMT/Other Attendees: 25 PC Members: 8 Penny Gross (Co-Chair, Fairfax County) Jay Fisette (Arlington County) Marsha Allgeier (Arlington County) Mason District Government Center, Main February 29, 2012, 3-5 PM David Awbrey (DRPT) Conference Room Tom Biesiadny (Fairfax County) Douglas Kolemay (CTB) Dennis Leach (Arlington County) Garrett Moore (VDOT)
6.2.3 Technical Advisory Committee x Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation x Virginia Department of Environmental Quality The TAC has been composed of representatives from federal, state, and local x Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries government agencies. Meeting periodically, their role has been to provide x Virginia Department of Transportation staff recommendations and advice on technical matters related to the x Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation project. Table 6.2-3 lists the meeting dates of the TAC. Members of the TAC x Virginia State Historic Preservation Office have included representatives from: x Arlington County x U.S. Army Corps of Engineers x Arlington County Police Department x U.S. Department of Agriculture x Arlington Economic Development x U.S. Department of Health and Human Services x Arlington Public Schools x U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development x City of Alexandria x U.S. Department of the Interior x Dominion Virginia Power x U.S. Environmental Protection Agency x Fairfax County x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service x Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning x Arlington National Cemetery x Fairfax County Department of Public Works x Department of Defense x Fairfax County Economic Development Authority x Federal Highway Administration x Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department x Federal Transit Administration x Fairfax County Park Authority x Federal Emergency Management Agency x Fairfax County Police Department x National Capital Planning Commission x Fairfax County Public Schools x National Park Service x Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments x National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration x Northern Virginia Community College x Transportation Security Administration x Northern Virginia Regional Commission x Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services x Northern Virginia Regional Parks Authority
6-4 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I x Northern Virginia Transportation Authority x 14 Fairfax County civic associations x Northern Virginia Transportation Commission x 6 Fairfax County commercial property owners x VIKA, Inc. x 3 Fairfax County office and retail tenants x Vornado Realty Trust x Several individual members of the public x Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Table 6.2-4: Community Coordination Committee Meetings x Kimley-Horn and Associates Meeting Date/Time Location Attendance Table 6.2-3: Technical Advisory Committee Meetings CCC and community Meeting Date/Time Location Attendance Walter Reed Community members: 25 WMATA Headquarters, TAC: 18 March 10, 2010, 7-9 PM Center & Senior Center, December 1, 2009, 2-4 Conference Room, Rooms B & C PMT and Elected PM Ground Floor PMT: 16 Officials: 13 Newsletter emailed to CCC and community all TAC members to Goodwin House, members: 29 October 7, 2010, 7-9 June 15, 2010 update them on study All TAC members Bailey’s Crossroads PM progress, in lieu of a TAC Auditorium PMT and Elected meeting Officials: 15 Mason District TAC: 25 CCC and community September 14, 2010, 2- Governmental Center, Patrick Henry members: 27 4 PM December 5, 2011, 7-9 Conference Rooms PMT:16 Elementary School PM TAC: 15 Cafeteria PMT and Elected Officials: 12 December 7, 2011, 2-4 Goodwin House, Bailey’s PMT:13 PM Crossroads, Auditorium 6.3 Public Involvement Other: 4 In addition to soliciting the input of agency representatives with a technical 6.2.4 Community Coordination Committee background and familiarity with transportation projects, the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative team has also sought valuable feedback from members of the The CCC has been composed of citizens, commercial and business interests public and organizations that have an interest in the project. To that end, the along the corridor, and representatives of official advisory groups. The team has provided a number of ways for the public and stakeholders to project team has engaged and coordinated with the CCC regarding project participate and have their voices heard in the planning process. activities, particularly at key milestones. CCC members have been encouraged to provide feedback to the PMT and communicate what they have learned 6.3.1 Public Meetings about the project to their respective groups. Table 6.2-4 lists the meeting Two public meetings were held for the AA/EA portion of the Columbia Pike dates of the CCC. Transit Initiative project. The first was held on Monday, November 15, 2010, Members of the CCC have included representatives from: from 7 pm to 9 pm at Goodwin House in Baileys Crossroads, Fairfax County. 112 members of the public attended the meeting. The second was held on x Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization (CPRO) Thursday, November 18, 2010, from 7 pm to 9 pm at Walter Reed Community x WMATA Riders Advisory Council Center in Arlington. 145 members of the public attended the second meeting. x Northern Virginia Streetcar Coalition Several elected officials and reporters from local TV and print media were in x Arlington County Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, attendance as well. Table 6.3-1 lists the public meeting dates and provides and Transit Advisory Committee an attendance summary. x 14 Arlington County civic associations x 7 Arlington County commercial property owners Extensive outreach was conducted to inform the public about the meetings. x 4 Arlington County office and retail tenants Outreach included a “walkabout” of the corridor. During the walkabout, 800 flyers printed in English and Spanish were distributed at area establishments. x Bailey’s Crossroads Revitalization Corporation (BCRC) In addition, flyers announcing the meeting details were posted at bus shelters x Fairfax County Planning Commission and Transportation Advisory within the study area and distributed to transit riders at the bus bays serving Commission
May 2012 6-5 the Pentagon City and Pentagon Metrorail stations during peak hours. Other 6.3.2 Community and Stakeholder Meetings outreach included: In addition to holding public meetings, the project team has held numerous x Posting public meeting announcements on the project website. meetings and briefings with stakeholders and community groups to discuss x Entering public meeting announcements on 19 list serves, reaching specific project issues or make presentations. The project team has also over 3,600 people. conducted outreach activities for English as a Second Language (ESL) groups. x Mailing meeting announcements to approximately 800 people on Table 6.3-2 lists the community and stakeholder meetings held for the mailing list. current study. x Emailing announcements of meetings to an email list of Outreach to Historically Underrepresented Populations approximately 700 people, as well as approximately 60 media outlets. Given the high concentration of Spanish-speakers in the corridor, project x Disseminating announcements of meetings to Public Affairs Officers of information provided to the public has been in both Spanish and English. This Arlington County, Fairfax County, and City of Alexandria (through the includes a Spanish-language version of the project website and Spanish- PMT). All jurisdictions listed the project public meetings on their language versions of public meeting announcements. A Spanish-language websites. translator has also been available at public meetings. In addition, the x Telephone calls to encourage attendance for CCC members and walkabout described in Section 6.3.1 focused on reaching members of the historically underrepresented populations. public who may not have seen announcements from other sources. Members of x Provision of a large laminated flyer (English/Spanish) to CPRO to post the project team also provided a presentation on the project in Spanish at the in their store-front window on Columbia Pike to further advertise the December 2010 Arlington Latino Roundtable. public meetings. x CPRO and many citizen associations further disseminated the 6.3.3 Project Website project’s public meeting announcements to their constituencies. A website, http://www.piketransit.com, was created to keep interested The purpose of the meetings was to provide the public with an update on the parties up-to-date on the progress of the project. It includes an overview of progress of the project and to solicit input on the alignment, station locations, the study, current status, a fact sheet and frequently-asked questions page, operations and maintenance facilities, existing conditions, and potential publications, a glossary, maps, images from the project, links, contact project effects. The format of each meeting was the same; they consisted of information, suggestions on ways the public can get involved with the project, a presentation followed by a short question-and-answer session and break-out and Spanish translations. The website also provides a means for visitors to sessions in which members of the public discussed specific elements of the submit their comments via e-mail to the project team. A sample view of the project with members of the PMT. Display boards, maps, and other visual website is shown in Figure 6.3-1. materials were provided for participants. Figure 6.3-1: Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Website A full transcription of verbal and written comments from the meetings, e- mailed comments, letters, and the presentation and display boards can be found in the document Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, Draft Public Meeting Summary, November 2010. All comments received as part of the AA/EA have been filed in an official record and each has been considered by the project team in developing, refining, and evaluating the alternatives. Table 6.3-1: Public Meeting Attendance Summary Meeting Date/Time Location Attendance 112 citizens November 15, 2010, 7-9 Goodwin House, Bailey’s PM Crossroads Auditorium PMT: 15 Walter Reed Community 145 citizens November 18, 2010, 7-9 Center, Multipurpose PM Room PMT:15
6-6 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Volume I Table 6.3-2: Community and Stakeholder Meetings 6.3.4 Project Mailing List Community Group/Stakeholder Meeting Date(s) A database of names and addresses was compiled and has been maintained 2/24/2010; 6/24/2010; during the project. The list has been used to mail letters and send-email Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA) 8/19/2010; 1/20/2011; broadcasts to approximately 560 recipients about public meetings and other 4/8/2011; 8/15/2011 project-related events. Separate databases also have been maintained for the 4/7/2010; 11/21/2011; Skyline Complex (Vornado) PMT, TAC, CCC, and PC to keep members apprised of meetings and the 11/21/2011 progress of the project. In addition, a list of media contacts has been Northern Virginia Streetcar Coalition 4/22/2010; 2/27/2012 maintained. To promote the public meetings and a general awareness of the 7/14/2010; 9/30/2010; City of Alexandria project among the public, the project team sent press releases to media 2/24/2012 outlets and encouraged coverage of events in local TV, radio, print, and on- Coca Cola 8/4/2010 line formats. VDOT – Northern Virginia District 8/5/2010 Skyline House 10/6/2010; 2/16/2012 6.3.5 Future Public Involvement Activities Skyline Plaza 10/6/2010; 2/15/2012 The project team will conduct one round of meetings (one each in Arlington Target 10/7/2010; 9/28/2011 County and Fairfax County) to solicit comments on the AA/EA, which will be Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) 11/9/2010; 10/11/2011 available at the meetings, and 15 days prior to the meetings, at public 11/15/2010; libraries, Arlington County and Fairfax County government offices, and on the Vornado & Lerner Property Owners in Pentagon 12/20/2010; 1/27/2011; project website. Local newspapers will announce the availability and location City 4/5/2011; 5/25/2011 of the document. The project team will also send a Notice of Availability to Larchmont Apartment Owners 11/17/2010; 10/4/2011 all affected local, state, and federal agencies. The public will have 30 days Latino Roundtable 12/15/2011 from the Notice of Availability to submit written comments. Arlington Heights Civic Association 1/11/2011 The project team will notify stakeholders and the public about the meetings Columbia Pike Land Use and Housing Study 1/24/2011 through a mailing, e-mail alerts, updates provided to community list serves Public Storage/Commonwealth Consultants 2/17/2011 and blogs, print media advertisements, and the project website. Agency Alcova Heights Civic Association 3/24/2011; 2/16/2012 representatives, committee members, community leaders, and other BRAC Joint Task Force 4/5/2011 organizations are encouraged to support the notification effort by promoting Arlington County Disability Advisory Commission 4/19/11 the meetings and comment opportunities to their constituencies. Arlington County SuperStops program 4/26/2011 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 4/28/2011 It is anticipated that the format of the two meetings will be similar to 5/10/2011; 9/13/2011; previous public meetings, offering the public an opportunity to review Arlington County Transit Advisory Committee 12/13/2011 exhibits, listen to a presentation of the results of the AA/EA, speak to and ask Meetings monthly and on questions of project team members, and provide written comments on the Mulitmodal Project specific topics as needed AA/EA. Rosenthal Redevelopment 6/21/2011 After the public meetings and the close of the comment period, the Arlington Verizon 7/2011 County Board and Fairfax County Board of Supervisors will select a Locally Property Owner at Jefferson Street Transit Preferred Alternative (LPA). Thereafter, FTA will review the findings of the 9/28/2011 Center AA/EA and responses to comments. FTA will make its formal NEPA Arlington County Development Review on 12th St. 9/29/2011 determination and public comments will be formally addressed in the NEPA Washington Boulevard Interchange Project 11/2/2011 finding. Arlington County Planning on Navy Annex Parcel 11/2011; 1/2012 Arlington County Transportation Commission 1/5/2012 Arlington County (Four Mile Run Bridge) 11/2011 Aurora Highlands Civic Association 2/8/2012 Bailey’s Crossroads Revitalization Corporation 2/21/2012 Penrose Neighborhood Association 2/21/2012 Goodwin House Bailey’s Crossroads 2/23/2012 English as a Second Language (ESL) Briefing 3/19/2012
May 2012 6-7