Appendix A: Service Plans

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

This Page Left Blank Intentionally.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

Appendix A (June 26, 2009) EXISTING SERVICE PLAN (2008)

INBOUND Ridership Equipment Existing Percent of Manassas Burke Rolling Backlick L'Enfant Union Train No. Counts Total Model Capacity VC Ratio Consist Set Broad Run Manassas Park Centre Road Road Alexandria Crystal City Plaza Station TOTAL Train Miles Daily Boardings (Actual) 1069 625 733 617 451 142 0 0 0 0 3637 Layover Trip Layover 29% 17% 20% 17% 12% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1 35 0.5 Daily Boardings (Model) 735 2356 553 1278 1868 827 0 0 0 0 7617 10% 31% 7% 17% 25% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 322 426 11% 836 798 53% 1L 6C A 5:05 AM 5:11 AM 5:16 AM 5:28 AM 5:33 AM 5:40 AM 5:52 AM 6:01 AM 6:10 AM 6:18 AM 0.1 35 324 640 16% 1256 873 73% 1L 6C B 5:45 AM 5:51 AM 5:56 AM 6:08 AM 6:13 AM 6:20 AM 6:33 AM 6:43 AM 6:53 AM 7:00 AM 0.1 35 0.5 326 782 20% 1535 786 99% 1L 6C C 6:15 AM 6:21 AM 6:26 AM 6:38 AM 6:43 AM 6:50 AM 7:03 AM 7:13 AM 7:23 AM 7:30 AM 0.1 35 0.5 328 761 20% 1494 1089 70% 1L 8C D 6:40 AM 6:47 AM 6:53 AM 7:05 AM 7:11 AM 7:18 AM 7:31 AM 7:41 AM 7:49 AM 7:55 AM 0.1 35 0.5 330 734 19% 1441 798 92% 1L 6C E 7:20 AM 7:26 AM 7:31 AM 7:43 AM 7:48 AM 7:55 AM 8:08 AM 8:18 AM 8:26 AM 8:35 AM 0.1 35 0.5 332 522 13% 1025 798 65% 1L 6C A 7:50 AM 7:56 AM 8:01 AM 8:13 AM 8:18 AM 8:25 AM 8:39 AM 8:48 AM 8:58 AM 9:05 AM 35 0.5 336 11 0% 22 786 1% 1L 6C C 2:45 PM 2:51 PM 2:56 PM 3:08 PM 3:30 PM 3:55 PM 35 338 4 0% 8 798 1% 1L 6C E 5:01 PM 5:16 PM 5:52 PM 6:25 PM 35 SUB‐TOTAL 3880 100% 7617

OUTBOUND Union L'Enfant Backlick Rolling Burke Manassas Station Plaza Crystal City Alexandria Road Road Centre Park Manassas Broad Run Daily Alightings (Actual) 0 Daily Alightings (Model) 321 5 0% 798 1% 1L 6C A 6:25 AM 6:42 AM 7:30 AM 7:40 AM 35 325 125 3% 786 16% 1L 6C C 1:15 PM 1:21 PM 1:26 PM 1:33 PM 1:44 PM 1:51 PM 1:56 PM 2:11 PM 2:19 PM 2:28 PM 35 0.5 327 643 17% 798 81% 1L 6C E 3:45 PM 3:51 PM 3:57 PM 4:04 PM 4:15 PM 4:22 PM 4:27 PM 4:42 PM 4:50 PM 5:00 PM 35 0.5 329 830 21% 786 106% 1L 6C C 4:25 PM 4:31 PM 4:37 PM 4:44 PM 4:55 PM 5:02 PM 5:07 PM 5:22 PM 5:30 PM 5:39 PM 0.1 35 331 913 24% 1089 84% 1L 8C D 5:00 PM 5:06 PM 5:12 PM 5:20 PM 5:32 PM 5:41 PM 5:46 PM 6:02 PM 6:10 PM 6:19 PM 0.1 35 0.5 333 776 20% 798 97% 1L 6C A 5:30 PM 5:36 PM 5:42 PM 5:49 PM 6:00 PM 6:07 PM 6:13 PM 6:28 PM 6:36 PM 6:45 PM 0.1 35 0.5 335 417 11% 873 48% 1L 6C B 6:10 PM 6:16 PM 6:21 PM 6:28 PM 6:39 PM 6:46 PM 6:52 PM 7:07 PM 7:15 PM 7:24 PM 0.1 35 0.5 337 155 4% 798 19% 1L 6C E 6:50 PM 6:56 PM 7:01 PM 7:08 PM 7:19 PM 7:26 PM 7:31 PM 7:46 PM 7:54 PM 8:03 PM 0.1 35 SUB‐TOTAL 3864 100% 0 Totals 1 560 5 Total Daily 566 TOTAL 7744 7617 Annual Service Days 250 Total Annual Miles 141,500 Source: VRE Train Consists Data Sheet September 2008 Source: VRE 2007 Passenger Survey Results

Train entering and exiting mid‐day storage Train entering and exiting daily service

\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submittal_6_19_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\A_Service_Plan.xls Appendix A (June 26, 2009) SPLIT‐SERVICE/CONSTRAINED (GAINESVILLE‐HAYMARKET TO DC AND BROAD RUN TO DC)

INBOUND Existing Percent of Projected Sudley Manassas Burke Backlick L'Enfant Union Train No. Count Total Count Capacity VC Ratio Consist Set Haymarket Gainesville Manor Broad Run Manassas Park Centre Rolling Road Road Alexandria Crystal City Plaza Station TOTAL Train Miles Daily Boardings (Model) 36 6 485 711 1400 425 900 1033 701 00005697 Layover Trip Layover 1% 0% 9% 12% 25% 7% 16% 18% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1 0.5 Travel Time Btwn Stations 0:05 0:08 0:08 0:06 0:05 0:12 0:05 0:07 0:13 0:10 0:09 0:08 320 426 9% 513 798 64% 1L 6C A 5:05 AM 5:11 AM 5:16 AM 5:28 AM 5:33 AM 5:40 AM 5:53 AM 6:03 AM 6:12 AM 6:20 AM 0.1 35 322 640 13% 741 873 85% 1L 6C B 5:30 AM 5:35 AM 5:43 AM 5:51 AM 5:56 AM 6:08 AM 6:13 AM 6:20 AM 6:33 AM 6:43 AM 6:52 AM 7:00 AM 0.1 43 324 782 16% 912 786 116% 1L C6C 6:15 AM 6:21 AM 6:26 AM 6:38 AM 6:43 AM 6:50 AM 7:03 AM 7:13 AM 7:22 AM 7:30 AM 0.1 35 0.5 326 761 17% 968 1089 89% 1L 8C D 6:26 AM 6:31 AM 6:39 AM 6:47 AM 6:52 AM 7:04 AM 7:09 AM 7:16 AM 7:29 AM 7:39 AM 7:48 AM 7:56 AM 0.1 43 0.5 328 16% 912 1089 84% 1L 8C F 7:10 AM 7:17 AM 7:22 AM 7:34 AM 7:39 AM 7:46 AM 7:59 AM 8:09 AM 8:18 AM 8:26 AM 0.1 35 0.5 330 734 15% 855 798 107% 1L 6C E 7:05 AM 7:10 AM 7:18 AM 7:26 AM 7:31 AM 7:43 AM 7:48 AM 7:55 AM 8:08 AM 8:18 AM 8:27 AM 8:35 AM 0.1 43 0.5 332 522 10% 570 798 71% 1L 6C A 7:49 AM 7:56 AM 8:01 AM 8:13 AM 8:18 AM 8:25 AM 8:38 AM 8:48 AM 8:57 AM 9:05 AM 35 0.5 334 4% 228 873 26% 1L 6C B 9:00 AM 9:05 AM 9:13 AM 9:21 AM 9:26 AM 9:38 AM 9:43 AM 9:50 AM 10:03 AM 10:13 AM 10:22 AM 10:30 AM 35 336 0% 1 873 0% 1L 6C B 4:30 PM 4:35 PM 4:43 PM 4:51 PM 5:27 PM 6:00 PM 43 338 4 0% 1 798 0% 1L 6C A 5:10 PM 5:16 PM 5:52 PM 6:25 PM 43 SUB‐TOTAL 100%

OUTBOUND Union L'Enfant Backlick Burke Manassas Sudley Station Plaza Crystal City Alexandria Road Rolling Road Centre Park Manassas Broad Run Manor Gainesville Haymarket Daily Alightings (Model) Travel Time Btwn Stations 0:06 0:06 0:07 0:11 0:07 0:05 0:15 0:08 0:10 0:08 0:08 0:05 321 5 0% 798 1% 1L 6C A 6:25 AM 6:42 AM 7:30 AM 7:40 AM 35 323 B 7:10 AM 7:29 AM 8:12 AM 8:20 AM 8:28 AM 8:33 AM 43 325 B 10:50 AM 10:56 AM 11:02 AM 11:09 AM 11:20 AM 11:27 AM 11:32 AM 11:47 AM 11:55 AM 12:03 PM 12:11 PM 12:16 PM 43 327 643 17% 798 81% 1L 6C A 3:45 PM 3:51 PM 3:57 PM 4:04 PM 4:15 PM 4:22 PM 4:27 PM 4:42 PM 4:50 PM 5:00 PM 35 0.5 329 830 22% 786 106% 1L 6C E 4:25 PM 4:31 PM 4:37 PM 4:44 PM 4:55 PM 5:02 PM 5:07 PM 5:22 PM 5:30 PM 5:38 PM 5:46 PM 5:51 PM 0.1 43 0.5 331 C 4:55 PM 5:01 PM 5:07 PM 5:14 PM 5:25 PM 5:32 PM 5:37 PM 5:52 PM 6:00 PM 6:10 PM 0.1 35 0.5 333 913 24% 1089 84% 1L 8C D 5:15 PM 5:21 PM 5:27 PM 5:34 PM 5:45 PM 5:52 PM 5:57 PM 6:12 PM 6:20 PM 6:28 PM 6:36 PM 6:41 PM 0.1 43 0.5 335 776 21% 798 97% 1L 6C F 5:35 PM 5:41 PM 5:47 PM 5:54 PM 6:05 PM 6:12 PM 6:17 PM 6:32 PM 6:40 PM 6:50 PM 0.1 35 0.5 337 417 11% 873 48% 1L 6C B 6:10 PM 6:16 PM 6:22 PM 6:29 PM 6:40 PM 6:47 PM 6:52 PM 7:07 PM 7:15 PM 7:23 PM 7:31 PM 7:36 PM 0.1 43 339 155 4% 798 19% 1L 6C A 6:50 PM 6:56 PM 7:02 PM 7:09 PM 7:20 PM 7:27 PM 7:32 PM 7:47 PM 7:55 PM 8:05 PM 0.1 35 SUB‐TOTAL 3739 100% Totals 1.2 780 5 Total Daily 786.2 TOTAL 3739 Annual Service Days 250 Total Annual Miles 196,550

Train entering and exiting mid‐day storage Train entering and exiting daily service New Train Set Additional Coaches Needed

TRACK MILES Mileage DC ‐ BR DC ‐ H SERVICE PLAN Actual EQUIPMENT NEEDS Manassas ‐ Broad Run: 3 3 IB Trains (AM, Mid‐Day, PM, Eve.): G‐H 3,1,1 Locomotives 1 New Set F Haymarket ‐ Manassas: 11 11 BR 4,0,1 Coaches 10 New Set F ‐ 8; Set C ‐ 1; Set E ‐ 1 Manassas ‐ DC: 32 32 32 OB Trains (AM, Mid‐Day, PM, Eve.): G‐H1, 1, 3 TOTALS 43 35 BR 1, 0, 4

\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submittal_6_19_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\A_Service_Plan.xls Appendix A (June 26, 2009) SPLIT‐SERVICE CONSTRAINED (GAINESVILLE‐HAYMARKET TO DC AND BROAD RUN TO DC) PLUS RAIL SHUTTLE SERVICE (GAINESVILLE‐HAYMARKET TO ALEXANDRIA)

INBOUND Existing Percent of Projected Sudley Manassas Burke Backlick L'Enfant Union Train No. Counts Total Count Capacity VC Ratio Consist Set Haymarket Gainesville Manor Broad Run Manassas Park Centre Rolling Road Road Alexandria Crystal City Plaza Station TOTAL Train Miles Daily Boardings (Model) 833 321 606 766 1400 597 1505 1522 1150 00008700 Layover Trip Layover 10% 4% 7% 9% 16% 7% 17% 17% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1 0.5 Travel Time Btwn Stations 0:05 0:08 0:08 0:06 0:05 0:12 0:05 0:07 0:13 0:10 0:09 0:08 426 5% 435 798 55% 1L 6C A 5:05 AM 5:11 AM 5:16 AM 5:28 AM 5:33 AM 5:40 AM 5:53 AM 6:03 AM 6:12 AM 6:20 AM BR 0.1 35 3% 261 393 66% 1L 3C S1 5:07 AM 5:12 AM 5:20 AM 5:26 AM 5:31 AM 5:43 AM 5:48 AM 5:55 AM 6:08 AM Shuttle 0.1 35 640 9% 783 873 90% 1L 6C B 5:35 AM 5:41 AM 5:46 AM 5:58 AM 6:03 AM 6:10 AM 6:23 AM 6:33 AM 6:42 AM 6:50 AM BR 0.1 35 0.5 11% 957 873 110% 1L 6C F 5:37 AM 5:42 AM 5:50 AM 5:56 AM 6:01 AM 6:13 AM 6:18 AM 6:25 AM 6:38 AM 6:48 AM 6:57 AM 7:05 AM GH 0.1 43 0.5 782 11% 957 786 122% 1L 6C C 6:05 AM 6:11 AM 6:16 AM 6:28 AM 6:33 AM 6:40 AM 6:53 AM 7:03 AM 7:12 AM 7:20 AM BR 0.1 35 0.5 4% 348 393 89% 1L 3C S2 6:07 AM 6:12 AM 6:20 AM 6:26 AM 6:31 AM 6:43 AM 6:48 AM 6:55 AM 7:08 AM Shuttle 0.1 35 761 11% 957 1089 88% 1L 8C D 6:35 AM 6:41 AM 6:46 AM 6:58 AM 7:03 AM 7:10 AM 7:23 AM 7:33 AM 7:42 AM 7:50 AM BR 0.1 35 0.5 13% 1,131 1089 104% 1L 8C G 6:37 AM 6:42 AM 6:50 AM 6:56 AM 7:01 AM 7:13 AM 7:18 AM 7:25 AM 7:38 AM 7:48 AM 7:57 AM 8:05 AM GH 0.1 43 0.5 734 10% 870 798 109% 1L 6C E 7:05 AM 7:11 AM 7:16 AM 7:28 AM 7:33 AM 7:40 AM 7:53 AM 8:03 AM 8:12 AM 8:20 AM BR 0.1 35 0.5 4% 348 393 89% 1L 3C S3 7:07 AM 7:12 AM 7:20 AM 7:26 AM 7:31 AM 7:43 AM 7:48 AM 7:55 AM 8:08 AM Shuttle 0.1 35 522 7% 609 798 76% 1L 6C A 7:35 AM 7:41 AM 7:46 AM 7:58 AM 8:03 AM 8:10 AM 8:23 AM 8:33 AM 8:42 AM 8:50 BRAM 35 0.5 7% 609 798 76% 1L 6C H 7:37 AM 7:42 AM 7:50 AM 7:56 AM 8:01 AM 8:13 AM 8:18 AM 8:25 AM 8:38 AM 8:48 AM 8:57 AM 9:05 AM GH 0.1 43 0.5 2% 174 393 44% 1L 3C S1 8:07 AM 8:12 AM 8:20 AM 8:26 AM 8:31 AM 8:43 AM 8:48 AM 8:55 AM 9:08 AM Shuttle 35 0.5% 44 393 11% 1L 3C S2 8:52 AM 8:57 AM 9:05 AM 9:11 AM 9:16 AM 9:28 AM 9:33 AM 9:40 AM 9:53 AM Shuttle 35 0.25% 22 393 6% 1L 3C S3 9:37 AM 9:42 AM 9:50 AM 9:56 AM 10:01 AM 10:13 AM 10:18 AM 10:25 AM 10:38 AM Shuttle 35 0.25% 22 393 6% 1L 3C S1 10:33 AM 10:38 AM 10:46 AM 10:52 AM 10:57 AM 11:09 AM 11:14 AM 11:21 AM 11:34 AM Shuttle 35 0.25% 22 393 6% 1L 3C S2 11:18 AM 11:23 AM 11:31 AM 11:37 AM 11:42 AM 11:54 AM 11:59 AM 12:06 PM 12:19 PM Shuttle 35 0.25% 22 393 6% 1L 3C S3 12:30 PM 12:35 PM 12:43 PM 12:49 PM 12:54 PM 1:06 PM 1:11 PM 1:18 PM 1:31 PM Shuttle 35 0.25% 22 393 6% 1L 3C S1 1:33 PM 1:38 PM 1:46 PM 1:52 PM 1:57 PM 2:09 PM 2:14 PM 2:21 PM 2:34 PM Shuttle 35 0.25% 22 393 6% 1L 3C S2 2:28 PM 2:33 PM 2:41 PM 2:47 PM 2:52 PM 3:04 PM 3:09 PM 3:16 PM 3:29 PM Shuttle 35 11 0.25% 22 873 2% 1L 6C B 2:45 PM 2:51 PM 2:56 PM 3:08 PM 3:13 PM 3:20 PM 3:33 PM 3:43 PM 3:52 PM 4:00 PM BR 35 0.25% 22 393 6% 1L 3C S3 3:03 PM 3:08 PM 3:16 PM 3:22 PM 3:27 PM 3:39 PM 3:44 PM 3:51 PM 4:04 PM Shuttle 35 0.25% 22 393 6% 1L 3C S1 3:59 PM 4:04 PM 4:12 PM 4:18 PM 4:23 PM 4:35 PM 4:40 PM 4:47 PM 5:00 PM Shuttle 35 0.25% 22 393 6% 1L 3C S2 4:59 PM 5:04 PM 5:12 PM 5:18 PM 5:23 PM 5:35 PM 5:40 PM 5:47 PM 6:00 PM Shuttle 35 0.25% 22 393 6% 1L 3C S3 5:59 PM 6:04 PM 6:12 PM 6:18 PM 6:23 PM 6:35 PM 6:40 PM 6:47 PM 7:00 PM Shuttle 35 SUB‐TOTAL 3865 100% 8,722

OUTBOUND Union L'Enfant Backlick Burke Manassas Sudley Station Plaza Crystal City Alexandria Road Rolling Road Centre Park Manassas Broad Run Manor Gainesville Haymarket Daily Alightings (Actual) 0 Travel Time Btwn Stations 0:06 0:06 0:07 0:11 0:07 0:05 0:15 0:08 0:10 0:08 0:08 0:05 A 6:25 AM 6:42 AM 7:30 AM 7:40 AM BR 35 S1 6:20 AM 6:31 AM 6:38 AM 6:43 AM 6:58 AM 7:06 AM 7:14 AM 7:22 AM 7:27 AM Shuttle 35 S2 7:20 AM 7:31 AM 7:38 AM 7:43 AM 7:58 AM 8:06 AM 8:14 AM 8:22 AM 8:27 AM Shuttle 35 S3 8:20 AM 8:31 AM 8:38 AM 8:43 AM 8:58 AM 9:06 AM 9:14 AM 9:22 AM 9:27 AM Shuttle 35 S1 9:20 AM 9:31 AM 9:38 AM 9:43 AM 9:58 AM 10:06 AM 10:14 AM 10:22 AM 10:27 AM Shuttle 35 S2 10:05 AM 10:16 AM 10:23 AM 10:28 AM 10:43 AM 10:51 AM 10:59 AM 11:07 AM 11:12 AM Shuttle 35 S3 10:50 AM 11:01 AM 11:08 AM 11:13 AM 11:28 AM 11:36 AM 11:44 AM 11:52 AM 11:57 AM Shuttle 35 S1 11:46 AM 11:57 AM 12:04 PM 12:09 PM 12:24 PM 12:32 PM 12:40 PM 12:48 PM 12:53 PM Shuttle 35 S2 12:31 PM 12:42 PM 12:49 PM 12:54 PM 1:09 PM 1:17 PM 1:25 PM 1:33 PM 1:38 PM Shuttle 35 B 1:15 PM 1:21 PM 1:27 PM 1:34 PM 1:45 PM 1:52 PM 1:57 PM 2:12 PM 2:20 PM 2:30 PM BR 35 0.5 S3 1:43 PM 1:54 PM 2:01 PM 2:06 PM 2:21 PM 2:29 PM 2:37 PM 2:45 PM 2:50 PM Shuttle 35 S1 2:46 PM 2:57 PM 3:04 PM 3:09 PM 3:24 PM 3:32 PM 3:40 PM 3:48 PM 3:53 PM Shuttle 35 S2 3:41 PM 3:52 PM 3:59 PM 4:04 PM 4:19 PM 4:27 PM 4:35 PM 4:43 PM 4:48 PM Shuttle 35 S3 4:16 PM 4:27 PM 4:34 PM 4:39 PM 4:54 PM 5:02 PM 5:10 PM 5:18 PM 5:23 PM Shuttle 35 A 4:15 PM 4:21 PM 4:27 PM 4:34 PM 4:45 PM 4:52 PM 4:57 PM 5:12 PM 5:20 PM 5:28 PM 5:36 PM 5:41 PM Shuttle 35 0.5 B 4:35 PM 4:41 PM 4:47 PM 4:54 PM 5:05 PM 5:12 PM 5:17 PM 5:32 PM 5:40 PM 5:50 PM BR 0.1 35 S1 5:12 PM 5:23 PM 5:30 PM 5:35 PM 5:50 PM 5:58 PM 6:06 PM 6:14 PM 6:19 PM GH 0.1 43 C 5:05 PM 5:11 PM 5:17 PM 5:24 PM 5:35 PM 5:42 PM 5:47 PM 6:02 PM 6:10 PM 6:20 PM BR 0.1 35 0.5 F 5:15 PM 5:21 PM 5:27 PM 5:34 PM 5:45 PM 5:52 PM 5:57 PM 6:12 PM 6:20 PM 6:28 PM 6:36 PM 6:41 PM GH 0.1 43 0.5 D 5:35 PM 5:41 PM 5:47 PM 5:54 PM 6:05 PM 6:12 PM 6:17 PM 6:32 PM 6:40 PM 6:50 PM BR 0.1 35 0.5 S2 6:12 PM 6:23 PM 6:30 PM 6:35 PM 6:50 PM 6:58 PM 7:06 PM 7:14 PM 7:19 PM Shuttle 0.1 35 0.5 E 6:05 PM 6:11 PM 6:17 PM 6:24 PM 6:35 PM 6:42 PM 6:47 PM 7:02 PM 7:10 PM 7:20 PM BR 0.1 35 0.5 G 6:15 PM 6:21 PM 6:27 PM 6:34 PM 6:45 PM 6:52 PM 6:57 PM 7:12 PM 7:20 PM 7:28 PM 7:36 PM 7:41 PM GH 0.1 43 0.5 S3 7:12 PM 7:23 PM 7:30 PM 7:35 PM 7:50 PM 7:58 PM 8:06 PM 8:14 PM 8:19 PM Shuttle 0.1 35 0.5 H 7:05 PM 7:11 PM 7:17 PM 7:24 PM 7:35 PM 7:42 PM 7:47 PM 8:02 PM 8:10 PM 8:20 PM BR 0.1 35 0.5 SUB‐TOTAL 0 0% 0 Totals 2.1 1798 9 Total Daily 1809.1 TOTAL 3865 8721.75 Annual Service Days 250 Total Annual Miles 452,275 Train entering and exiting mid‐day storage Train entering and exiting daily service EQUIPMENT NEEDS New Train Set Exist Req New Additional Coaches Needed SetLCLCLC A161600 TRACK MILES Mileage DC‐HDC‐BR H‐A B161600 Manassas ‐ Broad Run: 3 3 C161802 Haymarket ‐ Manassas: 11.5 11 D181800 Haymarket ‐ Alexandria: 35 35 Manassas ‐ DC: 32 32 32 E 161701 TOTALS 43 35 35 F 1616 Trips 6 14 30 G 1818 Daily Miles 258 490 1050 H 1616 TOTAL DAILY MILES 1798 S1 1313 Service Days 250 S2 1313 449500 S3 1313 TOTALS 5 32 11 64 6 32

\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submittal_6_19_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\A_Service_Plan.xls

Appendix B: Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

This Page Left Blank Intentionally.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

Appendix B: Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost Summary (June 26, 2009) Annual Operating Alternative No. Service Days Annual Miles Unit Cost ($/Train Mile) Cost Minimum Operating Segment (with siding) G‐H to DC 250 77,947 $138.71 $10,812,060.94 Broad Run to DC 250 63,713 $138.71 $8,837,597.66 Total: $19,649,658.60 Phased Approach‐End in Gainesville G‐H to DC 250 104,023 $138.71 $14,429,056.34 Broad Run to DC 250 85,027 $138.71 $11,794,069.16 Total: $26,223,125.50 Full Build‐Out Split Service Constrained G‐H to DC 250 108,150 $138.71 $15,001,486.50 Broad Run to DC 250 88,400 $138.71 $12,261,964.00 Total: $27,263,450.50 Full Build‐Out Split Service Constrained Plus Shuttle G‐H to Alexandria (Shuttle) 250 263,000 $69.36 $18,241,680.00 G‐H to DC 250 65,275 $138.71 $9,054,295.25 Broad Run to DC 250 124,000 $138.71 $17,200,040.00 Total: $44,496,015.25 Notes * Two 2‐Car consists are assumed to be used for the shuttle service ** The unit cost per train mile was obtained based on the VRE’s FY2008 actual operating expenses and the total annual train miles system‐wide, including revenue and nonrevenue miles, provided by Brett Shorter at VRE. ***The costs shown in this table represents the annual O&M costs for the entire Manassass Line service under each scenario.

\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submitted_to_VRE_08_26_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\09182009_GS\Train‐Mileage_breakdown.xls

Appendix C: Fare Revenue Forecasts

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

This Page Left Blank Intentionally.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

Appendix C (June 26, 2009) VRE Gainesville‐Haymarket Feasibilidy Study Draft Revenue Estimates

2008 1B 1C Revenue ($ per day) $ 50,641 $ 65,393 $ 102,402 Revenue ($ per year) $ 12,660,253 $ 16,348,280 $ 25,600,612 Net Revenue (diff. from No‐Build) $ 3,103,336 $ 12,355,668

1 Assumes all boarding riders are destined to the Zone 1 metro area. 2% Ticket types were obtained from VRE based on FY 2009 up‐to‐dated data. 3 Current ticket fares (2009) for all ticket types were obtained from VRE's website. 4 Assumes the per‐ride‐fare for the 5‐day pass is the average of per‐ride‐fares for the ten trips and the monthly reduced passes. 5 Amtrak step‐up fare is calculated by taking the 2007 total system‐wide revenue from step‐ups divided into the total number of step‐ups. 6 250 was used as an annualization factor.

Existing (2008) 1B 1C Existing (2008) 1B 1C Daily IB Daily IB Daily IB Revenue from Revenue from Revenue from Zone Boardings Boardings Boardings Daily IB Daily IB Daily IB Haymarket 8 36 883 $ ‐ $ 256 $ 6,269 Gainesville 7 6 321 $ ‐ $ 40 $ 2,136 Sudley Manor 7 466 606 $ ‐ $ 3,100 $ 4,032 Broad Run 6 873 699 766 $ 5,411 $ 4,332 $ 4,748 Manassas 6 927 1400 1400 $ 5,746 $ 8,677 $ 8,677 Manassas Park 6 582 425 597 $ 3,607 $ 2,634 $ 3,700 Burke Center 4 645 900 1505 $ 3,422 $ 4,775 $ 7,984 Rolling Road 4 936 1033 1522 $ 4,966 $ 5,480 $ 8,074 Backlick Road 3 447 701 1150 $ 2,169 $ 3,402 $ 5,581 Total Daily IB $ 25,321 $ 32,697 $ 51,201 Total Daily (bi‐directional) $ 50,641.01 $ 65,393.12 $ 102,402.45

VRE Current Ticket Fare by ticket type (2009) Single Ride Two‐Trip Ten‐Trip Five‐Day Monthly Ticket Fare Zone 8 $ 9.15 $ 18.30 $ 84.20 $ 73.20 $ 253.60 (2009) Zone 7 $ 8.60 $ 17.20 $ 78.80 $ 68.50 $ 237.30 Zone 6 $ 8.00 $ 16.00 $ 73.30 $ 63.80 $ 220.90 Zone 4 $ 6.80 $ 13.60 $ 62.60 $ 54.40 $ 188.50 Zone 3 $ 6.25 $ 12.50 $ 57.10 $ 45.00 $ 155.80

VRE Current Per‐Ride Ticket Fare and Boarding Percentage by ticket type (2009) Single Ride Two‐Trip Ten‐Trip Five‐Day Monthly Amtrak Step‐Up % Boarding 2.8% 3.6% 37.3% 6.4% 48.9% 1.1% Per‐Ride Fare Zone 8 $ 9.15 $ 9.15 $ 8.42 $ 7.09 $ 5.76 $ 9.95 (2009) Zone 7 $ 8.60 $ 8.60 $ 7.88 $ 6.64 $ 5.39 $ 9.95 Zone 6 $ 8.00 $ 8.00 $ 7.33 $ 6.18 $ 5.02 $ 9.95 Zone 4 $ 6.80 $ 6.80 $ 6.26 $ 5.27 $ 4.28 $ 9.95 Zone 3 $ 6.25 $ 6.25 $ 5.71 $ 4.81 $ 3.91 $ 9.95

\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submittal_6_19_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\C_Revenue.xls

Appendix D1: Station Location Evaluation Criteria

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

This Page Left Blank Intentionally.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

Appendix D1: Station Location Evaluation Criteria

In identifying sites for the potential location of a station and associated park and ride facility on the proposed extension of VRE to Gainesville-Haymarket, all potentially feasible sites along the NS B Line between Manassas and Haymarket were identified in order to ensure that no potentially feasible site was left out.

To identify the subset of sites within the list of potential alternatives that would have the greatest benefit and chance of success while also having the fewest possible negative impacts, the sites were compared and evaluated within the context of an evaluation framework that allowed for a consistent comparison. This framework was used to compare each of the sites relative to a range of criteria that allowed for an assessment of the feasibility and potential impacts, both positive and negative, of developing a station and park and ride lot at each site.

This appendix describes the criteria used in the evaluation framework and the methodology used to apply the framework, for the purpose of assessing the feasibility and positive and negative impacts associated with the development of a station and park and ride lot at each site.

Methodology

The evaluation and comparison of potential station sites was performed in a manner that allowed a consistent comparison of each site relative to a comprehensive set of evaluation criteria that covered the full range of potential impacts, both positive and negative, that would be associated with the development of each site.

The purpose of this section is to outline the methodology that was used for the comparison of each site identified as the potential location of a station and park and ride lot. The evaluation and comparison of each site was based on a three step process:

h Complete the technical analysis required to assess impacts in each evaluation criterion and sub-criterion (described in greater detail in the next section). In most instances this technical analysis relied on data collection and analysis that occurred during the current conditions portion of the study process. For instance, resources such as wetlands, historic and cultural resources, and hazardous materials were identified as part of the environmental scan that was

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 1 Appendix D1 ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc

completed at the beginning of the study. The findings of the environmental scan were then used to support the technical analysis associated with assessing potential impacts in each resource area. Comparable data collection efforts and analyses were done relative to traffic, land use, and relevant comprehensive land use and economic development plans.

h Based on the initial technical analysis, the potential impacts relative to each evaluation criterion and sub-criterion were identified. For instance, traffic and roadway capacity data collected during the current conditions phase of the study was used to qualitatively assess potential traffic impacts associated with a station and park and ride lot at a site. Comparable impact assessment analysis was completed for each site relative to each evaluation criterion and sub-criterion.

h Based on the impact analysis described above, each site was given a score relative to each sub-criterion comprising an overall criterion (for instance, the Access and Mobility overall criterion is comprised of three sub-criteria). This score was based on a scale of 1-5, with a score of five representing the most favorable score. If development of a site would result in a negative impact relative to a sub-criterion (for instance impacts to wetlands), the greater the negative impact, the lower the resultant score. For criterion and sub-criterion related to positive impacts associated with site development, or to site characteristics that make the site well suited to development, the higher the positive, the higher the score a site received relative to that sub-criterion.

Once the scoring was completed, the scores for each sub-criterion, for each site, were input into a spreadsheet matrix to calculate total scores for each site, by individual criterion as well as over the full set of criteria (Table 4-1). It should be noted that within each criterion, each sub-criterion that comprise the overall criterion received a percentage weight to reflect its importance relative to the other sub-criterion within the criterion. The percentage weights of the sub-criterion comprising each main criterion add up to 100 percent.

Based on the scoring of each sub-criterion, the sub-criterion weights, the summing of weighted sub-criterion scores to calculate a criterion score, and the summing of criterion scores, each site received an overall score that provides an understanding of how each site rates relative to the other sites in the list of potential alternatives. This overall site score combines the site’s performance relative to both positive and negative impacts. Preferred sites will not be selected during this study phase. Rather, the scores for each site can be used to identify those sites within the list of potential alternatives that appear to have the greatest potential for development as a station and park and ride lot as the project moves forward.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 2 Appendix D1 ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc

Evaluation Framework

Outlined below is a brief description of each of the evaluation criteria contained in the evaluation framework used to assess and compare potential station and park and ride lot sites along the proposed Gainesville-Haymarket extension. Each criterion within the framework focuses on one area of the site’s potential feasibility, benefits, and potential negative impacts. Each criterion, in turn, is composed of a series of sub-criterion that in combination are used to assess how each site performs relative to the main criterion. Each sub-criterion contains a weight that identifies the importance of that sub-criterion within the overall criterion. Together the weights of the sub-criterion add up to 100 percent. An example evaluation matrix is included as Table 4-1.

The description of each criterion and associated sub-criterion are outlined below.

Access and Mobility

The Access and Mobility criterion evaluates each site relative to how well the site is connected into the regional transportation network (all modes) as well as whether there are any site characteristics that will impact on convenient and safe circulation within the site. The sub-criteria used to evaluate each site relative to access and mobility are outlined below.

h Access and proximity to main travel routes – because each of the station areas along the proposed Haymarket extension will be attracting riders arriving via automobile, access to a station/park and ride site from main travel routes will be an essential element in understanding the potential feasibility/success of the site. This sub-criterion is used to qualitatively assess the connectivity of each site to main travel routes within the project area. Because of the importance of this connectivity in rider convenience and the overall success of the station, this sub- criterion is assigned a weight of 60 percent within the Access and Mobility criterion.

h ADA Accessible and Sidewalk Linkages – because the study area is predominantly suburban/undeveloped in nature, only a small number of the sites being considered in the list of potential alternatives is currently pedestrian accessible. Therefore, the scoring of this criterion is focused on the ease of making future ADA pedestrian connections from off-site to a site if the site is developed (ADA accessibility within the site will be designed as part of the final design of the site). Because it is anticipated that the percentage of ridership accessing a site as pedestrians will be relatively low, this sub-criterion is assigned a relatively low weight of 20 percent within the Access and Mobility criterion.

h Easy and Safe Internal Circulation – this sub-criterion focuses on the ease of circulation within each site being evaluated. The primary factor that would

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 3 Appendix D1 ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc

negatively influence site circulation would be an irregular shape that would make auto and pedestrian circulation within the site difficult and also present potential safety issues. With the ability to at least partially mitigate this issue through design, this sub-criterion is assigned a relatively low weight of 20 percent within the Access and Mobility criterion.

Traffic and Congestion

The Traffic and Congestion criterion evaluates each site relative to potential traffic impacts on the site’s surrounding road network as well as the potential requirement for additional traffic control infrastructure at the site. The sub-criteria used to evaluate each site relative to traffic impacts are outlined below.

h Traffic Impacts (qualitative) – this sub-criterion focuses on qualitatively assessing potential traffic impacts associated with a station and new park and ride lot at each site under consideration. Factors considered as part of this sub-criterion include the current level of traffic on the site access roadway(s), traffic levels on adjacent roadways, and whether the access roadway was identified as congested during the current conditions analysis. Because traffic congestion can impact the attractiveness of a site for riders and the public acceptance of a site, and also have impacts on the operations of the overall transportation network, this sub- criterion is assigned a weight of 75 percent within the Traffic and Congestion criterion.

h Does Access Require New Traffic Controls – this sub-criterion focuses on qualitatively assessing whether traffic levels on the access roadways to each site is heavy enough that new traffic controls would be required for the site. A requirement for new traffic controls would have an impact on project cost and would also impact the operations of the surrounding roadway network. This sub-criterion has a relatively low weight of 25 percent within the Traffic and Congestion criterion because of the significant importance of the traffic impacts sub-criterion.

Environmental and Cultural Considerations

The Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion evaluates each site relative to potential environmental and cultural resource impacts. The factors considered in this criterion include the full range of resource areas typically considered in preliminary environmental scans as well as environmental documents. The sub- criteria outlined below generally relate to a specific resource area. In each instance the ultimate intent of the evaluation of each sub-criterion was to determine whether the presence of resources would negatively impact the ability to develop a site as a station and park and ride facility.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 4 Appendix D1 ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc

h Wetlands on or Adjacent to Site – this sub-criterion considered whether a site has wetlands on it or adjacent to it, the extent of the wetlands if wetlands are present, and whether this presence would negatively impact the ability to develop the site as a station and park and ride lot. With the importance of wetlands in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively developed, this sub-criterion was assigned a higher weight of 14 percent (relative to other sub-criterion assigned a 10 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.

h Floodplains on Site – this sub-criterion evaluated whether floodplains are located on the site being evaluated, the extent of the floodplains if floodplains are present, and whether the presence of floodplains would negatively impact the ability to develop the site as a station and park and ride lot. With the importance of floodplains in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively developed, this sub-criterion was assigned a higher weight of 14 percent (relative to other criterion assigned a 10 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.

h Hazardous Materials Identified on Site – this sub-criterion evaluated whether hazardous materials have been identified on a site, the extent of the hazardous materials if hazardous materials are present, and whether the hazardous materials are of such significance that they may impact on the ability to develop the site as a station and park and ride lot. With the importance of the presence of hazardous materials in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively developed, this sub-criterion was assigned a higher weight of 14 percent (relative to other criterion receiving a 10 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.

h Site Provides Terrestrial or Aquatic Habitat – this sub-criterion evaluated whether terrestrial or aquatic habitat has been identified on a site, the extent and quality of that habitat if habitat is present, and whether the presence of extensive and high quality habitat may impact on the ability to develop the site as a station and park and ride lot. With the importance of the presence of terrestrial or aquatic habitat in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively developed, this sub-criterion was assigned a higher weight of 14 percent (relative to other criterion receiving a 10 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.

h Historic and Cultural Resources on Site – this sub-criterion evaluated whether historic or other cultural resources are potentially located on a site, the potential extent of the resources if present, and whether these potential resources may impact on the ability to develop the site as a station and park and ride lot. With the importance of the presence of historic and cultural resources in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively developed, this sub-criterion was assigned a higher weight of 14 percent (relative to other criterion receiving a 10 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 5 Appendix D1 ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc

h Soils/Prime Farmland of Statewide Importance – this sub-criterion evaluated whether prime farmlands are located on a site and whether these prime farmlands may impact the ability to develop the site as a station and park and ride lot. With the relative importance of other resource areas in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively developed, this sub-criterion was assigned a lower weight of 10 percent (relative to other criterion receiving a 14 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.

h Community Facilities/Parks Adjacent to Site – this sub-criterion evaluated the proximity of community facilities and parks adjacent to a site and whether this proximity would impede development of the site as station and park and ride lot. With the relative importance of other resource areas in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively developed as well as the ability to at least partially mitigate impacts to community facilities, this sub-criterion was assigned a lower weight of 10 percent (relative to other criterion receiving a 14 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.

h Concentrations of Minority/Low Income Populations – this sub-criterion evaluates the presence of minority and low income populations in proximity to each site for the purposes of assessing potential environmental justice issues. With the relative importance of other factors in terms of the feasibility of a site being effectively developed, as well as the ability to mitigate impacts to environmental justice communities, this sub-criterion was assigned a lower weight of 10 percent (relative to other criterion receiving a 14 percent weight) within the Environmental and Cultural Considerations criterion.

Land Use and Smart Growth Issues

The Land Use and Smart Growth criterion evaluates each site relative to how well the site would fit into overall zoning conditions, land use plans, and smart growth goals in Prince William County. The potential station sites were evaluated based on their current zoning and land use designations. Future land use within the corridor may be modified in the future by Prince William County through its Comprehensive Plan update process. The sub-criteria used to evaluate each site relative to Land Use and Smart Growth Issues are outlined below.

h Park and Ride Compatibility with Existing Zoning and Adjacent Land Uses—this sub-criterion evaluates the extent to which existing zoning allows for construction of a park and ride lot, and the compatibility of a park and ride lot with current adjacent land uses.

h Alternative Transportation Conditions—this sub-criterion evaluates the extent to which pedestrian and bicycle supportive infrastructure safely and conveniently

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 6 Appendix D1 ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc

links the station to nearby residential and commercial development. The scores also reflect the amount of existing local bus service within ¼ mile of the site.

h Mass Transit Node development potential—this sub-criterion evaluates the likelihood that the site has Mass Transit Node (MTN) characteristics, as described in the Prince William County Comprehensive Plan (March 2008), in the future. This includes opportunities to live, work, and recreate in the same area; non-auto transportation options; and higher-density mixed-use development (residential, commercial, and office). This evaluation is based on Comprehensive Plan future land use designations, associated design guidelines, sector plans, and transportation conditions.

Acquisition and Development Issues

The Acquisition and Development Issues criterion evaluates each site relative to current site characteristics and whether these characteristics might impede effective development of the site as a station and park and ride lot. The sub-criteria used to evaluate each site relative to Acquisition and Development issues are outlined below.

h Land Acquisition is Acceptable – Cost and Schedule – this sub-criterion qualitatively evaluates if there are any unique circumstances at a site that may make land acquisition costs excessive or which may result in extensive schedule delays. Factors considered in assessing this sub-criterion included whether there are active uses on the property, what these uses are, are there multiple properties required to create the overall site, and potential long-term plans for the site. This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 30 percent within the Acquisition and Development issues criterion to reflect its relative importance within this criterion.

h Unique Capital Costs – this sub-criterion qualitatively evaluates whether there may be unique capital costs associated with developing a site as a station and park and ride lot. Unique capital costs would include whether existing structures would have to be removed and whether there are other site characteristics, such as extensive elevation changes that would require unique capital expenditures. This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 20 percent within the Acquisition and Development Issues criterion to reflect the fact that this sub-criterion may not impede effective site development as much as issues related to some of the other sub-criterion under the Acquisition and Development Issues criterion.

h Property Displacement – this sub-criterion qualitatively evaluates whether there are existing active uses on a site that would require displacement. This sub- criterion was assigned a relatively high weight of 30percent (relative to some other sub-criterion, which are assigned a weight of 20 percent) within the

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 7 Appendix D1 ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc

Acquisition and Development issues criterion to reflect that property displacement requirements can significantly impede effective site development.

h Topography Issues – this sub-criterion qualitatively evaluates whether there are unique topographic features on the site that my make site development more difficult. This sub-criterion was assigned a lower weight of 20 percent than other sub-criterion within the Acquisition and Development issues criterion to reflect the fact that topography issues can be at least partially mitigated through site design, though at a cost.

Operations and Implementation Issues

The Operations and Implementation Issues criterion evaluates each site relative to the overall ease of developing the site as a station and park and ride lot. Elements of this criterion are a summary of issues addressed in other criterion, but with a specific focus on how these issues affect overall ease of site implementation. The sub-criteria used to evaluate each site relative to operations and implementations issues are outlined below.

h Unique Site Considerations – this sub-criterion evaluates whether there are unique site considerations that may impact the operational effectiveness of a site once implemented, as well as make implementation more difficult than other sites. Factors considered as part of this sub-criterion include site shape and the type of frontage on the NS B Line, including whether the site is on a tangent or curved portion of the track. This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 25 percent within the Operations and Implementations Issues criterion, a weight equal to the other sub-criterion comprising the overall criterion.

h Environmental Considerations – this sub-criterion evaluates/summarizes whether there are unique or significant environmental issues that would make site development difficult. Key factors considered in this evaluation are the presence of resources that would be difficult to mitigate, such as wetlands, water resources, and cultural resources. This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 25 percent within the Operations and Implementation Issues criterion.

h Impacts to Freight Operations – given that the NS B Line is growing in terms of freight volume, a site’s potential to negatively impact through freight operations as well as pickup and delivery operations is represented by this sub-criterion. This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 25 percent within the Operations and Implementation Issues criterion.

h Potential Impacts to Adjacent Properties – this sub-criterion evaluates/summarizes whether there are unique circumstances on adjacent properties that would delay development of a site or hinder operations on a site once developed. Factors considered in this sub-criterion include the presence of

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 8 Appendix D1 ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc

sensitive receptors on adjacent properties, uses that are incompatible with a station and park and ride facility and potential impacts from adjacent properties on station and park and ride lots. This sub-criterion was assigned a weight of 25 percent within the Operations and Implementation Issues criterion.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 9 Appendix D1 ng_draft\appendix d_1.doc

Appendix D2: Station Location Evaluations

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

This Page Left Blank Intentionally.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

Appendix D2 Station Location Evaluations

This technical appendix discusses the proposed station site alternatives for the study and the evaluation of environmental considerations at each site conducted as part of the station site evaluation. Each site was reviewed for potential impacts to environmentally-sensitive resources such as wetlands, historic resources, minority and low-income populations. Below is a description of the environmental conditions at each site. Corresponding maps within the main text of the document show the site plans and locations of environmentally-sensitive resources in relation to each site.

1.1 Site Evaluations

1.1.1 Haymarket Site 1

Haymarket Site 1 is located on the south side of the NS B Line, adjacent to US 15 and just west of the Town of Haymarket. Entrances to this potential site would be located about 1,500 feet south of Virginia Route 55 (VA-55) and about one- quarter of a mile south of Interstate 66 (I-66). This potential station site is also located about 5 miles north of the intersection of US 15 and US 29. Access to this site would be via US 15, with vehicles accessing the site from the north via I-66 and US 15 and the south via US 29 and US 15. This site is adjacent to the Town of Haymarket, and there is fairly dense residential and commercial development along US 15 from north of I-66 to US 29.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

There is no housing on or adjacent to the site. The Haymarket Site 1 (and study buffer area) is in census block groups with a minority population range of 3-25% and a low-income population range of 0-2%. These percentages are below the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, Haymarket Site 1 is not located in an area that would be considered a high concentration of minority or low-income populations.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 1 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Historic Resources

No historic structures or archaeological sites are recorded in the Virginia Data Sharing System (DSS) database either within the footprint of the proposed facility or within 500 feet of the limits of disturbance. However, as planning for the project progresses, more detailed analysis of the site may be warranted depending on coordination with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR).

Parks and Community Facilities

There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this site.

Soil Conditions

Table A-1 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified. As shown in Table A-1, approximately 48 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. The site is currently undeveloped and in a natural state, with the exception of the existing rail line. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses. Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine engineering feasibility.

Table A-1: Haymarket Site 1 Soils

Acreage Map Hydric within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation buffer Calverton silt loam, 0 to 7

11B percent slopes 8.66 Catlett-Sycoline complex,

13B 2 to 7 percent slopes Yes 3.33 Catlett-Sycoline complex,

13C 7 to 15 percent slopes Yes 1.82 Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4 All areas are prime 17A percent slopes Yes farmland 1.69 Haymarket silt loam 7 to Farmland of statewide 28C 15 percent slopes importance 1.84 Airmont-Weverton complex, 7 to 15 percent 2C slopes 16.25

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 2 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Table A-1: Haymarket Site 1 Soils (Continued)

Acreage Map Hydric Designation within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil buffer Jackland-Haymarket Farmland of statewide complex, 7 to 15 percent importance 31C slopes 11.35 Legore-Oakhill complex, 2 All areas are prime 33B to 7 percent slopes farmland 2.05 Legore-Oakhill complex, 7 Farmland of statewide 33C to 15 percent slopes importance 6.59 Legore-Oakhill complex, Farmland of statewide 33D 15 to 25 percent slopes importance 5.24 Manassas Silt Loam, 2 to All areas are prime 35B 7 percent Yes farmland 2.00 Meadowville loam, 0 to 5 All areas are prime 38B percent Yes farmland 6.47 Albano silt loam, 0 to 4

3A percent slopes Yes 12.17 Montalto silty clay loam, 7

40C to 15 percent slopes 3.69 Panorama silt loam, 2 to 7 All areas are prime 46B percent slopes Yes farmland 5.38 Panorama silt loam, 7 to Farmland of statewide 46C 15 percent slopes Yes importance 5.11 Rowland silt loam, 0 to 2

49A percent slopes 26.07 Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7 All areas are prime 4B percent slopes Yes farmland 10.25 Arcola-Nestoria complex, 7

5C to 15 percent slopes Yes 30.15 Braddock loam, 7 to 15 Farmland of statewide 8C percent slopes importance 2.13 Total Acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide importance: 48.4

Water Resources

The North Fork stream runs through the Haymarket Site 1. Impacts to this surface water would likely be subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 3 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Resource Protection Areas

A Resource Protection Area (RPA) is associated with the North Fork Stream (Prince William County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Area map). RPAs are corridors of environmentally sensitive land that lie alongside or near the shorelines of streams, rivers and other waterways. RPAs include tidal and non-tidal wetlands, tidal shores, and non-tidal wetlands next to a tributary, and a 100-foot buffer along all waterways within the county. The following activities are not permitted within a RPA: new development, parking lots, clear-cutting trees, filling and grading activities, and establishing lawns.

Floodplains

The Haymarket Site 1 is located within an area designated within the 100 year floodplain (Zone AE). Approximately 33 acres fall within the 100 year floodplain. Executive Order 11988, Floodplains Management, prohibits floodplain encroachments that are uneconomic, hazardous, or result in incompatible uses of the floodplain; it also prohibits any action which would cause a critical interruption of an emergency transportation facility, a substantial flood risk, or adverse impact to the floodplain’s natural resource values. More detailed analysis of this site and potential impacts to the identified floodplain are warranted.

Wetlands

A wetland area is associated with the stream and floodplain within the Haymarket Site 1. Wetlands account for approximately 33 acres of the site. Any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require coordination with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.

With respect to anticipated impacts to wetlands and waterbodies, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as well as the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program, require permits for activities which include placement of dredge and fill material and/or mechanized land clearing, ditching, draining, channelization or other excavation activities into the waters of the United States, including wetlands adjacent to those waters. In Virginia, both the VDEQ and USACE have jurisdiction over and decision-making participation regarding wetland impacts.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that the two registered facilities are located within the impact buffer of the Haymarket Site 1. The first site is the Annandale Millwork Corporation, located at 6612 James Madison Highway, Haymarket, Virginia. This site is

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 4 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

registered as having or handling hazardous wastes. The second site is the Hard Rock Concrete Limited, located at 6650 James Madison Highway, Haymarket, VA. This site is registered as having a reported air release. It is recommended that future planning phases determine if there are any other potential hazardous materials/ contamination at or adjacent to the site.

Potential Habitat

In the vicinity of the Haymarket Site 1, both terrestrial and aquatic habitats for plant and wildlife species exist. It is likely that the construction of a station and park and ride lot at this location would likely impact these habitats. No evaluation of the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.

No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during the environmental scan for this station location. As planning for the project progresses, coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to ascertain the potential existence of protected species at this location and along the rail corridor.

1.1.2 Haymarket Site 2

Haymarket Site 2 is located on the north side of the NS B Line, adjacent to VA-55 and just west of the Town of Haymarket and US 15. This site is directly across the NS B Line from Haymarket Site 1. Entrances to the site would be located off of VA-55, about one-quarter of a mile west of US 15. The surrounding land use characteristics are the same as for Haymarket Site 1. The site is in located on the site of a proposed development called Midwood Center, though no plans for Midwood Center have been finalized.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

There is no housing located on the site, however a small group of houses exist adjacent to the site. The Haymarket Site 2 is in census blocks groups with a minority population range of 3 -25% and a low-income population range of 6- 11%. The percentage for minority populations is below the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, the percentage of low-income populations is slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, Haymarket 2 is not located in an area that would be considered a high concentration of a minority population but may be considered a higher-than-average concentration of a low- income population. Consideration of the adjacent housing should be given as planning for the project progresses.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 5 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Historic Resources

No historic structures or archaeological sites are recorded in the Virginia DSS database either within the footprint of the proposed facility or within 500 feet of the limits of disturbance. However, as planning for the project progresses, more detailed analysis of the site may be warranted depending on coordination with the VDHR.

Parks and Community Facilities

There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this site

Soil Conditions

Table A-2 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified.

Table A-2: Haymarket Site 2 Site Soils

Acreage Map Hydric within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation buffer Catlett-Sycoline complex, 2 to

13B 7 percent slopes Yes 8.42 Catlett-Sycoline complex, 7 to

13C 15 percent slopes Yes 4.71 Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4 percent All areas are prime 17A slopes Yes farmland 4.85 Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7 Prime farmland if 30B percent slopes drained 0.48 Jackland-Haymarket complex, Farmland of statewide 31C 7 to 15 percent slopes importance 0.04 Manassas Silt Loam, 2 to 7 All areas are prime 35B percent Yes farmland 10.64 Meadowville loam, 0 to 5 All areas are prime 38B percent Yes farmland 1.07 Albano silt loam, 0 to 4

3A percent slopes Yes 3.76 Panorama silt loam, 2 to 7 All areas are prime 46B percent slopes Yes farmland 2.36 Reaville silt loam, 0 to 4

48A percent slopes Yes 3.72 Rowland silt loam, 0 to 2

49A percent slopes 14.00

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 6 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Table A-2: Haymarket Site 2 Site Soils (Continued)

Acreage Map Hydric Designation within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil buffer Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7 percent All areas are prime 4B slopes Yes farmland 41.10 Arcola-Nestoria complex, 7 to

5C 15 percent slopes Yes 14.56 Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: 60.54

As shown in Table A-2, approximately 61 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses. Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine engineering feasibility.

Water Resources

Available mapping for water resources does not show any surface waters on the location for Haymarket Site 2. However, during limited field review, it appeared that a small intermittent stream was running across the site, feeding into the larger North Fork stream south of the railroad tracks. Depending on certain attributes of this stream (water flow, source, connectivity to larger water bodies), impacts to this surface water would likely be subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program.

Resource Protection Areas

Based on the mapping available, it is unclear whether or not the small tributary described under water resources would have an associated RPA. Wetlands identified on the site would like have RPAs associated with them. More detailed mapping and coordination with Prince William County is needed to determine if in fact RPAs exist on the site.

Floodplains

There are no designated floodplains on this site.

Wetlands

There are wetlands at the eastern edge of the Haymarket Site 2, which appear to be connected to the larger wetlands identified south of the railroad tracks. These \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 7 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

wetlands account for approximately 17 acres of the site. Any fill or dredge of this wetland would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that there is no known hazardous materials/contamination at this site. However, more detailed investigation of this site is recommended during future planning phases to determine if indeed the site is free of hazardous materials/contamination.

Potential Habitat

In the vicinity of the Haymarket Site 2, both marginal terrestrial and aquatic habitats for plant and wildlife species exist. It is likely that the construction of a station and park and ride lot at this location would likely impact these habitats. No evaluation of the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.

No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses, coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to ascertain the potential existence of protected species along the rail corridor.

1.1.3 Gainesville Site 1

Gainesville Site 1 is located on the south side of the NS B Line, adjacent to University Boulevard. University Boulevard runs between US 29, which is located north of I-66 and Wellington Road. Access to the station would be via University Boulevard. This access point is located approximately one-quarter of a mile south of US 29 and approximately one-quarter of a mile north of Wellington Road. The immediate area around the station site is lightly developed, but commercial and retail development exists further west along Wellington Road. This commercial development includes the Virginia Gateway Business Park and the Virginia Gateway Shopping Center. This site is part of a proposed mixed-use development called Prince William Station. It should be noted that the park and ride plans for this site consist of a surface parking lot. If the mixed use development moves forward, this surface lot may ultimately be replaced with structured parking in conjunction with the development.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 8 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Minority and Low-Income Populations

There is no housing on the site with the adjacent properties mostly consisting of industrial uses. The Gainesville Site 1 is in census block groups with a minority population range of 3-25% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. The percentage for minority populations is below the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, the percentage of low-income populations is slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, Gainesville Site 1 is not located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of a minority population but may be considered a higher-than-average concentration of a low-income population.

Historic Resources

A review of the Virginia DSS reveals that no historic structures or archaeological sites are reported within the footprint of the proposed station or access road. Neither have any historic structures been documented within 500 feet of the proposed improvements. However, an 1871 map of the First Battle of Bull Run depicts the “Eastern Confederate Army” positioned south of the Norfolk Southern rail line (then the Manassas Gap Railroad) between Gainesville and Manassas. As planning for the project progresses, more detailed analysis of the site may be warranted depending on coordination with the VDHR.

Parks and Community Facilities

There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this site.

Soil Conditions

Table A-3 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified.

Table A-3: Gainesville Site 1 Soils

Acreage Map Hydric within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation buffer Haymarket silt loam 2 to All areas are prime 28B 7 percent slopes farmland 3.97 Haymarket silt loam 7 to Farmland of statewide 28C 15 percent slopes importance 3.04

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 9 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Table A-3: Gainesville Site 1 Soils (Continued)

Acreage Map Hydric Designation within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil buffer Jackland silt loam, 2 to Prime farmland if drained 30B 7 percent slopes 28.37 Jackland-Haymarket complex, 2 to 7 percent Prime farmland if drained 31B slopes 15.34 Jackland-Haymarket Farmland of statewide complex, 7 to 15 importance 31C percent slopes 2.06 Kelly silt loam, 0 to 2 Farmland of statewide 32A percent slopes importance 7.41 Montalto silty clay loam,

40C 7 to 15 percent slopes 2.49 Sycoline-Kelly complex, All areas are prime 53B 2 to 7 percent slopes farmland 1.75 Urban land-Udorthents complex, 0 to 7 percent 54B slopes 7.70 Waxpool silt loam, 0 to

56A 2 percent slopes Yes 47.86 W Water Bodies 0.80 Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: 61.94

As shown in Table A-3, approximately 62 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses. Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine engineering feasibility of the soils.

Water Resources

A tributary to Rocky Branch runs east-west through the center of the Gainesville Site 1.

Resource Protection Areas

Based on a review of the available RPA mapping from Prince William County, it does not appear that there is a designated RPA on the site. As planning progresses for the project, coordination with the County should continue to determine if the tributary identified on the site has an associated RPA. The wetlands identified within the 500-foot buffer may have an RPA associated with them.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 10 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Floodplains

There are no floodplains identified on the Gainesville Site 1.

Wetlands

Wetlands have been identified at this site and within the 500-foot buffer area. Approximately 14 acres of wetlands exist at this location. Any fill or dredge of this wetland would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available data from the EPA indicates that one business, Chemung Contracting Corporation, located at 7201 Rail Line Court, Gainesville, Virginia, within the impact area is registered as having a reported air release.

The Atlantic Research Corporation, a former rocket motor and generator manufacturing business, was located at 5945 Wellington Road in Gainesville, Virginia. Since 1951, the facility manufactured and assembled solid rocket motors and gas generators, mostly as a contractor to the U.S. Department of Defense. This facility was considered a large quantity generator of hazardous waste with an EPA ID number of VAD023741705. The facility ceased all production on April 17, 2005 and the last burn was conducted on July 6, 2005. In September 2005, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality approved the RCRA Facility Closure Plan. However, during compliance inspections, violations were found to occur at the site. (Virginia Waste Management Board Enforcement Action Order by Consent Issued to Atlantic Research Corporation for Atlantic Research Corporation – Gainesville VAD023741705)

Given the history of the site, more detailed investigations should be conducted as planning for the project progresses to determine the potential for the site or adjacent properties to have hazardous materials/contamination and to determine if all required remediation has occurred.

Protected Species

In the vicinity of the Gainesville Site 1 both marginal terrestrial and aquatic habitats for plant and wildlife species exist. Based on aerial mapping, the site is adjacent to an area that has already been cleared, likely for future development. It is likely that the construction of a station and park and ride lot at this location would impact the adjacent habitats that remain. No evaluation of the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.

No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses,

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 11 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along the rail corridor.

1.1.4 Dominion Station Site

The Dominion Station Site is located north of the NS B Line, east of University Boulevard and south of I-66. Access to the site would be via an extension of Randolph Ridge Lane, which connects to Balls Ford Road. The site is approximately three-quarters of a mile west of Balls Ford Road. This site is located between the Gainesville Sites 1 and 2, which are located south of the NS B Line. The immediate area around the site is currently lightly developed. This site is part of a proposed mixed-use development called Dominion Station, which would be located on the north and south sides of I-66. This site had a Prince William County Comprehensive Plan amendment for a mixed use development. As with Gainesville Sites 1 and 2, the park and ride plan for this site is a surface lot that may be replaced with structured parking if development moves forward. The conceptual site plan for this site is shown in Figure 2-7. The locations of environmentally sensitive resources for the Dominion Station Site are shown in Figure 2-8.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

No housing exists on or immediately adjacent to this site. The Dominion Station Site is in census block groups with a minority population range of 26-50% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. The percentage for minority populations is generally above the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The percentage of low-income populations is also slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Given the census information, Dominion Station is located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of minority and low-income populations. However, a review of the study area shows that there are no residential communities in the vicinity of this site. Therefore it is assumed that there would be no potential adverse effects on minority or low-income communities.

Historic Resources

A review of the Virginia DSS reveals that no archaeological resources or historic structures are reported within the footprint or impact buffer of the proposed station. However, as planning for the project progresses, coordination with VDHR is recommended to verify if historic resources exist or if the potential for resources exists.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 12 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Parks and Community Facilities

There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this site.

Soil Conditions

Table A-4 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified.

Table A-4: Dominion Station Site Soils

Acreage Map Hydric within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation buffer Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7 Prime farmland if 30B percent slopes drained 20.00 Jackland-Haymarket Prime farmland if complex, 2 to 7 percent drained 31B slopes 4.73 Kelly silt loam, 0 to 2 Farmland of statewide 32A percent slopes importance 5.44 Sycoline-Kelly complex, All areas are prime 53B 2 to 7 percent slopes farmland 9.89 Urban land-Udorthents complex, 0 to 7 percent 54B slopes 10.34 Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2

56A percent slopes Yes 17.31 W Water Bodies 0.04 Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: 40.06

As shown in Table A-4, approximately 40 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses. Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine the engineering feasibility of the soils.

Water Resources

There are no streams on the Dominion Station site.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 13 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Resource Protection Areas

Based on the mapping available, there are no RPAs on the site.

Floodplains

There are no floodplains on the Dominion Station site.

Wetlands

There is, however, a wetland extending across the western edge of the site, between I-66 and the railroad track. This wetland area is approximate 15 acres. Any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available EPA data shows that one business, the Randolph Ridge Industrial Park located at 12801 Randolph Ridge Lane in Manassas, is permitted to have discharges to water. More detailed analysis is recommended at the site and on adjacent properties to determine if the potential for hazardous materials/contamination exists.

Protected Species

The Dominion Station site is wooded and likely provides marginal terrestrial habitat for transient species. It is likely that the construction of a station and park and ride lot at the location would impact this habitat. No evaluation of the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.

No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses, coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along the rail corridor.

1.1.5 Gainesville Site 2

Gainesville Site 2 is also located on the south side of the NS B Line, approximately 750 feet east of Gainesville Site 1. As with Gainesville Site 1, access to the site would be from University Boulevard. This site is also located within the proposed Prince William Station mixed-use development, and is the

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 14 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

location of a proposed VRE Station within the Prince William Station Master Plan. As with Gainesville Site 1, the planned park and ride facility is a surface lot that would potentially be replaced with structured parking as part of the mixed- use development, if development moves forward. The conceptual site plan for the site is shown in Figure 2-9. The locations of environmentally sensitive resources for Gainesville Site 2 are shown in Figure 2-10.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

The Gainesville Site 2 is in census block groups with a minority population range of 3-25% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. The percentage for minority populations is below the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, the percentage of low-income populations is slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, Gainesville Site 2 is not located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of a minority population but may be considered a higher-than-average concentration of a low-income population.

Historic Resources

A review of the Virginia DSS reveals that no historic structures or archaeological sites are reported within the footprint of the proposed station or access road. Neither have any historic structures been documented within 500 feet of the proposed improvements. However, an 1871 map of the First Battle of Bull Run depicts the “Eastern Confederate Army” positioned south of the Norfolk Southern rail line (then the Manassas Gap Railroad) between Gainesville and Manassas.

One archaeological site, 44PW1616, has been reported within 100 feet of the proposed access road. This resource was reported during the course of a Phase I archaeological survey conducted by CRI for the Atlantic Corporation Research Tract. It is reported as a post-1850 outbuilding foundation, but no artifacts were recovered from the area to further characterize the site. The area has apparently been disturbed by earthmoving equipment. The next closest archaeological resource is situated up to 1300 feet southeast of the station site, and is also reported by CRI as a late 19th to early 20th century domestic site.

Unless the property has been previously surveyed, it is considered likely that archaeological testing will be requested by the VDHR to determine whether any archaeological deposits associated with 44PW1616 are present within the project APE. Further research on the potential for archaeological materials associated with the Battle of Bull Run, and possible testing, may also be requested.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 15 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Parks and Community Facilities

There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this site

Soil Conditions

Table A-5 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified.

Table A-5: Gainesville Site 2 Soils

Acreage Map Hydric within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation buffer A Catlett-Sycoline complex, 2 s 13B to 7 percent slopes Yes 3.09

Catlett-Sycoline complex, 7 s 13C to 15 percent slopes Yes 3.71 h o Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7 Prime farmland if 30B percent slopes drained 33.97 w Jackland-Haymarket Prime farmland if complex, 2 to 7 percent drained 31B slopes 19.40

Legore-Oakhill complex, 7 to Farmland of A 33C 15 percent slopes statewide importance 2.03 s Meadowville loam, 0 to 5 All areas are prime

38B percent Yes farmland 2.68 s Montalto silty clay loam, 2 to All areas are prime h 40B 7 percent slopes farmland 5.72 o Montalto silty clay loam, 7 to w 40C 15 percent slopes 0.00 n Sycoline-Kelly complex, 2 to All areas are prime

53B 7 percent slopes farmland 19.70 i Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2 n 56A percent slopes Yes 6.06

TTotal Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: 83.5

Table A-5, approximately 84 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.

Water Resources

There are no streams on the Gainesville Site 2.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 16 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Floodplains

There are no floodplains located on the Gainesville Site 2.

Wetlands

A small area of wetland was identified southeast of the proposed Gainesville Site 2 location within the impact buffer evaluated. This wetland area within the buffer consists of approximately 1 acre. It is unlikely that this wetland area would be impacted.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available data show that this site is free of hazardous materials/contamination, however hazardous contamination is found in 29 scattered locations throughout the corridor study area. A large concentration of contamination was found to be in the vicinity of Route 29.

The Atlantic Research Corporation, a former rocket motor and generator manufacturing business, was located at 5945 Wellington Road in Gainesville, Virginia. Since 1951, the facility manufactured and assembled solid rocket motors and gas generators, mostly as a contractor to the U.S. Department of Defense. This facility was considered a large quantity generator of hazardous waste with an EPA ID number of VAD023741705. The facility ceased all production on April 17, 2005 and the last burn was conducted on July 6, 2005. In September 2005, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality approved the RCRA Facility Closure Plan. However, during compliance inspections, violations were found to occur at the site. (Virginia Waste Management Board Enforcement Action Order by Consent Issued to Atlantic Research Corporation for Atlantic Research Corporation – Gainesville VAD023741705)

Given the history of the site, more detailed investigations should be conducted as planning for the project progresses to determine the potential for the site or adjacent properties to have hazardous materials/contamination and to determine if all required remediation has occurred.

Protected Species

The Gainesville Site 2 is partially wooded and likely provides marginal terrestrial habitat for transient species. It is likely that the construction of a station and park and ride lot at this location would likely impact this habitat. No evaluation of the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.

No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses, coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 17 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along the rail corridor.

2.1.6 Florida Rock Site

The Florida Rock Site is located on a former quarry that is located just northeast of where Prince William Parkway crosses the NS B Line. Access to the site would be via Prince William Parkway, which would provide direct access into the station. A traffic and signal warrant analysis would be required to ensure that this direct access is acceptable to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). An alternative access would be via Balls Ford Road, which would provide access into the site from the north. This access point is off of Ball’s Ford Road, about one-quarter mile from Prince William Parkway (located to the west), and approximately one and three-quarters of a mile from Sudley Road (located to the east). The conceptual site plan for this site is shown in Figure 2-11. The locations of environmentally sensitive resources for the Florida Rock Site are shown in Figure 2-12.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

There is no housing on or adjacent to the site. The Florida Rock Site is in census block groups with a minority population range of 26-50% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. The percentage for minority populations is generally above the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The percentage of low-income populations is also slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Given the census information, the Florida Rock Site is located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of minority and low-income populations. However, a review of the study area shows that there are no residential communities in the vicinity of this site. Therefore it is assumed that there would be no potential adverse effects on minority or low-income communities.

Historic Resources

A review of the VDHR DSS indicates two archaeological sites on the Florida Rock Site. As planning for the project progresses, coordination with VDHR is recommended to determine the extent of archaeological resources on the Florida Rock site. VDHR will likely require field investigations and studies at this site.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 18 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Parks and Community Facilities

There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this site.

Soil Conditions

Table A-6 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified.

Table A-6: Florida Rock Site Soils

Acreage Map Hydric within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation buffer Catlett-Sycoline complex, 2 to 7

13B percent slopes Yes 5.61 Catlett-Sycoline complex, 7 to

13C 15 percent slopes Yes 0.19 Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4 percent All areas are 17A slopes Yes prime farmland 32.14 Hatboro-Codorus complex, 0 to

27A 2 percent slopes Yes 1.12 Farmland of Kelly silt loam, 0 to 2 percent statewide 32A slopes importance 14.88 Manassas Silt Loam, 2 to 7 All areas are 35B percent Yes prime farmland 4.10 Albano silt loam, 0 to 4 percent

3A slopes Yes 0.24 Reaville silt loam, 0 to 4 percent

48A slopes Yes 24.82 Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7 percent All areas are 4B slopes Yes prime farmland 67.85 Sycoline-Kelly complex, 2 to 7 All areas are 53B percent slopes prime farmland 0.98 Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2 percent

56A slopes Yes 8.60 Arcola-Nestoria complex, 7 to 15

5C percent slopes Yes 9.40 W Water Bodies 0.07 Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: 128.5

As shown in Table A-6, approximately 129 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 19 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Water Resources

There is a small stream, likely a tributary to Dawkins Branch that extends partially east/west across the site. Impacts to this surface water would likely be subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program.

Resource Protection Areas

Based on the available mapping, there is no RPA designated on the site.

Floodplains

There are no floodplains identified on this site.

Wetlands

A small wetland area was identified outside of the site, but within the impact buffer. The wetland is northwest of the site and approximately 0.2 acres in area.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available EPA data shows that three groups are registered as having either toxic releases reported, handling hazardous materials or having an air release. The first is listed as ELTEX Chemical & Supply Company located at 7940 Notes Drive in Manassas and is listed as having/handling hazardous materials. The second site is Graphic Services Inc., located at 7910 Notes Drive in Manassas and is listed as having/handling hazardous materials. The last site is listed as Treasure Chest Advertising, located at 7619 Doane Drive in Manassas and is listed as having reported a toxic release, having/handling hazardous materials and having an air release. More detailed analysis of the site and adjacent properties is recommended to determine the potential for hazardous materials/contamination.

Protected Species

Given that this is a developed piece of land, it is unlikely that any wildlife species or habitat exist on the site.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 20 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

1.1.7 Sudley/Innovation Site 1

Sudley/Innovation Site 1 is located on the southwest side of the NS B Line, off of Bethlehem Road and directly northwest of Sudley Manor Drive. Bethlehem Road intersects Sudley Manor Drive about one-fifth of a mile northeast of Prince William Parkway (State Route 234, dedicated as the Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Highway). Access to this site would be from Bethlehem Road. The area around this station site is lightly developed to the southwest of the NS B Line, but is fairly densely developed to the northeast of the alignment, off of Sudley Manor Drive. This development includes commercial, retail, and residential development.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

There is no housing on the site. Some housing exists west of the site. The Sudley/Innovation Site 1 is in census block groups with a minority population range of 3-25% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. The percentage for minority populations is below the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, the percentage of low-income populations is slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, Sudley/Innovation Site 1 is not located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of a minority population but may be considered a higher-than-average concentration of a low-income population.

Historic Resources

No archaeological sites or historic structures are known within 500 feet of the proposed station. The closest documented cultural resources are three historic structures (076-076-0541; 076-0542; 076-0543) that stand from 800 to 1000 feet to the northwest of the proposed station location. It would appear unlikely that they would be visible from the station location, given the dense intervening woods. The three structures range in date from the 1880s to the 1940s; none of them have been evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places.

The parcel selected for Sudley/Innovation Site 1 does not appear to have played a part in the Battle of Bull Run, other than the fact that the rail line was used to ferry confederate troops from the west to Manassas Junction. The parcel does not appear to have any sensitivity for either above-ground or below-ground cultural resources, and it is not anticipated that this area will be a concern to the VDHR, although some documentation may be requested.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 21 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Parks and Community Facilities

There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this site.

Soil Conditions

Table A-7 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified.

Table A-7: Sudley/Innovation Site 1 Soils

Acreage Map Hydric within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation buffer Catlett-Sycoline complex,

13B 2 to 7 percent slopes Yes 3.82 A Catlett-Sycoline complex,

s13C 7 to 15 percent slopes Yes 5.65 Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4 All areas are prime s17A percent slopes Yes farmland 6.44 h Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7 Prime farmland if o30B percent slopes drained 2.18 w Manassas Silt Loam, 2 to All areas are prime n35B 7 percent Yes farmland 1.67 Albano silt loam, 0 to 4

i3A percent slopes Yes 0.61 n Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7 All areas are prime 4B percent slopes Yes farmland 3.37 T Sycoline-Kelly complex, All areas are prime a53B 2 to 7 percent slopes farmland 12.70 b Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2

l56A percent slopes Yes 79.17 eTotal Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: 19.92

As shown in Table A-7, approximately 20 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses.

Water Resources

Based on the source mapping, no streams appear on the Sudley/Innovation Site 1. However, upon further review of mapping available by the US Geological Survey, a tributary to Broad Run is located on the site. During field reviews, access to the site was not possible to verify if a stream exists. Impacts to this surface water would likely be subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 22 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program.

Resource Protection Areas

Based on a review of available mapping, no RPAs are designated on the site.

Floodplains

There are no floodplains on the site.

Wetlands

Wetlands were identified on Sudley/Innovation Site 1. Based on available mapping, the entire site seems to be wetland. Approximately 65 acres of wetland are associated with this site. Any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available data show that this site is free of hazardous materials/contamination, however hazardous contamination is found in 29 scattered locations throughout the corridor study area. A large concentration of contamination was found to be in the vicinity of Route 29.

Protected Species

The Sudley/Innovation Site 1 likely provides terrestrial and aquatic habitat for transient species. It is likely that the construction of a station and park and ride lot at the location would likely impact this habitat. No evaluation of the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.

No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses, coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along the rail corridor.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 23 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

1.1.8 Sudley/Innovation Site 2

Sudley/Innovation Site 2 is located off of Sudley Manor Drive, with access to the site from Sudley Manor Drive and Chatsworth Drive. The site would encircle an existing commercial area. This site is currently occupied by a long-term storage facility and other commercial uses. There is also a gas pipeline that runs through this site. This pipeline right-of-way would split the site and would not have parking on it. The conceptual design does include a connecting road between the two halves of the site over this right-of-way. This site is located directly northeast across the NS B Line from Sudley/Innovation Site 1. As with the Sudley/Innovation Site 1, the immediate station area is lightly developed to the southwest of the study alignment, but more densely developed to the northeast.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

There is no housing on the site. However, north of the site a large residential community exists. The Sudley/Innovation Site 2 is in census block groups with a minority population range of 26-50% and a low-income population range of 6- 11%. The percentage for minority populations is generally above the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The percentage of low-income populations is also slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, Sudley/Innovation Site 2 is located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of minority and low-income populations.

As the project progresses, impacts to this area should be considered as they may result in an adverse or disproportionate effect on the low-income and minority communities. This analysis is not to be considered a determination of Environmental Justice communities as defined by Executive Order 12898, but rather an indicator that these communities may be present. Potential benefits of the proposed expansion on these populations should also be considered.

Historic Resources

No archaeological sites or historic structures are known within 500 feet of the proposed station. The closest documented cultural resources are three historic structures (076-076-0541; 076-0542; 076-0543) that stand from 800 to 1000 feet to the northwest of the proposed station location. It would appear unlikely that they would be visible from the station location, given the dense intervening woods. The three structures range in date from the 1880s to the 1940s; none of them have been evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places.

The parcel selected for the Sudley/Innovation Site 2 does not appear to have played a part in the Battle of Bull Run, other than the fact that the rail line was used to ferry confederate troops from the west to Manassas Junction. The parcel \\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 24 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

does not appear to have any sensitivity for either above-ground or below-ground cultural resources and it is not anticipated that this area will be a concern to the VDHR, although some documentation may be requested.

Parks and Community Facilities

There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this site.

Soil Conditions

Table A-8 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified.

Table A-8: Sudley/Innovation Site 2 Soils

Acreage Map Hydric within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation buffer Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4 All areas are prime 17A percent slopes Yes farmland 7.10 Jackland silt loam, 2 to Prime farmland if 30B 7 percent slopes drained 2.07 Sycoline-Kelly complex, All areas are prime 53B 2 to 7 percent slopes farmland 15.74 Waxpool silt loam, 0 to

56A 2 percent slopes Yes 45.12 Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: 24.91

As shown in Table A-8, approximately 25 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses. Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine engineering feasibility of the soils.

Water Resources

There are no streams identified on this site.

Resource Protection Areas

Based on a review of available mapping, there are no designated RPAs on the site.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 25 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Floodplains

There are no floodplains identified on this site.

Wetlands

Wetlands were identified on the Sudley /Innovation Site 2. Based on available mapping, approximately 49 acres of wetlands exist on the site. However, field reviews and a review of recent aerial imagery of the site show that the majority of the site is developed. Therefore it is unlikely that the available mapping is accurate. For wetlands that likely remain on the site, any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available data show that this site is free of hazardous materials/contamination, however, hazardous contamination is found in 29 scattered locations throughout the corridor study area. A large concentration of contamination was found to be in the vicinity of Route 29.

Protected Species

This site is mostly developed and therefore it is not likely that it provides habitat for wildlife species.

1.1.9 Williams Site

The Williams Site is located on the southwest side of the NS B Line, directly to the southeast of Sudley Manor Drive. The site is located across Sudley Manor Drive from Sudley/Innovation Site 1. Access to this site would be off of Sudley Manor Drive and Bethlehem Road. The area surrounding the site, southwest of the NS B Line, is lightly developed, but it is more densely developed to the northeast of the NS B Line.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

The Williams Site is in census block groups with a minority population range of 3-25% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. There is no housing on or adjacent to the site. The percentage for minority populations is below the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, the percentage of low-income populations is slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information,

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 26 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

the Williams Site is not located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of a minority population but may be considered a higher-than- average concentration of a low-income population.

Historic Resources

There are no historic resources identified on or within 500 feet of this site. A review of the VDHR DSS did indicate that an archaeological site was documented southwest of the impact buffer. While it is unlikely that this site, if it is still in existence, would be impacted, it may indicate that the potential exists for other resources to be within the area. As planning for the project progresses, coordination with VDHR is recommended to determine the potential for additional resources to be found.

Parks and Community Facilities

There are no parks or community facilities identified on or within 500 feet of this site.

Soil Conditions

Table A-9 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified.

Table A-9: Williams Site Soils

Map Hydric Acreage within Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation impact buffer Catlett-Sycoline complex, 7 to

13C 15 percent slopes Yes 5.62 Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7 Prime farmland if drained 30B percent slopes 36.41 Jackland-Haymarket complex, Prime farmland if drained 31B 2 to 7 percent slopes 7.10 Jackland-Haymarket complex, Farmland of statewide 31C 7 to 15 percent slopes importance 0.50 Montalto silty clay loam, 7 to

40C 15 percent slopes 0.11 Sycoline-Kelly complex, 2 to 7 All areas are prime 53B percent slopes farmland 33.84 Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2

56A percent slopes Yes 72.39 Arcola-Nestoria complex, 7 to

5C 15 percent slopes Yes 1.04 Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: 77.96

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 27 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

As shown in Table A-9, approximately 78 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses. Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine the engineering feasibility of the soils.

Water Resources

There are no streams identified on this site.

Resource Protection Areas

Based on a review of available mapping, there are no designated RPAs on the site.

Floodplains

There are no floodplains identified on this site.

Wetlands

Wetlands were identified on this site using available mapping. Approximately 24 acres of wetlands exist on this site. However, the majority of this site is developed and this acreage may not be accurate. Based on aerial imagery, it appears that a wetland area may still exist along the eastern boundary of this site. For wetlands that likely remain on the site, any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available EPA data shows that this site (Williams Enterprises, located at 8587 JD Reading Dr, in Manassas) is listed as having/handling hazardous wastes. More detailed analysis of the site and adjacent properties is recommended to determine the potential for hazardous materials/contamination.

Protected Species

Given that the site is mostly developed, it is unlikely that this site provides wildlife habitat. The area that may still be wetland on the site may provide some marginal habitat for aquatic species. It is likely that the construction of a station

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 28 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

and park and ride lot at this location would impact this habitat. No evaluation of the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.

No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses, coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along the rail corridor.

1.1.10 Vulcan Quarry Site

The Vulcan Quarry Site is located on the north side of the NS B Line, to the east of Sudley Manor Drive. Access based on the conceptual plan would be directly from Sudley Manor Drive, though an alternative access would be from Ashton Avenue. The site is currently occupied by a rock quarry that has shut down operations. The immediate area is lightly developed, but denser development exists to the north of the Vulcan Quarry site.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

The Vulcan Quarry Site is in census block groups with a minority population range of 26-50% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. There is no housing on the site, however residential communities exist west and north of the site. The percentage for minority populations is generally above the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The percentage of low-income populations is also slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, the Vulcan Site is located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of minority and low-income populations.

As the project progresses, impacts to this area should be considered as they may result in an adverse or disproportionate effect on the low-income and minority communities. This analysis is not to be considered a determination of Environmental Justice communities as defined by Executive Order 12898, but rather an indicator that these communities may be present. Potential benefits of the proposed expansion on these populations should also be considered.

Historic Resources

A review of the VDHR DSS indicates that there are no historic resources identified on or within 500 feet of this site. However, as planning for the project progresses, coordination with VDHR is recommended to determine if the potential exists for historic resources to be on or within the vicinity of this site.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 29 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Parks and Community Facilities

The New Directions School is located off of Rixlew Lane, just north of the tracks and east of the Vulcan Quarry Site. The school includes ball fields, tennis courts and athletic tracks near the railroad tracks. Coordination with Prince William County and the New Directions School should occur to determine if the proposed Vulcan Station would have any effects on this school site. It was not clear during this research if the athletic amenities of the school are open to the public or if they are strictly for use by the school. If the athletic amenities are used by the public, then there could be a potential for a Section 4(f) use of the property should the proposed station require new right-of-way or if the property would be adversely affected either temporarily or permanently.

Soil Conditions

Table A-10 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified.

Table A-10: Vulcan Quarry Site Soils

Map Hydric Acreage within Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation impact buffer 13B Catlett-Sycoline complex, 2 to 7 percent slopes Yes 4.47 All areas are prime 17A Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Yes farmland 18.91 30B Jackland silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Prime farmland if drained 105.38 Jackland-Haymarket complex, 2 to 7 percent Prime farmland if drained 31B slopes 15.07 Jackland-Haymarket complex, 7 to 15 percent Farmland of statewide 31C slopes importance 21.60 Farmland of statewide 32A Kelly silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes importance 7.13 All areas are prime 33B Legore-Oakhill complex, 2 to 7 percent slopes farmland 3.35 Farmland of statewide 33C Legore-Oakhill complex, 7 to 15 percent slopes importance 2.95 All areas are prime 35B Manassas Silt Loam, 2 to 7 percent Yes farmland 5.36 All areas are prime 38B Meadowville loam, 0 to 5 percent Yes farmland 6.05 3A Albano silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Yes 10.25 All areas are prime 40B Montalto silty clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes farmland 9.78 40C Montalto silty clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 3.17 All areas are prime 46B Panorama silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Yes farmland 1.73

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 30 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Table A-10: Vulcan Quarry Site Soils (Continued)

Map Hydric Acreage within Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation impact buffer 48A Reaville silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Yes 0.06 All areas are prime 4B Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Yes farmland 32.16 All areas are prime 53B Sycoline-Kelly complex, 2 to 7 percent slopes farmland 45.07 Urban land-Udorthents complex, 0 to 7 percent

54B slopes 7.82 56A Waxpool silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Yes 221.83 5C Arcola-Nestoria complex, 7 to 15 percent slopes Yes 1.63 W Water Bodies 3.81 Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: 274.54

As shown in Table A-10, approximately 275 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses. Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine the engineering feasibility of the soils.

Water Resources

The site contains four freshwater ponds. Based on available mapping, three small tributaries to larger streams are located within the site. One stream is located in the northeastern portion of the site; another is located in the southeastern portion of the site; and the other is located along the south side of the railroad tracks within the impact buffer. Impacts to this surface water would likely be subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program.

Resource Protection Areas

Based on a review of available mapping, there are no designated RPAs on the site.

Floodplains

There are no floodplains located on this site.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 31 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Wetlands

Wetland areas have been identified on the site. Approximately 51 acres exist on the site and within the impact buffer area. The majority of the wetlands appear to be within the impact buffer west of the site. Any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available EPA data shows that this site has six businesses that are registered as either handling/having hazardous materials or having air releases. The six sites are listed below:

h Prince William County Service Authority, located at 8820 Rixlew Lane in Manassas: reported air release h Vulcan Materials Company, located at 8537 Vulcan Lane in Manassas: handles/has hazardous waste and air release h APAC Manassas and APA Occoquan, located at 8474 Vulcan Lane in Manassas: reported air release h Virginia Concrete Company Incorporated, located at 8558 Vulcan Lane in Manassas: reported air release h Sunbelt Rentals, Inc, located at 8738 Vulcan Lane in Manassas: permit to discharge wastewater h APAC Virginia Inc, located at 8738 Vulcan Lane in Manassas: handles/has hazardous waste

More detailed analysis is recommended at the site and adjacent properties to determine the potential for hazardous materials/contamination.

Protected Species

This site is cleared for mining, and it is unlikely that suitable wildlife habitat exists.

Active/Abandoned Mines

This is an active mine.

1.1.11 Wellington Road Site

The Williams Road Site is located to the south of the NS B Line, just northeast of the intersection of Wellington Road and Freedom Center Boulevard. Access to the site would be via Wellington Road. The site is located approximately one mile from the intersection of Wellington Road and Prince William Parkway and

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 32 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

approximately one-quarter mile from the intersection of Wellington Road and Godwin Drive. The area surrounding this site is lightly developed. This site has limited frontage on the NS B Line due to an industrial siding. Thus, construction of a station on this site may require intrusion on adjacent properties.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

The Wellington Road Site is in census block groups with a minority population range of 3-25% and a low-income population range of 6-11%. Housing exists on the site. The percentage of minority populations is below the averages for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, the percentage of low-income populations is slightly higher than the average for Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based on this information, the Wellington Road site is not located in an area that would likely be considered a high concentration of a minority population but may be considered a higher-than-average concentration of a low-income population.

Historic Resources

Based on a review of the VDHR DSS, there are no historic resources identified on or within 500 feet of this site. However some resources were indicated around the site. As planning for the project progresses, coordination with VDHR is recommended to determine if potential for historic resources exists within the site.

Parks and Community Facilities

The New Directions School is located off of Rixlew Lane, just north of the tracks from the Wellington Road Site. The school includes ball fields, tennis courts and athletic tracks near the railroad tracks. Coordination with Prince William County and the New Directions School should occur to determine if the proposed Wellington Road Station would have any effects on this school site. It was not clear during this research if the athletic amenities of the school are open to the public or if they are strictly for use by the school. If the athletic amenities are used by the public, then there could be a potential for a Section 4(f) use of the property should the proposed station require new right-of-way or if the property would be adversely affected either temporarily or permanently.

Soil Conditions

Table A-11 shows the soil types documented within the site and buffer area and provides the acreage of each type identified.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 33 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Table A-11: Wellington Road Site Soils

Acreage Map Hydric within impact Symbol Soil Type Soil Designation buffer Catlett-Sycoline complex, 2 to 7 percent 13B slopes Yes 0.42 Dulles silt loam, 0 to 4 All areas are prime 17A percent slopes Yes farmland 27.68 Kelly silt loam, 0 to 2 Farmland of statewide 32A percent slopes importance 3.52 Manassas Silt Loam, 2 All areas are prime 35B to 7 percent Yes farmland 3.47 Albano silt loam, 0 to 4

3A percent slopes Yes 11.57 Panorama silt loam, 2 All areas are prime 46B to 7 percent slopes Yes farmland 32.67 Arcola silt loam, 2 to 7 All areas are prime 4B percent slopes Yes farmland 8.70 Sycoline-Kelly complex, All areas are prime 53B 2 to 7 percent slopes farmland 1.44 Urban land-Udorthents complex, 0 to 7 percent 54B slopes 11.90 Waxpool silt loam, 0 to

56A 2 percent slopes Yes 2.69 W Water Bodies 0.09 Total Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: 80.17

As shown in Table A-11, approximately 80 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the site and buffer area. Further coordination with the NRCS is recommended during future planning for the project. Federal regulations discourage the unnecessary conversion of farmlands to other uses. Geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine engineering feasibility of the soils.

Water Resources

A tributary to Cannon Branch runs north-south through the site. Impacts to this surface water would likely be subject to federal permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, permitting would also likely be required through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 34 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Resource Protection Areas

Based on a review of available mapping, there are no designated RPAs on the site.

Floodplains

There are no floodplains identified on this site.

Wetlands

A small wetland area located along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the railroad tracks, exists on the site. This wetland is approximately 0.8 acres. Any fill or dredge of these wetlands would require coordination with the VDEQ/ACOE and would likely require a permit and associated mitigation.

Potential Hazardous Materials/Contamination

A review of available data show that this site is free of hazardous materials/contamination, however, hazardous contamination is found in 29 scattered locations throughout the corridor study area. A large concentration of contamination was found to be in the vicinity of Route 29.

Protected Species

This site appears to be mostly residential properties with a mix of single-family housing and landscaped or wooded land. Some marginal habitat for wildlife may exist on this site. It is likely that the construction of a station and park and ride lot would impact any habitat that exists. No evaluation of the types of species or the quality of this habitat was conducted for this analysis.

No critical habitats were identified on any readily available mapping during this environmental scan for the study area. As planning for the project progresses, coordination should be initiated with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to ascertain the potential for protected species to exist along the rail corridor.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\worki 35 Appendix D2 ng_draft\appendix d_2.doc

Appendix E: Capital Cost Estimates

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

This Page Left Blank Intentionally.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

Appendix E: Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimates

Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate (August 21, 2009) Project: Gainesville‐Haymarket Feasibility Study Location: Gainesville, Haymarket, VA Project ID: Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) Option

Total Cost Total Cost (2008$)Minus Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost (2008$) (2008$) Potential Proffer Costs 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 10.01 Commuter Rail Track 33,000 TF $400 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 10.02 Commuter Rail Siding $0 $0 10.03 Grade Crossings 8 LS $125,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 10.04 Turnouts 6 LS $100,000 $600,000 $600,000 10.05 Crossover 1 LS $170,000 $170,000 $170,000 Subtotal Track Elements: $14,970,000 $14,970,000 20 STATIONS 20.01 At‐grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 1 LS $2,800,000 $2,800,000 * $0 20.02 Automobile structure parking $0 $0 20.03 Automobile surface parking 400 EA SPACE $6,000 $2,400,000 * $0 20.04 Elevators and escalators $0 $0 20.05 Off‐site improvements, such as roadway and traffic 1 LS $500,000 $500,000 * $0 Subtotal Stations: $5,700,000 $0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES 30.01 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building $0 30.02 Yard and Yard Track 1,200 TF $350 $420,000 $420,000 Subtotal Facilities: $420,000 $420,000 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork $0 $0 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 * $0 40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal / mitigation, ground water 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 * $0 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, 0.75 ACRE $1,800,000 $1,350,000 * $0 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sounds walls 1,200 SF $1,000 $1,200,000 * $0 40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accomodation, landscaping 1 LS $52,740 $52,740 * $0 40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parkings lots $0 $0 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during $0 $0 Subtotal Sitework: $2,952,740 $0 50 SYSTEMS 50.01 Train control and signals 1 LS $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 8 LS $150,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 50.03 Communications 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 50.04 Fare collection system and equipment 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Subtotal System: $9,280,000 $9,280,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10 THROUGH 50) $33,322,740 $24,670,000 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Track 400,000 SF $10 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Stations 1.33 ACRE $800,000 $1,066,667 * $0 60.02 Relocation of existing household and businesses 0.5 LS $320,000 $160,000 $160,000 Subtotal Improvements: $5,226,667 $4,160,000 70 VEHICLES 70.01a Commuter Rail: Locomotive $0 $0 70.01b Commuter Rail: Gallery Car $0 $0 70.02 Bus $0 $0 70.03 Other $0 $0 70.04 Non‐revenue vehicles $0 $0 70.05 Spare parts $0 $0 Subtotal Vehicles: $0 $0 Subtotal 10 through 70: $38,549,407 $28,830,000 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 80.01 Design 6.00% Percent $1,999,364 $1,480,200 80.02 Permitting 3.00% Percent $999,682 $740,100 80.03 Construction Phase 4.00% Percent $1,332,910 $986,800 80.04 Inspection and Project Management 2.50% Percent $833,069 $616,750 Subtotal Professional Services: $5,165,025 $3,823,850 Subtotal 10 through 80: $43,714,431 $32,653,850 90 CONTINGENCIES 90.01 Indirect Soft Costs 2.00% Percent $874,289 $653,077 90.02 Mitigation Contigency 10.00% Percent $4,371,443 $3,265,385 90.03 Construction Contingency 20.00% Percent $8,742,886 $6,530,770 Subtotal Contingencies: $13,988,618 $10,449,232 Grand Total (2008$): $57,703,049 Grand Total if items with an asterik (*) are covered via a proffer: $43,103,082 * Represents costs that could potentially be covered through a proffer with a private developer

\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submitted_to_VRE_07_10_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\E_Capital_Cost_082009 Appendix E: Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimates

Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate (August 21, 2009) Project: Gainesville‐Haymarket Feasibility Study Location: Gainesville, Haymarket, VA Project ID: Phased Option: 2 Stations in Gainesville & Sudley/Innovation

Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost (2008$) Total Cost (2008$)

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 10.01 Commuter Rail Track 33,000 TF $400 $13,200,000 10.02 Commuter Rail Siding $0 10.03 Grade Crossings 8 LS $125,000 $1,000,000 10.04 Turnouts 6 LS $100,000 $600,000 10.05 Crossover 2 LS $170,000 $340,000 Subtotal Track Elements: $15,140,000 20 STATIONS 20.01 At‐grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 2 LS $5,240,322 $10,480,644 20.02 Automobile structure parking $0 20.03 Automobile surface parking 1,300 EA SPACE $6,000 $7,800,000 20.04 Elevators and escalators $0 20.05 Off‐site improvements, such as roadway and traffic 1 LS $1,950,000 $1,950,000 Subtotal Stations: $20,230,644 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES 30.01 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 1 LS $125,000 $125,000 30.02 Yard and Yard Track 9,000 TF $350 $3,150,000 Subtotal Facilities: $3,275,000 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork $0 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 2 LS $100,000 $200,000 40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal / mitigation, ground water 2 LS $250,000 $500,000 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, 0.75 ACRE $1,800,000 $1,350,000 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sounds walls 1,200 SF $1,000 $1,200,000 40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accomodation, landscaping 2 LS $52,740 $105,480 40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parkings lots $0 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction $0 Subtotal Sitework: $3,355,480 50 SYSTEMS 50.01 Train control and signals 1 LS $8,000,000 $8,000,000 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 8 LS $150,000 $1,200,000 50.03 Communications 2 LS $40,000 $80,000 50.04 Fare collection system and equipment 2 LS $40,000 $80,000 Subtotal System: $9,360,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10 THROUGH 50) $51,361,124 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Track 776,450 SF $10 $7,764,500 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Stations 2.67 ACRE $800,000 $2,133,333 60.02 Relocation of existing household and businesses 1 LS $320,000 $320,000 Subtotal Improvements: $10,217,833 70 VEHICLES 70.01a Commuter Rail: Locomotive 0 EA $4,500,000 $0 70.01b Commuter Rail: Gallery Car 10 EA $2,300,000 $23,000,000 70.02 Bus $0 70.03 Other $0 70.04 Non‐revenue vehicles $0 70.05 Spare parts $0 Subtotal Vehicles: $23,000,000 Subtotal 10 through 70: $84,578,957 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 80.01 Design 6.00% Percent $3,081,667 80.02 Permitting 3.00% Percent $1,540,834 80.03 Construction Phase 4.00% Percent $2,054,445 80.04 Inspection and Project Management 2.50% Percent $1,284,028 Subtotal Professional Services: $7,960,974 Subtotal 10 through 80: $92,539,932 90 CONTINGENCIES 90.01 Indirect Soft Costs 2.00% Percent $1,850,799 90.02 Mitigation Contigency 10.00% Percent $9,253,993 90.03 Construction Contingency 20.00% Percent $18,507,986 Subtotal Contingencies: $29,612,778 Grand Total (2008$): $122,152,710

\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submitted_to_VRE_07_10_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\E_Capital_Cost_082009 Appendix E: Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimates

Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate (August 21, 2009) Project: Gainesville‐Haymarket Feasibility Study Location: Gainesville, Haymarket, VA Project ID: Full Build‐Out Option: Split Service Constrained (1B)

Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost (2008$) Total Cost (2008$)

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 10.01 Commuter Rail Track 48,890 TF $400 $19,556,000 10.02 Commuter Rail Siding $0 10.03 Grade Crossings 11 LS $125,000 $1,375,000 10.04 Turnouts 11 LS $100,000 $1,100,000 10.05 Crossover 4 LS $170,000 $680,000 Subtotal Track Elements: $22,711,000 20 STATIONS 20.01 At‐grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 3 LS $5,240,322 $15,720,966 20.02 Automobile structure parking $0 20.03 Automobile surface parking 2,100 EA SPACE $6,000 $12,600,000 20.04 Elevators and escalators $0 20.05 Off‐site improvements, such as roadway and traffic 1 LS $1,950,000 $1,950,000 Subtotal Stations: $30,270,966 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES 30.01 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 1 LS $125,000 $125,000 30.02 Yard and Yard Track 9,000 TF $350 $3,150,000 Subtotal Facilities: $3,275,000 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork $0 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 3 LS $100,000 $300,000 40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal / mitigation, ground water 3 LS $250,000 $750,000 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, 1 ACRE $1,800,000 $1,800,000 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sounds walls 1,200 SF $1,000 $1,200,000 40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accomodation, landscaping 3 LS $52,740 $158,220 40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parkings lots $0 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction $0 Subtotal Sitework: $4,208,220 50 SYSTEMS 50.01 Train control and signals 1 LS $10,000,000 $10,000,000 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 11 LS $150,000 $1,650,000 50.03 Communications 3 LS $40,000 $120,000 50.04 Fare collection system and equipment 3 LS $40,000 $120,000 Subtotal System: $11,890,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10 THROUGH 50) $72,355,186 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Track 1,026,450 SF $10 $10,264,500 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Stations 4 ACRE $800,000 $3,200,000 60.02 Relocation of existing household and businesses 1 LS $320,000 $320,000 Subtotal Improvements: $13,784,500 70 VEHICLES 70.01a Commuter Rail: Locomotive 0 EA $4,500,000 $0 70.01b Commuter Rail: Gallery Car 10 EA $2,300,000 $23,000,000 70.02 Bus $0 70.03 Other $0 70.04 Non‐revenue vehicles $0 70.05 Spare parts $0 Subtotal Vehicles: $23,000,000 Subtotal 10 through 70: $109,139,686 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 80.01 Design 6.00% Percent $4,341,311 80.02 Permitting 3.00% Percent $2,170,656 80.03 Construction Phase 4.00% Percent $2,894,207 80.04 Inspection and Project Management 2.50% Percent $1,808,880 Subtotal Professional Services: $11,215,054 Subtotal 10 through 80: $120,354,740 90 CONTINGENCIES 90.01 Indirect Soft Costs 2.00% Percent $2,407,095 90.02 Mitigation Contigency 10.00% Percent $12,035,474 90.03 Construction Contingency 20.00% Percent $24,070,948 Subtotal Contingencies: $38,513,517 Grand Total (2008$): $158,868,257

\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submitted_to_VRE_07_10_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\E_Capital_Cost_082009 Appendix E: Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimates

Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate (August 21, 2009) Project: Gainesville‐Haymarket Feasibility Study Location: Gainesville, Haymarket, VA Project ID: Full Build‐Out Option: Split Service Constrained Plus Rail Shuttle (1C)

Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost (2008$) Total Cost (2008$)

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 10.01 Commuter Rail Track 48,890 TF $400 $19,556,000 10.02 Commuter Rail Siding $0 10.03 Grade Crossings 11 LS $125,000 $1,375,000 10.04 Turnouts 11 LS $100,000 $1,100,000 10.05 Crossover 4 LS $170,000 $680,000 Subtotal Track Elements: $22,711,000 20 STATIONS 20.01 At‐grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 3 LS $5,240,322 $15,720,966 20.02 Automobile structure parking $0 20.03 Automobile surface parking 2,100 EA SPACE $6,000 $12,600,000 20.04 Elevators and escalators $0 20.05 Off‐site improvements, such as roadway and traffic 1 LS $1,950,000 $1,950,000 Subtotal Stations: $30,270,966 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES 30.01 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 1 LS $125,000 $125,000 30.02 Yard and Yard Track 9,000 TF $350 $3,150,000 Subtotal Facilities: $3,275,000 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork $0 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 3 LS $100,000 $300,000 40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal / mitigation, ground water 3 LS $250,000 $750,000 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, 1 ACRE $1,800,000 $1,800,000 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sounds walls 1,200 SF $1,000 $1,200,000 40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accomodation, landscaping 3 LS $52,740 $158,220 40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parkings lots $0 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction $0 Subtotal Sitework: $4,208,220 50 SYSTEMS 50.01 Train control and signals 1 LS $10,000,000 $10,000,000 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 11 LS $150,000 $1,650,000 50.03 Communications 3 LS $40,000 $120,000 50.04 Fare collection system and equipment 3 LS $40,000 $120,000 Subtotal System: $11,890,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10 THROUGH 50) $72,355,186 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Track 1,026,450 SF $10 $10,264,500 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate‐Stations 4 ACRE $800,000 $3,200,000 60.02 Relocation of existing household and businesses 1 LS $320,000 $320,000 Subtotal Improvements: $13,784,500 70 VEHICLES 70.01a Commuter Rail: Locomotive 3 EA $4,500,000 $13,500,000 70.01b Commuter Rail: Gallery Car 32 EA $2,300,000 $73,600,000 70.02 Bus $0 70.03 Other $0 70.04 Non‐revenue vehicles $0 70.05 Spare parts $0 Subtotal Vehicles: $87,100,000 Subtotal 10 through 70: $173,239,686 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 80.01 Design 6.00% Percent $4,341,311 80.02 Permitting 3.00% Percent $2,170,656 80.03 Construction Phase 4.00% Percent $2,894,207 80.04 Inspection and Project Management 2.50% Percent $1,808,880 Subtotal Professional Services: $11,215,054 Subtotal 10 through 80: $184,454,740 90 CONTINGENCIES 90.01 Indirect Soft Costs 2.00% Percent $3,689,095 90.02 Mitigation Contigency 10.00% Percent $18,445,474 90.03 Construction Contingency 20.00% Percent $36,890,948 Subtotal Contingencies: $59,025,517 Grand Total (2008$): $243,480,257

\\Mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\Feasibility Study\Submitted_to_VRE_07_10_2009\Appendices\Working_Draft\E_Capital_Cost_082009

Appendix F: Rail Infrastructure Improvements

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

This Page Left Blank Intentionally.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

Appendix G: Schematic Layout of Rail Corridor

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

This Page Left Blank Intentionally.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

Appendix H: Design Criteria

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

This Page Left Blank Intentionally.

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\vre_feasibility_study_09_25_2009.doc Final Report (Feasibility Study)

Appendix H: Virginia Railway Express Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study

Project Corridor Design Criteria

Prepared By: VHB, Inc. Transit & Rail Services 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700 Vienna, VA 22182

June 26, 2009 Virginia Railway Express Manassas Line: Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study

Project Corridor Design Criteria

The intent of this Project Corridor Design Criteria Memorandum is to establish a basis for design to incorporate the proposed VRE commuter rail service to Gainesville‐Haymarket into the NS B Line Corridor. This document will provide a summary of the key design criteria that will be used to establish the engineering feasibility and infrastructure cost of the service. The intent is for these design criteria to be used in the development of the conceptual design (5 to 10%) supporting the Alternatives Analysis (AA) and Feasibility Study (FS) processes. Should the proposed commuter rail service project be advanced for further consideration and analysis, theses design criteria along with the infrastructure cost estimates established as part of the AA and FS will be the basis of the future project development.

General Design Intent

The general approach to the integration of commuter rail service along the 11 mile B Line Corridor between Manassas Junction and Haymarket can be summarized as follows:

• The existing main line track, which is generally centered within the ROW, will remain “as is”.

• A continuous second main line track will be constructed for the 11 mile length.

• The second main line track will be off‐set to either the north (preferred) or south of the existing main line track as feasible.

• Minor adjustments to the alignment of the existing main line track will be considered to minimize and/or avoid environmental impacts, ROW acquisition, and/or excess need for retaining wall structures. Refer to Appendix F for a proposed Schematic Layout of the Rail Corridor. Basis For Design Criteria Design of the railroad infrastructure shall conform to the requirements of the following standards, codes, and guidelines as applicable:

• American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way Association (AREMA), 2009 Manual for Railway Engineering Volumes 1 – 4 and Portfolio of Trackwork Plans.

• Norfolk Southern Criteria & Guidelines for Main Tracks and Detours

• Norfolk Southern’s memorandum regarding Passenger Station Requirements on Norfolk Southern.

• Norfolk Southern Standard Specifications for Materials and Construction and the Special Provisions.

2 June 26, 2009

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\h_design_criteria\track design criteria_06_16_2009_rev.doc Virginia Railway Express Manassas Line: Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study

Key Design Criteria

The following key design criteria were established as the basis for the current Conceptual (5 – 10%) Design development:

• Design Standard: AREMA recommended practices except where Norfolk Southern standards supersede.

• Design Typical Section: Minimum of 12 inches of ballast under ties and 12 inches of sub‐ballast (see Attachment No. 01 and Track Centers below).

• Ruling Grade: No change to ruling grade over the section of the “B” Line from Manassas (MP B0.0) to Haymarket (MP B11).

o At Stations: Inter‐track fences will be provided at all commuter rail stations between the two main line tracks running at least the length of the platforms. The top of this fence will be no higher than 3’ 6” above the Top of Rail.

• Track Centers: Main Line track centers are as follows:

o Outside of Station Areas: In tangent sections of alignment the track centers will be 14 feet as shown on NS Plan 1‐19 (Attachment No. 01).

o Curved Alignment: The clearances shall be increased along curved sections of track by 3.5 inches per inch of super elevation difference between tracks plus 1.5 inches per degree of curvature.

• Horizontal Curves: Designs based on chord definition of curvature. Spiral length shall be based on both freight and passenger operating speeds.

• Vertical Curves: Lengths based on freight and passenger speed as in AFREMA Recommended Practice Chapter 5, Section 3.6.

• Vertical/horizontal clearance: Per Norfolk Southern Plan 7‐1 Clearance for Tracks Located on Industrial Property (Attachment No. 02).

• Track Construction: Track will be Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) with wood ties. All mainline tracks will be used for both freight and commuter rail operations.

• Main Line Turnouts: No. 20 turnouts with 39’ curved switch points or No. 15 turnouts with 30’ switch points depending on the selected design speed. The assumed diverge/merge maximum operating speed through the turnouts is 45 mph for passenger trains and 30 mph for freight trains (assuming Eu = 3” for passenger trains and Eu = 1.0” for freights) for No. 20 turnouts and 30 mph passenger and 15 mph freight for No. 15 equilateral turnouts.

3 June 26, 2009

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\h_design_criteria\track design criteria_06_16_2009_rev.doc Virginia Railway Express Manassas Line: Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study

• For two turnouts in the same track diverging in opposite directions, thereby creating a reverse curve situation, it will be necessary to provide preferably 100 feet but a minimum of 70 feet between the points of switches of the two turnouts.

• Main track turnouts must not be located on horizontal curves or spirals and must be placed at least a 100’ beyond the end of the spiral.

• Main track turnouts shall not be located on vertical curves.

• Universal Crossovers: The most likely locations for universal crossovers will be at the southern end of the B Line in the vicinity of Manassas Junction and between the stations as determined by an operational analysis.

• Industrial/Storage Turnouts/Sidings: No. 10 turnouts or larger will be used on main tracks for all industrial/storage sidings. Industrial/storage sidings will be entirely separate from the mainline track.

• Commuter Rail Station Platforms: The commuter rail platform design criteria are as follows:

o All platforms will be low level boarding. o Height of platform will not exceed 8 inches above top of rail. o Horizontal clearance from the center line of the main line track to the front face of the platform will be 5 ft – 2 inches.

o The platforms will be 650 feet in length. o The desirable width of side platforms is 16 feet while a minimum of 12 feet may be considered if site conditions dictate. All access between platforms will be accommodated using a cross‐track pedestrian bridge or tunnel.

o Canopies shall be located a minimum of 9 feet from the center of track (tangent). Side clearance shall be increased by 1.5 inches per degree of curvature.

o Canopies shall have gutters on the track side or be sloped away from the track. • Signal System: The recently installed signal system through this corridor will be modified to accommodate the second main line track and upgraded for Positive Train Control.

• Crossing Protection: All at‐grade crossings will be protected as they are on the existing track. Modifications related to the VRE expansion will be limited to relocating signal equipment and upgrading the existing operations system for the additional track.

• Design Speed: The current maximum operating speed along the B Line between Manassas Junction and MP 11.0 for freight traffic ranges from 15 to 45 MPH. The 15 MPH segment is located at Manassas Junction between MP B0 and MP B1. The track speed increases to 25 MPH between MP B1 and B2.5. Throughout the remainder of the corridor, the track speed is 45 MPH except for one

4 June 26, 2009

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\h_design_criteria\track design criteria_06_16_2009_rev.doc Virginia Railway Express Manassas Line: Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study

area where curves restrict the speed to 35 MPH (MP B3.2 to B4.9) and 40 MPH between MP B8.5 and B9.3. Based on the maximum operating speeds permitted today, NS maintains the track to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Class 4 standards (60 MPH maximum allowable operating speed for freight trains and 80 MPH for passenger trains). NS is planning an increase to a 50 mile per hour (mph) operating speed in the near future for freight operations, with some modifications to the existing super‐elevation. This planned increase in operating speed would still be within FRA’s Class 4 requirements. The VRE design speed of 60 mph will be compatible with Class 4 track.

• Even with the planned increases in allowable operating speeds, track geometry and operational analyses will determine the ultimate operating speeds. The design geometry should be set for maximum FRA Class 4 speeds, 80 mph passenger and 60mph freight trains. The spiral lengths for the higher speeds can be set when the second track is constructed, but the super elevation should be built for today’s operating speeds. When NS or VRE implements speed increases, then the super elevation can easily be set for the higher speeds since the proper length spirals will already be in‐ place.

5 June 26, 2009

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\h_design_criteria\track design criteria_06_16_2009_rev.doc Virginia Railway Express Manassas Line: Gainesville – Haymarket Extension Study

Attachments

6 June 26, 2009

\\mabos\projects\10512.00\reports\feasibility study\submittal_6_19_2009\appendices\h_design_criteria\track design criteria_06_16_2009_rev.doc ATTACHMENTATTACHMENT NO. 02 1 ATTACHMENTATTACHMENT NO. 03 2