VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Extension (GHX) Study. December 16, 2016

Transcription

1 VRE Gainesville-Haymarket Extension (GHX) Study December 16,

2 Project Origins System Plan 2040 and Financial Plan Follow Natural Growth profile to run longer trains Continue to pursue funding for System Plan 2040 service concepts Additional peak trains Gainesville Haymarket Extension Reverse peak and off-peak service 2

3 Purpose of the Study Advance the planning and development for VRE Manassas Line growth needs including a Gainesville-Haymarket extension Identify the service, station locations and railroad infrastructure that best serve the community and VRE riders Estimate the cost and identify funding sources Perform engineering and identify any potential environmental impacts Help Norfolk Southern make an informed decision about allowing joint use 3

4 Project Goals 1. Add capacity to the I-66 corridor 2. Accommodate current and future freight operations 3. Provide cost-effective and reliable mobility options 4. Enhance service on existing line for current and future riders 5. Support local and regional economic development and plans 4

5 Project Overview We are here JUL AUG2018 SEP OCT 2019 NOV Planning Project Activities NEPA PE Current Study Final Design Construction Start Up Contingent upon Norfolk Southern approval and funding availability. Project Phase PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVENUE SERVICE Schedule as of December

6 Phase A: Planning/Alternatives Analysis Fall 2015 Committee/Public Meetings Service Plan Station Location Alignment/ Route Equipment Storage Facility Screening of Initial Alternatives Spring 2016 Committee/Public Meetings Refined Alternative Refined Alternative Evaluation of Refined Alternatives Fall-Winter 2016 Committee/Public Meetings Recommended Alternative(s) for PE/Environmental Review 6

7 Study Area 7

8 Broad Run Equipment Storage Facility 8

9 OUTREACH SUMMARY 9

10 Study Outreach July December Individual, Organizational Briefings and Events 17 Board Presentations and Public Meetings Public meeting attendance 55% VRE riders 45% non-riders Comments Just build it Non-riders more likely to use VRE if station is close to their home Support among VRE riders for keeping Broad Run station Concerns about cost, especially fare impacts Requests for more frequent service even without extension Concern about community and environmental impacts, esp. at station areas Belief ridership forecasts are understated 10

11 KEY FINDINGS 11

12 More peak service provides the greatest ridership potential relative to cost What We Learned Proposed VRE Line Separate VRE and freight operations drives service and infrastructure costs up Broad Run Broad Run station and GHX travel markets overlap Cannot add trains to Manassas Line without expanding Broad Run MSF storage capacity Note: Graphic adapted from Transform 66 Outside the Beltway, Tier 2 Final Environmental Assessment, 6/21/

13 Land Use and Economic Development Benefits VRE station can support local land use and economic development plans and policies: Target population and employment activity centers Encourage greater tax revenues Minimize sprawl and conserve open space Percent Growth 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% Source: LHB Communications, Inc. 229% 113% 43% 41% 17% -5% Population Employment Lorton Station Tract Adjacent to Station Station Study Area Broader Area 13

14 Ridership Forecasts Broad Run terminus retains 93% of GHX riders ,350 15,820 16,100 16,340 16, Daily Ridership , Existing Service Broad Run Innovation Gainesville Option A (2 stations) Gainesville Option B (3 stations) Haymarket GHX Stations (2040) Manassas Line (2015) Manassas Line (2040) Source: VRE/MWCOG Travel Demand Model, results as of 9/26/16 14

15 Capital Cost Broad Run terminus capital costs are close to half of GHX alternatives $580 to $630M $570 to $615M $590 to $630M $610 to $660M Stations Millions (2016 $) $345 M Yard Track and ROW Broad Run Innovation Gainesville Option A (2 stations) Gainesville Option B (3 stations) Haymarket Vehicles 15

16 $50 Annual Operating Cost Broad Run terminus operating costs are about 20% less than GHX alternatives $45 M Millions (2016 $) $40 $30 $20 $29 M $36 M $37 M $40 M $40 M $10 $0 Existing Service Broad Run Innovation Gainesville 2 Gainesville 3 Haymarket Existing Service Broad Run Innovation Gainesville Option A (2 stations) Gainesville Option B (3 stations) Haymarket 16

17 Cost Effectiveness Existing Service Broad Run Innovation Gainesville Option A (2 stations) Option B (3 stations) Haymarket Revenue Trains Daily Riders (2040) 1 10,220 15,350 15,820 16,100 16,340 16,460 Cost Per Rider Operating Cost Per Rider ($) 2 $11.31 $9.34 $9.23 $9.98 $9.83 $10.89 Capital Cost Per Rider ($) 3 NA 4 $3.03 $5.44 $5.53 $5.51 $5.80 Total Cost Per Rider ($) $11.31 $12.37 $14.66 $15.51 $15.35 $ Projections based on VRE Travel Demand Model 2015; MWCOG Round 8.4 Cooperative Land Use Forecasts, 9/26/16 2. Operating costs based on VRE FY15 average cost per train mile 3. Annualized capital costs based on FTA useful life estimates and assume 251 service days/year 4. No additional capital investments assumed for Broad Run station/yard complex. 17

18 Capital Funding Sources Initial funding plan assumption: Federal grant for 50% of capital cost of an extension No GHX alternative is competitive for Federal New Starts funding A Broad Run extension could potentially compete for Federal Core Capacity funding Federal Capital Investment Grant State, Regional, and Local Funding Sources 18

19 Operating Funding Sources Minimum 50% fare revenue Additional revenue source(s) required for future operations, even Natural Growth New operating revenue for VRE expansion TBD Future Dedicated Source VRE Member Jurisdictions State Funding Fare Revenue 19

20 RECOMMENDATION 20

21 Advance Broad Run alternative to Phase B of the GHX Study to complete Preliminary Engineering (PE) and prepare National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation. Manassas Gateway Broad Run Station (Relocated) Site B-2 Broad Run Station (Relocated) Site B-1 Expanded Broad Run Yard Manassas Regional Airport 21

22 Timeline for Decision-making Alternatives Analysis NEPA PE Initiate Alternatives Analysis Evaluate Refined Alternatives Initiate NEPA Publish FONSI Recommend Final LPA JUL 2015 JUL 2016 OCT 2016 DEC 2016 JAN 2017 Mid Fall 2017 Fall 2017 Evaluate Wide Range Initial Alternatives VRE Ops Board Recommends NEPA Alternative(s) for Add l Study Publish Draft EA Recommend Draft Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) VRE Ops Board Adopts LPA 22

23 Jurisdiction concerns Issues Increase in future operating costs and jurisdiction subsidy level Proceeding with Phase B of study is a commitment to additional VRE service and capital investment Response Completing the study is not a commitment to additional VRE service or to building anything Completion of NEPA and PE is a requirement to seek additional funding The need for an additional source of VRE operating revenue is recognized Stopping the study precludes any VRE growth opportunities 23

24 Study Funding Virginia Rail Enhancement Fund (REF) Grant $2,785,714 Phase A, Alternatives refinement Phase B, Preliminary engineering design and NEPA Northern Virginia Transportation Authority $1,500,000 Corridor study and preliminary project development for extension Other VRE options addressing the need for service will also be investigated 24

25 QUESTIONS 25