COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE

Transcription

1 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE Engineering Report October 2012

2 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE Engineering Report Table of Contents PART A: GENERAL 1 PART B: ACTION ITEMS LIST 1 PART 1 - SYSTEM DEFINITION INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW DESCRIPTION NEXT STEPS 4 PART 2 - OPERATIONS DESCRIPTION DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN PROCEDURE FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 8 PART 3 - TRACK ALIGNMENT AND VEHICLE CLEARANCES DESCRIPTION DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN PROCEDURE FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 20 PART 4 - TRACKWORK DESCRIPTION DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN PROCEDURE CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 25 PART 5 - TRACTION POWER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION DESCRIPTION 26 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report i

3 5.02 DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN PROCEDURE FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 30 PART 6 - SIGNALS DESCRIPTION DESIGN CRITERIA FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 33 PART 7 - COMMUNICATIONS DESCRIPTION FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 34 PART 8 - MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE FACILITY DESCRIPTION DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN PROCEDURE FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 42 PART 9 FARE COLLECTION DESCRIPTION REGIONAL CONEXT DESIGN CRITERIA CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 47 PART 10 - TRANSIT VEHICLE DESCRIPTION 48 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report ii

4 10.02 DESIGN CRITERIA FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 48 PART 11 - SAFETY, FIRE/LIFE SAFETY & SECURITY 49 PART 12 - STREETCARSTOPS DESCRIPTION DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN PROCEDURE FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 52 PART 13 - TRAM / LRT STOP AND STREETCAR AREA PLANNING: CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN 53 PART 14 - STRUCTURES DESCRIPTION DESIGN CRITERIA DATA ACQUISITION EVALUATION / PROCEDURE FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 57 PART 15 - CIVIL DESCRIPTION 59 PART 16 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DESCRIPTION 60 PART 17 - LANDSCAPING DESCRIPTION 60 PART 18 - UTILITIES DESCRIPTION DESIGN CRITERIA 60 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report iii

5 18.03 DESIGN PROCEDURE FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 66 PART 19 - CONSTRUCTION STAGING DESCRIPTION DESIGN CRITERIA CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS 66 List of Figures Figure 8.1: Maintenance and Storage Facility Alternative Sites 38 Figure 8.2: The Pentagon City Site 39 Figure 8.3: Former Car Barn on East Capital Street in the District of Columbia 39 Figure 8.4: Small Maintenance Facility Built Under A Highway Bridge in Portland, Oregon 40 Figure 8.5: Teardrop Site Test Fit Layout 41 Figure 8.6: Option 4A Site Concept 42 Figure 8.7: First Floor (Maintenance Area) For Pentagon City Option 4A 43 Figure 8.8: Second Floor (Operation and Administration Offices) for Pentagon City Option 4A 44 Figure 8.9: Section Plan for Pentagon City Option 4A 44 Figure 9.1: Card Target On Transit Vehicle 46 Figure 12.1: Jefferson St. Transit Center / Intermodal Transfer Facility 52 Figure 14.1: Skyline Central Plaza Design Option S3 Double Track 54 Figure 14.2: United Streetcar Tram 56 Figure 14.3: Existing Structural Section Skyline 56 Figure 14.4: Proposed Typical Section Four Mile Run Bridge 58 Figure 14.5: Proposed Pier Four Mile Run Bridge 59 Figure 18.1: WMATA Tram/LRT Embedded Tracks, No Utility Zone for Underground Utilities 62 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report iv

6 List of Tables Table 2.1: Columbia Pike Service Configuration by Alternative AM Peak Peak Direction 7 Table 2.2: Columbia Pike Service Configuration by Alternative Mid-Day Peak Direction 8 Table 5.1: Assumptions Made for Traction Power Model 28 Table 8.1: Maintenance and Storage Facility Space Program Summary 37 Table 12.1: Streetcar Stop Description 51 Table 18.1: Utility Tabulation 65 Appendices Appendix A: Design Exceptions Appendix B: Alternative Operation Scenarios Appendix C: Alternative Alignment Options Appendix D: Letter to VDOT; Vertical Clearance at Proposed Washington Blvd Bridge Appendix E: Alternative O&M Facility Options Appendix F: Target and Skyline Plaza Parking Structure Structural Engineering Appendix G: Project Utility Notes Appendix H: Conceptual Design Team Contacts Appendix I: Noise and Vibration Memorandum Appendix J: Capital Cost Estimate Memorandum Appendix K: Traction Power Memorandum Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report v

7 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE Engineering Report PART A: GENERAL This report presents a description of the engineering analysis conducted at a conceptual level to satisfy the NEPA process. The report is organized to closely follow the format of the WMATA Tram / LRT Guideline Design Criteria. Note that not all of the WMATA criteria sections apply to this report, and that some were revised to represent engineering work performed in this project but for which no criteria section exists. Though conducted on a conceptual level, analysis performed provides the appropriate building blocks for purposes of transitioning the project into New Starts Preliminary Engineering or Small Starts Project Development, which is anticipated as the next phase of the project. Throughout this document, references are made to the Conceptual Plan Set. The Conceptual Plan Set is a concept level of engineering drawings which were developed and submitted with the AA/EA Document. It is necessary for the reader of this document to obtain a copy of the AA/EA Document, and accompanying Plan set to review drawings referenced in this report. This document comprises sections organized according to the WMATA Tram / LRT Guideline Design Criteria that detail the main topics of relevant technical effort. These sections have been assembled from relevant technical memoranda that were prepared by different technical specialists. The level of detail varies by topic. Generally, conceptual design topics that are of high importance relative to project costs and impacts receive more detailed treatment. PART B: ACTION ITEMS LIST Throughout this document, recommendations are made which identify tasks the current design team believes are critical path tasks that should be performed at the beginning of the next phase of design. These tasks are labeled as ACTION ITEM. The Action Items are identified in their respective specific report section. The reader may find these items either by using the find command in Microsoft Word, Adobe Reader, or manually scanning through the document for the words ACTION ITEM. The full list of action items is assembled below as a convenience to the reader. Action Items List: 1. Refer to the Conclusions and Next Steps for each Part. 2. Coordinate with MultiModal Project; discern how to utilize MultiModal Project s digital basemapping, and incorporate MultiModal proposed design elements. 3. Discern whether to merge MultiModal Project with the Transit Initiative (Streetcar Project) in certain sections of the corridor. 4. Obtain the DDOT streetcar program s basis of elements for capital costs, and contract documents, including special provisions and technical specifications. 5. Review the VDOT HRT (Hampton Roads Transit) agreement for the LRT Tide system and identify issues applicable to the Transit Initiative (Streetcar Project). 6. Commence discussions with all utility owners in the corridor and VDOT to identify utility conflicts and engineering issues. 7. Determine the uses of the storage and equipment yard on the south side of Columbia Pike across from the Navy Annex. Consider use of the site for streetcar storage, particularly disabled streetcars, and for paint and body shop. For these uses, the site must be regarded and include a retaining wall at the south end. 8. Address the status of the realignment of Columbia Pike at the Navy Annex. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 1

8 9. Establish and formally adopt standards and design criteria, as discussed in Part o Coordinate with DDOT on its standards and criteria. o Consult with WMATA on its interoperability study for the streetcar and light rail in the metropolitan area. o Establish design parameters of the streetcar vehicle, particularly its width. o Confirm type of rail, tee or girder, after coordination with Community Streetcar Coalition on its initiative to arrange American manufacture of girder rail. 10. Establish a CADD manual, as discussed in Part 1.02 o See WMATA CADD Standards which states: The AutoCAD files have been developed to include the National CADD standards (NCS) format for most items such as layering and file naming. Other aspects of the NCS have been modified to support WMATA s specialized field of railway transportation such as the symbols used. Project Sponsors should dictate appropriate Cadd Standards. 11. Review and confirm the operation plan of the Streetcar Build Alternative, as discussed in Part Review and act on exceptions to the design criteria, as discussed in Part Re-run the traction power model as discussed in Part Review the Traction Power WMATA Design criteria to determine if the need for redundancy is beneficial to this system. Compare with peer systems. 15. Determine whether to invest further in a transit signal priority system as discussed in Part Establish the method and technology of fare collection as discussed in Part o Discuss with DDOT its initial and ultimate methods and technology of streetcar fare collection. o Discuss with WMATA the current on-board fare collection of Metrobuses in the corridor and the future of off-board fare collection of Metro Buses, as discussed in Part o Discuss with WMATA the Next Generation of fare payment, using smartphones and credit cards. 17. Consider the use of AutoCAD Rivit for three dimensional depiction of streetcar slab, streetcar conduit, and underground utilities. 18. Review and restudy the lane configuration and traffic operations at the Columbia Pike / Washington Blvd. interchange as currently being reconfigured by VDOT. 19. Coordinate with VDOT and its design builder and review utilities placement within the area of the VDOT Washington Blvd. interchange project. 20. Address issue of vertical clearance of catenary under bridge and potential of contact and impact by abnormally high vehicles. A solution may be guards that are attached to the underside of the overpass on both sides of the catenary; the high vehicle would make contact with the guards rather than with the catenary. Develop the hardware for the overhead catenary system under the Washington Blvd. Bridge. Consider the work of HNTB for DDOT in the H Street underpass at Union Station. 21. Become familiar with WMATA Adjacent Construction Program, for the analysis of the streetcar line and stop above the Pentagon City Station. 22. Review maintenance facility: determine solutions for vehicle cleaning, washing vehicles, and wheel truing. 23. Continue structural analysis for Four Mile Run Bridge: o Perform a field view of the bridge for purposes of performing a complete structure condition assessment. o Develop track slab details and limits of deck reconstruction with depressed slab to accommodate the streetcar without major grade change modifications. If grade change modifications are required, identify the limits and roadway re-grading required to accommodate the modifications. o Perform an evaluation of maximum shear and moment capacity of the existing structures per AASHTO and the WMATA Tram/LRT Guideline Design Criteria including an analysis of the column capacity and footings. o Develop retrofit/strengthening concepts required. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 2

9 PART 1 - SYSTEM DEFINITION INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1.01 DESCRIPTION Over the past decade, Arlington County and Fairfax County have been actively engaged in efforts to strengthen communities, increase the amount of housing and amenities, and encourage a mix of land uses at key locations along the corridor. In 2002, the Arlington County Board approved the Columbia Pike Initiative: A Revitalization Plan for the Corridor. Part visioning exercise and part implementation plan, the Board developed a vision for transportation and community development along Columbia Pike and identified steps towards achievement. For its part, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has developed a vision for the greater Baileys Crossroads area, reflected most recently in a 2010 Comprehensive Plan update that allows for greater land use densities and increased activity levels. Both Boards plans rely on implementation of a high-capacity, long-term transit system. To meet this goal, the Boards initiated the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative project in coordination with FTA. The project proposes to implement high-quality, high-capacity transit service along a 5-mile corridor, running the majority along Columbia Pike, between the Pentagon/Pentagon City area in Arlington County and the Skyline area near Baileys Crossroads in Fairfax County. The proposed project fosters the Counties vision for a multimodal corridor, linking its walkable, mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods and connecting to the Washington, DC area transit network and thus, the region s major activity nodes. Regionally, multiple transit corridors, including the project corridor, have been identified to provide increased mobility and accessibility, and potentially interface in the future. Implementing transit improvements along this corridor is part of achieving the regional transit vision for greater mobility and accessibility. A brief discussion of project history follows: In , Arlington County initiated the Columbia Pike Initiative, a broad based effort to reevaluate land use and transportation along the Columbia Pike corridor. This study resulted with the adoption by Arlington County of a form-based code for redevelopment along the Pike, and the recommendation for improved streetscape and enhanced transit service. During the same timeframe, WMATA initiated a feasibility study for bus or light rail transit improvements along Columbia Pike and Leesburg Pike in Arlington and Fairfax Counties. In 2004, WMATA in conjunction with Arlington and Fairfax Counties, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) initiated a local transit Alternatives Analysis ( Pike Transit Initiative ) to consider the development of an advanced transit system along Columbia Pike. In the spring of 2006, the Arlington County Board and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors approved a streetcar alternative as the preferred alternative to be advanced into the next stage of project development. During the intervening period, WMATA, Arlington County, and Fairfax County have continued progress through ongoing collaboration with project stakeholders and investigation of key technical issues. A 2007 report documented the implementation strategy undertaken following the Board decisions, toward advancing a Streetcar alternative into the next stage of project development. In 2009 Arlington and Fairfax Counties engaged WMATA and its planning consultant, AECOM, to complete an Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Assessment document and further develop concept engineering plans to support an anticipated grant application under the FTA New Starts/Small Starts program. This Engineering Report serves to document activities and progress during this phase of work related to the engineering conceptual design. The current Build alternative consists of standard gauge modern streetcar, similarly used on the Portland Streetcar in Portland, OR, on the South Lake Union Line in Seattle, WA, and as proposed for use on the various streetcar alignments currently being proposed in the District of Columbia by the DC Streetcar Project. The Columbia Pike Transit Initiative streetcar alignment is approximately 5 miles long, operates on Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 3

10 an embedded guideway, in urban streets, within general mixed traffic conditions. The streetcar will be powered electrically using an overhead contact system, and will operated adhering to existing traffic controls. The alignment negotiates varying topography. While the east end in Pentagon City is relatively flat, the Columbia Pike segment traverses a rolling profile, with grades up to 7.5 percent. At the western end, there is a 10 percent grade along South Jefferson Street. Most of the alignment will be located along the outside or curb lane of the roadway; however, there will be segments where it will be located in the inside lanes of the roadway. The alignment utilizes one existing bridge structure, which will be located on Columbia Pike and crosses over Four Mile Run. At the west end of the project, the alignment runs south east and parallel to Leesburg Pike to a terminal stop located on retained fill adjacent to the Target Store and Skyline Complex. Including terminal streetcar stops, there are 18 bi-directional streetcar stop locations along the project alignment. Stops along Columbia Pike are to be constructed as part of the Arlington County Super Stops program. The streetcar stops will include raised platforms, shelters and other passenger amenities. The streetcar will be powered by an overhead contact system (OCS), which will consist of a single overhead trolley / contact wire. Four traction power substations will supply power for propulsion to the OCS. One operations and maintenance facility will be included, and the project will have an initial vehicle fleet size of 13 vehicles. The Inekon/United Streetcar 66-foot tram is the current design vehicle for the project. The vehicle capacity is 44 seated passengers, with an additional 71 passengers accommodated as standees, for a total of 115 passengers NEXT STEPS The conceptual design work included in this document serves as the basis for continuing engineering design, into the preliminary engineering phase. Preliminary engineering work will refine the project alignment, design of track and systems infrastructure, right-of-way effects, utility effects, structural assessments, specification of streetcars, and design of maintenance facilities, and will lead to more informed judgments about the level of effects and capital costs that will be involved. The engineering information contained in the current document and the refinements anticipated during preliminary engineering will inform ongoing conversations about the preferred approach to project implementation. Arlington County has assumed the role of project sponsor. As project sponsor, the County may consider a public-private partnership for project delivery, operations and financing. ACTION ITEM: As the project progresses, Arlington County, the LPA project sponsor, should develop a basis for design criteria. Where possible, the project should rely on existing criteria such as the DDOT standards and criteria, WMATA Tram / LRT criteria, the AREMA Manual where applicable, as well as general guideline documents such as the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 155. As the project is located within pubic right of way, such as on existing roadway, applicable local codes must be defined and included in the criteria. Development of the criteria should also include input from peer transit agencies for purposes of applying lessons learned from similar projects. The District of Columbia has completed its design criteria for its streetcar program, and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is preparing design criteria for its Purple Line LRT project. The criteria should also be developed with an understanding of costs and benefits associated with the initial capital investment versus ongoing and future maintenance costs. While not an engineering task, plan sheet preparation is essential to any engineering task as it conveys the work required to construct the project. As well, the plan sheets serve as a conduit through the engineering process for informing the project sponsors and stakeholders of temporary and proposed final conditions resulting from execution of the project. As such, the plan sheets should be presented in such a way which conveys the information clearly, and to a format which matches typical industry standards. ACTION ITEM: At the next design level, the designers should develop a CADD standard manual which sets the standards for presentation of typical CADD related items including symbols, line weights, line types, sheet borders, sheet numbering system, plotting styles and other related elements that provide for an efficient and Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 4

11 effective means of conveying the engineering design. It is recommended that the CADD standards manual be developed using either the WMATA CADD Standards or VDOT Standards as a starting point, and modifying as required to meet the specific needs of this project REFERENCES The following references were used in development of the design for this project: The WMATA Tram / LRT Guideline Design Criteria, August 2003 o Use of this document as the base design criteria does not imply WMATA operation of the streetcar system. Arlington County and Fairfax County, as the project sponsors for design and implementation, will develop or adopt project-specific design criteria during the preliminary engineering phase. The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way (AREMA) publications: o Manual For Railway Engineering o Portfolio of Trackwork Plans The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Transportation Research Board (TRB), Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Reports. PART 2 - OPERATIONS 2.01 DESCRIPTION The operations component of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative involved the development of a corridor wide transit operations plan that included both streetcar and bus service along the Columbia Pike corridor. Operations plans were developed for the No-Build, TSM 1, TSM 2, and Build Alternatives. The operations plan for each alternative included the following elements: Streetcar service frequency by time of day and day of week, also translated into the number of trips per hour by time of day; Service frequency on each bus route operating within the corridor, by time of day and day of week, also translated into the number of trips per day on each route; Streetcar hours of service by time of day and day of week; Hours of service on each bus route operating within the corridor by time of day and day of week; Total transit trips by corridor segment; Total transit trips from each terminal point at the western end of the corridor (corridor bus and streetcar service would begin at multiple terminals at the western end of the corridor); Total trips to the two eastern terminals at the Pentagon and Pentagon City; Terminal to terminal transit travel times for streetcar and each bus route in the corridor, for both an opening year and a design year. The operations plan for each alternative was used as input into number of project elements. These project elements include: Development of project operations and maintenance costs for each alternative; Input into the development of project capital costs for each alternative, specifically with regard to required new streetcar vehicles and new buses; Input into the project ridership forecasts and coordination with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regarding the development of submittals for the FTA New Starts/Small Starts process. This work also included the development of a project baseline against which the Build alternative will be compared for New Starts/Small Starts purposes. Input into the required size of the project operations and maintenance facility; Input into the project noise and vibration analysis; Input into the project traffic analysis. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 5

12 2.02 DESIGN CRITERIA The following design assumptions were key inputs into the development of the project operations plan, for each alternative: Transit travel times by direction, time of day, and year (opening year and design year). These transit travel times incorporated assumptions on dwell times at stations, travel speeds, and vehicle performance; Vehicle capacity for streetcar, standard 40 bus, and articulated bus (60 ); Forecasted daily ridership and passenger loads at the maximum load point during the peak hour of service DESIGN PROCEDURE The design procedures and assumptions utilized in the development of the operations plan for each alternative are outlined below, by alternative. Two key inputs into the development of each operating plan were transit travel times and transit ridership and loads at the maximum load point along the corridor. A summary description of each procedure is provided below: Transit Travel Times Transit travel times for each alternative, for both the design year and the opening year, were calculated utilizing the traffic simulation model VISSIM. VISSIM utilizes a series of inputs to generate a number of traffic related outputs, including travel speeds by mode. Inputs include forecasted traffic volumes, traffic signal characteristics, roadway geometry, transit vehicle characteristics (including vehicle acceleration and deceleration rates), and transit operating characteristics. Assumptions about transit operating characteristics are an important determinant of station dwell time, which in turn is an important determinant of average transit travel speeds and run times. Key operating characteristic assumptions include the spacing of stops, fare collection approach, and the number of doors available for boarding and alighting. Transit travel times will impact the attractiveness of the service and thus ridership and it will also impact the number of vehicles that are required to provide service at a selected service frequency. Transit Ridership and Passenger Loads Transit ridership was forecasted for the opening year and the design year utilizing a variant of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments regional forecasting model that was customized for the Columbia Pike project. Key project specific inputs to the model include the operating plan for each alternative and transit travel speeds. Final ridership forecasts are completed through an equilibration process that consists of a series of iterative model runs that reflect the fact that changes in the operating plan will impact transit travel speeds and ridership, which in turn may require changes in the operating plan. The model runs are complete when each of these three variables are in equilibrium. One output of the ridership forecasts is passenger loading at the maximum load point during the peak hour of ridership. This passenger load at the maximum load point is the key driver of required transit capacity to meet demand, which in turn drives the required service frequency for different modes. Operating Plan Transit service levels in the Build alternative, as measured by number of trips per hour, are comparable to the service provided today, with combined peak headways of between 2 and 3 minutes. The corridor backbone service in the Build Alternative is provided by streetcar, with streetcars at 6-minute intervals throughout the day, supplemented by Metrobus 16 and ART local services. The use of Streetcar as backbone service means that the 16G, 16H, and 16H/ are removed from the Build Alternative. Transit run times in the Build Alternative are approximately 22 minutes between Jefferson Street and Pentagon City, as compared with about 29 minutes for the No Build alternative. These faster times reflect the greater capacity for loading and off-loading passengers, which improves station dwell times. For descriptions of operating characteristics of the other alternatives, refer to Appendix B. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 6

13 2.04 FINDINGS The tables below summarize the number of weekday trips per hour in the peak direction for the Build Alternative, by time of day. Table 2.1 provides a summary of peak period trips and Table 2.2 provides a summary of mid-day trips. Table 2.1: Columbia Pike Service Configuration AM Peak Peak Direction TO PENTAGON Route Terminals # of Trips/Hour Average Frequency Build 16A Annandale to Pentagon B Culmore to Pentagon D Annandale to Pentagon F Culmore to Pentagon J Culmore to Pentagon L Annandale to Pentagon (via I-395) 2 30 ART 42 Ballston to Pentagon via Courthouse 3 20 TOTAL PENTAGON 15 TO PENTAGON CITY 16G Columbia Heights to Pentagon City (No-Build) Skyline (TSM 2) or NOVA (TSM 1) to Pentagon City n/a n/a 16H Skyline to Pentagon City to Crystal City n/a n/a 16H/ Skyline to Pentagon City n/a n/a 16J (PC) Culmore to Pentagon City 2 30 Streetcar Skyline to Pentagon City 10 6 TOTAL PENTAGON CITY 12 5 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 7

14 Table 2.2: Columbia Pike Service Configuration Mid-Day Peak Direction TO PENTAGON Build Route Terminals # of Trips/Hour 16A Annandale to Pentagon 1 60 Average Frequency 16B Culmore to Pentagon D Annandale to Pentagon F Culmore to Pentagon J Culmore to Pentagon L Annandale to Pentagon (via I-395) 0 0 ART 42 Ballston to Pentagon via Courthouse 2 30 TOTAL PENTAGON 6 10 TO PENTAGON CITY 16G Columbia Heights to Pentagon City (No-Build) Skyline (TSM 2) or NOVA (TSM 1) to Pentagon City n/a n/a 16H Skyline to Pentagon City to Crystal City n/a n/a 16H/ Skyline to Pentagon City n/a n/a 16J (PC) Culmore to Pentagon City 0 0 Streetcar Skyline to Pentagon City 10 6 TOTAL PENTAGON CITY CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS As noted above, the operations planning process was the foundation for a number of analyses that were incorporated into the project engineering, environmental, and New Starts/Small Starts processes. As products from these three areas are reviewed by stakeholders, changes may be required to the operations plans. Any required modifications will be coordinated with the other impacted discipline areas on the project team to ensure that the changes are reflected in each of the project areas that would be impacted by changes in the operations plan. ACTION ITEM: It is recommended that the operations plan of the Streetcar Build Alternative be reviewed and confirmed, or modified as required at the next design phase. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 8

15 PART 3 - TRACK ALIGNMENT AND VEHICLE CLEARANCES 3.01 DESCRIPTION Track alignment design establishes a series of horizontal and vertical geometric components that, when connected together, create a guideway on which the streetcar can operate. Vehicle clearance design defines a physical clearance envelope, into which no object can intrude for the streetcar to operate safely. The clearance envelop is derived based on physical properties of the streetcar, track alignment, and construction and maintenance tolerances. In some cases, the clearance envelope is constrained not by the streetcar or alignment geometry, but by some other entity or condition. This is true of the vertical clearance envelope on the Transit Initiative Project. While the catenary contact wire could locate as low as 14 feet, the Dominion Power Electric Distribution Overhead Construction Manual, the National Electric Code, and the Virginia Department of Transportation Design Criteria define a minimum dimension of 18 feet minimum above top of rail / pavement in mixed traffic conditions. The Columbia Pike Transit Initiative proposes to provide transit service from Pentagon City of Arlington County west to the Bailey s Crossroads area in Fairfax County. The streetcar is proposed to be located on the existing street grid, by creating a transit guideway which will locate primarily in a mixed traffic condition. Center running segments of the corridor share space with the inside traffic lanes. Left turn lanes and medians occasionally occupy space between the two tracks. Side running segments of the corridor share space with the outside traffic lanes. The Streetcar LPA includes the following elements: MAINLINE: Alignment Segment; Consists of the 4.71 mile segment extending from the intersection of 12th Street South and South Eads St. in the Pentagon City area to the east, to the intersection of South Jefferson St. and Leesburg Pike (RT-7) intersection to the West. Segment includes 18 stops. The SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2): Alignment Segment; Consists of a 0.20 mile alignment, which extends the mainline west (geographically south), across Leesburg Pike (RT-7), where it then turns geographically east, parallels RT-7 locating between RT-7 and the Target parking lot, and terminates at a streetcar stop adjacent to the Target parking lot. PENTAGON CITY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY: This facility is at the east end of the alignment in Pentagon City. The maintenance facility will be located on a property parcel at the corner of 12th Street South, and South Eads Street. As this is the eastern terminal for the MAINLINE segment there is no yard lead alignment length associated with this maintenance facility. This is the only maintenance facility being progressed beyond the conceptual design phase. A detailed explanation of the Alignment is included in Section 3.04 of this report DESIGN CRITERIA The WMATA TRAM / LRT Guideline Design Criteria, August 2003, Section 4 was used during the conceptual design process. A summary of the sub sections applied at this conceptual level, with comments on how they were applied and suggested modifications, is as follows: Section (Horizontal) TANGENTS: Specifies a desirable minimum tangent length of the greater of 100 feet or 3 time the maximum Velocity (3V) (feet) and absolute minimum tangent length of 40 feet. For direct reverse curves, this criteria is further modified by Figure Specifies that horizontal tangent is required within the limits of (streetcar) platform, and must extend a distance of 45 feet beyond the platform limits. Note that this criteria was violated in several areas as identified in Appendix A; Design Exceptions. While not specified, it was assumed that the minimum tangent length between horizontal curve and point of switch of turnout would be set at 40 feet. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 9

16 Section (Horizontal) CURVES: Specifies the desired minimum curve radius for embedded track was 100 feet with the absolute minimum for street track not to be less than 82 feet. Specifies the desired minimum circular curve length to be the greater of 3 V, or 45 feet absolute minimum. For constructability purposes, this was further modified to specify that the minimum circular curve length be the greater of the longest transition spiral curve or 45 feet. Section (Horizontal) SUPERELEVATION: Defines calculations for determining underbalance and actual proposed superelevation Specifies maximum actual superelevation of 0 inches for street running and methods for applying superelevation. Note that it is recommended this section be modified for Streetcar to allow superelevation in street running provided it matches the general roadway cross-section, meets all requirements for transition of superelevation as indicated in Section TRANSITION SPIRALS, and does not create a calculated underbalance less than zero at the proposed design speed. It is further recommended that no superelevation be applied at streetcar stops or on tangent sections of alignment. Section (Horizontal) TRANSITION SPIRALS: Specified transition spiral curves be used at all horizontal circular curves. Defines the minimum spiral lengths fur purposes of transitioning superelevation, and lateral acceleration. Specifies an absolute minimum spiral length of 40 feet. Section (Vertical) TANGENT GRADES: Specifies streetcar stops, and to a point 50 feet on either side of the streetcar stop must be located on tangent grade. Note that this criteria was violated in several areas as identified in Appendix A; Design Exceptions. Specifies special trackwork, and to a point 50 feet on either side of the special trackwork must be located on tangent grade. Note: it is recommended that the requirement for vertical tangent adjacent to special trackwork be reduced to 25 feet absolute minimum. Specifies minimum vertical tangent length between vertical curves as 100 feet desirable, 50 feet absolute minimum. Specifies maximum sustained grade at 6%, with absolute maximum grade of 7.5% allowable for distances of less than 1000 linear feet (between PVI s). Specifies maximum grade 0.35% desirable and 3% absolute maximum at streetcar stops. Section (Vertical) VERTICAL CURVES: Defines vertical curve minimum lengths in terms of calculations. In addition to calculations, criteria specifies that vertical curve lengths shall not be less than 50 feet. Section 3.3 VEHICLE CLEARANCES: This section defines the vertical and horizontal clearance envelopes for which no other vehicle or structure can intrude to allow safe operation of the streetcar. The section is written for both Light Rail Vehicles and Tram Vehicles. At this level of design, the vehicle clearance envelop was not defined for the entire alignment. However, within the typical section, and on tangent track it was assumed that the horizontal clearance requirement for the streetcar vehicle would be 12 feet, centered about the centerline of track. As well, little consideration was considered for vertical clearance at this level of design, except to note that in shared guideway, minimum overhead clearance to catenary wire is set at 18 feet, based on National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), and as modified by Virginia Department of Transportation Requirements. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 10

17 Other Assumptions / Criteria: Streetcar track maximum operating speed was assumed to be the current posted speed limit, but not to exceed 35 mph DESIGN PROCEDURE The design procedure consisted of defining a horizontal and vertical alignment for the project in the CAD platform AutoCAD Land Desktop. The horizontal alignment was developed by establishing the linework created during the 2007 work as a baseline, then refining that work based on better understanding of existing conditions, coordination with the project client, and understanding work which has been performed on Columbia Pike after the 2007 submission. Additionally, alignment locations were refined based on coordination with the Columbia Pike Multimodal Project. The design procedure for the vertical alignment consisted of closely matching existing grades for the majority of the project with the main exception being Jefferson Street where the proposed profile is flatter than the existing grades. Existing ground was established using contours data derived from GIS survey provided by Arlington County. There are several current and planned projects within the Transit Initiative Project corridor for which coordination has been performed at the current level of design, and will be required during subsequent levels of design. A list is as follows: Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvements, Project Sponsor Arlington County. Project proposes roadway improvements along Columbia Pike. Washington Boulevard Bridge and Interchange Reconstruction; Project Sponsor VA Department of Transportation. Proposes to reconstruct the Washington Boulevard Bridge over Columbia Pike, and associated connector ramps. Columbia Pike Super Stops Project; Project Sponsor Arlington County. Project proposes to reconstruct, construct new, and consolidate bust stops on Columbia Pike. Proposed stops will be constructed to accommodate streetcar boarding and alighting. Shared Use Bike Path Phase II, S. Joyce Street Army Navy Drive; Project Sponsor, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Project proposes to reconstruct roadway sections along South Joyce St. and Army Navy Dr., within limits of Transit Initiative Project. Construction of 12th Street South, between South Fern St. and South Eads St. in Pentagon City. Project title is unknown. Project Sponsor is a private developer. Project proposes to construct a city street along the proposed streetcar guideway within the project limits as identified. Existing Basemap Recourses: Aerial base mapping provided by Arlington County, 2009, and VDOT, 2003 GIS data obtained through Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Date of GIS mapping is unknown Roadway pavement markings provided by the Columbia Pike Multimodal Project, November Roadway pavement markings provided by the Shared Use Bike Path Phase II, S. Joyce Street Army Navy Drive Project, November Washington Boulevard Bridge and Interchange Reconstruction Project, December FINDINGS The Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, Streetcar Alternative, Conceptual Alignment consists of two tracks for the length of the project. The project control track was designated as the westbound track, which is also identified as Track 1. The east bound track was identified as track 2. Horizontal geometry was created for both tracks; however, stationing is shown only for Track 1. No horizontal curve data was shown at this level of design. Vertical geometry was created only for Track 1. Generally, the geometry follows the existing top of pavement elevations. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 11

18 As stated previously, the track alignment was segregated into Alignment Segments. The MAINLINE Alignment Segment begins on at the corner of 12th Street South and South Eads St., and continues westerly toward Bailey s Crossroads by traveling west on 12th Street South, to South Hayes St, north on South Hayes St. to Army Navy Drive, then west on Army Navy Drive, to South Joyce Street, where the alignment turns north again, along South Joyce Street, to Columbia Pike. The alignment length from the 12th Street South / South Eads St. intersection to the South Joyce St. / Columbia Pike intersection is slightly less than a mile. From the South Joyce St. / Columbia Pike intersection, the alignment turns west, and traverses Columbia Pike for about three and one quarter miles to the Columbia Pike / South Jefferson St. intersection, where the alignment turns south, and follows South Jefferson St. to the South Jefferson St. / Leesburg Pike (Route 7) intersection. This final segment of the MAINLINE Alignment segment is slightly less than half of a mile. The total MAINLINE Alignment Segment length is approximately 4.7 miles long, and includes 18 streetcar stop locations. Starting at the east end of the MAINLINE Alignment Segment, revenue service starts with a 75 feet center streetcar stop platform proposed between cross streets South Fern St. and South Eads St. in line with 12th Street South, referred to as streetcar stop A. The track centers are 20.5 feet providing a streetcar stop platform width of 12 feet (nominal). Streetcar alignment within this area includes a length of exclusive guideway to facilitate streetcar turn back operations at the eastern terminus streetcar stop A. Within this area, 12th Street proper does not currently exist, but is being proposed in conjunction with redevelopment being planned in the area. Some coordination between the Transit Initiative Project, and the developers plans in this area occurred during this level of design; however, a consensus was not arrived at with respect to guideway location. This coordination will need to continue into the next level of design. The alignment curves right just west of the 12th Street South / South Fern St. intersection to align with existing 12th Street and extends westerly along 12th Street South toward South Hayes St. in a center running, shared guideway configuration. The track centers reduce to 13 feet through the horizontal curve limiting the design speed to 15 mph within the curve. The proposed guideway section on this segment of 12th Street South is proposed as two shared traffic lanes and curbside parking on both sides of the roadway. The section of guideway along 12th Street South is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP01, PP01, and PP02. At the South Hayes St. intersection, the alignment turns north on South Hayes St. and will be located along the center median curb. Streetcar stop B is proposed as a center stop locating just north of the 12th Street South / South Hayes Street intersection. The platforms is not symmetrical due to the configuration of the guideway, but provides 75 feet of boarding / alighting area for both westbound and eastbound tracks, and is 38 feet wide (nominal) at the widest location. During preliminary engineering, the median width shall be coordinated with the new cross-section of South Hayes St., which is currently under construction. The westbound and eastbound platforms are staggered about 15 feet allowing the eastbound platform to be closer to the 12th Street South intersection. This stop will be located close to the existing underground WMATA Pentagon City Station. It is anticipated that streetcar stop B will be advertised as a connection point with the Metrorail system. North of streetcar stop B, the alignment continues north on South Hayes Street running adjacent to the median curb line to Army Navy Drive. The section of guideway along South Hayes St. is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP02, and PP02. At the South Hayes St. / Army Navy Drive Intersection, the alignment turns west on to Army Navy drive and will locate in a side running configuration, with the westbound track located adjacent to the north curb, and the eastbound track located adjacent to the south curb. The alignment maintains this configuration to the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 12

19 Army Navy Drive / South Joyce St. intersection. Streetcar stops C1 and C2 are proposed on Army Navy Drive about 300 feet east of the South Joyce St. intersection. The platforms are curbside and proposed to be 75 feet long and 12 feet wide. The U.S. Department of the Interior is currently proposing to modify Army Navy Drive, within this segment, by adding bicycle lanes along the south side, effectively removing an eastbound travel lane. It appears that the north curb line will not change. The title of the proposed project is, Project PLH-GWMP 1A105 Shared Use Path Phase II S. Joyce Street Army Navy Drive. The Transit Initiative track alignment was developed respecting the proposed south side curb line, provided by the project consultant. This curb line is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings. Of note is that the Transit Initiative Project was provided with both hard copies (in pdf format), and electronic copies (in.dgn format). What is illustrated in the Plans is the electronic version. The electronic version only included proposed eastbound curb and lane information. At the next level of design, coordination with this project should be performed to identify the proposed median configuration, and verify the north and south curb lanes. During preliminary engineering, the guideway location shall be coordinated with the proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Army Navy Drive. The section of guideway along Army Navy Drive is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing number PP03. Note that a typical section was not created for this segment of guideway. Departing Army Navy Drive the alignment turns north on to South Joyce St. The track alignment changes from cub side running to center running. The two tracks following the inside traffic lanes straddling the existing bridge piers supporting the I-395 overpass bridges. At the time of the current level of design, the design in this area was created using aerial photography. The street level was lane configuration of South Joyce St. was obstructed by the I-395 Bridge in the aerial photography. Field observation indicates that the I-395 bridge structure is supported by piers that are within the median of South Joyce St. During the next phase of design, the alignment should be refined in this area based on better survey data of the street level. The existing piers consist of multiple columns separated from the driving lanes by concrete barrier. The existing crash protection is currently being reconstructed as part of the DOI/NPS/EFL Project. During the next phase of design, the design team and the project sponsors will advance the design to protect existing bridge piers in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Another consideration at the aerial structure is overhead clearance. While overhead clearance measurements were not performed at the current level of design, visual observation indicates that sufficient vertical clearance exists at the bridge. Detailed horizontal and vertical survey shall be performed during the preliminary engineering phase of the project to better understand the spatial relationship between the guideway and bridge superstructure and substructure. North of the I-395 bridge the alignment matches the existing geometry of South Joyce St. curving to the left and reducing to 21.5 feet track centers about 400 feet southeast of the South Joyce St. / Columbia Pike intersection. A raised median and a left turn lane were anticipated between the tracks in order to match the existing geometry of the roadway. Alignment geometry within the horizontal curve reduces the track speed to 15 mph just north of the I-395 overpass bridge. Future streetcar stop D is being considered along South Joyce St. about 300 feet southeast of the Columbia Pike intersection. The future streetcar stop platform is proposed to be a 75 feet long by 12 feet wide center platform. This section of alignment also locates within the limits of the U.S. Department of the Interior project, as described in the Army Navy Drive alignment segment. The Joyce Street project is relocating the inside curbs closer to the piers in order to create more sidewalk space on the outside. However, beyond required refinements to the proposed track alignment, the Transit Initiative team has not identified any potential conflicts between that project, and the Transit Initiative Project. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 13

20 The section of guideway along Army Navy Drive is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers PP04, and PP05. Note that a typical section was not created for this segment of guideway. The proposed guideway will be located on Columbia Pike, between South Joyce St. in the east, and South Jefferson St. to the west. Within this section of Columbia Pike, the Columbia Pike Multimodal Project is proposing to revise the typical section along four separate segments of the Pike. The Transit Initiative Project has coordinated the streetcar alignment design with the Multimodal Project typical sections in these segments by designing to closely match the proposed curb to curb design. At the South Joyce St. / Columbia Pike intersection, the alignment turns west, and will be located in a side running configuration on Columbia Pike. At this intersection the alignment negotiates a sharp left curve. Some research was performed to understand how the streetcar clearance envelope widened within the sharp curves. It was determined that the stop bars as proposed by the Multimodal Project, along the eastbound traffic lanes of Columbia Pike would require modification to accommodate the streetcar clearance envelope for the westbound track, and the eastbound track clearance envelope extends over the southwest curb line at the intersection. As with all of the alignment, the streetcar clearance envelope will need to be calculated and plotted at the next level of design to determine exact clearance conflicts, and methods to mitigate those conflicts. After turning on Columbia Pike, the alignment negotiates a series of reverse curves, matching the roadway geometry. Because of alignment geometry constraints, the track alignment does not exactly match the roadway geometry proposed by the Multimodal Project within the curves west to streetcar stop E1 and E2. The alignment does appear to be located in the center area of the outside lanes, but it does not maintain the exact relationship between centerline of travel lane and centerline of track, as illustrated on the typical section. Because of this, if constructed as shown, the streetcar clearance envelope would extend up to 2.5 feet into the adjacent travel lanes. During the next level of design, this area should be re-evaluated, to determine if the proposed track alignment geometry can be modified to better match the roadway geometry and maintain design criteria limits. Because of the sharp curvature in this area, it is anticipated that the vehicle clearance envelope will extend beyond that which is assumed for tangent track. Alignment geometry in this area limits the streetcar maximum speed to between 8 mph and 10 mph. The guideway section between South Joyce St. and South Orme St. of guideway is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP05, and PP05 - PP08. After negotiating the reverse curves, the alignment enters proposed streetcar stops E1 and E2. The platforms are curbside and proposed to be 120 feet long by 12 feet wide, and would be located east of South Oak St. connecting riders to the Navy Annex Building. The stops are set parallel to each other. These stops are to be constructed by the Arlington County Super Stops Project. Upon exiting streetcar stops E1 and E2, the alignment continues west in the outside travel lanes to South Orme St. The streetcar alignment closely matched the Multimodal Project alignment in this area. The Washington Boulevard Interchange VDOT Project encompasses the area of Columbia Pike between South Orme St. and South Quinn St. The interchange project proposes to demolish and reconstruct the Washington Blvd. Structure over Columbia Pike. The interchange ramps / access intersections would also be re-configured as part of the project. At the time that the Transit Initiative Project design was performed, the interchange project had not progressed to a level where the final lane configuration along Columbia Pike within the project limits was defined. There were however, several lane configuration variations. The track alignment was configured to closely match a preliminary design, as discussed in a meeting held on November 1, 2010 between Arlington County, the Multimodal Project design team, and the Transit Initiative Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 14

21 design team. The track alignment was sketched based on hard copy drawings provided by the Multimodal team, which were provided to them by VDOT. Within the Washington Boulevard Interchange project area, the westbound streetcar track continues side running through the proposed interchange project with the alignment shifting north to match the roadway shift west of South Orme St. The eastbound alignment, from east to west, shifts south to anticipate a proposed jog south by the interchange project, then shifts to a center running configuration just west of the bridge, to allow for traffic queuing in the eastbound outside lanes. The eastbound alignment maintains center running west to South Rolfe St. where it transitioned back to outside running. The proposed bridge / interchange project is currently progressing, and the project should arrive at a final lane configuration for Columbia Pike within the next few months. During the next level of design, this area should be revisited to modify the streetcar alignment to match the proposed lane configuration of the interchange project, to a higher level of accuracy. The existing Washington Boulevard Structure provides insufficient vertical clearance as required by the project design criteria as applied to catenary wire height in mixed traffic conditions. The proposed structure will provide 16 feet-8 inches vertical clearance from top of pavement to bottom of structure. While this improves the existing condition, it still represents a vertical clearance criteria violation, as the Virginia Department of Transportation Requirement sets the minimum distance from top of pavement to bottom of contact wire at 18 feet. An application for waiver to criteria for this substandard vertical clearance was not performed at this level of design. A copy of this letter is included in Appendix D of this Report. This section of guideway is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP06, PP08, and PP09. South Quinn St. is the west limit of the Washington Boulevard Interchange VDOT Project, and beginning of the Multimodal Project segment from South Quinn St. to South Walter Reed Dr. Between South Quinn St. and South Scott St., the Multimodal proposed roadway section transitions from the offset section of the interchange project, to the typical 56 feet wide curb to curb section being proposed for the majority of Columbia Pike. At South Rolfe St., the eastbound streetcar alignment begins transitioning to side running, while the westbound shifts to the north to match the Columbia Pike typical section, which as discussed in the previous paragraph widens in this area. Streetcar stops F1 and F2 will be immediately east of South Scott St. The platforms are curbside and proposed to be 12 feet wide, with stop F1 platform being 90 feet long, and stop F2 platform being 75 feet long. These stops are to be constructed by the Arlington County Super Stops Project. Between South Scott St., and South Walter Reed Dr., the alignment is proposed to match the typical Columbia Pike 56 feet wide section. Streetcar stops G1, G2, H1, H2, and I2 will be within this segment. Streetcar stops G1 and G2 will be located between South Courthouse St. and S. Veitch St. The platforms are curbside and proposed to be 120 feet long and 12 feet wide. The platforms were set parallel to each other. Streetcar stops H1 and H2 are proposed as split stops, with stop H1 being located just west of South Barton St., and stop H2 being located just east of South Barton St. The platforms are curbside and proposed to be 120 feet long by 12 feet wide. Streetcar stop I2 will be located at the east corner of South Walter Reed Dr. The platform is curbside and proposed to be 90 feet long and 12 feet wide. Stops G1, G2, H1, H2, and I2 are to be constructed by the Arlington County Super Stops Project. The section of guideway between South Quinn St. and South Walter Reed Dr. is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP07, TYP08, and PP09 PP12. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 15

22 Streetcar Stop I1 will be located on the northwest corner of South Walter Reed Drive, and is proposed as a 120 feet long by 12 feet wide platform. This platform is to be constructed by the Arlington County Super Stops Project. There is no work being proposed by the Multimodal Project within the segment of Columbia Pike between South Walter Reed Dr. and South Oakland St. As such, the streetcar alignment within this area was set based on the aerial basemap. The guideway continues side running along this segment, with track centers narrowing to feet between South Garfield St. and South Highland St. then widening out again to feet at South Glebe Rd. between South Glebe Rd. and South Monroe St., the track centers narrow to feet to South Oakland St. Variations in track centers within this area are attributed to curb line changes along Columbia Pike, as well as north side curbside parking between South Highland St. and South Glebe Rd. In addition to streetcar stop I1 mentioned above, streetcar stop J1, J2, K1, and K2 will be located within this segment of the guideway. Streetcar stops J1 and J2 will be on the east side of the South Glebe Rd. intersection. The platforms are curbside and proposed to be 12 feet wide, with stop J1 being 120 feet long, and J2 being 75 feet long. Stops K1and K2 were set between South Monroe St. and South Oakland St. The platforms are curbside and proposed to be 120 feet long and 12 feet wide. Platforms K1 and K2 are set parallel to each other. Stops J1, J2, K1, and K2 are to be constructed by the Arlington County Super Stops Project. The section of guideway between South Walter Reed Dr. and South Oakland St. is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP09, TYP10, and PP12 PP14. The segment Columbia Pike between South Oakland St. and South Wakefield St. is proposed to be reconstructed by the Multimodal Project. Generally, within this segment, the 56 foot wide curb to curb typical section is proposed. However the Multimodal Transit Project typical section widens along the north side between South Oakland St. and South Randolph St. to accommodate parking between the westbound outside travel lane and the proposed north curb. Within this area, the streetcar alignment will follow the outside travel lanes, and maintains track centers consistent with the 56 foot typical roadway section. Streetcar stops L1, L2, M1, and M2 are within this segment of the guideway. Streetcar stops L1 and L2 will be located on the east side of South George Mason Dr. Stops L1 and L2 are parallel to each other. Streetcar stops M1 and M2 are between South Taylor St. and South Thomas St. Stops M1 and M2 will be parallel to each other. The platforms for stops L1, L2, M1, and M2 are curbside and proposed to be 120 feet long by 12 feet wide. Stops L1, L2, M1, and M2 are to be constructed by the Arlington County Super Stops Project. The section of guideway between South Oakland St. and South Wakefield St. is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP07, TYP08, and PP14 PP17. There is no work being proposed by the Multimodal Project within the Segment of Columbia Pike between South Wakefield St. and Columbia Pike Bridge over Four Mile Run. Within this area the streetcar alignment was set based on the aerial basemap. The guideway continues side running along this segment, with track centers narrowing to 35 feet to match the existing typical section which is about 46 feet wide, from curb to curb. Some variations in track centers occur as the alignment turns to cross Four Mile Run. Streetcar stops N1, and N2 are within this segment of the guideway. Streetcar stop N1 is on the east side of South Buchannan St. Stop N2 is within the existing Columbia Pike / South Four Mile Run Dr. Intersection. The county is proposing to re-locate this intersection such that South Four Mile Run Dr. intersects Columbia Pike in line with the Columbia Pike / South Buchannan St. intersection. The platforms for stops N1, and N2 are curbside and proposed to be 120 feet long by 12 feet wide. Stops N1, and N2 are to be constructed by the Arlington County Super Stops Project. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 16

23 The section of guideway between South Wakefield St. and the Columbia Pike Bridge over Four Mile Run is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP11, and PP17 PP19. The Four Mile Run Bridge is proposed to be reconstructed by the Transit Initiative Project to accommodate the streetcar dynamic loading, and proposed track slab. The structural work associated with this is located in Part 14 of this report, and in a Technical Memorandum titled, Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, Four Mile Run Bridge capacity Evaluation, dated July 15, 2011, Rev The guideway will be located in the outside lanes, track centers narrowing to 40 feet on the bridge. The typical track slab will be modified at the bridge as well to integrate with the structural work. Guideway on the Four Mile Run Bridge is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP12, and PP19. West of the Four Mile Run Bridge, the Multimodal Project picks up with proposed guideway work, which extends to South Frederick St. South Frederick St. is the western limit of roadway work being proposed by the Multimodal project which falls within the work limits of the Transit Initiative Project. The multimodal project proposes the 56 foot wide curb to curb typical section within this segment. The streetcar alignment will be located within the outside travel lanes, and generally maintains track centers consistent with the 56 foot typical roadway section. However, at the left hand curve west of the Four Mile Run Bridge, there is some variation between centerline of track, and centerline of proposed outside lane relationship due to the transition from 40 feet wide track centers on the bridge to feet track centers at streetcar stops O1 and O2 immediately west of the bridge. Streetcar stops O1, and O2 will be located within this segment of the guideway. They will be located on the west side of South Dinwiddie St. Stops O1 and O2 are generally parallel to each other, and are within limits of track alignment horizontal curvature. The platforms for stops O1, and O2 are curbside and proposed to be 120 feet long by 12 feet wide. Stops O1, and O2 are to be constructed by the Arlington County Super Stops Project. The section of guideway between the Columbia Pike Bridge over Four Mile Run and South Frederick St. is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP07, and PP19 PP20. Regrading in this area will be required by the multimodal project depending on structural reconfiguration of Four Mile Run bridge for streetcar operation. At the time the current level of design was performed, Arlington County was proposing to reconstruct curb lines along Columbia Pike west of Frederick St. to South Jefferson St., and reconfigure west to the Columbia Pike / South Jefferson St. intersection. Several variations of this work were being developed by the county, but no single option was chosen at the time this document was prepared. As such, within this area the streetcar alignment was set based on the aerial basemap. Preliminary Engineering Design team should coordinate with the county at next level of design for refined mapping in this area. Between South Frederick St. and Greenbrier St., the alignment continues side running, within the outside lanes. As the existing curb to curb dimension is generally very close to 56 feet in this area, the typical 56 feet typical section was assumed. At Greenbrier St. the westbound alignment transitions to an alignment in the westbound left hand turn lane at South Jefferson St. the eastbound alignment remains side running, within the outside lane to the South Jefferson St. intersection. The Columbia Pike mainline and South Jefferson St. mainlines are not perpendicular, and intersect at an angle of about 120 degrees. This, combined with the fact that the Columbia Pike is curving to the right - north, with South Jefferson St. on the left south, compounds the aggressive angle. Because of this, Arlington County is proposing reconfiguring the intersection to a more conventional 90 degree intersection. To accomplish that, it is being proposed that the first 300 (+/-) feet of South Jefferson St. be shifted west. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 17

24 This would produce a scenario where, when turning to South Jefferson St. from Columbia Pike in the west direction, a 90 degree left curve would be negotiated at the intersection, followed by another 30 degree curve on South Jefferson St. As stated previously, several iterations of intersection reconfigurations were reviewed by the Transit Initiative Project. None of the iterations allowed the streetcar to negotiate the intersection without creating some undesirable condition. The undesirable conditions are a result of the streetcar alignment being constrained by design criteria. Specifically, the westbound streetcar alignment, on Columbia Pike east of the intersection, must negotiate a series of reverse and broken-back curves to match the alignment. Starting at Greenbrier St., and working west, the alignment negotiates a reverse curve to transition from westbound outside lane to westbound turn lane, then immediately reverse curvature again to match the Columbia Pike alignment which is turning right north at the intersection. Within the intersection, the streetcar alignment must reverse and turn left to be located on South Jefferson Street. The major criteria constraints restricting the westbound alignment are the need to begin the transition from outside to inside running at Greenbrier Street to make use of existing traffic control, and the reverse curve at the South Jefferson St. intersection. Because the curve in the intersection is reduced to less than 100 feet, the design criteria require a 40 foot minimum tangent between the curves. This area will require further analysis at the next level of design. Restrictions with respect to track alignment reverse curvature, broken back curvature, and streetcar clearance envelope will need to be understood and coordinated with the intersection reconfiguration. After the alignment turns south onto South Jefferson St., the guideway transitions from side running to center running locating within the inside traffic lanes of South Jefferson St. As Arlington County is proposing re-configuring the Columbia Pike / South Jefferson St. intersection, the alignment at the intersection, and for a distance of about 500 feet immediately south of the intersection, will require modification at the next level of design to coordinate with the intersection re-configuration. The existing profile grade of South Jefferson St. is approximately 10% from a location beginning about 300 feet south of the Columbia Pike intersection to about 150 feet north of streetcar stop Q. The proposed guideway profile modified this grade to 7.5% to meet the design criteria with respect to maximum guideway grade. This requires re-profiling about 600 feet, raising the top of pavement up to 7.5 feet above existing elevation. To mitigate the change in elevation, it was proposed that a retaining wall be placed along both sides of the roadway to keep work associated with the re-profiling within the public right of way. It will be necessary to re-profile one private driveway along the east side of the roadway. For purposes of estimating, it was assumed that work on the driveway would be accomplished without the need to purchase right of way. A historic boundary marker is located in the median of South Jefferson St. about 600 feet south of Columbia Pike, in the area of re-profiling. The study s project sponsors specified that the monument shall not be disturbed as part of the guideway work. As such, the proposed profile was designed to approximately match existing grade at the monument to eliminate impacts to the monument. Progressing southerly the grade changes and becomes less steep and enters streetcar stop Q which was proposed to be a 75 feet long by 15 feet (nominal) wide platform center platform located midway between Columbia Pike and the north edge of Crossroads Place. South of stop Q, the alignment continues southerly along South Jefferson St. with a center running configuration, turning slightly right, following the existing curve along South Jefferson St. At the south end of the curve, a No. 6 double cross-over was proposed adjacent to the Leesburg Pike Plaza. This crossover is located within shared guideway. As such, operation of the cross-over for purposes of diverging streetcar vehicles between tracks would be limited to special events, and with some form of temporary traffic control to establish temporary exclusive guideway for purposes of operating streetcar vehicles against the normal current of traffic. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 18

25 South of the cross-over, the guideway crosses the South Jefferson St. / shopping area driveway intersection and extends to the end of guideway which will be about 200 feet north of the South Jefferson St. / Leesburg Pike (RT-7) intersection. Streetcar stop R was proposed about 150 feet south of the South Jefferson St. / shopping area driveway intersection, and adjacent to the Leesburg Pike Plaza connecting riders to Crossroads Place and Leesburg Pike Plaza shopping centers. Streetcar stop R was proposed to be a 75 feet long by 15 feet (nominal) wide platform center platform. The proposed intermodal transfer facility was proposed to be located within the west side parking lot, adjacent to streetcar stop R. The facility was proposed to include 200 at grade parking spaces, a bus stop with canopy and benches. The site serves as a transfer from personal vehicle to transit vehicle, or transfer between transit vehicles. The section of guideway along South Jefferson St. is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP13, TYP14, PP22, PP23, and PP24. Alignment Segment SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2) connects the MAINLINE Alignment Segment with the Skyline Plaza and Target stores via a terminal streetcar stop which will be at the north edge of the Target property, between Leesburg Pike and the Target Parking lot. This Alignment Segment is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP16, and SKY03. The SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2) begins at the western terminus of the MAINLINE Alignment Segment, near the South Jefferson St. / Leesburg Pike (RT-7) intersection. The alignment extends south, into the Leesburg Pike intersection. At the south side of the intersection, the alignment turns east, aligning parallel with Leesburg Pike, and will be located in an existing open area between the south side of Leesburg Pike, and north side of the Target parking lot. Upon entering the open area, the guideway was proposed to be exclusive, with track centers widening to 20.5 feet to accommodate a western terminus streetcar stop S2. Streetcar stop platform S2 was proposed to be 75 feet long by 12 feet wide. A double number 5 cross-over was located in this exclusive guideway area to facilitate operations at the terminus streetcar stop. Track speed would be limited to slow speed for the entire length of this Alignment Segment. Within limits of shared guideway, the vertical alignment would closely match existing top of pavement elevations. Upon entering the exclusive guideway area, the alignment would flatten out and become level to end of the alignment. The reason for this is to provide a safety buffer in front of the bumping post. While not specified in the design criteria, typically there is a requirement to flatten out or even introduce a positive grade at terminus areas for purposes of providing a safety factor at the bumping post. Alignment constraints with respect to the streetcar stop platform limits, and special trackwork would require the profile grade change to occur west of the platform. The existing GIS ground data, as shown in drawing number SKY03 indicates that the existing ground within the terminal streetcar stop area is relatively flat. Field observation of the area indicated that that the existing ground is sloping down, toward the east in this area. As the track alignment will maintain a relatively level grade in this area, the guideway section and streetcar stop elements will need to be constructed on fill material. Because of the tight right of way constraints within this area, it was proposed that the guideway and streetcar stop elements be constructed within a retained fill section. The retained fill section would construct concrete retaining walls at the outside edge of guideway for purposes of retaining the embankment material required to achieve the elevation differences, and minimizing the overall footprint of the guideway. As the streetcar stop will be constructed on retained fill, vertical circulation elements will be required at the terminal streetcar stop S2, to facilitate movement of streetcar riders from the platform to the street surfaces. The elevation difference between the platform and sidewalk adjacent to Leesburg Pike should not be greater than 3 feet. It should be possible to mitigate this change in grade using a typical ramp system. However, on the Target parking lot side, the elevation difference could be as high as 6 to 8 feet. Because of this, it will be necessary to install stairwells and an elevator to provide access to the platform. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 19

26 Future expansion of this Alignment Segment to the east and south would be challenging due to the vertical alignment differences between the guideway and Leesburg Pike at the terminus streetcar stop. The need to flatten the proposed guideway profile will introduce a condition where the proposed top of rail elevation may be as high as 6 to 8 feet above the adjacent Leesburg Pike pavement elevation at the alignment terminus. The Target entrance driveway is within 50 feet of the alignment terminus, and the top of pavement matches top of Leesburg Pike top of pavement. Extension of the alignment east will become problematic as there is insufficient distance for the top of rail elevation to change to match the driveway elevation, nor is there sufficient distance for the driveway to match top of rail elevation, then adjust to match Leesburg Pike top of pavement elevation. General observation indicates that there is no convenient location for which to re-locate the driveway. As such, if this Alignment Segment is progressed, and the need to include future expansion east along Leesburg Pike is identified it is recommended that the area be further evaluated based on better existing ground survey to determine the actual existing grade of Leesburg Pike. With an understanding of the Leesburg Pike grade, conversations could begin with bumping post manufactures to determine whether a bumping post could be designed to safely stop a vehicle given the proposed conditions. Comparisons with peer systems could be performed to determine if similar situations exist, and how those systems dealt with the issue. All of this input should be used to inform a decision as to the acceptable grade in front of the bumping post. A detailed description of the PENTAGON CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITY is included in Part 8 of this document. The shop will be located at the east end of the MAINLINE Alignment Segment in the Pentagon City area. Guideway for the shop options begins at the east of the MAINLINE Alignment Segment, extends east through the 12th Street South / South Eads St. intersection, then turns north and enters the maintenance facility which will be located adjacent to South Eads St. between 12th Street South and Army Navy Drive. Track alignment within the maintenance facility is oriented generally north south CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS The horizontal alignment was based on a combination of aerial mapping, and linework provided by others. The location of the alignment on Columbia Pike has been coordinated with the Columbia Pike Multimodal Project, and Arlington County. This coordination is at a conceptual level, coordinating schematics, typical sections, and in some areas proposed curb to curb limits. Design for areas outside of Columbia Pike was based solely on aerial survey. The design procedure for the vertical alignment consisted of closely matching existing grades for the majority of the project. The existing surface was based on GIS contours which are likely sub foot in accuracy. As the project progresses into the preliminary engineering phase, the track alignment should be further refined based on geometrically located existing conditions. This will require a combination of performing detailed ground survey, and coordination with existing work currently proposed, or being constructed within the project limits. It is anticipated that the Columbia Pike Multimodal Project will provide a large amount of as-designed information for use as base mapping along Columbia Pike. Additionally, other Arlington County projects such as the Super Stops project, and the reconfiguration of the Columbia Pike / South Jefferson St. intersection project should be able to provide existing and as-designed data. Ground survey should be performed at all other locations not covered within the project limits. As well, it is recommended that the Transit Initiative Survey Scope of Work include a task which combines the ground survey work performed with all other data used to ensure accuracy of the basemap. At the next design phase, after the basemap has been established, the existing alignment should be inserted on the based map, and redefined to include spiral curve geometry where not included at this design level. At this time, a detailed vehicle clearance envelope should be developed and plotted with the proposed track centerline. The linework / clearance envelope could then be compared to the base mapping for purposes of identifying discrepancies between the proposed alignment / cross- section and existing conditions. These discrepancies should be reviewed to determine if they can be resolved by refining the track alignment, or requesting criteria variance, or would require changes to the existing cross- Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 20

27 section. This is important as the existing project budget provides a very minimal allowance for existing roadway cross-section work. ACTION ITEM: in reviewing the alignment against the new survey, the design exception report should also be reviewed to understand where the exceptions will be located, and if based on better survey data the exceptions could be mitigated by performing alignment modifications without modifying the existing roadway cross-section. As stated previously, the project budget provided a minimal allowance for existing roadway modifications. As such, the engineers should work with Arlington County, the LPA project sponsor, to determine if a waiver to design criteria is appropriate prior to proposing roadway modifications. When the alignments have been modified to a point where all criteria are met or mitigated by some other means, the engineers should review each curve, and design a reasonable superelevation based on design criteria and existing roadway cross-section. Alignment parameters and superelevation parameters could then be used to develop a chart which plots track speed along the alignment. This chart would be provided to the operations discipline such that headway and travel times assumed at this level of design could be verified. As stated previously, the Washington Blvd. Bridge is being reconstructed by VDOT. The proposed vertical clearance from top of pavement to bottom of structure is set at 16 feet 8 inches (see correspondence with VDOT, Appendix D). The minimum clearance from top of pavement to bottom of catenary wire, as set by the Virginia Department of Transportation is 18 feet. This presents a violation of the typical vertical clearance criteria. There are two possible solutions: 1) apply for a waiver to the criteria; 2) redesign the roadway profile to lower the top of pavement and top of rail to meet the criteria. Lowering the roadway will introduce cost to the project which was not accounted for at the current level of design. It is recommended that at the start of the next phase of design, the traction power engineers develop catenary wire profile / elevations under the bridge based on the track alignment and bottom of structure, and surveyed dimensions of utility and drainage features. The design team should develop potential solutions and associated cost estimates, and meet with the client group to develop a mitigation plan. An application for a waiver to the clearance criteria should be developed based on engineering justification for reducing the wire height requirement. PART 4 - TRACKWORK 4.01 DESCRIPTION Trackwork defines the physical elements such as rail, ties, fasteners, ballast, concrete embedment, special trackwork, and ancillary items, that when constructed together create a continuous guideway on which the rail transit vehicle operates. At the current design level, trackwork elements considered were limited to included track and guideway type, track and guideway drainage, rail type, and special trackwork. The Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Project proposes two track and guideway types: ballasted and embedded/paved track. The majority of guideway is at-grade embedded track shared with vehicle traffic. A small segment of ballasted track is proposed within the SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2), Alignment Segment. There are two areas where the track is proposed to be located on aerial structure. These are at Four Mile Run Bridge, and the Parking Structure within the Skyline Plaza, which is associated with the SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3) only. At these locations, the track slab depth was modified to integrate with the structure. At the Operations and Maintenance Facility it is anticipated that with the exception of pit tracks, trackwork will be constructed as standard embedded track. Inspection pit track would be constructed as open track, but was not considered at this design level. Running rail was assumed to be 115 RE Tee rail, with a rubber rail boot incorporated to maintain flangeway in embedded track. The track gauge proposed for the project is standard 4 feet 8-1/2 inches gauge. It is anticipated that gauge widening will occur at sharp radius horizontal curves, however gage widening design was not taken to that level of detail at this time. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 21

28 Special trackwork elements including turnouts, cross-overs, and crossing diamonds were proposed within the project in revenue and nonrevenue track. The MAINLINE Alignment Segment includes one each embedded No. 6 double cross-over and associated crossing diamond adjacent to streetcar stops A and R. While not illustrated on the Contract Drawings, it also assumes an embedded No. 6 cross-over, to be placed at a location along Columbia Pike which will be determined during subsequent design levels. Alignment Segment SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2) includes a ballasted No. 5 double crossover and associated crossing diamond at streetcar stop S2. Alignment Segment SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3) includes an embedded No.5 turnout at streetcar stop S3. The PENTAGON CITY MAINTENANCE FACILTIY Shop Sub Option includes four embedded No. 4 turnouts DESIGN CRITERIA The WMATA TRAM / LRT Guideline Design Criteria, August 2003, Section 4 was used during the design process. The following sub sections were reviewed at this conceptual level with the remaining pertinent sections to be incorporated as the design is advanced. 4.1 GENERAL 4.3 TRACK CONSTRUCTION TYPES Ballasted Track Embedded Track Structure 4.4 TRACK GAUGE 4.10 TIES Concrete Ties 4.11 RUNNING RAIL 4.19 SPECIAL TRACKWORK While the WMATA TRAM / LRT design criteria provides guidance for most trackwork elements, it does not provide a detailed design criteria for the embedded track slab. The embedded concrete track slab is responsible for a substantial percentage of the trackwork capital costs. The track slab will also constitute a significant future maintenance cost when its life cycle ends, both in terms of physical re-construction, and lost revenue associated with down time due to reconstruction. Track slab design was not performed at the current level of work. It is recommended that the design occur at the next design level to better understand the capital and maintenance cost issues. The structural track slab design should consider design criteria that are specific for rail-bound vehicles and rubber tire vehicles. AECOM engineering staff is familiar with only one published design criteria document which defines criteria for embedded track slab design as applied to rail-bound vehicles operating on a fixed rail guideway. These criteria are defined in the AREMA Manual for Railroad Engineering, Chapter 8, Part 27. While the AREMA Manual is commonly applied to heavy haul railroading, the track slab design criteria are defined in terms of wheel / axle loadings. As such it is adaptable for the design transit vehicle. However, the criteria include some elements, such as the impact factor, and allowable sub-grade bearing pressure which have been considered excessive, by other transit agencies. In some cases other agencies have reduced these requirements as a means of balancing initial capital costs with future maintenance costs. At the next level of design, it is recommended that prior to beginning track slab design; the designers review the criteria, consult with peer transit agencies, and develop a consensus with the client, as to the application of the criteria. The application should be based on engineering judgment, peer agencies experiences and the understanding that any relaxation of the criteria affect the lifespan of the track slab, and not impact public safety. In addition to railbound loading on track slab, the slab will need to be designed to accommodate street traffic. The VDOT Guidelines for 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design (or local controlling criteria) should be used when developing pavement design for street traffic. Both criteria should be used together, with the understanding that the most conservative requirements of each be included in the design. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 22

29 4.03 DESIGN PROCEDURE Design of trackwork elements was performed at a high conceptual level. Trackwork elements including reinforced concrete track slab, tie and ballast track, special trackwork and guideway drainage were developed based on previous experience with Light Rail and Streetcar projects. However, some refinements were made based on input from peer transit projects and Arlington County s experience with completed and proposed construction projects within the Transit Initiative Project work limits. Most of the trackwork within the project is embedded type track. As such, some consideration was given for the use of girder rail running rail. Girder rail has advantages in embedded track as it provides a flangeway integrated with the rail. This serves as both a formwork element for the flangeway in the embedded slab, and negates the need for restraining rail in sharp horizontal curves as the back of flangeway serves to restrict the movement of vehicle wheels toward the center line of track. However, girder rail is not currently fabricated in the United States. Given that this project would use public funding for construction, the typical buy American clauses attached to that funding would make procurement of girder rail difficult. Given that restriction, the 115 RE Tee rail section was chosen at the typical rail section. This rail section is fabricated in the United States, and commonly used on similar transit systems. However, because it does not have a flangeway integrated in the section, separate flangeway filler would need to be installed during construction. Lack of flangeway filler will also require installation of an additional 115 RE Tee rail section adjacent to the 115 RE rail running rail in sharp horizontal curves as a means of providing restraining rail. The means and methods of both the flangeway filler and Tee rail restraining rail systems, when integrated with 115 RE rail in embedded track are common to similar transit systems and should not present any undo challenges in constructing the system The proposed track slab was assumed to be 8 feet wide by 15 inches deep, reinforced concrete track slab. The slab would include top and bottom reinforcing steel. The track structure would be comprised of 115 RE Tee rail, encapsulated with an electrical isolating rubber rail boot including a snap on flangeway filler. The rail would be secured to leveling beams for purposes of achieving alignment prior to placement of concrete. Concrete infill would be placed using a single pour method. A 3 inch sub-base (densely graded aggregate) material would be placed between the top of sub-grade and bottom of track slab. See Conceptual Design Plan Drawings drawing number DET01. The intent was that the Transit Initiative Project would excavate a 12 feet wide pavement section to an elevation 18 inches below top of rail, install the sub-base material and track slab, the repave the outside 2 feet (each side) to match the existing pavement box. Initially, the Transit Initiative Project proposed the depth of excavation be 36 inches, with installation of 21 inches of sub-base material. See Conceptual Design Plan Drawings drawing number DET01. However, during development of the conceptual design, coordination with Arlington County indicated that the typical roadway section, constructed during recent reconstruction projects along Columbia Pike, or as proposed to be constructed by the Multimodal Project have been or would be reconstructed to depth of 24 inches which includes 12 inches of asphalt pavement over 12 inches of subbase (aggregate base) material. Additionally, any subsurface issues would be, or have been mitigated prior to placement of the proposed pavement section. As such, the Transit Initiative Project assumed a nominal 3 inch sub-base, with the understanding that the existing sub-grade should meet the structural integrity requirements for the streetcar track slab. During future design work, after sub-surface investigation, and track slab design is performed, it may be necessary to reconstruct the sub-grade to meet design criteria. Understanding this possibility, construction of a deeper section may be required to meet the track slab design criteria. The purpose of this section was to provide a possible solution for correcting substandard subsurface condition by replacing a 3 inch deep sub-base material pad with a 21 inch deep sub-base material pad. Other solutions could be applied, such as installation of a geogrid material. If during subsequent design levels, areas are identified where the basic section requires additional structural integrity, it is recommended that several solutions be proposed, and a cost estimate be developed for each solution such that the most cost effective solution may be implemented. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 23

30 While not developed in detail, the relationship between the track slab and roadway in cross-section was contemplated. In tangent track, the track slab section between rails was intended be set flat (level rail to rail), with the inside edge of slab, toward centerline of road, sloped (canted) toward the track slab and the outside edge, curbside, canted toward the curb. When negotiating horizontal curves, the track crosssection shall be coordinated with the roadway cross-section, to set the track superelevation to meet the minimum design criteria, and integrate with the roadway section. It is recommended that in no instance shall the track section be canted such that the resulting track underbalance is less than zero. The standard track slab was modified at the Four Mile Run Bridge, and the Skyline parking garage aerial structures. The intent of the modification was for purposes of integrating the track slab with the proposed structure configuration. Consideration for minimal cover to reinforcing steel, and tolerances for vertical adjustment of top of rail profile were used to develop the track slab design on those structures. The process is explained in Structures Section of this Report. Track slab drainage design was considered in terms of surface and subsurface drainage. It was proposed that surface drainage be accomplished by the use of track drains. Track drains act similar to pavement drop inlets or catch basins. They will generally be in the centerline of track, and collect surface runoff from the guideway. They also collect runoff which may become trapped in the rail boot. Once collected, a storm sewer pipe typically consisting of a 8 inch to 12 inch diameter PVC pipe would direct the runoff to the nearest existing stormwater structure. Initially, it was assumed that the track drains be located nominally 200 feet on center, and at low points in the guideway profile. However, based on experience from peer projects, and at the request of Arlington County, the spacing was increased to 500 feet nominal on center and at guideway low points. Initially, the Transit Initiative Project assumed that a sub-surface perforated pipe would be installed adjacent to the track slab for the length of the guideway. The purpose of the pipe was to intercept groundwater, and / or surface water which could infiltrate the sub-grade, trackslab or pavement, and direct that water away from the guideway. However, during development of the conceptual design, coordination with Arlington County indicated that the experience with recent reconstruction projects along Columbia Pike, or as proposed to be constructed by the Multimodal Project included minimal or no sub-surface perforated pipe as the engineering for those projects determined that existing ground water was not an issue, and the existing soils provided sufficient drainage characteristics. Based on this experience, and at the direction of Arlington County, the proposed length of sub-surface perforated pipe was reduced to 1000 feet. This would account for installation of perforated pipe to mitigate any areas discovered during subsequent design levels which require additional sub-surface drainage. As stated previously, a tie and ballast track section was included in the SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2) Alignment Alternative. The length of tie and ballast track is relatively short at about 500 feet. The tie and ballast section was assumed to include 115 RE Tee rail secured with an typical elastic fastening system to standard transit 8 foot 3 inch concrete ties. The track structure was assumed to be secured by a ballast section consisting of 12 inches nominal ballast under the ties, full crib ballast and 12 inches shoulder ballast from end of tie. A 12 inch sub-ballast pad would be placed between top of subgrade and bottom of ballast pad. The tie and ballast section will be located within an area where physical constraints preclude installation of guideway drainage ditches. Therefore, drainage of the ballast section will be accomplished by installing sub-surface perforated pipe to intercept storm water located within the guideway. A project pipe network would be developed to route the collected storm water to the existing public storm system, with connection to that system at the nearest existing structure. Special trackwork item proposed in this project include No. 6 cross-overs and double cross-overs, No. 5 turnouts and double cross-overs, and No. 4 turnouts. At the current level of design critical points of special trackwork elements such as points of switch (PS), points of intersection of turnout (PITO), and turnout angles, were located based on standard turnout geometry, as presented in the AREMA Portfolio of Trackwork Plans for No. 5 and No. 6 turnouts. With respect to the No. 4 turnouts, the turnout geometry Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 24

31 was developed using a feet street switch with a standard straight No. 4 frog. During the next phase of design, special trackwork geometry should be developed for each type of turnout, given its application. To the extent possible, all geometry should comply with commonly used special trackwork components. As well, it is recommended that all turnout frogs be straight frogs with standard AREMA geometry. It is anticipated that the following turnout geometry will need to be developed: Embedded Track No. 6 turnout, including feet radius flexive tongue street switch and standard AREMA No. 6 straight frog. Embedded Track No. 5 turnout, including feet radius flexive tongue street switch and standard AREMA No. 5 straight frog. Embedded Track No. 4 turnout, including feet radius flexive tongue street switch and standard AREMA No. 4 straight frog. Ballasted No. 6 turnout, including standard AREMA 13 foot curved switch and standard AREMA No. 6 straight frog. Ballasted No. 5 turnout, including standard AREMA 11 foot straight switch and standard AREMA No. 6 straight frog. Associated cross-over and crossing diamond details for double cross-overs, as dictated by location and track centers CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS The trackwork design to date is conceptual and limited to identifying trackwork elements in general types and categories. As the project moves forward into preliminary design, more information will need to be collected and detailed designs developed for the various components that make up the trackwork system. As stated previously, the track slab design should be the first trackwork element engineered as the project progresses. A geotechnical evaluation should be performed for all of the at-grade track sections evaluating the existing soil conditions and providing recommendations for design such as sub-grade corrections, subballast / sub-base depth and allowable bearing pressure. Further structural analysis should be performed for the Four Mile Run to determine the appropriate embedment schematic and reinforcing layout of the track slab. Trackwork elements will need to be coordinated with other Transit Initiative Project design disciplines such as traction power, catenary, corrosion control, streetcar stop platforms, and roadway signalization during subsequent design levels to ensure the needs of all disciplines are met to provide a system that operates and is maintainable as intended. As well, trackwork elements will need to be coordinated with existing ongoing roadway and transit projects which are being progressed within the Transit Initiative Project Corridor. A list of the anticipated trackwork elements which should be developed to a higher level of design as the project is advanced was developed. The list should be considered dynamic in that existing conditions along the project corridor are dynamic, and will drive the ultimate outcome of the Streetcar Project. A list of trackwork elements to consider is as follows: Embedded Track Slab Design; Develop track slab design criteria. Structural design; slab depth, reinforcement requirements, sub-base section and subsurface mitigation techniques. Structural design; integration of traction power duct bank under slab, and transition of duct back to allow for hand hole / enclosure access for placement outside of track slab. Structural design; transition and interface of track slab at streetcar stop platforms. Develop interface details with traction power discipline; traction power connections etc. Track Drains and Flangeway Drainage, identify locations and develop schematic for integration with existing storm sewer system. Sub-grade & sub-surface perforated pipe; identify locations needed. Noise and vibration; identification of sensitive locations and potential mitigation factors. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 25

32 Four Mile Run and Skyline structures track slab; develop design for transition structure between track types. Tie and Ballast Track Design; Ballast Section (depth and material). Sub-Ballast Section (depth and material). Sub-grade & sub-surface perforated pipe; develop a schematic for integration with existing storm sewer system. Shop Track Open pit track; develop design of section. Transition Structures Design Tie and ballast section to embedded track slab section; develop design for transition structure between track types. Standard embedded section to Four Mile Run and Skyline structures; develop design for transition structure between track types. Track Gauge Widening Develop / verify criteria with vehicle manufacture (where and to what dimension) for widening track gage, and the transition rate. High-Strength Rail; develop criteria for installation. Typically installed at; Platform stops. Steep grades (G>5.0%). Sharp curves (R<2000 feet). Special trackwork. Restraining Rail; Develop embedded track slab detail with restraining rail design. Develop tie and ballast detail with restraining rail design. Identify single restraining rail location criteria. Identify double restraining rail location criteria. Special Trackwork Details Develop turnout geometry design for embedded and open special trackwork. Track Appurtenances and other Details Develop criteria for bumping posts at maintenance facility and revenue tail tracks. PART 5 - TRACTION POWER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION 5.01 DESCRIPTION The Transit Initiative Project proposes improving transit by introducing modern streetcar service within project limits. It is proposed that the streetcar vehicles will be electrically operated, and draw electric power from a source external to the vehicle. The components which deliver this power are defined as the Traction Power Supply and Distribution system. The Traction Power Supply and Distribution system draws power from an outside source, typically a public utility, converts the power to the form required for use by streetcar vehicles at a series of fixed installations known as Traction Power Substations (TPSS), and delivers it to the transit vehicle via either a contact rail or overhead contact wire system, known as catenary. The Transit Initiative Project proposes the use of an Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 26

33 overhead contact wire system (OCS). The Traction Power Supply and Distribution system consists of the connection between the external power system and the TPSS, the TPSS, and all internal equipment required to modify the power, distribution conduit from the TPSS to the guideway, including undergrade duct bank, the catenary wire, and a structural system for maintaining catenary height and alignment. The Traction Power Supply and Distribution system for the Transit Initiative Project is proposed to consist of a single overhead contact wire, supported by cantilever catenary pole structures located on the outside of the guideway for curbside running, and centerline of guideway for center running. Spacing of the catenary poles would vary based on alignment geometry, but were considered to be on nominal 60 to 80 feet center to center spacing for tangent alignment. A traction power duct bank would be configured below grade, under the track slab. The traction power feeders would be within the duct bank. The running rails would serve as a return path for the traction power system. Traction power substations would be located along the alignment spaced at about every 1 to 2 miles. The traction power substations would draw power from the local power utility, Dominion Power, and convert for use by the streetcar system. While these elements were considered to comprise the Traction Power Supply and Distribution system for the Transit Initiative Project, current design level efforts were limited to sizing the traction power substations to meet the needs of the streetcar system. This included sizing the substations internals and ultimate physical size based on power requirements, and locating the substations based on project power needs, and available property locations DESIGN CRITERIA While the WMATA TRAM / LRT Guideline Design Criteria, August 2003, Section 5 was used as a basis for design, it did not provide a comprehensive design criteria for the Transit Initiative Project. Several assumptions were made based on vehicle data and engineering judgment. A listing of criteria and assumptions is as follows: System: System voltage: 750 volts dc, limiting rail-to-earth voltages, station dwell time, and acceleration and braking rates. Streetcar Vehicle: The WMATA Tram-LRT guideline document contains a good deal of dimensional information for streetcars, but nothing with respect to traction power modeling, for which specific propulsion characteristics are required. AECOM assumed use of the United Streetcar Model 100 as a vehicle for modeling purposes. Information that informed the traction power analysis was obtained from the manufacturer. Guideway: Traction power modeling was based on guideway alignment geometry during the early fall of While the alignment geometry has been modified since that time, the basic alignment parameters have remained similar, and the modeling efforts should be accurate. Conductors: A 350 kcmil contact wire in parallel with a 500 kcmil undergrade feeder wire was assumed as the overhead contact system. 115RE rails were assumed, with both rails available for traction power purposes. Traction Power Substations: Locations as provided in a Technical Memorandum, dated September 04, 2010, titled, Traction Power Engineering: Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, Traction Power Substation Siting, and as further modified in conversations with the Civil and Trackwork Engineering design effort. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 27

34 Physical Size: Building dimensions about 1000 to 1050 sf, roughly square footprint ceiling height to provide 10 feet clear internal. Provide ground plane (grounding grid), buried that is sized approximately 1.8 times that of the building area; about 1800 sf. Spacing; between 1 to 2 miles along alignment. Redundancy: The WMATA Tram-LRT guidelines indicate, Signals, traction power and electric services will be redundant and will have reserve capacity to accommodate an abnormal operating condition occurring on the Tram/LRT system. This does not define the requirement. Most transit operations in North America require normal or near-normal operation with the loss of any one traction power substation, and AECOM assumed that was desired for the Columbia Pike project. It should be understood that this is an issue worthy of further discussion, as there are several choices to be made, and an evaluation of the utility service reliability is necessary. Other assumptions made for the Traction Power Model included in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Assumptions Made for Traction Power Model No. Parameter Assumption Other possibilities 1 Contingency Design Operate normal service with any one traction power substation out of service. (very common) 2 Vehicle United Streetcar Model 100, with further assumptions 90 passengers at 70 kg each 50 kw per car auxiliary power required 525 to 950 volt operating range Taper voltage = Nominal system voltage Equip substations with at least two rectifiers and with at least two utility services, then assume a complete outage unlikely Require the ability to operate with two adjacent substations out of service. Reduce service in the event of a substation outage. The model is highly sensitive to weight and tractive effort characteristics of the vehicle. 750 Vdc 750 volt class is traditional in streetcar, light rail, and subway system design. There are some North American systems working at 1500 volts, and both 1500 and 3000 volt systems are widely used in Europe and Asia. The higher voltage systems are more efficient and may save on capital costs where extensive systems are used. For this short route, the higher voltage systems are not likely to provide much savings. If it is foreseen that this route be extended, then a higher voltage may be attractive. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 28

35 3 Regenerative braking Not modeled AECOM recommends that the traction power system be designed to provide proper service without the regenerative braking working on the railcars, but then the operating system should use regenerative braking to the fullest possible extent in order to gain the savings in operating costs. One could, however, make the use of regenerative braking an assumption to the traction power design, and for a larger system, this could reduce the number of substations required. (It is not likely that fewer than three substations would be acceptable for this project.) 4 Signals No railway signals, but the trains stop at 20% of the intersections according to traffic lights There are numerous aspects of regenerative braking to be considered, and this should be fully discussed with the Owner. Usually, the greatest amount of energy used by rail vehicles is consumed in accelerating from stops. Stops have a great impact on the total energy consumption, the overall power demand, and the schedule. 5 Conductors and crossbonds rails: 115 RE, assumed 15% wear = 1.15 x 8.73 μω per foot. Both rails paralleled for return service for net resistance of 1/2 x 1.15 x 8.73 μω per foot = 5.02 μω per foot catenary: 350 kcmil copper worn 30% paralleled with 500 kcmil copper undergrade feeder wire. At 80 C this comes to ohm/km. Cross-bonds: Every 2000 feet with 2 x 1000 kcmil The assumptions are of widely used values based on the lack of railway signals. However, the use of both rails for return purposes would not be possible if single-rail track circuits are involved. If double-rail track circuits are involved, then the freedom to place cross-bonds is severely reduced. The simple catenary (contact wire + messenger) is sometimes viewed as visually intrusive, leading to a request for single-wire OCS. The single-wire OCS does not eliminate the 2nd wire, but instead moves it to more expensive underground construction. Furthermore, single-wire OCS often requires more poles than the simple (2-wire) design. Given the urban context and community sensitivities, AECOM recommends the single-wire OCS throughout the project DESIGN PROCEDURE Initially, two types of traction power substations were considered; feeder and feederless systems. Initial consultation with Dominion Power indicated that the existing power supply system would not meet the needs of a feederless system. The feederless system includes smaller, generally 0.5 MW substations at closer intervals along the alignment. The design criteria require that the system must operate with any single traction power substation off line. Research of the Dominion Power system indicated that several of the feederless substations would be powered by the same supply line. As such, if a single supply line went down, several substations would drop off-line, which would be a design criteria violation. Therefore, the feederless system was screened out during the early stages of this design. This meant that the streetcar system would require less traction power substations then what would be proposed in the feederless system, however, the size of the traction power substations would be much larger than those required in the feederless system. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 29

36 During previous design efforts, potential traction power substation locations were identified within the project limits. These locations considered both the large substations for a feeder system as well as the smaller substations for a feederless system. While all proposed sites were sufficient for the smaller substations, they were not all large enough to accommodate the larger system. As such, many of the sites identified during previous design efforts were eliminated in the current design work. The result being that 5 sites were located within the project limits which satisfied the criteria for size and location along the alignment. Power requirements of the traction power substations were evaluated to determine the size, both physical and power, and practical spacing limits along the alignment. The system was modeled based on the inputs identified in the Design Criteria part of this Section, and for two scenarios: 5 substations with streetcar operations on 6-minute headways; and 3 substations with streetcar operations on 3-minute headways. Detailed results of the modeling are included in the associated Traction Power Technical Memorandum (see Appendix K). A summary of the results of the modeling is included in the Findings part of this Section FINDINGS The Transit Initiative Project system can be designed to operate with either five or three traction power substations which will provide adequate voltage to the trains for the defined route, with any one traction power substation out of service. However, the three substation case fully utilizes the capacity of the substations, and provides no allowance for service growth. There is also a substantial increase in line losses using three rather than five substations. For these reasons, AECOM recommends that the design proceed assuming that a minimum of four traction power substations be provided for the initial operation. The general Traction Power Substation is assumed to consist of an 1100 square foot (nominal) by 11 feet high enclosed structure, and a 1,800 square foot ground plane, located below grade, centered about the enclosed structure. Within the structure is a 1 MW transformer rectifier set, a 1 MV service AC circuit breaker, 5 DC circuit breakers, 1 battery and battery charges, 1 auxiliary power transformer, 1 low voltage AC power distribution system, 1 low voltage DC power distribution system, and ancillary items for the building including HVAC, lighting, grounding, telephone service, mailbox etc. The foregoing recommendation was made with the assumption that electrical engineering considerations, and not applicable electric tariffs by Virginia Dominion Power, would dictate the desirable number of substations. AECOM has run into a situation on similar projects where minimum billing demands set forth in tariffs that appear to be applicable to that project are in excess of the likely traction load, which would lead to substantial monthly charges for capacity not actually used. In such a case, minimizing the number of traction power substations would be more cost effective, but may require other changes to the traction power system. The recommendation also assumes that the substation locations, as defined in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers STM02 to STM06 remain generally in the current locations shown CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS The work done so far is sufficient to estimate the number of traction power substations, their capacity, and their tentative location, all based on the assumptions listed in the Table 5.1, and criteria defined in the design criteria. Traction power design is fairly flexible in terms of substation location, but not infinitely so, and a better definition of the traction power substation locations needs to be made in order to advance the design. As such, during the next design phase, it is recommended that of the five substation locations identified in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, at least four locations are verified such that the traction power modeling can occur at a higher level of design. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 30

37 Numerous assumptions have been made in preparing this study. The assumptions need to be confirmed or refuted. ACTION ITEM: as the project progresses, and design criteria and substation locations become better defined; the traction power model should be re-run for purposes of verifying the design. Discussions with the utility will be necessary. Since there is some flexibility in selecting traction power substation locations, the availability of existing utility lines to serve the substations is one of several factors to be considered in selecting the their locations. The Owner s expectations for reliability enter the picture here also, because one does not want the same utility feeder to serve two adjacent traction power substations if the Owner expects normal (or near-normal) operation with any one outage. As the design progresses, it is anticipated that the utility owner will inquire about the load they need to supply the streetcar system. It would be premature to convey this information until there is good confidence in the assumptions made as inputs to the traction power model. Therefore, it is recommended that earnest conversations with the utility company do not begin during the next level of design until the design criteria is refined, and the traction power model is re-run. After the traction power design task at the current level of design was completed, conversations occurred between Arlington County and a private developer for location of TPSS within the limits of a proposed redevelopment at the northwest corner of Columbia Pike and South Greenbrier Street located around project station The proposed development is for construction of a six story affordable housing building known as Harvey Hall. The proposal is to locate a TPSS in north basement / vault area of the building. It was determined that a 100 feet long by 20 feet wide by 20 feet vertical clear could be provided for the TPSS, and that said space would accommodate the needs of a TPSS assuming a 15 feet long by 10 feet wide vertical access shaft, and a 20 feet wide access to that area could be provided. If this option were adopted, it could replace the current TPSS proposed along South Randolph Street as indicated on Plan Sheet STM05. PART 6 - SIGNALS 6.01 DESCRIPTION Streetcar Signal Design was not performed at the Conceptual Engineering level. However, the following assumptions were made with respect to Streetcar operations along the alignment: Where the streetcar operates in mixed traffic, on shared guideway, it is proposed that operation be via line-of-sight, with the streetcar operating in accordance with the roadway traffic rules. At the terminal stations, it was assumed that operation of special trackwork switches will be performed manually via the streetcar operator, under authority of a movement director at the Maintenance Facility. Manual operation of switches could occur using two methods, a manual method, and an remote method. The manual method will require the streetcar operator to exit the vehicle and throw the switch using a throw rod. That method was not assumed for this project. The remote method, proposed for this project, requires the vehicle to be equipped with remote control devices, which communicate with the switch machines and allow the vehicle operator to throw the switches from the vehicle. Consideration was given for modification or replacement of few existing and planned signalized intersections; however specific design was not performed. This included: o A transit-only phase (streetcar specific bar signal) is proposed at the northbound approach to facilitate streetcar s transition from median dedicated lanes to median mixed traffic operation at the Plaza/Jefferson Street intersection. Phasing and signal timing changes and configuration are also needed at this intersection. o At the time of this study, Jefferson Street/Columbia Pike intersection was being redesigned by Arlington County. As part of the Streetcar project, the westbound left turn phase is proposed to be changed from permissive left turn to permissive-protected left turn operation. Additionally, the northbound approach including the right turn movements should be provided with a Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 31

38 protected signal phase. A transit-only phase (streetcar specific bar signal) should be provided to allow streetcars to turn right from the median lane. A variable message sign that displays streetcar approaching is also proposed. o A transit-only phase (streetcar specific bar signal) is proposed at the westbound approach to facilitate streetcar s transition from the curb lane to the median lane at the Greenbrier Street/Columbia Pike intersection. This will require a special detection system for the streetcar to communicate its presence to the traffic signal system. A streetcar approaching variable message sign is also proposed. o A transit-only phase (streetcar specific bar signal) is proposed at the eastbound approach to facilitate streetcar s transition from the curb lane to the median lane at Rolfe Street. The County proposed a signal at Rolfe Street as part of the Columbia Pike Multimodal project. A transit bar signal should be installed at the Rolfe Street intersection. However, general purpose traffic should be stopped at the Scott Street intersection because the transit station is at the farside of Scott Street in the eastbound direction. This will require a special detection system for the streetcar to communicate its presence to the traffic signal system. Streetcar approaching variable message signs are also proposed at both Scott and Rolfe Streets. o A signal phasing modification is proposed at the Joyce Street/Columbia Pike intersection. The northbound Joyce Street onto westbound Columbia Pike left turn operation is proposed to be updated from permissive left turn to protected-permissive left turn operation. o A signal phasing modification is proposed at the Joyce Street/Army Navy Drive intersection. This change will accommodate streetcar s southbound left turn movement from the southbound Joyce Street through lane during the split phasing operation. o The streetcar is assumed to turn right from the eastbound through lane on Army Navy Drive onto southbound Hayes Street. This would require potential signing and striping changes at the intersection as well as a streetcar approaching variable message sign. This should be coordinated with existing project being proposed on Army Navy Drive. o Signal timing and phasing changes are needed at the 12th Street/Hayes Street intersection to accommodate the new roadway geometry that is needed with the streetcar track alignment. Intersection needs to be reconfigured with some restriping. Signal heads need to be relocated. o 12th Street will be extended between Eads and Fern Streets as a result of new development. The 12th Street/Eads Street intersection will be redesigned and reconfigured from a T intersection to a traditional four-legged intersection. A transit only phase (streetcar specific bar signal) should be provided to allow streetcar to enter and exit the proposed maintenance facility located at the northeast quadrant of this intersection. Potentially, the exit operation will require a new signal with new stop bar. A streetcar approaching variable message sign is also proposed at the intersection as well as at locations where streetcar merges into mixed traffic operations from its own dedicated lane. Consideration was given for provision of signalized pedestrian crossings particularly at median transit stations; however specific design was not performed. This included the following locations: o Jefferson Street Stop north of Route 7 (Stop R) o Joyce Street Stop (Future Stop D) o Jefferson Street Stop south of Columbia Pike (Stop Q) 6.02 DESIGN CRITERIA The WMATA TRAM / LRT Guideline Design Criteria, August 2003, Section 4 was used during the design process. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or MUTCD defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public traffic. States must adopt the 2009 National MUTCD as their legal State standard for traffic control devices within two years from the effective date of January 15, MUTCD should provide guidance for the later stages of design. Finally, Arlington County and VDOT design standards should be followed during the next stages of design. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 32

39 National Transportation Communications for Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Protocol (NTCIP) 1211 should be used for design, specification, selection, procurement and installation, operation, and maintenance of signal control and prioritization systems. Transit signal priority (TSP) is not addressed at this stage of the project. However, the later stages should investigate the applicability of TSP in the corridor. The design of TSP should follow NTCIP 1211 guidelines FINDINGS The streetcar project will require changes to the signal systems along the corridor. These changes include signal timing, signal phase and physical modification and transit-only phase provision. Typically, these upgrades are required where the streetcar makes a turn or where it transitions to and from a dedicated transit lane/exclusive guideway to and from mixed traffic lanes. Additionally, variable message signs are needed to alert drivers of an approaching streetcar CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS The operating model in the Conceptual Engineering Phase used general inputs with respect to alignment physical characteristics. That is to say, the model was run before the alignment was set, and final station stops located. That being said, the engineers believe that the input used was generally acceptable for purposes of developing a concept operating plan. ACTION ITEM: When the project moves into Preliminary Engineering, the model should be re-run, with the latest set of input data to determine that the assumptions made to develop the Concept model were accurate. All alignment physical characteristics including signalization will be included and verified during this phase. During this phase, the assumptions made with respect to signalization should be verified. Additionally, provision of transit signal priority (TSP) was not assumed as part of this study and should be considered during Preliminary Engineering. During Preliminary Engineering, modification of existing signals should be considered in an effort to reduce initial fleet size. During the Conceptual Engineering Phase, the vehicles represented a significant capital cost item. It is suggested that a value engineering task be performed to determine what signalization modifications could be made to reduce the number of initial streetcar vehicles to be purchased. ACTION ITEM: during the next design phase, the project sponsor should determine if the project would benefit from the use of a transit signal priority system, and re-visit the cost and funding aspects of the project to determine if the project could support implementation of said system. PART 7 - COMMUNICATIONS 7.01 DESCRIPTION Communications design was not performed at the concept level. However, in developing the capital cost estimate for the project, assumptions were made with respect to the proposed infrastructure required to create a communications system for the system. These assumptions assumed a fiber optic system parallel to the guideway to provide electronic communications with the streetcar stop facilities and act as a conduit for the Streetcar radio communications system FINDINGS The initial assumptions was that the Transit Initiative Project would install a fiber optic backbone type system for purposes of serving communications needs associated with message boards, emergency phones, and fare collection devices, at the streetcar platforms. The fiber optic system would also provide conduit for a two way radio system for purposes of establishing communications between the control center, and the streetcar operators. An underground conduit duct bank, would be installed for the length of the guideway. Where the guideway was split - side running the duct bank would be located only adjacent to one of the tracks. At streetcar stop locations, a duct bank would be constructed perpendicular to the main duct back to serve the adjacent streetcar stop. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 33

40 As the project progressed, it was discovered that Arlington County was in the process of installing fiber optic communications lines for the length of Columbia Pike, and is planning to install fiber optic communications lines along all other segments of the Transit Initiative Project except South Jefferson St. These installations were part of the Arlington County s Capital plans, and not related to the Transit Initiative Project. Coordination within Arlington County revealed that the fiber optic communications lines being installed contained sufficient excess capacity to meet the needs of the Transit Initiative Project, within the areas it was being installed. With this information, and at the direction of Arlington County, work associated with communications, was revised such that within Arlington County, and with the exception of South Jefferson St, the Transit Initiative Project would only include communications conduit to connect the streetcar stop platforms, with Arlington County s parallel fiber optic system. As the County is installing pull and / or junction boxes at all major intersections, the Transit Initiative Project would only need to extend conduit to the nearest intersection, and provide the appropriate appurtenances required for connections. The alignment segment along South Jefferson St., to the western terminus still assumes a separate fiber optic backbone system contained in an underground conduit CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS As stated previously, minimal design was performed for a communications system at the current level of design. When the project progresses to the next design level, the communications system must be defined in terms of what it does and what it might need to do in the future to accommodate any possible expansion or technology changes in hardware and software. Criteria should be written which describe those needs, applied to the Arlington County fiber optic system to verify compliance. If it is determined that the county s system does not meet the needs of the design criteria, the project client and consultant engineers should work together to determine the best solution to remedy the issue. Installation of a separate communications system and duct bank for the length of the guideway is a costly proposal. As such, use of the county s system should be considered mandatory provided it is not precluded by a fatal flaw. PART 8 - MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE FACILITY 8.01 DESCRIPTION The Columbia Pike Transit Streetcar System will be a new system which initially will not connect to any existing streetcar facilities. As such, a maintenance and storage facility will be required to be constructed to accommodate the streetcar fleet. It is proposed that one primary maintenance and storage facility be constructed for the initial streetcar system. This facility will provide storage and light maintenance for all streetcar vehicles. It will also serve as a crew base for streetcar operators, and an operations and administration facility for the proposed streetcar system. In 2006, a group consisting of representatives from Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization, and WMATA visited and analyzed numerous prospective sites for the primary maintenance and storage facility, including locations at the east end of the project corridor in Arlington County, near Baileys Crossroads in Fairfax County, and at the Northern Virginia Community College Alexandria Campus. The current effort revisited the earlier evaluation and conducted a broad analysis of three sites: the North Tract and Pentagon City sites in Arlington, and the Northern Virginia Community College site in Alexandria. The Pentagon City site emerged as the most feasible option, and was the subject of subsequent iterations of conceptual design. The conceptual design process and design features are detailed in this report. To develop the functional requirements for a facility that will accommodate the system for years after it is opened, the project team estimated the vehicle fleet size and anticipated expansion in fleet size over time. Based on the operations analysis, the facility will need to serve a fleet of 13 vehicles in the opening year. For planning purposes, a fleet of 30 vehicles was envisioned at a future stage of system development in which the streetcar system would provide service at 3-minute headways. Another assumption, based on Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 34

41 other streetcar systems throughout the United States, is that a vehicle of 66 feet in length with a minimum horizontal curve of 60 feet will be procured for the streetcar system. Considering these assumptions, using industry standards/historical industry data, and knowing the functional requirements of the future maintenance and storage facility, a space needs program was developed to meet the needs of the future transit operator. Building on the functional requirements and the space program, alternative locations were analyzed and site configurations were developed. A financial analysis considered the cost of real estate, buildings, trackwork, and operations DESIGN CRITERIA In planning a system such as this one, where there is no existing operator, many assumptions have to be made on how the system will run and what characteristics the many elements of the system should have. The WMATA Tram/LRT Guidelines Design Criteria were used for most criteria issues associated with the maintenance and storage facility. Past experience and industry standards were used for other elements of the work associated with the maintenance and storage facility, especially in development of the space program DESIGN PROCEDURE The design procedure for a transit maintenance and storage facility generally follows the following steps: Collect input data: fleet size, type of vehicle, hours of operation, etc. Develop a space needs program for the building and site Evaluate sites for suitability Develop test-fit site plans based on program needs, and geometrically-correct conceptual level track plans Space needs for the site of the primary maintenance and storage facility were based on information provided by WMATA and County staff. This data was also analyzed and benchmarked against industry standards by the study team. The detailed space program presents the functional requirements of a facility sized to support an initial fleet of 13 revenue streetcar vehicles, and eventually 30 streetcars. The space program served as a basis for the facility feasibility study and for the site plan concepts for the potential sites. The space program considered functional requirements and space needs for each element that will be required on site, including administration, operations, maintenance, parking, and exterior areas. In the space program, spaces required in each area are added together and then for each of the divisions contributing to facility construction, there is a factor included in the square footage which accounts for support space and systems. It was assumed that the administration division will provide oversight management, human resources, and customer service for the transit operator and agency. For planning purposes, it was necessary to identify the number of future administrative staff that may be located at the maintenance and operations facility. The preliminary space program includes space for a general manager, a secretary, an administrative manager, an engineer, and a Maintenance-of-Way manager to support a fleet size of 13 vehicles. An operations manager, a maintenance manager, and a finance/grants manager are added when the master plan of 30 vehicles is achieved. The space program assumes that all administrative spaces are on the second floor of the facility and therefore this square footage is included in the facility construction, but not in the facility footprint. It is assumed that the operations division will be responsible for the normal day-to-day operations of all streetcar routes and all personnel (including operators) that will be associated with the streetcar system. It is also assumed that all routes will be based at the maintenance and operations facility. For planning purposes, it was necessary to identify the number of future operations staff that may be located at the maintenance and operations facility. The preliminary space program assumes that 50 percent of the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 35

42 vehicle operators are male and that 50 percent of the vehicle operators are female. Space for restrooms, locker areas, a break room, a control center, supplies, and storage is accounted for in the operations area. The space program also assumes that all operations spaces are on the second floor of the facility and therefore this square footage is included in the facility construction, but not in the facility footprint. Streetcar maintenance will be performed by employees of the transit operator and the maintenance facility should provide the maintenance crew with everything they need to sustain a clean, safe, and reliable fleet of transit vehicles through regular service and maintenance activities. Most streetcar maintenance will typically be performed after the vehicles have completed their routes for the day and therefore during night hours. For planning purposes, it was necessary to identify the number of future maintenance staff that may be located at the maintenance and operations facility. The preliminary space program assumes that one maintenance supervisor will be needed, and that this supervisor will be able to carry the program through to a fleet size of 30 vehicles. As far as shop employees are concerned, it was assumed that a 1:1, crew: streetcar ratio would be appropriate, and that 25 percent of the crew would be female. The number of total maintenance bays required increases from two to five by the time the fleet has reached 30 vehicles. The initial two bays include a Preventive Maintenance (PM)/inspection bay and a repair bay. All three bays added between initial and master plans will be repair bays. Based on experience with comparable LRT and streetcar systems, a ratio of one bay per six streetcars was used in determining the number of inspection/repair bays required. To support the work performed in the maintenance bays, numerous support areas will be needed. Component work areas, space for equipment, and parts storage are examples of additional spaces that will be needed. Space for an electronics shop, a tire changing area, and restroom/locker rooms was also provided when the maintenance department s area was calculated. No heavy repair work, wheel truing, or complete overhauls are envisioned for the maintenance facility, although there is a space allowance for heavy repair/wheel truing in the current design concept. When those services are needed, it was assumed that the vehicle will be transported to a vender s facility and returned when the work is complete. The assumed spare vehicle ratio accounts for these temporary decreases in fleet size. The transit vehicle storage portion of the maintenance and storage facility will be the point of origin and termination for all mainline services. Sixteen and a half feet by 71 feet was calculated for each standard streetcar parking space required. The 71 foot length will be the minimum length of a storage track, and was calculated using the length required to accommodate a vehicle (66 feet) with a five-foot gap allowance between vehicles. For the 13-car fleet, total square footage required for parking of the fleet amounts to about 14,000 square feet, and for the 30 car fleet this amounts to 35,000 square feet. In addition to car storage space, every other storage track is farther apart than the minimum (20 feet as opposed to 13 feet between track center lines) for access by interior cleaning crews. On the exterior of the buildings, the only other space allotted for was ladder track space; therefore streetcar parking plus ladder track space is what was included in exterior transit vehicle space. Employee parking is included in the space planning requirements. One parking space is assumed for each employee, or anyone who may be present at any particular point in time, taking into account work shifts, shift overlaps, training, visitors, and meetings. To estimate total square footage, each employee parking space was assumed at 9 feet by 18 feet, each handicapped spot at 13 feet by 18 feet, and a 100 percent circulation factor is added for aisles, etc. Also included in the parking area requirement is maintenance service vehicle parking of two spaces, each ten feet by 20 feet, and visitor parking of five spaces, each nine feet by 18 feet. Included in the exterior area of the space program are any scrap metal dumpsters, refuse dumpsters, maintenance-of-way outdoor storage, traction power substations, truck maneuvering space, and patio/outdoor break areas. In this case, one of each of these spaces is required and was accounted for in the program. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 36

43 Taking each of these departments into account, the total facility footprint for a maintenance and storage facility that will accommodate 13 vehicles will be 11,906 square feet (see Table 8-1). In addition to the facility footprint, parking for streetcars with track structure and personal vehicles makes up a majority of the site. The initial space program for 13 vehicles requires 2.45 acres, while the potential master plan to maintain and store up to 30 vehicles requires 4.89 acres. Table 8.1: Maintenance and Storage Facility Space Program Summary Preliminary Space Program - Summary Maintenance and Storage Facility Move In (sq ft) Master Plan (sq ft) DEPARTMENT AND AREA DESCRIPTIONS Other Sites Maintenance 11,906 21,883 Operations & Administration Office (2nd floor) 6,876 7,362 Total Facility Footprint 11,906 21,883 Parking 42,577 95,181 Exterior Areas 8,300 8,300 Total 62, ,364 Site circulation, buffers, storm water management (70%) 43,948 87,755 Total Site Requirements 106, ,119 Site Requirements in Acres Once the space program was completed, an investigation of alternate sites was performed and eventually, sites that should still be considered were determined. Sites were evaluated at a high level on their functional suitability, environmental factors, and regulatory matters, before any financial analysis was completed. Alternative sites for the operations and maintenance facility were identified, taking into account both the needs of the transit agency and the availability of suitable land. The sites were originally chosen based on the following factors: Proximity to the alignment Size of the site Flatness of the site Shape of the site Street access Surrounding land use The site of a maintenance facility should be located at or near one of the ends of the alignment to minimize non-revenue vehicle movements. The site should accommodate the space program, and be of a shape that will allow for efficient track geometry. The site should be in a commercial or industrial type of area and compatible with local zoning codes. Facilities should also meet expectations of city/county land use plans and should minimize undesirable environmental impacts. Evaluating a site as a potential location for a maintenance and storage facility requires thorough consideration of the following elements: Operations and administration Vehicle maintenance Parts storage Vehicle cleaning Yard operations Points of egress/ingress Transit vehicle storage Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 37

44 Site security Maintenance-of-Way equipment provisions Employee/visitor/handicapped parking The development of a new maintenance and operations facility represents a major investment for any transit agency. Each of the alternative sites for the maintenance and storage facility have advantages and disadvantages in terms of operations, initial capital costs, recurring operational costs, and impact on the current owners of the property. The evaluation of potential sites for the maintenance and operations facility involved identifying sites, evaluating their function suitability, and continuously comparing them to each other. When the sites were evaluated, they were evaluated based on whether the property was: For sale At least 2.45 acres for the transit operator s initial use Properly zoned Easily accessible from the proposed alignment Free of environmental constraints Other factors that will help benchmark property as a site for development of a streetcar maintenance and storage facility include site topography, site surroundings, and access to full utilities. In addition, the greater the number of private property owners a site requires the project work with, the more undesirable a site will become. Private property acquisition tends to increase the time, cost, and complexity of a project. The three potential locations considered for the location of the maintenance and storage facility can be seen in Figure 8.1 and were: The Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA) Alexandria Campus (two sites on campus) North Tract Site Pentagon City (two sites in this area; Options 3B and 4A) Figure 8.1: Maintenance and Storage Facility Alternative Sites As the project moved forward, the Northern Virginia Community College and North Tract Site options were eliminated from consideration. Additionally, the Pentagon City Option 3B was eliminated from further consideration. Descriptions of these sites can be found in Appendix E. After the North Tract and Community College sites were evaluated, another site was proposed. In the Pentagon City area of Arlington County, several parcels of land are owned by Vornado / Charles E. Smith, Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 38

45 and Lerner Enterprises. Recognizing the potential value of Transit Oriented Development, the property owners and Arlington County staff began to discuss plans in this area and the potential to incorporate an O&M facility in those plans. The project team then began to develop site concepts for a Pentagon City option. Figure 8.2 is a map showing parcel boundaries in the area of study. Figure 8.2: The Pentagon City Site To consider this area for the project s maintenance and storage needs, a compact urban scheme needed to be developed one that meets the programmatic needs while fitting into a densely populated urban setting. Figure 8.3 below is the former car barn on East Capitol Street in the District of Columbia and Figure 8.4 below is a picture of a small maintenance facility built under a highway in Portland, Oregon. Figure 8.3: Former Car Barn on East Capitol Street in the District of Columbia Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 39

46 Figure 8.4: Small Maintenance Facility Built Under A Highway Bridge in Portland, Oregon 8.04 FINDINGS The study team developed test-fit site plans for the three alternative sites. Each layout had the following characteristics and functional requirements for the maintenance and storage facility: A vehicle maintenance and operations building that will serve the needs of the system for its initial startup operations Storage space for 13 streetcars Traction Power Substation Appropriately sized access roads and unloading area for delivery trucks. Because the Community College site and the North Tract site were dropped from consideration, attention was focused on the Pentagon City location and what layout worked best in that site. Previously considered options are described in Appendix E. Several different site plans for several different land parcels were developed for the Pentagon City location. In the larger area west of Eads Street, concepts were developed that located the storage and maintenance facility in the street level of one or more of the major buildings planned for the site by Charles E. Smith/Vornado team. Additional concepts were planned that were entirely underground. One version of the Pentagon City layout showed the vehicle wash and maintenance facility on the teardrop property and streetcar storage along the east side of Army Navy Drive. This concept is shown below in Figure 8.5. There are two tracks running through the maintenance facility building and a third track which could house the wheel truing machine is to the east of those two tracks in the building. The concept shows a support building adjacent to the storage track and the vehicles are actually stored under cover in a vehicle storage barn. There is a shared guideway track that runs around Army Navy Drive and this track turns into an exclusive guideway track once it joins 12th Street. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 40

47 Figure 8.5: Teardrop Site Test Fit Layout Since vehicles are stored single file around Army Navy Drive, they can only be taken from the front or the back of the line. In addition, where the mainline meets the facility (near the intersection of 12th Street and Eads Street), the eastbound mainline only leads to the maintenance facility, and the westbound mainline only leads to the storage track. There is, however, a crossover planned on the mainline alignment, west of the facility that can be used to switch from one track to the other. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 41

48 Figure 8.6: Option 4A Site Concept At the culmination of conceptual design, Option 4A is the preferred site concept (see Figure 8.6). Option 4A includes a 13,500 square foot building for maintenance activities, allows for 13 streetcars to be on site, and only requires 4 track turnouts. As with the other concepts created for the teardrop site, Option 4A provides below grade parking for transit employees and visitors. This option includes a bay for vehicle cleaning (assumed at this stage to be performed with a portable device), and a bay for heavy maintenance/wheel truing (though it does not include a truing machine at this stage). It is also assumed that vehicle storage tracks are enclosed within and beneath buildings to be developed above. The concept plan provides opportunities for joint development on the site which could help defray costs; the program could include urban design elements that would contribute in positive ways to the surrounding community CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS Several iterations of shop layouts were developed for the Pentagon City site. After coordination with Arlington County and the private developers, and applying the design criteria, Option 4A was deemed acceptable for further development. Figure 8.7 shows the first floor plan for Option 4A, Figure 8.8 shows the second floor plan, and Figure 8.9 shows a section view. These plans were created during the conceptual design phase in order to demonstrate that the space program will fit in the size and shape of the space available. Accurate and more detailed plans will be created during future design phases of the streetcar project. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 42

49 Figure 8.7: First Floor (Maintenance Area) For Pentagon City Option 4A Several issues associated with the current configuration of Pentagon City Option 4A should be noted: The site is constrained and does not easily accommodate growth beyond the initial 13 vehicle fleet. Because of the compact layout, vehicle movements into and out of the storage tracks and maintenance building will need to be closely coordinated and supervised. Administrative space does not include offices for an operations manager and a maintenance manager, positions that will likely be needed prior to major system expansion. However, it may be possible to negotiate this space into a joint development area. Although the maintenance building is laid out with a wheel truing bay, a truing machine is not included. The site plan includes a location for exterior vehicle cleaning, but a vehicle wash plant is not included. The site plan does not have outdoor space for maintenance-of-way materials. However, storage could be accommodated at the proposed construction staging and equipment storage area along Columbia Pike near the Navy Annex. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 43

50 Figure 8.8: Second Floor (Operation and Administration Offices) for Pentagon City Option 4A Figure 8.9: Section Plan for Pentagon City Option 4A Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 44

51 As the project progressed, it was understood that there was a possibility the streetcar maintenance facility would need to be located in a high profile area where land availability was limited and a compact facility would need to be designed. Option 4A on the Pentagon City site represents a design which attempts to balance the needs of the streetcar maintenance and storage facility with the development plans of the landowners. Option 4A provides only the minimum requirements for a maintenance and storage facility of the caliber the streetcar operator / agency will need to operate the Columbia Pike Streetcar System. The facility concepts presented in this document are test fit layouts and that the plans presented in this document are test fit shop plans. With the information known at this time, the design of the Pentagon City maintenance and storage facility provides a minimum space for a maintenance and storage facility layout. This reduction in space limits some operational aspects of the facility. Development of the Pentagon City site followed a series of iterations between the developers and the Pike Transit design team. As the conceptual design phase ends, the developer s plans for the site have not been finalized. When the preliminary engineering design effort begins, that Pentagon City shop layout will be revisited and communication with the developer will be re-established such that the design can be refined and finalized. In addition, shortcomings of the current Pentagon City concept, such as employee parking, convenient vehicle storage and vehicle wash locations, and adequate administrative office space should be reviewed to determine what potential solutions could be developed within the tight physical and budgetary limitations. The range of engineering design disciplines will need to verify assumptions and progress the design. These disciplines include architectural, civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. As each of these disciplines progresses designs, issues which could not be anticipated at this level of design will surface. Some of these issues will be easily resolved internally; some may require discussion with the developer and adjacent property owners. Given the tight physical constraints of the site, these issues may require high levels of design scrutiny and stakeholder participation during the next level of design. PART 9 - FARE COLLECTION 9.01 DESCRIPTION Fare collection is the method by which a transit agency collects payment from a transit rider for transportation services provided to the rider by the agency. The Transit Initiative Project is proposing a barrier free proof of payment system similar to other streetcar and light rail applications. Such a system is intended to expedite the boarding and alighting process and thus improve travel times. Streetcars and other transit vehicles serving stops along the streetcar line would have boarding and alighting at all doors. Fare collection consists of three elements: fare payment, fare validation, and fare inspection. The planning and conceptual design process to date has led to the following assumptions. Fare Payment The fare payment transaction would be: a) via a simple ticket vending machine on the platform of the streetcar stop, where passengers would purchase a single-ride paper ticket; or b) at a Metrorail station ticket vending machine or other location where passengers could purchase or re-load electronic fare media. The current capital cost estimates assume installation at all streetcar stops of compact, low-cost fare vending machines which would print out single ride tickets. These machines would be similar to the Parkeon ticket vending machines currently in use on the Portland Streetcar system, and similar to the parking ticket vending machines in use in Arlington County. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 45

52 Fare Validation At this stage of planning, it is assumed that the fare validation transaction would be implicit with purchase of a paper ticket (time and date would be printed on the ticket). For electronic media there would be fare targets at the platform of the streetcar stop that would deduct fares and print paper tickets. Fare Inspection Fare inspection involves transit employees moving regularly through the system to verify that passengers have paid fares for their journeys. Figure 9.1 illustrates typical equipment associated with proof of payment fare collection. Figure 9.1: Typical Proof of Payment Fare Collection Equipment Fare Payment: Ticket Issuer (TI) Fare Validation: On-Board Processor (OBP) or Target Fare Inspection: Handheld Fare Media Processor (HFMP) 9.02 REGIONAL CONTEXT As the Transit Initiative Project nears implementation, the project sponsors will refine the approach to fare collection. There are several ongoing efforts in the Washington, DC area that may influence decisions regarding the general approach and specific requirements for equipment and personnel. As described below, WMATA is implementing the next generation of fare media and technology, and DDOT is implementing a streetcar service. WMATA is also coordinating with local governments and transit operators throughout the region to conduct a Streetcar and LRT Interface Study that will influence design and operations decisions by the sponsors of area streetcar and LRT projects. WMATA New Electronic Payments Program: In 2010, WMATA announced that it was working on a new system-wide open payment fare collection, known as the New Electronic Payments Program (NEPP), as a replacement system for SmarTrip. NEPP will be a major factor in the evolution of fare payment systems region-wide across all modes. The timetable for implementing the new system will likely impact the decision-making process for new streetcar and light rail systems coming on line in the immediate future. Open payment systems based on industry standards are expected to be the norm in a few years. A major driver in the move toward open payment systems is the desire to minimize cash collection and to improve customer convenience with acceptance of contactless credit/ debit cards or smart phones for transit payments. WMATA plans to begin a pilot demonstration of the NEPP system in The two-year design cycle will culminate in system-wide start-up in The new system is planned to overlap with the current SmarTrip as regional transit operators migrate to the open payment system. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 46

53 Along with traditional fare collection systems (fareboxes, vending machines), NEPP will also be supported by a media distribution and reload network where customers purchase regional fare media, add value or purchase fare products from approved vendors and a web based account management and sales application where customers can manage their accounts on-line. With implementation of the new fare payment system, new smart cards and fare vending will be ubiquitous, available at local locations such as drug stores and newsstands, accessible through smart phone applications and through the internet. The proposed fare payment architecture is envisioned to be adaptable to the needs and desires of streetcar and LRT project sponsors. DDOT Potential Streetcar Fare Collection Scenario: DDOT is initiating service on its H Street line in late 2012, and must decide how to make use of current technologies while anticipating future WMATA applications. As the agency most advanced on streetcar implementation, DDOT s decision may influence the decisions of other project sponsors. DDOT plans to collect fares for its initial operations. Riders will be able to use SmarTrip cards (possibly with paper validations) or paper tickets; validations and tickets would be dispensed at machines located at stops. An off board fare collection infrastructure lite approach could be adopted to introduce passengers to portions of the full fare collection system. This approach would use less expensive Ticket Issuers (TI) as temporary machines. Vehicles could be ordered with capabilities to adapt to future installation of equipment such as on-board fare validation DESIGN CRITERIA The WMATA TRAM / LRT Guideline Design Criteria, August 2003, Section 9 was used as a baseline document for developing a fare collection concept only. As the fare collection system will be a hybrid between that which is recommended by the design criteria, and that which is economically feasible for the project, the design criteria should be modified during the next design level, with input from the client / operator, to develop a system which properly collects fare payment, does not inhibit operations, meets local codes for access, and allows flexibility for interface with regional fare collection technologies CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS The means and methods of fare collection have been simplified at the current level of design. While a concept system, currently being used at peer agencies has been adopted for the streetcar mode, the means by which this system integrates with the bus mode are not fully developed. Given that there is a desire that the streetcar and bus transit modes co-exist in the same corridor, and share the same stop facilities, there should be interoperability between fare collection approaches for the different modes. ACTION ITEM: it is recommended that at the next level of design, the fare collection system analyzed to determine the interoperability with WMATA of the fare collection system, and understand how it affects operations of the system. ACTION ITEM: It is also recommended that the project sponsors continue coordination with WMATA regarding future off-board fare collection on buses as well as Next Generation of fare payment using smartphones and credit cards. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 47

54 PART 10 - TRANSIT VEHICLE DESCRIPTION The client group specified that the design vehicle be the Inekon/ United Streetcar low floor Tram. Within the United States, this vehicle, or vehicles having similar characteristics are currently in service for the Portland Streetcar, the Seattle Streetcar, and for the Tacoma Link in Tacoma WA. Similar versions of this vehicle have been constructed, and will be used on the proposed DC Streetcar System in the District of Columbia. The modern streetcars which were purchased by the District of Columbia for the DC streetcar system were manufactured by Skoda-Inekon in Plzen of the Czech Republic. In late 2009, the vehicles were shipped to the United States. As of the summer of 2012, they are in storage in the Metro yard in Greenbelt MD. The cars are 2.46 meters (about 8 feet) wide and 20 meters (about 66 feet) in length. They are able to operate in mixed traffic and easily accommodate existing curbside parking and loading DESIGN CRITERIA As the vehicle type was dictated by the client group design of the vehicle was not performed. However, manufacturer s data of the vehicle was gathered, and used to supplement the design criteria FINDINGS The vehicle capacity is 44 seated passengers, with an additional 71 passengers accommodated as standees. A loading diagram of the vehicle is included in Part 14 of this document. The vehicle is 66-foot long by 8 foot wide, in a static condition. The trucks are spaced on 38 foot 9 inch centers. The truck axles are on 6 foot 2 inch centers. The floor height is 14 inches above top of rail. As the top of streetcar platform elevation is 10 inches above top of rail, there will be a vertical gap between the floor and platform. To accommodate ADA passengers some agencies have equipped their vehicles with a bridge plate that extends from the vehicle to the streetcar platform, and provides an ADA compliant ramp. The vehicle manufacturer identifies the minimum horizontal curve radius negotiable by the vehicle as 60 feet. AECOM set the absolute minimum radius for revenue track at 85 feet, but allowed the radius to decrease in non revenue track to 60 feet. All other physical operating characteristics fell within the criteria as defined by the project design criteria, and with exception of the minimum curve radius, the project design criteria was used to develop alignment and clearance design. The vehicle is electrically powered through an overhead catenary wire system, commonly referred to as OCS. The vehicle collects power from the OCS via a device on the roof of the vehicle known as a pantograph. The pantograph is similar to that used on electrically powered light rail vehicles, and commuter rail vehicles. The vehicle is bi-directional, with an operators cab at each end. While not intended for this alignment, the vehicles should be capable of operating in consists of up to three vehicles. This is to ensure that in the case of a disabled vehicle, another vehicle, with a full load, will be able to couple up the disabled vehicle and move it to a location off of the mainline. Operational requirements specify that the initial streetcar system include 13 vehicles CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS The streetcar specified or similar variants of, has been in service on other properties, and has a proven service record. As such, AECOM believes that this vehicle should perform well for Arlington County. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 48

55 Given that the alignment operates mostly within mixed traffic, accidents with rubber tired vehicles will occur. Most of these accidents will be slow speed, but will inflict body damage to the lower body panels, and possibly the couplers. AECOM recommends that the specification for the vehicle be written to direct the vehicle manufacturer to locate as much vital equipment as possible away from the lower fender area. If it is not possible to move all vital equipment away from these areas, AECOM recommends that the manufacturer devise a way to protect that equipment. As well, AECOM recommends that the lower body panels be designed for easy change-out, with the ability to do so by two to three persons using hand held tools. AECOM also recommends the vehicle be equipped with a fender system to cover and protect the couplers. As mentioned previously, the vehicle floor height is 4 inches higher than the top of streetcar stop platform elevation. Some streetcar stop platforms will be located within track alignment horizontal and vertical curves. During the preliminary engineering phase of the project, it is suggested that the designers coordinate with FTA and with other streetcar operators that have received federal grants to determine applicable requirements for the vertical and horizontal gap at the streetcar stop platforms for the streetcar system. It is understood that typical light rail and heavy rail streetcar platform gaps are strictly enforced, however, typically streetcar gaps tend to be in line with bus operations, where a substantially larger gap exists, and the passengers have an expectation of that gap. The bridge plate provides a solution for meeting ADA requirements at the streetcar stop platforms. However, this system takes time to deploy, and if it is required to be deployed at every streetcar stop, the time required for extending and retracting the bridge plate would severely impact the overall travel time along the alignment. If it is determined that the gap requirements are mandatory at every boarding / alighting, AECOM recommends that the preliminary engineering designers develop an alternate means of meeting the requirement. As operating plans are refined during preliminary engineering, the project team should re-evaluate the vehicle size and passenger capacity. A larger design vehicle would accommodate anticipated passenger loads more comfortably, and provide for future capacity as ridership in the project corridor grows. PART 11 - SAFETY, FIRE/LIFE SAFETY & SECURITY Safety, Fire/Life Safety & Security design was not performed at the current design level. PART 12 - STREETCAR STOPS DESCRIPTION As described in Part 3 of this document, there are 18 streetcar stop locations, 17 of which are along the MAINLINE alignment segment. Stop D is noted as a future stop, and will not be constructed as part of the initial project. An additional stop, stop S, is proposed adjacent to Leesburg Pike, at the Target Store and Skyline Complex on the SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2) segment. At the current level of design, consideration of streetcar stops was limited to location along the alignment and physical dimensions of the stop. The Transit Initiative Project will not construct streetcar stops E through P, which will be located on Columbia Pike. These stops will be designed and constructed as part of the Arlington County Super Stops Project, prior to construction of the Transit Initiative Project. The Super Stops project proposes to improve the bus stop network along Columbia Pike by constructing stops at 12 locations (24 individual platforms) along Columbia Pike. The stops will include seating, canopy shelters, enhanced lighting, and electronic maps and schedules. Construction of these stops will allow the County to consolidate some of the existing less-used stops along Columbia Pike. Stops E through P will be constructed by the Super Stops Project, and that the stops be shared by bus and streetcar transit modes. The Transit Initiative project would be required to construct 5 stop pairs on the MAINLINE alignment segment (A, B, C, Q and R), and one stop, stop S, on the SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2) segment. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 49

56 The Jefferson St. Transit Center / Intermodal Transfer Facility will involve redevelopment of a portion of the existing surface parking lot on the west side of South Jefferson Street near the South Jefferson Street / Leesburg Pike intersection to create an intermodal transit location. The proposed configuration creates dedicated parking spaces, bus transfer stops complete with shelters, and a police substation. The facility would allow for intermodal transit connections, between personal vehicle and transit vehicle, and between transit vehicles DESIGN CRITERIA The WMATA TRAM / LRT Guideline Design Criteria, August 2003, Section 4 was used during the design process. A summary of the sub sections applied at this conceptual level, with comments on how they were applied; and suggested modifications is as follows: Section Curbside At-Grade Stop Location and Width o Specifies 8 feet, 6 inches as the minimum platform width. The Transit Initiative Project exceeds this dimension; where possible platforms widths were set at 12 feet minimum. Section Double Loaded Tram/LRT Stop o Specifies double loaded streetcar stop platform dimension of 15 feet. The Transit Initiative Project understands this to apply to center platforms which serve both tracks. The Transit Initiative Project violates this criteria at stops A, D, and S, as these platforms were set at 12 feet wide (nominal). It should be noted that 12 feet will meet the ADA requirements. As the project progresses into the next phase of design, all platforms will need to be designed to meet the area requirements for the proposed ridership. Section Length of Car and Stop Platforms o Specifies 70 feet as the minimum platform length. The Transit Initiative Project exceeds this dimension in that all platforms lengths were set at 75 feet minimum DESIGN PROCEDURE Streetcar stop locations were initially set based on the previous study performed in As the project progressed, the stop locations were modified based on input from the client group, and need to align with the proposed Arlington County Super Stops program. Stops were placed based on usage patterns, spacing to accommodate walk access, existing constraints such as driveways, intersections etc., and to best fit within the limits as set by the track alignment design criteria. Design of stops with respect to physical size was not performed. Instead, assumptions were made based on peer projects, and the needs to meet ADA requirements. The standard platform width was assumed to be 12 feet. The minimum platform width was set at 75 feet for streetcar only platforms. Platforms which accommodate both streetcar and bus operations are proposed to be between 90 feet and 120 feet in length. The intent of the longer platforms is to provide length such that two transit vehicles can board / alight at the same platform simultaneously. Streetcar stop platform height is proposed at 10 inches above top of pavement / top of rail. The streetcar vehicles are proposed to have a floor height of 14 inches. Streetcar stop edge of platform was set at edge of curb. The centerline of the streetcar alignment is assumed to be 4.19 feet from edge of platform. Exceptions to typical criteria are identified in the Appendix A; Design Exceptions FINDINGS Streetcar stop locations are illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings. Center stops will be located between tracks and serve both eastbound and westbound operations, and are named with a letter. Side stops, which locate adjacent to a single track and serve only one direction of travel, are identified with a letter, and either number 1 or 2 which indicates the track number for which they serve. Table 12.1 includes a summary of streetcar stops and locations, physical dimensions, and project for which they are proposed to be constructed. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 50

57 Table 12.1 Streetcar Stop Description Streetcar Stop Platform Length (FT) Platform Width (FT) Center or Split Side Stop Project Constructing Stop Nearest Cross- Street (s) Notes A Center Transit Initiative Project S. Eads St. B Center Transit Initiative Project 12 th St. South and S. Hayes Dr. C Split Side Transit Initiative Project Army Navy Dr. C Split Side Transit Initiative Project and S. Joyce St. D Center Future E Split Side Super Stops Project E Split Side Super Stops Project F Split Side Super Stops Project F Split Side Super Stops Project S. Joyce St. and Columbia Pike S. Oak St. S. Scott St. Wide Track Centers at Stop Future Stop G Split Side Super Stops Project S. Courthouse G Split Side Super Stops Project Rd. H Split Side Super Stops Project S. Barton St. H Split Side Super Stops Project I Split Side Super Stops Project S. Walter Reed I Split Side Super Stops Project Dr. J Split Side Super Stops Project S. Glebe Rd. J Split Side Super Stops Project K Split Side Super Stops Project S. Oakland St. K Split Side Super Stops Project L Split Side Super Stops Project L Split Side Super Stops Project M Split Side Super Stops Project M Split Side Super Stops Project N Split Side Super Stops Project N Split Side Super Stops Project O Split Side Super Stops Project O Split Side Super Stops Project S. George Mason Dr. S. Taylor St. S. Buchannan St. S. Dinwiddie St. P Split Side Super Stops Project S. Greenbrier St. P Split Side Super Stops Project Q Center Transit Initiative Project Near the Goodwin House on S. Jefferson St. R Center Transit Initiative Project Leesburg Pike S Center Transit Initiative Project Leesburg Pike SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2) The Jefferson Street Transit Center / intermodal transfer facility was designed to include 234 parking spaces, a covered waiting area, 12 motorcycle parking spaces, bicycle parking, a 90 feet long bus stop loading area, a police and police parking area. The facility is an at-grade facility, and is illustrated in Figure Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 51

58 Figure 12.1: Jefferson St. Transit Center / Intermodal Transfer Facility CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS As the project progresses into Preliminary Engineering, it is recommended that the following tasks be performed: Research the vertical and horizontal gap distances between platform and vehicle floor. Determine what ADA criteria apply, and if issues exist develop solutions to meet criteria which are cost effective. Possible solutions include bridge plates on vehicles, modification of stops to provide segments of platform which meet the ADA requirements, or physical relocation of the platform. Develop a space design of Transit Initiative stops. Place all platform ancillary items, benches, canopy, etc., on platform, then perform a design to verify that the platform area meets the needs of the anticipated ridership. Continue to evaluate platform lengths, and provide the longest platform lengths feasible. Coordinate with Super Stops Project to verify proposed stop locations with current Transit Initiative stop locations. If stops were moved, determine if new location violates track design criteria. Coordinate with Super Stops Project to verify relationship between centerline of track to edge of platform is maintained as proposed in the Transit Initiative Project. Research ridership demands at the Jefferson St. Transit Facility and perform design to verify conceptual layout. If proposed ridership demand requires additional parking spaces, it may be necessary to propose a parking structure. The current cost estimate includes costs for an at-grade facility. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 52

59 PART 13 - TRAM / LRT STOP AND STREETCAR AREA PLANNING: CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN Tram / LRT Stop and Streetcar Area Planning design was not performed at the current design level. PART 14 - STRUCTURES DESCRIPTION At this time the conceptual design alignment for the proposed streetcar is located on two structures, the Four Mile Run Bridge within the MAINLINE Alignment Segment, and the Target and Skyline Plaza Parking Garage structure located in the SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3) Alignment Segment. Description of the Target and Skyline Plaza Parking Garage structure structural engineering is included in Appendix F. The Four Mile Run Bridge is an existing Virginia DOT Bridge which carries Columbia Pike over the Four Mile Run waterway. The bridge consists of five 37 feet 6 inch +/- simple spans. It was originally constructed in 1940 with rehabilitation and widening in The bridge was rehabilitated again in the mid 1980 s, after which the superstructure was replaced and the substructure rehabilitated in the year The proposed Streetcar alignment is located in the outside (right) travel lanes on the bridge structure, with no encroachment on the existing sidewalks. The streetcar alignment will be located above the WMATA Pentagon City Metrorail Station which is below grade at streetcar Sta , at the 12 th Street South / South Hayes St. Intersection. Structural analysis of introducing the streetcar loadings above the Metrorail undergrade facilities was not performed at this level of design, as it was believed that the depth of Metrorail facilities was sufficient to accommodate the loading. This assumption should be confirmed at the next level of design. Also, at the next design level, the Consultant should research the WMATA Adjacent Construction Project Manual, located online at to understand and quantify restrictions associated with performing construction activities near WMATA facilities DESIGN CRITERIA Design criteria as it related to the Streetcar consist of two components. These components are the Streetcar vehicle and The WMATA TRAM / LRT Guideline Design Criteria, August 2003, Section 14, with application of design loads to the structure. The proposed Streetcar vehicle was defined as the United Streetcar tram. The United Streetcar tram is a 66 foot vehicle, supported on two trucks with centers spaced at 38 feet. Each truck is comprised of two axles, spaced 6 foot 2 inches on center. The vehicle design weight is 89,980 pounds (lbs). The United Streetcar vehicle total design load is equivalent to an HS-25 vehicle design load although the axle configuration differs from the HS design vehicle and as such a comparison is only approximate. The proposed Streetcar vehicle has two (2) trucks (See Figure 14.1) with four (4) axles total, wereas the HS highway design vehicle has three (3) axles at a different spacing. The Streetcar vehicle load is assumed to be equally distributed to both trucks providing a maximum load per truck estimated at 44,990 lbs., with total load divided equally between the axles, equating to load of 22,495 lbs. per axle. The proposed vehicle presented herein is within the parameters established in the WMATA Tram/LRT Guideline Design Criteria per Figure Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 53

60 Figure 14.1: United Streetcar Tram As a specific design criteria for the Skyline and Four Mile Run structures was not solicited or provided at this level of design the WMATA TRAM / LRT Guideline Design Criteria was utilized as the most applicable. Design criteria elements were noted for each structure based on review of existing drawings or design information DATA ACQUISITION As part of evaluating the structures, AECOM acquired record drawings and performed field views for both the Four Mile Run Bridge and Target and Skyline Plaza Parking Garage structures. Field views where preformed to correlate the existing conditions with the record drawings and to ascertain the overall condition of the structures. The field views consisted only of visual observations of both the superstructures and substructures. Four Mile Run Bridge The existing structural plans acquired and utilized in the evaluation included the following items: o Original construction plans, 1940 o Rehabilitation and widening plans, 1956 o Rehabilitation plans, 1986 o Rehabilitation substructure and superstructure replacement plans, 2000 o Precast beam shop drawings, 2000 The Four Mile Run Bridge as-built drawings indicate that all deck concrete was 4000 psi structural lightweight concrete, with the beam precast concrete being 6000psi structural lightweight concrete. The reinforcing steel used was grade 60. Composite construction was utilized, and the design load was HS-20 plus impact and checked for Alternate Military Loading, (2-24,000 lb. axles at 6 foot) plus impact. Field views for the Four Mile Run Bridge where preformed on October 7, 2010 and April 27, The overall condition of the structure was determined to be fair/good condition depending on location and age of bridge member. Based on the field views, the 2000 construction drawings (as-builts and shop drawings) were determined to accurately represent the limits of the new superstructure and the rehabilitated original structure EVALUATION / PROCEDURE Due to the conceptual level of the study, and the fact that design criteria were specified as the WMATA Tram/LRT Guideline Design Criteria the procedure used in the evaluation of the structures may be slightly conservative. However, the following common assumptions were made for both structures: All analysis is per the WMATA Tram/LRT Guidelines Design Criteria Section 14 utilizing the actual United Streetcar tram axle configurations and loads. Based on a cursory review of other transit Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 54

61 agencies with light rail vehicles, the design criteria for the design of structures over which the Tram/LRT s operate either exclusively or shared with pneumatic tire vehicles appears to be similar with regard to loadings to be considered and the grouping of the load combinations. The proposed streetcar wheel loadings with the effects of impact, rocking, centrifugal and wind have been distributed laterally across the slab in accordance with WMATA Tram/LRT Guideline Design Criteria Section As part of the evaluation it was assumed the existing structures can be modified, i.e. retrofitted or strengthened to accommodate the thickened track slab and the effects of vibration and rocking from the Streetcar. Consideration must be made for incorporating the depressed slab between beams at the structure to avoid major grade changes. It appears that the Four Mile Run Bridge structure slab elevation could be modified by increasing the top of slab elevation, as there appears to be sufficient run-off length to re-grade the existing roadway approaches. Difficulties with this concept include access driveways and intersections on each side of the bridge along with reconstruction of the sidewalks. Evaluation of the Four Mile Run Bridge consisted of performing a capacity analysis for shear and moment for the superstructure beams and then comparing the capacity to the anticipated shear and moment from the Streetcar tram loadings which were also compared to the HS-20 design shear and moment. The existing as-built plans and shop drawings from the Reconstruction / Rehabilitation project performed during the year 2000 were used to generate preliminary calculations and perform preliminary analysis of the maximum shear and moment capacity of the precast beams installed as part of the 2000 reconstruction FINDINGS The field views, plan review, and preliminary analysis performed provided critical information on the controlling structural members and loadings for each structure. Based on the analysis the following summary of findings is provided for both structures. The following observations were made during the preliminary conditional assessment of the Four Mile Run Bridge: The bridge consists of 4-12 foot travel lanes, 2 in each direction, with 2 foot gutters and two sidewalks. The sidewalk on the south side of the bridge is 8 foot wide while the sidewalk on the north side is 5 foot wide. The south side walk is cantilevered off the side of the bridge. The precast concrete beams erected as part of the reconstruction in 2000 appear to be in good condition. Existing beams on the north side of the structure (not replaced in 2000) exhibit a consistent pattern of rust staining along the bottom flanges indicating evidence of reinforcement corrosion in the original beams (see Figures 14.2 and 14.3). The deck joints were eliminated in the 2000 reconstruction; rehabilitated deck slab is continuous per as-built drawings, while beams are simple spans. Partial depth diaphragms are provided in every bay at each pier location. There is a conduit duct bank in bay 1 (between beams 1 and 2) near the south edge of the structure. The current deck thickness of 8 inches is not sufficient for embedded track section. There may be sufficient length on both sides of the bridge for purposes of running out a grade change associated with increasing the deck height to accommodate the increased deck thickness. This concept however adds dead load to the spans, decreasing capacity. The abutments and piers have had several repairs completed in the past. Some rust staining is present on the recently rehabilitated surfaces. There are 4 columns per pier. All columns are slender per the AASHTO criteria, with lengths of approximately 22 feet. The column dimensions are 24 to 28 inches square based on the repairs completed in the year Pier caps are slender / narrow with significant repairs visible. Pier 3 is located along the edge of Four Mile Run waterway. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 55

62 Figure 14.2: Existing Typical Section, Four Mile Run Bridge Figure 14.3: Existing Pier, Four Mile Run Bridge The existing structural notes and data for the bridge structure as indicated on the as-built plans permitted a capacity analysis for shear and moment to be performed for the superstructure beams and compared to the anticipated shear and moment from the Streetcar loadings. The preliminary analysis of shear and moment capacity provided the following findings: Moment Capacity is suitable: o The composite superstructure has an approximate moment capacity Mn = 2000ft-k +/-. o The anticipated unfactored design live load moment from the WMATA design vehicle is 488ft-k without impact, rocking, or other effects. o The anticipated design moment, Mu, based on WMATA Tram/LRT Guideline Design Criteria Section 14 prescribed loading configuration is approximately 1200ft-k to 1300 ft-k+/-. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 56

63 Shear Capacity is not suitable: o The beams have a shear capacity of approximately 145,000 lbs. at bearing points. o The anticipated design shear based on the prescribed design vehicle and prescribed loading configuration is approximately 155,000 lbs. at bearing points based on 65% axle distribution in accordance with the girder spacing of approximately 90 inches, track gauge of 56-1/2 inches, and maximum live load distribution approximately 65/35 of the axle load to adjacent girders when one rail is over exterior girder. Slab Thickness is not suitable: o The requirement for an 11 inch track slab on deck deems the existing deck unacceptable as a 7 inch minimum structural slab is required under the track slab CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS The following conclusions can be drawn from the above findings: The Four Mile Run Bridge structure was designed for an HS-20 vehicular loading with a check for the Alternate Military Loading (AML). A preliminary assessment via a comparison of anticipated loading from the Streetcar for the maximum loading condition provided the following: o The proposed tram axle configuration and loading is lighter than the HS-20; however, when effects of impact, rocking, and hunting forces are included, the effective loading is greater than the HS-20 design axle load. o The impact for both vehicles is 30% maximum. o The short span, heavy, closely spaced streetcar axle loads will control. o WMATA selected design vehicle analogous to an HS-25 will control design and evaluation. o Based on anticipated Live Load distribution maximum moment and shear per design vehicle would necessitate strengthening for shear. Based on the preliminary analysis, the bridge deck and beams have been designed with some additional capacity based on the Alternate Military design load. This additional capacity could potentially accommodate a greater vehicular load such as the two (2) truck streetcar. It is anticipated that the deck elevation (height) will need to be increased in profile to meet the requirements of the thickened track slab. The additional dead load will likely require that the structure and substructure will need to be strengthened / reconstructed to ensure adequate load carrying capacity. An alternate structural configuration has been developed by AECOM (See Figure 14.4) which utilizes structural light weight precast prestressed adjacent concrete box beams with an 11 light weight cast-in-place non- composite concrete deck to allow for the embedded track slab. These beams are anticipated to be 48 x psi minimum. The alternate configuration has been analyzed for the following loadings based on VDOT and WMATA criteria: o Vehicular highway Loadings HS-20 or HL-93. o WMATA LRT Design Vehicle 1 to 3 cars. o United Streetcar Tram. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 57

64 Figure 14.4: Proposed Typical Section Four Mile Run Bridge The United Streetcar Tram in accordance with the WMATA Design Criteria will be utilized as the design vehicle for the alternate structural configuration with checks performed for the HL-93 (HS-20) design loading. The base moments without distribution and other factors indicate that the Vehicular loadings will control for the short spans, however inclusion of the rocking and hunting effects without impact increase the design streetcar loadings such that design would be governed by the tram and checked for the HS-20 vehicle. HS-20/HL-93 Moment F-K Shear 54 K United Streetcar Tram Moment 347 F-K Shear 45 K Based on the proposed beam configuration, a distribution of factor of 0.50 is assumed for the tram design vehicle. The notes on the as-built drawings from the reconstruction in 2000 indicate existing structure (superstructure and substructure piers) was analyzed for HS-20 and Alternate Military Vehicle Loadings. The proposed reconstruction/rehabilitation at that time involved partial demolition and reconstruction of the original 1940 portion of the pier caps. While the base USC tram reactions generated as part of the analysis are less than the HS -20 design loadings, inclusion of affects from impact rocking and longitudinal braking forces could necessitate the strengthening of the piers. Existing pier columns, as such, will need to be fully evaluated in accordance with VDOT s current requirements of AASHTO LRFD for the combined tram and vehicle loadings per the current criteria in the WMATA Tram/LRT Guideline Design Criteria Section 14 and strengthened if required; as such for this evaluation it has been assumed the piers will require in-fill walls and supplemental confinement reinforcement (See Figure 14.5). Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 58

65 Figure 14.5: Proposed Pier Four Mile Run Bridge Introducing the streetcar alignment on the Four Mile Run Bridge does appear to be potentially viable. However, it is anticipated that deck reconstruction and substructure retrofit/strengthening will need to be performed to meet the loading requirements of the streetcar, per the design criteria mentioned herein. Prior to performing design, it is recommended that research be performed to determine if reconstruction of the bridge will require re-grading the roadway approaches, and if so, what impacts that introduces, and methods of mitigating said impacts. In order to advance the evaluation/study of the Four Mile Run Bridge from a conceptual study to a Preliminary Engineering project, it is recommended that the following tasks be completed: Perform a field view of the bridge for purposes of performing a complete structure condition assessment. Develop track slab details and limits of deck reconstruction with depressed slab to accommodate the streetcar without major grade change modifications. If grade change modifications are required, identify the limits and roadway re-grading required to accommodate the modifications. Perform an evaluation of maximum shear and moment capacity of the existing structures per AASHTO and the WMATA Tram/LRT Guideline Design Criteria including an analysis of the column capacity and footings. Develop retrofit/strengthening concepts required. PART 15 - CIVIL DESCRIPTION Civil Design including pavement reconstruction associated with track slab installation and track slab drainage were considered and included in Part 4 of this document. Other civil elements, including retaining walls, re-grading of South Jefferson Street, erosion and sedimentation control, and minor curb work are typical civil engineering activities, and were considered only to a level of design that allowed for development of a Capital Cost estimate. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 59

66 PART 16 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DESCRIPTION Environmental Impacts and Mitigation were covered in detail in the accompanying Alternatives Analysis / Environmental Analysis (AA/EA) Document submitted May PART 17 - LANDSCAPING DESCRIPTION Landscaping was not included in the Conceptual Design Scope of Work of this Project. PART 18 - UTILITIES DESCRIPTION Construction of the streetcar would generally occur within existing street right-of-way, which is where public and private utilities are often located. The current placement of existing utilities is likely to influence the complexity of construction and design of the proposed transit project. As a result, potential conflicts between utility locations and the proposed streetcar related improvements will need to be addressed as the project progresses into preliminary engineering. This section documents utility research which has been performed at the preliminary design level, and potential conflicts among existing underground and overhead utilities resulting from introduction of a streetcar guideway. Where a potential conflict exists between the proposed streetcar alignment and a utility line, the utility line may need to be relocated or reinforced as part of construction of the project. However, given the current conceptual nature of design, the current technical work is a conceptual estimate of the number of locations where utilities types might need to be reinforced or relocated. More detailed engineering under the forthcoming preliminary engineering phase of the project, will determine with greater understanding which utilities will be impacted and how the utilities will be addressed, through relocation or reinforcement. It should be noted, however, that due to existing roadway and streetscape improvement projects along the corridor, there is as-built existing utility data available which is to a better level of accuracy then what is available on typical project DESIGN CRITERIA The WMATA TRAM / LRT Guideline Design Criteria, August 2003, Section 18 was used during the conceptual design process. The criteria identified potential utility impacts as follows: Underground utilities running parallel to and/or traversing under the transit lane that are less than 5-6 from top of rail of the track slab. All manholes within the shared transit lane. Pole mounted overhead utilities located within areas of potential right-of-way impacts by the transit alignment, unless such utilities are scheduled to be relocated through Arlington County s Utility Undergrounding project along Columbia Pike. In determining the relocation cost, it is assumed that the quantity impacted is equal to the replacement quantity. Consideration of proposed configurations of the relocated utilities would be premature at this stage of the project. Figure 18.1 illustrates the criteria with respect to general utility relocation. As the figure shows, all utilities that are non-streetcar related, and will be located beneath the track slab, and within the 12-6 No Utility Zone (approximately the transit lane), shall be addressed if they will be located less than 5-6 from top of rail. Utilities located outside of the No Utility Zone, or those located greater than 5-6 from top of rail will not need to be addressed, however, all Utilities should be notified when it is proposed that the guideway cross their facilities. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 60

67 In addition to applying the WMATA design criteria, the project team reviewed the City of Charlotte Rules of Practice for Utilities. This document represents a helpful approach to utility relocations and modifications because it links design decisions to utility type and ownership. As the project moves into later stages of engineering, it is recommended that it adopt rules of practice to govern ongoing coordination efforts with other projects and public and private utility companies DESIGN PROCEDURE The Columbia Pike Transit Initiative team coordinated with other corridor projects as well as Arlington County Engineers in identifying existing utilities and cataloging utility lines that would be relocated with implementation of the Streetcar Build Alternative. The two major coordination efforts were with the Arlington County Multimodal Project and the Washington Boulevard Bridge Replacement Project. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 61

68 Figure 18.1: WMATA Tram/LRT Embedded Tracks, No Utility Zone for Underground Utilities Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 62

69 18.04 FINDINGS As a way of categorizing utilities analysis, the project alignment is broken into seven sections: Section 1 Eastern project terminus to the South Joyce Street / Columbia Pike intersection, Section 2 Columbia Pike / South Jefferson Street intersection to the western project terminus, Section 3 Columbia Pike between South Garfield Street and South Glebe Road Section 4 Columbia Pike at the Washington Boulevard interchange, Section 5 The balance of Columbia Pike, Section 6 Skyline S2 Alignment Segment, and Section 7 Operations and Maintenance Facility. A description of Utility findings is described in terms of the segments identified above: Sections 1 and 2: These sections were handled in a similar manner. Existing as-built utility data was not readily available for most of these segments. Therefore, the data collected during the previous phase of the project was verified, and modified as needed. The method of data collection included walking the proposed guideway and counting visible utilities, and making an engineering judgement as to conflicts. This was performed on a block by block basis, with each block being assigned a value of minimal, moderate or major, identified as follows: Minimal Utility Disturbance - A minimal utility disturbance segment has zero to two longitudinal utility lines along the shared transit lanes, and zero to seven manholes, inlets, and other structures per segment. Moderate Utility Disturbance A moderate utility disturbance segment has three to five longitudinal utility lines along the shared transit lanes, and eight to fourteen manholes, inlets and other structures per segment. Major Utility Disturbance A major utility disturbance segment has more than five longitudinal utility lines along the shared transit lanes, and more than 14 manholes, inlets and other structures per segment. Sparse utility information was available for the segment on Army Navy Drive, and along 12th Street between South Eads St. and South Fern St. This data was compared to the data gathered during the walk through, and modified as required. Table 18.1 tabulates these findings: Section 3: Section 3 fell within a 1,000 feet length of Columbia Pike where no reconstruction projects had occurred or were currently in the planning or engineering phase. Utility work in this section was anticipated to be greater than the Major Utility Disturbance classification as defined above. As such, the section was assigned a unit cost higher than the Major Utility Disturbance classification in the Capital Cost Estimate. Section 4: This section benefitted by the extensive utility investigation and relocation plan which was being performed as part of the VDOT project to reconstruct the Washington Boulevard bridge and interchange. VDOT shared the existing and proposed utility data with the Transit Initiative team. This data revealed the following utilities: North Side of Columbia Pike: o Comcast (CATV) aerial facilities: to be undergrounded outside of the guideway limits; not in conflict. o Dominion Power aerial facilities: to be undergrounded outside of the guideway limits; not in conflict. o Washington Gas (WGL): 12 gas line; approximately 1050 conflicting with guideway in project limits, and approximately 800 conflicting with guideway between South Quinn St. and South Scott St. o Washington Gas (WGL): 4 gas line; approximately 135 conflicting with guideway. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 63

70 o Fiberlight (FBL): 8-way inner duct system; approximately 350 conflicting with guideway, South Side of Columbia Pike: o Arlington County Water: 12 water main; approximately 485 conflicting between South Quinn St. and South Scott St. o Arlington County Water: 12 water main lateral; approximately 100'conflicting crossing at South Scott St. o Arlington County Water: water line; approximately 25 conflicting to fire hydrant. o Arlington County Water: 12 water main; 170 conflicting at South Rolf St. o Jones Utility Construction (JUC) & Verizon Business (VzB) (both co-located): One 12-way inner duct and one 4-way inner duct; approximately 800 conflicts with guideway, includes perpendicular crossing of both guideways at west side of bridge. o Verizon Virginia (Vz): one 36-way inner duct not in conflict. o Verizon Virginia (Vz): one 9-way inner duct; approximately 800 conflicts with guideway. o Section 4 is covered extensively in a document titled, Arlington County Streetcar Analysis for the Route 27/244 Interchange Modification Project, By SHIRLEY Contracting Company LLC, dated April 20, A copy of this document resides in the Arlington County Engineering Department. Section 5: This Section falls within the limits of the either the Arlington County streetscape reconstruction projects, the Multimodal Project, or the South Jefferson Street intersection reconstruction project. These projects have, or are proposed to have reconstructed Columbia Pike from curb to curb. The scope of these projects includes relocation of utilities from the curb side lanes. At the direction of Arlington County, it is proposed that all utilities within this Segment will be relocated by other projects, prior to construction of the streetcar guideway. Section 6: This Section covers the area from the west end of the MAINLINE alignment segment terminus to the west end of the Skyline Route 7 Design Option (S2) terminal station. Section 7: This Section covers the Pentagon City Operations and Maintenance Facility site. No utility data was researched for this area. Instead, a placeholder cost was developed based on alignment lengths within the facility. It is anticipated that much of the utility relocation work associated with the joint development would be covered by the private developer. Table 18.1 tabulates utility research by Section and street grid. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 64

71 SECTION 1 Table 18.1: Utility Tabulation CORRIDOR SEGMENT 12th Street South LEVEL OF POTENTIAL IMPACT LONGITUDNAL UTILITIES S. Eads St. to S. Fern St. Major 2 Water S. Fern St. to S. Hayes St. Major South Hayes St. 12th St. S. to Army Navy Dr. Army Navy Drive Joyce St to S. Hayes St. South Joyce St. Major Minimal 1 Water, 1 Gas, 1 Electrical, 2 Telephone 3 Water, 1 Electrical 1 Water, 1 Telephone, 2 Storm None TRANSVERSE UTILITIES 3 Water, 1 Gas, 5 Electrical, 2 Telephone, 3 Storm 1 Water, 1 Gas, 11 Electrical, 3 Storm 3 Water, 4 Electrical, 1 Telephone, 7 Storm Army Navy Dr. to Columbia Pk. Major 1 Gas, 2 Storm 1 Gas, 6 Storm Columbia Pike South Joyce St. to South Orme St. South Orme St. to South Quinn St. South Quinn St. to South Garfield St. South Garfield St. to South Glebe Road South Glebe Road to South Jefferson St. South Jefferson St. By other Projects, refer to section 5 discussion herein By other Projects, refer to section 4 discussion herein By other Projects, refer to section 5 discussion herein By other Projects, refer to section 3 discussion herein By other Projects, refer to section 5 discussion herein Columbia Pike To Western Terminal of Mainline Alignment Segment Minimal 1 Water 4 Storm Skyline Route 7 Design Option (S2) Alignment from Western Terminus of Mainline Segment to Western Terminus of Skyline Route 7 Design Option (S2) Pentagon City Maintenance Facility Moderate North Site Minimal Estimate, assumes most work by joint South Site Moderate development private developer UTILITY SEGMENT SECTION 5 SECTION 4 SECTION 5 SECTION 3 SECTION 5 SECTION 2 SECTION 6 SECTION 7 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 65

72 18.05 CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS As the project moves into the next phase, the preliminary design team should verify the assumptions made regarding utility impacts, especially along Columbia Pike, by this design effort. Additionally, the team should perform an in-depth effort to locate all utilities along the corridor, and determine all potential impacts. All utilities involved should be informed of the project, and any conflicts identified. A potential resolution for these conflicts should be created. The resolution should include physical relocation or protection, a schedule for relocation or protection (that meets the needs of this project), and a relocation or protection cost estimate as well as identification of funding source. PART 19 - CONSTRUCTION STAGING DESCRIPTION Construction activities associated with the project will require altering existing operating characteristics of the roadway, and access to local businesses and residences. Roadway, driveway and sidewalk closures will be necessary during construction, as the existing roadway section, within the limits of the proposed track slab, will be excavated and re-built, to the proposed line and grade. Additionally, excavation activities will occur on the sidewalks for installation of catenary pole foundations, and at proposed streetcar stop platform locations. Construction efficiency would dictate that all demolition activities occur independent to the reconstruction process, with the reconstruction activities not occurring until all demolition has occurred. This is not practical, as it would effectively shut down the corridor during the construction period. To plan for and mitigate outages during construction, it will be necessary to develop a construction phasing plan prior to commencement of construction activities DESIGN CRITERIA The construction phasing plan will be developed using defined criteria or guidelines. These guidelines should be set by the agency controlling the roadway facility. It is anticipated that Arlington and Fairfax Counties will provide guidelines for closure durations and limits. It is also anticipated that traffic control measures will be defined by the Virginia Department of Transportation design criteria. Construction phasing criteria for the Columbia Pike streetcar project will be have two main components. The first component defines what out of service period and limits the Contractor will be permitted for performing work. This will define minimum in-service requirements for the existing roadway and adjacent businesses and homes, as well as a maximum limit of working area. The second component defines the measures that the contractor uses to temporarily re-route, maintain and protect traffic during the out of service period. This refers to signs and other physical measures for re-routing or detouring and protecting roadway and pedestrian traffic. The Counties, working with the Design Engineers, and local stakeholders, should determine these criteria. It is anticipated that the Contractor will be required to maintain access to all local businesses and residences during construction. This may require that temporary access points be installed during construction activities. Additionally, it should be anticipated that the Counties will set a limit as to the maximum length of alignment for which the contractor can be performing construction activities. This may not necessarily be defined as a set distance, but as a number of segments, defined by city blocks CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS Construction phasing design was not performed at the conceptual level of design. It is recommended that when the project progresses to the Preliminary Engineering Phase, a high level construction phasing schematic is developed for purposes of understanding the constraints, developing an efficient work plan, and informing the local community and stakeholders, and soliciting their input. This plan should consist of schematic plan sheets, showing existing streets, limits of work, traffic outages, and define what local businesses are impacted and how access to these businesses is maintained. It should also illustrate temporary measures that will be used to maintain traffic during construction. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Engineering Report 66

73 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDIX A: DESIGN EXCEPTIONS A-1: DESCRIPTION This appendix identifies design elements which do not meet the requirements of the Design Criteria at the time of the Conceptual Design Submission. The elements identified require either re-design, a formal waiver to criteria from the Owner, or a combination of both prior to progressing the design to Preliminary Engineering. The Preliminary Engineering Consultant shall work with the Owner and stakeholders to resolve these elements in a way which balances the stakeholders needs, operational and maintenance requirements, and a safe operation. The alignment design and streetcar stop locations were developed and refined during multiple meetings with the client group. Design elements which do not meet the criteria as identified herein were set as a result of the client groups desire to drive the location of the alignment. Alignment drivers included right of way constraints, the desire to integrate seamlessly with peer projects, and the need to co-locate the streetcar stops with Super Stop bus stops, or in areas which would encourage ridership. All references to Design Criteria, reference the project criteria, WMATA Tram/LRT Guideline Design Criteria. A. Vertical Tangent Length; both Tracks at No. 6 double cross-over at about Sta (East of South Fern St. on 12 th Street South): 1. Insufficient tangent length; Entire special trackwork assembly, and to a point 25 outside of the limits of special trackwork shall be on vertical tangent. Actual condition: Vertical curve locates within special trackwork. (This was the result of a last minute adjustment of special trackwork to accommodate mid-block intersection...vertical alignment was not modified to meet criteria). a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part B. Horizontal Tangent Length; Track 2, PS No. 6 double cross-over PC curve at about Sta (East of South Fern St. on 12 th Street South): 1. Insufficient tangent length PS to PC; 25 required, feet actual. (This was the result of a last minute adjustment of special trackwork to accommodate mid-block intersection...a waiver will be required to meet the physical constraints. a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part C. Horizontal Tangent at Streetcar Stop; Stops C1 and C2, both tracks (on Army Navy Drive between South Joyce St. and South Hayes St.): 1. Insufficient horizontal tangent length at platform: Entire platform must locate within tangent. Tangent must extend 45 feet minimum beyond end of platform. Both Platforms locate within horizontal curvature. (This was the result of client group directing Consultant to place platform at its current location.) a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part D. Horizontal Curve Radius; Track 2, curve at about Sta (At the South Joyce St. \ Army Navy Drive Intersection): 1. Minimum mainline curve radius of 100 feet required, 82 feet actual. (This was the result of design changes to meet future development along Army Navy Drive, at the direction of the client group. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX A A-1

74 A waiver will be required. Note that the design vehicle can negotiate a minimum radius of 66 feet). a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part E. Horizontal Tangent Length; Track 2, between reverse curves at Sta (at about the Army Navy Dr. / South Joyce St. Intersection); 1. Insufficient horizontal tangent length; 7 feet actual, 30 feet required. (This was the result of design changes to meet future development along Army Navy Drive, at the direction of the client group). a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part , and Figure F. Vertical Tangent at Future Streetcar Stop; Stop D, both tracks (On South Joyce St. south (operationally east) of the South Joyce St. / Columbia Pike intersection): 1. Insufficient vertical tangent length at platform: Entire platform must locate within tangent. Tangent must extend 45 feet minimum beyond end of platform. Platforms locate within vertical curvature. a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part G. Vertical Clearance beneath Washington Boulevard Bridge (Sta ) 1. In shared guideway, criteria for minimum overhead clearance to catenary wire is 18 feet. At this location the proposed overhead clearance to the bottom of structure is 16 feet 8 inches. A waiver to the criteria will be required at this location. A solution may be guards that are attached to the underside of the overpass on both sides of the catenary; the high vehicle would make contact with the guards rather than with the catenary. Develop the hardware for the overhead catenary system considering the work of HNTB for DDOT in the H Street underpass at Union Station. a. National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), and as modified by Virginia Department of Transportation Requirements. H. Vertical Tangent at Streetcar Stop; Stop H2, track 2 (On Columbia Pike east of South Barton St.): 1. Insufficient vertical tangent length at platform: Entire platform must locate within tangent. Tangent must extend 45 feet minimum beyond end of platform. Platform locates within vertical curvature. a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part I. Vertical Grade at Streetcar Stop; H1, track 1 (On Columbia Pike west of South Barton St.): 1. Vertical tangent grade at platform: Vertical grade at platform exceeds 2% as require in the design criteria. Actual grade = 3% a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part J. Vertical Grade at Streetcar Stop; I1 and I2 (On Columbia Pike at South Walter Reed Dr.): 1. Vertical tangent grade at platform: Vertical grade at platform exceeds 2% as require in the design criteria. Actual grade = 2.29% a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part K. Vertical Tangent at Streetcar Stop; Stop K1 and K2 both tracks (On Columbia Pike between South Monroe St. and South Oakland St.): Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX A A-2

75 1. Insufficient vertical tangent length at platform: Entire platform must locate within tangent. Tangent must extend 45 feet minimum beyond end of platform. Platforms locate within vertical curvature. a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part L. Vertical Tangent at Streetcar Stop; Stop L1 and L2 both tracks (On Columbia Pike between South Randolph St. and South George Mason Drive) : 1. Insufficient vertical tangent length at platform: Entire platform must locate within tangent. Tangent must extend 45 feet minimum beyond end of platform. Platforms locate within vertical curvature. a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part M. Vertical Tangent at Streetcar Stop; Stop M1 and M2 both tracks (On Columbia Pike between South Taylor St. and South Thomas St.): 1. Insufficient vertical tangent length at platform: Entire platform must locate within tangent. Tangent must extend 45 feet minimum beyond end of platform. Platforms locate within vertical curvature. a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part N. Vertical Tangent at Streetcar Stop; Stop N2, track 2 (On Columbia Pike east of Four Mile Run): 1. Insufficient vertical tangent length at platform: Entire platform must locate within tangent. Tangent must extend 45 feet minimum beyond end of platform. Platform locates within vertical curvature. Note: When ground survey becomes available, and the alignment design is progressed, it may be necessary to locate this platform in horizontal curvature to meet the constraints of the Four Mile Run bridge, which locates about 300 feet to the west. a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part O. Horizontal Tangent at Streetcar Stop; Stops O1 and O2, both tracks (On Columbia Pike west of South Dinwiddie St.): 1. Insufficient horizontal tangent length at platform: Entire platform must locate within tangent. Tangent must extend 45 feet minimum beyond end of platform. Both Platforms locate within horizontal curvature. (This was the result of client group directing Consultant to place platform at its current location.) a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part P. Vertical Tangent at Streetcar Stop; Stop O1 and O2, both tracks (On Columbia Pike west of South Dinwiddie St.): 1. Insufficient vertical tangent length at platform: Entire platform must locate within tangent. Tangent must extend 45 feet minimum beyond end of platform. Platforms locate within vertical curvature. a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part Q. Vertical Grade at Streetcar Stop; O1 and O2, both tracks (On Columbia Pike west of South Dinwiddie St.): 1. Vertical tangent grade at platform: Vertical grade at platform exceeds 2% as require in the design criteria. Average grade = 3.00% a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part R. Vertical Tangent at Streetcar Stop; Stop P1, track 1 (On Columbia Pike east of South Greenbriar St.): Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX A A-3

76 1. Insufficient vertical tangent length at platform: Entire platform must locate within tangent. Tangent must extend 45 feet minimum beyond end of platform. Platform locates within vertical curvature. a. Design Criteria Chapter 3, Part S. Alignment Terminal Configuration; Skyline Central Plaza Design Option (S3): 1. Alignment terminus shall be configured with a double track center platform, double cross-overs in front of the platform, and sufficient tail track to store a vehicle. Alignment Option S3 terminates with a single track, side platform configuration. END OF APPENDIX A Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX A A-4

77 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDIX B: ALTERNATIVE OPERATION SCENARIOS B-1: DESCRIPTION This appendix describes operation scenario options that were developed during the Conceptual Engineering level of design, but which were not deemed as preferred alternatives. This appendix complements Part 2 of the Report; it is not meant to be a stand-alone document, and requires the reader to be familiar with Part 2 of the report in order to fully understand the description of the alternative operation scenarios options. The same design criteria were used in development of these options as in the preferred option. B-2: ALTERNATIVE OPERATION OPTIONS No-Build Alternative The operations plan for the No-Build alternative generally reflects the current operating configuration within the corridor, with new run times forecasted utilizing VISSIM for the opening year and design year. Specifically, the No-Build operating configuration includes current stop spacing, bus boarding only through the front door, boardings and alightings through both doors, use of 40 feet coaches, on-board fare collection, and a comparable number of trips by route as run currently. TSM 1 Alternative The service levels in terms of number of transit trips per hour for the TSM 1 Alternative reflect the same service levels as the Build Alternative, though in this instance all service is provided by bus. This service configuration results in the same number of transit trips to the Pentagon as in the No-Build but an increase in trips to Pentagon City relative to the No-Build. The TSM 1 alternative assumes the same stop configuration as the Build Alternative, with fewer stops served than in the No-Build alternative. One route in the TSM 1 Alternative, the 16G, will be equipped with 60 articulated buses. This reflects the fact that in the TSM 1 alternative the 16G replicates the streetcar service pattern throughout the day and therefore will be the TSM 1 backbone service within the corridor. Transit travel times are faster in the TSM 1 relative to the No Build. This reflects the fact that the TSM 1 alternative serves fewer stops and collects fares through off-board fare collection, which shortens stop dwell times. Given that fare collection is off-board, it is also assumed that boardings and alightings can occur through all doors on the bus, which also leads to shorter dwell times. TSM 2 Alternative The service levels in the TSM 2 Alternative are the same as the TSM 1 and the Build Alternative. As with the TSM 1 Alternative, all trips are provided by bus and the smaller number of stops served in the TSM 1 alternative also occur in the TSM 2. Under the TSM 2 alternative, four routes will be equipped with articulated buses. These include the 16G, 16H, 16H/ and the 16Y. The 16G, 16H, and 16H/ routes are routes that generally replicate streetcar service under the Build Alternative and therefore are equipped with articulated buses in order to provide additional capacity. The 16Y route runs into the District of Columbia from the corridor and is forecasted to carry relatively heavy loads and thus is also equipped with articulated buses under this alternative. Transit travel times are somewhat faster in the TSM 2 than in TSM 1 based on additional doors available for boarding and alighting on the articulated buses running in the corridor. This results in shorter dwell times, which in turn supports shorter overall trip times. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX B B-1

78 Table B.1: Columbia Pike Service Configuration by Alternative AM Peak Peak Direction TO PENTAGON No-Build TSM 1 and TSM 2 Route Terminals # of Trips/Hour Average Frequency # of Trips/Hour Average Frequency 16A Annandale to Pentagon B Culmore to Pentagon D Annandale to Pentagon F Culmore to Pentagon J Culmore to Pentagon L Annandale to Pentagon (via I-395) ART 42 Ballston to Pentagon via Courthouse TOTAL PENTAGON TO PENTAGON CITY 16G Columbia Heights to Pentagon City (No-Build) Skyline (TSM 2) or NOVA (TSM 1) to Pentagon City H Skyline to Pentagon City to Crystal City H/ Skyline to Pentagon City J (PC) Culmore to Pentagon City n/a n/a n/a n/a Streetcar Skyline to Pentagon City n/a n/a n/a n/a TOTAL PENTAGON CITY 11 5 TO Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX B B-2

79 Table B.2: Columbia Pike Service Configuration by Alternative Mid-Day Peak Direction TO PENTAGON No-Build TSM 1 and TSM 2 Route Terminals # of Trips/Hour Average Frequency # of Trips/Hour Average Frequency 16A Annandale to Pentagon B Culmore to Pentagon D Annandale to Pentagon F Culmore to Pentagon J Culmore to Pentagon L Annandale to Pentagon (via I-395) ART 42 Ballston to Pentagon via Courthouse TOTAL PENTAGON TO PENTAGON CITY 16G Columbia Heights to Pentagon City (No-Build) Skyline (TSM 2) or NOVA (TSM 1) to Pentagon City H Skyline to Pentagon City to Crystal City H/ Skyline to Pentagon City J (PC) Culmore to Pentagon City n/a n/a n/a n/a Streetcar Skyline to Pentagon City n/a n/a n/a n/a TOTAL PENTAGON CITY END OF APPENDIX B Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX B B-3

80 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDIX C: ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT OPTIONS C-1: DESCRIPTION This appendix describes alignment alternative options that were developed during the Conceptual Engineering level of design, but which were not deemed as preferred alternatives. This appendix compliments Part 3 of the Report; it is not meant to be a standalone document, and requires the reader to be familiar with Part 3 of the Report in order to fully understand the description of the alternative operation scenarios options. The same design criteria were used in development of these options as were the preferred options. Alignment alternatives developed include the The SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3), The LEESBURG PIKE TERMINUS DESIGN OPTION and The SKYLINE MAIN ENTRANCE DESIGN OPTION (S4). C-2: ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT OPTIONS SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3): Alignment Segment; Consists of a 0.23 mile alignment which extends the MAINLINE Alignment Segment west (geographically south), across Leesburg Pike (RT-7), and into the skyline plaza. Once inside the plaza, the alignment turns geographically east, and terminates at a streetcar stop located between the One and Two Skyline buildings to the south, and the sports and health club and Target store to the north. This Alignment Segment is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing numbers TYP15, SKY01 and SKY02. The SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3) begins at the western terminus of the MAINLINE Alignment Segment, near the South Jefferson St. / Leesburg Pike (RT-7) intersection. The alignment extends south, through the Leesburg Pike intersection and into Skyline plaza. Upon entering Skyline Plaza, the driveway splits, with two center lanes dropping in elevation to enter an underground parking garage, and the two outer lanes maintaining at-grade elevation. The track centers widen, and occupy the outer lanes. After negotiating the portal which supports the access to the underground parking garage, the outer lanes re-converge, and turn east. The track alignment follows the lanes east, with the westbound track to locate adjacent to the south curb line. After becoming tangent the eastbound and westbound alignments converge at a No. 5 turnout, and enter an exclusive guideway section along which the streetcar terminus platform S3 would locate. Platform S3 was proposed to be a 75 feet long by 12 feet wide platform and locates within the existing south sidewalk in front of and between One and Two Skyline Place Buildings. Track speed would be limited to slow speed for the entire length of this Alignment Segment. A majority of the alignment within this Alignment Segment would locate on the existing underground parking structure. Analysis of this structure indicated that modifications to the structure would be necessary to accommodate streetcar loadings. Explanation of the structural analysis is included in Part 14 of this report, and in a Technical Memorandum titled, Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, Skyline Plaza Capacity Evaluation, dated August 24, The proposed profile was designed to closely match the existing top of pavement within the limits of this Alignment Segment. Field observation and existing GIS ground data indicate that the existing grade is Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX C C-1

81 relatively level within the proposed guideway limits and should not present any issues with respect to the terminal streetcar stop and bumping post location, as was the case in the SKYLINE RT-7 DESIGN OPTION (S2) Alignment Segment. The existing roadway / driveway configuration within the segment of exclusive guideway includes two travel lanes, bi-directional, one each direction, and a parking lane oriented for perpendicular parking, along the north side in front of the health club and Target store. Introduction of exclusive guideway will require reconfiguration of the lanes in this area by moving the travel lanes north, and configuring the parking to be parallel to the roadway. This is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing number TYP15. Future expansion of this alignment segment to the east and south appears feasible. Previous design efforts included an alignment and streetcar stop very similar to that being proposed in this Alignment Segment. The previous designs continued the alignment east through Skyline Plaza to the George Mason Drive intersection. Once at George Mason, options for connect ability existed both north and south on George Mason Drive. Therefore, it should be assumed that this Alignment Segment could connect to future alignments assuming that the future alignments can provide connectivity to the Skyline Plaza / George Mason Drive intersection. LEESBURG PIKE TERMINUS DESIGN OPTION: Alignment Segment; This Alignment Segment essentially duplicates the west end of the MAINLINE alignment. However, this option introduces a terminus streetcar stop at the existing stop R. To accomplish this requires that the guideway be exclusive, which requires moving the South Jefferson St. west curb line west to provide traffic lanes which were removed to create the exclusive guideway. This Alignment Segment is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Plan Drawings, in drawing number s TYP17, LEE01 and LEE02. The MAINLINE Alignment Segment considered streetcar stop R to be a non-terminus stop along the alignment. This design options proposes to end the streetcar alignment at the western end of the MAINLINE Alignment Segment and convert stop R to a terminus streetcar stop. Creating a terminus stop at stop R requires introduction of a segment of exclusive guideway to facilitate streetcar turn back operations. The requirement for exclusive guideway limits, is from the special trackwork location, to the end of the alignment. As illustrated on drawing number LEE02, this requires the exclusive guideway limits to begin at the South Jefferson St. / shopping area driveway intersection and extending to the end of guideway. Existing roadway capacity along this section of South Jefferson St. is limited. As such, the study s project sponsors specified that any work within this area should not impact existing travel lane capacity. Creating an exclusive guideway would require closing existing traffic lanes, as the median area is not wide enough to accommodate an a double track guideway section with 12 feet wide center streetcar stop platform. To resolve this issue, this Alignment Segment proposes to shift the MAINLINE Alignment Segment track alignment west such that the east guideway limits locate at the west side median curb line of the northbound travel lanes. The southbound travel lanes were pushed west, into the west side parking lot, and proposed Jefferson St. Transit Center. This essentially re-created the existing lane configuration in the area. While the limits of exclusive guideway only include the guideway south of the South Jefferson St. / shopping area driveway intersection, transitioning the track alignment from the alignment illustrated in the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX C C-2

82 Mainline Alignment Segment to the exclusive guideway of this alignment segment required that the roadway re-configuration extend another 300 feet north of the intersection. The result was an impact to the west side parking lot for the entire length adjacent to South Jefferson St. At the current level of design, the shopping center property owner was not informed as to the impacts associated with this alignment segment. As the project progresses, communication with the property owner should made to determine the feasibility of property impacts required by this alignment segment. Future expansion of this alignment segment to the east and south appears feasible. This alignment segment provides all of the connect ability defined in the SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION Alignment Segment. SKYLINE MAIN ENTRANCE DESIGN OPTION (S4): During the public comment period, Vornado/Charles E. Smith proposed a revision to the Skyline Central Plaza design option. This revised design option recommended moving the station platform closer to Route 7 in the vicinity of the existing main entrance to Skyline. This revised design option, referred to as Skyline Main Entrance Option, falls within the same study area boundaries evaluated as part of the AA/EA document, which was approved by FTA for release to the public and made available to the public on May 22, Figure C1 shows the proposed option. Over the last several months, Vornado worked with the counties and with project staff to examine the Skyline Main Entrance Option, including meeting with project engineers and the Virginia Department of Transportation on issues relating to Route 7. Vornado has also discussed this new option with Target Corporation, which owns property affected by all options but has access impacted by the Skyline Main Entrance Option. As planning for the project progresses, project staff will continue coordination with Target, Vornado, VDOT, and others (e.g. Northern Virginia Transportation Commission Route 7 multimodal study) and seek FTA guidance regarding any evaluation that may be required for this revised design option. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX C C-3

83 Table C.1: SKYLINE MAIN ENTRANCE DESIGN OPTION (S4): END OF APPENDIX C Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX C C-4

84 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDIX D: LETTER TO VDOT; VERTICAL CLEARANCE AT PROPOSED WASHINGTON BLVD. BRIDGE This appendix includes a copy of a letter sent from John Dittmeier, WMATA Project Manager for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, to Ms. Christiana Briganti-Dunn, VDOT Project Manager Project to reconstruct the Washington Blvd. Bridge over Columbia Pike. The letter, dated April 30, 2010, describes the Transit Initiative Project, and the minimum vertical clearance required to accommodate the overhead contact system (OCS) wire. The letter identifies a sub-standard proposed overhead clearance and that this may require that the OCS wire attach to the bridge structure. The letter is included as Figure D1. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX D D-1

85 Figure D.1: Letter to VDOT; vertical clearance at proposed Washington Blvd. bridge (page 1 of 3) Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX D D-2

86 Figure D.1: Letter to VDOT; vertical clearance at proposed Washington Blvd. bridge (page 2 of 3) Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX D D-3

87 Figure D.1: Letter to VDOT; vertical clearance at proposed Washington Blvd. bridge (page 3 of 3) END OF APPENDIX D Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX D D-4

88 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDIX E: ALTERNATIVE OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE FACILITY OPTIONS E-1: DESCRIPTION This appendix describes maintenance facility options that were developed during the Conceptual Engineering level of design, but which were not deemed as preferred alternatives. This appendix compliments Part 8 of the Report; it is not meant to be a standalone document, and requires the reader to be familiar with Part 8 of the Report in order to fully understand the description of the alternative operation scenarios options. The same design criteria were used in development of these options as were the preferred options. Maintenance facility options discussed in this section include two options located on the Northern Virginia Community College Campus, one option located on the North Tract Site, and one option located in Pentagon City. E-2: ALTERNATIVE MAINTENANCE FACILITY OPTIONS The Northern Virginia Community College Alexandria Campus (NOVA) was the first site evaluated. The site is located south and east of the Skyline complex. The college contacted the project representatives and suggested that they may offer a part of their campus up for the maintenance and storage facility. A streetcar stop was requested to be located on the campus as well. The college was interested in expanding their course offerings to include a technical training curriculum for transit technology. The technology would include maintenance of rail vehicles and railroad signaling and communications. Test fit layouts were developed on the first area of the campus that was proposed and on a second area that is currently a parking garage (see Figure E.1). Adequate space (greater than 4.89 acres) was available on both sites. These plans were reviewed with campus officials. The plans included a building for the training facility. The biggest drawback of the NOVA location was that approximately one additional mile of mainline track needed to be built to get to the college, adding significantly to the overall project cost. Additionally, the concept included right-of-way impacts along the entire extension to NOVA. Subsequently, the NOVA site was eliminated from consideration in the current AA/EA document. Figure E.1: Site 1 and Site 2 on Northern Virginia Community College s Campus Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX E E-1

89 The North Tract site is located along Old Jefferson Davis Highway, adjacent to Interstate 395, and in the immediate vicinity of the Pentagon property (see Figure E.2 and Figure E.3). This site is just less than three acres and is triangular in shape. The parcel is relatively level along Old Jefferson Davis highway, but there is a fairly steep incline leading up to Interstate 395 along the west side of the site, which would require constructing a retaining wall to mitigate the difference in grades. The site is adjacent to an access road to the Pentagon, land that is being developed as a recreational park, and a ramp to Interstate 395. Due to the fact that the site is triangular in shape there are limits to the number of conceptual designs that will work with the site. A secondary exit road from the Pentagon passes through the site after coming under a 395 bridge, at the north side of the site. This road must be kept accessible, thus restricting options for development of the site. Rail access to the site would be via a half mile, double track, nonrevenue yard lead. Additionally, the property owner was unwilling to sell. Subsequently, the North Tract site was eliminated from consideration in the NEPA process. Figure E.2: The North Tract Site Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX E E-2

90 Figure E.3: North Tract Site Test Fit Layout Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX E E-3

91 As summarized in Part 8 of the Engineering Report, the design process led to development of two options on the Pentagon City site. Option 3B included a shop building of 11,500 square feet. This concept allows for 13 streetcars to be on site and requires 6 turnouts. Option 3B provides parking below grade for transit employees or visitors. Concept 3B can be seen in Figure E.4 below. Figure E.4: Option 3B Site Concept E-3: CONCLUSION The Northern Virginia Community College Alexandria Campus Options were eliminated because they required the mainline alignment to extend to the college campus. When the alignment was truncated at the Skyline area, these options were screened out. The North Tract Options were eliminated because they required a non-revenue yard lead of approximately one-half mile to access the facility. The costs associated with the yard lead and high land acquisition costs led to the screening out of this option. The Pentagon City Option 3B was developed during a series of design iterations which attempted to fit the facility within the constraints of the right of way, and operating characteristics, as well as future development within the relatively constrained location. Option 3B was refined to become Option 4A. At the time of this report, no Option at the Pentagon City location has been formally approved by all parties involved, so it is likely that Option 4A will be further refined at the next level of design. END OF APPENDIX E Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX E E-4

92 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDIX F: TARGET AND SKYLINE PLAZA PARKING STRUCTURE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING F-1: DESCRIPTION This appendix describes structural engineering design performed to modify the Target and Skyline Parking Structure to accommodate the proposed streetcar loadings, associated with the SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3) alignment design option. This appendix compliments Part 14, and Appendix C of this report; it is not meant to be a standalone document, and requires the reader to be familiar with Part 14 and Appendix C of the report in order to fully understand the description of the alternative operation scenarios options. The same design criteria were used in development of these options as were the preferred options. The Target and Skyline Plaza Parking Garage is an office and retail complex, which consists of high rise buildings and retail stores. Most of the complex is located above grade, and supported by a below grade parking garage structure. This structure, also houses some retail and storage space of a Target store. The SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3) Alignment Segment (See Figure F.1) locates the streetcar alignment along the main access road through Skyline Plaza, between the One and Two Skyline Place Buildings on the south side, and health club and Target store on the north side, and over the parking garage. Figure F.1: Skyline Central Plaza Design Option (S3) F-2: DATA ACQUISITION The existing structural plans acquired and utilized in the evaluation included the following: Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX F F-1

93 Original construction plans Skyline Center, 1974 As-Built Plans Skyline Center, 1976 As-Built Plans Skyline Building 4, 1982 Original construction plans Target Building, 2004 The Skyline Plaza as-built drawings indicate that all concrete was a minimum of 4000psi strength, with the reinforcement steel being grade 60. The access road/driveway between Target and the Skyline Plaza Parking Garage design load was AASHTO HS-20 lane load plus impact. The AASHTO HS-20 lane loading equates to 640lb/foot of load lane plus and additional concentrated load of 18000lb for bending (moment) or 26000lb concentrated load for shear. The loading, however, is distributed over a 10-foot wide AASHTO load lane for 64psf plus an1800lb concentrated load for maximum moment or 2600lb concentrated load for shear. Field views for the Target and Skyline Plaza Parking Garage where preformed on October 7, 2010 and June 30, The overall condition of the structure was determined to be fair. Based on the field views, the 1970 s record drawings were determined to accurately represent the existing conditions. F-3: EVALUATION / PROCEDURE Changes to the top of Skyline deck elevation could also be problematic, as the top of deck elevation is integrated closely with adjacent sidewalks, driveways and business doorways. Additionally, lowering the bottom of slab elevation would be acceptable provided the floor beams supporting the slab did not require a vertical reduction which would impact the existing parking garage operation by reducing the under clearance between the garage parking levels. Vertical clearance of this parking structure is currently a limiting factor. In evaluation of the Target and Skyline Plaza Parking Garage, the as-built drawings were utilized to develop a structural model which was loaded with a moving design vehicle to determine the critical shear and moment in a critical segment of the structure (See Figure F.2). The shear and moment capacity of typical sections of the structure was determined and a comparison made to the maximum shear and moment per segment of the structure for permissible loadings. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX F F-2

94 Figure F.2: Existing Structural Section Skyline F-3: FINDINGS The following observations were made at Skyline Plaza during the preliminary conditional assessment: The proposed track alignment is located in the access driveway of the parking garage deck between Skyline Building 1 and the Target/Sports & Health building (See Figure F.3). The Target store is built into the lower tiers of the parking structure and extends partially into the space below the track alignment. A hallway between the rear of the Target store and the adjacent office buildings is located at the west edge of the existing roadway. The rear portion of the store, approximately two bays in the short direction of the building, is separated from the structural slab supporting the overhead roadway by a drop ceiling. The concrete slab spanning between column/beam lines is the upper deck of a multi-level parking facility. A bituminous wearing surface was observed on the upper deck (See Figure F.3). At the end of each continuous slab unit the expansion joint material is damaged or non-existent. As a result, the Target store experiences drainage issues, i.e. leakage during every rain event. Target has installed a drainage system which consists of drip pans above the drop ceiling. Parking garage columns extend from the basement level of the garage to the access road/driveway. The columns are of different geometric configurations depending on the level in the garage, columns appear to be slender for a transit system support structure. Design loads included 100psf, 150psf, 250psf or 450psf depending on the location within the parking structure. Drawing notes indicate the access driveway was designed HS-20 vehicular loading. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX F F-3

95 The plaza deck of the parking structure also indicates design for a 60 kip (60,000#) fire truck. Concrete is 4000psi on average throughout the garage structure. Three types of deck slabs; waffle type, solid flat slab, and slab on beam system were utilized in the design and construction of the garage. As built plans indicate that the access road/driveway deck thickness varies depending on the location, type and span with an average thickness in the area evaluated being 8 inches. The maximum span length appears to be 20 feet. Figure F.3: Existing Section Skyline Station Proposed Platform The evaluation of the Target and Skyline Plaza Garage Structure was accomplished by developing structural modeling. The existing structural system is broken into three structural components; Deck Slab, Cross Beams and Columns. The preliminary analysis of the structural components provided the following findings: Deck Slab: Existing deck slab is 12-inches total depth with 3 to 4-inch average bituminous overlay and is typically reinforced with #6 bars at 7-inch spacing. The evaluation of the existing deck slab structure for the proposed track alignment results in the following Moments and Shears (service loads): o HL-93 (HS-20) Truck Moment 33.2 F-K Shear 11K o United Streetcar Tram Moment 40.8 F-K Shear 13K Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX F F-4

96 A comparison of the two vehicles indicates that the moments and shears would increase with the introduction of the United Streetcar Tram due to the closely spaced axles. The existing slab capacity would not be adequate to sustain the increase in Moment and Shear. Note: The original parking garage design of the deck slab and beams is adequate for the original and current anticipated lane loadings as mentioned above. Cross Beams: The typical cross beam is a 36-inch x 36-inch concrete beam. The evaluation of the cross beams indicate the cross beams are adequate for the original design loads but will require a retrofit/reconstruction due to the following items: Additional dead load of the embedded track slab. The effects of the lateral rail loads will cause additional load on the cross beams. The reconstruction of the deck slab will affect the structural integrity of the cross beams, which are integral with the deck slab. Parking Garage Columns: Based on a preliminary analysis of the existing columns the maximum moment and axial load generated by the proposed streetcar, in-fill slab and an adjacent highway vehicle loading falls outside the allowable column interaction limits for axial and moment capacity and as such for this concept study have been assumed to require concrete encasement or jacketing along with supplemental reinforcement for increased capacity. SECTION F.4: CONCLUSIONS / NEXT STEPS AECOM has evaluated the following structural concepts for facilitating streetcar access to the Target and Skyline Plaza Parking Garage, each of which requires both reconstruction and strengthening of the existing structure. Option 1 - Deck slab (partial width) and cross beam reconstruction with column strengthening via encasement and supplemental reinforcement (See Figure F.4). Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX F F-5

97 Figure F.4: Proposed Section Skyline Platform Option 1 Option 2 - Deck slab (partial width) reconstruction with supplemental steel cross beams, steel columns and concrete column encasement (See Figure F.5). Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX F F-6

98 Figure F.5: Proposed Section Skyline Platform Option 2 Both Option 1 and 2 will create impacts to the access and circulation of vehicular traffic along the access road and within the parking garage. The demolition and reconstruction of the deck slab even in a partial width will limit parking and access to certain part of the Skyline Plaza at various times. Potentially oneway traffic could be staged along the access road and shielding or barriers installed in the parking garage to permit limited access to parking and facilitate restricted circulation in the garage as work progresses on the support retrofit. Staged reconstruction will necessitate the increased Maintenance and Protection of Traffic costs. Additionally, a third option of strengthening with Externally Bonded Fiber Reinforced Polymers, (FRP) Systems, may have some applicability for use in the cross beams and columns. The typical increase in flexural capacity is generally on the order of 40% and as such was deemed not viable for the deck slab which requires approximately an 85% increase based on the WMATA Tram/LRT Design criteria for the Streetcar and the additional deck thickness. The option may have some potential feasibility for the cross beam and columns and could be further evaluated as a cost saving measure in the initial design phase should the project progress. END OF APPENDIX F Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX F F-7

99 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDIX G: PROJECT UTILITY NOTES G-1: DESCRIPTION This appendix captures various utility notes complied during the process of the design process. It essentially serves to quantify utilities located along Columbia Pike which were realized during various meetings and conversations with Arlington County and the Multimodal Project Consultants. A summary of findings, categorized by segments is as follows: Columbia Pike, S. Orme St. to S. Rolfe St. Washington Blvd Interchange Project o Washington Gas o Verizon two systems o Verizon Business Columbia Pike, S. Rolfe St. to S. Courthouse St. Sanitary between Scott and Queen Water north side Watch water and sanitary at track transition from curb to median should be clear Columbia Pike, S. Courthouse St. to S. Walter Reed Drive Potential relocation of 2 sanitary lines Barton-Wayne and Wayne-Court House Large Verizon vaults Need to meet with Verizon to determine possible conflicts Columbia Pike, S. Walter Reed Drive to S. Oakland St. Check sanitary north curb, may be able to leave in place requires further review Part of transit project 1000 feet water (2 X 8 ) and Sanitary (12 ) in curb lane from Glebe to Garfield. 30 water at Highland Crossing Pike in Pike for 100 valve at corner of Pike. Columbia Pike, S. Oakland St. to S. George Mason Drive (by Multimodal) Check water. Must be able to combine 8 and 12 Sanitary May be able to leave some in place. Some would relocate from curb lane Dominion Power and Washington Gas under curb lane south side Columbia Pike, S. George Mason Drive to S. Wakefield St. 8 water to be upgraded to 12 Existing sanitary in curb lane 1,000 Columbia Pike, S. Wakefield St. to S. Dinwiddie St. Gas, water and sewer previously re-located. Must separate water and sewer by 10 feet. 8 water upgraded to 12 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX F F-1

100 Columbia Pike, S. Dinwiddie St. to S Frederick St. Gas line, possible planned relocations Sanitary line near Arlington Mill (likely no need to relocate) 20 water main to be relocated to Dinwiddie Columbia Pike, S Frederick St.to S. Jefferson St (by Arlington County Project) Water line typically 4-5 deep END OF APPENDIX G Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX F F-2

101 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDIX H: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN TEAM CONTACTS H-1: DESCRIPTION This appendix identifies contact information for the design professionals responsible for development of Conceptual Design of the Transit Initiative Project. H-2: PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT Jason Mumford: Project Manager Direct: H-3: SECONDARY POINTS OF CONTACT Stephen Kley: Project Engineer Direct: Sam Pickard: Structural Design Direct: Andy Jones: Traction Power Design Direct: Chris Bell: Operations Design Direct: Selman Altun: Traffic Design Direct: Chuck Belser: Shop Design Direct: END OF APPENDIX H Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX A A-1

102 COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDIX I: NOISE AND VIBRATION MEMORANDUM I-1: DESCRIPTION This appendix is provided as summary of noise and vibration issues which will be introduced as a result of implementation of streetcar operations: Technical Memorandum Date: September 29, 2010 By: Columbia Pike Engineering Staff Subject: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING: Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, LRT / Streetcar Noise and Vibration Assessment/Mitigation overview. The Columbia Pike Transit Initiative engineering staff presents this Technical Memorandum as it relates to LRT Noise and Vibration Assessment/Mitigation. Note that any reference to WMATA or other criteria is labeled in bold italics. Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of noise and vibration assessment methods and noise and vibration mitigation options for Columbia Pike Streetcar Project. Background: The Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Project proposes to introduce streetcar along approximately a five mile corridor between Pentagon City in Arlington County VA and the Bailey s Crossroads/Skyline area in Fairfax County VA. The streetcar system will operate at constant six-minute headways throughout the day, carry peak passenger demand, and be augmented with WMATA buses. The Mainline or Main Trunk of the Columbia Pike Project is primarily a side running, shared guideway, streetcar line with stops at major intersections/crossings that optimize bus line connections. At the western and eastern extremities of the corridor, the streetcar alignment operates on alignments that access proposed Maintenance Facilities. The alignment to the Maintenance Facilities will not be analyzed in this Memorandum. Procedure / Findings / Assumptions: This memorandum will address the following items: I. Overview of project corridor II. Overview of Noise Assessment methods and Noise Mitigation measures III. Overview of Vibration Assessment methods and Vibration Mitigation measures IV. Noise and Vibration Mitigation Considerations Section I: Overview Description of the Mainline or Main Trunk Project Corridor Described from east to west: Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX I I-1

103 The east end of the alignment starts in Arlington County, at South Eads St. and 12 th St. South, and runs in the 12 th St. South corridor, west, to South Hayes St. The segment, between South Eads St. and South Fern St. is exclusive guideway at grade. The segment between South Fern St. and South Hayes St., is center running, shared guideway, at grade. At South Hayes St., the alignment turns north and runs along South Hayes St. from the 12 th Street South intersection to the Army Navy Drive intersection. This segment, from 12 th St. South to Army Navy Dr., is center running, exclusive guideway, at grade. At Army Navy Dr., the alignment turns west, and runs along Army Navy Dr. from the South Hayes St. intersection to the South Joyce St. intersection. This segment is side running shared guideway, at grade. At South Joyce St., the alignment turns north and runs along South Joyce St. from the Army Navy Dr. intersection to the Columbia Pike intersection. This segment, is center running, shared guideway, at grade. At Columbia Pike, the alignment turns west and runs along Columbia Pike from the South Joyce St. intersection, to the South Jefferson St. intersection. The segment, from South Joyce St. to South Rolfe St. (just west of Washington Blvd.), is center running shared guideway, at grade. The segment west of South Rolf St. is side running, shared guideway at grade. At the South Jefferson St. intersection, the alignment turns south and runs along South Jefferson St. from the Columbia Pike intersection to the Leesburg Pike intersection. This segment is center running, shared guideway at grade. At the Leesburg Pike intersection, the alignment continues on a southward bearing, crosses Leesburg Pike and enters The Skyline Place property. This segment transverses the Skyline Place Community, and runs adjacent to a Target Store. The segment is shared guideway, and locates mainly on structure. Section II: Overview of Noise Assessment Methods and Noise Mitigation Measures II.A. Noise: The operational and construction noise impacts of public transit projects are typically assessed using the guidance in the Federal Transit Authority s (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. The FTA manual includes methods for identifying potentially impacted noise-sensitive land uses, guidance for modeling project-generated noise, and criteria for determining impact. II.B. Noise Assessment Methods: II.B.1.Screen areas of potential impact: The FTA manual recommends noise impact screening distances for public transit projects. The FTA manual recommends screening all land uses within 350 feet of a light rail line (175 feet where there are intervening buildings) for noise sensitivity. II.B.2.Estimate impacts with general noise assessment: The noise impacts of a public transit project are typically estimated at the Alternatives Analysis (AA) and/or Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) stage. A simplified modeling method is used to estimate project-generated noise levels at nearby land uses. The model output may be Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX I I-2

104 used to generate noise contours, which may be overlaid on a map or aerial photograph of the transit project study area to graphically represent potential noise impact. II.B.3. Quantify impacts with detailed noise analysis: Detailed noise analysis is used to determine whether mitigation is required, and to design any required mitigation. Detailed noise analysis is typically done for noise sensitive land uses that are located within the recommended screening distance during the DEIS or Final EIS (FEIS) stage. Noise sensitive land uses include residential (homes, hospitals, hotels), institutional (schools, libraries, churches, museums), and special acoustic sensitivity (concert halls, recording studios, national historic landmarks). A detailed noise analysis involves consideration of site-specific details such as: the proximity of grade crossings; the potential use of horns/bells; the potential for curve squeal; and natural or built environmental features that affect noise propagation (e.g. buildings, terrain type). II.C. Noise Mitigation Measures: Noise mitigation can be applied at: 1) the noise source; 2) between the noise source and noise sensitive receiver; or 3) at the noise sensitive receiver. Examples of these types of mitigation are listed below. II.C.1. Methods to mitigate noise at the source: Resilient wheels on LRV / Streetcar LRV / Streetcar skirts, and skirts with sound absorbing material Rail vibration dampeners (tuned mass-dampeners fixed to the web of rail) LRV / Streetcar wheel maintenance, wheel truing Friction Modifier for running rail at curves Rail maintenance; rail grinding to avoid corrugation, CWR not jointed rail Alternate Special Trackwork Material, e.g. flange bearing frog, movable point frog II.C.2. Methods to mitigate noise between source and receiver: Use of ballast track in place of embedded or direct-fixation track (ballast absorbs noise) Resilient rail fasteners on elevated track structure (prevents re-radiation of noise from the track structure) Noise barriers or berms betw.een the source and receiver Absorptive landscaping between the source and receiver (e.g. grass) II.C.3. Methods to mitigate noise at receiver: Upgrade sound insulation performance of building façade (e.g. higher performance glazing) Section III: Overview of Vibration Assessment Methods and Vibration Mitigation Measures III.A. Ground Born Vibration and Ground Born Noise: LRT / Streetcar operations generate vibration in the ground due to unevenness in the vehicle wheels and in the rail, which may propagate to nearby noise-sensitive buildings. Ground borne vibration received by buildings may result in radiation of ground borne noise from the interior surfaces of rooms (e.g. floors) III.B. Ground Borne Vibration and Ground Borne Noise Assessment Methods: III.B.1. Screen areas of potential impact see Figure 1 for a flow chart for Vibration Screening Process. The FTA manual recommends screening all land uses within 450 feet of a proposed LRT alignment for vibration sensitivity. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX I I-3

105 III.B.2. Estimate impacts with general vibration assessment: The vibration impacts of a public transit project are typically estimated at the Alternatives Analysis (AA) and/or Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) stage. A simplified modeling method is used to estimate project-generated vibration levels at nearby land uses. Predicted vibration levels are generally presented in tabular format because software that generates vibration contours is not readily available. III.B.3. Quantify impacts with detailed vibration analysis: Models that accurately predict rail vehicle-generated vibration are not available. As a result, detailed vibration analysis for rail transit projects is done using field testing. In the most commonly used test method, a dropped weight or a sledgehammer is used to generate an impulse/impact on the proposed alignment, and the vibration generated by the impact is measured. Where possible, the vibration level generated by the rail vehicles that will operate on the proposed project is also measured. The results of these ground borne vibration tests are combined to produce a predicted ground borne vibration level at each sensitive land use tested. The ground borne noise level is predicted using a simple adjustment to the predicted ground borne vibration level. Figure 1 Vibration Screening Process Flow Chart III.C. Ground Borne Vibration and Ground Borne Noise Mitigation Measures: III.C.1. Mitigate vibration at source: Maintain LRV / Streetcar wheels in smooth condition Maintain rails in smooth condition Avoid locating track discontinuities (e.g. switches) near sensitive land uses Alternate Special Trackwork Material, e.g. flange bearing frog, movable point frog, where discontinuities are necessary. Use resilient or vibration damping wheels on LRV / Streetcar Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX I I-4

106 III.C.2. Mitigate vibration at path: Mitigation of ground borne vibration in the propagation path typically involves introducing a lowstiffness (resilient) element between the rain and the ground. The low-stiffness (resilient) element allows greater relative movement between the rail and ground, which increases the vibration energy absorbed by movement of the rail, LRV wheels, and LRV truck. There are different levels of this type of mitigation available: Resilient rail boots, which encase the rail or ties in a rubber boot (up to 5 db reduction) Resilient rail fasteners (e.g. Pandrol Panguard, up to 15 db reduction) Floating slab, in which slab track is supported on steel spring or rubber vibration isolation elements (up to 30 db reduction). III.C.3. Mitigate vibration at receiver: Ground borne vibration can be mitigated at a building by supporting the building on resilient elements, either steel spring or rubber isolators. This type of mitigation is generally used where a building is constructed close to an existing rail line. Section IV: Noise and Vibration Mitigation Considerations IV.A. Level of Mitigation Required: Impacts are quantified and mitigation measures are specified as part of the detailed analysis. IV.B. Weather/Climate Considerations: Temperatures must be considered in the design of the material formulation for rubber isolators. IV.C. IV.D. Shared Guideway vs. Exclusive Guideway: Shared guideway, for purposes of this memo., occurs in segments where rubber tired vehicles travel along (parallel with and on top of) the LRV/streetcar tracks. Exclusive guideway occurs in segments where only LRV/streetcars travel along the tracks. At Grade Guideway vs. Elevated Guideway: IV.D 1. With exclusive guideway at grade: the following vibration mitigation sections should be considered for implementation: Ballast track with ballast mats below ballast - often best suited to non-urban areas Ballast track with concrete ties and Pandrol Panguard rail fasteners - often best suited to non-urban areas Low Vibration Track (LVT), dual block ties covered by rubber boots, Sonneville/Tribeton Direct Fixation track with resilient fasteners Cologne Egg or Pandrol Panguard Floating Slab Track can be considered, but may not be cost effective for this application IV.D 2. With exclusive guideway on structure: the following vibration mitigation sections should be considered for implementation: Ballast track with ballast mats below ballast Ballast track with concrete ties and Pandrol Panguard rail fasteners Direct Fixation track with resilient fasteners Cologne Egg or Pandrol Panguard Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX I I-5

107 Floating Slab Track can be cost effective when receivers are very close to guideway Low Vibration Track can be considered.but is not likely to be cost effective for this application IV.D 3. With shared guideway: the following vibration mitigation sections should be considered for implementation: Embedded track with resilient rail boot different types of rail boots provide varying degrees of mitigation Floating slab with embedded track Note: DF track is not compatible with shared guideway Note: LVT track is not compatible with shared guideway Note: Ballast track is not compatible with shared guideway IV.E. IV.F. Stakeholder Requirements and Character of Adjoining Property: Consider urban/rural characteristics of the corridor Consider density levels of pedestrian and bike traffic Consider aesthetics, urban design, compatibility with streetscape elements In urban, high density areas, only selected vibration mitigation sections are likely to be considered. For example, ballast track is often excluded from consideration due to aesthetic shortcomings. In areas with considerable pedestrian traffic, direct fixation track is often excluded from consideration due to tripping hazard concerns. Cost/Benefit Analysis: Ballasted track sections are likely to be the least expensive vibration mitigation section. LVT and Direct Fixation track are likely to be more expensive than ballast sections. Floating Slab Track is likely to be the most expensive vibration mitigation section. Summary: When steel wheeled streetcars or light rail vehicles are introduced into a transit/transportation corridor, consideration must be given to noise and vibration impacts associated with the transit vehicle. Consideration of noise and vibration impacts is often discussed in three categories Screening to identify areas of potential noise/vibration impact, General Assessment to estimate impacts, and iii) Detailed Analysis to quantify impacts and specify mitigation measures. Screening work can be completed by the client/owner or other individuals not specialized in noise/vibration analysis. General Assessment and Detailed Analysis is often best done by specialists, trained in this line of work. As the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Project progresses, the CPTIEPSSC team shall perform a cursory review of the alignment to identify areas where adjacent businesses and residents may be affected by noise and vibration being introduced by the streetcar. Without inspection, it can be stated that impacts will be introduced in areas where special trackwork is proposed, where the alignment negotiates agressive curvature, as well as locations where the alignment locates on a structure, where said structure directly connects with adjacent building structures--specifically the Skyline Plaza property. While these are obvious locations which may require mitigation, the team will attempt to identify other areas where Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX I I-6

108 some form of mitigation might be required. The team will not quantify these areas by cost or impact, but only identify them as areas which may require study as the project progresses to the next level of design. END OF MEMORANDUM Columbia Pike Transit Initiative DRAFT Engineering Report: APPENDIX I I-7

109 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDIX J: CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE MEMORANDUM J-1: DESCRIPTION This appendix is provided as summary of capital cost estimate work performed for the Transit Initiative Project. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Technical Memorandum: Capital Cost Estimate Memorandum March 26, 2012

110 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of The Memorandum Background For The Estimate Description of Alternatives For Transit Capital Cost Estimates Progression of Streetcar Build Alternative Cost Estimate BASIS OF TRANSIT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES Basis of Estimate For Transportation System Management Basis of Estimate For Streetcar UTILITY OF ESTIMATES General Assumptions And Limitations Approach To Data Sources Accuracy of Cost Estimates CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS Appendix I: Streetcar Build Alternative Alignment Segments and Shop Sub-Options FTA scc detailed descriptions; Alignment Alternative; MAINLINE Shop Sub-Option; PENTAGON CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITY Alignment Alternative; SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2) Alignment Alternative; SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3) Alignment Alternative; LEESBURG PIKE TERMINOUS DESIGN OPTION List of Figures Figure 1-1: Columbia Pike Streetcar Build Alternatives; Alignment Segments and Maintenance Facility Sub-Option, For Options B1, B2, and B Figure 1-2: Columbia Pike Streetcar Build Alternative A Figure 1-3: Columbia Pike Streetcar Build Alternative C Figure 1-4: Columbia Pike Streetcar Build Alternative D Figure 5-1: Shallow Excavation Cross Section Figure 5-2: Existing Typical Bridge Section Four Mile Run Figure 5-3: Proposed Typical Bridge Section Four Mile Run List of Tables Table 1-1: Summary of Transit Capital Cost Estimates, 2015 Dollars... 3 Table 2-1: FTA Standard Cost Categories Included in Estimate by Alternative Table 2-2: Streetcar Alignment Options B1, B2, and B3, Escalated to 2015 Dollars; Including Allocated and Unallocated Contingency: Table 5-1: Streetcar Build Station Information Columbia Pike Transit Initiative i December 2011

111 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Memorandum This memorandum documents the major assumptions that inform the conceptual capital cost estimates for the transit improvement alternatives prepared to accompany the Alternatives Analysis (AA) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative. The memorandum defines the work items, and what work they encompass. It also attempts to identify unknown elements and explain how those costs were captured in the estimate. The purpose of the preliminary capital cost estimates at this stage of project development is to inform the local capital budgeting process and assess the need for state and federal funding. The current analysis allows decision makers to anticipate capital requirements and understand the scale of potential risk as the project moves into subsequent phases of development. 1.2 Background for the Estimates This memorandum details cost estimates for each of the study alternatives: No Build: No significant changes to the existing corridor bus network; construction of improved bus stops as part of the Arlington County Super Stops program; selected improvements to the corridor roadway network in connection with the Columbia Pike Multimodal Project and other ongoing corridor projects. Transportation System Management 1 (TSM1) improvements in transit network connectivity to the Skyline area, purchase of standard buses in the corridor and provide vehicle wrap / branding to existing and new buses. Transportation Systems Management 2 (TSM2) in addition to the improvements associated with TSM 1: Procure articulated buses, provide vehicle wrap / branding to existing and new buses, contribute a percentage of construction cost to proposed Cinder Bed Road bus garage, improved bus stop amenities and off-vehicle fare collection, and a park and ride and intermodal transfer facility at Jefferson Street. Streetcar (Options B1, B2, and B3): modern streetcar service along a 5 (nominal)-mile alignment between Pentagon City and Skyline with complementing bus service and off-vehicle fare collection, parking, traction power substations along the alignment, a park and ride and intermodal transfer facility at Jefferson Street, same as TSM1 and TSM2, and an operations and maintenance facility and supporting infrastructure. The current estimate, based on preliminary conceptual engineering designs, is presented in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Standard Cost Categories (SCC) format to allow refinement as design activities progress, to facilitate comparison over time and with other projects in the region, and to establish a unified basis for capital programming. The current preliminary capital cost estimate for transit is built up independent from previous estimates for this project. A previous estimate, updated in 2007, was based on work performed during the Local Alternatives Analysis ( ). Important characteristics of the current estimate are as follows: Unit prices are current for the year Costs have been escalated to the mid-point of construction, which is considered to be Based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction inflation rates, as well as the average inflation according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), a constant rate of 3% per year was assumed. Current estimates are based on the working draft Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment as submitted November 2011 and associated Conceptual Design Plan Drawings. While they are based on an increased level of engineering detail as compared with previous estimates, the current estimates reflect design work that remains conceptual in nature. Unit costs reflect local conditions and recent project experience in other U.S. cities. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 2

112 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology The Streetcar Build Alternative cost estimate was based on existing resources available at the time that the work was performed. Generally, alignment design was developed using aerial basemapping provided by Arlington County, in Engineering work at the Four Mile Run and Skyline / Target structures was based on as-built data. Utility work was based on existing as-built surveys as well as field observation. While the location of most utilities was observed from the surface, the depth of utilities was not fully understood. No subsurface investigation was performed. Some coordination with Dominion Power, the power provider along the corridor, was performed for purposes of validating the power requirement design for streetcar propulsion. Coordination was performed with Arlington County with respect to proposed projects along Columbia Pike, including the Multimodal Project, which proposes to establish curb line along much of the length of Columbia Pike where the streetcar alignment is proposed to locate. As well, engineering staff has performed field view / investigation of most of the length of project numerous times. The Streetcar Build Alternative estimate is based on a conceptual design level of work; approximately 15%, engineering design. However, some elements, such as structural work to the Four Mile Run Bridge Structure, and Skyline / Target Structures have been progressed beyond the concept level, but not to the preliminary engineering level. That being said, there are some items, such as utility conflicts, and subsurface conditions, which have not been fully understood at this level of design, and could increase costs above what is included in this estimate. It is recommended that these items be researched first during the next phase of design. Current preliminary capital cost estimates for the project are presented in Table 1-1. Note: TSM 1, TSM 2, and the Streetcar Build Alternative are as described in Section 1.3: Descriptions of Alternatives for Transit Capital Cost Estimates. Table 1-1: Summary of Transit Capital Cost Estimates, 2015 Dollars (Millions) Alternative Total Project + Contingency Length in Miles Cost/Mile TSM 1 $ $ 1.0 TSM 2 $ $10.6 STREETCAR BUILD ALTERNATIVE A $ $52.5 STREETCAR BUILD ALTERNATIVE B1 $ $52.6 STREETCAR BUILD ALTERNATIVE B2 $ $50.7 STREETCAR BUILD ALTERNATIVE B3 $ $51.1 STREETCAR BUILD ALTERNATIVE C $ $55.6 STREETCAR BUILD ALTERNATIVE D $ $ Descriptions of Alternatives for Transit Capital Cost Estimates This section discusses the Transportation Systems Management alternatives considered in the Columbia Pike corridor. This alternative contains the design options of TSM1 and TSM2 and Streetcar B1, B2, and B3. Transportation Systems Management 1 (TSM1) includes minor improvements to routes in the corridor. The scope of this option assumes: 1.1 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 3

113 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Same transit routes and vehicles as the No Build Alternative, but the network will be enhanced to provide improved services to the Skyline area; Consolidation of stops to ¼ to ½ mile along entire study corridor by others; Street improvements will include those from the No Build Alternative by others; Park-and-ride facilities will be the same as No Build Alternative by others; Procurement of 40 ft. buses; Provide vehicle wrap / branding to existing and new buses used on the corridor; Continued on-board fare collection. TSM2 includes the elements associated with TSM1, with some additions. The scope of this option assumes: Procurement of 60-foot articulated buses on several routes (16G, 16H, and 16Y), with a capacity of 60 passengers seated and 30 standing. Network will be enhanced to provide improved services to the Skyline area; Provide vehicle wrap / branding to existing and new buses used on the corridor; Contribute a percentage of the cost to construct the proposed Cinder Bed Road bus garage. Consolidated stops as in TSM1, but outfitted with ticket vending machines for off-vehicle fare collection with proof of payment; Construction of park-and-ride and intermodal transfer facility at Jefferson Street; Street improvements required to achieve Multimodal Project cross-section will include re-constructing curbs and medians to accommodate vehicular left turns, pedestrian movements, etc. by others. The Streetcar Build Alternative, includes six main Design Options. Each Design Option consists of a combination of Alignment Segments and Shop Sub-Options. An explanation of these Alignment Segments and Shop Sub-Options is as follows: MAINLINE: Alignment Segment; Consists of the 4.71 mile segment extending from the intersection of 12 th Street South and South Eads St. in the Pentagon City area to the east, to the intersection of South Jefferson St. and Leesburg Pike (RT-7) intersection to the West. Segment includes 18 streetcar stops (17 build, 1 future). PENTAGON CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITY: Shop Sub-Option; This option includes work for a maintenance facility at the east end of the alignment in Pentagon City. The maintenance facility locates on a property parcel at the corner of 12 th Street South, and South Eads Street. As this is the eastern terminal for the MAINLINE segment there is no yard lead alignment length associated with this maintenance facility sub-option. This is the only maintenance facility option being progressed beyond the conceptual design phase. The SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2): Alignment Segment; Consists of a 0.20 mile alignment, which extends the mainline west (geographically south), across Leesburg Pike (RT-7), where it then turns geographically east, parallels RT-7 locating between RT-7 and the Target parking lot, and terminates at a streetcar stop adjacent to the Target parking lot. The SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3): Alignment Segment; Consists of a 0.23 mile alignment which extends the mainline west (geographically south), across Leesburg Pike (RT-7), and into the skyline plaza. Once inside the plaza, the alignment turns geographically east, and terminates at a streetcar stop located between the One and Two Skyline buildings to the south, and the sports and health club and Target store to the north. The LEESBURG PIKE TERMINUS DESIGN OPTION: Alignment Segment; This option essentially duplicates the west end of the MAINLINE alignment. However, this option introduces a terminus streetcar stop at the existing stop R and a segment of exclusive guideway. To accomplish exclusive guideway required moving the South Jefferson St. west curb line west for purposes of restoring existing traffic lanes which were removed to create the exclusive guideway. The NORTH TRACT SHOP OPTION: Shop Sub-Option; This option includes work for a maintenance facility at the east end of the alignment, located at the North Tract area along Old Jefferson Davis Highway at the eastern end of the corridor near Crystal City. The maintenance facility shop sub-option area footprint is approximately 4 acres. The shop is connected to the MAINLINE Alignment Segment by a 0.50 mile non revenue alignment. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 4

114 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology The NOVA VIA GEORGE MASON AND NOVA SHOP OPTION: Alignment Segment and Shop Sub- Option; This option extends the west end of the MAINLINE Alignment Segment similar to that of the SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S2) Alignment Segment. However, the alignment maintains double track within in the Skyline Facility, and continues alignment west geographically east, through the Skyline facility and to a western terminus at Northern Virginia Community College s (NOVA) Alexandria campus. The route between Skyline and NOVA follows along George Mason Drive and then Route 7. The maintenance facility in this scenario would be located adjacent to revenue-track approximately 500 feet south of Route 7 on NOVA s campus. The alignment length from the west end of the MAINLINE Alignment Segment to the western terminus is 1.07 miles. The maintenance facility area footprint is approximately 5.5 acres. The alignment segment and shop sub-option includes three streetcar stops. The NOVA VIA RT-7 AND NOVA SHOP OPTION: Alignment Segment and Shop Sub-Option; This option extends the west end of the MAINLINE Alignment Segment similar to that of the SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S3), however, the alignment continues to a western terminus at Northern Virginia Community College s (NOVA) Alexandria campus. The alignment segment extends the SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S3) alignment segment west (geographically) east along Route 7, approximately 1300 feet, then turns south to the NOVA campus. The maintenance facility in this scenario would be located adjacent to revenue-track approximately 500 feet south of Route 7 on NOVA s campus. The alignment length from the west end of the MAINLINE Alignment Segment to the western terminus is 0.90 miles. The maintenance facility area footprint is approximately 5.5 acres. The alignment segment and shop sub-option includes three streetcar stops. As stated previously, the Streetcar Build Alternative, includes six main Design Options, with each option consisting of a combination of Alignment Segments and Shop Sub-Options. An explanation of these Design Options is as follows: Streetcar Option A: Includes Alignment Segment MAINLINE, SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3), and Shop Sub-Option NORTH TRACT SHOP OPTION. o Total alignment length = 5.43 miles o Total stops constructed = 5 o Total vehicles = 13 o 4 Acre Maintenance Facility capable of storing 13 vehicles. Streetcar Option B1: Includes Alignment Segments MAINLINE, SKYLINE CENTRAL PLAZA DESIGN OPTION (S3), and Shop Sub-Option PENTAGON CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITY. o Total alignment length = 4.95 miles o Total stops constructed = 6 o Total vehicles = 13 o 1.5 Acre Maintenance Facility capable of storing 13 vehicles. Streetcar Option B2: Includes Alignment Segments MAINLINE, SKYLINE ROUTE 7 DESIGN OPTION (S2), and Shop Sub-Option PENTAGON CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITY. o Total alignment length = 4.93 miles o Total stops constructed = 6 o Total vehicles = 13 o 1.5 Acre Maintenance Facility capable of storing 13 vehicles. Streetcar Option B3: Includes Alignment Segments MAINLINE, LEESBURG PIKE TERMINUS DESIGN OPTION, and Shop Sub-Option PENTAGON CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITY. o Total alignment length = 4.74 miles o Total stops constructed = 5 o Total vehicles = 13 o Includes re-construction of South Jefferson Pike at terminus station for purposes of establishing exclusive guideway and restoring existing traffic lanes. o 1.5 Acre Maintenance Facility capable of storing 13 vehicles. Streetcar Option C: Includes Alignment Segments MAINLINE, and Alignment Segment and Shop Sub- Option NOVA VIA GEORGE MASON AND NOVA SHOP OPTION. o Total alignment length = 5.79 miles o Total stops constructed = 8 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 5

115 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology o Total vehicles = 15 o 5.5 Acre Maintenance Facility capable of storing 15 vehicles. Streetcar Option D: Includes Alignment Segments MAINLINE, and Alignment Segment and Shop Sub- Option NOVA VIA RT-7 AND NOVA SHOP OPTION. o Total alignment length = 5.61 miles o Total stops constructed = 8 o Total vehicles = 15 o 5.5 Acre Maintenance Facility capable of storing 15 vehicles. Only Options B2 and B3 meet the FTA Small Starts criteria, and are being considered for progression to Preliminary Engineering. Options B1, B2, and B3 are illustrated in Figure J-1. Options A, C, and D are illustrated in Figures 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 6

116 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 7

117 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Figure 1-1: Columbia Pike Streetcar Build Alternatives; Alignment Segments and Maintenance Facility Sub-Option, For Options B1, B2, and B3. Figure 1-2: Columbia Pike Streetcar Build Alternative A. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 8

118 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 9

119 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Figure 1-3: Columbia Pike Streetcar Build Alternative C. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 10

120 Technical Memoradum Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Figure 1-4: Columbia Pike Streetcar Build Alternative D. Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 11