Vehicle Storage Facility Potential Site Evaluation Report

8/12/2019 Vehicle Storage Facility Potential Site Evaluation Report

1/46

Crystal City Streetcar Project June 2014Site Evaluation Report Page i

Crystal City Streetcar ProjectVehicle Storage Facility

Potential Site Evaluation Report

June 2014


2/46

Crystal City Streetcar Project June 2014Site Evaluation Report Page ii

1. Executive Summary

Need for Facility

The purpose of this Crystal City Streetcar Project site selection study is to determine the most viable location for a

new Vehicle Storage Facility (VSF) to serve the proposed Crystal City Streetcar Line. Through the Crystal CityStreetcar Project, Arlington County hopes to eventually have in place a new, modern streetcar system that connects

Pentagon City, Crystal City and Potomac Yard as a complement to other transportation improvements. The plan is

for the streetcar system to consist of two linesColumbia Pike and Crystal Cityeventually converging in

Pentagon City. The two lines would unite to form the Arlington Streetcar System connecting Alexandria, Crystal

City, Pentagon City, Columbia Pike, and Fairfax County.

There is no existing streetcar system in the area and there is one Operations and Maintenance Facility proposed for

the Columbia Pike Streetcar Line. A Columbia Pike Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) located near the

intersection of 12thStreet and South Eads Street would not likely have the capacity to store the streetcars associated

with the Crystal City Streetcar Line. However, Arlington County is currently evaluating the feasibility of locating

an OMF at the Navy Annex site, which would have sufficient capacity for the streetcars associated with the Crystal

City Streetcar Line. If the OMF is constructed at the Navy Annex site, a separate vehicle storage facility for the

Crystal City streetcars would not be required.

Space Needs Program

A Space Needs Program was developed for the Crystal City Vehicle Storage Facility so that the each of the

alternative sites could be rated based on how well the space program fits on the site. The Space Needs Program

includes shared areas, space required for operations, space required for maintenance, parking, and exterior areas.

When all spaces required were added together and all factors were applied, the space program yielded 1.74 acres. It

should be kept in mind that the Space Needs Program is a list of what is desired on site and that actual square

footage required to accommodate all functions/elements desired will vary by site depending on the physical siteconstraints.

Alternative Sites

An initial list of fifteen sites in the vicinity of the project was developed as candidates for the vehicle storage

facility. These sites were subjected to a preliminary screening to arrive at a narrower range of alternatives for more

detailed consideration. Initial screening criteria include distance from the proposed revenue track alignment and

compatibility with existing and planned land use.

Three sites along the Crystal City alignment were examined in greater detail as to their suitability for the new

facility and those sites were:

Site 1: The area under the Airport Access Road Bridge along 26th Street between Clark Street and Crystal

Drive

Site 2: The existing gravel parking area between Service Road and the CSX rail lines just north of the

Airport Access Road

Site 3: The existing WMATA bus storage lot on South Glebe Road just west of Jefferson David Highway

and north of Four Mile Run Trail


3/46

Crystal City Streetcar Project June 2014Site Evaluation Report Page iii

There is more than one possibility when it comes to configuring the existing gravel parking area between Service

Road and the CSX rail lines just north of the Airport Access Road. For this reason, this site was evaluated as two

separate sites in order to assure that each of the two configurations was evaluated fairly. With that being said, the

Site Evaluation included in this report evaluates three site locations, but four different site boundaries.

Site Selection CriteriaThe site selection criteria used for this analysis fall into four categories. Those four categories are:

Site Configuration

Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline

Roadway Access

Cost of Development

Within these four categories there were a total of 16 criteria that each of the site alternatives was evaluated on.

Site Evaluations

The set of criteria described above was used to evaluate the site boundary alternatives based on facility operations,system operations, and relative costs. One to two test-fit layouts were created for each of the four site boundary

alternatives and for the majority of the 16 criteria, each site was evaluated by way of its test-fit layout(s). Out of 31

possible points, the highest scoring alternative (Site 2, Layout B) scored 21 points. The two highest scoring

alternatives (Site 2 and Site 3) were recommended for further consideration in the environmental document.

However, subsequently it was discovered that Site 3 has committed uses throughout the anticipated construction

period for the Crystal City Streetcar Project and would not be available for use as the Vehicle Storage Facility

without a substantial delay in the project schedule. Therefore, only Site 2 has been carried forward into the

environmental document.


4/46

Crystal City Streetcar Project June 2014Site Evaluation Report Page iv

Table of Contents1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. ii

Need for Facility ....................................................................................................................................................... ii

Space Needs Program ............................................................................................................................................... ii

Alternative Sites ........................................................................................................................................................ ii

Site Selection Criteria ..............................................................................................................................................iii

Site Evaluations .......................................................................................................................................................iii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... vi

2. Assumptions ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

3. Space Needs Program ........................................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Shared Areas ................................................................................................................................................. 2

3.2 Operations ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.3 Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................. 2

3.4 Parking .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.5 Exterior Areas ............................................................................................................................................... 3

3.6 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

4. Alternative Sites .................................................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 Site 1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 6

4.2 Site 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

4.2.1 Test-Fit Layout A - Removing Ramp from Airport Access Road Bridge ......................................... 9

4.2.2 Test-Fit Layout B - Extending Over Existing Tunnel North of Gravel Parking Area .................... 11

4.3 Site 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

5. Site Selection Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 16

5.1 Site Configuration ....................................................................................................................................... 16

5.2 Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline ........................................................................................................... 18

5.3 Roadway Access ......................................................................................................................................... 19

5.4 Cost of Development .................................................................................................................................. 20

6. Cost Comparative Information ........................................................................................................................... 21

6.1 Basis of the Conceptual Estimate ............................................................................................................... 21

6.2 Site 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 21

6.3 Site 2Test-Fit Layout A Removing Ramp from Airport Access Road Bridge.................................... 21


5/46

Crystal City Streetcar Project June 2014Site Evaluation Report Page v

6.4 Site 2Test-Fit Layout B Extending Over Existing Tunnel North of Gravel Parking Area.................. 22

6.5 Site 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 22

7. Site Selection Evaluations .................................................................................................................................. 23

7.1 Site 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 24

7.2 Site 2 - Removing Ramp from Airport Access Road Bridge ...................................................................... 24

7.3 Site 2 - Extending Over Existing Tunnel North of Gravel Parking Area ................................................... 25

7.4 Site 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 26

8. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 27

8.1 Site 1 Elimination ....................................................................................................................................... 27

8.2 Site 2Preferred Site ................................................................................................................................. 27

8.3 Site 3 Elimination ....................................................................................................................................... 27

9. Appendix ASpace Needs Program.................................................................................................................. 29

10. Appendix BPhotos ...................................................................................................................................... 32

11. Appendix CCost Comparative Information ................................................................................................ 37


6/46

Crystal City Streetcar Project June 2014Site Evaluation Report Page vi

List of FiguresFIGURE 1 - VSF CANDIDATE SITES WITHIN GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS OF CRYSTAL CITY STREETCAR PROJECT..................................... 6

FIGURE 2 - SITE 1, TEST-FIT LAYOUT ............................................................................................................................................... 8

FIGURE 3 - SITE 2, TEST-FIT LAYOUT A, "REMOVING RAMP FROM AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD BRIDGE" ......................................... 10

FIGURE 4 - SITE 2, TEST-FIT LAYOUT B, EXTENDING OVER EXISTING TUNNEL NORTH OF GRAVEL PARKING AREA................. 12FIGURE 5 - SITE 3, TEST-FIT LAYOUT A, SINGLE CAPACITY STREETCAR STORAGE TRACKS....................................................... 14

FIGURE 6 - SITE 3, TEST-FIT LAYOUT B, PARALLEL STORAGE TRACKS ....................................................................................... 15

List of TablesTABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY (VSF) SITES .............................................................................. 4

TABLE 2 - CRYSTAL CITY STREETCAR SITE SELECTION RATINGS ................................................................................................... 23


7/46

Crystal City Streetcar Project June 2014Site Evaluation Report Page 1

2. AssumptionsIn order to perform Site Selection services for the Vehicle Storage Facility (VSF) for the Crystal City Streetcar

Project, a number of decisions and assumptions needed to be made. Below is a list of the assumptions made prior

to the development of the Space Needs Program and test-fit layouts for the VSF.

The streetcar has not yet been selected, however vehicle characteristics were assumed based on one of the

potential streetcars.

o A car length of 81.37

o A static vehicle width of 8.85 including mirrors or cameras

o A dynamic envelope 10.26 wide assuming straight tangent track

A Columbia Pike Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) located near the intersection of 12 thStreet

and South Eads Street would not likely have the capacity to store the streetcars associated with the Crystal

City Streetcar Line. However, Arlington County is currently evaluating the feasibility of locating an OMF

at the Navy Annex site, which would have sufficient capacity for the streetcars associated with the Crystal

City Streetcar Line. If the OMF is constructed at the Navy Annex site, a separate vehicle storage facility for

the Crystal City streetcars would not be required.

Columbia Pike Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) will have the capacity to perform all Fleet

Maintenance including scheduled maintenance, corrective maintenance, and overhauls for the two streetcar

lines.

o Wheel truing will be performed at the Columbia Pike OMF.

Columbia Pike OMF will have the capacity to store all streetcars associated with the Columbia Pike Line,

but no streetcars associated with the Crystal City Line.

All streetcars and large components will be delivered to the Columbia Pike OMF.

The operations plan for the Crystal City Line will require the Crystal City VSF to accommodate up to eight

streetcars.

Exterior washing will be done using the streetcar washer at the Columbia Pike OMF, with the exception of

cleaning done by hand on an as needed basis in the Crystal City VSF yard.

Interior cleaning will be done in the Crystal City VSF yard.

Traction sanding will be done in the Crystal City VSF yard.

o A portable sanding system will be used to maintain the required sand to the streetcars.

o The selected streetcar will have sand boxes on both sides of the vehicle.

All administrative positions for the two lines will be based out of the Columbia Pike OMF.

Crew for the Crystal City line will report to the Crystal City VSF.

Space for one work block coordinator/dispatcher is required at the Crystal City VSF.

Space for one yard control person may be required at the Crystal City VSF.

The entire VSF site may need to be enclosed. All functions/elements in the Crystal City VSF Space Needs Program will be located on the ground level.

o All activities planned for the Crystal City VSF will be performed at ground level with the

exception of accessing the streetcars rooftop via the platform in the PM Inspection/ Repair Bay.


8/46


3. Space Needs ProgramThe Space Needs Program is included in Appendix A. It should be kept in mind that the Space Needs Program is a

list of what is desired on site and that actual square footage required to accommodate all functions/elements desired

will vary by site and site configuration. The space required for a VSF can be broken down into three main

categories. Those categories are the facility (or building footprint), parking, and exterior areas. The facility can befurther broken down into Shared Areas, Operations, and Maintenance. Descriptions of the various required spaces

are provided in the following text.

3.1 Shared AreasIt has been assumed that all administrative positions for the two streetcar lines will be based out of the Columbia

Pike OMF, therefore no office space for the systems General Manager, Operations Manager, Maintenance

Manager, Finance/Grants Manager, Administrative Manager, Maintenance of Way Manager, and so forth will be

required at the Crystal City VSF. The shared areas required in the Crystal City VSF building include only a lobby,

space for copying/supplies/files, restrooms with showers, a locker area, a break room, and building support areas.

These areas will be shared by operations, maintenance, and/or the public. Building support areas will provide space

for an IT/Telephone closet, water service, electrical, mechanical, and a janitors closet.

The space required for these areas adds to 1,410 square feet and once a 35% factor is applied to cover circulation,

mechanical, electrical, and structural elements, a total of 1,904 square feet is programmed for shared areas.

3.2 OperationsIn order to prevent having to shuttle operators from one location to another, it has been assumed that as many as

eight streetcar operators will report to the Crystal City VSF and be on-site at one time. These operators will use the

shared areas described above and no additional space for the operators themselves is required at the Crystal City

VSF, however other spaces are required for the operations department. These spaces include space for one work

block coordinator/dispatcher, space for one yard control person, one unassigned space, and a secured space fordrivers supplies such as uniforms and gloves.

The space required for these areas adds to 282 square feet and once a 35% factor is applied to cover circulation,

mechanical, electrical, and structural elements, a total of 381 square feet is programmed for operations.

3.3 MaintenanceAlthough all fleet maintenance is to be performed at the Columbia Pike OMF, the Crystal City Space Needs

Program includes one PM Inspection/Repair Bay that can be used for emergencies. This bay is envisioned to have

a pit below ground level and a platform at the streetcars rooftop level, so that all sides of the car can be accessed if

need be. No large components are planned to be removed or replaced at the Crystal City VSF, but in order to have

the capability to perform minor preventative maintenance or repair work at the Crystal City VSF, a parts/stockroom, tool crib, toolbox storage, portable equipment storage, and common work area are programmed for the

Crystal City VSF.

The space required for these areas adds to 3,718 square feet and once a 20% factor is applied to cover circulation,

mechanical, electrical, and structural elements, a total of 4,462 square feet is programmed for maintenance at the

Crystal City VSF.


9/46


3.4 ParkingParking for streetcars, non-revenue vehicles, employees, and visitors is required for the Crystal City VSF. It has

been assumed that fleet size for the Crystal City Line will be no more than eight vehicles. Those vehicles will be

stored at the Crystal City VSF overnight and those vehicles will be serviced (traction sanding, interior cleaning, by-

hand exterior cleaning, and daily inspections) while in the storage yard. Since the streetcar selected could have

sand boxes on both sides of the vehicle, service lanes could be required on both sides of every streetcar and this wasaccounted for in the Space Needs Program. The program also includes space for ladder tracks into the storage yard,

but this number is what will vary most from site to site and site configuration to site configuration. The space

programmed for the vehicle storage yard is 24,430 square feet.

The Crystal City VSF Space Needs Program includes two parking spots for non-revenue transit vehicles, thirteen

parking spots for employees, two parking spots for visitors, and one parking spot for those with disabilities. The

space required for these non-streetcar parking spots adds to 3,064 square feet and once a 100% factor is applied to

cover circulation, a total of 6,128 square feet is programmed for employee and visitor parking. Adding space

programmed for the vehicle storage yard and space programmed for employee and visitor parking, a total of 30,558

square feet is programmed for parking.

3.5 Exterior AreasExterior areas do not need to be enclosed, but since the entire Crystal City VSF site may be enclosed, these spaces

may end up being enclosed. The Space Needs Program includes dumpsters for scrap metal, refuse, and recycling, a

traction power substation, space for truck maneuvering for deliveries to the building, and a patio/outdoor break

area.

The total space programmed for exterior areas is 7,300 square feet.

3.6 SummaryAdding the 1,904 square feet programmed for shared areas, the 381 square feet programmed for operations, and the

4,462 square feet required for maintenance, the Space Needs Program results in a facility that is 6,747 square feet.

Although the entire VSF may be enclosed, 6,747 square feet of conditioned space is required on site. Adding the

6,747 square feet required for the facility or building, the 30,558 square feet required for parking, and the 7,300

square feet required for exterior areas, site areas require 44,605 square feet. Once a 70% circulation factor is

applied to account for site circulation, landscaping, and setbacks, a site size of 75,828 square feet is required which

is 1.74 acres. It should be kept in mind that the Space Needs Program is a list of what is desired on site and that

actual square footage required to accommodate all functions/elements desired will vary by site and site

configuration. If a site is not 1.74 acres in size it still may be able to accommodate a VSF, but the site will likely

score lower on the site selection criteria having to do with operations since a smaller site is typically less efficient.


10/46


4. Alternative SitesThe Crystal City Streetcar Project is contained within Arlington County. The geographic limits of the area in which

a VSF could fall are outlined in blue in Figure 1 and are:

Interstate 395 to the north George Washington Memorial Parkway to the east

Four Mile Run to the south

South Arlington Ridge Road to the west

Arlington County and the Crystal City Project Team worked together to identify the sites along the alignment that

are best suited for a VSF. Table 1 below lists the initial candidates that were considered. Initial screening criteria

include distance from the proposed revenue track alignment and compatibility with existing and planned land use.

Table 1 - Summary of Potential Vehicle Storage Facility (VSF) Sites

Site Description of Site

Location

Parcel ID Parcel Size

(sq ft)

Evaluation comments Retain for

FurtherAnalysis?

1 Existing gravel lot north of

airport access road and

west of CSX railroad

34020263 39,577 Appears sufficient although shape of parcel

may not be ideal. Site identified for long-

term redevelopment under Sector Plan

Yes

2 Under the airport access

road

N/A N/A Column interference with access and

storage track arrangement must be

considered

Yes

3 East of Crystal Drive just

south of 12th Street

34020239 81,072 Not compatible with current land use

(access to Long Bridge Park)

No

4 North of 12th Street just

west of Crystal Drive

34024009 64,991 Not compatible with current land use

(access to Long Bridge Park, short-term

redevelopment site)

No

5 Pentagon parking areasbounded by Eads St, Fern

St, Army-Navy Dr, and I-

395

34017002 76,713 Significant distance off alignment, wouldrequire coordination with Federal

Government and possible requirement to

replace parking elsewhere

No

6 Joint development site

northeast corner of 23rd

and Clark Streets

34020012 /

TBD

TBD Not compatible with current land use.

Would be difficult to coordinate with

proposed development.

No


between Clark St and

Jefferson Davis Hwy north

of 15thStreet

34024339 /

34024342

TBD Not compatible with current land use.

Would be difficult to coordinate with

proposed development.

No



Jefferson Davis Hwy southof 15thStreet

34020253 /

34020254

TBD Not compatible with current land use

(underground concourse). Would be

difficult to coordinate with proposeddevelopment.

No

9 Peninsulabetween

Crystal Drive and Jefferson

Davis Hwy north of 33rd

Street

34027002 30,631 Not compatible with current land use. Area

is currently a park and is shown as open

space in Sector Plan.

No

10 Joint development in

Potomac Yard Land Bay C

or Land Bay D West

N/A N/A Not compatible with approved Phased

Development Site Plan. Would be difficult

to coordinate with proposed development.

No


11/46


Site Description of Site

Location

Parcel ID Parcel Size

(sq ft)

Evaluation comments Retain for

Further

Analysis?

11 Site bounded by Potomac

Avenue, Four Mile Run,

Jefferson Davis Hwy, and

Eclipse Condominium

34027067 /

34027068

100,309 Not compatible with current land use.

Potential floodplain, visual, and parkland

impacts.

No

12 Between Eads St and

Jefferson Davis Hwy north

of ART facility

37026007 16,375 Probable ROW impact, parcel shape may be

fatal flaw with respect to track arrangement.

Access from revenue track highly

challenging.

No

13 Median of 15th Street


Crystal Drive

N/A N/A Not compatible with current and planned

land use (median garden park). Presents

visual impacts and has space restrictions

No

14 Joint development on infill

site east of Crystal Drive

north of 23rd Street

34020234 N/A Not compatible with current land use

(private open space). Would be difficult to

coordinate with proposed development.

No

15 Bus Storage Facility

Parking Lot on Glebe Rd

37037063 71,179+ Appears sufficient but would require

alternative provisions to replace existing

bus storage (i.e. a parking garage)

Yes

After initial evaluation, three sites were selected as best candidates to move forward with for further evaluation.

These three site locations are shown as red boxes on Figure 1 and are numbered 1, 2, and 3.


12/46


Figure 1 - VSF Candidate Sites within Geographic Limits of Crystal City Streetcar Project

A discussion of each site is provided on the following pages. Test-fit layouts were produced for each to

determine whether the Space Needs Program could fit on the specific site and whether the desired adjacencies could

be obtained. These test-fit layouts can be seen in Figures 2 through 6. It should be noted that these layouts are only

shown at this point in order to explain the scoring of the alternative sites; further refinement will occur once a site is

selected.

4.1 Site 1Site 1 is slightly less than one acre in size and most of the site is located under the Airport Access Road Bridge,

along 26th Street and between Clark Street and Crystal Drive. The site is owned by the United States (US)

government and SuperShuttle is currently leasing this space. There is an existing landscaping buffer around the

perimeter of the site and the Airport Access Road Bridge is supported by a number of existing columns which can

be seen in Photos 1 through 4 in Appendix B. The current zoning for Site 1 is C-O (commercial office building,


13/46


hotel, and multifamily dwelling), which likely does not allow use as a streetcar vehicle storage facility. Due to the

spacing of these columns, there are very few track configurations that will work on this site. There are four (4)

rows of five (5) columns within the site and there is another row of six (6) columns on the east side of the site along

Crystal Drive. Clear space between each column in the rows is approximately 10.25. With a vehicle width of

8.85, parking clearance between the bridge columns and streetcars would be a total of 1.4 (or 0.7 on either side of

the vehicle). In the case of the dynamic clearance envelope, there is no clearance between the streetcars and thecolumns. The maximum dynamic clearance envelope assumed is 10.26, which is greater than the bridge column

spacing; thus a fatal flaw with streetcar vehicles running between bridge columns on Site 1. The Site 1 test-fit

layout is shown in Figure 2. Knowing that streetcars could not be stored between the existing columns, the test-fit

layout for Site 1 positions streetcar vehicles outside the bridge columns.


14/46


Figure 2 - Site 1, Test-Fit Layout


15/46


4.2 Site 2Site 2 is approximately one acre in size and is an existing gravel parking area. This site is located between Service

Road and the CSX rail lines and is just north of the Airport Access Road. The existing gravel parking area is

fenced in. The property containing Site 2 extends north beyond the existing gravel parking area. There is an

existing underground roadway tunnel north of the existing parking area (and the existing fence line), the CSX lines

that are west of the property at the south end of the site curve onto the property north of the underground tunnel,and the property line is north of those CSX lines. The current zoning for Site 2 is C-O-1.5 (commercial office

building, hotel, and apartment district), which likely does not allow use as a streetcar vehicle storage facility.

Photos 5 through 8 in Appendix B are photographs taken of Site 2.

All functions/elements accounted for in the Space Needs Program cannot be accommodated on Site 2 without

extending the VSF north of the existing tunnel while the existing ramp from the Airport Access Road Bridge is in

place. For this reason, two test-fit layouts were developed for Site 2. Layout A assumes that the ramp from the

Airport Access Road Bridge is removed. Arlington County has indicated that this is in the long-term plan, but

timing would need to work so that the ramp would be demolished and this configuration could be constructed prior

to the Crystal City Line opening. The second test-fit layout, Layout B, allows the existing bridge ramp to remain

in place, but the site layout would extend over the existing tunnel north of the existing gravel parking area. These

two layouts were considered separate alternatives in the site selection analysis since the site boundary on the north

side of the site is different in Layouts A and B. Both of these layout options are discussed below. It should be

noted that in both test-fit layouts the site layout extends north of the existing fence line, however the site layout

only has to extend over the existing tunnel in one of the test-fit layouts.

4.2.1 Test-Fit Layout A - Removing Ramp from Airport Access Road Bridge

The location of the existing columns supporting the bridge off-ramp is shown in Figure 3 near the entrance to the

site. These columns are also shown in Photo 5 in Appendix B. If these columns were removed, a vehicle storage

yard for eight vehicles, all parking required, and a facility/building for everything in the Space Needs Program

except for the PM Inspection/Repair Bay would fit on the site. A pit and platform can be constructed in the yard,

but one of the eight streetcars would need to park in that position overnight and that space would not likely be

conditioned. If the columns supporting the bridge off-ramp are removed, the site layout does not need to extend

over the existing tunnel, but Figure 3 shows an optional turnback (shown dashed) that does extend over the existing

tunnel. Figure 3 shows two yard leads, but in the event that the lead connecting the site and the northbound main

line is not constructed, a turnout (shown dashed) off of the lead connecting the site and the southbound main line

can be constructed.


16/46


Figure 3 - Site 2, Test-Fit Layout A, "Removing Ramp from Airport Access Road Bridge"


17/46


4.2.2 Test-Fit Layout B - Extending Over Existing Tunnel North of Gravel Parking Area

In order to avoid the existing columns supporting the bridge off-ramp, all streetcars would need to get into the site

south of the existing columns or continue north past the columns before turning into the site. Either of these track

configurations would require the VSF track work to extend over the existing tunnel just north of the existing gravel

parking area. It is being assumed that since existing CSX freight lines run over this tunnel, the tunnel can support

the load of a streetcar placed on it. With this configuration, a vehicle storage yard for eight vehicles, all parkingrequired, and a facility/building footprint encompassing everything but a separate bay for inspections and repairs

will fit on the site. The pit/platform would likely need to be located in the yard and one of the eight streetcars

would need to park in that position overnight. The test-fit layout created for this site configuration can be seen in

Figure 4.


18/46


Figure 4 - Site 2, Test-fit Layout B, Extending over Existing Tunnel North of Gravel Parking Area


19/46


Since the two test-fit layouts created for Site 2 would have different limits of disturbance, each was considered as a

separate alternative in the Site Selection Evaluation.

4.3 Site 3Site 3 is approximately two acres in size and is an existing bus parking lot located along South Glebe Road, north

of Four Mile Run Trail and west of Route 1. The current zoning is CM (limited industrial district), which likelywould allow a streetcar vehicle storage facility as a use. Photos 9 through11 in Appendix B combined with the

aerial view of this area accurately illustrate the characteristics of Site 3. The parcel is across the street from a

WMATA bus maintenance facility and if Site 3 was the selected site for the Crystal City Streetcar VSF, bus

parking would still need to be accommodated. In order to accommodate both bus parking and streetcar parking, a

parking deck would need to be constructed with a ramp to a second level where buses could be parked. The Crystal

City Streetcar VSF would be on the ground level with bus parking above. The maximum ramp slope for typical

bus operation (based on Bus Depot Design Guidelines used in previous projects) is 7%. Assuming the required bus

parking area would be elevated 25 above ground level (20 clear plus 5 parking deck structure); a 360 long ramp

would be required. Since the existing drive aisle off of South Eads Street is only approximately 200 in length, this

means that in order to maintain the square footage currently available for bus parking, a ramp would likely need to

wrap around the existing WMATA employee parking lot at the corner of South Eads Street and Glebe Road in

order to get up to the required deck height. This bus ramp and the vertical circulation required to get to and from

the deck level where buses will be parked will likely take away from the number of parking spaces currently

available in the WMATA employee lot. If required, the parking deck for bus parking could be extended over the

existing WMATA employee parking lot to accommodate any parking lost due to the bus ramp and vertical

circulation required for the parking deck. One possible configuration for the bus ramp can be seen in Figures 5 and

6 below.

The columns required to support the structure required for bus parking were taken into account when doing test-fit

layouts for this site, but Site 3 is large enough to fit the Space Needs Program. Two test-fit layouts (Layout A

and Layout B) were created for this site and are shown in F igures 5 and 6, respectively. These layouts require the

same site footprint, so they were not considered separate alternatives in the Site Selection Evaluation. Both layouts

are shown demonstrating that there are a number of track configurations possible on this site.

Option A provides mostly single capacity storage tracks with space for service lanes; however, not all storage

tracks are parallel to one another. There are two tracks with ladder tracks turning off of them in opposite directions.

Servicing streetcars while in the storage yard with this layout would not be as efficient of an operation as it would

be if all storage tracks were parallel to one another. This site configuration allows for a vehicle storage yard for

eight vehicles, a facility/building the size of the footprint required, parking for all vehicles in the Space Needs

Program, and a separate bay for inspections and repairs.


20/46


Figure 5 - Site 3, Test-fit Layout A, Single Capacity Streetcar Storage Tracks

Layout B for Site 3 includes four parallel storage tracks. With this configuration, all yard tracks are parallel to

one another and space for service lanes between every track is provided. This site configuration also allows for a

vehicle storage yard for eight vehicles, a facility/building the size of the footprint required, parking for all vehicles

in the Space Needs Program, and a separate bay for inspections and repairs.


21/46


Figure 6 - Site 3, Test-Fit Layout B, Parallel Storage Tracks


22/46


5. Site Selection CriteriaThe site selection criteria used for this analysis fall into four categories. Those four categories are:

Site Configuration

Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline Roadway Access

Cost of Development

In order to evaluate the alternative site configurations based on the four categories listed above, a set of criteria was

developed for each category, as shown in the Site Selection Ratings Table in Section 6 of this report. Each criterion

was assigned a numeric rating between zero (0) and three (3), with the exception of Cost of Construction where the

rating is between one (1) and four (4). Using this site selection criteria rating system provides the most quantitative

assessment possible of each site configuration. The criteria within each of the four selected categories and their

potential point values are described in the paragraphs below.

It should be noted that location of the VSF site along the alignment was not included in the site selection criteria.Typically, passengers will primarily use a public transportation system to commute to and from work, school, etc.

and a storage facility located closer to where the passengers begin and end their day will minimize deadheading. In

the case of the Crystal City Streetcar System, however, passengers will likely be coming from both south of Crystal

City and north of Crystal City (via the Columbia Pike Line) and if a vehicle is dispatched from the Crystal City

VSF in either direction, there will be no deadheading.

5.1 Site ConfigurationEach site configuration should be evaluated based on whether it efficiently accommodates the multiple functions

associated with this type of facility, including vehicle storage, cleaning, and maintenance and system operations.

Vehicles should also be able to easily access the yard from the mainline, the mainline from the yard, the repair bay

from the yard, and the yard from the repair bay. Specific Evaluation Criteria (and point structures) pertaining to

Site Configuration includes the following:

Criterion: Size

Point Structure: +2, +1, or 0 points

Description: If all functions in the Space Needs Program can be accommodated and in an ideal location

on a site, that site will score 2 points for size. If all functions can be accommodated, but in

less than ideal locations, the site will only score 1 point. If not all functions can be

accommodated on a site, that site will receive 0 points.

Criterion: Potential for Expansion (and/or other uses)

Point Structure: +1 or 0 points

Description: The site should be large enough to accommodate future expansion of the facility with

limited additional impacts to the surrounding area. If possible, the site should be

configured to support the initial vehicle fleet and provide for construction of added

capacity when the need arises. If there is space for expansion and/or other uses on a site,

that site will score 1 point for Potential for Expansion and if there is not space for

expansion and/or other uses on a site, that site will score 0 points.


23/46


Criterion: Site Layout


Description: The site should accommodate an efficient configuration that provides direct access

between the mainline and the storage yard and vehicle repair bay. In addition, the site

should be configured so that other elements such as parking and a loading dock can beresourcefully located. If all required adjacencies can be achieved (including eight storage

bays in addition to a repair bay) a site will score 2 points for Site Layout. If most required

adjacencies can be achieved the site will score 1 point. If only some required adjacencies

can be achieved a site will get 0 points.

Criterion: Direct moves to and from Mainline


Description: If a site allows for direct moves to and from the mainline, streetcars will not have to

reverse on site or on the mainline in order to go either direction on the mainline once

leaving the yard. If direct moves to and from the mainline from the vehicle storage yard

are possible, a site will score 1 point for Direct Moves to and from Mainline. If there

cannot be direct moves to and from the mainline from the vehicle storage yard, a site will

score 0 points.

Criterion: Move to and from Repair Bay


Description: If a streetcar can move between the vehicle storage yard and the repair bay from all storage

positions without going off-site, that site will score 2 points for Move to and from Repair

Bay. If a streetcar can move between the vehicle storage yard and the repair bay from

some storage positions, that site will score 1 point. If a streetcar can move between the

vehicle storage yard and the repair bay from no storage positions, that site will score 0points.

Criterion: Uni-directional Yard Flow


Description: If a streetcar will not have to exit a storage track on a site the same way it entered the

storage track, that site will score 1 point for Uni-directional Yard Flow. If a streetcar will

have to exit a storage track on a site the same way it entered the storage track, that site will

score 0 points.

Criterion: Reasonably Easy to Secure


Description: The site for the Crystal City Streetcar VSF must be able to be completely fenced in and any

access point must be secured so that only employees and escorted guests can get on

property. If this level of security can be obtained on a site without difficulty, that site will

score 1 point for Reasonably Easy to Secure. If a site cannot easily be secured, that site

will score 0 points.


24/46


Criterion: Adherence to Track Work Desired

Point Structure: +3, +2, +1, or 0 points

Description: The Arlington County Streetcar Design Criteria provides desired, acceptable, and absolute

track work standards. The Project Team adhered to these standards as strictly as possible,

but in some cases had to go with absolute or even below absolute standards. If most track

work meets the desired standards, a site receives 3 points for Adherence to Track WorkDesired. If most track work meets the acceptable standards, a site receives 2 points. If

some track work only meets absolute criteria, a site receives 1 point. If some track work is

below absolute standards, the site receives 0 points.

Adding the potential point values for each of the above Evaluation Criteria together, each site configuration could

score a maximum of thirteen points in the Site Configuration category.

5.2 Proximity/Connectivity to MainlineThe VSF site should possess characteristics that minimize potential short- and long-term impacts to the surrounding

area, and should not require significant modifications to accommodate the proposed facility. The site should be in

close proximity to and easily accessible from the mainline tracks and should be compatible with all initial and

ultimate operating segment alternatives. Specific Evaluation Criteria pertaining to Proximity/Connectivity to

Mainline are as follows:

Criterion: Two Leads from Mainline to Yard


Description: If a site allows for two leads from the mainline to the yard, it will score 1 point for Two

Leads from Mainline to Yard. This provides the system with flexibility if something

happens at (or on) one side of one of the yard leads. If a site does not allow for two leads

from the mainline to the yard, it will score 0 points.

Criterion: Elevation Difference


Description: The site should have level terrain to simplify the storage and maintenance of vehicles, to

minimize the potential for uncontrolled vehicle movement within the site (or onto the

mainline tracks), and to minimize the need for grading and earth retention structures. If a

site is level, or has up to a 3 elevation difference, that site will score 2 points for Elevation

Difference. If a site has a 3 to 6 elevation difference, that site will score 1 point. If a site

has an elevation difference of 6 or more, that site will score 0 points.

Criterion: Obstacles

Point Structure: +2, +1, or 0 pointsDescription: If there are major obstacles that must be faced in order to connect the yard and the

mainline, a site will receive 0 points when it comes to Obstacles. If there are some minor

obstacles that must be taken care of before the mainline can be connected to the yard, that

site will score 1 point. If there are no obstacles preventing the yard from being connected

to the mainline a site will score 2 points.


25/46


Criterion: Length of Yard Leads


Description: The selected site for the Crystal City Streetcar VSF should be in close proximity to and

easily accessible from the mainline tracks. None of the three sites evaluated for the Crystal

City Streetcar VSF are easy to get into from the mainline, but in order to compare the three

sites evaluated, if yard leads to a site would be 775 or more long, that site will score 0points for Length of Yard Leads. If yard leads to a site would be between 700 and 774,

that site will score 1 point. If yard leads to a site would be less than 700 that site will

score 2 points.


score a maximum of seven points in the Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline category.

5.3 Roadway AccessFor the most part, the two Site Selection Criteria categories already discussed concern the movement of streetcars

to, from, and on a potential VSF site. The Roadway Access category addresses non-railbound movements to, from,

and on a potential VSF site, assigning points based on efficiency and safety. Specific Evaluation Criteriapertaining to Roadway Access are as follows:

Criterion: Non-streetcar Vehicular Traffic Flow


Description: If a vehicle will be able to enter and exit the property crossing little or no tracks on a site,

that site will receive 2 points for Non-streetcar Vehicular Traffic Flow. If a vehicle will

most likely have to cross some tracks when entering or exiting the parking lot on a site,

that site will score 1 point. If a vehicle will likely have to cross multiple tracks when

entering or exiting the parking lot on a site, that site would score 0 points.

Criterion: Ease of Changing Traffic Pattern


Description: The other criterion in the roadway access category has to do with traffic patterns getting

into the yard from the existing streets. If no change would likely be required to the

existing traffic pattern to safely get non-rail bound vehicles onto the site, then that site

would score 2 points for Ease of Changing Traffic Pattern. If changes would likely be

required to get vehicles into a site but the changes are reasonably easy, a site will score 1

point. If changes would likely be required and the changes are difficult, then a site will

score 0 points.


score a maximum of four points in the Roadway Access category.


26/46


5.4 Cost of Development

Criterion: Cost of Construction

Point Structure: +4, +3, +2, or +1 points

Description: Capital costs (site preparation, track work, and facility construction) were estimated fordeveloping each of the four alternative sites and the four alternatives were ranked 1

through 4 based on cost alone. The site with the lowest cost implications received four

points; the site with the next lowest cost received three points, and so on. The site with the

highest cost implications received one point. With that being said, each site evaluated

could score a maximum of four points for Cost of Construction, but only one site could

score four points for this criterion.

Criterion: Difficulty to Acquire Property

Point Structure: +3, +2, or +1 points

Description: Qualitatively accounting for both financial and non-financial property acquisition costs, if

a site would be relatively easy to purchase, that site would receive 3 points for Difficulty to

Acquire Property. This means the owner of the property would need to be willing to sell or

lease the property and the process associated with acquiring the property would not be

difficult. If there are known obstacles that the project would need to overcome in order to

acquire a site, but it does not seem extremely difficult to overcome those obstacles, that site

will receive 2 points for Difficulty to Acquire Property. If there are a number of unknown

factors that may affect acquisition of a property and acquiring the site could be extremely

difficult, that site will only receive 1 point for Difficulty to Acquire Property.


score a maximum of seven points in the Cost of Development category, but only one site could score seven pointsand that site would have to be easy to acquire and the cheapest site to develop.


27/46


6. Cost Comparative Information

6.1 Basis of the Conceptual EstimateThe basic scope for each of the three sites is the same and includes demolition of existing surface pavement,

excavation to subgrade for new pavement and embedded tracks, allowances for on-site utilities and utilities to thenew Maintenance building, construction of the new Maintenance building and required track work and power

substation. As each of the sites is in an area that is or is planned to be further developed and beautified(according

to the Crystal City Sector Plan, 2010,www.arlingtonva.com), allowances for site improvements, such as walks,

metal picket type fencing and landscaping have also been included.

The facility/building footprint is as dictated in this report. It is anticipated to be a pre-engineered building or of

masonry construction, with limited interior defined spaces. The majority of the space will be used for maintenance

and storage functions. An allowance for maintenance equipment such as one or more portable sanding systems and

fixed platforms for access to the top of cars is included.

Assumptions specific to each site are defined in the sections below (there are site specific conditions for Sites 2 and3 that result in higher costs), and assumptions that apply to all cost estimates are as follows:

All costs are presented in 2013 dollars. Costs are based on historic costs for similar construction, 2013 RS

Means construction cost data, Department of Transportation from various states and Federal Transit

Administration data and recommendations, all normalized for the Washington, D.C. location.

Design Development Contingency has been applied at the rate of 40% of the construction costs.

Professional servicesincluding Architectural and Engineering design is included at a rate of 30% of the

construction costs.

The estimate is intended to consider all costs associated with this project, whether or not included on the

test-fit layouts. As such, costs for additional items not reflected on the test-fit layouts, but required by

design are also included.

The costs represent only the anticipated costs to design and build the Vehicle Storage Yard as discussed.

Costs related to real estate acquisition are expressly excluded due to the difficulty of determining

acquisition costs.

6.2 Site 1Site 1 is the most straightforward, as well as the smallest of the three alternative sites at an assumed 37,900 sf. The

scope for this site is the basic scope, as described above.

6.3 Site 2 Test-Fit Layout A Removing Ramp from Airport Access Road BridgeThere are two layouts provided for Site 2 and Test-Fit Layout A has a couple of alternatives associated with it.

The difference between the two test-fit layouts provided is solely the amount of track work, special track work, and

miscellaneous track related items required, so for the purpose of this study the most costly option for each layout

has been presented. The existing tunnel at the north end of Site 2 is assumed to have been built to withstand the
http://www.arlingtonva.com/http://www.arlingtonva.com/http://www.arlingtonva.com/http://www.arlingtonva.com/


28/46


loads from the adjacent CSX tracks, as it continues under them, therefore no allowance for tunnel improvements

has been included.

Site 2 Layout A (assumed to be 40,500 square feet) includes the cost of demolition of the Airport Access ramp

(roughly 335 feet long by 20 feet wide), reconfiguration of the Airport Access highway, construction of a canopy

covering the entire site, and enclosing the existing drainage channel on the site. It has been assumed that the

Airport Access highway reconfiguration will be minor and include only addition of a parapet wall, sidewalk,

curb/gutter system and railings typical of what presently exists; no allowance for lane reconfiguration, addition or

deletion. Allowances for lighting and drainage demolition/relocation have also been included in the reconfiguration

costs. The cost for the drainage channel enclosure includes buried pipe that will be daylighted at each end and

runoff structures.

6.4 Site 2 Test-Fit Layout B Extending Over Existing Tunnel North of Gravel

Parking Area

Site 2 Layout B (assumed to be 50,100 square feet) assumes that the Airport Access ramp will remain in place, but

still includes the cost of the canopy and enclosing the existing drainage channel. Layout B is designed to avoid the

columns associated with the existing ramp from the Airport Access Road Bridge. From a costing standpoint, the

canopy included for both Site 2 layouts is envisioned as a metal or wood truss supported standing seam metal roof

with sidewalls of unspecified construction that would be sympathetic to the surrounding architecture. This space

would not be conditioned.

6.5 Site 3Site 3 (assumed to be 89,300 square feet) includes the basic scope, adjusted for this largest site. The unique feature

for Site 3 is the single level parking structure above the tracks, which will allow for the currently available bus

parking. In addition to the square foot cost for the parking structure, the cost estimate for Site 3 includes an

allowance for a long ramp for access to the parking deck anticipated to be 25 feet above the tracks and sloped as

required for buses. The parking deck is anticipated to be open air.

In addition to costs related to real estate acquisition being expressly excluded from the cost estimate for Site 3,

relocation of the WMATA bus operations and any costs related to the DVP underground line have also been

excluded and costs presented are strictly construction costs. Site 3 is the most expensive site to construct with or

without considering the WMATA relocation costs.


29/46


7. Site Selection EvaluationsWith each site configuration having the potential to score 13 points on Site Configuration, seven points on

Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline, four points on Roadway Access, and seven points on Cost of Development,

the maximum total score possible is 31 points. Each site configuration has pros and cons that the other sites may or

may not have, but the numeric scoring system takes all pros and cons into account to determine the overall best site.None of the sites received any points for potential for expansion and/or other uses. Site 3 is the only site with more

area available than what was calculated by the Space Needs Program, but once the columns needed to support a

parking structure for buses above the Crystal City Streetcar VSF are taken into consideration, it does not appear that

there will be enough unused area for future expansion. All of the alternative sites received 2 points for elevation

since none of the sites had more than a 3 elevation difference that would need to be graded. The only part of any

site that is not essentially flat is the storm drain on the east side of Site 2 and this drain will be put underground and

paved over.

Table 2 provides the completed site selection matrix in which the four alternative site boundaries were rated. Out

of 31 possible points, the highest scoring alternative scored 21 points. One alternative for Site 2 scored higher than

any other site configuration. The other alternative for Site 2 scored the same as Site 3. Details of the point

distributions for each site are presented in the following paragraphs.

Table 2 - Crystal City Streetcar Site Selection Ratings

CategoryMaximum

ScoreSite 1

Site 2 -

Layout

"A"

Site 2 -

Layout

"B"

Site 3

2 0 1 1 2

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 0

2 0 1 1 1

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 1 1

3 0 2 2 3

13 1 7 7 9

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

2 0 0 2 1

2 0 2 1 2

7 3 5 6 6

2 1 2 2 1

2 1 2 2 1

4 2 4 4 2

24 6 16 17 17

4 4 2 3 1

3 1 1 1 1

7 5 3 4 2

31 11 19 21 19

Length of Yard Leads

Cost of Development

Total

Operational Criteria

Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline Subtotal

Roadway Access

Non-streetcar Vehicular Traffic Flow

Ease of Changing Traffic Pattern

Roadway Access Subtotal

Cost of Construction

Difficulty to Acquire PropertyCost of Development

Adherence to Track Work Desired

Site Configuration

Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline

Crystal City Streetcar Site Selection Ratings

Criteria

Size

Potential for Expansion

Site Layout

Direct Moves to and from Mainline

Move to and from Repair Bay

Uni-directional Yard Flow

Reasonably Easy to Secure

Site Configuration Subtotal

Two Leads from Mainline to Yard

Elevation Difference

Obstacles


30/46


7.1 Site 1Site 1 scored one point for Site Configuration, three points for Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline, two points for

Roadway Access, and five points for Cost of Development for a total of 11 points. Site 1 received 0 points for the

Size criterion because the Space Needs Program does not fit on the site. The storage track configuration that fits on

the site can only hold seven streetcars as opposed to the required eight. Since the required streetcar storage does

not fit on the site, Site 1 also received 0 points for both the Potential for Expansion and Site Layout criterion. Site 1does allow for direct moves to and from the mainline, but that is the only point Site 1 received in the Site

Configuration category. Moving to and from the repair bay from any storage position without going off-site would

not be possible and uni-directional yard flow is not possible because of the position of the site along the alignment.

Site 1 also scored 0 points for both Reasonably Easy to Secure and Adherence to Track Work Desired. Site 1 is not

reasonably easy to secure because the site is surrounded by streets on all four sides and there is a turnout off of one

of the yard leads so that lead ends up crossing onto the site in two different locations. Site 1 was the only site that

did not get 1 point for Reasonably Easy to Secure. These turnouts are also curving as they turn onto the site. The

track work for Site 1 would not meet all of the absolute standards provided in the Design Criteria; therefore Site 1

scored 0 points for Adherence to Track Work Desired.

Site 1 also has major obstacles when it comes to connecting the yard to the mainline. These obstacles are the

columns supporting the Airport Access Road Bridge off-ramp and the four crosswalks that would have tracks

running over them if there was to be two yard leads for this site. According to the Transit Cooperative Research

Programs Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit, switch points should not be located in pedestrian

crossing areas. The only feasible locations for the yard leads for Site 1 are at the northeast and southeast corners of

the site, which are pedestrian queue areas. Additionally, handicap (wheel chair) access to these areas would be

affected by the embedded track. Due to the bridge columns Site 1 also scored zero points for Length of Yard Leads

because the yard leads required to reach the far side of the columns require approximately 775 of track. Site 1

scored 1 point for Non-streetcar Vehicular Traffic Flow because employees and visitors would not need to cross

any tracks if they entered in the northwest corner of the site, but delivery vehicles would need to cross multiple

tracks in order to get on site because there are tracks around the perimeter of the property and the facility is in thecenter of the site.

As described above, Site 1 ranked first in the Cost of Development category for having the lowest projected

construction cost and the same score for Difficulty to Acquire as all other site alternatives evaluated. Site 1

received 1 point for Difficulty to Acquire Property due to the fact that the site would be leased from the United

States (US) government and there are various interests in the property. It is unclear which branch of the US

government owns the property and VDOT and those with existing ground leases have interest in the property. Even

with these five points though, Site 1 still scored the lowest overall of the four alternative sites evaluated since the

site scored the lowest in both the Site Configuration and Roadway Access categories.

7.2 Site 2 - Removing Ramp from Airport Access Road BridgeSite 2 assuming the existing Airport Access Road Bridge off-ramp is removed scored seven points for Site

Configuration, five points for Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline, four points for Roadway Access, and three

points for Cost of Development for a total of 19 points. The Site 2Removing Ramp from Airport Access Road

Bridge configuration received 1 point for size. All functions/elements in the Space Needs Program can be

accommodated with this configuration, but some functions/elements would be in less than ideal locations.

Essentially, if this site was closer to the 1.74 acres in size, the 70% overall circulation and setback requirement

would be met and all functions/elements would be in ideal locations. For example, there is employee/visitor


31/46


parking in more than one place on the site. Since no parking will be near the building entrance, this site only scored

1 point for Site layout. The test-fit layout for this site demonstrated that direct moves to and from the mainline are

possible and it would be possible to move to and from the repair bay without going off-site from some of the

storage positions. Uni-direction flow was not achievable on this site, though. Site 2 received 2 points because most

of the track work required meets acceptable levels according to the Design Criteria.

This site configuration has a major obstacle when it comes to connecting the yard to the mainline. This obstacle

would be removing the columns currently preventing the mainline to be connected to the yard in the proposed

location on Site 2 while trying to remain south of the existing tunnel. If the bridge ramp and these columns were

removed prior to construction of the VSF, this site configuration would receive both points for this criterion and its

overall score would be as high as the other alternative for Site 2. Site 2 received 1 point possible for Reasonably

Easy to Secure and both points possible for Non-streetcar Vehicular Traffic Flow, because employees and visitors

should be able to enter the site from the existing Service Road. This configuration received 0 points for Obstacles,

but the yard leads required for this configuration would only be approximately 610 in length, so this site scored 2

points for Length of Yard Leads. Site 2 allows for two yard leads, but not all eight storage positions may be able to

be accessed from each of the leads, therefore depending on the ultimate site layout, both yard leads may not be

desired.

Site 2 received only 1 point for Difficulty to Acquire Property since it could be the most complicated and expensive

site to acquire due to the fact that the site would need to be purchased and with the potential for future joint

development. Site 2 is referred to as a Found Site in the Sector Plan which means that there are no existing

development rights, but the plan is to develop the site. This means that the price for the site could be extremely

high and community benefits could be required in return for using the land for the VSF. Site 2 ranked in between

Sites 1 and 3 when it came to Cost of Construction, but Site 2 Removing Ramp from Airport Access Road Bridge

would be more expensive than extending over the existing tunnel. This alternative for Site 2 also scored one less

point on the operational criteria (Site Configuration, Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline, and Roadway Access)

than the other alternative for Site 2.

7.3 Site 2 - Extending Over Existing Tunnel North of Gravel Parking Area

This test-fit layout for Site 2 assumes the existing columns supporting the Airport Access Road Bridge off-ramp

must be maintained. This alternative scored seven points for Site Configuration, six points for

Proximity/Connectivity to Mainline, four points for Roadway Access, and four points for Cost of Development for

a total of 21 points if the site layout extends north of the existing tunnel north of the existing gravel parking area.

This alternative scored exactly the same as the first alternative for Site 2, with the exception of three criteria. This

alternative scored 2 points for obstacles interfering with access since there are no obstacles in the way of entering

and exiting the site and this alternative scored one less point than Layout A for Length of Yard Leads since yard

leads for this alternative would total approximately 764 in length. The third difference between the two Site 2

layouts is that Layout B ranked higher for Cost of Construction with a lower overall cost than Layout A.

This site alternative scored the highest based on the selected site selection criteria receiving a total of 21 points. As

previously stated, if the bridge off-ramp and the columns supporting that ramp were removed prior to construction

of the VSF, the Site 2 - Removing Ramp from Airport Access Road Bridge site configuration would receive both

points for Obstacles and its overall score would be as high as Site 2 - Extending Over Existing Tunnel North of

Gravel Parking Area.


32/46


7.4 Site 3The test-fit layouts for Site 3 scored nine points for Site Configuration, six points for Proximity/Connectivity to

Mainline, two points for Roadway Access, and two points for Cost of Development for a total of 19 points. Being

approximately two acres and fitting the Space Needs Program on the site, Site 3 was the only site to score 2 points

for both Size and Site Layout. Site 3 also scored the maximum points possible for Reasonably Easy to Secure,

Adherence to Track Work Desired, Two Leads from Mainline to Yard, and Length of Yard Leads. Site 3 received3 points for adherence to track work desired because most of the track work required for this site meets desired

levels according to the Design Criteria. The entrances to the site would be straight gates along existing streets, two

yard leads (merging into one) would be possible for at least one layout on Site, and one layout presented for Site 3

requires only 623 of lead track. Site 3 did not score maximum points for any of the remaining criteria. There are

no major obstacles in the way of getting on the site, but a streetcar must be able to get to the south side of Glebe

Road prior to entering the site, so Site 3 only scored 1 point for Obstacles. There would not likely be direct moves

to and from the mainline from Site 3, a streetcar would only be able to get to the repair bay without going off-site

from some if any of the storage positions, and the site does not allow for uni-directional flow. Also, non-streetcar

traffic (at least delivery vehicles) would likely have to cross some tracks and the change in traffic pattern required

at the intersection of Glebe Road and Route 1 and where vehicles would enter the site from Glebe Road if heading

west would be difficult.

Site 3 scored more points in the Site Configuration category than any other alternative site, but its low scores in the

Cost of Development category and the Roadway Access category caused this site to rank below one of the

configurations for Site 2. Due to the cost of the parking structure for buses, Site 3 scored only 1 point for Cost of

Construction. In addition to the development costs previously discussed, there are special start-up costs that would

be associated with developing Site 3 due to temporarily displacing WMATA buses. These costs include leasing

property off-site, preparing the off-site property for bus operations (paving, fencing), and transporting drivers to

and from the bus parking lot. Site 3 received 1 point for Difficulty to Acquire Property since the use of this

property would be negotiated with WMATA and VDOT (currently user and owner, respectively) and any

agreement would need to be negotiated with all parties. In addition, there is a proposed Dominion Virginia Power(DVP) underground transmission line in the Southwest corner of Site 3 so this and any future DVP facilities would

need to be coordinated with the streetcar project.


33/46


8. RecommendationsIn order to determine which site is best suitable for the Crystal City VSF, assumptions were made, a space needs

program was developed, alternatives sites were determined, site selection criteria was developed, and alternative

site configurations were rated. Based on the site selection evaluation performed, Site 2 and Site 3 are both more

suitable for the Crystal City VSF than Site 1. The two test-fit layouts created for Site 2 scored 19 points and 21points and the test-fit layout for Site 3 scored 19 points, while the test-fit layout for Site 1 only scored 11 points.

8.1 Site 1 EliminationThe maximum dynamic clearance envelope assumed for the vehicle is greater than the existing bridge column

spacing on Site 1; thus a fatal flaw with streetcar vehicles running between bridge columns on this site. A test-fit

layout was completed for Site 1, positioning vehicles outside of the existing columns, but the Space Needs Program

does not fit on this layout. Site 1 received only 1 point in the Site Configuration category and only 6 points on all

Operational Criteria. Site 1 should not be carried forward as a suitable site for the Crystal City VSF. Site 2 and

Site 3 are far more suitable and should be explored in more detail through the environmental review process.

8.2 Site 2 Preferred SiteAs noted above, Site 2 is the top-ranked site and is recommended for further study.

8.3 Site 3 EliminationA meeting was held with WMATA, the current user of Site 3, to discuss the possibility of using the existing bus

parking lot for streetcar storage and to identify WMATAs requirements if the bus and streetcar operations were to

co-exist. WMATA has no plans to relocate the bus parking lot due to its proximity to the maintenance and CNG

fueling facility across the street from Site 3. For the two operations to co-exist, WMATA would require the

following:

Space for storing 110 buses

Space for parking 250 employee, visitor, and non-revenue vehicles

Conformance with WMATAs existing agreement with the City of Alexandria to allow DVP complete

access to the site for two years starting in 2017 for the purposes of constructing a new transmission line

under Four Mile Run. (If Dominion Power does not get all regulations required in place by 2017, the next

possible start date is 2019.)

Temporary relocation of WMATA operations during construction, including bearing the costs of dead-

heading, shuttles, and security requirements.

Based on the site selection evaluation and discussions with WMATA, Arlington County determined that Site 3

would not be available for use as a Vehicle Storage Facility during the anticipated construction timeline of theCrystal City Streetcar Project without substantial delays to the project schedule. Site 2 is the only remaining

feasible location for the VSF and should be carried through the environmental review process.


34/46


Crystal City Streetcar Project

Appendix A

Space Needs Program


35/46


9. Appendix A Space Needs ProgramCrystal City Streetcar Project Rev: 3/18/2013

Space Needs Program

Vehicle Storage Facility (VSF)

Fleet size = 8

Initial Needs Remarks

Staff Space

SHARED AREAS Ground Floor

Entrance Lobby 10 x 10 1 100 Visitors/Potential Development connection

Copy/Supplies/Files/Library 20 x 15 1 300File cabinets, manuals library, PC, copy,

paper

Men's Restroom/Showers 10 x 10 1 100 For operations, maintenance & public

Women's Restroom/Showers 10 x 10 1 100 For operations, maintenance & public

Locker Area 10 x 10 1 100 For operations, maintenance & public

Break Room 10 x 20 13 1 200 For operations & maintenance

Support A reas

IT/Telephone closet 6 x 10 1 60

Water Service 10 x 10 1 100

Electrical 10 x 20 1 200

Mechanical 10 x 12 1 120

Janitor's Closet 5 x 6 1 30

Subtotal - Office/Crew Areas 13 1,410

Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc 494

TOTAL - SHARED AREAS 1,904OPERATIONS Ground Floor

Office Space

Unassigned Space 8 x 8 1 1 64 Cubicle for visitor or growth

Work Block/Dispatch 12.5 x 8 1 1 100

Yard Control 12.5 x 8 1 1 100

Secured Space

Driver's Supplies 3 x 6 8 1 18 uniforms, gloves, etc.

Subtotal - Office/Crew Areas 11 282

Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc 99

TOTAL - OPERATIONS 381

MAINTENANCE Ground FloorOffice Areas

Maintenance Supervisor 10 x 12 1 1 120 Office, View of Shop

Repair Bays

PM Inspection/Repair Bay 22 x 104 1 1 2,288 Pit and Platform

Shop/Storage Areas

Parts/Stock Room 20 x 20 1 400 Sand, light bulbs, some vehicle parts

Tool Crib 10 X 6 1 60Toolbox Storage 5 x 10 1 50 Secured/caged area

Portable Equipment Storage 10 x 20 1 200

Common Work Area 20 x 30 1 600Workbench, drill press, buffer/grinder, parts

washer

Subtotal - Maintenance 2 3,718

Circ./Mech./Elec./Struc. 744

TOTAL - MAINTENANCE 4,462

TOTAL - FACILITY FOOTPRINT 6,747

Area DescriptionSpace

Standard

35%

20%

QuantityArea (SF)

35%


36/46


Crystal City Streetcar Project Rev: 3/18/2013

Space Needs Program

Vehicle Storage Facility (VSF)

SITE AREAS

PARKINGExterior

Transit Vehicle

streetcars 18 x 87 8 12,52882' X 8.85' S70 car, service lane every aisle

(sandboxes on both sides of car)

ladder tracks 0.95 x 1 12,528 11,902

Subtotal - Transit Vehicles - Exterior 24,430

Employee & Visitor Parking - -

Non-Revenue Vehicles 10 x 20 2 400

Employee 9 x 18 13 2,106

Visitor 9 x 18 2 324

Disability Parking 13 x 18 1 234

Subtotal - Employee/Visitor Parking 3,064

Parking Circulation 3,064

Subtotal Parking 6,128

TOTAL - PARKING 30,558

EXTERIOR AREASScrap Metal Dumpsters 30 x 5 1 150

Refuse and Recycling Dumpsters 15 x 5 2 150

Traction Power substation 20 x 40 1 800

Truck Maneuvering (deliveries) 75 x 80 1 6,000

Patio/Outdoor Break Area 10 x 20 1 200 designated smoking and non-smoking area

Subtotal - Exterior Areas 7,300

TOTAL - EXTERIOR AREAS 7,300

TOTAL - SITE AREAS 44,605 INCLUDES BUILDING FOOTPRINTCirculation - site, BMP, landscaping & setbacks 70% 31,223

TOTAL - SITE SIZE 75,828

Acres 1.74

100%


37/46


Crystal City Streetcar ProjectAppendix B

Photos


38/46


39/46


Photo 3

Site 1 taken from the gate along26thStreet facing Clark Street

Photo 4

Site 1 taken from Clark Streetlooking east

Photo 5

Columns for ramp from AirportAccess Road Bridge (photo takenlooking south on Site 2)


40/46


Photo 6

Site 2 taken from the north side ofthe existing gravel parking area

looking south (Airport Access

Road Bridge in the background)

Photo 7

Site 2 taken from the southwestcorner of the lot looking northeastat the CSX lines east of the site

Photo 8

Site 2 taken from the southwestcorner of the lot looking north(Service Road on the other side of

the fence to the west/left)


41/46


Photo 9

Site 3 taken from northwestcorner of the site looking east

Photo 10

Site 3 taken from the southeast ofthe site looking west

Photo 11

Site 3 looking at the entrance tothe site off of Eads Street


42/46


Crys

Vehicle Storage Facility Potential Site Evaluation Report

Documents

Transcript of Vehicle Storage Facility Potential Site Evaluation Report