Draft Environmental Assessment · this Environmental Assessment (EA) for George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC) 2016 Master Plan Update, located at 4000

65

Prepared by:The U.S. General Services Administration

For the National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC)2016 Master Plan Update

Draft Environmental Assessment

December 2016

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

Volume III: Appendices D & E

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

SManes

Typewritten Text

Draft Environmental Assessment National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC) 2016 Master Plan Update Arlington, VA

Responsible Agency:

U.S. General Services Administration Public Buildings Service, National Capital Region

For information concerning this document contact: Ms. Alexis Gray, NEPA Compliance Specialist U.S. General Services Administration National Capital Region 301 7th Street, SW, Room 4004 Washington, DC 20407 [email protected]

Abstract

The United States (U.S.) General Services Administration (GSA), National Capital Region, has prepared

this Environmental Assessment (EA) for George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center

(NFATC) 2016 Master Plan Update, located at 4000 Arlington Boulevard in Arlington County, Virginia.

The NFATC site comprises approximately 71 acres of land where the State Department maintains the

property as an educational and training center. The center serves as a major federal government

education facility serving trainees in the Foreign Service and also as a professional training and

conference center for Department of State(DOS) staff. The proposed action calls for phased

improvements to this essential facility to accommodate its evolving training mission, as well as its

growing campus population (on-site and distance learners) over the next decade. Improvements include

expansion of existing facilities, as well as construction of new facilities. All improvements will remain

within the existing, 71-acre site. Three Master Plan Alternatives and the No-Action Alternative have

been considered. The EA has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

of 1969, as amended; the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA; the

GSA Public Buildings Service NEPA Desk Guide; and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of

1966, as amended.

December 2016

mailto:[email protected]

NFATC 2016 Master Plan Update EA

Appendices

A. Scoping Letters and Distribution Lists ............................................................................... A-1

B. Agency Coordination ......................................................................................................... B-1

C. Section 106 Consultation .................................................................................................. C-1

D. NFATC Traffic Analysis ....................................................................................................... D-1

E. Visual Analysis ................................................................................................................... E-1

NFATC 2016 Master Plan Update Draft EA

D-1 | P a g e

D. NFATC TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

SManes

Typewritten Text

DRAFT TRAFFIC STUDYNATIONAL FOREIGN AFFAIRS TRAINING CENTER:

MASTER PLAN UPDATE

NOVEMBER 18, 2016

NFATC Traffic Study

i

Contents1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. 1

3. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 4

3.1 Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 4

3.2 Existing Conditions Operational Analysis ......................................................................................... 4

4. Future Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 7

4.1 Study Area Background Growth ....................................................................................................... 7

4.2 NFATC Expansion .............................................................................................................................. 7

4.3 Future Student and Faculty Population projections ...................................................................... 11

4.4 Planned Transportation Improvements ......................................................................................... 11

4.5 Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................. 12

4.6 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 13

4.7 Future Year 2017 Operational Analysis .......................................................................................... 17

4.8 Future Year 2025 Operational Analysis .......................................................................................... 24

5. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 30

5.1 Warrants and Operational Analysis ................................................................................................ 30

5.2 Opinion of Cost ............................................................................................................................... 33

NFATC Traffic Study

ii

TableofFiguresFigure 1‐1: NFATC Project Location……………………………………………………………………….………………………………..2

Figure 2‐1: NFATC Traffic Analysis Study Area ............................................................................................. 3

Figure 3‐1: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 5

Figure 3‐2: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Levels of Service ........................................................................ 6

Figure 4‐1: 2017 Background Growth Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 9

Figure 4‐2: 2025 Background Growth Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 10

Figure 4‐3: Future Year Trip Distribution at NFATC Gates ......................................................................... 13

Figure 4‐4: 2017 No‐Build Trip Distribution Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... 14

Figure 4‐5: 2017 Build Trip Distribution Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 15

Figure 4‐6: 2025 No‐Build Trip Distribution Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... 16

Figure 4‐7: 2025 Build Trip Distribution Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 17

Figure 4‐8: 2017 No‐Build Total Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 20

Figure 4‐9: 2017 Build Total Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 21

Figure 4‐10: 2017 No‐Build Delay and Level of Service ............................................................................. 22

Figure 4‐11: 2017 Build Delay and Level of Service ................................................................................... 23

Figure 4‐12: 2025 No‐Build Total Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 26

Figure 4‐13: 2025 Build Total Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 27

Figure 4‐14: 2025 No‐Build Delay and Level of Service ............................................................................. 28

Figure 4‐15: 2025 Build Delay and Level of Service ................................................................................... 29

Figure 5‐1: 2025 Build Left Turn Lane Warrant at South Gate Intersection .............................................. 30

Figure 5‐2: 2025 Build Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis at South Gate Intersection ............................ 31

Figure 5‐3: 2025 Build Four Hour Signal Warrant Analysis at South Gate Intersection ............................ 31

Figure 5‐4: Delay and LOS at South Gate Intersection with Recommendations ....................................... 32

TableofTables:Table 4‐1: NFATC Master Plan Build‐Out Scenario Summary ...................................................................... 8

Table 4‐2: Annual Student Population Increase ........................................................................................ 11

Table 4‐3: Year 2017 NFATC Gate Queue Lengths ..................................................................................... 18

Table 4‐4: Year 2025 NFATC Gate Queue Lengths ..................................................................................... 24

Table 5‐1: 2025 Queue Lengths at South Gate Intersection with Recommendations .............................. 33

NFATC Traffic Study

1

1. IntroductionThe U.S. Department of State (DOS) is updating its 2005 Master Plan for the George P. Shultz National

Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC), at Arlington Hall in Arlington, Virginia (Figure 1‐1). NFATC is the

headquarters for the Foreign Service Institute (FSI). The Master Plan Update will document the physical

requirements and architectural and engineering intent for improvements to this campus for classroom

training and distance learning for DOS. The programs and support offered through NFATC equip DOS

professionals with the knowledge and skills needed to carry out the department’s diplomatic mission

throughout the world. World events and maintenance of U.S. diplomatic leadership place increasing

demands on U.S. diplomatic professionals. The Master Plan Update lays the groundwork for phased

improvements to this essential facility needed to accommodate its evolving training mission, as well as

its expanding population (on‐site and distance learners) over the next decade.

As part of the Master Plan Update, a traffic study was conducted to determine the impacts associated

with the additional traffic volumes generated by the NFATC installation expansion. The following

sections will discuss the existing traffic operations within the study area as well as the projected future

traffic volumes and operations.

2.StudyAreaThe study area for this traffic study was developed based on the study area shown in the 2005 Master

Plan traffic study. The following intersections are included in the study area and shown on an aerial map

in Figure 2‐1:

1. George Mason Drive @ Route 50 North

2. George Mason Drive @ Route 50 South

3. Glebe Road @ Route 50 North

4. Glebe Road @ Route 50 South

5. George Mason Drive @ 8th Street

6. Route 50 Eastbound Frontage Road and North Gate Access

7. George Mason Drive / 6th Street Gate Access (South Gate)

NFATC Traffic Study

2

Figure 1‐1: NFATC Project Location

Study Intersections

1. George Mason Drive @ Route 50 North

2. George Mason Drive @ Route 50 South

3. Glebe Road @ Route 50 North

4. Glebe Road @ Route 50 South

5. George Mason Drive @ 8th Street

6. Route 50 Eastbound Frontage Road & North Gate Access

7. George Mason Drive / 6th Street Gate Access (South Gate)

NFATC Traffic Study

Figure 2-1

NFATC Study Area

Sheet 1 of 1

1

2

3

4

6

7

5

NFATC Traffic Study

4

3.ExistingConditions

3.1ExistingConditionsTrafficVolumesVehicular turning movement counts were collected at the study area intersections to conduct the

existing conditions traffic analysis. The counts were conducted during fiscal year 2015, Tuesday through

Thursday during the week of November 17, 2014 during the AM peak period (7‐9 AM) and PM peak

period (4:30‐6:30 PM). The adjacent roadways peak hours were determined to be 7:30 to 8:30 AM and

4:30 to 5:30 PM. The existing traffic volumes for the AM/PM peak hours are shown in Figure 3‐1.

3.2ExistingConditionsOperationalAnalysisThe operational analysis for the existing conditions was conducted using the HCM 2000 module of the

Synchro v8.0 software as specified by the VDOT Traffic Operations Analysis Tool Guidebook. The results

of the analysis are shown in Figure 3‐2 for both the AM and PM peak hours.

The results of the analysis show that all of the intersections included in the study currently operate at

LOS C or better during the AM peak hour. Individual turning movements or approaches that operate at

LOS E or LOS F during the AM peak hour are listed below:

1. George Mason Drive @ Route 50 North – None

2. George Mason Drive @ Route 50 South – None

3. Glebe Road @ Route 50 North – Westbound approach from Route 50 westbound off ramp

4. Glebe Road @ Route 50 South – Eastbound approach from Route 50 eastbound off ramp

5. George Mason Drive @ 8th Street – Eastbound approach from 8th Street

6. Route 50 Eastbound Frontage Road and North Gate Access – None

7. George Mason Drive / 6th Street (South Gate) – Eastbound and Westbound approaches

During the PM peak hour, all of the study intersections currently operate with an overall LOS C or better

with the exception of the unsignalized intersection of George Mason and 6th Street which operates at

LOS F. The significant delay results from large northbound and southbound traffic volumes containing

very few traffic flow gaps to allow for the turning movements from the eastbound and westbound

approaches. Individual turning movements or approaches that operate at LOS E or LOS F during the PM

peak hour are listed below:

1. George Mason Drive @ Route 50 North – None

2. George Mason Drive @ Route 50 South – None

3. Glebe Road @ Route 50 North – Westbound through movement and left turn from Route 50

westbound off ramp

4. Glebe Road @ Route 50 South – Eastbound approach from Route 50 eastbound off ramp

5. George Mason Drive @ 8th Street – Westbound approach from 8th Street

6. Route 50 Eastbound Frontage Road and North Gate Access – None

7. George Mason Drive / 6th Street Gate Access (South Gate) – Eastbound and Westbound

approaches

NFATC Traffic Study

7

4.FutureConditions

4.1StudyAreaBackgroundGrowthThe future conditions for the NFATC study area were analyzed for an interim year, 2017 and a build‐out

year, 2025. For each future year, a no‐build and full build‐out condition were analyzed. For both

conditions, the daily staff and faculty remained unchanged from the existing condition at a daily on‐site

rate of 1400 faculty members. Also for both scenarios, the daily student population includes an annual

increase of three percent. The only difference between the no‐build and build condition is the number

of daily students that will be on site within the NFATC study area; for the no‐build conditions, 450 of the

daily students will be off‐site while in the build conditions, all students will remain on site.

To develop future background traffic volumes, a 0.5 percent compounded annual growth rate was

applied (as directed by Arlington County) to the existing traffic volumes shown previously in Figure 3‐1.

This growth rate was not applied to individual turning movements into and out of neighborhoods

because the land is already built‐out and no further growth is expected for these movements. The

background growth rate was also not applied to the turning movements into and out of the NFATC

facility; these traffic volumes will be calculated using a trip generation procedure. The resulting future

traffic volumes to be added to the existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4‐1 for the year 2017, and

Figure 4‐2 for the year 2025.

4.2NFATCExpansionThere are three build options being evaluated in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the NFATC

Master Plan Update. These are discussed in detail in the EA and a summary of each is presented in

Table 4‐1. Although the three site plans differ slightly, the type of development in each site plan is the

same. Depending on the build option, the proposed improvements under consideration include a new

or expanded Visitor Center, a new building for classes (Building B), and the expansion of Buildings F, K,

and the Child Care Facility. These new and/or expanded facilities are needed to accommodate projected

student growth and changing teaching needs.

NFATC Traffic Study

8

Table 4‐1: NFATC Master Plan Build‐Out Scenario Summary

Existing

Condition /

No‐Action

Alternative

Build

Alternative

1

Build

Alternative

2

Build

Alternative

3

gsf gsf gsf gsf

A Visitor Center 9,600 9,600 9,600 ‐

C Cafeteria & Dining 43,900 43,900 43,900 43,900

D Gym 12,480 12,480 12,480 12,480

E Old Main Building 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000

F Classroom & Administration 391,450 391,450 391,450 391,450

G Central Plant 6,400 6,400 6,400 6,400

H Cottage 50 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760

I Cottage 51 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760

J Facility Management Office 6,456 6,456 6,456 6,456

K Multipurpose Building 87,850 87,850 87,850 87,850

L Childcare Center 10,891 10,891 10,891 10,891

623,547 623,547 623,547 613,947

Existing

Condition /

No‐Action

Alternative

Build

Alternative

1

Build

Alternative

2

Build

Alternative

3

gsf gsf gsf gsf

A New ‐ Visitor Center ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,010

A Expansion ‐ Visitors Center ‐ 6,800 5,078 ‐

B New ‐ Building B (5 floors) ‐ 200,797 200,797 200,797

F North Expansion ‐ Classroom & Administration (4 floors) ‐ 75,000 75,284 ‐

G Expansion ‐ Central Plant ‐ 6,165 6,165 ‐

K Expansion ‐ Auditorium 12,000 13,013 ‐

K Vertical Expansion ‐ Auditorium ‐ ‐ 25,452 ‐

F&K New ‐ Consolidate Buildings F&K (5 floors) ‐ ‐ ‐ 113,201

L Expansion ‐ Childcare Center ‐ 10,000 10,000 10,000

0 310,762 335,789 330,008

623,547 934,309 959,336 943,955Total Existing and New/Expansion Square Footage

Proposed New or Expansion Building NameBuilding

ID

Building

IDExisting Building Name

Subtotal of Existing Building Square Footage

Subtotal of Proposed Building GrossSquare Footage

1 N 0 0 3 N

George Mason Dr Glebe Rd

(1) (16) + + + + + + (2) (21)

1 9 Rt 50 WB off ramp + + + + + + 2 13 Rt 50 WB off ramp

⤶ ↓ @ @ ⤶ ↓ Overall Intersection

⤶

3 (2) + +

+ + + +

+ + Overall Intersection

⤶

3 (2)

40

↓

1 (1) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 47

↓

0 (0)

(39)

⤷

8 (6) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (45)

⤷

1 (1)

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →

Rt 50 EB on ramp 2 16 On Loop Ramp + + + + + + Rt 50 WB on ramp 5 23

(2) (11) + + + + + + (5) (14)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (19) (2) + + + + + + (3) (19)

10 7 Rt. 50 Frontage Rd + + + + + + 2 12 Rt 50 EB on ramp xxx AM Peak Hour Volume

↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ 7:30‐8:30 AM

(2) 5 ⤷ Overall Intersection

+ +

+ + + +

+ + (3) 2 ⤷ Overall Intersection

(1) 5 ↓ 44 + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 48 (xxx) PM Peak Hour Volume

(3) 2 ⤶ (37)

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + (4) 4 ⤶ (44)

4:30‐5:30 PM

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵

Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 12 3 + + + + + + Rt 50 EB off ramp 26 2 ⤷

(12) (3) + + + + + + (15) (1)

⤷


7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(20) + + + + + +

9 Main Gate Access + + + + + + Rt 50 EB on ramp

⤶ ↓ ⤷ + @ @

⤷ Overall Intersection

⤶

+ +

+ + + +


↓ 25

↓

+ + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (6) 11 ↓ 11

⤶ (32)

⤷

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + ⤶ (6)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵

6th St 16 + + + + + + Rt. 50 Frontage Rd

(12) + + + + + +

George Mason Dr Gate Access

5 N

George Mason Dr

(20)

8 8th St

⤶ ↓ ⤷


⤶

+

↓ 25

↓

+

⤶ (31)

⤷

+

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵

8th St 17

(11)

George Mason Dr

Northbound and Southbound Left

Turn Lanes Include U‐Turns

NFATC Traffic Study

Legend

Figure 4-1

Sheet 1 of 1

2017 Background Growth Traffic Volumes

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

1 N 0 0 3 N


(4) (58) + + + + + + (9) (78)



⤶

11 (9) + +

+ + + +


⤶

12 (8)

144

↓

3 (5) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 175

↓

0 (0)

(149)

⤷

29 (22) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (168)

⤷

3 (4)

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →


(9) (42) + + + + + + (18) (51)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (73) (9) + + + + + + (12) (70)


↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ 7:30‐8:30 AM


+ +

+ + + +


(3) 18 ↓ 167 + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@


(10) 6 ⤶ (137)

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + (16) 15 ⤶ (166)

4:30‐5:30 PM

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵


(44) (13) + + + + + + (58) (4)

⤷


7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(75) + + + + + +


⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @ + +


⤶

+ +

+ + + +


↓ 96

↓

+ + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (23) 42 ↓ 42

⤶ (122)

⤷

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + ⤶ (23)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵

6th St 61 + + + + + + Rt. 50 Frontage Rd

(47) + + + + + +


5 N 0 0 0

George Mason Dr

(75) + + +

31 8th St + + +

⤶ ↓ ⤷ @


⤶

+ + + + + +

+ + + +

↓ 93

↓

+ + + + + + @ +

@

+ + + +

⤶ (116)

⤷

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + + +

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @

8th St 62 + + + + + +

(41) + + + + + + + + +

George Mason Dr

NFATC Traffic Study



Legend

Figure 4-2

2025 Background Growth Traffic Volumes

Sheet 1 of 1

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

NFATC Traffic Study

11

4.3FutureStudentandFacultyPopulationprojectionsThe expansion of the current NFATC installation is being evaluated to accommodate changing teaching

techniques and future student attendance projections, which were provided by NFATC and as shown in

Table 4‐2. NFATC has stated that the number of students will increase at a three percent growth rate

through 2025 with or without a site expansion. However, without the site expansion, NFATC has stated

that 450 students will attend a different off‐site facility and will not be part of the daily on‐site

population. It was also stated that the faculty (teaching) staff is not expected to increase along with the

student population and will remain at a constant daily on‐site attendance of 1400 starting in 2018.

Table 4‐2 presents the percent increase in total on‐campus population in the far right column. This rate

was used to develop the vehicle trips generated by the NFATC installation for each of the analysis years.

As shown in the table, for the 2017 no‐build condition, the total on‐campus population is approximately

11 percent less than the 2015 population due to the daily off‐campus population.

Table 4‐2: Annual Student Population Increase

4.4PlannedTransportationImprovementsThe following planning documents were reviewed to note any planned transportation improvements in

the vicinity of the NFATC installation:

National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board 2015 Amendment ‐ Financially

Constrained Long‐Range Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region

Arlington County, VA Transportation Master Plan, updated April 2016

Washington Area Bicyclist Association Advocacy Priorities, 2013

Students

Student

Population

Increase from

Fiscal Year 2015

Faculty Total

Total Population

Increase from

Fiscal Year 2015

FY2015 0 1,765 0 1,400 3,165 0

FY2017 450 1,452 ‐18% 1,370 2,822 ‐11%

FY2025 450 1,959 11% 1,400 3,359 6%

Students

Student

Population

Increase from

Fiscal Year 2015

Faculty Total

Total Population

Increase from

Fiscal Year 2015

FY2015 0 1,765 0 1,400 3,165 0

FY2017 0 1,902 8% 1,370 3,272 3%

FY2025 0 2,409 37% 1,400 3,809 20%

Fiscal

Year

Daily Off‐

Campus

Population

Daily On‐Campus PopulationNo‐Build Condition

Build Condition

Fiscal

Year

Daily Off‐

Campus

Population

Daily On‐Campus Population

NFATC Traffic Study

12

Arlington County, VA, Budget and Finance – Adopted FY 2015 – FY 2024 Capital Improvement

Plan

Arlington County, VA, Budget and Finance – Proposed FY 2017 – FY 2026 Capital Improvement

Plan

Arlington County, VA, Projects and Planning ‐ Private Development Projects, 2016

The Arlington County, VA Transportation Master Plan (ACTMP) was last updated in April 2016 and

includes a comprehensive list of transportation projects envisioned for the entire county. According to

the ACTMP, intersection roadway improvements are planned for the intersection of Arlington Boulevard

(Route 50) and Glebe Road. The project is not yet completely defined or programmed into the county’s

adopted FY 2015 – FY 2024 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) or the proposed FY 2017 – FY 2026 CIP;

however, both the adopted and proposed CIPs’ “Metro and Transportation” sections include Arlington

Boulevard as a focus area for the implementation of Arlington’s complete streets program. The

complete streets program includes projects designed to provide accessible walking routes, adequate

transit stops, curbside parking and loading areas, and safe accommodations for bicycling. As a

component of the Complete Streets Program, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) plans

to work with Arlington and Fairfax Counties to complete the planning and development of a 22‐mile

long bike path along the Route 50 corridor. Currently, the portion of Arlington Boulevard adjacent to

NFATC is considered not “bike‐friendly,” and represents a focus area for future bicycle infrastructure

development.

4.5TripGenerationThe traffic volumes used in the operational analysis for the future build options were calculated using a

0.5 percent annual compounded background growth rate as directed by Arlington County in addition to

the future vehicle trips generated by the NFATC site. As discussed previously, FSI officials have stated

that the number of students will increase, as shown in Table 4‐2, and that without the site

improvements, 450 students will attend an off‐site location. Therefore, the future trip generation was

calculated based on the total on‐campus population increase percentage rather than from the overall

square footage of the NFATC. The list below shows the assumptions used in the trip generation

calculations:

For future scenarios, the same percentage of students will enter/exit during the AM and PM

peak hours as in the existing conditions.

For future scenarios, the mode share and entry/exit locations for students will remain constant

with the existing conditions.

For future scenarios, no trip reduction techniques will be applied to the trip generation traffic

volumes.

NFATC Traffic Study

13

4.6TripDistributionBased on the aforementioned assumptions, the vehicle trip distribution for the projected student

population is also expected to remain constant with the existing conditions. The observed trip

distribution percentages for the north and south gate intersections were applied to the future vehicle

trips for the no‐build and build scenarios and are shown in Figure 4‐3 (PM peak hour percentages are

shown in bold). Figure 4‐4 and Figure 4‐5 show how the future trips will be distributed throughout the

study area roadway network for the 2017 no‐build and build scenarios. Figure 4‐6 and 4‐7 show the

future trip distribution for the 2025 no‐build and build scenarios.

Figure 4‐3: Future Year Trip Distribution at NFATC Gates

7 N

George Mason Dr 19.0%

28.9% South Gate

⤶ ↓ ⤷ + +

⤷

⤶18.2% 21.8%

0.0% 0.4% ↓

↓0.0% 0.0%

⤶

⤷15.9% 26.5%

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵

6th St 25.6%

20.6%

George Mason Dr

6 N

Rt 50 EB on ramp

+ +

↓60.3% 45.1% ⤶

⤵

Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 65.9%

51.7%

North Gate

1 N 0 0 3 N


‐(1) + + + + + + (0)

‐3 Rt 50 WB off ramp + + + + + + ‐1 Rt 50 WB off ramp

⤶ ↓ @ @ ⤶ ↓

⤶

+ +

+ + + +

+ +

⤶

↓

+ + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ +

↓

⤷

‐3 (0) + + +

+ + + + +

+ +

⤷

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →

Rt 50 EB on ramp 0 0 On Loop Ramp + + + + + + Rt 50 WB on ramp 0

(0) ‐(2) + + + + + + ‐(1)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (0) ‐(1) + + + + + +

‐3 ‐3 + + + + + + Rt 50 EB on ramp xxx AM Peak Hour Volume

↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ Generation Volume

⤷

+ +

+ + + +

+ + ‐(1) 0 ⤷

7:30‐8:30 AM

(0) ‐2 ↓ + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ +

(0) 0 ⤶

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + ⤶

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵ (xxx) PM Peak Hour Volume

Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 0 0 + + + + + + Rt 50 EB off ramp Generation Volume

‐(2) (0) + + + + + + 4:30‐5:30 PM


⤷⤷

7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(0) + + + + + +

‐3 Main Gate Access + + + + + + Rt 50 EB on ramp

⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @ + +

⤷

⤶

0 ‐(2) + +

+ + + +

+ +

(0) 0 ↓

↓

0 (0) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (0) 0 ↓

⤶

⤷

0 ‐(2) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + ‐(1) ‐5 ⤶

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵

6th St ‐3 + + + + + + Rt. 50 Frontage Rd ‐1

(0) + + + + + + ‐(5)


5 N 0 0 0

George Mason Dr

(0) ‐(2) (0) + + + + + +

0 0 0 8th St + + + + + +

⤶ ↓ ⤷ @ @

(0) 0 ⤷

⤶

0 (0) + +

+ + + +

+ + + +

↓

↓

+ + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + + +

⤶

⤷

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + + +

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @

8th St ‐3 + + + + + +

(0) + + + + + +

George Mason Dr

Legend



Figure 4-4

2017 No-Build Trip Distribution Traffic Volumes

Sheet 1 of 1

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

1 N 0 0 3 N


(1) + + + + + + (0)

5 Rt 50 WB off ramp + + + + + + 1 Rt 50 WB off ramp

⤶ ↓ @ @ ⤶ ↓

⤶

+ +

+ + + +

+ +

⤶

↓

+ + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ +

↓

⤷

4 (0) + + +

+ + + + +

+ +

⤷

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →


(1) (2) + + + + + + (2)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (0) (1) + + + + + +

4 5 + + + + + + Rt 50 EB on ramp xxx AM Peak Hour Volume


⤷

+ +

+ + + +

+ + (2) 0 ⤷

7:30‐8:30 AM

(0) 4 ↓ + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ +

(0) 1 ⤶

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + ⤶



(3) (1) + + + + + + 4:30‐5:30 PM


⤷⤷

7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(0) + + + + + +


⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @ + +

⤷

⤶

0 (4) + +

+ + + +

+ +

(0) 0 ↓

↓

0 (0) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (1) 0 ↓

⤶

⤷

0 (4) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (1) 9 ⤶

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵

6th St 5 + + + + + + Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 1

(0) + + + + + + (9)


5 N 0 0 0

George Mason Dr

(0) (4) (0) + + + + + +

0 0 0 8th St + + + + + +

⤶ ↓ ⤷ @ @(0) 0 ⤷

⤶

0 (0) + +

+ + + +

+ +

↓

↓

+ + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ +

⤶

⤷

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ +

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @

8th St 4 + + + + + +

(0) + + + + + +

George Mason Dr

Legend



Figure 4-5

2017 Build Trip Distribution Traffic Volumes

Sheet 1 of 1

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

1 N 0 0 3 N


(2) + + + + + + (0)


⤶ ↓ @ @ ⤶ ↓

⤶

+ +

+ + + +

+ +

⤶

↓

+ + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ +

↓

⤷

8 (1) + + +

+ + + + +

+ +

⤷

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →


(1) (4) + + + + + + (3)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (1) (2) + + + + + +



⤷

+ +

+ + + +

+ + (3) 0 ⤷

7:30‐8:30 AM

(0) 6 ↓ + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ +

(0) 1 ⤶

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + ⤶



(5) (2) + + + + + + 4:30‐5:30 PM


⤷⤷

7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(1) + + + + + +


⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @ + +

⤷

⤶

1 (7) + +

+ + + +

+ +

(0) 0 ↓

↓

0 (0) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (2) 0 ↓

⤶

⤷

0 (8) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (2) 15 ⤶

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵


(1) + + + + + + (16)


5 N 0 0 0

George Mason Dr

(0) (7) (0) + + + + + +

0 0 0 8th St + + + + + +

⤶ ↓ ⤷ @ @(0) 0 ⤷

⤶

1 (0) + +

+ + + +

+ +

↓

↓

+ + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ +

⤶

⤷

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ +

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @

8th St 8 + + + + + +

(1) + + + + + +

George Mason Dr

Legend



Figure 4-6

2025 No-Build Trip Distribution Traffic Volumes

Sheet 1 of 1

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

1 N 0 0 3 N


(6) + + + + + + (1)


⤶ ↓ @ @ ⤶ ↓

⤶

+ +

+ + + +

+ +

⤶

↓

+ + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ +

↓

⤷

27 (2) + + +

+ + + + +

+ +

⤷

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →


(3) (14) + + + + + + (10)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (2) (6) + + + + + +



⤷

+ +

+ + + +

+ + (10) 1 ⤷

7:30‐8:30 AM

(2) 22 ↓ + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ +

(0) 4 ⤶

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + ⤶



(17) (5) + + + + + + 4:30‐5:30 PM


⤷⤷

7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(2) + + + + + +


⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @ + +

⤷

⤶

2 (22) + +

+ + + +

+ +

(0) 0 ↓

↓

0 (0) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (5) 0 ↓

⤶

⤷

1 (27) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (8) 51 ⤶

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵


(3) + + + + + + (52)


5 N 0 0 0

George Mason Dr

(1) (25) (1) + + + + + +

0 1 0 8th St + + + + + +

⤶ ↓ ⤷ @ @(0) 1 ⤷

⤶

2 (0) + +

+ + + +

+ + +

↓

↓

+ + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + +

⤶

⤷

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + +

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @

8th St 26 + + + + + +

(3) + + + + + +

George Mason Dr

Legend



Figure 4-7

2025 Build Trip Distribution Traffic Volumes

Sheet 1 of 1

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

NFATC Traffic Study

18

4.7FutureYear2017OperationalAnalysisThe vehicle trips generated by the NFATC facility for the year 2017 were developed by applying the

growth rate shown in Table 4‐2 for each scenario to the existing traffic volumes entering and exiting the

NFATC installation. The resulting traffic volumes for the 2017 no‐build condition show a reduction of

ten vehicles entering and one vehicle exiting the facility during the AM peak hour. For the PM peak

hour, the reduction in vehicles for the no‐build scenario were calculated to be one vehicle entering and

nine vehicles exiting the facility. The traffic volumes for the 2017 build condition show an additional 19

vehicles entering and one vehicle exiting during the AM peak hour. For the PM peak hour, there are

expected to be an additional two vehicles entering the site and 17 vehicles exiting. These volumes were

distributed to the NFATC gates based on the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 4‐3. The

resulting total traffic volumes, including the background growth traffic volumes, for the 2017 analysis

year are shown in Figure 4‐8 for the no‐build scenario and Figure 4‐9 for the build scenario.

The study intersections were analyzed using the same procedures as the existing conditions analysis.

The resulting delay and Level of Service (LOS) for the 2017 no‐build scenario for the AM and PM peak

hours are shown in Figure 4‐10 for individual turning movements as well as each overall intersection.

The results for the 2017 build condition are shown in Figure 4‐11. Ingress and egress queue lengths for

both scenarios for the intersections leading to each gate are shown in Table 4‐3 for both peak hours.

Table 4‐3: Year 2017 NFATC Gate Queue Lengths

The results of the 2017 no‐build operational analysis show that the intersections within the study area

will operate with similar delays and LOS when compared to the existing conditions. During the AM peak

hour, all of the study intersections will continue to operate at a LOS C or better. However, the individual

turning movements that are operating with a LOS E or LOS F in the existing conditions will continue to

operate at those service levels. The queue length analysis shows acceptable queue lengths for all

intersection movements. The results for the 2017 no‐build PM peak hour also show similar operations

to the existing condition. All intersections are expected to operate at a LOS C or better except the

intersection of George Mason and 6th Street (Intersection 7) which is expected to operate at a LOS E;

similar to the existing conditions. The queue lengths for the PM peak hour are all acceptable except the

westbound movement at the South Gate. This queue length is approximately 550 feet, which would

extend back beyond the parking lot entrances to the east.

AM Queue

Length (ft)

PM Queue

Length (ft)

AM Queue

Length (ft)

PM Queue

Length (ft)

southbound left 34 1 36 1

westbound

left/thru/right24 556 25 597

Arlington Blvd EB on‐ramp &

North Gate

northbound

right7 55 8 56

George Mason Dr & South

Gate

BuildNo‐Build

Turning

MovementIntersection

NFATC Traffic Study

19

The results of the operational analysis shown in Figure 4‐11 for the 2017 build condition show that the study area intersections will operate similarly to the 2017 no‐build condition and the existing condition. This is due to the low student and background growth rates (discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.3) which are expected to add a minimal amount of traffic to the roadway network for both 2017 scenarios. Similar to the operational results for the 2017 no‐build scenario, all study intersections are projected to operate with a LOS C or better for both peak periods with the exception of the intersection of George Mason and 6th Street (Intersection 7) which is expected to operate at a LOS F. Although this location has a degraded LOS when compared to the 2017 no‐build condition, the overall delay is only expected to increase approximately eight seconds. The queue lengths for the PM peak hour are all acceptable except the westbound movement at the South Gate. This queue length is approximately 600 feet, which would extend back beyond the parking lot entrances to the east.

1 N 0 0 3 N


(71) (1042) + + + + + + (166) (1407)



⤶

200 (162) + +

+ + + +


⤶

223 (137)

2596

↓

55 (83) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 3155

↓

4 (2)

(2667)

⤷

516 (404) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (3035)

⤷

47 (80)

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →


(155) (750) + + + + + + (322) (921)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (1306) (163) + + + + + + (222) (1260)


↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ 7:30‐8:30 AM


+ +

+ + + +


(54) 330 ↓ 2988 + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@


(185) 111 ⤶ (2456)

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + (282) 275 ⤶ (2979)

4:30‐5:30 PM

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵


(789) (230) + + + + + + (1040) (77)

⤷


7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(5) (1344) (12) + + + + + +

20 629 157 Main Gate Access + + + + + + Rt 50 EB on ramp

⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @ + +


⤶

8 (106) + +

+ + + +


(0) 2 ↓ 2090

↓

0 (0) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (410) 750 ↓ 1023

(5) 20 ⤶ 2448

⤷

7 (129) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (37) 245 ⤶ 447

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵

6th St 5 1098 139 + + + + + + Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 28

(10) (839) (13) + + + + + + (251)


5 N 0 0 0

George Mason Dr

(46) (1352) (80) + + +

26 566 48 8th St + + +

⤶ ↓ ⤷ @


⤶

82 (95) + +

+ + + +

+ + + +

(24) 61 ↓ 2098

↓

29 (57) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + + +

(22) 31 ⤶ (2398)

⤷

23 (23) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + +

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @

8th St 22 1115 49 + + + + + +

(13) (735) (42) + + + + + +

George Mason Dr



Figure 4-8

2017 No-Build Total Traffic Volumes

Sheet 1 of 1

Legend

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

1 N 0 0 3 N


(71) (1044) + + + + + + (166) (1407)



⤶

200 (162) + +

+ + + +


⤶

223 (137)

2611

↓

55 (83) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 3157

↓

4 (2)

(2674)

⤷

523 (404) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (3038)

⤷

47 (80)

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →


(156) (754) + + + + + + (322) (924)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (1306) (165) + + + + + + (222) (1260)


↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ 7:30‐8:30 AM


+ +

+ + + +


(54) 336 ↓ 3010 + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@


(185) 112 ⤶ (2461)

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + (282) 275 ⤶ (2982)

4:30‐5:30 PM

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵


(794) (231) + + + + + + (1040) (77)

⤷


7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(5) (1344) (12) + + + + + + +

20 629 165 Main Gate Access + + + + + + + Rt 50 EB on ramp

⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @ + +


⤶

8 (112) + +

+ + + +


(0) 2 ↓ 2106

↓

0 (0) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (411) 750 ↓ 1039

(5) 20 ⤶ 2460

⤷

7 (135) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (39) 259 ⤶ 450

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵


(10) (839) (13) + + + + + + (265)


5 N 0 0 0

George Mason Dr

(46) (1358) (80) + + + +

26 566 48 8th St + + + +

⤶ ↓ ⤷ @


⤶

82 (95) + +

+ + + +

+ + + +

(24) 61 ↓ 2105

↓

29 (57) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + + +

(22) 31 ⤶ (2404)

⤷

23 (23) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + +

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @

8th St 22 1122 49 + + + + + +

(13) (735) (42) + + + + + + + + +

George Mason Dr



Figure 4-9

2017 Build Total Traffic Volumes

Sheet 1 of 1

Legend

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

1 N 0 0 3 N


(29.6‐C) (29.6‐C) + + + + + + (17.9‐B) (31.5‐C)

35‐D 35‐D Rt 50 WB off ramp + + + + + + 17.3‐B 23.9‐C Rt 50 WB off ramp


⤶

35.2‐D (36.5‐D) + +

+ + + +


⤶

56.7‐E (62.3‐E)

20.3‐C

↓

35.2‐D (36.5‐D) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 34.6‐C

↓

59.2‐E (62.3‐E)

(22.7‐C)

⤷

37.7‐D (37.9‐D) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (31.3‐C)

⤷

59.2‐E (54‐D)

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →

Rt 50 EB on ramp 1.8‐A 0.9‐A On Loop Ramp + + + + + + Rt 50 WB on ramp 42.7‐D 36.1‐D

(17.8‐B) (0.8‐A) + + + + + + (39.8‐D) (22.7‐C)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (1.9‐A) (18.3‐B) + + + + + + (3.8‐A) (3.8‐A)

1.3‐A 40.4‐D Rt. 50 Frontage Rd + + + + + + 2.4‐A 2.4‐A Rt 50 EB on ramp xx ‐ A AM Peak Hour Delay (seconds) LOS

↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ 7:30‐8:30 AM

(52.5‐D) 50.8‐D ⤷ Overall Intersection

+ +

+ + + +

+ + (54.3‐D) 87.3‐F ⤷ Overall Intersection

(51.1‐D) 44.6‐D ↓ 33.7‐C + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 13.8‐B (xx ‐ A) PM Peak Hour Delay (seconds) LOS

(51.1‐D) 44.6‐D ⤶ (18.8‐B)

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + (71.9‐E) 58.6‐E ⤶ (13.9‐B)

4:30‐5:30 PM

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵

Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 42.3‐D 42.3‐D + + + + + + Rt 50 EB off ramp 6.9‐A 6.9‐A ⤷

(28.6‐C) (28.6‐C) + + + + + + (6.3‐A) (6.3‐A)

⤷


7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(0‐A) (0‐A) (0.5‐A) + + + + + +

0‐A 0‐A 9.3‐A Main Gate Access + + + + + + Rt 50 EB on ramp

⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @(157.9‐F) 37.6‐E ⤷ Overall Intersection

⤶

81.2‐F (669.6‐F) + +

+ + + +


(157.9‐F) 37.6‐E ↓ 2.7‐A

↓

81.2‐F (669.6‐F) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (0‐A) 0‐A ↓ 0.4‐A

(157.9‐F) 37.6‐E ⤶ (65.8‐E)

⤷

81.2‐F (669.6‐F) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (0‐A) 0‐A ⤶ (5.5‐A)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵

6th St 0.2‐A 0.2‐A 0‐A + + + + + + Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 16.1‐C

(0.8‐A) (0‐A) (0‐A) + + + + + + (15‐C)


5 N

George Mason Dr

(9.9‐A) (9.9‐A) (9.9‐A)

6.6‐A 6.6‐A 6.6‐A 8th St

⤶ ↓ ⤷(55.8‐E) 83.8‐F ⤷ Overall Intersection

⤶

49.4‐D (64.1‐E)

(55.8‐E) 83.8‐F ↓ 16.6‐C

↓

49.4‐D (64.1‐E)

(55.8‐E) 83.8‐F ⤶ (13.9‐B)

⤷

49.4‐D (64.1‐E)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵

8th St 7.9‐A 7.9‐A 7.9‐A

(5.3‐A) (5.3‐A) (5.3‐A)

George Mason Dr



Figure 4-10

2017 No-Build Delay and LOS

Sheet 1 of 1

Legend

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

1 N 0 0 3 N


(29.6‐C) (29.6‐C) + + + + + + (17.9‐B) (31.5‐C)

33.9‐C 33.9‐C Rt 50 WB off ramp + + + + + + 17.3‐B 23.9‐C Rt 50 WB off ramp


⤶

40.1‐D (36.5‐D) + +

+ + + +


⤶

56.5‐E (62.3‐E)

21.9‐C

↓

40.1‐D (36.5‐D) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 33.6‐C

↓

58.9‐E (62.3‐E)

(22.7‐C)

⤷

45.5‐D (37.9‐D) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (31.4‐C)

⤷

58.9‐E (54‐D)

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →

Rt 50 EB on ramp 1.4‐A 0.7‐A On Loop Ramp + + + + + + Rt 50 WB on ramp 47.3‐D 33.1‐C

(17.9‐B) (0.8‐A) + + + + + + (39.8‐D) (22.8‐C)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (1.9‐A) (19.1‐B) + + + + + + (3.8‐A) (3.8‐A)

1.7‐A 61‐E Rt. 50 Frontage Rd + + + + + + 2.6‐A 2.6‐A Rt 50 EB on ramp xx ‐ A AM Peak Hour Delay (seconds) LOS

↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ 7:30‐8:30 AM


+ +

+ + + +

+ + (54.7‐E) 52.4‐E ⤷ Overall Intersection

(51.1‐D) 39.7‐D ↓ 34.5‐C + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@


(51.1‐D) 39.7‐D ⤶ (18.9‐C)

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + (71.9‐E) 60.9‐E ⤶ (14‐B)

4:30‐5:30 PM

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵

Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 40.4‐D 40.4‐D + + + + + + Rt 50 EB off ramp 9.4‐A 9.4‐A ⤷

(28.6‐C) (28.6‐C) + + + + + + (6.3‐A) (6.3‐A)

⤷


7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(0‐A) (0‐A) (0.5‐A) + + + + + +

0‐A 0‐A 9.8‐A Main Gate Access + + + + + + Rt 50 EB on ramp


⤶

86.3‐F (720.2‐F) + +

+ + + +


(163.6‐F) 39.6‐E ↓ 2.9‐A

↓

86.3‐F (720.2‐F) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (0‐A) 0‐A ↓ 0.4‐A

(163.6‐F) 39.6‐E ⤶ (74.1‐F)

⤷

86.3‐F (720.2‐F) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (0‐A) 0‐A ⤶ (5.6‐A)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵

6th St 0.2‐A 0‐A 0‐A + + + + + + Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 16.2‐C

(0.8‐A) (0.8‐A) (0‐A) + + + + + + (15.1‐C)


5 N

George Mason Dr

(9.9‐A) (9.9‐A) (9.9‐A)

6.6‐A 6.6‐A 6.6‐A 8th St


⤶

49.4‐D (64.1‐E)

(55.8‐E) 84.6‐F ↓ 16.7‐C

↓

49.4‐D (64.1‐E)

(55.8‐E) 84.6‐F ⤶ (13.9‐B)

⤷

49.4‐D (64.1‐E)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵

8th St 8‐A 8‐A 8‐A

(5.3‐A) (5.3‐A) (5.3‐A)

George Mason Dr



Figure 4-11

2017 Build Delay and LOS

Sheet 1 of 1

Legend

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

NFATC Traffic Study

24

4.8FutureYear2025OperationalAnalysisThe trip generation for the year 2025 was developed using the same procedure used to calculate the

vehicle trips generated for the year 2017. The growth rates shown in Table 4‐2 were applied to the

existing traffic volumes entering and exiting the NFATC installation. The resulting traffic volumes for the

2025 no‐build condition show an additional 34 vehicles entering and three vehicles exiting the facility

during the AM peak hour. For the PM peak hour, the additional vehicles for the no‐build scenario were

calculated to be four vehicles entering and 30 vehicles exiting the facility. The traffic volumes for the

2025 build condition show an additional 113 vehicles entering and nine vehicles exiting during the AM

peak hour. For the PM peak hour, there are expected to be an additional 13 vehicles entering the site

and 101 vehicles exiting. These volumes were distributed to the NFATC gates based on the trip

distribution percentages shown in Figure 4‐3. The resulting total traffic volumes, including the

background growth traffic volumes, for the 2025 analysis year are shown in Figure 4‐12 for the no‐build

scenario and Figure 4‐13 for the build scenario.

The study intersections were analyzed using the same procedures as the existing conditions analysis.

The resulting delay and LOS for the 2025 no‐build scenario for the AM and PM peak hours are shown in

Figure 4‐14 for individual turning movements as well as each overall intersection. The results for the

2025 build condition are shown in Figure 4‐15. Ingress and egress queue lengths for both scenarios for

the intersections leading to each gate are shown in Table 4‐4 for both peak hours.

Table 4‐4: Year 2025 NFATC Gate Queue Lengths

The results of the 2025 no‐build operational analysis show that the intersections within the study area

will operate with similar LOS and slightly higher delays when compared to the existing and 2017

conditions. During the AM peak hour, all of the study intersections will continue to operate at a LOS C

or better. The individual turning movements that are operating with a LOS E or LOS F in the existing and

2017 conditions will continue to operate at those service levels, albeit with slightly higher delays. The

queue length analysis for the AM peak hour shows acceptable queue lengths for all intersection

movements. The results for the 2025 no‐build PM peak hour also show similar operations to the

existing and 2017 conditions. All intersections are expected to operate at a LOS C or better except the

intersection of George Mason and 6th Street (Intersection 7) which is expected to operate at a LOS F;

similar to the 2017 build condition. The queue lengths for the no‐build PM peak hour are all acceptable

AM Queue

Length (ft)

PM Queue

Length (ft)

AM Queue

Length (ft)

PM Queue

Length (ft)

southbound left 41 1 51 1

westbound

left/thru/right30 649 40 >1200

Arlington Blvd EB on‐ramp &

North Gate

northbound

right9 65 10 82

BuildNo‐Build


Gate

Turning

MovementIntersection

NFATC Traffic Study

25

except the westbound movement at the South Gate. This queue length is approximately 650 feet, which

would extend back beyond the parking lot entrances to the east.

The results of the operational analysis shown in Figure 4‐15 for the 2025 build condition show that the study area intersections will operate similarly to the 2025 no‐build condition except for the intersection of George Mason and 6th Street (Intersection 7) which includes the southern access to the site as the eastern leg of the intersection. Due to the increased number of vehicles entering and exiting the site for the 2025 build condition, all movements from the minor approaches are expected to operate at a LOS F for both the AM and PM peak hours. The PM peak hour delay for the westbound movements (exiting vehicles) exceeds 999 seconds. The queue lengths for the 2025 build PM peak hour are all acceptable except the westbound movement at the South Gate. This queue length will exceed 1200 feet, which would extend back to the second grouping of parking lots on the east side of the site.

1 N 0 0 3 N


(74) (1087) + + + + + + (173) (1464)



⤶

208 (169) + +

+ + + +


⤶

232 (143)

2725

↓

57 (87) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 3286

↓

4 (2)

(2788)

⤷

548 (421) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (3162)

⤷

49 (83)

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →


(163) (787) + + + + + + (335) (962)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (1361) (173) + + + + + + (231) (1311)


↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ 7:30‐8:30 AM


+ +

+ + + +


(56) 351 ↓ 3145 + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@


(192) 116 ⤶ (2564)

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + (294) 286 ⤶ (3105)

4:30‐5:30 PM

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵


(828) (242) + + + + + + (1083) (80)

⤷


7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(5) (1399) (13) + + + + + +


⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @ + +


⤶

9 (115) + +

+ + + +


(0) 2 ↓ 2187

↓

0 (0) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (429) 781 ↓ 1077

(5) 20 ⤶ 2557

⤷

7 (139) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (40) 265 ⤶ 469

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵


(10) (874) (14) + + + + + + (272)


5 N 0 0 0

George Mason Dr

(46) (1416) (80) + + + +

26 589 48 8th St + + + +

⤶ ↓ ⤷ @


⤶

83 (95) + +

+ + + +

+ + + +

(24) 61 ↓ 2178

↓

29 (57) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + + +

(22) 31 ⤶ (2493)

⤷

23 (23) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + +

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @

8th St 22 1171 49 + + + + + +

(13) (766) (42) + + + + + +

George Mason Dr

Legend



Figure 4-12

2025 No-Build Total Traffic Volumes

Sheet 1 of 1

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

1 N 0 0 3 N


(74) (1091) + + + + + + (174) (1464)



⤶

208 (169) + +

+ + + +


⤶

232 (143)

2766

↓

57 (87) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 3292

↓

4 (2)

(2805)

⤷

567 (422) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (3170)

⤷

49 (83)

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →


(165) (797) + + + + + + (335) (969)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (1362) (177) + + + + + + (231) (1311)


↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ 7:30‐8:30 AM


+ +

+ + + +


(58) 367 ↓ 3205 + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@


(192) 119 ⤶ (2579)

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + (294) 286 ⤶ (3112)

4:30‐5:30 PM

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵


(840) (245) + + + + + + (1083) (80)

⤷


7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(5) (1399) (14) + + + + + +


⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @ + +


⤶

10 (130) + +

+ + + +


(0) 2 ↓ 2232

↓

0 (0) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (432) 781 ↓ 1117

(5) 20 ⤶ 2591

⤷

8 (158) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (46) 301 ⤶ 478

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵


(10) (874) (16) + + + + + + (308)


5 N

George Mason Dr

(47) (1434) (81)

26 590 48 8th St

⤶ ↓ ⤷


⤶

84 (95) +

(24) 61 ↓ 2199

↓

29 (57) +

(22) 31 ⤶ (2514)

⤷

23 (23) +

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵

8th St 22 1189 49

(13) (768) (42) + + + + + + + + +

George Mason Dr



Figure 4-13

2025 Build Total Traffic Volumes

Sheet 1 of 1

Legend

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

1 N 0 0 3 N


(31.7‐C) (31.7‐C) + + + + + + (18‐B) (33.3‐C)

35.9‐D 35.9‐D Rt 50 WB off ramp + + + + + + 17.4‐B 24.4‐C Rt 50 WB off ramp


⤶

35.4‐D (37.8‐D) + +

+ + + +


⤶

56.4‐E (62.5‐E)

20.6‐C

↓

35.4‐D (37.8‐D) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 36.9‐D

↓

58.9‐E (62.5‐E)

(24‐C)

⤷

38.1‐D (39.7‐D) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (32.3‐C)

⤷

58.9‐E (53.9‐D)

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →

Rt 50 EB on ramp 2.1‐A 0.9‐A On Loop Ramp + + + + + + Rt 50 WB on ramp 48‐D 39.7‐D

(20‐B) (0.7‐A) + + + + + + (41.1‐D) (23.1‐C)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (2.2‐A) (21.8‐C) + + + + + + (4.6‐A) (4.3‐A)


↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ 7:30‐8:30 AM


+ +

+ + + +

+ + (52.9‐D) 59.8‐E ⤷ Overall Intersection

(30.6‐C) 44.1‐D ↓ 34.8‐C + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@


(30.6‐C) 44.1‐D ⤶ (19.5‐C)

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + (72.4‐E) 65.1‐E ⤶ (14.5‐B)

4:30‐5:30 PM

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵

Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 44.7‐D 44.7‐D + + + + + + Rt 50 EB off ramp 10.5‐B 10.5‐B ⤷

(30.6‐C) (23.1‐C) + + + + + + (7.1‐A) (7.1‐A)

⤷


7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(0‐A) (0‐A) (0.5‐A) + + + + + +

0‐A 0‐A 10.7‐B Main Gate Access + + + + + + Rt 50 EB on ramp


⤶

103.8‐F (884‐F) + +

+ + + +


(204.3‐F) 45.9‐E ↓ 3.3‐A

↓

103.8‐F (884‐F) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (0‐A) 0‐A ↓ 0.5‐A

(204.3‐F) 45.9‐E ⤶ (89.7‐F)

⤷

103.8‐F (884‐F) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (0‐A) 0‐A ⤶ (6‐A)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵


(0.9‐A) (0‐A) (0‐A) + + + + + + (16.1‐C)


5 N

George Mason Dr

(10.7‐B) (10.7‐B) (10.7‐B)

6.7‐A 6.7‐A 6.7‐A 8th St


⤶

49.4‐D (64.1‐E)

(55.8‐E) 84.6‐F ↓ 16.6‐B

↓

49.4‐D (64.1‐E)

(55.8‐E) 84.6‐F ⤶ (14.2‐B)

⤷

49.4‐D (64.1‐E)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵

8th St 8.2‐A 8.2‐A 8.2‐A

(5.4‐A) (5.4‐A) (5.4‐A)

George Mason Dr



Figure 4-14

2025 No-Build Delay and LOS

Sheet 1 of 1

Legend

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

1 N 0 0 3 N


(29.6‐C) (29.6‐C) + + + + + + (18‐B) (33.3‐C)

37.2‐C 37.2‐C Rt 50 WB off ramp + + + + + + 13.9‐B 19.3‐B Rt 50 WB off ramp


⤶

33.1‐C (38‐D) + +

+ + + +


⤶

59.2‐E (62.5‐E)

20.6‐C

↓

33.1‐C (38‐D) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + 31.3‐D

↓

59.2‐E (62.5‐E)

(23.1‐C)

⤷

35‐D (39.9‐D) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (32.4‐C)

⤷

59.2‐E (53.9‐D)

⤴ → @ @ ⤴ →

Rt 50 EB on ramp 3.3‐A 1.2‐A On Loop Ramp + + + + + + Rt 50 WB on ramp 63.5‐E 27.5‐C

(19.7‐B) (0.7‐A) + + + + + + (40.9‐D) (23.4‐C)


2 N 0 0 4 N


+ (2‐A) (21.1‐C) + + + + + + (4.3‐A) (4.3‐A)


↓ ⤷ @ @ ⤶ ↓ 7:30‐8:30 AM

(51.4‐D) 61.8‐E ⤷ Overall Intersection

+ +

+ + + +

+ + (53.7‐E) 92.7‐F ⤷ Overall Intersection

(28.7‐C) 48.9‐D ↓ 37‐D + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@


(28.7‐C) 48.9‐D ⤶ (19‐C)

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + (72.4‐E) 67.1‐E ⤶ (14.6‐B)

4:30‐5:30 PM

+ + + → ⤵ @ @ → ⤵

Rt. 50 Frontage Rd 46.7‐D 46.7‐D + + + + + + Rt 50 EB off ramp 7.7‐B 7.7‐B ⤷

(28.7‐C) (23.4‐C) + + + + + + (7.1‐A) (7.1‐A)

⤷


7 N 0 0 6 N

George Mason Dr

(0‐A) (0‐A) (0.5‐A) + + + + + +

0‐A 0‐A 12.5‐B Main Gate Access + + + + + + Rt 50 EB on ramp

⤶ ↓ ⤷ + + @ @(224‐F) 57.8‐F ⤷ Overall Intersection

⤶

141.5‐F (>999‐F) + +

+ + + +


(224‐F) 57.8‐F ↓ 4.2‐A

↓

141.5‐F (>999‐F) + + @ +

@

+ + + + @ +

@

+ + (0‐A) 0‐A ↓ 0.5‐A

(224‐F) 57.8‐F ⤶ (1118.8‐F)

⤷

141.5‐F (>999‐F) + + +

+ + + + +

+ + (0‐A) 0‐A ⤶ (7‐A)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵ @ @ ⤵


(0.4‐A) (0‐A) (0‐A) + + + + + + (17.6‐C)


5 N

George Mason Dr

(11.3‐B) (11.3‐B) (11.3‐B)

6.7‐A 6.7‐A 6.7‐A 8th St


⤶

49.5‐D (63.8‐E)

(55.1‐E) 88.9‐F ↓ 17‐B

↓

49.5‐D (63.8‐E)

(55.1‐E) 88.9‐F ⤶ (14.6‐B)

⤷

49.5‐D (63.8‐E)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵

8th St 8.3‐A 8.3‐A 8.3‐A

(5.5‐A) (5.5‐A) (5.5‐A)

George Mason Dr

Figure 4-15

2025 Build Delay and LOS

Sheet 1 of 1



Legend

NFATC Traffic Study

1

NFATC2

3

4

5

6

7

NFATC Traffic Study

30

5.Recommendations

5.1WarrantsandOperationalAnalysisRecommendations were developed to mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the NFATC expansion

at the unsignalized intersections leading to the North and South gate entrances. A left‐turn lane warrant

analysis was conducted for the 2025 build scenario for the southbound left turn at the intersection of

George Mason Drive and the South Gate intersection. The results are shown in Figure 5‐1. Signal

warrant analyses were also conducted for this intersection using the MUTCD peak hour warrant and

four hour warrant. The results of the peak hour signal warrant analysis are shown in Figure 5‐2 and the

results of the four hour signal warrant analysis are shown in Figure 5‐3.

Figure 5‐1: 2025 Build Left Turn Lane Warrant at South Gate Intersection

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

NFATC Traffic Study

31

Figure 5‐2: 2025 Build Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis at South Gate Intersection

Figure 5‐3: 2025 Build Four Hour Signal Warrant Analysis at South Gate Intersection

NFATC Traffic Study

32

As shown in the previous figures, a southbound left‐turn lane is warranted at the intersection of George

Mason Drive and the Southern Gate Access. The volumes at the intersection also meet the peak hour

and four‐hour signal warrants as presented in 2009 MUTCD (Revisions 1 and 2). It is important to note

that the left‐turn warrant and peak hour signal warrants are also met in the existing conditions and 2017

condition. It is recommended that both a traffic signal and southbound left turn lane be constructed at

this location. The VDOT minimum spacing standards between signals on a minor arterial with a 30 mph

speed limit is 880 feet; while the spacing between the recommended signal and the signal at the

intersection of George Mason Drive and 8th street is 830 feet. While the signal spacing would not meet

spacing, it is possible a design waiver would be granted from VDOT considering the spacing is close to

standard. Construction of the southbound left‐turn lane would require a slight shift in the geometry of

the northbound and southbound through lanes on George Mason Drive as well as the removal of the on‐

street parking along George Mason Drive between 6th Street and 4th Street. An analysis was conducted

using the same process as previous operational analyses for a 2025 scenario with the southbound left

turn lane and traffic signal in place. The delay and LOS results are shown in Figure 5‐4 for both the AM

and PM peak hours. The queue lengths are shown in Table 5‐1.

Figure 5‐4: Delay and LOS at South Gate Intersection with Recommendations

7 N

George Mason Dr

(6.8‐A) (13‐B) (68.9‐E)

4.2‐A 4.2‐A 50.8‐D Main Gate Access

⤶ ↓ ⤷ + +

(63‐E) 62.1‐E ⤷ Overall Intersection

⤶

61.9‐E (64.8‐E)

(63‐E) 62.1‐E ↓ 27.1‐C

↓

61.9‐E (64.8‐E)

(63‐E) 62.1‐E ⤶ (21.8‐C)

⤷

61.9‐E (64.8‐E)

+ + + ⤴ → ⤵

6th St 34.1‐C 34.1‐C 34.1‐C

(20.5‐C) (20.5‐C) (20.5‐C)

George Mason Dr

NFATC Traffic Study

33

Table 5‐1: 2025 Queue Lengths at South Gate Intersection with Recommendations

As shown in Figure 5‐4 and Table 5‐1, the installation of a traffic signal and construction of a southbound

left‐turn lane would allow the intersection to operate with a LOS C for both the AM and PM peak hour.

While the overall delay for the AM peak hour increases slightly with the recommendations, the delay for

the minor movements from the side streets decreases significantly. When comparing the overall delay

for the PM peak hour, the results show a decrease of approximately 1200 seconds per vehicle with the

construction of a southbound left‐turn lane and traffic signal. It would be possible to improve the

operations of the signalized intersection even more by restricting turning movements at the intersection

(eastbound right‐in/right‐out) or by cul‐de‐sacking 6th Street.

5.2OpinionofCostAn opinion of cost was developed for the recommendations using the VDOT 2015 Planning Cost

Estimate Tool Spreadsheet. The costs were calculated in 2016 construction dollars using the VDOT

NOVA District dollar values. The spreadsheet tool provides a range of costs for each recommendation

that include PE and construction contingencies which are shown below:

Provide New Signal: $258,000 ‐ $567,000

Construct Left Turn Lane with 200’ of storage and 200’ taper: $240,000 ‐ $330,000

Cul‐de‐Sack 6th Street at the George Mason Drive intersection: $250,000 ‐ $400,000

Restricting turning movements at the 6th St./George Mason Dr. intersection: $200,000 ‐ $300,000

AM Queue Length

(ft)

PM Queue Length

(ft)

southbound

left245 37

westbound

left/thru/right0 227

Build w/ Recommendations


Gate

Intersection

Turning

Movement

NFATC 2016 Master Plan Update Draft EA

E-1 | P a g e

E. VISUAL ANALYSIS

Visual Analysis excerpt from:

U.S. Department of State (DOS) and Government Services Administration (GSA). NFATC 2016

Master Plan Update (Draft). Agency Review – November 18, 2016. Pages 32 through 42 and

pages 71 through 75.

NATIONAL FOREIGN AFFAIRS TRAINING CENTER | 2016 Master Plan Update | SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED Destroy by Shredding | AGENCY REVIEW NOVEMBER 18, 2016

32

4.8 LANDSCAPE AND VIEWS

Site EcologyOpen space in Arlington, VA was historically comprised of

estates, agricultural areas and tributaries of Four Mile Run.

The signifi cant ecological corridors of the region follow the

riparian corridors and regional hydrology of the area. These

were comprised of native, riparian vegetation that fi ltered

runoff and supported habitat in a continuous linear form

along the waterway.

Through the 20th and 21st Centuries, these corridors were

disrupted with development; impervious hardscape areas

Regional EcologyArlington, Virginia falls within the Northern Virginia

Piedmont region. Riparian vegetation is centered around

streams and other waterways and is networked together

to form ecological corridors that support native fl ora and

fauna. The area is a range of sunny areas, occasionally

inundated with full sun, to moist or dry shady areas. The

region experiences a range of seasonal fl uctuations in

temperature and climate.

Vegetation, particularly in riparian zones, is a native or

mixed deciduous woodland condition. Smaller, fl owering

understory trees are also prevalent. There are many species

Figure 4.18 Historic Ecological Corridor Figure 4.19 Current Condition

DOCTORS RUNFOUR MILE RUN

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

covered or reduced the riparian corridors. Open space

currently exists in some areas along these waterways, but

it is disconnected as an ecological corridor. Larger open

parcels exist as manicured parks or cemeteries but do not

provide the same level of ecological function/habitat as the

original riparian corridors.

The NFATC site was previously bisected by one drainageway

and skirted by other intermittent/ephemeral tributaries that

fl owed to Doctors Run and on to Four Mile Run. There is

a Resource Protection Area buffer associated with Doctors

Run. Through development of the campus and surroundings,

these corridors and waterways were interrupted,

disconnected, and even buried to create level, usable and

occupiable space. Vegetation shifted from native, riparian

plantings to lawn areas.”

There is no permanent surface water located on the site. The

manmade pond was removed by the time the Army began

using the site.

The site is also designated a Wildlife Protection Area.


33

County Parks/Open SpaceThere are several Arlington County parks located within

walking distance of NFATC. The closest is Alcova Heights

Park, which is located adjacent to the southern edge of

the NFATC site at South George Mason Drive and South

6th Street. This 13-acre park contains picnic areas, a

playground, athletic fi elds, and a portion of Doctor’s Branch,

a small tributary stream of Four Mile Run.

Doctors Branch Park

Alcova Heights Park

Thomas Jefferson Park

Arlington Forest Park

Lubber Run Park


Immediately to the east is the Thomas Jefferson Community

Center and Park which focuses on active recreation such as

playgrounds, athletic fi elds and courts, and a fi tness trail.

Access to this park is outside the NFATC campus boundary.

Lubber Run Park is located approximately ½ mile to the

west of NFATC. This linear green space follows Lubber

Run, another tributary of Four Mile Run. Lubber Run Park

contains a mix of active and passive recreation as well as an

amphitheater for theatrical performance.

Also within a half mile of the NFATC site is the 95-

acre Glencarlyn Park. This large, secluded natural area

contains portions of Four Mile Run and the Washington

and Old Dominion Trail, a 45-mile paved trail running from

Shirlington to Purcellville, Virginia. The trail is used for

walking, running, bicycling, horseback riding and roller

skating. The park contains a wide range of recreation

activities including nature trails, fi shing, playgrounds, and the

Long Branch Nature Center.

of plants that support local and migratory pollinator habitat.

Higher and drier areas give way to grasses and meadows

with successional species at forest edges.

Figure 4.20 Neighborhood Parks/Open Space Figure 4.21 Alcova Heights Park


34

Campus Landscape/Open Space The natural systems and open spaces of the NFATC campus

can be organized into a series of landscape typologies that

refl ect the wide range of conditions and uses of the site.

Historical and pastoral landscapes are located on the

northwestern side of the NFATC site and refl ect the

original campus character of large turf/lawn areas defi ned

and shaded by tall canopy trees, typical of historic park

landscapes.

The Campus Meadow* is a large open area at the center of

the Academic Campus and is a primary organizing element

to the current campus.

*the term “meadow” was used in some historic documents

to refer to the area between Old Main and the Cottages.

See Arlington Hall Station Historic Resources Assessments, Volume 1 and 2, June 1988 by Browne, Eichman, Dalglish,

Gilpin & Paxton, PC.

Campus entrances occur at the north and south edges of the

site and act as vehicular and pedestrian arrival points from

Route 50 and South George Mason Drive. The West Parcel

provides a secondary pedestrian entry to the campus from


Historic Landscape

Visitor Entrance

Passive Landscape

Garden

Service

Natural

Recreation

Gathering/Meeting

Parking

Employee Support

Figure 4.22 Landscape Typologies

Resource Protection Area


35

its overfl ow parking (accessed through adjacent residential

streets) when NFATC main parking lots are full. The formal

entrance landscape at Building F, the main administrative

building at the center of the campus, serves as an occasional

ceremonial drop-off used for visiting dignitaries.

Passive landscapes are areas of the campus that do not have

a distinct landscape character, strong spatial defi nition, or

direct interface with adjacent buildings.

Gardens are landscape areas that directly connect to

adjacent buildings, serving as outdoor extensions of interior

spaces and as arrival and transition zones. Courtyard garden

areas have been developed in the Building F courtyards

and are primarily a visual amenity rather than intended for

physical access.

Natural landscapes are areas of the campus that connect to

the larger systems of Arlington County such as the riparian

buffer (Resource Protection Area) and stream corridor of

Doctor’s Run.

Active and passive recreation landscapes are destination

areas within the campus for outdoor fi tness and quiet

relaxation, study and contemplation. The West Parcel is an

active recreation area to the west of South George Mason

Drive. It is federally owned land that is used as a public park

and shared with Arlington County.

Functional landscapes such as service courts and parking

Parking lots are appropriately located at the edges of

the site. These sitings preserve the campus character as

a pedestrian-focused campus and limit confl icts between

vehicles and pedestrians. Signifi cant circulation and its

accompanying distractions on the campus are minimized,

thus reducing impacts to FSI’s academic / training mission.

Vegetation The vegetation on campus varies in character. Large,

deciduous trees mark the historic area landscape. Their

massing creates a room-like quality within the pastoral area.

Smaller, ornamental trees and shrubs are used throughout

the quad space and some of the passive landscape areas

Existing Landscape ConceptsThe current landscape approach on the campus has been

toward a ‘garden campus’. FSI uses the campus to support

its educational mission by providing a varied landscape for

teaching and language learning.

Gardens representing many different climates and

environments are interspersed throughout the passive

landscapes and garden areas. While a majority of the

existing trees on the site are native, signifi cant tree species

from around the world have been cultivated as arboretum

specimens and even tied to a database with QR codes. Most

notably there is an international oak collection. Smaller

plants have been selected from around the world and are

placed in groupings to create botanical “exhibits”. The

“international garden” is located in the southern portion of

the campus but there are international plantings dispersed

throughout the campus.

A number of areas on the campus are focused on native plant

palettes, habitat, and sustainability goals. Some of these

gardens refl ect a native and natural plant community or are

meant to function as stormwater treatment and infi ltration

zones. In natural low points, small-scale rain gardens receive

and fi lter stormwater runoff. In response to the Presidential Memorandum -- Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators, plant species

that support pollinators are planted strategically in disturbed

areas where they can also address passive soil amendment.

In order to reduce maintenance costs and provide a variety

of habitat, specifi c areas of the campus are dedicated as

no-mow or established as a meadow area with grasses and

perennials. These meadow zones add an especially unique

A DAFFODIL FIELD | The Knoll B RAIN GARDEN | Campus Meadow C POLLINATOR PLANTINGS |

D GREEN ROOF | Building Fi E LOCAL MATERIALS: BOULDERS | The Bluff F STORMWATER PLANTING | South of Building Ki

G POLLINATOR PLANTINGS | South of Building K

A

C

F G

D E

Bto provide seasonal interest and variety. Representative

gardens are interspersed throughout the passive landscapes

and garden areas. These gardens display a wide horticultural

range and are meant to refl ect plant communities throughout

the world. Some of these gardens refl ect a native and natural

plant community or are meant to function as a stormwater

treatment and infi ltration zone. Characteristics of the

selected plants refl ect these shifts in function or intent.


Figure 4.23 Selected Landscape Interventions


36

Existing Tree CoverThe campus currently supports a substantial mature tree

canopy. Species range from native, historic species to

international specimens representative of FSI’s program and

global reach.

The trees planted in the Historic Grove and Historic Quad

contribute to the character of these spaces.

While there are many trees that exist in the historic grove,

major storms, lightening, and natural aging have affected the

tree cover over time. The Department of State, FSI and GSA

have an ongoing program that replaces injured or damaged

trees. Not all of the canopy is from the Junior College or

Army years.

The campus ties into the surrounding regional tree cover to

form a larger network through Arlington.

character to the campus with naturalized bulb plantings and

beautiful grasses. The Bluff, or Knoll, is a very special place

on the campus because of this impact.


Figure 4.24 Existing Tree Cover

Existing Tree Cover

Resource Protection Area


37

Neighborhood ViewsThe campus is tucked away from major roads and maintains

a discrete presence in Arlington County. There is a landscape

buffer surrounding much of the campus.

These views capture the vistas that connect the campus to its

surrounding neighborhoods and provide the campus with an

understated identity.


Figure 4.27 View looking north to NFATC South Entry from George Mason Drive

Figure 4.26 View looking south to NFATC Main Entry from Arlington Boulevard Access Road (Eastbound)

Figure 4.25 View Diagram (1 and 2)

1

2


38

Neighborhood Views (Cont.)

4


Figure 4.30 View looking north to NFATC from South Quincy Street

Figure 4.29 View looking west to NFATC from South 6th Street

3



39

5Neighborhood Views (Cont.)

6


Figure 4.32 View looking to the southwest to NFATC from South 4th Street apartment parking area


Figure 4.33 View looking east towards National Guard from West Parcel. The large building in the foreground is NOT part of the NFATC campus.


40

NEED PHOTO

Views Within the CampusThe primary views and landmarks contributing to the

landscape and site character at NFATC are located within

Site Parcel 2: Historic Elements and in the quadrangle

west of Classroom Buildings F and K in Site Parcel 1: The

Conteporary Academic Campus. View 7 is located near

the two historic cottages at the northern edge and high

point of the campus. The vista looking south captures the

overall scale of the site, the large central swale and sloping

landforms, and the original Old Main (Building E) that was

the heart of the historic campus. View 7 shows the vista

looking north from Old Main to the chiller plant. This view

highlights the bowl-shaped topography that defi nes the major

outdoor space for the historic campus. This view emphasizes

the character of the site as a classic American academic

campus, with large outdoor spaces of lawn defi ned and

shaded by large canopy trees. The third viewpoint is located

on a small knoll southwest of Building K. This vista looking

north shows the primary outdoor space and landform of the

modern NFATC campus, defi ned by the Visitor Center, Dining

Hall, and classroom buildings.

7

8



Figure 4.36 Campus view looking north towards Cottages

Figure 4.35 Campus view looking north towards Chiller plant


41

Views Within the Campus (cont.)

These views capture internal vistas and landmarks within the

campus.

9

10


Figure 4.38 Campus view looking south to Gym


Figure 4.39 Campus view looking east to Buildings F and K


42

Views Within the Campus (cont.)

NEED PHOTO

11


Figure 4.41 View approaching Old Main looking southwest

Figure 4.42 Selected NFATC campus views

Figure 4.40 View Diagram (11)


71

MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.09 Conceptual Landscape Plan

0 75 150 300 600

3

4

5

76

9

8

6.6 LANDSCAPE

Landscape ConceptThe NFATC campus is surrounded by and integrates into the

existing ecosystem that features close proximity to Doctors

Run tribuatary. The hydrologic system on the site is drawn

through the center of the campus as an integrated network

that, as planned, will bring people and nature together.

In support of the successful implementation of this Master

Plan Update in the framework of the previous Master

Plans and updates, the current landscape interventions will

supplement the existing campus design with an emphasis

on native, Piedmont riparian elements to respond to new

stormwater requirements and the natural topography and

hydrology of the site.

Concept Landscape Plan The heart of the Landscape plan is a well-considered strategy to address new stormwater requirements with an emphasis on absorption and recharging aquifers. These interventions will subtly work with the existing landscape and its emphasis on world classroom microclimates.

10

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Historic Grove

Historic Quad

Ceremonial Circle

Campus Meadow

Resiliency Pathway

Bluff

Campus Entry

Future Parking Structure

Child care Outdoor Classroom

West Parcel


72

MASTER PLAN

In the Academic Campus, creating additional outdoor seating and community space was encouraged at signifi cant campus locations, such as the Dinishing Facilty and the Visitor Center. The Dining Facility is where a high concentration of students can be found between classes and is considereed the social heart of the campus and the Visitor Center as it presents the public face to visitors and other non-employees.

The landscape interactions at the dining facility have been planned to provide comfortable space for spontaneous gatherings and also fl exibility for program and campus use and support a variety of social experiences. Small group study space and outdoor dining will extend usable, occupiabl ecampus space into the landscape.

Other landscape spaces have been organized by a green infrastructure system that will collect, treat, and cleanse stormwater runoff before it discharges to Doctor’s Run. This collection of water will cultivate a rich, native plant palette and create a variety of social amenity spaces integrated into a sustainable network throughout the campus.

Planting The primary focus of the proposed planting strategy has been to provide a diverse and low-maintenance plant palette to support native wildlife, provide seasonal interest, and contribute to environmentally appropriate stormwater collection and fi ltration.

Some areas of the campus have been dedicated to deciduous forest plantings featuring canopy trees, understory, and woodland shrubs native to the Piedmont forests surrounding the site. Denser plantings will frame more open areas to create a subtle diversity within the landscape.

Other areas have been designated for naturalized grasses, perennials, and other herbaceous plantings rather than the currently existing fi ne lawn. This change will reduce the resources required for growth and maintenance, and discourage pests, such as geese, from landing and establishing on site. In accordance with LEED guidelines, plant selection has been planned for reduction of potable water use for irrigation. Where possible, xeriscaping techniques have been envisioned to reduce resource intensive planting zones while still providing visual interest and spatial variation. Integrating social amenity space with this plant palette will provide for variety and connect to the natural environment.

Campus Visitor Center The new Visitor Center expansion will frame a new landscape

room, planned to make visitor access to the academic

campus highly identifi able and welcoming. Upon approach,

wayfi nding strategies will be employed to defi ne visitor

circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. A proposed raised

table intersection has been planned to calm traffi c and

prioritize the pedestrian experience. Clear, defi ned vehicular

circulation/drop-off will benefi t pedestrians and drivers. As

visitors enter the secured Academic Campus, the welcoming

landscape will be extended by a post-entry outdoor amenity

space and views to the open lawn area. Higher quality,

more formal materials will lend substance to the entrance

experience.

The planting strategy at the campus entry will introduce the

overall character of the campus landscape and showcase

sustainability goals. To promote visibility and security, low

plantings have been selected to provide clear sight lines. No-

mow fescue is a sustainable strategy for an entry lawn for

pedestrians to meet, gather, sit on the grass, and begin the

day. The proposed plant species are salt tolerant in light of

the proximity of vehicular circulation.

0 25 50 100 200Figure 6.10 Landscape Detail, Campus Entry

Key Plan - Campus Visitor CenterFigure 6.11 Section View, Post-Entry Amenity Space1/32”= 1’0”


73

MASTER PLAN

Historic Quad The historic quadis a more formal, historic

area of the NFATC campus, its signifi cance enhanced

through plant and material selection. Historically places for

gathering, gardens should refl ect the importance of space.

This function will remain unchanged in the Master Plan. To

provide more dining space to the west of the dining hall, the

patio will be enlarged.

This area was once known as the ‘Oak Grove’, it will be

emphasized through the proposed landscape approach. The

historic, mature planting will be maintained and new plants

selected from the historic palette will be used to reinforce

and complement the existing character. Selected areas

will be highlighted with more robust planting. Plants have

been selected for their suitability to a garden, but are low-

maintenance and appropriate for both sun and shade. The

mature Quercus Alba is a majestic canopy tree; the proposed

understory plantings have been selected to complement them

and enhance the ground plane. The peony walk highlighted

in the 1937 brochure can be re-established to once again

contribute to the historic garden character of the Historic

Quad.

Campus Meadow The campus meadow is framed by existing

and new buildings; it is and will continue to be a large,

fl exible room meant to function as the main campus “quad”

or heart. The space will continue to support daily use with

pedestrian pathways for circulation and smaller gathering

spaces throughout. It also can accommodate special events

for the entire campus population.

Constructed terraces will make the existing sloped

embankment occupiable and scattered trees will add shade

and a sense of enclosure for movable tables and chairs to the

east of the Dining Hall.

Bioretention plantings will carry stormwater through the

terraces and open lawn.

0 25 50 100 200Figure 6.12 Landscape Detail, Campus Meadow

B

Key Plan--Campus Meadow

Figure 6.14 Campus Meadow; 4500 people, Daily use, 1500 people

Key Plan--Historic Quad

Figure 6.13 Section View B, Campus Meadow1/32”= 1’0”


74

MASTER PLAN

Existing Tree Cover

Proposed Tree Cover

Figure 6.15 Master Plan Existing & Proposed Tree Cover

Proposed Tree CoverThe existing mature tree canopy has generally been well

maintained throughout the campus to respond to both the

historic context and to contemporary landscape efforts on

the campus. As proposed, the canopy will be supplemented

as needed to support new building footprints, security

modifi cations at the entrances and required stormwater

management improvements when projects are implemented.

The proposed tree cover on the campus, as shown in Figure

6.15, is closely related to campus sustainability goals. It

will reduce urban heat island, and enhance microclimates.

Trees also stabilize soils, reducing erosion and sediment

runoff, reduce stormwater runoff through evapotranspiration,

promote infi ltration, and slow water movement through the

site. The canopy provides critical ecological habitat and

contribute signifi cantly to pollinator corridors. From a

mental health and wellness erspective, trees also strengthen

connections between people and the natural environment. It

is important to note that all new tree planting will require

coordination with existing and future CCTV security camera

coverage and other views.

0 75 150 300 600


75

MASTER PLAN

6.7 CAMPUS CIRCULATION

Proposed Security changes that refect recent requirements

on the NFATC campus will eliminate the vehicles of

unbadged and unscreen vistors on the campus. All

unbadged visitors will need to access the site through the

Arlington Blvd gate on the north of the campus. All trucks

will also enter there for screening and/or inspection. Only

badged staff with parking passes will have access to the

Geoge Mason Blvd.

Physical changes to the campus include the following:

New signage at the entrance gates will be need to director

visitors and trucks to the to the Arlington Blvd gate.

Additional ramping may be needed to create an accessible

path in compliance with all federal regulations. Clearances,

slopes and conditions of accessible circulation paths will

need to be evaluated and revised accordingly.

Views from the NeighborhoodViews into the campus have been developed and are shown in

the EA. Appendix 7.1. Massing Studies of visible proposed

development has been studied to minimize impact adjacent

neighborhoods. Because a large buffer surrounds most

of hte campus and proposed development is located in the

center of the campus, the visual impact on the surrounding

communities is expeceted to be minimal or none at all.

Figure 6.16 Master Plan Campus Circulation

0 75 150 300 600

Pedestrian

Vehicular

Service

Shuttle

VIP Route

Fitness Route

Documents

Draft Environmental Assessment · this Environmental Assessment (EA) for George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC) 2016 Master Plan Update, located at 4000