You are on page 1of 14

APPENDIX A

AIR RIGHTS FEASIBILITY
SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FINDINGS
January 28, 2011

This summary provides a brief update on the study related to the technical feasibility of air rights in the
Dulles Corridor and to evaluate the level of investment required (if any) concurrent with the Phase 2 rail
construction in order to not preclude future air rights development. This study was authorized by the
Airports Authority for Dulles Rail Consultants to prepare the technical analysis and resulted in a final
report delivered in November 2010. The following outlines the basis for the evaluation and summary
findings:

Basis of Design Concepts and Technical Evaluation

. The Reston Parkway Station was selected as the prototype Phase 2 station location selected for
the air rights evaluation based on its proximity to Reston Town Center and other commercial
development and interest expressed by the Reston community and Fairfax County in this location.

. Three initial locations for the air rights deck location (see Figure 1) were developed including:
o Air Rights Deck Directly Over the Reston Parkway Station

o Air Rights Deck Straddling Reston Parkway

o Air Rights Deck West of the Reston Parkway Station

. The DRC team utilized the prior work developed by Davis Carter Scott (DCS) and structural
engineer Fernandez Associates Structural Engineers (FASE) which had designed a structural
framing system that would permit construction of an air rights deck while maintaining Metrorail
and vehicular operations on the DTR/DIAAH below.

. The underlying premise of the framing concept is the installation of a continuous reinforced
concrete footing/foundation system supported by a series of auger-driven piles following each
side of the Metrorail right-of-way with a pier cap/barrier wall that serves as the guide for the
travelling form system. This permanent foundation system and barrier wall (indicated as Stage 1 in
Figure 2) would be installed as part of the Phase 2 project and would serve as the perimeter walls
for the rail right-of-way. Stage 2 would be installed when the future air rights deck would be
constructed, and Stage 3 when the future air rights development would be built. A similar
foundation system would be installed at a future date below the Jersey barrier walls between the
DIAAH and the DTR and along the outside property lines of the DTR.

. The framing system for construction of the air rights deck consists of a series of collapsible
modular forms that would travel along the existing barrier wall system to be built as part of the
initial Phase 2 construction along the site of the future air rights deck. The air rights deck would be
built in 3D-foot segments spanning between 50 and 60 feet depending on the location of the
foundation system (see Figure 3).

1
. The original study concept design included minimal span lengths for the air rights deck framing
system of 60 feet on 30 foot centers over the Metrorail right-of-way. This concept required
investment in the foundation system as part of the Phase 2 project that would not preclude future
construction of air rights development, since there are insufficient clearances adjacent to the
active railroad to construct a foundation system at a future date. Cross sections showing the
original design concept are shown in Figure 4.

. The alternative design concept provides a clear span over the Metrorail right-of-way for an air
rights deck framing system, with 150 foot spans on 30 foot centers. The alternative design
reduces (or rather eliminates) the initial investment required as part of Phase 2 to not preclude
future air rights development. The system of Jersey barriers being used to build Phase 1 of the
Dulles Corridor Metrorail project along the DIAHH median would be used for this construction.
Temporary shutdowns of the operating railroad would be necessary during off hours and selected
weekends for placement of structural beams and building the initial parking deck slab. Once the
initial deck is in place, construction can continue without any disruption to rail operations. A cross
section showing the alternative design concept is shown in Figure 5, with a rendering of the
alternate concept shown as Figure 6.

Summary of Findings

. Based on the analysis described above, it was determined that using a long span structural
framing and foundation system would not require any additional investment in the Phase 2
Metrorail Project:

o The cost premium associated with the alternate concept with the framing system
featuring longer lSD' spans and building the basic air rights deck at a future date over
the operating railroad is approximately 30 percent greater than the original concept
featuring 60' spans and building the initial substructure concurrent with Phase 2.

o Building the 60' span framing and foundation system as part of Phase 2 would still result
in having to shut down rail operations intermittently after hours and on weekends to
build the balance ofthe air rights at a future date.

o Building the lSD' span over Metrorail at a future date would also result in having to shut
down rail operations intermittently after hours and on weekends to build the air rights
deck.

o For either span concept, lane closures would stil be required for construction of the
balance ofthe foundation systems between the DIAHH/DTR and the outside lanes and
shoulder of the DTR

2
Figure 1: Air Rights Deck Location Options at Reston Parkway Station

,~
¥ 'g~ -"".'~.. RESTON~TOWN CENTE~ ¿
..- '"-~
.)-~ If" .--
... ,J
Il .. ¡
~~
... ~
.1 \,~.. ,;
rl ~,il
l ~ ..
L ." i!~~.:I"~
. ,~ C.., ,SUNSETHllU RD jO , "'
.. ,~, , DIAAJ/DTR
,eH ~ 'T!L..~;·
¡ ~~':_~ Jo
-'- - ~

lj,\: "" ~ --~
~~~.. ;,

LJ"~
,.r .l:,
, ,f' ,"'" ~,' It ri,,~TC';":-
~RightsDe,:~Dire~~ ov:th'~Sta~ion OPTION ONE
- -- ¥
i! ,a

l, )~~ RESTON TOWN"", ~T"E,~~ ,. !I',"'
..,)~ ....~;--
~- I"':
"...r
,,;
-"
g., , ~. i'
¡~ (.. ~ \ ,\?~, l lJ§ ~ ',": -

-I'"
,. ,~. ~,' ,"" -"SUNsgH'USRD ''', ,,"', "'~;.,'
,.I.. ..' - ~ ..~,.l ' . ø
§ " l: .", "' ./.\ '"
l') ~

l .¡lt""..~

~- ~
· " .. :-+ ~- - ~-'y- ~f
"'1' 'f.. ~DIAA,' H/DTR~ ~'l'-, -" - - ,.. ~ c. ~~

/", . i, '" p.. ':I Á l'" '\~,~, .~
\..
'--' '¡
Deck Parkway ,

:/ , ~. dl
~l
Air Rights Straddling Reston

. .,
.,~"' -'
~,' RESTON TOWN CENTER:~: __.. .."
.. -i;
¡ .~ .,..\
fJPTfÖi\rTWO
.. 'I. .,
."".r-i ,f .

.1 ""lf'
....,¡
~
l" .. .'~"'~I~...: · ~ -~
.I¡, q. -''tURD' '~::.. ;' ~ tiE
¡;~"
41' ..,.
ø. ,...
_ ..'~'
_ """I.l ..t.."
~.¡.~, ~ '" ÒI~AH/DTR, ~ .:, '~f!~
-.'--O~_¡.,
.~. _i'I;~-i
, " ". ".
~~;r ~' .:~-.
v- ,,-,1 "~-4'_
""l :L;~
Air Rlghts~Oeck West of the Station'
"' -~
l.~, ·
.-~
w.

~.. opTr fHRE£ ..~J
~ ~ Air Rights Deck

~
~
Station

Cross

Cross
Section A Cut Location (see Figure 21

Section B Cut Location (see Figure 21.
· Note: Cross Section B is similar in concept
for Options 1 and 2 but does not reflect
actual dimensions at these locations,

3
Figure 2: Typical Foundation and Column/Bent Frame Design Concept

\\ f 1//

r ~
FUTURE
AIR RIGHTS
\\\a,i'i
V /
STRUCTRE
\,\! I
~ ~-::---~-- ",
FUTURE

I \
DECK ;; t""':Ü ~ç;-~-. . ~.."~,,
STRUCTRE r 2 r; -- COLLAPSliìLE FORMWORK

'l-=- \" \
L "'........
BARRIER WALL ~-t---f"' ~ ~/-......"'--_-.,,-
\
..""..

,
CONTINUOUS r'" ¡;;qi"~'
FOOTING
L~~~t '\ \
rJ Loj 'JI~" ,i ~""f'
AUGER
CAISSONS
PILE
;; '1 (lT ~ dl
~ .i ......'R...
- \ \

Figure 3: Foundation System Elements

Phase 1

4
Figure 4: Original Design Concept with 60' Spans

,,0==
i- ..:.

~
""
-
.. '= ----- 4H
1.'l"__ .ro4 -
..........
......-\M ....
4H
~_wi -
..'
,.

CROSS SEcnON~ FUTUREEXimNG CONDITION WITH 3RD LAE BUILT

~.
h" ,,'*

CROSS SECTON: AIR RIGHT DEVELOPMENT

5
Figure 5: Alternate Design Concept wI 150' Spans over Metrorail

'\ ~-
lL~!I~iI~a
I"..~..
l\~
~.

,.

c:løsSItl'PR_Rl_i~
Figure 6: Rendering of Alternate Design Concept wI 150' Spans over Metrorail

6
..
aJ
~ ~
~
0 ..=~ ra
e
.. = e
Q)

..~~ ..~
rI =
rJ
Q)
4-
4-
.~
ra S
~ ~
..... ~= ~ s0 ~
~
.,.aJ U
0
M

~ ~ .. ~
""
1.
~
,~ ..rI ~aJ ~
~ 0 t-
O ~ "'
.~ rd

~~ ~ =
.,.0( aJ
rI
~ ~~
0 ~aJ
~ ra utr
~ .,.~ . U
~
~::
Q)

~ ~
f' rI
rI
~ = aJ
0
~
..~ ..0rI .,.=
rI
=
~ ~
Air Rights Deck Framing Systems
60 Foot and 150 Foot Spans

/"
---
~ Irq .Jt t..c .~"_U..o ... 4ia.. J?:r... Yr." );::.c,,:~)a"'' uq- ))r.4",'
-- I
~l'_"'O
~" __.. ~~ t''''t-ør..~~i. rY~..l:""~l ~ r~'t.._'Wl ....
1l~'f l.A~~OUi ~i..n':-.... -......
___,_,__.__ _ (...~ ~ "_ __._ ~'L__ _ _ _. lo'.~ _ _ ___. __ ___.,:'
CROSS SECTON: FUTURE EXISTING CONDITION WITH 3RD LANE BUILT
P\""..=t'C.1PQl~
."~Cl~ "-~'l. ~
",I
W ":..:: \~V¡'.-* ~~ ~v¡ · * - ~W +Hi "Vi il- P"" $' :
",:
i~ \~W wo/ ~Y/ ~W ~1 :.j "'iU"t""'u t
~l-~~':~~L
it (.AT 1UAll

i::
It i~::;.
=- I i A
=-~ ê:
li ",,17 ,,N .("J5V .!e .J,IT 1
CROSS SECTION: AIR RIGHTS DEVELOPMENT

2
('

en
E
2en CD
E I
i

~..
en en
.;;,.,\l\,e;iri!
.... ~I
i ~ ;.Jt
¡I

0' ~
i

I ii",\¡ I
I
ill I ~! I
c en
-- c ILi
alii

E 0
ro :¡
s. ro
u. '"
~ C
U ::
CD 0
o u.
en ro
.. __
.. U
-- ~
0' c.
ii l-
--s.
c=
Air Rights Business Case Review:
Key ttBase Case" Assumptions
· Phase 2 investment in foundations is $34 million
· Total development cost is $1.5 billion
· Approximately 4 million s.f. of commercial and
residential space is realized (2.2 million commercial, 1.8
million residential)
· Foundation construction from 2014 to 2015; actual air
rights platform and building construction from 2016 to
2028
· Full marl(et absorption by 2028
· Interest rate 7 percent; inflation rate 3 percent, cap rate 8
percent

4
Air Rights Business Case Review:
"Base Case" Financial Results

· Internal Rate of Return (IRR) after financing
is 14.4 percent, which would be marginal to
most developers for this type project
· Internal Rate of Return (IRR) after financing
of 20 percent would be considered favorable
by developers for this project given risl(s and
sensitivity

5
CD

~
~
.~
::
0
V
::
0
C"
..
CO
:: ::
0
0
0
I"
(J ..
..
::
0
0 0(J
::
.... 0
..
::
0
0
I"
::
0
C"
0)
(J
cD
::
0
V
~
..
~
.~
~
.~ ::
0
C"
::
0
-.
..~
:: ::
0
0
cO
0
..
..('
:: ::
0
0 00

..0 N
..
::
0
::
0
0 C"0
i. ..
00
::
0
0
i. ..
..
00
C"
00
0
::
0
(J
i

N a
..
rI N

= :: ("
::
.. QJ :: 0
i. ::
0
::
0 ::
0
::
0
.. ::
0
::
0
0 -.~ .. ::
0 ("J 0
i.
'J. . 0
N
..N
0 V~
I' ..
0
(J ..
C" 0 .. i. I'C"
..
("
0NN ..N
~
~
.~
~= 00
~~ ::
::
0
.. -.
:: ::
0 0
0 00i. :: #,1
0 -.~
0 :: ::
0 00
0 i. ::
0 Ni ::
..0 ..-.
0

~ = 0 C" 00
..0 .. 00 .. .. .. CO ~ C"
.. ~
~
CO i
N
~
'J QJ
U ~
ra :: 0:: :: :: ::
:: ::
0 ::
0 0
0 ..r-
::
0
0 00i. 0 0
i. 00 00
0

~0
0 N 00
0 cO i. .. r- .. Ni 0
N
C" N
..
'J
'J
~
=
.~
'J
=
~ra
QJ c0
~ro
¡¡
C
0:
0:
Q)
+-
ro
..
+-
II
0:
0:
Q)
+-
ro
..
0-
ro
0:
0:
c:J
....
Q)
:;
0
0:
0:
0:
c:
-:!:;
LL
0:
0:
c
~00-
..
0
0:
0:

~ ~ ..
Q) II
() ì: II
ro Q)
+- c .0
Q) Q) c:

~
:J C :J "C Q)
C ro c:J "C
C
ro
:;
ro
-0
II
:J
ra C' :Q
II
()

= .-c(, ..
Q)

~ cns Q.
(J
co
()
~QJ ¡¡
c
..
Q.
(J
co
co

i-= Q)
=:
ns
c:
c:
I
Air Rights Business Case Review:
Assumption Variables - Risl( Factors
Absorption rate for the Reston Station area *

Existing non-residential 14.4 million s.E.
Existing and approved zoning 18.9 million s.E.
Existing and current planned 22.4 million s.E.
GMU 2030 demand 18.8 million s.E.
GMU 2040 demand 21.4 million s.E.
-- (existing and planned space is absorbed) --
GMU 2050 demand 24.7 million s.E.
*
Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning and George Mason University Center for
Regional Analysis

7
co

tr tr
i: i:
..
"" Q.
0
..
~ S o~
~
~ ra ~ ra ""
.,. r; ~ Q. .. i:
~ = U ~ os. ;:
ra.~ ra ~
~~ .~
0 o ~ u
r. ~
u~
ra ra ~ 0 Ñ ~ ~rau
~.ra Q. ~ o
~ = ra 8 tr on ~
~ QJ i: ~ra ~
raQ.
~
.~
.. ~~ .~ ~
~ ~
.~ e
~r. 8
0 I.~ i:
tr ~ ra ra
on "" Q.. ~
ra
i:
ra
~ u
fn QJ
i: Q. ~ .. ~
08 rai: ..tr
~~ ~ ~S SCl
i

. ,.
~ ~i:.o
0~~..~~ ~
~o.~ .. 8 o
""
~
tr
~ ~ 0 ~ ~
~ ra 0 .~ ~
. .