Technical Memorandum

Assessment of “Analysis of MTA Purple Line Alternatives and

Alignments” and Other Documents Prepared by
Sam Schwartz Engineering

Maryland Transit Administration

August 14, 2008

DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
 Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................1

Findings ......................................................................................................................1
New Starts Process ......................................................................................................2
Project Segmentation...................................................................................................2
Market Priority............................................................................................................3
Fare Policy ..................................................................................................................3
Jones Bridge Road Traffic ...........................................................................................3
Travel Times ...............................................................................................................4
Travel Speeds ..............................................................................................................4
Emissions ....................................................................................................................4
Woodmont East Plaza..................................................................................................5
Trail Width..................................................................................................................5
Impacts to Trees Along the Master Plan Alignment .....................................................6
Introduction...................................................................................................................7
New Starts Process ......................................................................................................7
Project Policy Issues....................................................................................................8
Travel Time .............................................................................................................8
Mode .......................................................................................................................9
Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................9
Cost.........................................................................................................................9
Purple Line Markets ..................................................................................................10
Market Priority..........................................................................................................10
Fare Policy ................................................................................................................11
Technical Analysis....................................................................................................... 12
Low BRT Defined .....................................................................................................12
SSE BRT Concepts....................................................................................................13
NNMC Station Location............................................................................................16
Transit Signal Priority ...............................................................................................18
Travel Times .............................................................................................................21
Emissions Analysis....................................................................................................24
Tail Track..................................................................................................................26
Operation...............................................................................................................26
Development .........................................................................................................27
Renderings ............................................................................................................27
Impacts to Trees Along the Master Plan Alignment ...................................................28
Trail Design...............................................................................................................29
Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 31
Executive Summary

The Town of Chevy Chase has hired Sam Schwartz Engineering (SSE) to represent their
concerns with the ongoing Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(AA/DEIS) for the Purple Line. SSE and the Town of Chevy Chase specifically argue
against and have indicated their opposition to those Purple Line alternatives that provide
the potential for a transitway along Montgomery County’s adopted Master Plan
alignment. This right-of-way provides a direct connection between Bethesda and Silver
Spring on a right of way specifically purchased for that purpose.

The MTA has carefully reviewed the following written materials provided to the MTA by
the Town of Chevy Chase that are based on the their consultant’s viewpoints and
analysis:

April 17, 2008 letter from Mayor Linna Barnes with attached memorandum to
Maryland Secretary of Transportation John Porcari
April 22, 2008 memorandum to Chevy Chase Town Council from SSE regarding
drawings provided by Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary’s Office
April 23, 2008 report prepared by SSE for the Town Council of Chevy Chase
titled “Analysis of MTA Purple Line Alternatives and Alignments”
June 9, 2008 memorandum from SSE to Pat Burda, Chair of the Long Range
Planning Committee, Town of Chevy Chase
July 31, 2008 revised version of “Analysis of MTA Purple Line Alternatives and
Alignments”
Undated slides titled “Jones Bridge Road BRT Treatments – Concepts for Further
Analysis”

SSE has presented various analyses and derived information to the Town of Chevy Chase
- and in various public settings – presenting it as engineering fact. The MTA stands
behind the findings and analysis of the ongoing planning process for the Purple Line, and
has issued this report in response. The purpose of this MTA report is to identify the key
inaccuracies, assumptions and misleading conclusions presented by SSE and as a way to
add clarity to ongoing discussions. The MTA also feels that it is important to defend the
validity and soundness in both the information and process developed as part of the
AA/DEIS for the proposed Purple Line.

Findings

The MTA has reviewed the various reports and has concluded that the issue of
connectivity between the Silver Spring CBD, the Bethesda CBD and the government
agencies near the Medical Center Metro Station – National Institutes of Health and the
National Naval Medical Center – is the primary focus of attention from their analysis.

It has been observed that the SSE reports rely on aggressive advocacy for an alignment
away from the Master Plan alignment and presents incomplete or unrealistic descriptions

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 1

of options, utilization of incorrect or poorly applied engineering practices, and inclusion
of explanations of the FTA New Starts process that were not comprehensive enough to
provide the reader with a strong understanding of the alternative selection process.

In general, the methodologies applied by SSE often do not conform to best practices in
transit planning and engineering, and instead rely upon assumptions and accusations that
would be found unacceptable by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The SSE
reports also present issues based on research conducted outside of the MTA planning
process and provides generalized impacts to MTA’s plans for the alternatives along the
Master Plan alignment that are based on broad speculative planning assumptions and an
inaccurately defined project right-of-way.

New Starts Process

SSE asserts in their report that a lowest cost option may be the only way to receive
Federal approval for the project. The reality is that the project must receive support from
local stakeholders, meet cost-effectiveness criteria, and be an effective transit route. A
route that has higher costs could provide more effective travel and therefore be preferred
by all local stakeholders. The impact of travel time delays on ridership for those traveling
to the Bethesda CBD by way of Jones Bridge Road would also be one of the criteria
considered in the State of Maryland’s decision making process.

Project Segmentation

SSE begins their analysis from a fundamentally invalid basis in that they were tasked to
evaluate and consider only the Bethesda to Silver Spring portion of the 16-mile Purple
Line corridor. Bethesda to Silver Spring certainly represents a critical section of the
corridor and the largest travel market of the Purple Line. However, the project is much
more than this 4.5-mile corridor addressed in this discussion and to consider solely this
piece of the corridor ignores the needs, impacts and benefits that the remaining 11.5 miles
of the corridor has in terms of addressing the transportation problems of the 16-mile
Purple Line. Alternatives evaluated for and decisions made relative to the segment
between Bethesda and Silver Spring will clearly have substantial implications for the
entire length of the corridor.

The portion of the project east of Silver Spring includes two additional critical links to
Metrorail, two MARC lines and AMTRAK, extensive connecting bus services, the
activity and employment centers at Takoma/Langley Park, College Park and the
University of Maryland, and New Carrollton. This short-sighted perspective also
disregards the benefit of connecting two of the most heavily developed counties in the
State of Maryland. Key factors such as travel time, transit mode, and accessibility must
be considered from a corridor-wide perspective. Further, to assess and consider
alternatives only on the basis of one part of a larger corridor is not consistent with the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) planning and environmental documentation
requirements.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 2

Market Priority

SSE claims that the National Institutes of Health/National Naval Medical Center
(NIH/NNMC) employment center is a market of such priority that the Purple Line
alignment along Jones Bridge Road should be the one of highest value. SSE further
supports this conclusion by pointing to the impacts to travel in the Bethesda area that
would result from the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) plans. However, what this
analysis ignores is the effect a Jones Bridge Road alignment would have on potential
Purple Line trips to the Bethesda CBD. MTA analysis confirms that downtown Bethesda
is, and will be, the primary transit market with its mix of employment, residential,
government, entertainment and retail uses. Transit travel using a Jones Bridge Road
alignment option will have a substantial negative effect on Purple Line travelers to
Bethesda.

MTA analysis has shown that travel times to the NIH/NNMC complex, via the Purple
Line Master Plan alignment and a transfer to the Red Line are comparable or better than
possible travel times to the identified NIH/NNMC station at the intersection of Jones
Bridge Road and Rockville Pike. In short, the travel time to NIH/NNMC is comparable
(and less for a surface connection to the North Woodmont area) – even after the
connection to the Bethesda CBD has already been made using an alternative along the
Master Plan alignment. Employees or those with other trip purposes (entertainment,
shopping, government, etc.) to the Bethesda CBD (or from Bethesda to the Silver Spring
CBD) would be inconvenienced by travel along a Jones Bridge Road alignment.

Fare Policy

SSE uses existing Bus to Rail transfers in the Washington area as its basis for
determining travel cost comparisons for travel between Silver Spring and NIH/NNMC.
This assumption is inconsistent with the goals of the MTA on the Purple Line to create a
transit system which is seamless for regional travel. These assumptions are also
premature and speculative in that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA) has yet to determine how it will integrate LRT or BRT system into the region.
Their findings are without merit.

Jones Bridge Road Traffic

SSE asserts that Jones Bridge Road traffic could be decreased and ridership increased
using a Jones Bridge Road alignment – noting that BRAC is expected to increase traffic
on Jones Bridge Road. This analysis ignores the potential travel time impacts to the
BRT vehicles that would result due to increasing traffic (including turning vehicles)
along the corridor as compared to travel along a dedicated right of way using the Master
Plan alignment. Only dedicated travel lanes and TSM implementation along Jones
Bridge Road at Connecticut Avenue and Rockville Pike (both of which are unlikely to
gain approval from either SHA or Montgomery County) can make the Jones Bridge Road
alternatives competitive with other alternatives.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 3

The only way to reduce the number of person trips made along Jones Bridge Road would
be to provide transit along the Master Plan alignment to a transfer with the Metrorail Red
Line providing a preferred travel option to Jones Bridge Road.

Travel Times

In their analysis, SSE identifies various travel times for the BRT option – including a 6
mph average travel time (April, 2008) for end to end travel (New Carrolton to Bethesda)
on the MTA Low-Investment BRT Alternative. This calculation was determined through
a fundamental error, and in fact the estimated travel speed for the Low-Investment BRT
is approximately 10 mph. This travel speed is directly comparable to BRT systems
around the world and the United States.

The Medium and High BRT options using the Master Plan alignment have average travel
speeds of 13 mph and 16 mph – which are comparable or better than speeds obtained on
well known BRT systems.

Travel Speeds

SSE uses early morning (pre 7 a.m.) current year transit travel times as its method of
estimating possible BRT travel speeds (approximately 15.6 mph in their April report and
14.4 mph in the July memo - utilizing the same methodology) along the Jones Bridge
Road alignment. This assumption is incorrect since it ignores the realities of travel
speeds in the peak periods, intersection delay, minimal lane widths, AND future year
conditions along Jones Bridge Road with employment growth expected in the Medical
Center area and in the Bethesda CBD. Achieving travel speeds claimed by SSE would
require dedicated BRT lanes and signal prioritization on Jones Bridge Road intersections
at Connecticut Avenue and Rockville Pike. Roadway widening would be needed to
accommodate dedicated lanes at intersections (a concept not explored by SSE), which
would cause greater property impacts to homes, parks and schools than under the MTA’s
Low Investment BRT Alternative. This roadway widening need does not take into
account Maryland State Highway Administration’s ongoing study to improve Jones
Bridge Road at the two intersections which would result in a cumulative impact to
properties at these locations.

Emissions

SSE uses a source for its emissions discussion, a report (Breakthrough Technologies)
issued by an advocacy group (The Bus Rapid Transit Policy Center) that was discredited
and refuted through work completed for the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The
TRB report notes that light rail emissions (calculated regionally) would be expected to be
better than BRT for VOC, NOx and CO. Looking forward sources of power for both are
improving which will result in a clean transportation alternative when the Locally
Preferred Alternative is implemented regardless of the mode chosen.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 4

From a broader perspective the implementation of a system that maximizes the
effectiveness for travelers and makes transit a preferred mode which is supported by
directed land uses as station areas has the potential to change travel behaviors and have
emissions benefits in excess of those achieved by mode choice solely.

Woodmont East Plaza

SSE utilizes a graphic of its own creation (not created by the MTA) to depict tail tracks -
with varying depictions of an unattractive barrier fence - that extend 400 feet to the curb
at Woodmont Avenue and indicates that they will be used to switch direction of Light
Rail vehicles, provide peak hour operations, and provide regular maintenance to vehicles.

The reality is that the tail track at Bethesda would be only for temporary use were a train
to break down. Track switching in this area would not occur. The Purple Line
maintenance facility would be located near the Lyttonsville Station only 3 miles away –
making maintenance use of the Woodmont East property redundant. Track switching has
at no time has been proposed to take place in this area.

Also, the Montgomery County Planning Board has approved a development at

Woodmont East which was coordinated with the MTA and Montgomery County to
ensure that it accommodates the Purple Line. SSE’s assertion that the plans are in
conflict is incorrect. The MTA also never proposed a barrier or fencing in this area as the
operation of light rail tracks in mixed pedestrian environments – particularly one with the
limited use expected at Woodmont East – is accepted practice worldwide.

Trail Width

SSE analyzed the trail sections presented in early MTA project materials and has
concluded that the MTA is conveying an expectation to the public that is not likely to be
met. SSE claims that a 10 foot trail width may not be possible in all locations due to
constraints and that costs for retaining walls were not calculated. The reality is that the
AA/DEIS plans indicate that a 10-foot width is possible and was designed/engineered for
the corridor. In addition, retaining walls were part of the cost calculations determined for
the Master Plan alignment options. The concepts for the trail have been presented at
numerous public meetings and events and many of the revisions to the trail concepts were
the direct result of the public input process.

SSE asserts that the MTA drawings showing a typical section along the Master Plan
right-of-way are not typical and that this design for the transitway and parallel trail is
unlikely along all but about 600 feet or 80% of the trail length (not counting the portion
along the Columbia Country Club). Through further analysis, the MTA is able reaffirm
that the typical section drawings for the Master Plan right-of-way are possible for the
majority of this right-of-way and would in fact be implemented if this alignment is part of
the Locally Preferred Alternative selected for the Purple Line project.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 5

Impacts to Trees Along the Master Plan Alignment

SSE uses dated analysis to describe potential impacts to trees along the Master Plan
alignment – conditions that have certainly been changed through the natural cycle of a
tree lifespan. In order to support their claim, SSE exaggerated the potential impact by
showing tree removal outside of the right-of-way or area of need for the transitway that
would not be necessary. Further, it should be pointed out that there are trade offs
between impacts to trees within a right-of-way purchased and specifically reserved for
transportation, as compared to those private property impacts along Jones Bridge Road.

Further SSE has identified that storm water run-off would increase in this area due to
Purple Line construction. Stormwater management is an important element of all
Federally funded transportation projects. Design alternatives forwarded to date,
including grassy areas along light rail alternatives, have been developed to address
stormwater issues. Further refinements of management options will be developed as the
project progresses.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 6

Introduction

The Town of Chevy Chase has retained Sam Schwartz Engineering (SSE) to provide
comment on the analysis presented by the Maryland Transit Administration for the
segment of the Purple Line connecting downtown Silver Spring and the Bethesda CBD.
SSE issued a number of reports outlined in the list below which criticize some of the
assumptions of the planning process to date and concludes that the Jones Bridge Road
alignment should be the preferred alignment. That list of documents include:

April 17, 2008 letter from Mayor Linna Barnes with attached memorandum to
Maryland Secretary of Transportation John Porcari
April 22, 2008 memorandum to Chevy Chase Town Council from SSE regarding
drawings provided by Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary’s Office
April 23, 2008 report prepared by SSE for the Town Council of Chevy Chase
titled “Analysis of MTA Purple Line Alternatives and Alignments”
June 9, 2008 memorandum from SSE to Pat Burda, Chair of the Long Range
Planning Committee, Town of Chevy Chase
July 31, 2008 revised version of “Analysis of MTA Purple Line Alternatives and
Alignments”
Undated slides titled “Jones Bridge Road BRT Treatments – Concepts for Further
Analysis”

The information presented on the following pages was compiled to refute many of the
assertions made by SSE in the documents issued to date.

New Starts Process

It is noted that SSE has ignored the basic fundamentals of the New Starts planning
process – which is that the development and assessment of alternatives is to take place in
a manner which responds to the project’s purpose and need. To summarize some of the
key points, the goals for this project are to:

Reduce travel time between activity centers (Bethesda to Silver Spring, etc.)
Reduce transit travel times in the corridor
Increase employers’ access to job pools
Support local, regional and state policies and adopted master plans
Demonstrate that the overall benefits of the transit improvements warrant their
capital and operating costs

SSE describes the New Starts process, the advantages of BRT vs. LRT, costs,
environmental impacts, land use considerations and etc. These topics are a part of the
decision-making process for New Starts projects and have been included in every step of
the project to date.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 7

BRT and LRT options were developed as alternatives for connecting Bethesda and Silver
Spring because they are viable options – that is the basis of the New Starts process. It
should be clarified that the lowest cost option is not the only factor in determining which
alternative is selected for New Starts funding. A project must meet cost effectiveness
targets for approval but the effectiveness of the alternatives against transit system
improvements (TSM) or no-build, input from all project stakeholders, financial
commitment of local and state officials and other factors are all considered as part of the
New Starts process. A higher cost alternative that provides more benefits to users would
then be seen as a preferable alternative than one of lower cost that provides fewer
benefits. Stating that the lowest cost option is the only way to obtain Federal funding is
not an appropriate representation of the process.

Project Policy Issues

There are also some pertinent policy questions that are not discussed in the SSE report
due to its concentration on one segment of the overall project but which warrant
consideration as decisions in the Silver Spring to Bethesda segment will have
implications the length of the corridor. A discussion of those issues has been included in
this report for consideration.

The segment issues identified in the SSE report speak to a number of specific questions
for the segment of the Purple Line corridor connecting Silver Spring to Bethesda. There
are, however, a number of policy issues that would need to be addressed corridor wide in
order to be able to draw conclusions for what has been presented. The project policy
issues have been presented below for information provided by both the MTA and SSE
analysis to present the decisions at the broader level and without regard for MTA’s
disagreement with the methodologies used by SSE in their analysis.

These issues include:

Travel Time – Which of the two discussed options is more desirable from a PL
corridor-wide perspective?:
A travel time of 9-10 minutes between the Silver Spring CBD and Bethesda
CBD which is provided by a highly reliable exclusive right-of-way - with
connecting transit services to the NIH/NNMC area.
A travel time of 24 minutes between the Silver Spring CBD and Bethesda
CBD – along a mixed-travel roadway with delays of varying length caused by
crossings of two major regional arterials between the two CBDs – but that
provides a one-seat ride to a station in the NIH / NNMC area .

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 8

 In short – what is the perspective for travelers along the entire corridor for
decisions made for connections between Silver Spring and Bethesda?

Mode – A decision on mode (LRT or BRT) impacts not only the citizens of
Chevy Chase but also those along the entire length of the corridor. A full LRT
option along Jones Bridge Road has not been identified as a viable alternative due
to several considerations, including restrictions in available right-of-way. BRT is
an option along the Master Plan alignment and in rights of way identified for both
modes for the remainder of the corridor. Limited BRT is possible along the JBR
alignment.

Environmental Impacts – Decisions in the Purple Line corridor will affect the
natural and human environment. Is the desire to create a connection between
Purple Line destinations worth the identified impacts to those areas where impacts
have been identified? The SSE report focuses extensively on the loss of trees in
the County-owned right of-way, as well as impacts to the interim trail, but does
not discuss impacts to the neighborhoods along Jones Bridge Road. It should be
noted that the MTA’s JBR alignment has minimal impact on trees and private
property, while the SSE BRT alignment concept results in both the removal of the
street trees and the acquisition of property from the front yards of homes on Jones
Bridge Road.

Cost - At what value do the stakeholders in the corridor and the citizens of
Maryland place on the various alternatives, associated travel times and
accessibility? This will be an issue on mode, alignment, station locations, grade
separations, etc. And, what are the funding sources by which the selected
alternative can be funded.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 9

These are the overarching policy issues that will have to be addressed in the context of
the analysis presented in the SSE report and are included in the New Starts process for
the project currently underway. It will be important for readers to keep the policy issues
in mind as discussions of the technical analysis specifics for this one segment of the 16
mile project are debated.

Purple Line Markets

The question of markets and the priority of those markets are important to this discussion,
as the selected alternative, whether the Master Plan or Jones Bridge Road, will have real
and noticeable differences in travel times and accessibility to the Bethesda CBD.

An understanding of a travel market includes looking at who works in an area, who lives
there, and what other destinations are there (e.g. government, retail, entertainment). The
comparison of which market is greater, the NIH/NNMC or downtown Bethesda, must
consider all of these. The SSE report only considers employment, and while NIH/NNMC
is a major employer; downtown Bethesda has not only a larger employment base, but a
substantially larger residential population, as well as considerable retail and
entertainment activity which will generate transit ridership. This clarification is
important, and has been ignored in the SSE report.

Market Priority

In its most basic sense this is a discussion about which travel market should be
considered the primary market, thereby having precedence over the other. Whichever
alignment is selected, one group of passengers will be inconvenienced by delay in
arriving at their destination, or the need to transfer to another transit line.

SSE claims that the National Institutes of Health/National Naval Medical Center
(NIH/NNMC) employment center is a market of such priority that the Purple Line
alignment providing service along Jones Bridge Road should be the one of highest value.
SSE further supports this conclusion by pointing to the impacts to travel in the Bethesda
area that would result from the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) plans. However,
what this analysis ignores is the effect a Jones Bridge Road alignment would have on
potential Purple Line trips to the Bethesda CBD. MTA analysis confirms that downtown
Bethesda is, and will be in the future, the primary transit market with its mix of
employment, residential, government, entertainment and retail uses. Transit travel using
a Jones Bridge Road alignment option will have a substantial negative effect on Purple
Line travelers to Bethesda.

It seems obvious that based solely on speed of service, the larger market should receive
preferential treatment and the more direct alignment should be selected. However, the
speed of service is just one factor in the evaluation of alternatives; and environmental
impacts, impacts to the larger transportation system, and cost must be considered.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 10

In an effort to further define the market for transit trips an analysis was performed on the
demand forecasting data to determine - by TAZ in the Bethesda area – the total number
trips expected to be produced and attracted to each of the zones in the Bethesda market.
The Bethesda CBD is defined by two zones (344, 345) while the Medical Center area is
defined by two other zones (346, 347). The total number of all daily trips expected to
start or end in the Bethesda CBD is approximately 260,000 while the number of trips
expected to start or end in the Medical Center are is approximately 110,000.

It is important to note that trips on the Purple Line expected to start or end at the
Bethesda CBD would be negatively influenced by the travel delay associated with the
Jones Bridge Road alignment resulting in less ridership and less travel time savings for
trips to the CBD.

The build alternatives for this project were developed to provide modal and cost options
for serving that market. The Jones Bridge alignment was included as a low cost - albeit
less effective - alternative to provide a mixed-traffic routing for serving the Bethesda
terminus of the corridor. This alternative was not designed to serve the Medical Center
area as a different priority for the western terminus – one that carries precedence over the
CBD. All build alternatives along the Master Plan alignment do include improved
service to the Medical Center area by means of enhanced bus service between Silver
Spring and the Medical Center area along Jones Bridge Road as well as offering
improved travel time using a combination of the Purple Line and the Metrorail Red Line
to make that connection. Shifting the focus of the BRT alternative along Jones Bridge
Road to principally serve the Medical Center area and incorporating the additional lanes
and other features discussed in the SSE report have the effects of diminishing the transit
service effectiveness and benefits to the much larger downtown Bethesda market. This
approach appears to be done for the primary purpose of shifting away from the Town of
Chevy Chase what are seen as the adverse effects of using the Master Plan alignment -
for the explicit purpose it was purchased - over to communities along Jones Bridge Road.

Fare Policy

SSE bases its findings for the fare analysis on an assessment of existing Metro Bus
operations and Metro transfers in current conditions to derive cost factors for various trip
origins and destinations. It states that BRAC actions will result in more customers who
have to pay a higher fare to travel between Medical Center and points along the Purple
Line.

The MTA has maintained throughout the planning process that the Purple Line will be an
integrated part of the regional transit system and fare policies are expected to reflect that
goal. Assuming other conditions is not appropriate. In addition, it is important to note
that the travel conditions for those accessing NIH and NNMC will be improved over
existing conditions for all Purple Line alternatives.

The Washington Area Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has not yet issued
a policy statement on the integration of BRT/LRT systems with the system operated by

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 11

the authority. Until that policy statement is issued, and until the MTA negotiates the fare
policy for the Purple Line, conclusions on the fare policy are speculative at best.

Technical Analysis

SSE presents technical analysis at a very broad and undefined level in many of its
conclusions to make the point that the JBR alignment should be the preferred alignment
for the Purple Line alternatives. In order to respond to this analysis the MTA had to make
assumptions in many places in an attempt to replicate the findings of SSE in its derivation
of recommendations and in many places this was not possible. The sections below
outline the conclusions of the SSE report, a listing of considerations, and the MTA
analysis conclusion.

Low BRT Defined

In an effort to provide further clarity to the discussion of how the low BRT alternative
was developed and what routing and infrastructure recommendations are included, the
definition of the alternative has been included below.

The Low Investment BRT Alternative would primarily use existing streets to
avoid the cost of grade separation and extensive reconstruction of existing streets.
It would incorporate signal, signage, and lane improvements in certain places.
This alternative would operate mostly in mixed lanes with at-grade crossings of
all intersections and queue jump lanes at some intersections. This is the only
alternative that would operate on Jones Bridge Road, directly serving the National
Institutes of Health and the National Naval Medical Center near Wisconsin
Avenue and Jones Bridge Road. It is also the only alternative that would use the
bus portion of the new Silver Spring Transit Center.
From the western terminus in Bethesda, Low Investment BRT would originate at
the Bethesda Metro Station bus terminal. The alignment would operate on
Woodmont Avenue within the existing curb. At the Bethesda Station, the buses
would enter the station via Edgemoor Road and exit onto Old Georgetown Road.
At Wisconsin Avenue, just south of Jones Bridge Road, the transitway would
remain on the west side of the road in exclusive lanes. Low Investment BRT
would turn onto Jones Bridge Road where the transit would operate in shared
lanes with queue jump lanes westbound at the intersection with Wisconsin
Avenue and westbound for the intersection at Connecticut Avenue. Some
widening would be required at North Chevy Chase Elementary School.
The alignment would continue along Jones Bridge Road to Jones Mill Road
where it would turn right (south) onto Jones Mill Road. Eastbound on Jones
Bridge Road would be a queue jump lane at the intersection. From Jones Mill
Road the alignment would turn east onto the Georgetown Branch right-of-way,

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 12

 where a new exclusive roadway would be constructed, with an adjacent trail on
the south side.
Low Investment BRT would continue on the Georgetown Branch right-of-way,
crossing Rock Creek Park on a new bridge, replacing the existing pedestrian
bridge. The trail would be on an adjacent bridge. A trail connection to the Rock
Creek Trail would be provided east of the bridge. The alignment would continue
on the Georgetown Branch right-of-way until the CSX corridor at approximately
Kansas Avenue.
At this point the alignment would turn southeast to run parallel and immediately
adjacent to the CSX tracks on a new exclusive right-of-way. The trail would
parallel the transitway, crossing the transitway and the CSX right-of-way east of
Talbot Avenue on a new structure and continuing on the north side of the CSX
right-of-way. The transitway would continue on a new roadway between the
CSX tracks and Rosemary Hills Elementary School, and continue past the school.
The transitway would cross 16th Street at grade, where a station would be located.
The transitway would continue parallel to the CSX tracks to Spring Street, at
which point it would connect to Spring Street and turn to cross over the CSX
tracks on Spring Street. The alignment would continue on Spring Street to 2nd
Avenue where it would turn east. BRT would operate in shared lanes on Spring
Street and Second Avenue.
Low Investment BRT would cross Colesville Road at grade and continue up
Wayne Avenue to Ramsey Street, where the BRT would turn right to enter the
Silver Spring Transit Center at the second level.

SSE BRT Concepts

SSE makes a point that travel along JBR could be improved with the application of all
BRT principals – specifically “the MTA should consider implementing exclusive bus
lanes to speed BRT travel”. The specifics of that potential are further defined in later
project documents when BRT strategies for Jones Bridge Road are presented.
All of the SSE alternatives shown rely on utilization of a very limited right of way and
result in sub-standard conditions for all roadway users – including BRT vehicles. A 10
foot lane is recommended only in limited situations and not in areas with speeds similar
to those obtained on Jones Bridge Road in off-peak periods – particularly in adjacent
lanes where bus swerving could result in sideswipes. Lane width is an issue which would
impact both SSE recommendations and the Low Investment BRT alternative.
Figures 2 and 3 below depicts the conditions that would be recommended for the main
line (not station areas or at intersections) segments of the JBR alignment between
Connecticut Avenue and Rockville Pike were the road to be built to standards for BRT
vehicles on dedicated lanes, automobiles and bicycles (as JBR is a identified bicycle way
in the Montgomery County Master Plan). This configuration would yield the highest
two-directional travel times for the corridor for BRT.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 13

Figure 2 - BRT Dedicated Lanes Cross-Section for Jones Bridge Road – Connecticut Ave to Rockville
Pike – Built to Standards

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 14

 Figure 3 - BRT Dedicated Lanes Cross-Section for Jones Bridge Road – Jones Mill Road to
Connecticut Ave – Built to Standards

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 15

As noted – the BRT right-of-way needs to meet various standards is 82-94 feet for areas
between stations and of approximately 110+ feet or greater at the station location. The
existing width of Jones Bridge Road in parts of this segment is approximately 39-50’ in
from curb face to curb face in many sections and available right of way is insufficient to
place the station location assumed by recommendations. The implementation of properly
designed concepts would result in additional right-of-way needs along the length of the
corridor – an action assessed previously by MNCPPC and the MTA and dismissed due to
impacts to private property along the corridor including parks, schools and homes.

It also should be noted that the Maryland State Highway Administration is currently
looking at design options for improving traffic patterns associated with BRAC changes at
NNMC. Those recommendations are expected to be released over the next few months.
Any property impacts along Jones Bridge Road would most likely be cumulative for
BRAC roadway improvements and later Purple Line right of way needs increasing the
impact to adjacent properties.

NNMC Station Location

SSE advocates for a station location along JBR providing better service to the NNMC
area and resulting in a faster travel time (eliminating the Rockville Pike delay). With the
concepts advocated by SSE this station could be located anywhere along the corridor.
However, with the existing concept it would be more appropriate to place this station
along the curb of the roadway. As noted below in Figure 4 a station location in this area
– either for a would result in more impacts to the NNMC property and the property
directly across from this station location.

As SSE did not specify a station location for this analysis but left it at the conceptual
level – and to reduce corridor length private property impacts - it was assumed that the
station location would be located near the JBR entrance to the NNMC property and at a
point where access to the planned queue jumper lane would be maintained.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 16

Figure 4 - Assumed Jones Bridge Road Station Location – SSE Recommendation

Some other considerations not spelled out in the SSE analysis include:

A station near the JBR entrance to NNMC would increase the distance from the
NIH campus – increasing overall travel time for those accessing that campus.
NIH’s employment level is expected to be double that of NNMC by 2030.
Any future connection to the Red Line in this area would be more difficult with a
station location 600-800’ (station location estimated as noted) from the Rockville
Pike / JBR intersection. Providing the recommended connection to the Red Line
and access points to NIH and NNMC would require funding higher than the $55
million specified in the SSE report.
The main public entrances to the two facilities are located near the existing
Medical Center Metro Station and - the location of the noted pedestrian
improvement being explored by WMATA.
The placement of a station at NNMC would decrease the effectiveness of the
transit queue jumper lane and would (if the station were to be located along the
curb) require weave movements to get back to the jumper lane and through right
turning traffic.
Industry best practice recommends placement of a BRT station on the far side of
the intersection to maintain the effectiveness of the queue jumper lanes and
Transit Signal Priority systems.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 17

It also should be noted that the $55 million dollars that the SSE report identifies as
potential funding for a connection to the Red Line is a Montgomery County planned and
funded project to improve station access at the Bethesda Station and is not associated
with the Purple Line – though the Purple Line will benefit from its location.

Transit Signal Priority

SSE makes the point that transit signal priority (TSP) could yield additional travel time
savings the length of the corridor. It should be noted that transit signal priority was
already included in alternatives for Jones Bridge Road (and throughout the Purple Line
project) as it can be a time savings when used at appropriate intersections. The travel
time estimates derived for the MTA analysis along Jones Bridge Road assumed TSP at its
intersections with Glenbrook Parkway, Grier Road and Platt Ridge Drive.

The reality not discussed in the SSE report is that transit signal priority for Jones Bridge
Road (20,000+ vehicles per day) is particularly difficult at Connecticut Avenue (70,000+
vehicles per day) and Rockville Pike (45,000 vehicles per day) due to the substantial
impacts to the dominant traffic movement – people going into and out of DC or to the
beltway - impacts to traffic system controls and the current and expected future condition
of these intersections operating in heavily congested conditions. A preliminary analysis
of the impacts of implementing Transit Signal Priority is presented in the pages below.
The diagram below demonstrates graphically the obstacles to justifying the
implementation of priority signaling for Jones Bridge Road at the two intersections.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 18

 Table 1 – Delay along Rockville Pike
Average Delay Per Vehicle New
No Queue W/ Queue W/ Queue Change % Person-
Jump Lane Jump Jump & with TSP Change Hours of
Lane(s) TSP with TSP Delay with
TSP
SB MD 44 44 100 56 127% 53
355 AM
Peak
NB MD 29 29 44 16 54% 8
355 AM
Peak*
SB MD 57 57 89 32 56% 19
355 PM
Peak
NB MD 45 45 52 7 16% 6
355 PM
Peak*
*Upstream intersection at Woodmont Avenue is 500’ upstream. Northbound delay is
based on the segment between the intersections (does not include segment south of
Woodmont).

Table 2 – Delay for Eastbound and Westbound BRT Vehicles

Average Delay Per Vehicle Reduced
No Queue W/ Queue W/ Queue Change % Person-
Jump Lane Jump Lane Jump and with TSP Change Hours of
/ or TSP with TSP Delay with
TSP
EB BRT 169 63 -106 -63% 18
AM Peak
WB BRT 278 87 22 -65 -75% 11
AM Peak
EB BRT 151 44 -107 -71% 18
PM Peak
WB BRT 236 96 49 -47 -49% 8
PM Peak

On average, the delay to the BRT vehicles at the Rockville Pike intersection (and the
travel time on the Jones Bridge Road portion of the Low BRT Alternative) could be
reduced during the peak periods by 1.3 minutes on average, if this TSP strategy were
implemented.

Implementation of TSP at this intersection however; results in a significant increase in

vehicle and person delay along Rockville Pike during the peak periods. The total

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 19

increase in person-delay along Rockville Pike during the peak periods is 86 hours; the
travel time savings from TSP would reduce person-delay on the Purple Line by a total of
55 hours. These results show that providing signal priority treatments for 10 fully loaded
BRT vehicles in each direction during the peak hour does not offset the increase in
person delay along Rockville Pike.

It should be also noted that the implementation of TSP at this intersection with respect to
the Purple Line, significantly reduces the total number of vehicles served at this
intersection during the peak hours (from 6,100 to 4,800 during the AM peak and from
5,700 to 5,100 during the PM peak).

Table 3 – Delay along Connecticut Ave.

Average Delay Per Vehicle New
No Queue W/ Queue W/ Queue Change % Person-
Jump Lane Jump Jump & with TSP Change Hours of
Lane(s) TSP with TSP Delay with
TSP
SB MD 79 79 135 56 71% 59
185 AM
Peak
NB MD 15 15 36 21 140% 13
185 AM
Peak
SB MD 70 70 230 160 230% 111
185 PM
Peak
NB MD 65 65 127 62 95% 52
185 PM
Peak

Table 4 – Delay for Eastbound and Westbound BRT Vehicles

Average Delay Per Vehicle Reduced
No Queue W/ Queue W/ Queue Change % Person-
Jump Lane Jump Lane Jump and with TSP Change Hours of
/ or TSP with TSP Delay with
TSP
EB BRT 47 25 -22 -47% -4
AM Peak
WB BRT 278 133 24 -109 -82% -18
AM Peak
EB BRT 52 33 -19 -37% -3
PM Peak
WB BRT 148 64 28 -36 -56% -6
PM Peak

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 20

On average, the delay to the BRT vehicles at this intersection (and the travel time on the
Jones Bridge Road portion of the Low BRT Alternative) could be reduced during the
peak periods by 0.8 minutes on average, if this TSP strategy were implemented.

Implementation of TSP at this intersection however; results in a significant increase in

vehicle and person delay along Connecticut Ave. during the peak periods. The total
increase in person-delay along Connecticut Ave. during the peak periods is 233 hours; the
travel time savings from TSP reduce person-delay on the Purple Line by a total of 31
hours. These results show that providing signal priority treatments for 10 fully loaded
BRT vehicles in each direction during the peak hour does not nearly offset the increase in
person delay along Connecticut Ave.

It should be also noted that the implementation of TSP at this intersection significantly
reduces the total number of vehicles served at this intersection during the peak hours
(from 6,900 to 6,000 during the AM peak and from 7,500 to 6,500 during the PM peak),
without increasing the overall person throughput since non-TSP options serve the name
number of BRT vehicles.

Travel Times

SSE identifies assumptions throughout the document that speak to improved travel times
for the Jones Bridge Road alignment and the operation of BRT corridor wide. Much of
their analysis is not re-producible using standard transit planning. For example:

1. On page 20 of the document (April, 2008) SSE states that the estimated travel
speed for the BRT option (utilizing low-investment BRT travel times) is 6 mph
which places it outside of acceptable travel speeds given identified best practices.
The 6 mph speed is not correct. The end to end travel time identified for Low
Investment BRT is 96 minutes – over a 16 mile corridor. (Note: only the low
investment BRT travel time was shown in the SSE report) This equates to a
running speed of approximately 10 mph. It is hypothesized that the lower figure
was incorrectly calculated by dividing the total time by the total length. Given the
incorrect assertion of the average operating speed the conclusions in the report
based on this erroneous method of calculating operating speed were dismissed.

BRT speeds for the Purple Line alternatives are best for alternatives utilizing the
Master Plan alignment.
For comparison:
Low BRT - 96 minutes – 10 mph
Med BRT – 73 minutes – 13 mph
High BRT - 59 minutes – 16 mph

Examples of successful BRT systems from around the world, including the United
States show comparable travel speeds:
o Domestic

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 21

 Cleveland, Euclid Avenue = 12 mph
Los Angeles, Wilshire and Venture Boulevards = 14 mph
Boston, Silver Line = 8 – 13 mph
o International
Bogota Columbia, TransMilenio = 13 mph
Curitiba Brazil = 12 mph
Porto Allegre Brazil = 11 – 14 mph
Quito Ecuador = 11 – 12 mph
Sao Paolo Brazil = 12 mph, 14 mph (different lines)

If travel speeds were to be used as the only measure of effectiveness, then the
Master Plan BRT alternatives produce better average speeds throughout the length
of the corridor.

2. SSE uses (page 19 – April, 2008) a travel-speed based on a bus running time in
pre-peak hour conditions (prior to 7 a.m.) for a WMATA bus (J1) in the current
year along a segment where a crossing of Connecticut Avenue is not included and
fails to account for a free right onto Rockville Pike northbound. This travel speed
(15.6 mph in the April report and 14.4 mph in the July memo – using the same
methodology) can not be reproduced by MTA staff and consultants as the analysis
used for this project is for future conditions in peak hour (congested) conditions
which includes:
a) Development associated with BRAC improvements and growth at the
NNMC/NIH area.
b) Increases in delay at Rockville Pike and Connecticut Avenue.

As a reference for current peak hours speeds the NNMC Final Environmental
Impact Statement found travel speeds on Jones Bridge Road of NNMC EIS
Traffic Study:

Westbound (AM Peak) = 10.3 min @ 10.0 mph,

Eastbound (PM Peak) = 7.7 min @ 13.4 mph.

The travel times developed by MTA based on site specific traffic counts and
operations simulations are more reflective of expected future conditions in the
corridor and include travel time savings for queue jumper lanes and TSP at
intersections where the technology can be applied. The average speed assumed by
the MTA is 11 mph for this segment. Times utilized by SSE would only be
possible if the considerable infrastructure were put in place – resulting in severe
right of way requirements, community impacts and the addition of delay to
Connecticut Avenue and Rockville Pike.

SSE produced a travel table on page 20 of its April report (Table 2 – April, 2008) and
again in later reports using “weighted” travel times for portions of the travel times of the
SSE Jones Bridge Road concept and the Purple Line alternatives. The cited TCRP report
was written to provide a reference for illustrative weights for various trip components as

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 22

used in the mode choice step of the travel forecasting models. The publicly available
ridership estimates for the Purple Line alternatives are based on the appropriate and full
use of weighting of travel time components within the regional travel forecasting model.
The selective use of weighted time to create the SSE Table 2 is an incorrect and
inappropriate application of this weighting concept outside the travel forecasting
modeling process.

In the FTA recommended state of the practice procedures used to develop the ridership
forecasts for the Purple Line alternatives, various time components of trip on an
alternative are “weighted” to reflect observed traveler behavioral response – i.e., some
types of time are seen as affecting a person’s travel choice than others. A minute waiting
for a transit vehicle, including at a transfer, is viewed as more onerous than riding in the
vehicle. Similarly, travel time on a vehicle while stopped at traffic signal or delayed by
traffic congestion, is seen as more onerous than travel time on a transit vehicle operating
along a guideway (i.e. busway or rails). Applying these weights to the components of the
travel times and then representing them in a table as times travel that would be
experienced by a transit rider as shown in the SSE report Table 2 is misleading and
inappropriate. These weights are used within the regional travel forecasting model as
part of an overall process of comparing the combination of out-of-pocket costs and travel
time for a travelers choice. SSE was very selective in their use of these weights, only
applying them to transfer and walk times.

The SSE report does not include all the travel time weights, travel time on a vehicle
involving waiting at a traffic signal or delayed in traffic as discussed above, as would be
experienced by a BRT vehicle operating along Jones Bridge Road, Wisconsin Avenue
and Woodmont Avenue. The report also did not recognize that a traveler riding a transit
vehicle along the Master Plan alignment would not encounter any of these more heavily
weighted “in-vehicle travel time delays” because the Master Plan alignment avoids and
minimizes these delays. Also, surveys of travel behavior, including ones for the DC area,
show that there is a preference for modes of travel on guideways over non-guideway
(street) modes. This preference is reflected in the travel forecasting process as “perceived
attributes” beyond just the travel time and out-of-pocket costs that guideway transit
modes have over in-street modes, such as reliability and ride quality and comfort, that
come from operating in an exclusive guideway environment as opposed to an in-street
operating environment. These mode specific attributes are represented in travel
forecasting process by the mode specific constant, expressed as travel time saving.

In the case of a LRT or BRT on a guideway such as along the Master Plan alignment
versus a largely mixed traffic BRT or bus, the guideway mode can have a perceived
travel time saving benefit of 6 to 12 minutes over the in-street or mixed traffic mode.
The SSE analysis does not include either the “in-vehicle travel time delay” weighting or
the guideway mode specific constant travel saving benefit in their table. The numbers in
the table use an incorrect and inappropriate method for showing travel times and ignore
and/or leave out a number of other weights that would not support the assertions drawn
from the table results. Using a Jones Bridge Road station east of Rockville Pike would
lengthen the total perceived trip time for those accessing the NIH complex. Also – the

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 23

main entrance for public access to the NIH facility is located near the Red Line Metro
station thereby adding additional delay associated with accessing the gate at that location.

Emissions Analysis

SSE uses as a source (The Electric Rail Dilemma: Clean Transportation from Dirty
Electricity) for its emissions analysis a report issued by an advocacy group - The Bus
Rapid Transit Policy Center. As a public agency, the MTA instead relies on findings
from established and accepted research sources from within the transportation industry.

The Transportation Research Board published a report (Comparison of Emissions from

Light Rail Transit and Bus Rapid Transit) that sought a balanced approach to comparing
the resulting emissions from the two transit options. The Transportation Research
Record article identified that the BRT Policy Center report contained a few methodology
errors which included:

1. “Very clean buses with high occupancy were compared against moderate rail
systems from relatively dirty sources.”
2. “Very good examples of BRT technology are compared to average or poor
examples of electric rail technology.”
3. Balanced comparison of the entire generation/refinement and power/fuel delivery
process was not completed.

The TRB paper analyzed comparative emissions for NoX, VOC and CO. Results were
presented in grams of pollutants per passenger-km which allowed for a direct comparison
with the information presented in the report referenced in the SSE report. The results of
the analysis for these pollutants are presented in the following graphs. Information
presented by SSE is included in blue-green for comparison.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 24

 VOC Emissions

0.012 0.01120

0.01
Grams\Passenger km

0.008

0.00626
0.006

0.004 0.00316
0.00300

0.002

0.00018
0
Light Rail Average Light Rail Best Bus - Average Bus - Best Hybrid Bus - Best CNG
Mode

NOx Emissions

0.80
TRB 0.72
0.70 BTI
Grams\Passenger km

0.60
0.50 0.44
0.37
0.40 0.34
0.29
0.30 0.23
0.20
0.10 0.03
0.00
Light Rail Light Rail Best LR (BTI) Bus - Average Bus - Best Bus - Best BRT (BTI)
Average Hybrid CNG

Mode

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 25

 CO Emissions

0.3
0.2570
TRB
0.25 BTI
Grams\Passenger km

0.2

0.15

0.1
0.0713

0.05 0.0240 0.0199

0.0005 0.0024 0.0012
0
Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Bus - Bus - Best Bus - Best Bus (BTI)
Average Best (BTI) Average Hybrid CNG
Mode

The reality from the emissions perspective is that technology used to derive power for
both modes continues to be cleaner and build year emissions would expected to be an
improvement over what is shown here for whatever mode is selected. This is analysis of
expected conditions in future years. Alternatives that provide the highest number of
transit trips would then provide the greatest benefit to the region.

The real potential benefit to emissions from the construction of the Purple Line – for
either mode – is contained in the potential for creating mixed use communities at
appropriate station locations that both provide for basic needs (grocery, retail, etc.) at
station locations and enable direct connections to
employment/retail/government/restaurant centers along the corridor. This land use and
transportation improvement would provide significant auto travel reductions over
peripheral auto-oriented development.

Tail Track

Operation

SSE has represented (in a graphic of its creation) the conditions near Woodmont East
showing varying fence treatments and asserts that the presence of transit vehicles in this
area is inconsistent with planning initiatives. The representation of the operation in this
area and the claim of plan inconsistency are both incorrect. SSE further asserts that the
eventual transit operator will need to use the tail tracks extensively. It is suggested by

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 26

SSE that the tail tracks will be used to store cars during low traffic periods in preparation
for peak traffic periods thereby raising the need for fencing the tail track area for safety.

For the Purple Line light rail alternatives, the primary purpose of the tail track is to
provide the transit agencies the capability to manage operational disruptions due to a
transit vehicle being taken out of service (for a maintenance issue) or delayed during
normal hours of operation. A tail track between the Apex Building and Woodmont
Avenue is necessary to allow the transit agency to temporarily park a train/vehicle that
may need to be taken out of service. Vehicles taken out of service will be removed from
the tail track and taken to the maintenance facility (at Lyttonsville) as soon as
operationally possible.

It is important to note that no switching to another track would take place at the tail track.
A crossover for light rail vehicles to switch to the track in the opposite direction when
returning eastbound after arriving at the station from the westbound direction, and visa-
versa, would be located east of Pearl Street well before the tail track. For example, if a
train is located on one of the tail tracks, it would continue along that same track until it
reaches Pearl Street where the train could then switch to the track in the other direction.
After the mode is selected for the Purple Line a more detailed assessment will be made to
determine whether or not a tail track is required, and use of the tail track would be
defined in more detail. Tail track operations would be much different under the bus rapid
transit (BRT) alternatives. For BRT, in the westbound direction the BRT vehicles would
leave the Master Plan right-of-way at Pearl Street and travel on existing roadways to
access the current Bethesda station. After serving the current Bethesda station, the BRT
vehicles would travel south to Woodmont Avenue and enter the right-of-way operating
along the tail track’s alignment (without the actual tracks being in place) in the eastbound
direction. The BRT vehicles would then stop at the new Purple Line station to
load/unload passengers and continue eastbound towards Silver Spring.

Development

As for the findings on planning recommendations - the plan that the Planning Board
approved for this area accommodates a Woodmont East project before and after the
Purple Line – that is in two phases. The MTA has coordinated with the Woodmont East
Developer (JBG), Montgomery County, and the M-NCPPC to ensure that the proposed
development and the plans for the Purple Line alignment that use the Master Plan
alignment are consistent and compatible. Therefore, it is an incorrect assumption that the
plans for use of the Master Plan alignment in this area are inconsistent with approved
development plans. The fence (of variable construct in SSE presentations) noted in SSE
graphics has never been part of MTA plans.

Renderings

The graphics below depicts a more accurate concept of what is envisioned for the
Woodmont East Plaza site both by the current developer (prior to the Purple Line) and
through an alternative concept developed by the MTA once the Purple Line is built. It is

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 27

important to note that the light rail vehicle would only be in the plaza when maintenance
issues require its use as storage until the vehicle can be removed and transported to the
Lyttonsville maintenance yard.

Source: MTA

Source: JBG

Impacts to Trees Along the Master Plan Alignment

SSE uses a dated tree survey to describe potential impacts to trees along the Master Plan
alignment – a condition that has certainly been changed through the natural cycle of a

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 28

trees lifespan. SSE also has created graphics depicting tree removal to support this point.
In order to support their claim, SSE exaggerated the potential impact by showing tree
removal outside of the right-of-way or area of need for the transitway that would not be
necessary.

Further, it should be pointed out that there are trade offs between impacts to trees within
a right-of-way purchased and specifically reserved for transportation, as compared to
those traveler impacts for those that live along Jones Bridge Road.

Also SSE has identified that storm water run-off would increase in this area due to Purple
Line construction. Stormwater management is an important element of all transportation
projects – design alternatives forwarded to date, including grassy areas along light rail
alternatives, have been developed to address stormwater issues.

Trail Design

SSE, in a memo given to the Chevy Chase Town Council on April 22, 2008, titled
“Response to Drawings Provided by Maryland Department of Transportation, Secretary’s
Office, March 11, 2008” outlined some misperceptions about the trail design. The
specifics of SSE’s criticisms will not be spelled out here but can be summarized as the
MTA design is not possible and does not take into consideration all factors.

Figure 5 – Revised typical section for the Purple Line along the Master Plan alignment

The typical section that was included in the memo and analyzed by SSE was never
intended to be exactly to scale. The 10’+/- trail has since been clarified to 10’ trail with
2’ shoulders on either side. This is the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning’s

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 29

standard. The 2’ shoulder is planned to be an unobstructed area and included in the
11’+/- length segment of the typical. The 11’+/- is intended to be a planted and
landscaped buffer area. As stated in previous MTA documents, this is the typical where
“feasible”. This means that the 10’ wide trail with 2’ shoulders on both sides will be the
standard along the length of the CCT. The trail will never be less than the 10 foot width
specified.

The variable dimension will be the 11’ between the retaining wall and the edge of the
trail closest to the transitway. This width will vary as the horizontal and vertical
alignments for both the trail and the transitway are optimized for the width of the ROW,
the geometrical constraints of the transitway, the aesthetics of the users, and construction
costs. The 11’ dimension is the goal of the design.

There aren’t any dimensions given from the ROW line to the dimensioned typical. The
typical section “floats” within the ROW of way to take advantage of the variations in
topography. In some areas, the transitway or trail may be closer to one side of the ROW
and closer to the other side in others. This typical section is also valid all along the
length of the Master Plan right of way from Pearl Street to Jones Bridge Road with the
exception of the ROW dimension. The ROW varies from 66’ to 100’ in width. The table
below identifies the specific width from each segment connecting Connecticut Avenue
with Bethesda.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 30

Table 1 - Trail Design Specifics - Woodmont Avenue to Connecticut Avenue
AVAILABLE DISTANCE AT
BEGINNING ENDING ROW WIDTH
LOCATION PLANTING THIS PLANTING
STATION STATION (FT)
WIDTH (FT) WIDTH (FT)
Woodmont Ave to
300+00 302+80 beginning of tunnel - trail 0 280 66
not adjacent to track
within tunnel - trail is aerial
302+80 313+50 0 1070 32
structure when within tunnel
edge of tunnel to Pearl St -
313+50 315+00 0 150 49
trail is aerial structure
Pearl St to 500' west of MD
315+00 330+00 0 1500 66
410
500' west of MD 410 to 200'
330+00 333+00 0-10 300 66
west of MD410
Vicinity of MD 410 East
333+00 338+00 10-11 500 66
West Hwy
300' west of Sleaford Rd
338+00 348+00 crossing to 700' west of 9 1000 66
Sleaford Rd crossing
200' west of the Columbia
Country Club to the
348+00 349+00 12 100 100
beginning of the Country
Club
Along the Country Club
349+00 371+00 property to 200' west of 12 2200 100
Connecticut Ave.
371+00 379+00 aerial structure for station N/A 800
500' east of Connecticut
379+00 402+00 Ave to 900' west of Jones 12 2300 100
Mill Rd
overhead pedestrian
402+00 408+00 N/A 600 100
crossing structure

The SSE memo indicates that there will be steep retaining walls per the 1996 plans. The
1996 plans had the trail on the south side of the transitway. In February 2007, the trail
was moved to the north side of the transitway to take advantage of the variations in
topography. This significantly reduced the amount of retaining walls from the 1996
plans. Contrary to what was stated in the memo, the cost of the retaining walls has been
included in the project’s cost estimate as a separate line item.

The SSE memo is correct that the impacts to the north side stream are not shown. The
Purple Line is currently at the alternatives analysis level of design which is roughly a
10% level of completion. The specific design details for streams, culverts, and
stormwater management are addressed at a later stage of design. The SSE memo states
that there will be negative effects to the water. By state law, the final design must
address water quality issues.

Conclusions

SSE, though use of methods inconsistent with best practice, through analysis that is
incorrect, or through over exaggeration of expected conditions has presented information

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 31

that is inconsistent with the analysis presented to date by the MTA for this planning
study. This effort has been made to over-emphasize the possibilities and benefits of the
Jones Bridge Road alignment. SSE’s conclusions in general call for transferring the
impacts of building in a designated transportation corridor (the master plan alignment) to
the users and residents of the Jones Bridge Road community.

SSE also de-emphasizes the dominant travel market in the study area – downtown
Bethesda – and the superior travel times afforded through travel on the master plan
alignment. Travel times to Bethesda and the surrounding communities are superior
through utilization of the master plan alignment and of comparable time to the
NIH/NNMC complex by transfer to the Red Line.

The MTA is engaged in an open process which is federally monitored and recognized as
the most stringent in all of transportation planning. SSE’s assertions have been an
attempt to divert attention from the facts stated plainly in all documents issued by MTA
to date.

Assessment of SSE Report on Jones Bridge Road Alternatives 32