Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail

John M. Fitzgerald
Christine Real de Azua
July 14, 2015
By Certified and Electronic Mail
The Honorable Anthony Foxx
Secretary of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590
anthony.foxx@dot.gov
The Honorable Therese W. McMillan
Acting Administrator
Office of the Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590
therese.mcmillan@dot.gov
Re: Request for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Regarding Federal Funding of the Purple Line
Dear Mr. Secretary and Ms. Administrator:
As concerned citizens and members of Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail, in
light of recent developments bearing on the viability and environmental impacts
associated with the proposed Purple Line project, we are writing to petition the
Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to
immediately embark on preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS).
Our request arises from a recent announcement by the Governor of Maryland that
he will seek matching funds from the FTA for a new version of the proposed Purple Line
Light Rail system that would cut hundreds of millions of dollars in costs, in part by
eliminating several previous requirements and features intended to protect the
environment, public health and safety and in part by reducing the frequency of service,
further upsetting any cost-benefit balance asserted earlier.

We write to request that you fulfill your duty under the law as set out specifically
in FTA regulations to formally assess the likely greater impact of the project as now
proposed, and of reasonable alternatives, on the environment and on endangered and
other protected species.
In this letter we list several changes to the Purple Line proposal announced by
Governor Hogan and other recent related developments, that would make the Purple Line
a significantly different project and that constitute significant new information requiring a
reopening of the Impact Statement process. These changes to the project and new
information and circumstances are sufficient to require that you re-assess the
adequacy of your public assessment of the impact of the project and reasonable
alternatives to it with a new EIS or a Supplemental EIS. The FTA regulations
explain why:
771.130 Supplemental environmental impact statements.
(a) A draft EIS, final EIS, or supplemental EIS may be supplemented at any time.
An EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration determines that:
(1) Changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental
impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS; or
(2) New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and
bearing on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant
environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS. (Emphasis added)
We set out in this letter reasons the previous assessment process (comprised of a
2008 DEIS, 2013 FEIS and ROD) for the Purple Line, in spite of hundreds of thousands
of pages, is flawed and in violation of several basic requirements of Federal law,
including the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act, among
others. As plaintiffs in a federal court challenge to the previous proposal for a Purple
Line we have filed an amended complaint demonstrating why the previous Record of
Decision violated Federal law. The recent changes noted here, however, add an entirely
new layer of compelling reasons why you should halt the current process and prepare a
new assessment and a new decision based on that assessment. We are providing copies of
this correspondence to counsel for both sides. To ensure full compliance, these reviews
should be completed before any federal funds or any contingent state and local
funds are committed and before any irretrievable harm is done on the ground.

We therefore respectfully request that you to direct your Federal Transit

Administrator to:
(1) Re-open and augment the current impact assessment with a Supplemental EIS
or with a completely new Environmental Impact Statement;
(2) Immediately inform the State of Maryland and the Counties of Montgomery
and Prince George's that they are not to proceed with actions of their own that
would irretrievably alter the designated right of way or natural resources affected
by the proposed project before the new assessment is completed, or risk losing
any federal funding they might otherwise expect;
(3) Complete a formal section 7 consultation with the Secretary of the Interior to
avoid jeopardizing listed species, requiring emergency listing to protect candidate
species, or degrading habitat that is critical to the survival and recovery of any of
the affected federal or state listed species, and
4) Following completion of a Supplemental EIS or a full EIS, develop a new
Decision with its own up-to-date Record of Decision.
We trust that upon review of the recent changes to a project for which no
alternatives have been assessed since 2008, you will agree that recent events provide you
a unique opportunity for reasoned review of a project that is still evolving. Such a review
is certainly legally required under the circumstances.
We present here a list, in sections A-E below, of changes and new developments
that make the Purple Line a significantly different project from what it was in 2008 or
even 2013, changes that constitute significant new information. We also point out some
of the EIS- related problems that have plagued the project all along, and which add to the
justification for another full or supplemental evaluation:
A. The Governors June 2015 Changes to the Project Have a Material Impact on the
Reliability of the Analysis and Conclusions in the FEIS and DEIS.
In late June Governor Larry Hogan of Maryland disclosed a list (List) of over
40 project changes to streamline the project and reduce its cost. These changes will
have significant environmental impacts. We summarize here the effect of six of the most
significant changes:
1) The elimination of the green track that was portrayed in the FEIS as
controlling significant amounts of stormwater on site and preventing run-off. Green track
is also useful in reducing noise pollution. It would now be replaced by gravel. This one
point alters and undercuts conclusions reached on two elements of the FEIS
stormwater and noise.

Green track is mentioned in the Water Technical Report of the FEIS and often
touted to the public as a corrective for runoff. A useful description from the FEIS Water
Resources Technical Report is:
http://www.purplelinemd.com/images/studies_reports/feis/volume_03/012_PL-TechReport_Water%20Resources_August%202013.pdf
4.1.2 Surface Waters
"Water Quality
While the MTA has strived to avoid or minimize the water quality impacts, the
project would increase impervious surfaces in the study area, which could
increase the amount of surface runoff and potentially increase the level of
contaminants such as heavy metals, salt, organic molecules, and nutrients in the
surface runoff (Trombulak 1999). MTA is considering using green track along the
Georgetown Branch right-of-way and the CSXT right-of way to minimize runoff.
Green tracks typically consist of grass or sedum plantings in an 8-inch deep
section of planting medium (a non-engineered soil mix), placed over a freedraining track ballast. Green track allows for some water absorption within
the planting medium, thereby reducing the movement of potential
contaminants to surface water bodies. The green track reduces stormwater
runoff and increases local air humidity. The majority of the eastern portion of the
transitway would be located largely within currently paved areas along existing
roadways, although some roadway expansions would be required to accommodate
the transitway." (Emphasis added).1
2) The two steel bridges over Rock Creek would now be replaced by much more
massive structures of materials such as brick, and would, as acknowledged in the List,
require permits from two park authorities. The massive structures would impact the
wetlands, sensitive habitat, and Rock Creek itself, just a stone's throw upstream of Rock
Creek National Park. But permanent uses of parks of any kind that are more than de
minimus uses are forbidden for any US Highway Act-funded project under what is called
Section 4(f). Especially troubling about this change is the RFP notice that the MTA
intends to seek Memoranda of Agreement allowing the MTA to grant permits normally
sought from the park authorities. The bridge design may also affect the Dredge and Fill
Permit that must still be applied for by the FTA or MTA from the Army Corps of
Engineers.
3) Several changes to elements of the construction process (List Nos. 11-13) and
various road crossing designs pose potentially greater risks to public health and safety,
such as forcing cars, buses and trains to share the same lanes instead of widening the
roads fully (No. 18) and eliminating call boxes and security features at UMD (No. 27).

1 http://www.purplelinemd.com/images/studies_reports/feis/volume_03/012_PL-TechReport_Water%20Resources_August%202013.pdf

4) The "alternate interim" (read at least six years, or perhaps permanent) portion
of the Capital Crescent Trail, (No. 14) will require "more from the County" -- (more of
what is unspecified). Beyond the loss of the current popular tree-canopied trail (labeled
the Georgetown Branch Trail/"future Capital Crescent trail"), this means there will be an
as yet un-assessed rerouting of bike and hiker traffic through residential areas, along very
narrow streets, across Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenues at grade level, pitting fastcycling commuters against pedestrians and cars on streets with narrow or no sidewalks.
5) A 25% Reduction in frequency from 6 to 7&1/2 minutes of the trains is
confirmed (No. 10), reducing the level and accuracy of the contested ridership estimates
further, and making the already outdated 2008-9 Draft EIS assessment of alternatives
fully obsolete.
6) Achieving the LEED Silver Standard is no longer required (No. 41). This
single change is a direct admission that the project going forward will almost certainly
have a variety of more harmful effects on public health and the environment than the
project as envisioned and assessed in the Draft and Final EIS. For example, the yard at
Lyttonsville is directly situated by and above Rock Creek, directly next to the sensitive
wetlands and potential endangered species habitat that is of particular concern. Polluted
runoff and additional impacts from this yard would worsen the already harmful set of
impacts that the Purple Line would have in this vulnerable park area. The LEED standard
of the U.S. Green Buildings Council consists of an integrated set of standards affecting
many aspects of the construction and operation of buildings comprising such a system as
the project. Eliminating this has serious ramifications for everything from water quality
to the health of the riders and workers. This loss cannot be precisely estimated at this
point because we do not know which of the steps the builder and operator will drop, but
that uncertainty is itself yet another reason for doing a Supplemental or new EIS. The
categories and kinds of losses that can be expected now are set out in detail by the Green
Building Council. See http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/.
These limitations, design changes, and delays substantially increase public safety
risks and environmental harms as outlined above. Considered in light of changes
announced earlier this year and last, they result collectively in a very different project
than that accepted initially by the FTA in March of 2014. The alternatives reviewed in
2008, including a version that evolved into the preferred alternative of 2013, were already
subject to an assessment process that was unusual and, we submit, inaccurate and
inadequate in 2008 and in 2013. With the project still undergoing change, those
assessments, inadequate then, are even more clearly no longer adequate today to ensure
that your Department is acting in compliance with the law.

B. Recent Property Rights Litigation Adversely Impacting Acquisition of Right-ofWay for the Project Should Be Taken Into Account.
One separate additional change, of which the FTA seems unaware, is that Montgomery
County has now conceded that "scores of property owners" have encroachments in the
right of way and that "many are directly in the path of the planned rail line".2 These
property owners may be holding title to portions of the right of way that the County
acquired by quitclaim deed only (no warrantees as to validity against any other potential
claimant or landowner) from the railroad in the 1980s. The Court of Appeals of
Maryland will hear the County's appeal in the first test case near the end of 2015.3 To our
knowledge, neither budgetary nor scheduling leeway has been provided for the
eventuality that these holdings would need to be acquired by eminent domain or
negotiated sales of interests in land. This development should trigger the duty of the FTA
to reevaluate its EIS as it would even if "authority to acquire a significant portion of the
right-of-way, or approval of the plans, specifications and estimates" had not been
completed within three years of an EIS as its own regulations would require to ensure
those authorities and estimates are still robust and accurate. Here, that authority to
acquire scores of portions of the right of way, along with specifications and estimates, has
not just stagnated, but has legally and officially regressed. That would seem to trigger a
requirement for re-evaluation. (See FTA NEPA Regulations -- 771.129 Re-evaluations.)
C. An SEIS Provides an Opportunity to Cure Obvious Defects in the FEIS and
ROD:

An as yet unspecific and unresolved new State requirement for increased

contributions from the Counties,
The effect of a previous but little noticed proposal in the RFP for
Memoranda of Agreement to let the MTA grant permits that normally
would need to come from DEP and Parks, etc., coupled with
The impact of post FEIS MTA studies revealing greater stormwater
control problems and failure to contain stormwater runoff onsite, now
made worse by abandoning green track -- one of the few design elements
specifically included to address stormwater runoff in the Final EIS and
ROD,
The effect of two new sets of federal regulations expanding protected

2 Montgomery County, MD, petitioner v. Ajay Bhatt, respondent, County's Petition for Writ
of Certiorari, p. 4.
3 Montgomery County, MD v. Ajay Bhatt, in which the County is appealing the ruling on
appeal in favor of Mr. Bhatt (8929-D) dated February 26, 2015 that Mr. Bhatt had proven all
of the elements of a title by adverse possession (though the court was not asked to perfect
that title, and that therefore the County could not impose a fine upon him for having a fence
on what has been property in his family since 1980, before the conveyance by the Railroad
to the County of a quitclaim deed for the Georgetown Branch of the Capital Crescent Trail.
Argument before the Court of Appeals will be set for December 2015.

areas of streams, wetlands4 and floodplains,5 and

The impact of the determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that
the project will require a specific individual Section 404 permit (not yet
applied for) due to its exceeding by 100% the State general permit limit of
2000 impacted linear feet of stream.

In combination with other information that we have obtained since the ROD,
these developments mean that the existing Decision of March 2014 by FTA that the
MTA proposed and its supporting ROD, and FEIS and its supporting Draft EIS 2008
comparison of alternative transportation options all must be re-done to comply with the
law.

4 37054 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 2015 / Rules
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
33 CFR Part 328
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 122, 230, 232, 300, 302, and 401
[EPAHQOW20110880; This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.
http://www2.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/final-clean-water-rule
5

This notice seeks comment on the proposed Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive
Order 11988, Floodplain Management. The President has directed the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), on behalf of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, to
publish for public comment draft amended Floodplain Management Guidelines to provide
guidance to agencies on the implementation of Executive Order 11988, as amended, consistent
with a new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard... This notice seeks comment on the
proposed Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain
Management (Guidelines). ... The Standard provides three approaches for defining the
floodplain:

Applying methods informed by best-available, actionable climate science,

Adding two or three additional feet of elevation, depending on the criticality of the
building or structure, above the 100-year, or 1%-annual-chance, flood elevation, or
Using the 500-year, or 0.2%-annual-chance, flood elevation.

The Standard is consistent with the President's Climate Action Plan (June 2013). The President
directed Federal agencies to take the appropriate actions to reduce risks to Federal investments,
specifically calling on Federal agencies to update their flood risk reduction standards. ...

D. Protected Wildlife: An SEIS Will Facilitate Coordinated Evaluation, by all

Federal, State and Local Agencies with Responsibility for Protection of Natural
Resources and Wildlife, of the Purple Line That Emerges From the Selection
Process.
The assessment procedures of NEPA can be conducted in conjunction with a
Biological Assessment under the Endangered Species Act focused on the cumulative
impact on listed and candidate species. We therefore request that you direct the FTA to
begin a Biological Assessment (B.A) of the impact on species now listed as endangered,
those about to be proposed for listing, and those otherwise protected by law, such as
Maryland - listed endangered amphipods, federally listed Migratory Birds, and the
aquatic species protected by the Clean Water Act. Unlike the current FEIS, the new one
should include as formal cooperating agencies all the agencies that must determine
whether to issue permits and make other findings without which the project may not
proceed, from the Army Corps of Engineers to the several State and County agencies
responsible for parks, natural resources and the environment. While this collaborative
work can begin now, the assessments under NEPA and the ESA should be completed
once the preferred alternative is settled enough to assess.
E. The As Yet Unimplemented Public-Private Partnership Arrangement Under
Which the Purple Line Will be Designed and Constructed by an As Yet Unselected
Private Entity Compounds the Need for an SEIS That Considers the Project That
Will Emerge from the Selection Process.
Changes affecting the Public Private Partnership and the FTA's own rating and
transit assessment of the project include the major calendar extension in which private
consortia will be given until November 17th to submit bids to design, build and operate
the project over the next three decades. Maryland officials "hope" that they will be able
to decide in early 2016, which, if any, of the bids to accept. The State Board of Public
Works must then decide whether or not to approve a public - private partnership such as
the MTA announced it would seek after it had completed the FEIS.6
This timetable is far into FY2016 and into a new budgetary and appropriations era
for the Federal Congress and Executive Branch. This altered budgetary landscape is even
more pronounced for the State of Maryland and its affected Counties. The State and local

6

"Companies bidding to build a light-rail Purple Line in the Washington suburbs will have to
submit their proposals by Nov. 17, and Maryland officials said Thursday they hope to choose a
winner early next year. If the state Board of Public Works approves a public-private partnership
with the winning team, construction could begin soon after a deal is scheduled to be finalized in
late spring, state officials said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/07/09/purple-line-bid-deadlinepushed-back-to-november/?postshare=6781436498206529

governments must now cope with the repayment of hundreds of millions of dollars and
the loss of hundreds of millions more in the future due to the recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision in the Wynne case ending Maryland's double taxation of income earned outside
the State.
The Hogan Administrations announced changes, conditions, and possible
additional delays with the Public Private Partnerships responses to a revised (P3) Request
For Proposals (RFP), require further clarification, and even by themselves should require
a new Decision by FTA for FY16.
Taken together the changes listed above mean that the existing Decision of
March 2014 by FTA on the form of the Purple Line that the MTA proposed, as well
as its supporting Record of Decision and its Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Statements have been rendered inapplicable and no longer adequate to support a
Full Funding Agreement.

In sum, the FTA's Decision to accept the MTA's proposal and to offer $100
million in FY15 was made in March of 2014. Since then there have been two
fundamental sets of changes:
1) A long series of new reports and announcements confirming greater
environmental impacts and an absence of normal regulatory oversight by the State
announced or revealed to us before the Governor's new conditions were announced, and
2) The Governor's 40+ changes of June 2015.
These, by definition, present a substantially new and different project and
significant new information concerning the likely impact of that project. Your
regulations and the statute require that you re-assess the adequacy of your public
assessment of the impact of the project, and reasonable alternatives to it, and determine
whether, you are obliged to, or will of your own accord, complete a new EIS or a
Supplemental EIS, as set forth in just one of several elements of the FTA regulations, any
one of which should compel such a public reassessment.7

7 e.g.,
771.130 Supplemental environmental impact statements.
(a) A draft EIS, final EIS, or supplemental EIS may be supplemented at any time. An EIS shall be
supplemented whenever the Administration determines that:
(1) Changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that were
not evaluated in the EIS; or
(2) New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the
proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in
the EIS.

Therefore, a new full EIS or a Supplemental EIS would help you and other
decision-makers to resolve serious unanswered questions, such as:
1. The reliability of unusually high estimates of ridership (based on
proprietary models that were not available to the public) in comparison to
much less expensive alternatives such as enhanced bus service -estimates heavily questioned by several expert analyses submitted as
comments on the Draft and Final EIS,
2. The accuracy and acceptability of noise estimates, again questioned by
independent experts in comments on the FEIS,
3. The missing Cumulative Impacts Analyses under NEPA and the
Endangered Species Act,
4. What information will be required by the Army Corps of Engineers for an
individual project Section 404 Clean Water Act permit for the Purple
Line, due to its effects upon twice as much linear stream beds as allowed
under Maryland's general permit,
5. Resolution of hazardous materials containment risks and costs for the
200+ serious" hazard sites as may be required under the Toxic
Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, among others, along the route,
6. The post-FEIS Stormwater Concept Management Report and the postFEIS Forest Stand Delineation Report with their disclosures of scores of
points where variances from control obligations will be required, the soil
types downhill and downstream with varying susceptibility to hazardous
materials spreading through them to affect sensitive species, and
7. Whether and how the RFPs will be amended in light of the intent of the
MTA to seek the power to grant permits to use parks and to comply with
state environmental laws,
8. Other suspect calculations (e.g. jobs, economic benefits, costs, etc.)
provided to the FTA, Governor, the Board of Public Works, and other
government officials and to date,
9. And FTA NEPA Regulation 771.133 "Compliance with other
requirements. The final EIS or FONSI should document compliance
with requirements of all applicable environmental laws, Executive orders,
and other related requirements. If full compliance is not possible by the
time the final EIS or FONSI is prepared, the final EIS or FONSI should
reflect consultation with the appropriate agencies and provide reasonable
assurance that the requirements will be met.

10

Throughout the FEIS and the ROD, as summarized in Attachment A

Commitments and Mitigation Measures, the FTA has postponed almost entirely any
documentation or description of specific compliance measures pertaining to the issues we
raised in our comments and in our federal complaint. The subject areas where the means
of likely compliance was not reasonably demonstrated include, but are not limited to:
wildlife and habitat,
forests,
stormwater,
clean water,
migratory birds -- beyond one heron colony, and
the scores of serious hazardous sites.
In neither the FEIS nor the ROD did the FTA set out the standards they would
meet in order to comply with applicable laws and regulations, the cost of those actions or
the insurance or other remediation measures that would be undertaken in the event of a
failure of preventative measures.
In view of the Governors announcement and other recent developments, the FTA
should now finally fulfill this final core requirement of NEPA as stated in its own NEPA
regulations quoted in the point E.9 above, i.e., demonstrate how they will comply with
the laws that effect or control the proposed action. In the FEIS, its appendices, and the
RFP, this core NEPA duty was often "honored in the breach" by asserting in regard to
state stormwater regulations, federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials, the Section
404 Clean Water Act Permit acknowledged to be required from the Army Corps, etc. that
a compliance plan had not yet been developed but would be developed later. The FEIS
reflected little or no consultation in the true sense of the word with other agencies and the
ROD reflected communication with the USFWS only as a reaction to our notice of intent
to sue to enforce the Endangered Species Act. Even then the communication did not rise
to the level of a formal consultation preceded by a Biological Assessment of the
cumulative impact of the direct and indirect or induced effects of the project which
include vast amounts of new building, residences, offices, commercial centers, 23,000
new jobs, and the like, all along the route of the project, if the projections announced in
recent months the local and state governments are to be believed.
In summary therefore, we respectfully request that you inform us in writing
within thirty days as to the course of action you will take on these questions and,
specifically, whether you intend to grant our petition by embarking on preparation of an
SEIS addressing the foregoing issues and concerns. If we do not hear from you within
that time frame, we will assume that this petition is being denied and will proceed
accordingly.

11

Given the circumstances, to reiterate, we sincerely hope that you will agree to:
1) Re-open and augment the impact assessment with a Supplemental EIS or with
a full new EIS;
2) Immediately inform the State of Maryland and the Counties of Montgomery
and Prince George's that they are not to proceed with actions of their own that would
irretrievably alter the designated right of way or natural resources affected by the
proposed project before the new assessment is completed, or risk losing any federal
funding they might otherwise expect;
3) Complete a formal section 7 consultation with the Secretary of the Interior to
avoid jeopardizing listed species, requiring emergency listing to protect candidate
species, or degrading habitat that is critical to the survival and recovery of any of the
affected federal or state listed species, and
4) Following completion of a Supplemental EIS or a full EIS, develop a new
Decision with its own Record of Decision.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,

Ajay Bhatt
President
Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail
P.O. Box 5803
Bethesda MD 20824

John M. Fitzgerald
4502 Elm Street
Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Christine Real de Azua

4502 Elm Street
Chevy Chase, MD 20815

cc:
Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior
John Kruden, Assistant Attorney General for Environment and Natural Resources
Governor Larry Hogan, attention: Policy Director Adam Dubitsky

12

Attorneys for the defendants via counsel for the plaintiffs:

Department of Justice:
Kevin W. McArdle, Esq.
Jeremy Hessler, Esq.
Tyler Burgess, Esq.
State of Maryland
Linda E. Strozyk (DeVuono), Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Plaintiffs
David W. Brown
brown@brown-knopf.com

13

Appendix -- The Forty + Changes and Conditions Announced by Governor Hogan on

June 25, 2015 as reprinted in an on-line story of the Washington Post.
Architecture and Aesthetic Treatment:
1. Requirements for retaining wall finishes reduced to allow for standard architectural
finishes.
2. Landscaping at stations is reduced where not required for stormwater management or
wayfinding.
3. Additional flexibility is provided for architectural treatments of stations. Changes
include
1. Allowing transparent non-glass materials in lieu of glass in station canopies.
2. Allowing framed glazing in lieu of point-supported glass.
3. Allowing flat panels in lieu of curved/arched glazing in station canopies.
4. Allowing concrete walls in lieu of metal panels in some locations.
5. Allowing painted utility cabinets in lieu of stainless steel.
6. Allowing a reduced amount of glass at elevator enclosures.
4. Framed glazing rather than point-supported glazing is allowed in the Bethesda vent
structure faade.
5. The Chevy Chase Lake station egress stairway can be open-air instead of enclosed.
6. Requirement for a fully-enclosed platform at Riverdale Park and Silver Spring is
eliminated; standard station canopy is provided.
7. Additional flexibility is provided for the design of catenary poles in a limited number
of locations.
8. Additional flexibility is provided for the faade architecture at the Lyttonsville
facility.
Art:
9. The project art allowance is reduced by 50%.
Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Fleet:
10. The initial LRV fleet will be for 7.5-minute peak period service instead of 6-minute
peak period service.
Maintenance and Traffic During Construction:
11. Extended work hours and additional temporary lane closures will be permitted for
Maryland State Highway Administration roadways.
12. Extended work hours, additional lane closures, and potential bridge closures will be
permitted for certain county roadways and bridges.
13. University of Maryland will provide additional flexibility for long-term, lane
closures during construction on the campus.
14. Montgomery County will take on a greater role in providing the alternate interim
Capital Crescent Trail.
Platform Lengths:
15. Station platforms must be designed to a 200 foot length, but can be constructed to a
lesser length as long as they serve the concessionaires longest train.
Project Management and Construction Office Requirements:
16. One MTA field office (instead of three) is required.

14

17. Requirement for the Project Office to be located east of New Hampshire Avenue is
eliminated,
Roadways:
18. Shared lanes will not require full-width pavement replacement; limits of full-depth
pavement replacement will not extend to cover utility patches.
Structures:
19. Light rail and Capital Crescent Trail bridges over the developer road at the Chevy
Chase Lake Station are reduced from 60 to 40.
20. Standard bridge over Rock Creek is permitted (rather than a parabolic steel box
girder bridge).
21. Retained fill walls are permitted at Riverdale Park station. If the Concessionaire
elects to construct the Station with retained fill, an at-grade pedestrian walkway at least
10 feet wide must be provided beneath the station, directly connecting the East-West
Highway with 57th Avenue.
22. Requirement for the light rail overhead structure to accommodate future widening of
Kenilworth Avenue and East-West Highway is eliminated.
23. Retaining wall deformation (surface settlement) requirements are modified to permit
an additional 1 of settlement.
24. SHA painting standards can be applied to Montgomery County bridges.
25. One of two elevators is eliminated at each of the following stations: Chevy Chase
Lake, Silver Spring Transit Center, and Manchester Place.
26. Functional requirements for the Backup Operations Control Center are reduced.
27. Call boxes and other security features at the University of Maryland stations will be
provided by others.
28. Portable or temporarily installed equipment for rider comfort measurement is
permitted in lieu of a permanently installed event recorder system.
29. Requirement for pre-wiring of roof mounted LRV cameras is modified.
30. Standards for LRV door obstruction detection is clarified.
Track:
31. Ballasted track may be used in locations where Green Track was previously required.
32. Design must accommodate a future pocket track at Riggs Road but construction of
the pocket track is optional.
Transportation Utility Conduits and Fiber Optic Cables:
33. Requirement for a backup fiber optic cable is eliminated.
34. Redundant fiber optic connection to the MDOT network at Bethesda is eliminated.
35. Spare conduits reduced to three.
36. Fiber-reinforced epoxy conduit in lieu of rigid conduit at all bridges and overpasses
within States/Concessionaires control is permitted.
Utilities:
37. Vertical clearances for power and communications utilities are reduced to 2/6.
38. MTA will provide the Concessionaire with a pre-construction CCTV survey of
WSSC sewer lines.
Yards and Shops:
39. Maintenance shop need only be fitted out with equipment needed to service the
initial vehicle fleet.

15

40. LRV yard storage tracks still need to be designed for a fleet that provided up to 5minute train service, but the initial construction need only be built out for the initial
vehicle fleet.
41. Compliance with the LEED Silver standard is optional.
[The Washington Post reported that there were 43 conditions, though the document
reproduced in on-line story included only the above 41 -http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/hogans-proposed-purple-linechanges/1748/.]

16