MPAG Summary ~ Silver Spring Library Nov.
15, 2007
8901 Colesville Rd
Agenda:
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. MPAG Housekeeping
3. Draft Purple Line Functional Master
Plan Purpose and Outreach Strategy Report
4. Comparison of “New Start” Projects
5. Wrap-up
6. End of Meeting
Master Plan Advisory Group (MPAG) Members: Phil Alperson, Michele Cornwell (Alternate
- Ed Asher), Pat Baptiste, Veda Charrow, Eric DeVaris, Karen FitzGerald, Peter Gray, Tony
Hausner, Jonathan Jay, Laurie Kelly, Byrne Kelly, Sue Knapp, Caleb Kriesberg, Allison Driver
(Alternate - Mike Marsh), Bill Mellema, Heather Dlhopolsky (Alternate - Ginanne M. Italiano),
Andy O’Hare, Ted Power, Chris Richardson, Joe Rodriguez, Karen Roper, Issac Hantman
(Alternate - David Saltzman), Harry Sanders, Fred Schultz, Todd Solomon, Judy Tso, Mier Wolf
Absent Members: Marcy Fisher, Clay Harris, Rob Lanza, Rob Rosenberg
Others: Tom Autrey (Staff), Katherine Holt (Staff), Marnie Shaul, Helen Reed, Terri Mannarini,
Angela Fedi, and Pam Browning
1. Welcome & Introductions
Tom Autrey began the meeting at 7:05 pm. Each member of the MPAG introduced
themselves as did people in the audience.
2. MPAG Housekeeping
As is the case in the formation of any new group, it is important to try and get some of the
more mundane (but still important) stuff out of the way so we can move on to items that are
specifically related to the Purple Line. Items discussed under “housekeeping” included the
following:
Do we need someone to speak on behalf of the group to the public, press, etc.?
Tom noted the advisory nature of the MPAG and the fact that it is by design comprised of
individuals that represent different geographic areas along the alignment as well as
different viewpoints on the objectives and merits of the project. The MPAG exists as an
Advisory Group to the Planning Board and staff. Individual members of the MPAG are
encouraged to let the Planning Board and staff knows of concerns and areas that they
8787 Georgia Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-495-4525
http://mcparkandplanning.org/transportation/projects/bicounty.shtm
1
MPAG Summary ~ Silver Spring Library Nov. 15, 2007
8901 Colesville Rd
think should be reviewed in MPAG meetings. Given that context, members of the MPAG
agreed that a spokesperson was not required.
What about guidelines for conducting the meetings?
Tom presented the following as general guidelines to consider:
Please Participate – we need to know your concerns, especially if that specific concern
has not been brought up before.
Be Courteous – don’t interrupt and avoid negative stuff that might be interpreted as
directed at a particular person or group.
Be Concise – we have 30 folks in the group plus the staff. Try to get your thought or
concern conveyed in a one to two minute statement. Tell the staff to move on when they
go on too long. Be considerate of any visitors we may bring in for presentations!
Judy Tso also had previously forwarded the following guidelines:
- Treat each other with respect
- Listen to understand
- Agree to try on new ideas
- Ensure equal participation (step up or step back)
- Stay engaged
- No side conversations
- Question constructively
One additional guideline:
- Raise hands and be called upon
Taken together, the above two sets of guidelines should provide us with what we need to
keep the discussions and reviews moving while still allowing most (if not all) to he heard
on the various issues. Please let Katherine know via e-mail if you believe these
guidelines are reasonable and/or if you think we have overlooked something.
Does a facilitator need to conduct some of the meetings to make sure the MPAG
functions well? If so, staff can try to make arrangements for a facilitator to help with the
process.
8787 Georgia Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-495-4525
http://mcparkandplanning.org/transportation/projects/bicounty.shtm
2
MPAG Summary ~ Silver Spring Library Nov. 15, 2007
8901 Colesville Rd
While there did not seem to be any wide-spread support at the meeting for trying to bring
in a facilitator, two members have since indicated that it may be worth considering. Tom
will check with Rick Hawthorne to see what options may be available. There may also be
something to be said for limiting the number of agenda items – given the issues, the size
of the MPAG, and the desire to limit the meetings to no more than two hours. There may
also be some advantage to limiting the meetings to no more than one every four weeks
once the organizational / schedule issues are resolved. The additional time between the
meetings can be used to develop more detailed meeting packages that may help address
some of the questions that arise both at, and between, the meetings.
What about record-keeping, documentation, communication, and transparency?
At this point, the staff will continue to rely on the web site to post the meeting agenda and
agenda background information, meeting summaries, staff memos, and other MPAG
related material. We can also provide direct mailing to MPAG members upon request. In
response to a request at the 11/15/07 meeting, we intend to send out a draft of the MPAG
summaries for review by the MPAG members before the summary is posted on the web
site. In that regard, please provide Katherine with any comments you have on this draft
of the 11/15/07 meeting summary by the close of business 11/29/07 if at all possible.
Should there be a place on the web site to allow MPAG members to discuss topics or
issues related to MPAG business?
There was considerable discussion on this with opinions mixed on the advisability of any
type of open forum. A number of members indicated that an open forum is somewhat
duplicative of open discussion at the meetings and (group) e-mails that can be sent to all
MPAG members. Hearing no consensus, Tom indicated that we would re-visit the issue
later if some felt strongly that some type of open forum on the web site was needed.
What are the three or four main things that the staff is looking for from the MPAG?
The primary function of the MPAG is to provide input from the community’s perspective
on the Purple Line project as a whole and proposals/issues related to the Purple Line –
specifically, the alternatives under consideration by the MTA in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS), the staff memo on the same to the Planning Board, and the
drafts of the Purple Line Functional Master Plan.
The staff has an obligation to familiarize the MPAG with some of the issues surrounding
the Purple Line in advance of the publication of the DEIS. To that end, staff has started
to review selected specific items that will hopefully give you some additional context from
8787 Georgia Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-495-4525
http://mcparkandplanning.org/transportation/projects/bicounty.shtm
3
MPAG Summary ~ Silver Spring Library Nov. 15, 2007
8901 Colesville Rd
which to draw upon as you advise and provide input to the staff. The public orientation
sessions, for instance, reviewed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts
process. The MTA Project Manager gave a project overview at the Oct. 30th MPAG
meeting. Staff is also reviewing what is an admittedly complicated schedule for the
delivery of a recommendation on a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and a Staff Draft
of the Functional Master Plan. In addition, and in advance of the MTA Open Houses,
staff will be reviewing certain information about projects already in the FTA pipeline
(see below). There have been requests to look at other issues before the DEIS is released
– potential funding sources, the forecasting methodology, neighborhood compatibility,
etc.
3. Draft Purple Line Functional Master Plan Purpose & Outreach Strategy Report – May
2007
This Draft Report was reviewed at the meeting so that revisions can be made and a final
version presented to the Planning Board in December. The Draft was prepared in May 2007
at the time the Planning Board approved the report distribution and authorized the staff to
establish the MPAG. In the interim, the MTA has modified some of the alternatives
discussed in the report. In addition, the schedule has slipped a bit and the MPAG has asked
for clarification and modifications related to the timing of the selection of a LPA and the
development of the Staff Draft of the Functional Master Plan. The Draft Report can be
found on the web site (the link is in the upper right hand corner) if you do not have a
copy. The link is at:
http://www.mcparkandplanning.org/board/agenda/2007/documents/20070517_PurpleLine.pdf
The section on the alternatives (beginning on page 13 of the draft report) needs to be
updated a bit. It was originally the staff’s intent to get through at least the first MTA Open
House and then start work on updating this part of the report. The MTA, however, held a
Project Team meeting on 11/14/07 where a new matrix of the alternatives was presented. It is
this matrix that will be used to update the description of the alternatives in the Purpose and
Outreach Report. Staff is also going to make sure that the maps are legible in any subsequent
printed version.
In addition, the draft report is where staff would potentially modify the schedule – move the
Staff Draft of the Functional Master Plan up to coincide with any recommendation on the
LPA - as proposed by some in our first meeting on October 30. A revised (Draft) schedule
that reflected this change was presented for discussion (at the 11/15/07 meeting). It was
clear from the discussion that the MPAG believes additional clarification is needed on the
schedule. Specifically, the scheduled needs to be reviewed to (1) determine if a Planning
Board Public Hearing can be held on the LPA in advance of the Planning Board approving a
Staff Draft of the Functional Master Plan – while providing enough time to also present a
staff recommendation on the LPA and the Staff Draft Plan within 45 to 60 days of the release
8787 Georgia Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-495-4525
http://mcparkandplanning.org/transportation/projects/bicounty.shtm
4
MPAG Summary ~ Silver Spring Library Nov. 15, 2007
8901 Colesville Rd
of the DEIS and (2) determine what constraints might exist to providing more than 45 days to
review the DIES – the time estimate provided by the MTA. With respect to the latter, the
staff agreed to draft a letter for the Chairman’s consideration that would focus on the need
for a review period that is longer than 45 days. In addition, the staff is going to work on
providing a more detailed flow chart depicting the schedule and respective responsibilities.
Other comments on the Draft Report included the following:
Page 9, technology should be included in some of the choices. The choices seem to
lock into rail and bus, but they don’t consider hybrid approaches or acknowledge
flexibility provided through advances in technological.
Maintenance yard locations need to be addressed in the report. The Georgetown
Branch Master Plan included a maintenance yard.
The Purple Line Loop should be included in the section on prior study efforts.
Page 13, it would be helpful to show how long things will be closed, construction
phasing, and a schedule for construction.
This document does not include what was done elsewhere. What about outreach? Is
there an example that is similar to this project or is there a better connection for the
trail from Silver Spring to Sligo?
Page 22, November to March would be a good time for MPAG become acquainted
with the alignments through walking the alignments, while gaining knowledge of the
project.
Any place that the Georgetown Branch Master Plan alignment is mentioned in the
report, there needs to be a note that states the alignment is a single track alignment
along some segments.
There should be reference to the fact that some MPAG members believe that the
DEIS/AA and Master Plan process should be re-scoped to include consideration of
the Purple Line Loop and that, in general, the current process is placing too much
emphasis on developing lower cost alternatives.
In conjunction with the above bullet, certain MPAG members believe that the
expansion of the National Naval Medical Center and its transformation into the
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center should be taken into account when
considering the Purple Line and all of its alternatives since it will affect the
transportation system.
The Planning Board should hold a public hearing after staff submits a draft
recommendation on the LPA to ensure public comments on the staff draft.
The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce supported the DEIS/AA study for
the double track corridor with trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring and agrees
with the modification of any single track references (currently in the Georgetown
Branch Master Plan Amendment). It also supports the light rail and trail as the
preferred and most effective mode (not BRT).
8787 Georgia Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-495-4525
http://mcparkandplanning.org/transportation/projects/bicounty.shtm
5
MPAG Summary ~ Silver Spring Library Nov. 15, 2007
8901 Colesville Rd
The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce has consistently supported the
alignment in the existing Master Plans along the Georgetown Branch alignment,
going from the Bethesda CBD to the Silver Spring CBD (no position on Silver Spring
alignments/alternatives).
The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce supports the coordination of the
light rail and trail and believes that they are compatible and complementary joint
uses for the existing right-of-way; the policy guidance for development along
the alignment should support transit oriented uses and redevelopment opportunities;
and the Chamber has supported the phasing of the Purple Line to start with the
Bethesda to Silver Spring alignment as Phase One (since that portion has been in the
Master Plans for decades) if necessary for funding
MPAG members were encouraged to send any additional comments to the staff via e-mail
as soon as possible so that it can be included in the Final Report. It is the staff’s intent to
try and have the Final Report available for MPAG review prior to the 12/04/07 meeting.
Other Comments/Concerns
Some members of the MPAG expressed a concern that the open houses conducted by MTA
are problematic because there is not a record of what people say or what is said back to the
public – there is a question of accountability.
As noted above, there was a general concern expressed by the staff and some MPAG
members about the amount of time that would be available to review the DEIS/AA. Tom
stated that would talk to Mike Madden for clarification and then draft a letter for the
Planning Board Chairman’s consideration. The letter would express concern about not
having adequate time to review the document and would request additional time.
4. Comparison of “New Start” Projects (30 min.)
There had been some interest expressed at taking a look at other projects across the country
that are in this same competition (e.g., the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) “New
Starts” process) to possibly get an early rough idea of how we might compare. Getting an
idea of how we might generally compare might also help us start to get our arms around
important issues like the extent to which costs associated with tunneling (as an example) or
other added costs might impact the project competiveness. The information on other systems
is also good background to have going into the series of MTA open houses.
The staff reviewed summary information provided in the packet on other projects in the FTA
“pipeline”. This information, for the most part, was taken from the FTA’s Annual Report on
Funding Recommendations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.
8787 Georgia Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-495-4525
http://mcparkandplanning.org/transportation/projects/bicounty.shtm
6
MPAG Summary ~ Silver Spring Library Nov. 15, 2007
8901 Colesville Rd
Questions that were raised during the review of the material included the following:
Does the list that is in the information packet include a selected set of projects or all of the
systems in the United States? Do you have a competition list?
The spreadsheet includes all of the projects that are included in the FTA Annual Report on
Funding Recommendations for FY 2008. We do not have a list of projects that are at the
same stage as the Purple Line project.
Is the information shown for average weekday trips? What qualifies as a commuter?
The ridership estimates reflects average weekday ridership. The estimated reflect average
weekday boardings on the system (project) in the forecast year.
Is there a standard method of getting ridership numbers?
Yes, there is a standard method that is approved by FTA and is used across the country.
Have the ridership numbers been verified?
FTA and the MTA Project Team work closely to ensure that the ridership estimates are
reasonable and are arrived at through methods that are accepted as being consistent with the
current best practices for forecasting ridership. This has been an issue in the past and the
FTA has recently change its procedures to insure that projects reflect reasonable ridership
estimates before proceeding to the next phase of project development. The staff recognizes
that ridership forecasting is an issue because of the approximate one-year delay that was
attributable to problems with the forecasting model. The staff will work to schedule a session
in the near future on the general approach to forecasting ridership - as recommended by a
MPAG member. The Transportation Research Board has tentatively scheduled a session at
its Annual Meeting on January 14th entitled “Predicted Costs and Ridership of New Starts
Projects vs. Actual.” We will provide the MPAG with a summary of that report as additional
background.
Will the DEIS and this document include information about capital spending versus
ridership? Will it include operation cost and maintenance?
The DEIS will include information on ridership, capital costs and operating costs for each of
the alternatives.
8787 Georgia Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-495-4525
http://mcparkandplanning.org/transportation/projects/bicounty.shtm
7
MPAG Summary ~ Silver Spring Library Nov. 15, 2007
8901 Colesville Rd
The capital cost per weekday rider information was put together by Tom. What is the capital
cost share? Fifty-fifty?
Federal law provides for up to 80% federal participation for capital costs. However, as you
can see from the material provided on current projects in the pipeline, most projects have
been approved for consideration at a 40-50% federal participation level.
Are there any public/private partnerships?
Tom stated at the meeting that the Dulles project was an example but that is technically
incorrect. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority oversees the project and is using
toll roads revenues and transportation improvement district levies to fund the local share.
A cost per hour user benefit would be useful. What is the impact on cost and
competitiveness for the tunnel versus the trail?
We will likely not have cost per hour of transportation user benefit until the DEIS is
distributed. As noted by one MPAG member, the Georgetown Branch is probably one of the
most cost effective segments of the Purple Line because the right of way is owned by the
County. The MTA has indicated the cost of tunneling under the trail could be as high as
$150 million. The MTA has also indicated that a cost increase of that magnitude could affect
the viability of the project. Another MPAG member noted that the FTA rating system does
not take into consideration the public good – benefits that may be derived from less tangible
measurements than travel time savings (as an example).
5. Wrap-up (15 min)
One resident at the meeting indicated that there was evidently a presentation made to a
neighborhood civic association that upset the residents because the presentation was slanted.
There were no pros or cons, which is what the residents hoped to see. The presentation
seemed dishonest and indifferent to community concerns, according to this individual.
Tom stated that he will discuss this offline to gain a better understanding of who gave the
presentation and the exact nature of the issue.
The next meeting will be Dec. 4th at Park and Planning Office in the auditorium from 7
pm until 9 pm with another meeting tentatively scheduled for Dec. 18th.
6. Meeting End
The meeting concluded at 9:00 pm.
8787 Georgia Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-495-4525
http://mcparkandplanning.org/transportation/projects/bicounty.shtm
8
