Corridor Cities Transitway

Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands

November 5, 2009

Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 Project Background...... 1 Description of Alternatives ...... 2 Environmental Concerns ...... 2 Cost ...... 4 Transportation Performance ...... 4 Findings Summary...... 5 II. INTRODUCTION...... 9 Project Description...... 9 Purpose of this Report ...... 10 III. PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 12 I-270 Multi-Modal Corridor Project Description ...... 12 Consistency with Project Purpose and Need ...... 12 IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... 13 Crown Farm...... 15 Life Sciences Center...... 15 Kentlands ...... 17 V. TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE...... 18 Travel Demand Methodology ...... 18 Round 7.1 to 7.2a Land Use ...... 19 Modeled Alternatives...... 23 Transit Service and Ridership ...... 26 Traffic Analysis...... 27 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...... 28 Resources Examined ...... 28 Property...... 29 Parklands ...... 29 Cultural Resources...... 30 Natural Environment ...... 30 Wetlands/Water Resources ...... 31 Noise ...... 31 VII. COST ANALYSIS ...... 31 Capital Cost Estimates...... 31 Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates ...... 32 Operating Statistics ...... 33 Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates ...... 34 Cost-Effectiveness ...... 34 VIII. STUDY FINDINGS ...... 39

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands i List of Figures Figure S-1: Alternative Alignments ...... 3 Figure 1: Corridor Cities Transitway Master Plan Alignment ...... 11 Figure 2: Alternative Alignments ...... 14 Figure 3: Alignment Alternative—Crown Farm ...... 15 Figure 4: Alternative Alignment—Life Sciences Center ...... 17 Figure 5: Alternative Alignment—Kentlands ...... 18 Figure 6: MWCOG Round 7.1 vs 7.2a Change in Households (Year 2030) ...... 21 Figure 7: MWCOG Round 7.1 vs 7.2a Change in Employment (Year 2030)...... 22

List of Tables Table S-1: Alignment Alternatives ...... 2 Table S-2: Estimated Ridership and New Transit Trips ...... 5 Table S-3: Alternative Alignment Summary Table ...... 7 Table 1: Estimated Ridership and New Transit Trips ...... 27 Table 2: Capital Cost Estimates...... 32 Table 3: Operating and Maintenance Costs ...... 35 Table 4: Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds ...... 38 Table 5: Cost-Effectiveness ...... 38

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands ii

I. Executive Summary Project Background The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) and Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) have been working cooperatively to assess a series of multimodal improvements in Montgomery and Frederick Counties as part of I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study. This process has included the development of documents required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 including the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) (DEIS), completed in 2002, and the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA), completed in May 2009

Together, the DEIS and AA/EA analyze the environmental and transportation benefits and costs of a comprehensive array of highway and transit alternatives. These include a No- Build alternative; a Transportation System Management (TSM) alternative; highway capacity improvements including general purpose lanes, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and Express Toll Lanes (ETLs); and transit capacity improvements ranging from premium buses operating on managed lanes to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT) on the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). Transit alternatives analysis in the AA/EA includes examination of the transportation benefits of a No-Build alternative and TSM alternative against the CCT alternatives. Public hearings have been held on both the DEIS and the AA/EA. MTA and SHA are coordinating with local governments and the public towards the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to advance the project into the next phases of project development.

The CCT is a 14-mile transitway between the Shady Grove Metrorail station in Rockville and the towns of Gaithersburg, Germantown and Clarksburg (see Figure 1). This transit link has been envisioned by project stakeholders to be a high-capacity transit system on a dedicated transitway, either as a BRT or LRT system. The alignment for this transit system has been identified as part of Montgomery County’s planning goals since the 1980’s.

The Montgomery County Planning Board and Council are currently engaged in an ongoing process to update one of the County’s master plans as provided in the Planning Board draft of the Gaithersburg West Master Plan. These activities have spurred interest in assessing whether the CCT Master Plan alignment could be modified to provide more direct access to areas identified for development. The specific areas of interest are the Crown Farm property along Fields Road, the Life Sciences Center (LSC) area on properties located along both sides of Key West Avenue, and the Kentlands commercial redevelopment site along Great Seneca Highway.

MTA agreed to conduct a study to determine the viability of these alignment alternatives to support decision making on approval of the Gaithersburg West Master Plan and a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the CCT. Several alignment alternatives have been identified to serve the areas of interest. This document presents the results of this study, which includes analysis conducted regarding engineering feasibility, potential impacts to environmental and community resources, cost and ridership implications, and the competitive benefits when analyzed using FTA New Starts funding program guidance of the proposed modified alignments. Planning is an evolving process and key project information is continuously updated as methods and data are refined. To facilitate an accurate assessment of these alternatives against the alternatives that use the original Master Plan alignment, reported in the AA/EA and DEIS, this report also updates some information previously presented on these alternatives. This include capital costs, Operating and Maintenance Costs, user benefits (a measure of travel time savings to transit system users),

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 1

and cost-effectiveness. These updates are provided as a means of ensuring an “apples-to- apples” comparison of all alternatives against one another as well as ensuring the use of the most accurate information available to date. As planning of the project continues on the selected locally preferred alternative, estimates of these and other factors will continue to evolve in response to more refined engineering and analysis.

Description of Alternatives The MTA developed a range of alternatives to provide information to decision-makers on the relative merits of different modes, alignments and investment levels for providing access to the three specific areas targeted for large-scale transit-oriented development in the corridor.

Table S-1 describes the alternatives as they relate to these three destinations and to the Master Plan. Figure S-1 shows the full array of alternative alignments with respect to the Master Plan alignment.

Table S-1: Alignment Alternatives Modeled Alternative Alternative Description 6A Light rail transit using original Master Plan alignment, as studied and presented in the AA/EA document 6B Bus rapid transit using original Master Plan alignment, as studied and presented in the AA/EA document AA1 Transit TSM (bus using local roads) to Crown Farm and LSC AA2 LRT to Crown Farm and LSC AA3 BRT to Crown Farm and LSC AA4 LRT to Crown Farm, LSC, and Kentlands AA5 BRT to Crown Farm, LSC, and Kentlands AA6 LRT to Crown Farm and LSC with at-grade crossings of Key West Avenue and the intersection of Great Seneca Highway and Key West Avenue AA7 LRT on MP alignment with circulator bus through LSC AA8 BRT on MP alignment with alternating buses through LSC

Environmental Concerns The NEPA process was enacted to insure that environmental impacts be identified and addressed for all federally funded projects. As it has been assumed that transportation improvements in the study area would involve Federal funding, it is important that environmental concerns be studied and documented. For this purpose, a planning-level analysis of potential impacts to environmental/community resources was conducted. This means that the analysis was not conducted to the level of detail required of NEPA documents, which includes the need for extensive data collection and analysis. Rather, the analysis of possible impacts used available secondary sources provided by Montgomery County. This type of analysis is typically referred to as a “fatal flaw” analysis—an analysis conducted to identify whether there are resources present that could be impacted to a level that could potentially influence decisions on alignment. The quantitative findings of this analysis are presented in Table S-3.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 2

Figure S-1: Alternative Alignments

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 3

Federal laws protecting significant historic properties and community resources (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) and Section 4f of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specify that a resource be protected if a feasible alternative is possible. Section 106 specifies that a resource needs to be assessed based upon its current features and not those assumed through development plans. Both the Crown Farm and Belward Farm properties have been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historical Places. The alternative alignments show decreased impacts to the Crown Farm, a resource for which land development plans that could alter the character and historic value of the place are more advanced and for which previous studies have shown the presence of no feasible and prudent alternatives to serve the site. However, substantially increased impacts are present to the Belward Farm over what are present for the Master Plan alternative. Should it be determined that alignments serving the LSC are preferred for future development, the MTA will continue to work with representatives from Montgomery County and the Maryland Historical Trust to identify and assess alternatives that serve the LSC but which avoid the Belward Farm property.

Cost Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs for the alternatives were calculated using methodologies similar to those used for the alternatives in the AA/EA document. These methodologies are consistent with FTA guidance and requirements for cost estimation for major transit New Starts projects. Capital costs and O&M costs are important inputs to the calculation of Cost-Effectiveness as defined by FTA New Starts criteria.

Overall, the project alternatives show fairly substantial increases in project costs, reflecting the increases in alignment distances of the proposed alignment alternatives, as well as the additional station that is proposed. In the case of projects serving the new Crown Farm development and the Life Sciences Center, capital costs using the same 2007 unit costs increase just under $100 million from $875.5 million for the Master Plan alignment to $972.5 for LRT and increase $44 million for BRT from $461 million for the Master Plan alignment to $505 million. Alignments serving the Kentlands in addition to these destinations are $999 million for LRT, approaching FTA’s $1 billion threshold for the definition of a “mega project”, and $533 million for BRT. Capital costs reported for the LRT & BRT Master Plan Alternatives reflect adjustments made to vehicle requirements for each alternative to more accurately meet the operating needs of these services. Costs reported will go up again when the unit costs are inflated to 2009 or 2010 values. 2007 values were used to provide a direct comparison with the BRT and LRT costs reported in the AA/EA.

Transportation Performance The travel demand analysis of the alignment alternatives used the same travel demand model as that used for the alternatives in the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study AA/EA, modified to include current land use forecasts for the build horizon year 2030. Specifically, the MDAA Phase I model (Version 3, dated 02/05/08) used for analysis of the CCT in the AA/EA was updated to include the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ (MWCOG) new round of land use forecasts (Round 7.2a), reflecting modified land use data and assumptions provided by each of the counties in the region, and coded network changes to include the new alignment and station locations.

The travel demand model was used to estimate potential ridership on the CCT as well as other measures used as a basis for measuring the cost-effectiveness of the project, a measure of performance critical for successful entry in the FTA New Starts process. An adjustment was made to the modeling results used to estimate travel time benefits for users of the transportation system (user benefits), an important input to the calculation of

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 4

project cost-effectiveness. This adjustment applies quantitative values to something referred to as “mode-specific attributes”, perceived qualities of a given public transit mode that users feel they receive in using it such as amenities, comfort, reliability, and other similar characteristics. To ensure an accurate analysis of the Master Plan alternatives against the alignment alternatives, the mode-specific attributes were applied to all alternatives. As a result, the user benefits have increased and the cost-effectiveness has decreased for Alternatives 6A and 6B from the original AA/EA document.

The results of ridership and cost-effectiveness calculations for the project are shown in Table S-2. The table includes a revised analysis of the costs and benefits of the BRT and LRT alternatives using the Master Plan alignment from the AA/EA using the model with the round of land use forecasts included in the AA/EA document.

As shown by the table, transit ridership and cost-effectiveness of both modes improve modestly with the revised alignments to service the new proposed developments at Crown Farm, the Life Sciences Center, and Kentlands. According to these results, the LRT alternatives would rate “Medium” and BRT alternatives “High” against FTA cost-effectiveness thresholds. Although cost-effectiveness only counts towards 20 percent of a project’s total New Starts project rating, a project must have a Medium rating in cost-effectiveness to advance into the New Starts program.

Table S-2: Estimated Ridership and New Transit Trips Boardings Alternative (thousands) Cost-Effectiveness AA/EA 6-TSM–TSM 7 N/A 6A–LRT 24-30 $24.00–$30.00 6B–BRT 21-26 $11.21–13.93 Modified Master Plan AA7–LRT 30-38 $18.06-$22.62 (Master Plan w/ LSC Circulator Service) AA8–BRT(Master Plan w/ 26-33 $8.37-$10.47 Alternating LSC Service) Crown Farm and LSC AA1–TSM 9–12 N/A AA2–LRT 34-43 $16.04-$20.05 AA3–BRT 30-37 $7.43–$9.26 AA6–LRT 33-41 $17.00–$21.00 Crown Farm, LSC and AA4–LRT 34-42 $16.86–$21.14 Kentlands AA5–BRT 29-37 $8.11–$10.13

Findings Summary The technical findings for this project have been summarized in Table S-3.

The MTA completed this study for the purpose of informing decisions for the selection of a preferred alignment alternative for the CCT. Both LRT and BRT alternatives were studied on alignment alternatives to the Master Plan alignment designed to service new targeted growth areas in the corridor. The data and information presented in this report should meet

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 5

this purpose. A review and analysis of the information has led MTA to make the following general conclusions about the alternatives. • Round 7.2a travel demand forecasts, which include considerable increases in development along the CCT corridor have modest impacts on ridership and user benefits as determined by comparisons of the forecasts of the Master Plan alternatives from the AA/EA with the alternative alignments analyzed in this report. • Additional ridership and cost-effectiveness benefits are generated by the new alignments serving the LSC and Crown Farm areas. It is therefore considered beneficial for the CCT to apply alignment modifications to those areas. • Service to the Kentlands is slightly more expensive and results in slightly less ridership and cost-effectiveness as determined by the current models. • The new alignment alternatives result in very few additional environmental impacts based on the conceptual level of analysis conducted for this study. An exception to that is with the potential impacts to resources that have been determined to be eligible for the National Historical Register, particularly the Belward Farm. Should an alignment be selected that affects the Belward Farm, MTA will need to identify potential options for avoiding the resource in consultation with the Maryland Historical Trust. These options may affect the location of the LSC Belward station and the quality of service to the Belward campus of the LSC.

These findings must be presented in context of the level of detail of this technical analysis. The following notes summarize important considerations for results presented above: • Updated information is provided in this report for the Master Plan alternatives reported in the AA/EA reflecting updated analyses of costs and benefits. The Master Plan alternatives assume previous land use in the travel demand model that matches the current Master Plan. This allows for a direct comparison of the new alternatives with the anticipated land use changes against the previous Master Plan alternatives under the land use in the current Master Plan. • Selecting a locally preferred alternative will require the MTA to engage in additional public involvement with affected communities to gauge the preferences and discuss the concerns of affected communities and riders for these alternatives as required by Federal law. • The model used for this study was applied for the purposes of comparing an order- of-magnitude performance among the alternatives. The travel demand model used for these analyses would not meet FTA requirements for travel demand analyses of transit New Starts projects. A new “Phase II” model is being developed for the Purple Line and CCT projects that will incorporate FTA requirements for the model. Although the modeling results of this analysis show definitively improved performance of the CCT alternatives under the enhanced land use assumptions, MTA urges caution in interpreting results for individual alternatives and individual modes. • The costs of building and operating the alternatives have increased substantially over the Master Plan alignment alternatives reported in the AA/EA. Capital costs use $2007 unit costs, which will need to be adjusted to 2009 or 2010 values. These cost increases affect the overall affordability of the project and will affect the cost- effectiveness ratings that a selected alternative might receive once a revised travel demand model is applied.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 6

Table S-3: Alternative Alignment Summary Table

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 7

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 8

II. Introduction Project Description The Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) is a 14-mile transit corridor between the Shady Grove Metrorail Station in Rockville, Maryland and the COMSAT facility, a technology industrial center near Clarksburg, Maryland that has been identified for future redevelopment into a mixed-use transit-oriented development. The CCT project is the transit element of the I- 270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study, a joint project planning study undertaken by the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) and Maryland Transit Administration (MTA). The CCT would be either Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT), operating largely on exclusive right-of-way to maximize transit performance and avoid conflicts with traffic and the built environment.

The I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study has been the subject of two federal documents prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and similar federal laws and regulations such as the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study Draft Environmental Impact Study and Section 4(f) Evaluation (DEIS) was completed in May 2002 and the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study Draft Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA) document and supportive technical documents were completed in May 20091. The 2002 DEIS studied the transportation and environmental effects of a range of highway improvements that included General Purpose Lanes (GPL), High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and a combination of both. Each highway alternative was combined with a BRT or LRT alternative operating on the Master Plan alignment with the exception of Alternative 5C which combined HOV and GPL highway improvements with premium bus services on the HOV lanes as an alternative to constructing the CCT.

In 2004, the Maryland Secretary of Transportation directed SHA to study the use of Express Toll Lanes (ETLs) as a new highway alternative. This request spurred the need to study the new alternative with the same degree of rigor as for the alternatives in the 2002 DEIS. The AA/EA was completed in May 2009 to be a companion document to the 2002 DEIS. Public hearings were held in June 2009 and public comments were taken for over sixty days. The AA/EA presents the transportation and environmental effects of two Express Toll Lane alternatives with BRT and LRT fixed guideway transit operating on the CCT alignment described above.

The AA/EA is also an Alternatives Analysis that compares the relative performance of the transit alternatives in conformance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements for federally funded transit major capital investments. The transit improvements analyzed in the AA portion of the study included a No-Build alternative, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative with premium bus operating on local roads with no major capital investment, and BRT and LRT alternatives each operating on the Master Plan alignment.

The SHA and MTA intend to make a decision on a multi-modal locally preferred alternative (LPA) in consideration of public and agency comments as well as the results of technical analysis presented in the DEIS, AA/EA, and this report.

1 These documents are available at www.i270multimodalstudy.com.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 9

Purpose of this Report Until recently, the CCT has predominantly been defined as a fixed guideway transit system operating on an alignment defined by Montgomery County planners. This alignment was first defined in the mid-1980s and preserved in the County’s Master Plan (see Figure 1). The County reserved property, where possible, through agreements with land owners and developers. Land use at proposed station areas has been planned to be transit-oriented in keeping with the County’s vision for the CCT corridor as a transit focused corridor. In the early years of the project development process, the MTA examined alternative transit alignments and modes to BRT and LRT on the CCT, including heavy rail and commuter rail options, for meeting the transportation needs of the corridor. These alternatives were dropped from further study in advance of completing the 2002 DEIS for a variety of reasons, ranging from concerns with costs, lack of ridership potential, and potential impacts to natural and community resources.

Montgomery County planners began to discuss the possibility of adjusting the Master Plan alignment in 2008 to accommodate proposed development in the corridor. Montgomery County and the City of Gaithersburg officials formally requested that MTA include different alignment alternatives in their ongoing study but, given the advanced stage of preparation of the AA/EA, the MTA chose not to restart the formal NEPA analysis to include these modified alignments. Instead, MTA agreed to conduct a feasibility analysis of the proposed alignment shifts, including a “fatal flaw” analysis of environmental and engineering factors, an analysis of travel demand and calculating cost-effectiveness using FTA New Starts criteria. This analysis would be useful not only in assessing the merits of proposed alternative alignments of the CCT, but in assessing the merits of proposed changes to land use and the master plans guiding development in Montgomery County and the City of Gaithersburg.

This report presents the results of the feasibility study, specifically documenting the viability of three modifications to the Master Plan alignment. These include an alignment shift requested by Montgomery County that would serve the LSC ”Science City” , proposed for development on three tracts of land near the intersection of Key West Avenue and Great Seneca Highway. Additionally, the City of Gaithersburg requested that MTA modify the Master Plan alignment to serve the currently undeveloped Crown Farm in the area of Fields Road and Omega Drive and an alignment directly serving future transit-oriented redevelopment of what is currently a traditionally designed retail center adjacent to the Kentlands community. The alignment alternatives are described in detail in Section IV and illustrated in Figures 2-5.

The MTA has developed this report to facilitate dialogue among stakeholders to the project on decisions related to selecting a locally preferred transit alternative for the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal corridor. The study was conducted at a conceptual planning level for the purposes of determining the feasibility of the alternatives for carrying into the next phases of detailed study. The study did not collect exhaustive data or conduct detailed engineering. The study examined such critical factors as the engineering feasibility of the proposed alignments; examined the potential for “fatal flaws” or sufficiently severe impacts to environmental resources to warrant complete avoidance; identified residential and business properties of concern in which impacts to property, visual or noise resources are possible; estimated capital and operating costs; projected ridership; and estimated the performance of the alternatives using key FTA New Starts transit project criteria.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 10

Figure 1: Corridor Cities Transitway Master Plan Alignment

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 11

This report presents an analysis of the alternatives considered by the planners and designers at MTA as discussed above. The sections that follow include the following: • Project Background • Alternatives Considered • Transportation Performance • Environmental Consequences • Cost Analysis • Study Findings

III. Project Background I-270 Multi-Modal Corridor Project Description The SHA and MTA are developing a multi-modal transportation project along the I-270/US 15 Corridor in Montgomery and Frederick Counties, Maryland. The highway element of the study includes an array of different capacity expansion alternatives that extend a total of 31 miles from US 15 and Biggs Ford Road in Frederick County to I-370 in Rockville, Maryland. The transit element of the project is the CCT, a BRT or LRT alignment from COMSAT, an abandoned technology industrial center near Clarksburg to the Shady Grove Metrorail station in Rockville, Maryland, which is a terminus of the Metrorail Red Line. The CCT alignment is entirely within Montgomery County and is intended to fulfill the transit needs of the multi-modal network of the corridor.

Consistency with Project Purpose and Need The Purpose and Need for the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study was first established in the 1990s when the first alternatives for the study were being defined as part of project scoping. Purpose and Need helps establish project goals against which alternatives are evaluated under NEPA. The project goals for the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study include the following: • Support Orderly Economic Growth • Enhance Mobility • Improve Goods Movement • Preserve and Protect the Environment • Optimize Public Investment.

The purpose of the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study is to investigate options to address congestion, improve mobility options and improve safety conditions along the I- 270/US 15 Corridor. The need for the multi-modal project results from the mobility challenges principally presented by growing traffic congestion on the I-270/US 15 Corridor. This corridor currently serves a wide variety of modes and purposes, including interstate highway travel, local and commuting highway traffic on general purpose lanes and high- occupancy vehicle lanes, commuter rail, and bus service. MARC commuter rail trains stop at a number of locations in the corridor including stops in Frederick, Monocacy, Metropolitan Grove, Germantown, and Gaithersburg. Additionally, MARC provides direct access to Metrorail Red Line stations at Rockville and Silver Spring. Commuter buses from Hagerstown, Maryland (Route 991) use I-270 to reach Shady Grove Metrorail station and local bus routes utilize local roads, resulting in unpredictable and unreliable bus service given the state of congestion on the local road network. None of these services provide effective and efficient service to targeted growth centers in Montgomery County.

The Master Plan alignment was developed in the 1980s by Montgomery County as a method to provide a high quality and congestion free transit option for residents and employment

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 12

centers along the developing corridor. The vision for this transit service was for it to serve three primary markets: • Local commuters and travelers—those traveling among the various residential and employment destinations along the corridor • Traditional commuters—commuters traveling north and south to reach employment centers in southern Montgomery County and Washington DC • Reverse commuters—commuters from southern Montgomery County and Washington DC traveling to employment centers along the transit corridor.

The Master Plan alignment was developed to provide direct service to targeted growth centers in the I-270 Corridor. The CCT would provide direct access to these targeted growth centers, thereby helping to meet the need for mobility options in the corridor. The proposed alignment alternatives under review in this study need to be examined with a similar purpose in mind. (A more comprehensive discussion of the Purpose and Need can be found in the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment available at www.i270multimodalstudy.com.)

The CCT plays a large role in the proposed amendments to the Montgomery County Master Plan, particularly the Gaithersburg West Master Plan, currently available in draft form and under review by members of the public, and pending final adoption by the Montgomery County Council. This master plan lays out an ambitiously staged plan for development of a major research and technology center that would include housing, retail and thousands of jobs. Other modifications to land use include proposed developments at the Crown Farm and the City of Gaithersburg’s rezoning and redesignation of a nearby shopping center, which would extend the Kentlands mixed-use community. The CCT would be an integral part of these proposed land use and transportation plans which would provide transportation choices and options in the study area and relieve congestion on local roads.

Travel demand data have been generated that tests the effects of the new CCT alignments for their ability to generate ridership and travel time savings (user benefits) using the same travel demand model and assumptions used in analyzing the transit alternatives in the AA/EA. The model was adjusted to account for proposed changes to the land use in order to test the effects of the proposed land use model on transit ridership, along with the effects of the proposed alignment modifications. The ability of these alternatives to meet or exceed these performance measures, as well as the cost-effectiveness, compared with the Master Plan alternatives will be important indicators of the future feasibility of the alignment alternatives against both FTA New Starts criteria and the project Purpose and Need. The analysis of these factors is presented in Sections V and VIII below.

IV. Alternatives Considered The alternative alignments were organized into alternatives serving three distinct destinations along the study corridor: Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center, and Kentlands. Each destination is served with alignments that spur from the original Master Plan alignment. Figure 2 shows the full array of alternative alignments with respect to the Master Plan alignment. In addition to these core alignment alternatives, some engineering variations were studied that affect vertical treatments at road crossings (at-grade, tunnel or aerial) and minor variations in horizontal alignment.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 13

Figure 2: Alternative Alignments

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 14

Crown Farm Figure 3 shows the transitway alignment through the Crown Farm deviates from the Master Plan alignment at Omega Drive and Fields Road. From Omega Drive, the at-grade alignment turns west onto the median of Fields Road. From Fields Road, the alignment turns south onto the future, northward extension of Decoverly Drive with an at-grade station at Crown Farm. The alignment continues down the median of Decoverly Drive before rejoining the Master Plan alignment at the intersection of Decoverly Drive and Diamondback Drive. A new station is proposed for the Crown Farm alignment that would serve the heart of the Crown Farm development, as well as existing development north of Fields Road. The developer has agreed to provide the right-of-way for the transitway and station and a limited amount of parking for the site. This station would replace the Washingtonian Station on the Master Plan alignment.

Figure 3: Alignment Alternative—Crown Farm

Life Sciences Center The LSC alignment deviates from the Master Plan alignment at Diamondback Drive and continues south along the east side of Diamondback Drive with either an at-grade crossing or open-cut tunnel at Key West Avenue. After Key West Avenue, Diamondback Drive turns into Broschart Road. An at-grade station is proposed on Broschart Road just south of Blackwell Road (LSC Central). Just south of the station, the alignment would turn west traveling with an at-grade crossing at Broschart Road. The alignment would continue west towards Great Seneca Highway where it would cross with an at-grade crossing.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 15

West of the Great Seneca Highway crossing, the alignment continues into a currently wooded area between the planned extension of Blackwell Road and Medical Center Drive. An at-grade station location is proposed north of Medical Center Drive (LSC West). The alignment immediately turns north past the LSC West station location and skirts the west side of the existing Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy, with either an at- grade crossing or open-cut tunnel at Key West Avenue. The alignment would continue north adjacent to Johns Hopkins Drive and then turn west adjacent to Belward Campus Drive. An at-grade station is proposed along Belward Campus Drive (LSC Belward). The alignment would continue adjacent to Belward Campus Drive and turn north at Muddy Branch Road. The alignment would proceed north along the east side of Muddy Branch Road to an aerial crossing over Great Seneca Highway before rejoining the Master Plan alignment. Another option includes proceeding north either down the median or the west side of Muddy Branch Road joining the Kentlands Alignment on the west side of Great Seneca Highway.

Two different alignment and station location options were proposed for the LSC West. Option A turns west just south of the proposed LSC Central station location on Broschart Road, whereas Option B continues south and turns west onto the north side of Medical Center Drive. Option B was proposed with the intention of providing convenient service to the Shady Grove Adventist Hospital. The alignment would then turn north just east of Darnsworth Road and rejoin Option A at the west side of the Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy. The at-grade station location of LSC Central would shift to a location just north of Medical Center Drive after the alignment turns north to skirt the Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy. Option B was not analyzed to the same extent as option A but is still left open for further consideration. (See Figure 4).

Although the alternatives serving the LSC include three new stations, LSC Central, LSC West, and LSC Belward, the new alternative no longer provides service to the DANAC and Decoverly stations included in the CCT Master Plan alignment. Service to DANAC has been the subject of additional conceptual studies in response to requests by DANAC that a station be preserved for their property. The Planning Board draft of the Gaithersburg West Master Plan (GWMP) includes a new station which would provide access to the DANAC property. MTA considered the viability of this station, to be located on the east side of Diamondback Drive, in conjunction with the alignment developed to serve the LSC as provided in an earlier version of the GWMP document and found it to be infeasible for a station. The station would have retaining walls on three sides, creating an unsafe and unattractive environment for a transit station. Recently, MTA proposed a realignment of the transitway to the west side of Diamondback Drive with a station on the DANAC property adjacent to Diamondback Drive. This alignment is considered to be more feasible. Analysis by the M-NCPPC staff estimates that 500-600 riders would use this station each day. A capital cost estimate conducted by MTA indicates the revised alignment would cost an additional $12.1 million, reflecting the need for more tunneling to cross Key West Avenue and the addition of a new station. Given the timing of this analysis, the revised alignment and additional station were not included in the travel demand modeling for this project. A cost-effectiveness analysis will need to be conducted for this alignment to inform decision making on the LPA in this area.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 16

Figure 4: Alternative Alignment—Life Sciences Center

Kentlands The Kentlands alignment consists of two options. Option 1 deviates from the Master Plan alignment at the intersection of Great Seneca Highway and Muddy Branch Road. The alignment would skirt the west side of Great Seneca Highway with an at-grade transit alignment. The alignment begins to elevate to an aerial structure south of Kentland Boulevard as the alignment proceeds north to the Kentlands Boulevard Commercial District. A station is proposed just south of Main Street. The alignment would immediately turn east with an aerial structure crossing over Great Seneca Highway into the MedImmune facility rejoining the Master Plan alignment along the east side of Twin Lakes Drive.

Unlike Option 1, Option 2 would continue north along the west side of Great Seneca Highway, beyond the Kentlands station location to Quince Orchard Road and makes an aerial crossing over Great Seneca Highway on the south side of the intersection. The alignment would continue along the south side of Quince Orchard Road where it would rejoin the Master Plan alignment at Twin Lakes Drive (See Figure 5). Option 2 was chosen for the purposes of analysis. Both options remain open for further consideration.

Service to the new Kentlands station would replace service at the Quince Orchard Park station on the CCT Master Plan alignment, located in the heard of the MedImmune campus just north of Orchard Ridge Drive along the east side of Great Seneca Highway.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 17

Figure 5: Alternative Alignment—Kentlands

V. Transportation Performance A travel demand model was used to estimate transit ridership for each alternative based upon established assumptions regarding the operations of each alternative. Additionally, each alternative was analyzed for its potential effects on traffic. The traffic analysis was an important factor in decisions regarding whether to test grade separated crossings of busy Montgomery County roadways and resulted in several important recommendations regarding signalization of BRT and LRT on the CCT.

Travel Demand Methodology The travel demand analysis of the alignment alternatives used the same travel demand model as that used for the Master Plan in the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study AA/EA, modified to include current land use forecasts for the build horizon year 2030. Specifically, the MDAA Phase I model (Version 3, dated 02/05/08) used for analysis of the CCT in the AA/EA was updated to include MWCOG’s new round of land use forecasts (Round 7.2a) and coded network changes to include the new alignment and station locations. Network coding was completed for each of the alternative alignment options AA1-AA8 as described in the following section of this document.

In addition to a change in the coding, a change was made to the processing of results to account for perceived benefits of the different modes related to the qualities and

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 18

characteristics of the services. The “mode-specific attributes” account for such things as amenities, reliability, comfort, safety, and other characteristics associated with a given mode. These attributes were applied not only to the alignment alternatives, but also to the original alternatives using the Master Plan alignment and included in the AA/EA. This enables a more “apples-to-apples” comparison of the performance of all alternatives under consideration for a locally preferred alternative.

It is important to emphasize that the forecasting model used to derive ridership estimates for this analysis is not considered to be sufficiently refined to a level that the identified estimates would stand as acceptable final project estimates by FTA standards. For example, drawing conclusions at the micro-scale for this analysis by comparing specific station boardings by alternative would not be a proper application of the tool. The forecasting model was used to compare alternatives. The model identified order-of-magnitude differences for tested assumptions and determined the feasibility of alignment options when analyzed using comparable assumptions for other tested alternatives.

The MTA is in the process of preparing an improved transit model (Phase II) to be used on later phases of the CCT and Purple Line projects. This model would use the results of an MTA administered travel survey, conducted to fulfill FTA requirements, and improvements in travel origin-destination pairs among other refinement efforts to model transit rider behavior to a level of specificity that would be able to provide for better micro-scale analysis. After the LPA decisions are made for both projects, this model would be used to develop the detailed forecasts for the New Starts applications and to conduct technical analyses that address specific questions from the community.

Round 7.1 to 7.2a Land Use It is important to document the differences in land use assumptions in the CCT corridor between this analysis and those in the AA/EA analysis. Land use is a critical input to the development of travel demand forecasts, including estimates of transit ridership, user benefits (measures of travel time savings), and other important performance indicators. Land use forecasts are generated regularly as part of the regional air quality conformity process based on the most recent assumptions for population and employment growth at various forecast years and considering development activities and master planning efforts either approved or near the approval stage.

MWCOG Round 7.1 forecasts were used in the AA/EA to estimate travel demand and were linked with regional long-range transportation plan assumptions in the Phase I model. Round 7.2a forecasts updated the development assumptions for several areas in the CCT corridor, including the LSC area and the City of Gaithersburg, Metropolitan Grove, Germantown, and COMSAT. Together, these anticipated changes in land use generated increased growth for 2030 population, employment and households along the CCT corridor when compared to Round 7.1. As the Round 7.2a forecasts were recently approved by MWCOG, they were applied for this analysis to determine their effects on CCT ridership estimates.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 19

A summary of changes in land use forecasts for the CCT corridor was prepared to highlight the changing assumptions between Round 7.1 and 7.2a forecasts. The population, household and employment projections for those areas within 2 miles of the corridor are: • Population, Round 7.1: 117,945 • Population, Round 7.2a: 133,776 • Households, Round 7.1: 48,476 • Households, Round 7.2a: 56,269 • Employment, Round 7.1: 159,200 • Employment, Round 7.2a: 186,894

Figures 6 and 7 on the following pages depict the differences in forecasted households and employment for the year 2030 that were identified during Round 7.1 and Round 7.2a land use estimating processes. These changes represent updated planning assumptions based on master planning processes as noted above.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 20

Figure 6: MWCOG Round 7.1 vs 7.2a Change in Households (Year 2030)

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 21

Figure 7: MWCOG Round 7.1 vs 7.2a Change in Employment (Year 2030)

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 22

Modeled Alternatives The following describes the alignment routing and operations assumptions for each of the alternatives modeled for this analysis.

Alternative AA1: Transit TSM with LSC and Crown Farm Service This TSM option is identical to Alternative 6—TSM in the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study AA/EA except the routing of the trunkline (T1) bus service has been adjusted to serve the LSC and Crown Farm areas using roads assumed to be developed as part of the development plans for those areas. The modified TSM trunkline bus service would follow Great Seneca Highway, turn south on Muddy Branch Road, and then make a turn to the east on a proposed Belward Campus Drive extension. The T1 bus route would traverse what is now the Belward Farm and would stop at a new station within the future development. The T1 bus route would then turn south on Johns Hopkins Drive and proceed across Key West Avenue onto a proposed arterial roadway traversing what is now the Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy. A station stop would be made here to serve the redevelopment planned for the site. Upon reaching Medical Center Drive, the T1 buses would turn east, proceed across Great Seneca Highway, turn north onto Broschart Road, and make a station stop near Blackwell Road. Continuing northward, the buses would cross Key West Avenue and proceed onto Diamondback Drive. At Decoverly Drive, T1 buses would turn to the right and proceed northeast onto a proposed extension of the road through the Crown Farm property. A station stop would be made just prior to Fields Road. After this, buses would turn east on Fields Road, south on Omega Drive, and east onto Research Boulevard. From here, T1 buses would follow the remainder of the TSM route to Shady Grove, as defined in the Detailed Definition of Alternatives.

The T1 route would have limited stops operating on a 6-minute peak period headway from COMSAT to the Shady Grove Metrorail station, making stops at locations at or near where stations are proposed along the alignment alternatives. During off-peak periods, the T1 route would operate at a 10-minute headway, augmented by existing feeder bus routes.

The feeder bus plan for the TSM alternative would build upon the existing route structure, extend the service area into Frederick County, and improve service frequencies where appropriate. In addition to the trunkline bus route described above, new bus service would include the FREDSG and FREDMGSG routes between the Frederick Transit Center and Shady Grove and the KPTNMGSG route between Kemptown and Shady Grove. Route FREDSG would continue to Shady Grove via I-270 while Routes FREDMGSG and KPTNMGSG would follow the TSM trunkline route from Metropolitan Grove to Shady Grove.

Alternative AA2: LRT LSC and Crown Farm Service The LRT alignment is identical to Alternatives 6A and 7A in the AA/EA except in the vicinity of LSC and Crown Farm where the alignment would deviate from the Master Plan alignment beginning at the Great Seneca Highway/Muddy Branch Road intersection. The changes in alignments to service these new destinations are described in Section IV of this report.

LRT service between COMSAT and Shady Grove would operate at 6-minute headways during peak periods and 10-minute headways during off-peak periods. The premium bus and feeder bus services provide identical geographic coverage and frequencies as described for LRT (Alternatives 6A and 7A) in the AA/EA and supporting technical reports.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 23

Alternative AA3: BRT LSC and Crown Farm Service The BRT alignment is identical to Alternative AA2. The trunkline BRT service would be identical to that described in Alternatives 6B and 7B in the AA/EA with one trunkline BRT bus route (B1) on a 6-minute headway from COMSAT to the Shady Grove Metrorail station, making all stops. In addition, feeder buses would use the guideway augmenting the trunkline service.

The feeder bus service provides identical geographic coverage and frequencies as described for BRT alternatives in the AA/EA (Alternatives 6B and 7B), but with some minor re-routing to serve the LSC Belward, LSC West, LSC Central, and Crown Farm stations.

Two of the three new bus routes to Shady Grove, Routes FREDMGSG and KPTNMGSG, would follow the CCT alignment between Metropolitan Grove and Shady Grove, originating from the Frederick Transit Center and Kemptown respectively. Route FREDSG would operate between the Frederick Transit Center and Shady Grove via I-270.

Alternative AA4: LRT Kentlands, LSC, and Crown Farm The LRT alignment is identical to Alternative AA2 except that it adds the new routing to Kentlands. As noted above, LRT service between COMSAT and Shady Grove would operate at 6-minute headways during peak periods and 10-minute headways during off-peak periods.

The feeder bus service provides identical geographic coverage and frequencies as described for Alternatives 6A and 7A in the AA/EA, but with some minor re-routing to serve the Kentlands, LSC Belward, LSC West, LSC Central, and Crown Farm stations.

Alternative AA5: BRT Kentlands, LSC, and Crown Farm The BRT alignment is identical to Alternative AA4. The trunkline BRT service would be identical to that described in Alternatives 6B and 7B in the AA/EA with the buses operating on 6-minute headways. Some feeder bus routes would use a portion of the alignment to Shady Grove.

The feeder bus service provides identical geographic coverage and frequencies as described in the AA/EA, but with some minor re-routing to serve the Kentlands, LSC, and Crown Farm.

Two of the three new bus routes to Shady Grove, Routes FREDMGSG and KPTNMGSG, would follow the CCT alignment between Metropolitan Grove and Shady Grove, originating from the Frederick Transit Center and Kemptown respectively. Route FREDSG would operate between the Frederick Transit Center and Shady Grove via I-270.

Alternative AA6: LRT, LSC, and Crown Farm Service without Grade Separation at Key Intersections The LRT alignment is identical to Alternative AA2 except that the two alignment crossings of Key West Avenue and the Great Seneca Highway/Muddy Branch Road intersection crossing are at-grade. The rail operations plan would be identical to that described in Alternative AA2 with LRT service between COMSAT and Shady Grove operating at 6-minute headways during peak periods and 10-minute headways during off-peak periods.

The feeder bus service provides identical geographic coverage and frequencies as in Alternative AA2.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 24

Alternative AA7: LRT Master Plan Alignment with Circulator Bus Service to LSC Areas The LRT would operate on the Master Plan alignment and is identical to Alternative 6A and 7A in the AA/EA. In this alternative, however, the LRT service would be augmented with a circulator bus operating in mixed traffic that would serve the LSC areas. The circulator bus would make a loop around LSC Belward, LSC West, LSC Central and LSC North and would offer transfer points to LRT at the Decoverly and DANAC Stations as described below.

From the DANAC Station, the circulator bus would proceed east along Decoverly Drive to Diamondback Drive. At Diamondback Drive, the circulator route turns south and crosses Key West Avenue onto Broschart Road. A station stop would be made just beyond Blackwell Road near LSC Central. At Medical Center Drive, the circulator route would head to the west, crossing Great Seneca Highway before making a turn north onto a proposed arterial road traversing what is now the Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy. Shortly after the turn, a station stop would be made to serve LSC West. The circulator buses would continue northward on the proposed roadway and cross Key West Avenue onto Johns Hopkins Drive. The bus would then make a turn to the west onto Belward Campus Drive and follow a proposed extension of that road to a station stop serving LSC Belward. Near this station, buses would make a U-turn and then proceed back east on Belward Campus Drive, stopping near the Decoverly station, then continuing across Great Seneca Highway to the DANAC Station and the starting point of the loop in LSC North.

The rail operations plan would include operating at 6-minute headways during peak periods and 10-minute headways during off-peak periods. The circulator buses would operate in a clockwise direction with headways matching the LRT service (6-minute peak headways and 10-minutes off-peak).

The feeder bus service provides identical geographic coverage and frequencies as provided for LRT alternatives 6A and 7A in the AA/EA.

Alternative AA8: BRT Master Plan Alignment with Local Service to LSC The BRT service would generally operate on the Master Plan alignment and is identical to BRT Alternatives 6B and 7B in the AA/EA except in the vicinity of the LSC. Here, every other trunkline BRT bus (B1) would exit the Master Plan alignment and operate in mixed-traffic on local roads to serve LSC Belward, LSC West, and LSC Central. This local service would occur in both directions. Feeder buses using the alignment would remain on the Master Plan alignment.

Heading south, every other B1 bus would exit the alignment at the Decoverly station and proceed west along an extended Belward Campus Drive into the heart of the proposed development at LSC Belward. Near the station, buses would make a U-turn and proceed back east on Belward Campus Drive to Johns Hopkins Drive where they would turn south and continue across Key West Avenue onto a proposed arterial roadway traversing what is now the Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy. A station stop would be made here to serve LSC West. Upon reaching Medical Center Drive, the buses would turn east, proceed eastward across Great Seneca Highway, and make a left onto Broschart Road to head north. A station stop would be made in LSC Central just prior to Blackwell Road. From there, buses would continue north across Key West Avenue and onto Diamondback Road before rejoining the Master Plan alignment at Decoverly Drive. Buses operating northbound on the CCT would take this route in the reverse direction.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 25

The trunkline BRT service would seek to maintain 6-minute headways along the core Master Plan alignment outside of the LSC, however timing may be less consistent due to buses leaving the alignment. The headways through the LSC area, both at DANAC Station along the core Master Plan alignment and the stops along the local service, would be 12 minutes during peak hours and 20 minutes off-peak.

The feeder bus service provides identical geographic coverage and frequencies as in BRT Alternatives 6B and 7B in the AA/EA. Routes 71 and 78 would enter the BRT alignment at Metropolitan Grove. Routes 74 and 76 would enter the alignment at Quince Orchard. Two of the three new routes, Routes FREDMGSG and KPTNMGSG, would enter the alignment at Metropolitan Grove, originating from the Frederick Transit Center and Kemptown, respectively. Route FREDSG would operate between the Frederick Transit Center and Shady Grove via I-270.

Transit Service and Ridership Ridership estimates for the LRT and BRT alternatives identified above were developed to compare feasibility, attractiveness, and the effects on ridership of operating alternative alignments for the CCT than those alternatives studied in the AA/EA.

The alternatives were set up to test: • Ridership changes resulting from changing land use forecasts (Rounds 7.1 to 7.2a) • Direct routing of LRT/BRT vehicles on a revised alignment through Crown Farm and through the LSC area • Access to the LSC area via circulator bus • Access to the LSC by routing alternate BRT vehicles through the area • Potential impacts of investment decisions (grade separated or at-grade crossing) on ridership • Advantages of routing along the west side of Great Seneca Highway to provide direct access to the Kentlands.

Table 1 identifies the results of the modeling analysis performed for the representative scenarios relative to the alternatives tested in the AA/EA.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 26

Table 1: Estimated Ridership and New Transit Trips Boardings New Transit Trips* Alternative (thousands) (hundreds) AA/EA 6-TSM–TSM 7 61–76 6A–LRT 24-30 70–88 6B–BRT 21-26 75–94 Modified Master Plan AA7–LRT 30-38 90–113 (Master Plan w/ LSC Circulator Service) AA8–BRT(Master Plan w/ 26-33 101–127 Alternating LSC Service) Crown Farm and LSC AA1–TSM 9–12 78–98 AA2–LRT 34-43 114–142 AA3–BRT 30-37 120–151 AA6–LRT 33-41 108–135 Crown Farm, LSC and AA4–LRT 34-42 112–140 Kentlands AA5–BRT 29-37 119–149 *New transit trips are defined as being relative to No Build for TSM and to TSM for LRT/BRT.

Traffic Analysis An important consideration in determining the viability of the alignment alternatives is their effect on automobile traffic when traversing intersections at-grade within the study area. At question is whether LRT or BRT vehicles would be able to travel through the intersections within the study area while maintaining a balance in travel time across all travel modes. Implementing a fixed guideway transit system where intersection delays have a negative effect on the efficiency of the transit system is not desirable. Nor is implementing a system where at-grade transit crossings result in significant impacts to automobile traffic in the area. This analysis provides information on investment decisions for the project by identifying whether the higher level of investment associated with building a grade separated crossing is needed to maintain transportation system performance.

The methodology employed for this analysis included the preparation of a year 2030 traffic scenario for the project study area. The development of this scenario included: • Coordination with the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission • Development of Year 2030 traffic forecasts • Development of system performance indicators (delay, etc.) for No-Build conditions • Development of system assumptions for a transit build scenario • Development of signal timing assumptions for signals in the area • Estimation of transit/automobile delays at intersections

It should be noted that, for this planning level technical analysis, transit priority was assumed at most minor intersections in the study area in order to minimize transit system delay. Transit priority would include the use of signals or gates to control traffic and reduce or eliminate delay for transit vehicles. As the project proceeds into detailed planning and design, more detailed traffic system planning would be conducted for all intersections along the corridor based on observed traffic volumes to develop a specific set of recommendations regarding the signal systems governing traffic in the region, including transit traffic on the CCT.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 27

The technical analysis performed to determine potential traffic impacts point to a number of observations and recommendations for transit system performance implementation. They include: • Crossing of Muddy Branch Road/Great Seneca Highway intersection at-grade would result in considerable delays for transit vehicles and automobiles. Recommend analysis of a grade separated transit crossing at this location. • Crossing of Great Seneca Highway at-grade near Kentlands for an alternative (AA4 and AA5 noted in this report) along the west side of Great Seneca Highway would reduce system performance due to slow speeds of CCT vehicles leaving the station in this area. Recommend analysis of a grade separated transit crossing at this location. • Crossing Great Seneca Highway at-grade near Medical Center Drive would result in system delays for CCT vehicles. Recommend analysis of a grade separated transit crossing at this location. • Crossing Key West Avenue at-grade would result in system delays for CCT vehicles. Recommend analysis of a grade separated transit crossing at this location. • A mid-block crossing of Muddy Branch Road west of Great Seneca Highway may be possible. However, the impact on automobile traffic at this intersection could be significant. Recommend continued analysis of Muddy Branch Road Crossings.

At other intersections, it would be possible to provide at-grade crossings based on analysis conducted for year 2030 traffic volumes. However, it would be advisable to consider system performance beyond the year 2030 analysis year for other intersection crossings when developing final design recommendations. Building a system that requires later capacity improvements would not be advisable.

VI. Environmental Consequences Resources Examined This feasibility study reviewed a number of environmental resources that may be affected by the alternative alignments. The effects on resources were compared among the alternative alignments proposed by Montgomery County and the City of Gaithersburg and the Master Plan alignment. As noted earlier, the analysis was focused on identifying potential “fatal flaws”—areas in which the impacts would be considerably greater than reported in the AA/EA for the Master Plan alignment.

This feasibility study analyzed the following resources: • Property • Parklands • Cultural Resources • Natural Environment • Wetlands/Water Resources • Noise

The effect of the alternative alignments on the resources noted above was determined based on the location of the resources relative to the transitway Limits of Disturbance (LOD). The LOD “footprint” for the transitway was determined based on the current level of engineering for the alignments. All resources affected by the alternative alignments, except property and wetlands, were recorded as impacts in acres based on LODs and data supplied by the M-NCPPC. The numbers presented in this study represent the anticipated maximum impact that the alternative alignments would have on these resources. As the project proceeds into more detailed study, steps would be taken to verify the location, quality and

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 28

quantity of the environmental resources in relation to the selected LPA and additional designs and concepts considered as strategies for mitigation, as appropriate.

The effect of the alternative alignments on property was recorded in terms of the number and type of buildings impacted. Any structure which was located within or very close to the LOD was identified as a potential impact or “area of concern”. Wetland and stream impacts were also recorded and reported in the same manner. Once the LPA is selected, these areas of concern would become the focus of more detailed analyses to identify potential impacts and strategies for avoiding and minimizing the impacts.

Property The study area encompassing the alternative alignments is small in the context of the entire corridor between Shady Grove and COMSAT. The land use is very similar to what has been described in the AA/EA, with a mixture of residential areas, business and technology parks, commercial nodes and open space mainly in the form of wooded stream valleys. The effects to individual properties and communities would be the subject of ongoing public involvement with the communities in the area, as required, prior to the selection of the LPA.

As part of the alternative alignments analysis, the impact that the new alignments would have on residential areas and other existing building structures was examined. A number of structures were identified as being areas of concern in which analysis of potential impacts would be required and design strategies evaluated to avoid or mitigate these impacts. These areas of concern vary with respect to where the new alignments leave and rejoin the Master Plan alignment.

The LSC alternative that rejoins the Master Plan alignment at the intersection of Great Seneca Highway and Muddy Branch Road (thus operating on the east side of Great Seneca Highway north of Muddy Branch Road) would potentially impact up to seven structures. These structures include residential, commercial and government/institutional properties.

The alignment to Kentlands which runs along the west side of Great Seneca Highway from Muddy Branch Road could affect up to three structures. All three structures have been identified as residential units.

Each of these properties has been identified as areas of concern in which impacts are possible. Analysis of right-of-way requirements, potential noise and visual effects, and alignment designs would be conducted to identify specific impacts to these locations as well as for avoiding impacts where feasible.

Parklands The Kentlands alignment options impact up to four publicly-owned parcels along the west side of Great Seneca Highway. For the purposes of this study, these are considered parklands; however, actual public use of the property is unknown at this time. No parklands along the LSC or Crown Farm alignments were identified as being impacted.

Based on the assumptions described above, the alternative alignments could impact up to 5.85 acres of public parklands, which could trigger Section 4(f) requirements should the properties be identified as publicly-owned and operating parks (see the next section for a discussion of what a Section 4(f) analysis would entail). Further coordination with local governments owning these properties would be required to facilitate a final determination on the use of the properties and what actions would be needed to avoid them, if necessary.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 29

Cultural Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) requires federal agencies to take into account the impact of their proposed projects on historic properties designated in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Historic properties are defined as prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, and structures significant in American history and listed in, or eligible for, the NRHP.

Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (as amended) permits the Secretary of Transportation to approve a project that requires the use of publicly-owned land from a public park, recreation area or wildlife refuge, or any land from a historic site of national, state or local significance only if the following determinations have been made: “there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and all possible planning has been undertaken to minimize harm to the 4(f) lands resulting from such use.” As such, National Register eligible historic sites, parks and recreation areas with public assess and refuges are generally considered “Section 4(f) Resources” for planning purposes.

The CCT Master Plan alignment has been determined to have an adverse effect on three historic properties eligible for listing on the NRHP; therefore, Section 4(f) implications must be considered. This determination was made by the State of Maryland in a coordinated assessment between the SHA and the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT). These properties include the Atomic Energy Commission Building, located in Germantown, Maryland; the England/Crown Farm (referred to as the Crown Farm) and the Belward Farm.

The alternative alignments and stations under analysis in this study would require the acquisition of property from the Crown Farm and Belward Farm. Under Section 4(f), the project must evaluate all feasible and prudent alternatives to avoiding these properties while still meeting the project’s purpose and need. The Master Plan alignment and stations also would impact these properties to a different degree.

Both the Crown Farm and the Belward Farm properties are proposed for development by private parties and are identified for redevelopment in the Montgomery County Master Plan. A private developer has proposed a specific plan for each property that would change the character of these properties. However, the application of Section 106 and the need for a Section 4(f) evaluation apply to a property in its current state and with its current designation as eligible for the NRHP. The possibility of a future redesignation of the boundaries of the properties eligible for protection under these regulations could occur once the property has been substantially altered such that the historic value and character would be substantially diminished. This will only occur in close consultation with the MHT.

For Crown Farm, the alternative alignments would result in a reduced impact to the resource, as compared to the Master Plan alignment, but impacts to the Belward Farm would be considerably increased for alternatives serving the LSC. Alternative alignments through and around Belward Farm would continue to be examined to satisfy the Section 4(f) and Section 106 requirements.

Natural Environment Natural environmental resources and features in the study area exist in the wooded stream valleys, scattered wetlands and ponds, and open farmland in the Crown Farm and Belward Farm areas. Wildlife habitats, which have typically adapted to suburban or urban environments, exist in many residential and business park areas. The alternative alignments would not impact unique or sensitive natural environmental features.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 30

Wetlands/Water Resources The preliminary wetlands investigation supplemented and verified the existing GIS data sources and identified the presence of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. within the study area where property access was allowed. The final report, completed in February 2009, identified the location and extent of nontidal wetlands and other waters of the U.S. within the study area that are jurisdictional to State and/or Federal agencies.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) mapping indicates the presence of palustrine emergent and palustrine forested wetlands as well as open waters within and adjacent to the study area. These resources would need to be studied in greater detail relative to the selected LPA as the project proceeds in the project development process to determine the specific impacts and appropriate mitigation of those impacts.

Noise Aerial photography and field surveys were used to identify noise sensitive receptors that may experience potential noise impacts from the alternative alignments. Noise sensitive areas were identified based on their location relative to grade crossings that may require the blowing of a train horn (LRT options only) or areas close to a location where the alignment makes a narrow turn resulting in wheel squeal (LRT options only).

For the most part, the new alignments traverse a number of areas yet to be developed. The AA/EA identified very few areas of impact along the LRT alternatives and no impacts caused by the BRT alternatives, even for properties located very close to the alignment. One noise receptor in the AA/EA that falls within this study area measured moderate impacts for noise along Great Seneca Highway (300 High Gables Drive). This indicates that the properties along Great Seneca Highway are areas of concern when it comes to noise and would be subject to detailed analysis once an alignment is selected for advancement in the NEPA and project development process.

VII. Cost Analysis Capital Cost Estimates Methodology The methodology used in generating capital cost estimates was developed in accordance with FTA guidelines for estimating capital costs. Part of the FTA guidelines call for cost estimates to be prepared and reported using the latest revision of the FTA’s Standard Cost Categories (SCC). Cost components for the various alternatives were developed and summarized into the SCC. These cost categories form the basis for the format and structure used for capital cost detail and summary sheets developed for this project (not included in this report).

Unit costs included in the estimates were derived from multiple resources. Unit costs associated with civil and structural construction elements that are generally common to both transit and highway construction projects use cost data found in the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration (SHA) Item Average Unit Costs. For those unit costs associated with trackwork, stations, and systems construction elements that are principally found on transit construction projects, cost data from recent construction bids from other transit systems throughout the United States were compared and adjusted to specific project needs.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 31

The capital cost estimate for the alternative alignments was developed using 2007 unit costs. Using 2007 unit costs provide a direct comparison to the costs presented for the Master Plan alternative in the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study AA/EA. In general, the TSM alternative includes a cost of $125 million. The costs of the LRT alternatives (AA2, AA4 and AA6) range from $933 million to $999 million. The costs of the BRT alternatives (AA3 and AA5) range from $505 million to $533 million. The costs are higher for alternatives serving the Kentlands (AA4 and AA5); LRT serving all three new destinations costs just under $1 billion and BRT costs $533 million. Alternatives AA7 and AA8 combine operating the Master Plan alternatives for LRT and BRT respectively with a circulator bus or alternating BRT buses that serves the LSC. Alternative AA7 has a cost of $887 million, while Alternative AA8 has a cost of $468 million. Table 2 shows the capital cost estimates for all alternatives including recently updated cost estimates for the BRT and LRT alternatives in the AA/EA to account for changed assumptions related to vehicles required for operations.

Table 2: Capital Cost Estimates Costs Alternative (millions of 2007 dollars) AA/EA 6-TSM–TSM $118.63 6A–LRT $875.65 6B–BRT $461.24 Modified Master Plan AA7–LRT $887.42 (Master Plan w/ LSC Circulator Service) AA8–BRT(Master Plan w/ $467.87 Alternating LSC Service) Crown Farm and LSC AA1–TSM $124.88 AA2–LRT $972.63 AA3–BRT $505.15 AA6–LRT $933.55 Crown Farm, LSC and AA4–LRT $999.01 Kentlands AA5–BRT $532.63

Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates Methodology Operating and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates were developed using a model created for the I-270/US 15 AA/EA and updated since using the latest agency data. The transit O&M model conforms to FTA's most recently issued technical guidelines for transit alternatives analysis (Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning: Review Draft, September 1986 and updates).

Estimating operating and maintenance costs involve two primary steps: 1) development of operating plans and estimation of operating statistics for each transit mode included in each service alternative, and 2) development of O&M cost models and their application to the operating statistics obtained in step 1 to estimate the O&M costs for the new service. The operating statistics (vehicle hours, vehicle miles, etc.) are derived from the final operating plan for each service alternative.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 32

Unit costs developed from Montgomery County Transit Ride-On operating statistics were used to represent all local bus within the model. In this model, revenue miles, revenue hours, the number of peak vehicles, and other operating statistics for a particular transit alternative are converted to the resources that are required to operate and maintain the alternative (such as employees, materials, and services) using productivity factors which express the resources required as a function of the level of service. For local bus, the following supply variables were assigned as follows: • Vehicle Revenue Hours—costs driven by labor costs for vehicle operations • Vehicle Revenue Miles—costs driven by materials and supplies for both vehicle operations and vehicle maintenance • Peak Vehicles—costs driven by costs associated with non-vehicle labor, non-vehicle maintenance, and general administration

For local bus, the 2005-2007 data were escalated to 2009 dollars and then allocated to the service characteristics with which they were most closely associated (e.g., operator wage and fringe benefit costs were attributed to vehicle hours of service provided, fuel costs were allocated to vehicle miles, etc.). These allocated costs were summed to form a cost model based on three service characteristics: service hours, vehicle miles, and peak vehicles (the number of vehicles that operate during peak hours). The costs were then divided by the number of units of each operating statistic to develop unit total cost factors for each category. The resulting unit cost factors are as follows: • $49,155 X number of buses operated during peak • $2.80 X number of annual vehicle miles • $51.26 X number of annual vehicle service hours

The LRT unit costs were derived using data from MTA. The individual costs were summed to form a cost model based on four service characteristics: vehicles in maximum service (peak number of vehicles), track miles, passenger car (to account for multi-car trains) revenue hours and revenue miles. The rail model distinguishes between labor costs and non-labor costs for operating characteristics.

The unit cost factors for light rail include: • $91,572 X number of vehicles in maximum service • $174,651 X number of directional route miles (track miles) • $3.51 X number of annual passenger car revenue miles • $118.26 X number of annual passenger car revenue hours

Operating Statistics Operating statistics were developed using the same service assumptions used in the AA/EA and described in the Definition of Alternatives technical report. Generally, span of service extends from 5:00 AM until 12:00 midnight, with the peak period spanning three hours in both the AM and PM. The majority of bus routes within the corridor that operate only in the peak period today are also assumed to operate only in the peak period in the future, but overall bus frequencies are improved for all alternatives, including the No-Build alternative, compared to existing frequencies. This increase in bus frequencies reflects Ride-On policies as well as expected growth in population and employment within the corridor.

Service frequencies for both the trunkline service (BRT or LRT) as well as the feeder bus routes were adjusted to reflect changes in passenger loads. Passenger loads were obtained from the travel demand estimates, which provide peak period maximum load point volumes for each route. Off-peak frequencies were assumed in the Definition of Alternatives.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 33

Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates The O&M cost estimates were developed by applying the operating statistics of each alternative to the unit costs described above. These costs are determined separately for LRT, BRT, and feeder bus and then summed together to derive total annual operating costs in the corridor. Subtracting the operating cost for each alternative from the No-build provides the Net Operating Cost for each alternative.

Table 3 shows the operating and maintenance costs for each alternative. Differences in maximum load volumes, guideway length, and travel time account for the differences in Vehicle Revenue Hours, Vehicle Revenue Miles, and Daily Peak Vehicles. Not surprisingly, the longer guideway of the alignments serving the LSC result in higher operating costs.

The lower capacity of the BRT vehicles, compared to LRT vehicles, results in higher annual operating costs for the BRT alternatives. Note that many of the feeder bus routes in the BRT alternatives also operate on the guideway, resulting in quicker travel times and higher boardings on those routes.

Cost-Effectiveness FTA requires an analysis of cost-effectiveness as a measure of the long-term benefits of the proposed project compared to the capital and operating costs of the project. In its evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of a proposed project, FTA considers the incremental cost per hour of transportation system user benefits in the forecast year. Transportation system user benefits reflect the improvements in regional mobility—as measured by the changes in travel time to users of the regional transit system—caused by the implementation of the proposed project. The cost-effectiveness measure is calculated by (a) estimating the incremental “base-year” annualized capital and operating costs of the project (over a lower cost “baseline” of transit service), and then (b) dividing these costs by the projected user benefits. The result of this calculation is a measure of project cost per hour of projected user (i.e. travel-time) benefits expected to be achieved if the project is added to the regional transit system. Proposed projects with a lower cost per hour of projected travel-time benefits are evaluated as more cost effective than those with a higher cost per hour of projected travel-time benefits.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 34

Table 3: Operating and Maintenance Costs Daily Daily Annual Annual Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Total Alternative Revenue Revenue Daily Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Description Miles Hours Vehicles Miles Hours Track Miles Cost LRT Light Rail Transit AA/EA 6-TSM 6A 5,587 252 36 1,675,956 75,550 26.6 $22,759,000 6B Modified AA7–LRT 5,593 252 36 1,677,881 75,637 26.6 $22,777,000 Master Plan AA8–BRT Crown Farm AA1–TSM and LSC AA2–LRT 5,528 273 39 1,658,377 82,022 29 $24,157,000 AA3–BRT AA6–LRT 5,329 282 39 1,598,687 84,587 29 $24,251,000 Crown Farm, AA4–LRT 5,696 278 39 1,708,781 83,429 30 $24,675,000 LSC and AA5–BRT Kentlands

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 35

Table 3: Operating and Maintenance Costs (continued) Daily Daily Annual Annual Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Total Alternative Revenue Revenue Daily Peak Revenue Revenue Guideway Operating Description Miles Hours Vehicles Miles Hours Lane Miles Cost BRT Bus Rapid Transit (using articulated buses) AA/EA 6-TSM 4,291 229 19 1,287,369 68,733 0 $9,864,000 6A 6B 6,792 323 32 2,037,508 96,951 26.6 $17,130,000 Modified AA7–LRT Master Plan AA8–BRT 8,521 432 36 2,556,284 129,457 13.4 $20,163,000 Crown Farm AA1–TSM 4,293 238 16 1,287,777 71,306 0 $9,850,000 and LSC AA2–LRT AA3–BRT 6,676 361 38 2,002,706 108,267 29 $18,042,000 AA6–LRT Crown Farm, AA4–LRT LSC and AA5–BRT 6,782 361 38 2,034,594 108,367 30 $18,258,000 Kentlands

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 36

Table 3: Operating and Maintenance Costs (continued) Daily Daily Annual Annual Total Total Net Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Operating Operating Alternative Revenue Revenue Daily Peak Revenue Revenue Cost Feeder Cost Above Description Miles Hours Vehicles Miles Hours Bus No-Build Feeder Bus (using standard buses) AA/EA 6-TSM 23,459 1,188 122 7,037,732 356,369 $43,970,000 $19,791,000 6A 18,931 1,027 104 5,679,398 308,081 $36,807,000 $25,523,000 6B 22,775 1,135 113 6,832,517 340,440 $42,137,000 $25,224,000 Modified AA7–LRT 18,935 1,027 105 5,680,356 308,148 $36,862,000 $25,596,000 Master Plan AA8–BRT 22,636 1,121 110 6,790,939 336,183 $41,654,000 $27,774,000 Crown Farm AA1–TSM 23,961 1,203 124 7,188,298 360,829 $44,719,000 $20,526,000 and LSC AA2–LRT 18,873 1,013 99 5,661,752 303,992 $36,302,000 $26,416,000 AA3–BRT 22,841 1,131 110 6,852,281 339,275 $41,985,000 $25,984,000 AA6–LRT 18,872 1,013 99 5,661,748 304,031 $36,304,000 $26,512,000 Crown Farm, AA4–LRT 18,879 1,014 99 5,663,771 304,090 $36,313,000 $26,945,000 LSC and AA5–BRT 22,912 1,133 111 6,873,699 339,991 $42,131,000 $26,346,000 Kentlands

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 37

Table 4 presents the cost-effectiveness thresholds FTA is using in FY 2010 for assigning a High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low or Low cost effectiveness rating for each proposed project. FTA publishes updates to these breakpoints annually to reflect the impact of inflation. FTA requires a project to achieve a “Medium” rating in order to proceed in the FTA New Starts process. Additionally, a project’s cost-effectiveness counts for 20 percent of a project’s overall rating for New Starts. These ratings are used for the purposes of making funding recommendations to Congress for the discretionary New Starts transit project program.

Table 4: Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds Cost Effectiveness Rating Cost Effectiveness Value High less than or equal to $11.99 Medium-High between $12.00 and $15.99 Medium between $16.00 and $24.49 Medium-Low between $24.50 and $30.49 Low greater than or equal to $30.51

Table 5 summarizes the cost-effectiveness calculations for the alternatives. As shown, each of the alignment alternatives is compared to the TSM alternative. With this comparison, the FTA is determining whether the cost of a fixed guideway system is worth the investment. The table shows that the BRT alternatives are more cost-effective than the LRT alternatives and that there are higher user benefits from serving the LSC and Crown Farm areas for both BRT and LRT alternatives than with the original Master Plan alignment. Moving the Quince Orchard station to the west side of Great Seneca Highway to more directly serve the Kentlands (AA4 and AA5) is not as cost-effective as the original location on the Master Plan because the additional travel time appears to inconvenience passengers from north of Quince Orchard and the capital cost is higher.

Table 5: Cost-Effectiveness Annual Alternative Operating Annual User Benefit Cost Description Capital Costs Costs Hours Effectiveness AA/EA 6-TSM $118,636,000 $19,791,000 1,500,000–1,890,000 6A $875,650,000 $25,523,000 3,660,000–4,590,000 $24.00–$30.00 6B $461,240,000 $25,224,000 3,720,000–4,650,000 $11.21–$13.93 Modified AA7–LRT $887,420,000 $25,596,000 4,680,000–5,850,000 $18.06–$22.62 Master Plan AA8–BRT $467,870,000 $27,774,000 4,950,000–6,180,000 $8.37–$10.47 Crown Farm AA2–LRT $972,630,000 $26,416,000 5,430,000–6,780,000 $16.04–$20.05 and LSC AA3–BRT $505,150,000 $25,984,000 5,490,000–6,840,000 $7.43–$9.26 AA6–LRT $933,550,000 $26,000,000 5,070,000–6,330,000 $17.01–$21.33 Crown Farm, AA4–LRT $999,010,000 $26,945,000 5,370,000–6,720,000 $16.86–$21.14 LSC and AA5–BRT Kentlands $532,630,000 $26,346,000 5,430,000–6,780,000 $8.11–$10.13

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 38

VIII. Study Findings The MTA completed this study for the purpose of informing decisions for the selection of a preferred alignment alternative for the CCT. Both LRT and BRT alternatives were studied on alignment alternatives to the Master Plan alignment designed to service new targeted growth areas in the corridor. The data and information presented in this report should meet this purpose. A review and analysis of the information has led MTA to make the following general conclusions about the alternatives. • Round 7.2a travel demand forecasts, which include considerable increases in development along the CCT corridor have modest impacts on ridership and user benefits as determined by comparisons of the forecasts of the Master Plan alternatives from the AA/EA with the alternative alignments analyzed in this report. • Additional ridership and cost-effectiveness benefits are generated by the new alignments serving the LSC and Crown Farm areas. It is therefore considered beneficial for the CCT to apply alignment modifications to those areas. • Service to the Kentlands is slightly more expensive and results in slightly less ridership and cost-effectiveness as determined by the current models. • The new alignment alternatives result in very few additional environmental impacts based on the conceptual level of analysis conducted for this study. An exception to that is with the potential impacts to resources that have been determined to be eligible for the National Historic Register, particularly the Belward Farm. Should an alignment be selected that affects the Belward Farm, MTA will need to identify potential options for avoiding the resource in consultation with the MHT. These options may affect the location of the LSC Belward station and the quality of service to the Belward campus of the LSC.

These findings must be presented in context of the level of detail of this technical analysis. The following notes summarize important considerations for results presented above: • Updated information is provided in this report for the Master Plan alternatives reported in the AA/EA reflecting updated analyses of costs and benefits. The Master Plan alternatives assume previous land use in the travel demand model that matches the current Master Plan. This allows for a direct comparison of the new alternatives with the anticipated land use changes against the previous Master Plan alternatives under the land use in the current Master Plan. • Selecting a locally preferred alternative will require the MTA to engage in additional public involvement with affected communities to gauge the preferences and discuss the concerns of affected communities and riders as these alternatives as required by Federal law. • The model used for this study was applied the purposes of comparing an order-of- magnitude performance among the alternatives. The travel demand model used for these analyses would not meet FTA requirements for travel demand analyses of transit New Starts projects. A new “Phase II” model is being developed for the Purple Line and CCT projects that will incorporate FTA requirements for the model. Although the modeling results of this analysis show definitively improved performance of the CCT alternatives under the enhanced land use assumptions, MTA urges caution in interpreting results for individual alternatives and individual modes. • The costs of building and operating the alternatives have increased substantially over the Master Plan alignment alternatives reported in the AA/EA. Capital costs use $2007 unit costs, which will need to be inflated to 2009 or 2010 values. These cost increases affect the overall affordability of the project and will affect the cost- effectiveness ratings that a selected alternative might receive once a revised travel demand model is applied.

Corridor Cities Transitway Analysis of Alignment Alternatives Serving Crown Farm, Life Sciences Center and Kentlands 39