Project Briefing
October 2007
Agenda
• Project Overview
• Project Background
• Project Goals
• Service Markets
• Schedule
• Public Outreach
• Alternatives Under Evaluation
• Project Issues
• Alignment Issues
• Next Steps
2
Project Overview
• A 16-mile east-west rapid transit line extending from
Bethesda in Montgomery County to New Carrollton in
Prince George’s County.
• The Purple Line will be either light rail or bus rapid transit
and will operate largely at street level.
• A hiker biker trail is included along the Georgetown
Branch and CSX/WMATA corridor as part of the Capital
Crescent Trail.
• Twenty-one station locations are currently being planned,
with additional stations under consideration.
• Provides direct connections to Metrorail at Bethesda,
Silver Spring, College Park, and New Carrollton; linking
the two branches of the Red Line, the Green Line and the
Orange Line.
3
Project Area Map
4
Project Background
• 1986 and 1989 Montgomery County studies
Georgetown Branch right-of-way
• Montgomery County purchases Georgetown Branch
ROW in 1988
• 1990 Montgomery County includes the Georgetown
Branch ROW as a transportation corridor in Master
Plans
• 1990’s SHA initiates Capital Beltway HOV Study
• SHA/MTA reinitiates project as Purple Line/Capital
Beltway Study
• 1996 - Major Investment Study/Draft EIS completed
on Georgetown Branch
5
Project Background
• 1998 - Montgomery County and MTA select LRT and
trail as preferred alternative from Bethesda to Silver
Spring
• 2001- Governor Glendening announces State will
move forward with Purple Line from Bethesda to New
Carrollton
• 2001 - Western segment of Purple Line advanced
into the planning process
• 2002 - Project renamed the Bi-County Transitway.
Project planning / NEPA initiated for the entire 16-
mile corridor
• 2007 – Purple Line name restored to reinforce
connectivity with existing WMATA system.
6
Purple Line Goals
• Provide faster and more reliable transit service in the
corridor to serve growing east-west travel markets
• Improve access to and connectivity to Metrorail,
MARC, AMTRAK, and bus services
• Serve transit-dependent populations
• Support local, regional and state policies and
adopted Master Plans
7
Purple Line Goals
• Strengthen and revitalize communities in the corridor
• Increase potential for Transit Oriented Development at
existing and proposed stations in the corridor
• Improve access to existing activity centers including
and planned commercial, office, and residential
development in Bethesda, Silver Spring,
Takoma/Langley, University of Maryland/College Park,
and New Carrollton
8
Purple Line Connectivity with Metro
9
Service Markets
• Access to major activity centers/ Metro stations
– Primary markets
– Easier to serve with surface-running transit
– Walk-to stations, no Park and Ride facilities
– More frequent stations
• Reduced emphasis on longer haul circumferential travel
– Initial travel demand estimates show less demand for
longer distance travel
– Difficult to serve with largely surface-running service.
– Additional station locations under study for high transit
demand areas.
10
Schedule
Detailed Definition of Alternatives June 2007
Internal AA/DEIS Review Late Fall 2007
Complete AA/DEIS Report Spring 2008
DEIS Public Hearing Spring 2008
Select Locally Preferred Alt. Summer 2008
New Starts/Request to Initiate
Preliminary Engineering Summer 2008
Final Design 2011 - 2012
Construction 2012 – 2015
11
Public Outreach
• Community Focus Groups
• Meetings with community organizations and
civic groups
• Public Open Houses – December 2007
• Briefings for State elected officials
• Briefings to Prince George’s and Montgomery
County Council Transportation Committees
and Council Members
12
Public Outreach
• Project team meetings (Montgomery and Prince
George’s Counties, M-NCPPC, WMATA, SHA,
MWCOG, Takoma Park, College Park, and New
Carrollton)
• Meetings with major employers and local developers
• Newsletters
• Website: [Link]
13
Community Focus Groups
• Fourth round of Focus Group meetings held September –
October 2007
• Discussed specific concerns for each community
• Reviewed recommendations for alignment refinements
• Future focus group meetings held as needed
14
Modes Under Evaluation
Light Rail Transit
Bus Rapid Transit
15
Modal Alternatives Under Evaluation
• Alternative 1: No-Build
Existing transportation system and programmed transit
and roadway improvements.
• Alternative 2: TSM / Baseline
Enhanced bus service and other lower cost
improvements such as more frequent and additional
service, and signal and intersection improvements.
16
Modal Alternatives Under Evaluation
BRT ALTERNATIVES
• Alternative 3: Low Investment BRT
Mostly at-grade and shared use on existing roadways
• Alternative 4: Medium Investment BRT
Generally at-grade, though often in dedicated lanes, with
some grade-separated intersections and segments.
• Alternative 5: High Investment BRT
Largely dedicated, exclusive where possible, with grade
separation in key areas.
17
Modal Alternatives Under Evaluation
LRT ALTERNATIVES
• Alternative 6: Low Investment LRT
Mostly at-grade with minimal tunneling or aerial
structures, where steep grades require it.
• Alternative 7: Medium Investment LRT
Mostly dedicated, with some intersections and key areas
grade-separated.
• Alternative 8: High Investment LRT
Largely exclusive or dedicated, and grade-separated in
key areas.
18
Alignment Alternatives Map
19
Project Issues
• Decisions on system implementer/operator and local
funding participation are needed
– MTA
– WMATA
– Counties
• Need for storage yard and/or maintenance facility in
Prince George’s County
• Additional funding required for final design, right-of-
way, and construction
• Project phasing
20
Alignment Issues
• Chevy Chase only supports underground (tunneled)
alignment to avoid impacts to trees and communities
• Opposition by Columbia Country Club due to perceived
impacts to the golf course
• Jones Bridge Road (BRT only), an alternative to Master
Plan alignment is opposed by Montgomery County, M-
NCPPC, and surrounding community.
• Potential high costs and community impacts of alignment
options along CSX corridor; need for CSX cooperation
• Topographic challenges of East Silver Spring surface
alignments and high cost of tunnel options
• University of Maryland officials oppose at-grade
alignment along Campus Drive in favor of Stadium Drive
alignment.
21
Alignment Refinements
Refinement of alternatives to:
• Respond to community input
• Reach consensus with counties
• Reduce property and community impacts
• Respond to improved understanding of Purple Line
transit market
• Improve service performance
• Reduce costs
• Improve cost-effectiveness
22
Alignment Refinements
Eliminated Alternatives:
– Riverdale Road near New Carrollton
– Sligo Avenue (deep tunnel and surface)
– Cut-and-cover tunnel along Silver Spring/Thayer
– 16th Street to East West Hwy
– Brookville Road
– Master Plan alignment – relocate trail to north side
of transit from Pearl Street to Jones Mill Road
– “Ripley Street”
23
Alignment Refinements
New/Additional Alternatives
• Bonifant Street at-grade to Wayne Avenue
• Deep tunnel only – Thayer Avenue to Silver Spring
Avenue Alignment
• Deep tunnel alignment from River Rd to MD 410 in
Riverdale Park area.
24
Next Steps
• Ridership forecasts being developed as Travel Demand
Model is refined for corridor-level analysis
• Refine and Finalize definitions of alternatives
• Technical analyses
– Ridership and Traffic Forecasts
– Cost Estimates
– Impact Analyses
• Evaluate Alternatives
25
Next Steps
• Document to Agencies and Public for Review
• Continue public outreach
– Community focus groups for key areas this fall
– Public Open Houses in late fall
– Website – [Link]
– Newsletters
– Continue briefings and community meetings
26
Alignment Alternatives Map
27
Bethesda
28
Master Plan Alignment to Jones Mill Road
29
Woodmont Ave/Jones Bridge Road
30
Jones Bridge Road to Manor Road
31
Jones Mill Road to CSX
32
CSX
33
Downtown Silver Spring
34
East Silver Spring - Thayer/Piney Branch
35
East Silver Spring – Wayne Avenue
36
University Boulevard
37
Trail Analysis
• Objectives:
– Evaluate the trail location on the north versus
the south side of transitway
– Maintain the trail 3-4’ above the trackbed to
provide vertical separation, while trying to
follow existing topography of the land
– Increase the separation between the trail and
the trackbed resulting in about a 10’ wide
planting area
38
Trail Analysis
Previous Design
• Trail on south side
• Trail lower than
track
• 12’ planting area
btwn track and trail
Proposed Design
• Trail on north side
• Trail higher than
track
• 12’ planting area
btwn track and trail
39
Trail Analysis
• Advantages:
– A more naturalistic environment
– A buffer/screen between the trail and track
– Minimizes retaining wall heights resulting in
reduced construction costs
– Creates greater comfort level for trail users
– Increases safety by preventing trail users from
crossing trackbed except at designated
crossings
– Improves trail experience
40
Trail Analysis
• Disadvantages:
– Residences on the south side of the trackbed
would lose their current direct access to the
trail
– The transitway would be closer to the
residences on the south side
41
Grass Tracks - Germany
Freiburg
42
Grass Tracks - France
Le Mans
43
Silver Spring Library
44
