Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report September 2008 Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction to Purple Line Study....................................................................................1-1 1.1. Background and Project Location.................................................................................1-1 1.1.1. Corridor Setting.....................................................................................................1-2 1.2. Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study......................................................................1-2 1.2.1. Alternative 1: No Build Alternative......................................................................1-4 1.2.2. Alternative 2: TSM Alternative............................................................................1-4 1.2.3. Build Alternatives.................................................................................................1-4 1.2.4. Design Options....................................................................................................1-10 1.2.5. Stations and Station Facilities.............................................................................1-11 1.2.6. Maintenance and Storage Facilities....................................................................1-13 1.2.7. Traction Power Substations................................................................................1-14 2. General Approach to Cost Estimating..............................................................................2-1 3. Cost Estimating Methodology...........................................................................................3-1 3.1. Operating and Maintenance Cost Model Development................................................3-1 3.1.1. MTA Bus Model Summary...................................................................................3-2 3.1.2. MTA Light Rail Model Summary ........................................................................3-3 3.1.3. WMATA Bus Cost Model Summary....................................................................3-3 3.1.4. Other Local Bus/Other Express Bus Cost Model Summary.................................3-4 3.1.5. Validation..............................................................................................................3-4 3.2. BRT Guideway and Station Costs...............................................................................3-11 4. Cost Estimates for Purple Line Alternatives....................................................................4-1 4.1. Operations for the TSM and the Build Alternatives......................................................4-1 4.1.1. TSM Alternative...................................................................................................4-1 4.1.2. Build Alternatives Operations...............................................................................4-2 4.2. No Build/TSM Cost.......................................................................................................4-7 4.3. Bus Rapid Transit Costs................................................................................................4-8 4.4. Light Rail Costs.............................................................................................................4-9 5. Sensitivity Testing of Operating and Maintenance Costs...............................................5-1 6. References............................................................................................................................6-1 Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report ● Page i List of Tables Table 1-1: Stations by Alternative........................................................................................1-12 Table 3-1: Inflation Rates Compared to September 2007......................................................3-2 Table 3-2: MTA Bus O&M Cost Model................................................................................3-5 Table 3-3: MTA Light Rail O&M Cost Model......................................................................3-6 Table 3-4: WMATA Bus O&M Cost Model..........................................................................3-7 Table 3-5: Montgomery County Bus O&M Cost Model........................................................3-8 Table 3-6: MTA Bus Validation.............................................................................................3-9 Table 3-7: MTA Light Rail Validation...................................................................................3-9 Table 3-8: WMATA Bus Validation......................................................................................3-9 Table 3-9: Montgomery County Bus Validation....................................................................3-9 Table 3-10: Cost and Operating Information for Cities with More Than Ten Miles of Exclusive Bus Guideway (2005).........................................................................3-12 Table 4-1: TSM Bus Headways (minutes).............................................................................4-1 Table 4-2: Span of Service.....................................................................................................4-2 Table 4-3: Build Alternatives Headways (minutes)...............................................................4-3 Table 4-4: End-to-End Travel Times......................................................................................4-3 Table 4-5: Annual O&M Costs by Alternative......................................................................4-4 Table 4-6: Annual Operating Statistics by Alternative and Mode.........................................4-5 Table 4-7: Annual O&M Costs by Alternative: Bus Rapid Transit......................................4-8 Table 4-8: Annual O&M Costs by Alternative: Light Rail...................................................4-9 Table 5-1: Increases in Fuel, Lubrication, and Labor Fringe Benefit Costs, 2000 to 2006, Compared to Service Volume Increase in Terms of Revenue Vehicle Hours and Miles of Service...................................................................................5-1 Table 5-2: Fuels, Fluids, and Fringe Benefits Cost and Percentage of Total Costs 2003-2005 Average...............................................................................................5-2 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Project Area...........................................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2: Alternative Alignments.........................................................................................1-3 Figure 2-1: Steps in O&M Estimation Process........................................................................2-1 Figure 4-1: Incremental Annual O&M Costs above No Build Cost for TSM and Build Alternatives...................................................................4-4 Figure 4-2: Annual O&M Costs by Alternative: Bus Rapid Transit......................................4-8 Figure 4-3: Annual O&M Costs by Alternative: Light Rail...................................................4-9 Page ii ● Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report 1. Introduction to Purple Line Study The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is preparing an Alternatives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) to study a range of alternatives for addressing mobility and accessibility issues in the corridor between Bethesda and New Carrollton, Maryland. The corridor is located in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, just north of the Washington, D.C. boundary. The Purple Line would provide a rapid transit connection along the 16-mile corridor that lies between the Metrorail Red Line (Bethesda and Silver Spring Stations), Green Line (College Park Station), and Orange Line (New Carrollton Station). This Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report documents the development of the operating and maintenance (O&M) cost models used for the analysis of transit alternatives for the Purple Line. This report includes bus and light rail cost estimates, including documentation of data sources and development of the model. The resulting O&M cost estimates were validated by comparing them to actual expenditures using recent MTA bus and light rail operation statistics. This Technical Report presents the methodology and data used in the analyses documented in the Purple Line Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The results presented in this report may be updated as the AA/DEIS is finalized and in subsequent study activities. 1.1. Background and Project Location Changing land uses in the Washington, D.C. area have resulted in more suburb-to-suburb travel, while the existing transit system is oriented toward radial travel in and out of downtown Washington, D.C. The only transit service available for east-west travel is bus service, which is slow and unreliable. A need exists for efficient, rapid, and high capacity transit for east-west travel. The Purple Line would serve transit patrons whose journey is solely east-west in the corridor, as well as those who want to access the existing north-south rapid transit services, particularly Metrorail and MARC commuter rail service. The corridor has a sizeable population that already uses transit and contains some of the busiest transit routes and transfer areas in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Many communities in the corridor have a high percentage of households without a vehicle, and most transit in these communities is bus service. Projections of substantial growth in population and employment in the corridor indicate a growing need for transit improvements. The increasingly congested roadway system does not have adequate capacity to accommodate the existing average daily travel demand, and congestion on these roadways is projected to worsen as traffic continues to grow through 2030. A need exists for high quality transit service to key activity centers and to improve transit travel time in the corridor. Although north-south rapid transit serves parts of the corridor, transit users who are not within walking distance of these services must drive or use slow and unreliable buses to access them. Faster and more reliable connections along the east-west Purple Line Corridor to the existing radial rail lines (Metrorail and MARC trains) would improve mobility Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report ● Page 1-1 and accessibility. This enhanced system connectivity would also help to improve transit efficiencies. In addition, poor air quality in the region needs to be addressed, and changes to the existing transportation infrastructure would help in attaining federal air quality standards. 1.1.1. Corridor Setting The Purple Line Corridor, as shown in Figure 1-1, is north and northeast of Washington, D.C., with a majority of the alignment within one to three miles of the circumferential I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway. Figure 1-1: Project Area 1.2. Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study The Purple Line study has identified eight alternatives for detailed study, shown on Figure 1-2. The alternatives include the No Build Alternative, the Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, and six Build Alternatives. The Build Alternatives include three using bus rapid transit (BRT) technology and three using light rail transit (LRT) technology. Page 1-2 ● Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report Figure 1-2: Alternative Alignments Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report ● Page 1-3 All alternatives extend the full length of the corridor between the Bethesda Metro Station in the west and the New Carrollton Metro Station in the east, with variations in alignment, type of running way (shared, dedicated, or exclusive), and amount of grade-separation options (e.g. tunnel segments or aerial). For purposes of evaluation, complete alignments need to be considered. These alternatives were used to examine the general benefits, costs, and impacts for serving major market areas within the corridor. 1.2.1. Alternative 1: No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative is used as the baseline against which the other alternatives are compared for purposes of environmental and community impacts. The No Build Alternative consists of the transit service levels, highway networks, traffic volumes, and forecasted demographics for horizon year 2030 that are assumed in the local Constrained Long Range Plan of the local metropolitan planning organization (in this case, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 1.2.2. Alternative 2: TSM Alternative The TSM Alternative provides an appropriate baseline against which all major investment alternatives are evaluated for the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts funding program. The New Starts rating and evaluation process begins when the project applies to enter preliminary engineering and continues through final design. The TSM Alternative represents the best that can be done for mobility in the corridor without constructing a new transitway. Generally, the TSM Alternative emphasizes upgrades in transit service through operational and minor physical improvements, plus selected highway upgrades through intersection improvements, minor widening, and other focused traffic engineering actions. A TSM Alternative normally includes such features as bus route restructuring, shortened bus headways, expanded use of articulated buses, reserved bus lanes, express and limited-stop service, signalization improvements, and timed-transfer operations. 1.2.3. Build Alternatives The six Build Alternatives generally use the same alignments; only a few segments have locations where different roadways would be used. The differences between the alternatives are more often the incorporation of design features, such as grade separation to avoid congested roadways or intersections. Alternative 3: Low Investment BRT The Low Investment BRT Alternative would primarily use existing streets to avoid the cost of grade separation and extensive reconstruction of existing streets. It would incorporate signal, signage, and lane improvements in certain places. This alternative would operate mostly in mixed lanes with at-grade crossings of all intersections and queue jump lanes at some intersections. Southbound along Kenilworth Avenue and westbound along Annapolis Road, Low Investment BRT would operate in dedicated lanes. This is the only alternative that would operate on Jones Bridge Road, directly serving the National Institutes of Health and the National Naval Medical Center near Wisconsin Avenue and Jones Bridge Road. It is also the only Page 1-4 ● Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report alternative that would use the bus portion of the new Silver Spring Transit Center (SSTC). A detailed description of the alternative follows. From the western terminus in Bethesda, Low Investment BRT would originate at the Bethesda Metro Station bus terminal. The alignment would operate on Woodmont Avenue within the existing curb. At the Bethesda Station, the buses would enter the station via Edgemoor Road and exit onto Old Georgetown Road. At Wisconsin Avenue, just south of Jones Bridge Road, the transitway would remain on the west side of the road in exclusive lanes. Low Investment BRT would turn onto Jones Bridge Road where the transit would operate in shared lanes with queue jump lanes westbound at the intersection with Wisconsin Avenue and westbound for the intersection at Connecticut Avenue. Some widening would be required at North Chevy Chase Elementary School. The alignment would continue along Jones Bridge Road to Jones Mill Road where it would turn right (south) onto Jones Mill Road. Eastbound on Jones Bridge Road would be a queue jump lane at the intersection. From Jones Mill Road, the alignment would turn east onto the Georgetown Branch right-of-way, where a new exclusive roadway would be constructed, with an adjacent trail on the south side. Low Investment BRT would continue on the Georgetown Branch right-of-way, crossing Rock Creek Park on a new bridge, replacing the existing pedestrian bridge. The trail would also be accommodated on the bridge or on an adjacent bridge. A trail connection to the Rock Creek Trail would be provided east of the bridge. The alignment would continue on the Georgetown Branch right-of-way until the CSX corridor at approximately Kansas Avenue. At this point, the alignment would turn southeast to run parallel and immediately adjacent to the CSX tracks on a new exclusive right-of-way. The trail would parallel the transitway, crossing the transitway and the CSX right-of-way east of Talbot Avenue on a new structure and continuing on the north side of the CSX right-of-way. The transitway would continue on a new roadway between the CSX tracks and Rosemary Hills Elementary School and continue past the school. The transitway would cross 16th Street at -grade, where a station would be located. The transitway would continue parallel to the CSX tracks to Spring Street where it would connect to Spring Street and turn to cross over the CSX tracks on Spring Street. The alignment would continue on Spring Street to 2nd Avenue where it would turn east. Buses would operate in shared lanes on Spring Street and Second Avenue. Low Investment BRT would cross Colesville Road at-grade and continue up Wayne Avenue to Ramsey Street, where the buses would turn right to enter the SSTC at the second level. The buses would leave the SSTC and return to Wayne Avenue via Ramsey Street. Low Investment BRT would continue east on Wayne Avenue in shared lanes. After crossing Sligo Creek Parkway, the alignment would operate in shared lanes. Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report ● Page 1-5 At Flower Avenue, the alignment would turn left (south) onto Arliss Street, operating in shared lanes to Piney Branch Road. At Piney Branch Road, the alignment would turn left to continue in shared lanes to University Boulevard. Low Investment BRT would follow University Boulevard to Adelphi Road. The lanes on University Boulevard would be shared. At Adelphi Road, the alignment would enter the University of Maryland campus on Campus Drive. The alignment would follow the Union Drive extension, as shown in the University of Maryland Facilities Master Plan (2001-2020), through what are currently parking lots. The alignment would follow Union Drive and then Campus Drive through campus in mixed traffic and the main gate to US 1. Low Investment BRT would operate on Paint Branch Parkway to the College Park Metro Station in shared lanes. The alignment would then follow River Road to Kenilworth Avenue in shared lanes. Along Kenilworth Avenue, the southbound alignment would be a dedicated lane, but northbound would be in mixed traffic. The alignment turns east from Kenilworth Avenue on East West Highway (MD 410) and continues in shared lanes on Veterans Parkway. This alignment turns left on Annapolis Road and then right on Harkins Road to the New Carrollton Metro Station. The westbound alignment on Annapolis would be dedicated, but the eastbound lanes would be shared. Alternative 4: Medium Investment BRT Alternative 4, the Medium Investment BRT Alternative, is, by definition, an alternative that uses the various options that provide maximum benefit relative to cost. Most of the segments are selected from either the Low or High Investment BRT Alternatives. This alternative follows a one-way counter-clockwise loop from the Georgetown Branch right- of-way onto Pearl Street, East West Highway, Old Georgetown Road, Edgemoor Lane, and Woodmont Avenue and from there onto the Georgetown Branch right-of-way under the Air Rights Building. The buses stop at both the existing Bethesda Metro Station on Edgemoor Lane and at the new southern entrance to the Metro station under the Air Rights Building. The alignment continues on the Georgetown Branch right-of-way with an aerial crossing over Connecticut Avenue and a crossing under Jones Mill Road. This alignment, and all others that use the Georgetown Branch right-of-way, includes construction of a hiker-biker trail between Bethesda and the SSTC. The alignment would continue on the Georgetown Branch right-of-way until the CSX right-of- way. The alignment would cross Rock Creek Park on a new bridge, replacing the existing pedestrian bridge. The trail would also be accommodated on the bridge or on an adjacent bridge. The alignment would continue on the Georgetown Branch right-of-way until the CSX corridor at approximately Kansas Avenue. This segment of the alignment, from Jones Mill Road to the CSX corridor, would be the same for all the alternatives. Page 1-6 ● Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report As with Low Investment BRT, this alternative would follow the CSX corridor on the south side of the right-of-way, but it would cross 16th Street and Spring Street below the grade of the streets, at approximately the same grade as the CSX tracks. The station at 16th Street would have elevators and escalators to provide access from 16th Street. After passing under the Spring Street Bridge, Medium Investment BRT would rise above the level of the existing development south of the CSX right-of-way. East of the Falklands Chase apartments, Medium Investment BRT would cross over the CSX tracks on an aerial structure to enter the SSTC parallel to, but at a higher level than, the existing tracks. After the SSTC, Medium Investment BRT would leave the CSX right-of-way and follow Bonifant Street at-grade, crossing Georgia Avenue, and just prior to Fenton Street turn north toward Wayne Avenue. The alignment would continue on Wayne Avenue in shared lanes with added left turn lanes to Flower Avenue and then Arliss Street. At Piney Branch Road, the alternative would turn left into dedicated lanes to University Boulevard. Medium Investment BRT would be in dedicated lanes on University Boulevard with an at-grade crossing of the intersections. The alignment would continue through the University of Maryland campus in dedicated lanes on Campus Drive and then continue at grade in a new exclusive transitway through the parking lots adjacent to the Armory and turns on to Rossborough Lane south of the Visitor’s Center. Crossing US 1 at grade, Medium Investment BRT would pass through the East Campus development on Rossborough Lane to Paint Branch Parkway. The alignment would continue on Paint Branch Parkway and River Road in shared lanes, as with Low Investment BRT. At Kenilworth Avenue, both lanes would be dedicated. Turning left on East West Highway, Medium Investment BRT would be in dedicated lanes. As with Low Investment BRT, this alternative would travel in shared lanes on Veterans Parkway. Medium Investment BRT would continue on Veterans Parkway to Ellin Road, where it would turn left into dedicated lanes to the New Carrollton Metro Station. Alternative 5: High Investment BRT via Master Plan Alignment The High Investment BRT Alternative is intended to provide the most rapid travel time for a BRT alternative. It would make maximum use of vertical grade separation and horizontal traffic separation. Tunnels and aerial structures are proposed at key locations to improve travel time and reduce delay. When operating within or adjacent to existing roads, this alternative would operate primarily in dedicated lanes. Like Medium Investment BRT, this alternative would serve the Bethesda Station both at the existing Bethesda bus terminal at the Metro station and at the new south entrance to the Metro station beneath the Apex Building. High Investment BRT would follow a one-way loop in Bethesda from the Master Plan alignment onto Pearl Street, then travel west on East West Highway and Old Georgetown Road into the Bethesda Metro Station bus terminal, exit onto Woodmont Avenue southbound, and then Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Technical Report ● Page 1-7