PAGENO="0001" WW~ATA FUNmI~G AND OPERAT~ONS JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, HOUSING, AND TRANSPORTATION THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISCAL AFFAIRS AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON BICENTENNIAL AFFAIRS, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON FUNDING AND OPERATIONS OF THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORFTY NOVEMBER 5, 12, 18; DECEMBER 2, 3, 16, 1975; AND FEBRUARY 4 AND MARCH 2, 1976 Part 2 (693-1639) Serial No. 9442 Printed for the use of the Committee on the District of Columbia ITS. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62-418 WASHINGTON : 1976 7. PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARLES C. DIGGS, DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY, Ji~., Georgia RONALD V. DELLUMS, California THOMAS M. REES, California WALTER E. FAUNTROY, Delegate, District of Columbia JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky HERBERT E. HARRIS II, Virginia DAN DANIEL, Virginia JERRY LITTON, Missouri HELEN S. MEYNER, New Jersey HENRY J. NOWAK, New York PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana JAMES J. FLORIO, New Jersey JR., Michigan, Cliairnlafl GILBERT GIJDE, Maryland WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut EDWARD G. BIESTER, JR., Pennsylvania TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois ROBERT W. DANIEL, JR., Virginia CHARLES W. WHALEN, JR., Ohio EDWARD C. SYLVESTER, JR., Staff Director RUBY G. MARTIN, General Counsel MARK MATHIS, Minority Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, HOUSING, AND TRANSPORTATION DAN DANIEL, Virginia JERRY LITTON, Missouri HENRY J. NOWAK, New York HERBERT E. HARRIS II, Virginia PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana HENRY SOLARES, Majority Staff Assistant SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISCAL AFFAIRS ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky, Chairman THOMAS M. RIlES, California STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut RONALD V. DELLIJMS, California CHARLES W. WHALEN, JR., Ohio WALTER E. FAUNTROY, Delegate, District of Columbia W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY, Georgia DAN DANIEL, Virginia T. MICHAEL NEVENS, Majority Staff Assistant SUBCOMMITTEE ON BICENTENNIAL AFFAIRS, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HERBERT E. HARRIS II, Virginia, Chairman DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota ROBERT W. DANIEL, JR., Virginia HELEN S. MEYNER, New Jersey GILBERT GUDE, Maryland PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana JAMES H. MANN, South Carolina HUGH B. CALKIN, Majority Staff Assistant W. S. (BILL) STTJCKEY, Georgia, Chairman GILBERT GlIDE, Maryland WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS JOINT HEARINGS AND MEETINGS Page November 5, 1975, funding and operations 1-35 November 12, 1975, funding and operations 37-82 November 18, 1975, funding and operations 83-285 December 2, 1975, fuel contracts 287-329 December 3, 1975, fuel contracts 331-371 December 16, 1975, minority contractors 373-433 February 4, 1976, Metro safety 435-540 March 2, 1976, Library of Congress Metro study 541-692 STATEMENTS Council of Governments, Fire Chiefs Technical Subcommittee of the Public Safety Policy Committee: Bassett, Lt. J. D., bureau commander, Arlington, Va 510 Breen, John P., Deputy Fire Chief, Fire Marshal District of Columbia Fire Department 510 Hawkins, L. Kirk, Department of Public Safety 510 Johnson, L. Kirk, Department of Public Safety 510 Kaye, Frank B., chief fire marshal, Arlington, Va 510 Miller, Harold, mayor, Falls Church, Va., and chairman, public safety committee 510 Nieves, Chief Rafael J., fire marshal, Prince Georges County, Md___ 510 Shaffer, Chief Harry, District of Columbia Fire Department and Metro liaison officer 510 Smeby, L. Charles, fire protection engineer, Prince Georges County, Md 510 Smith, Chief Robert B., fire marshal. Montgomery County, Md 510 Touchstone, John E., Director, Department of Public Safety 510 Department of Commerce (Center for Fire Research) Benjamin, Irwin A., Chief, Fire Safety Engineering Division 436 Clarke, Dr. Frederic B., special assistant to the Director 436 Lyons, Dr. John, Director 436 Fauntroy, Hon. Walter E 642 Federal Energy Administration, Gorman C. Smith, Assistant Administra- tor, accompanied by Mary Hetko, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Allocation 332, 335 Fisher, Hon. Joseph L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia 641 General Accounting Office: Gutmann, Richard W., Director, Procurement and Systems 84 Stolarow, Jerome H., Deputy Director, Procurement and Systems, Acquisition Division 84 Waters, James, audit manager, Washington regional office 84 Gude, Hon. Gilbert 2, 38, 635 Harris, Hon. Herbert E., II 39, ~37, 331, 639 Jack Faucett Associates, Damian J. Kulash, vice president 643, 645 Jackson, Paul R., president, Paul R. Jackson Construction Co., Inc., Wash- ington, D.C 373 Mazzoli, Hon. Romano L 1, 37, 435, 541 McKinney, Hon. Stewart B 2, 638 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Trevis D. Markle, man- ager, land resource programs 359, 366 Minority Contractors Resource Center, Frank Kent, director 392 (III) PAGENO="0004" IV Page Moore, Hon. Jerry A., Jr., member, District of Columbia Council 387 National Association of Minority Contractors, Benjamin Moore, executive director 392 Rees, Hon. Thomas M 635 Sierra Club, Rhea Cohen, Washington representative, Potomac chapter_fl 660 Speilman, Hon. Gladys N., `a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland Stuckey, Hon. W. S. (Bill), Jr 1 Washington Association of Volunteer Entrepreneurs, Douglas Edwards~. 392 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Alexander, Joseph, Chairman of the Board 290 Becker, Howard M., Head, Budget Formulation and Execution Branch Bennewitz, Eckhard, Director of Budget 5, 40, 114, 290 Boleyn, William, Comptroller 5, 40, 114, 290 Dodge, Ray T., Chief, Design and Construction 114, 529 Gaul, David Q., Director of Equipment Design 114, 529 Engleman, Lawrence M., fire protection coordinator 529 Graham, Gen. Jackson, General Manager 5,40 Herman, William I., Director of Planning 5,40, 114 Kennedy, John R., General Counsel 5, 114 O'Hea'rn, Donald, Director of Program Control 5, 114 Penman, Ellis S., Director, Government Relations 5, 114 Quenstedt, Warren, Deputy General Manager 5, 114, 290, 529, 651 Robertie, John, Associate `Counsel 40, 290 Savage, Alfred, Director, Office of Maintenance 290 Smyth, Harry, Director, Office of Purchasing 290 Warrington, John, Director of Marketing 40 Wood, Ralph L., Chief, Operations and Maintenance 5, 40, 114, 290 MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD AFL-CIO, Greater Washington Central Labor Council, Robert B. Peterson, president, letter dated March 31, 1976, to Chairman Mazzoli 1634 American Public Transit Association, B. R. Stokes, executive director: Letter `and statement, dated December 1, 1975, to Congressman Harris 327 Letter and enclosure dated February 25, 1976, to Congressman Mazzoli 688 Arlington County Board, Walter L. Frankland, member: Letter and enclosure dated March 4, 1976, to Congressman Mazzoli_ 691 Letter dated February 3, 1976, to Sterling Tucker, Chairman, WMATA 691 Comptroller General, Hon. Elmer Staats: Letter and enclosures dated July 5, 1975, to Congressman Mazzoli, re Metro costs and financing 274-281 Letter and enclosures dated November 4, 1975, to Congressman Rees re capital cost estimates 24 Letter dated December 16, 1975, to Congressman Mazzoli, in response to questions 112-114 Letter dated April 26, 1976, to Congressman Mazzoli, enclosing legal opinion re local government agreements for capital contributions and operating subsidies 1635 Cresap, McCormick & Paget, Inc., management consultants, letter and summary of report dated Februhry 20, 1975, to Warren Quenstedt, Deputy General Manager, WMATA 120-128 Department of Transportation: Cost of operating an automobile, study oS-72 Office of the Secretary, Theodore C. Lutz, letter dated February 2, 1976, to Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs, on jurisdiction over safety of WMATA oper~itions 508 District of Columbia: Contracts over $12 million 406 Reformed minority contracting procedures under Commissioner's order No. 73-51, draft proposal for 404 Environmental Protection Agency, Daniel J. Snyder III, Regional Ad- ministrator, letter dated February 27, 1976, re air quality plans 1630 PAGENO="0005" V Page Jack Faucett Associates, Damian J. Kulash, vice president, letter and enclosures dated March 12, 1976, to Congressman Mazzoli 648 Jackson, Paul R., Construction Co., Inc., letter dated December 11, 1975, re WMATA minority contracting practices, to Congressman Stuckey~ 384 Library of Congress-"Washington Area Metro Rail System: Perspective and Alternatives," study and report by Jack Faucett Associates, Inc_ 543-634 Memorandum of Law-"Set-Aside" program of the Small Business Act~ 406 New York Times, article entitled "Washington Transit Project Boom for Minority Builders," dated January 9, 1971 1628 Notice of requirement for submission of affirmative action plan to insure minority enterprise opportunity, November 5, 1974 427 Office of Minority Development, Charles A. Dowdy, Director: Letter and attachments, dated September 24, 1975, to Hon. Sterling Tucker, Chairman, District of Columbia City Council, showing con- tract awards 423 Letter dated November 12, 1975, to Rev. Douglas Moore, District of Columbia City Council 430 Revised portions of affirmative action language in construction documents_ 430 Sierra Club, Metropolitan Washington group, Rhea L. Cohen, statement re Faucett report to Library of Congress on Metro 1632 Soloman, Neil, secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene, State of Mary- land, letter dated September 24, 1975, to Harry R. Hughes, secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation 666 Staff summary of cost changes from GAO report to Senator Byrd 698 Tucker, Hon. Sterling, Chairman of the Board, WMATA, letter dated November 26, 1975, to Hon. William T. Coleman, Jr., Secretary of Transportation 667 Voice of Informed Community Expression, John B. Duncan, president, let- ter dated March 1, 1976, to Congressman Mazzoli 690 WMATA: Affirmative Action Plan for Employees, February 17, 1972 418 Graham, Jackson, General Manager: Letter and enclosure dated May 29, 1975, to Congressman Stuckey, re construction program and funding 281 Letter and attachments dated May 30, 1975, to Congressman Mazzoli, re construction program and funding 283 Letter dated November 7, 1975, to Delegate Fauntroy, re contract awards to minority contractors 429 Letter dated December 29, 1975, and enclosure to subcommittee chairmen 1628 Quenstedt, Warren: Letter to Congressman Harris re fuel contracts, including Exxon agreements 305-312 Regional Rapid Rail Transit System map 4 Resolutions of the Board of Directors: October 31, 1974 426 November 14, 1974 422 Staff report of March 1975, including Cresap and GAO reports 129-273 Washington Area Construction Industry Task Force-regular attendance list as of October 17, 1975 401 Washington Association of Volunteer Entrepreneurs, articles of in- corporation 407 Washington Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, John R. Quackenbush, secretary-treasurer, letter dated March 10, 1976, to Congressman Mazzoli 692 Washington Post, article dated March 4, 1976, entitled "Area Road Pollu- tion Control Held Weak" 1633 SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY FUNDING AND OPERATIONS Arlington County (Va.) bond referendum 12 Auditing WMATA 117 Bechtel Autotrain tests 101 Benefits in service 42 Bicentennial budget and funds 9,23 PAGENO="0006" VI Page Budget data and performance 119 Budget process 9 Bus base day 50 Bus financing 48 Bus lane 73 Bus mileage increase 43 Bus maintenance 77 Bus ridership 44 Bus ridership count (1975) 46 Bus ridership increase 43, 54 Bus ridership study (1974) 45 Capital 6, 9 Capitalizing costs `32 Car delivery delays 20, 94 Commuter tax 17 Comparison with other systems 77 Construction 7 Coordinating bus and rail routes SO Cost escalation 22 Costs escalated, GAO estimate 97 Cost estimates 6, 16, 118 Cost estimates, GAO revised 105 Cresap, McCormick report 116 Curtailed service 96 Design estimates 98, 103, 106, 110 Diminishing returns 45 District of Columbia highway funds transferred 13 Dulles access 81 Estimate erroneous 50 Fare increases and ridership 53 Fare system Federal guaranteed bonds 13, 15 Fuel inflation rate 31 Funding 6, 30 GAO and cost reporting 29 GAO auditing WMATA 110 GAO cost estimates 92 GAO estimated additional costs 104-105 GAO investigations 108 GAO report (March 1974) 93 GAO reporting format 91 GAO summary of reports 84-91 GAO studies of Metro 97 Highway funds 32 Investment funds 106 Management improvements 10 Marketing 41, 76 Marketing and planning programs 40 Maryland and Virginia highway funds 13 Metro deficit 14 Metro management 7 Metro progress -- Metrobus deficit 18 Metrobus operations 7~ 40 Metrorail assumptions 54 Metrorail capital budget, tables 11 Metrorail cars Metrorail costs acceleration 49 Metrorail operations Mileage reduction Ombudsmen 42 Operating costs Operating deficits budgeted Operating goals, February (1976) 100 Operating schedule 19 Operating subsidies 14 Operators PAGENO="0007" VII Page Organization of WMATA :10 Parking 15, 46, 53, 81 Parking fees 17 Part-time operators 51 Pepco negotiations 79 Planning 41 Reduction in mileage 56 Reports to the board 48 Revenue bonds 31 Revenue increase 43 Rohr cars 102, 105 Safety programs Safety tests 99 Sales tax 16 Savings proposals 93 Split shifts 51 Staff requirements 33 Subsidies 78 System curtailment 33 Testing 115 Testing programs 107 Toll fees 17 Tourist rail pass 29 Tourists 28 Transfer privileges 53 Utilities' rights-of-way 52 Virginia mileage 22 WMATA Board negotiations with Pepco 47 WMATA board participation 97 WMATA costs estimates 104 WMATA revenue bonds 109 Zero base budget 119 FUEL CONTRACTS Accounting procedures 321 Allocation problems 352 Allocation regulations 336 Base period supplier 345 Comparative costs of diesel fuel 367 Completition gasoline versus diesel fuel 343 Competitive market benefits 319 Competitive procedures 314 Contingency contracts 346 Contracts with supplier 345 Diesel fuel 368 Diesel fuel consumption (1975) 324 Diesel fuel storage 289 Diesel oil contracts 302 Diesel oil price increases 320 Diesel oil reserves 318 Diesel oil use 317 Effect of FEA regulations on WMATA 337 Energy supply and demand information 368 Exxon agreement 313 Exxon price increase to WMATA 304 FEA concerns 351 FEA regulations 302 Fuel price comparisons with other cities 303, 352, 356 Fuel supply demand 367 Gasoline and diesel fuel prices 342 Garage records 323 Market conditions 325 Metro's options 350 Oil deliveries 315 Oil prices 338 PAGENO="0008" vrn Page Plantation pipeline Price impacts of regulations 338 Profit margin Shell Oil Co. contract 316 Spot market Spot supplies 348 Stripper oil 340 Sun Oil Co. contract 305 Verification of oil deliveries 322 WMATA. fuel, hearing objectives 288 WMATA requests for action re fuel contracts 314 Wholesale gasoline prices 341 MINORITY AND SMALL CONTRACTORS Available minority contractors 371 Availability and adequacy of programs and resources to aid minority contractors Billing procedures and payments 389 Bonding 390, 393, 398, 410 Change order delays 413 Contracting methods Federal intervention 416 Financing 398 Financing Resource Center 409 Goods for minority contractors 388 Joint venture contracts 380, 381 Late payments to subcontractors 411 Legal actions 417 Local minority contractors 392 Metro awards and minority contractors 394 Minority Contractors Resource Center 396 Minority contracts 388, 400 Prices to minority contractors 376 Problem areas 400 Problems in dealing with WMATA__ 374 Problems of minority contractors 375 Recommendations to assist minority contractors 318, 390, 395 SBA 8-A set-asides Set-aside contracting program 388 Small contractor's problems 382 Suppliers prices 382, 414 Union practices 398 Union relations 376 Washington area construction industry task force 399 Washington Association of Volunteer Entrepreneurs 399 WMATA awards dollar value 389 WMATA. awards to minority contractors 380, 397 WMAPA goals re minority contracts 396 W1~1ATA policy re minority contractors 383 SAFETY ON BUSES AND SUBwAY CARs Background-fire safety 436 Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce Report (NBS 75-718) of fire tests on Metro buses 440502 Bus fires 431 Buses and railway cars 505 Car evacuation time Cost of seat replacements 532 Emergency communications system 537 Experience in other jurisdictions 524 Federal standards 503, 506 Financing safety standards 518 Fire chief's recommendations 512, 527 Fire hazards 504, 531 Fire safety agreement 538 PAGENO="0009" Ix Page Fire safety equipment 514 Metro fire/life standards unsatisfactory 519 Metro tests 503 Need for safety standards 513 Neoprene and other seat materials 506, 513, 522 Plastics 523, 531 Relation with Metro 518 Safety factor 438 Standards, lack of 438, 526, 528 Test results and conclusions 437 Virginia concerns 520 WMATA action program 532, 534 WMATA car situation 530 WMATA plans and specifications 530 METRO RAIL STUDY BY LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Addison Road extension 683 Air pollution 661, 672, 674 Alternative system 685 Benefits of rail transit 671, 674 Commuter tax 682 Comparison with other systems 679 Cost of abbreviated systems 683 Cost per passenger 644 Employment base in the District of Columbia 677 Faucett study meager 686 Financing the system 644 Funding for fiscal 1976 667 Funding for fiscal 1977 669 Highway limit 678 Highways additionally required 682 Library of Congress Metro Rail System, study and report by Jack Faucett Associates, Inc 543 Maryland and Virginia funds 669 Metro costs 675 Metro's purposes 673 Metro ridership 675 Patronage assumptions 643, 680 Patronage in alternative systems 682 Report's conclusions 542 Traffic 672 WMATA: Flaws in Faucett report 652 Comments and position of WMATA on the Faucett report 651, 654 WMAPA finances 667 APPENDIX Appendix summary~ 693-697 PAGENO="0010" PAGENO="0011" APPENDIX Tha following documents and exhibits were submitted by WMATA in response to the following questions from the subcommittees, with pages where replies are found noted in paientheses, as indicated. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C., Noven~ber 18, 1975. Re Submissions for the Record. Memorandum from: Michael Nevens, Majority Staff Consultant, Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs. To: Warren Quenstedt, Deputy General Manager, WMATA. The attached list is a partial list of questions that need to be answered in writing by WMATA for the hearing record. This list is not official nor is it complete. An official and complete list will be transmitted by appropriate cover letter in the near future. The attached list should allow the necessary ~vork to begin in preparing the written submissions. 1. For each contract in FY `76, `77 and `78 programs provide: February `69 estimate, November `74 estimate and the most current desigii estimate, and the date of that estimate. (p. 699) 2. For each contract let prior to FY `76 provide: the February `69 estimate, November `74 estimate, the accepted bid, and any claims accepted above the bid price. (p. 707) 3. For each contract in Fiscal years beyond FY `78 the same data as in #1. (p. 718) 4. For phase 1 through 7 provide the most current estimates for: the date operations will commence, the number of miles operational, the number of cars and stations operational. Also provide the February `69 estimate for this data. (p. 725) 5. Supply a summary, by month, of sources and uses of internally generated funds. (p. 754) 6. Supply a summary of highway funds received, by route, indicating the unescalated amount and the dollar escalation allowed. (p. 758) 7. Supply a copy of the detailed plan for a bus feeder system submitted by the director of planning in January of this year. (p. 759) 8. Submit supporting documentation and analysis for the 15% contingency estimate. (p. 881) 9. Supply a copy of the maintenance agreement with Rohr. (p. 885) 10. Supply FY `75 financial performance vs budget at a reasonable level of de- tail for all funds controlled by WMATA. (p. 886) 11. Provide a description of the FY `75 rail construction program goals and your progress against these. (pp. 888, 1637) 12. Provide detailed support for the $57 million increase necessary to reach the $4.65 billion total cost. (p. 889) 13. Submit supporting documentation for the 37% fuel price inflation rate. (p. 890) 14. Submit documentation of your consultation with GAO, DOT and UMTA concerning your selection of 15% as a contingency factor. (p. 891) 15. Submit documentation of your consultations with UMTA regarding the capitalization of rail start-up costs. (p. 896) 16. Submit copies of the Ernst & Ernst Management letter for the last three (3) years. (p. 899) (693) PAGENO="0012" 694 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Was hingt cm, D.C., November 24, 1975. Re Partial List of Submissions for Hearing Record. Memorandum From: Michael Nevens, Majority Staff Consultant; David Patch, Minority Staff Assistant To: Warren Quenstedt. The attached is a second partial list of questions submitted in writing by mem- bers and staff of the Fiscal Affairs Subcommittee and Housing, Commerce, and Transportation Subcommittee for a response in writing from WMATA for the hearing record. This list is not official and not complete. As stated before, an official and complete list will be transmitted by appro- priate cover letter in the near future. It is hoped that this partial list will facili- tate the preparation of written submissions. GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Submit percentage of buses idle during the base-day. (p. 912) 2. Submit percentage of labor force unused during the base-day (total man- hours per day unused but paid for). (p. 912) 3. Submit percentage of labor force working split shifts. (p. 913) 4. Please submit your comments on the attached staff estimates of Metro's deficits from FY 75 to FY 80. (p. 914) 5. Please submit a description of work rules determining the movement of drivers and maintenance employees between bus and rail. (p. 918) 6. Please detail for the record the negotiating process with jurisdictions through which subsidy levels are set. (p. 920) 7. Please submit the minutes of WMATA Board Meetings at which METRO- PEPCO problems were discussed. (p. 921) 8. Please submit a range of estimates as to the amount of subsidies required from local governments, assuming the currently proposed fare structure is opera- tional in 1982. (p. 1183) 9. Please submit the Senate study regarding use of Dulles access road for Metro. (p. 1184) 10. Please submit the percentage of the bus fleet immobile daily along with comparable data from other transit authorities. (p. 1184) 11. Please submit the average length of immobilization for buses and the aver- age (mean) time between immobilization periods along with comparable data from other transit authorities. (p. 1184) QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET 1. In their July report, the GAO found that the Authority underestimated their program for 1970 by $312 million. Please provide estimates of the FY `76 and FY `77 programs reconciling this amount on a contract-by-contract basis. (p. 1184) 2. In the Authority's August program control report, an increase in the total system cost of $139.9 million was reported. Please comment on the source of this increase. Was any part of the increase from contracts not yet obligated? (p. 1187) 3. What changes were made in the contracts programmed for FY `77 and FY `78 since the Airlie meeting of November 1974 and what were the reasons for these changes? (p. 1187) 4. ExplaIn how the revenue bonds were issued, how the interest Is paid, and who is liable for the debt service. (p. 1187) 5. Are add-ons and facilities for the handicapped included in the $4M51 billion estimate? Please provide a breakout of these amounts. (p. 1188) 6. The August and September comptroller's report (statement 16) shows $30 and $151 million, respectively, as available for obligation and commitment. Be- tween the two reports you received $286.6 million in an UMTA grant (highway transfer) and $11.2 million in internally generated funds. (Total=$297.8 million) You show a net increase in obligations and commitments for the same period of $272 million. (p. 1189) It would seem that the increase in available funds of $121 million and the in- crease of obligations and commitments of $272 million totals $393 million or $117 million more than the new funds received. Please reconcile these statements. 7. Please explain why the amount for FY `70 and beyond In the Metro capital budget, (Office of Budget, 11/10/75 Revision Number 2) (p. 2) ha~ been reduced from the Airlie program. (p. 1189) PAGENO="0013" 695 8. Please explain the "de-programming" of $94 million from FY `75 in the Metro capital budget summary. (p. 1189) 9. Please submit a reconciliation of the Metro Office of Budget 11/10/75 Re vision Number 2 capital budget summary and statements 15 and 16 of the Sep- tember Comptroller's report? (p. 1189) 10. Please explain why the Transition Quarter Funding of $26.7 million was Included in FY `78 instead of FY `77. (Office of Budget 11/10/75 Revision Num- ber2) (p.1190) 11. To date, only $286.6 million of the $476 million in "Highway Fund Transfer" have been transferred to the Authority. Please provide a detailed breakdown of the funds to be transferred and the funds already transferred. (Include Route, Base Amount, Dollar Escalation and Total) (pp. 1190, 1192) 12. When and under what conditions does the Authority expect to receive the second phase of Interstate Highway transfer funds which the District of Colum- bia is withholding? (p. 1193) DOT POLICY 1. Please supply the average operating speed, the average headways, average expected trip lengths, average vehicle occupancy, fleet utilization, fares as seen for the rail system in 1972 and 1975. (p. 1271) 2. Please submit a summary of your inputs to the submission to the Washing- ton Area phased implementation plan for improving efficiency of transit services under section (5) (d) (a) of the National Mass Transportation Act of 1974. (p. 1276) ROHR 1. On May 29, the Transit Authority approved an advance to Rohr of $22.5 million to help assure timely delivery of the cars. Please detail the current status of the advance payment and provide the Committee with a reconciliation of the original delivery schedule with the currently anticipated schedule, and show the effect that the currently anticipated schedule will have on the liquidation of the advance. (p. 1283) 2. Will Rohr's current litigation with the BART system In anyway affect the delivery schedule? (p. 1294) LOCAL JURISDICTIONS 1. Please provide any studies done by the Authority on regional taxes. (p. 1194) 2. Please provide any studies done by the Authority on driving disincentives, e.g., parking spaces, gasoline taxes, automobile excise taxes, etc. (p. 1267) 3. Submit a complete schedule of local payments, noting those that will re- quire a bond issue or additional local legislation. Submit a legal opinion on whether the local jurisdictions are liable for operating deficits and capital costs if local funds have not been appropriated. (pp. 1200, 1229, 1294) 4. Land around a proposed Vienna subway stop was rezoned to increase Its value as a means of cutting Fairfax County's financial obligation to Metro. What action has the Authority taken to assure this does not happen in the future? Please include a description of the process Metro uses in acquiring land. (p. 1268) MARKETING AND THE MARKETING PLAN 1. Describe how the fare structure fits into the marketing plan. (p. 1294) 2. Describe how special and charter services and services to special events and district areas fit into the marketing plan. (p. 1294) 3. Describe how promotions and promotional fares and material fit into the marketing plan. (pp. 1295, 1303) 4. Describe how services to distant areas, special events and population cen- ters fit into :the marketing plan. (p. 1296) 5. Submit a comparison of marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures befor~ and after submission to the Director of Budget, Comp- troller/General Manager, and Board. (p. 1290) 6. Provide a comparison of some of the larger transit systems (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles) marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures and revenues and explain any material differences In marketing department structure. (pp. 1297, 1327) 7. Describe how media is selected for various promotions. (p. 1298) PAGENO="0014" 696 8. Describe how specific marketing inputs such as survey data, ridership studies, idea generation, and implementing and reviewing plans fit into the overall management structure. (p. 1298) 9. Describe how market and market potential are identified and how specific segments have been identified and penetrated in the past. (p. 1298) 10. Please submit documentation of the correlation between ridership changes and marketing efforts. (p. 1301) 11. How does the impact of national energy and transit policy figure as an input into future marketing plans? (p. 1302) RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION 1. Please submit the results of the ridership count conducted during the week of November 15th and the actual percentage of increase over the same period last year. (p.1343) NoTE-For the following, please exclude charter and special ridership and provide all figures for the period since public takeover, except where otherwise indicated. 2. Please submit a total ridership curve, by year, with total number of buses in the fleet indicated for each year. (p. 1346) 3. Please submit a total ridership curve, by year, with yearly fare box revenues indicated. (p. 1346) 4. Please submit a base-day ridership, curve, by year, with number of buses indicated for each year. (pp. 1347. 1348) 5. Please submit a base-day ridership curve, by year, with yearly fare box revenues indicated. (p. 1348) 6. Please submit a total fare box revenue curve, by year, with number of buses indicated for each year. (p. 1348) 7. Please submit a base-day ridership as a percentage of total ridership curve, by year, excluding charter ridership. (p. 1349) S. Please submit a farebox revenues from base-day ridership as a percentage of total fare box revenues curve, by year. (p. 1349) 9. Please submit a total ridership curve for the five years prior to takeover. (pp. 1349, 1351-1354) 10. Please submit a base-day ridership curve for the five years prior to takeover. (p. 1349) 11. Please submit a base-day ridership curve as a percentage of total ridership for the five years l)riOr to takeover. (p. 1349) 12. Please submit a curve indicating percent increase in base-day ridership. by year. since 1968. (p. 1349) 13. Please submit a curve indicating percent increase in total ridership. by year, since 1968. (pp. 1349, 1351-1354) 14. Please show the effect of the revised fare system both on total revenues and on total ridership. Show by week for the three month period from the begin- ning of the program. (p. 1350) 15. Please indicate ridership trends in areas where fare increased, by month and week since the program began. (p. 1355) 16. Please indicate ridership trends in areas where fares decreased, by month and week since the program l)egan. (p. 1355) 1974 NET INCOME ANALYSIS 1. Please submit the complete revised 1974 Net Income Analysis. (p. 16391 2. Please submit a list of the total amount of the established parking spaces available for each year since 1969. broken down by station. (This was agreed to l)y Mr. Herman in a November 17th meeting with Subcommittee staff. 1 (pp. 1356. 1448) 3. Please quantify the effects which the deletion of 1-95, North Central Free- way, and Three Sisters Bridge from the assumptions produced in the ridership estimates included in the 1974 Net Income Analysis. (p. 13571 4. Please comment on the changes in the demand for bus and rail transit and the ridership effects of long-term land use patterns these deletions might cause. (p. 1358) 5. Please detail the change in assumptions from the 1971 Net Income Analy. sis to the 1974 Net Income Analysis concerning land use and long-term growth patterns. (p. 1357) PAGENO="0015" 697 6. The Congressional Budget Office (1976 Budges: Aiters~atives and Anaiyse8, April 15, 1975) suggested that Metro's ridership estimate may be 15% too high. Please submit your comment on the CBO analysis In general and this point in particular. (p. 1359) 7. Row much of the seven percent ridership increase would you attribute to the 600 new buses, and the increased size of the fleet. (p. 1360) GAO HEARING 1. Submit for the record your analysis of the costs of dividing bus and rail management, along with other documents submitted to the board regarding this recommendation. (p. 1459) 2. Submit for the record the articles and memorandum submitted to the board regarding the organizational position of the internal auditor. (p. 1451) 3. Submit for the record the Ernst and Ernst audit report of April 30, 1969, regarding the organization and operation of the internal audit function. (p. 1454) 4. Submit for the record your reconciliation of the problem in reconciling individual contract costs with the total cost noted on page 7 of the GAO's May 8,1975 report to Scnator Byrd. (p.1461) 5. Please reconcile for the record data for Internally generated funds in your November 10, 1975 Revision Number 2 with the data presented in the GAO's statement on November 18, 1975. (p. 1530) 6. Please submit for the record the Bechtel test plan of October 27, 1975. Also submit a summary of the tests performed since March 22, 1075. (p. 1531) 7. Please submit for the record an analysis of possible increases In cost or further delays in the delivery of cars from Rohr industries. (p. 1567) 8. On November 5, 1975, Metro testified that specifications for the cars must be met before shipment (p. 36 lines 22-24 of unedited transcripts) and on No- vember 18. 1075 the GAO testified that Metro allowed shipments with known defects. Please reconcile these statements for the record. (p. 1566) 9. Please submit for the record a detailed schedule of safety related tests of the subway system and its components (cars. ATC, etc.). (p.1567) 10. On November 18, 1075, General Graham stated that: "There is not a single case in established transit property where these functions (bus and rail manage- ment) have been separated organizationally." (p. 187. lines 2-3) (p. 1460) 1-lowever. the Cresap report. Appendix A notes that (1) Toronto has a General Manager of Subway Construction and a General Manager of Operations reporting to their Board. They operate 1,341 buses and 959 rail cars, and are constructing additional subway. (2) Pittsburgh has a Director of Construction and Development, and a Direc- tor of Transit Operations reporting to the Executive Director. They operate 915 buses and 05 rail cars. (3) Philadelphia (SEPTA) has an Assistant General Manager Transit Opera- tions. Assistant General Manager Railroad Operations, and an Assistant Gen- eral Manager Planning and Development. They operate 1,500 buses and 1,150 rail cars. Please reconcile for the record the General Manager's statement with these facts. (p. 1460) 11. In the May 8th report to Senator Byrd the GAO identified possible increases and decreases on various route realignment possibilities. Please provide a de. scription of the current status of these routes and your latest estimates of the possible cost consequences of the various locations possibilities now under consideration. (p. 1615) 12. The GAO has noted that the Authority's schedule for beginning of serv- ice on the various system phases does not allow for "any time for delays due to lawsuits, strikes, and adverse weather". Please describe how this has been changed in the Authority's current startup estimates. (p. 1622) 13. In the May 8th report to Senator Byrd the GAO discussed (on p. 20 to 21) several specific contract cost overruns. Were these reflected in the $139.9 ml!- lion increase noted in the August, 1975 Office of Program control report? (p. 1623) 14. Are there now any delays or cost overruns which the staff foresees but which have not been publicly reported? If so, please submit a description of these for the record. (p. 1624) PAGENO="0016" 698 Staff summary of cost changes from GAO repart to Senator Byrd Billion Metro estimate $`L 453 Contingency allowance1 .414 Route realignments 2 . 273 Revised inflation . 489 Estimate3 Cost overruns under contract ` . 184 Subtotal (July 7, 1975) 813 Report5 312 Total cost (this is not the maximum possible cost) 6.125 1 This was developed by the GAO by studying past contracts and determining and applying appropriate contingency factors by type of contract. 2 The report notes costs from route realignment as follows: MilUon B-Route -$20 E~Route* +227 F-Route +695 3- & M-Route K~Route** Total 273.0 *Undetermined further increases for right-of-way and bridge costs since 1-95 is can- celled in Maryland. **Undetermined increase due to uncertainty over 1-66 land rights and construction. (Minimum daily Inflation delay is $37,500/day.) Based on GAO comparison of \V~1ATA rates with other estimates. Contracts let at more than estimates. Obtained by rising design estimates for fiscal year 1976 program. TABLE V--OPERATING DEFICITS, POSSIBLE INCREASES FROM METRO PROJECTIONS [In rnilhions[ Fiscal year- 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Total deficit $31, 236 $41, 452 $79, 375 $102, 893 $148, 446 $159, 647 Capitalized coat' 16, 487 15,737 4,074 3,537 3,597 UMTA grants' 11,493 14,941 17,814 19,538 20,687 10 percent cost2 increase Metrobus 11,809 13, 105 14, 500 15, 340 16, 900 10 percent cost increase Metrorail' 1,700 3,474 5,442 11,240 16,721 15 percent revenue decrease Metrorail a 77 201 4, 822 10, 725 18, 706 15 percent revenue decrease Metrobus 9,922 9,964 11, 190 11,286 12, 972 Possible deficits 31, 236 91, 940 136, 797 160,735 220, 102 249, 320 Neither of these items has yet been approved by UMTA. In testimssy before this committee o5 Nov. 5, 1975, General Graham admitted that these funds may not be available. 2 Given that 85 percent of system operating casts are labor and fuel, a 10 percent underestimation is these volatile com- modities is not unlikely. Also the rail costs, with no past experience as a basis for forecasting, are even more vulnerable to fluctuation. The 10 percent allowance also parallels BART's early experience. a The Congressional Budget Office noted in the "1976 Budget: Alternatives and Analyses" that a 15 percent variation in system revenue was likely based on their analysis of population trends. Note: This amount is not the maximum deficit conceivable. Fares could be lower, riserahip lower, or cost hIgher. Further, no attempt is made to allow for interactions between costs. PAGENO="0017" 699 November 18, 1975 Request Page 1 Questions 1 - I~. Questions I through ~i deal withcost estimates by contract. This information is currently being developed in line with the new GAO reporting system, the so called Defense Selected Acquisition Report (SAR). The report will be completed in January and will be forwarded to the Committee at that time. 62-418 0- 76 - Pt.2 - 2 PAGENO="0018" 700 022076 QUESTION 1 For each contract in the FY 76, 77 and 78 program, ~:ou1d you provide us the original estimate (February 1969), the Adopted Program Estimate (l~ovember 197k), and the most current estimate and the date of the estimate. ANSWER Detail sheets by Fiscal Year are attached. PAGENO="0019" FY 76 PROGRAM 022076 (All Costs in Thousands) CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ESTIMATE FEB `69 ESTIMATE NOV `fli CURRENT DESIGN ESTIMATE DATE OF CURRENT ESTIMATE * 1A0062 1A0131 1B3O33 $ 12,6514 11,805 0 $ 149,124 19,853 0 $ 58,353 25,072 420 9-75 12-75 12-75 1C0O84 1C0091 1C0104 1C3O32 1C3O41 1C3066 1C3O82 1C0113 1D3131 1D3132 1D3062 1F3O11 0 6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,093 0 0 1,677 1,153 28,611 978 0 0 0 0 2,125 3,400 3,487 0 3,120 * 1,963 24,308 1,613 52 37 500 39 7,151 3,400 3,487 400 4,308 3-75 12-75 4-75 12-75 10-75 12-75 12-75 10-75 11-74 11-74 12-75 8-75 - 1F3012 100011 1G0021 1GOO31 1K0043 1LOO11 1Z2O14 1,921 20,002 33,446 34,763 8,438 11,247 16,813 * 3,166 41,344 39,948 24,461 11,856 36,070 9,154 2,338 42,928 52,177 32,986 9,932 40,859 9,154 . 8-75 12-75 12-74 10-74 1-75 10-75 11-74 1Z201B 3,267 2,127 12-75 1Z2024 2Z1O34 1Z1043 1z104A 26,672 573 ~ 1,423 5,328 3,390 0 1,423 13,507 2,033 1,165 11-74 12-75 11-75 9-75 PAGENO="0020" 022076 FY 76 PROGRAM (All Costs in Thousands) (Continued) CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS 1Z4054 1Z4055 2Z9O63 lZtf 083 1Z4O84 1ZO093 1ZOO914 1Z3 093 1ZO19A 1ZOI9B 1ZOI9C 2Z42OH TOTAL ESTIMATE ________ NOV `74 $ 9,222 12,944 0 9,512 12,618 142 449 O 285 O 700 O 500 O 778 O 320 $231 ,&~O~'~'- $338,738 12,596 39,549 _________ 5~47 $391 420 CURRENT DATE OF DESIGN ESTIMATE CURRENT ESTIMATE 4,~547 5-75 11,229 10-75 2,300 12-75 12,000 12-75 15,049 7-74 200 12-75 700 12-75 300 12-75 713 9-75 585 9-75 367 12-75 320 11-74 $39O,.0J42.- ...~... 12,596 39,549 547 $442,734 Commitments and AdditIves 26O,165~ $697,000 (1) AdditIve Items include forecasted sums of $27.9 million for pro-operations and capitalization of of Phase I operations; $5 millIon for flood damage, $1 million for FCE, $3.6 million for strikes, $41.4 million for proposed modifications and $(4.2) million of pending handicapped obligations tota'ling $69.3 million. $190.9 represents commitments. ESTIMATE FEB `69 $ 7,218 7,054 0 16,492 8,976 285 821 Design 20,389 Real Estate 61,934 Agreements 0 $313 ,943 Deduct Handi- capped and Betterments TOTAL 0 0 $313,943 $391,420 (5,899) $436,835 PAGENO="0021" FY 77 PROGRAM 022076 CONSTRUCT! ON CONTRACTS JAOO92 lAO 162 1 BOO67 1CO1O1 1B3061 1CO1O2 1B4O65 1 COl 03 1 D3 111 1D3 122 1D3 133 100142 1D3 142 1 EOO 11 1 EOO12 1F0031 1F3021 1JOO1 1 1K0051 1K0061 1KO062 1KO063 IKOO81 1KOO82 1 K3O 11 1K3O21 1 K3 031 1K3 042 1Z2O15 1Z2OIC 1Z2O25 2Zl035 ESTIMATE FEB `69 $14,283 0 3,296 9,862 5,977 0 0 0 0 0 30,866 0 34,817 2,440 1 ,71 I 8,193 10,488 2,190 0 1 ,776 0 2,130 1 ,735 1 ,923 1 ,695 16,604 0 0 27,613 ESTIMATE NOV `74 $31,451 6,310 0 7,354 0 57,381 0 17,105 0 0 0 0 0 33,507 26,853 54,636 3,958 4,797 33,853 16,886 9,159 53 7,566 5,484 4,274 3,915 3,571 4,755 15,372 0 1 ,269 12,359 CURRENT DESIGN ESTIMAT! $31,451 6,310 80 9,904 820 54,452 815 21 ,348 100 120 180 1 ,8oo 100 48,200 41 ,657 58,933 3,958 3,500 33,853 16,886 9,159 53 7,566 5,484 4,274 3,182 3,571 5,086 15,372 2,000 1,269 12,359 (All Costs in Thousands) DATE OF CURRENT ESTIMATE 11-74 11-74 12-75 12-75 12-75 8-75 1-75 12-75 12-75 12-75 12-75 12-75 12-75 8-75 10-75 11-74 1-75 11-74 11-74 11-74 11-74 11-74 11-74 11-74 4-74 11-74 11-75 11-74 12-75 11-74 11-74 PAGENO="0022" FY 77 PROGRAM 022076 (All Costs in Thousands) (Continued) CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE ESTIMATE CURRENT DATE OF CONTRACTS FEB `69 NOV `74 DESIGN ESTIMATE CURRENT ESTIMATE 1Z1044 $ 0 $ 3,271 $ 3,271 11-714 1Z4056 10,953 7,220 7,220 11-714 2Z0064 78,217 74,960 74,960 11-74 lZ4O85 8,848 22,130 24,267 11-75 1Z3094 0 367 367 11-74 1Z309A 0 0 169 12-75 lZ4O93 0 111 111 11-74 1Z4094 0 218 218 11-74 lz4o9B 0 0 75 12-75 1Z9O93 0 0 530 12-75 $275,617 $470,145 $515,000 Des ign,Engg, Admin. 24,672 36,815 36,815 Real Estate 37,899 31,251 31,251 Agreements 0 - 547 547 $338,188 $538,758 $583,613 Deduct Handi- capped and Betterments 0 0 (2,538) Cemparable Amounts $338,188 $538,758 $581 ,O75 Cemmi tments 63 925 $6145 000 PAGENO="0023" FY 78 PROGRAM 022076 (All Costs in Thousands) CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE ESTIMATE CURRENT DATE OF CONTRACTS FEB'69 NOV `74 DESIGN ESTIMATE CURRENT ESTIMATE 1AOI12 $ 14,375 $ 28,314 $ 32,812 4-75 1A0141 39,661 74,083 74,083 11-74 IAO151 12,146 18,024 18,024 11-74 1AO16I 7,777 11,723 11,723 11-74 1A3o51 1,616 6,337 6,337 11-74 1A3071 1,588 6,320 6,320 11-74 1A3O81 1,581 6,438 6,438 11-74 1A3O9I 2,521 6,404 6,4o4 11-74 IA3IOJ- 2,495 6,133 6,133 11-74 1BOO91 27,379 52,911 52,911 11-74 IBOIOI 30,275 57,846 57,846 11-74 1BO111 32,746 55,011 55,011 11-74 1BO121 7,649 18,350 18,350 11-74 1CO11J 1,960 7,159 6,500 5-75 1CO112 0 5,648 4,6oo 12-74 oEOO21 28,897 33,414 42,040 11-75 1G3O1I 2,340 4,473 2,758 8-75 1G3021 0 5,433 3,891 10-75 1G3O31 0 159 12-75 1HOO11 5,759 11,919 11,919 11-74 1JOO21 458 3,562 3,562 11-74 1JOO22 10,000 17,809 17,809 11-74 ILOO12 0 600 12-75 1JOO31 10,341 17,569 17,569 11-74 1L3O11 926 926 11-74 1Z2O16 22,068 14,370 14,370 11-74 1Z2O26 0 1,807 1,807 11-74 2Z1O36 33,368 8,383 8,383 11-74 1Z1045 0 5,998 5,998 11-74 1z4o57 0 17,794 17,794 11-74 2Z9O65 0 0 400 12-75 PAGENO="0024" 022076 FY 78 PROGRAM (All Costs in Thousands) (Continued) ESTIMATE FEB `69 $ 2,020 12,482 370 509 0 0 0 0 $312,381 15,084 Admn 31,11911 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS _________ 2ZOO7A 1z4o86 1Z0O95 1ZO096 1Z3 095 1B3O9B 1Z11O95 1 Z9O94 ________ Total Real Estate Design, Engg, Agreements Subtotal Deduct HandI- capped and Betterments 0 Comparable Total $358,959 ESTIMATE NOV `74 $ 11,583 19,281 387 ~485 423 0 193 0 $536,510 23,079 3O,~i8~t 5117 $590,620 CURRENT DESIGN ESTIMATE 11,583 19,281 387 1185 1123 25 193 500 $546,3 54 23,079 30,484 547 $600 ,461i DATE OF CURRENT ESTIMATE 11-711 11-711 11-74 11-74 11-74 12-75 11-711 12-75 0 $358,959 0 $590,620 Commitment (2,830) $597 ,634 47,366 $645,000 PAGENO="0025" 022076 QUESTION 2 For each contract let prior to FY 76 provide the February `69 Estimate, November `7~ Estimate, the Accepted Bid, and any claun accepted above the Bid Price ANSWER A table summarizing all components of a project unit, i.e., Construction and Finish Contracts, Systemwide Contracts,. Agreements, Design and Engineering, Real Estate and Project Management with a Comparative Detail of Bids taken for Construction, Finish, and Systemwide Contracts is attached. Supporting documentation is contained in the Office of Program Control and a member of the staff is available to meet with the Congressional Staff if further exploration is requ i red PAGENO="0026" DESCRIPTION 1969 ESTIMATE _____________ Construction and Finish $ 706,966,000 Systemwide Cont racts Agreements Design and Engineering 106,282,000 Real Estate 100,978,000 Project Mgmt 28,962,000 _______________ $1,215,011,000 $2,131,616,000 SUMMARY COMPARISON FEBRUARY 1969 THRGUGH FY `75 Through FY 75 Obligations $2,172,756,398 Commitments 66,O~~3,6O2 $2,238,800,000 271 ,823,000 0 ADD-ONS BETTERMENTS, BID TOTALS GROSS CLAIMS GROSS TOTAL HANDICAPPED $l,28S,ll2,I17L~ $99,998,998 $1,385,111 ,1472 $(29,14O5,158) i27'~ ESTIMATE $1,356,772,000 328,023 ,000 L~1~,557,OOO 223, l!~3,OOO 130,913,000 38,208,000 NET TOTAL $1 ,355,706,31'I 3O9,l61,L100 313,102,106 3133,263,506 (5,737,855) 337,525,651 - 50,0113,962 261 ,628,O3O (2,516,609) 259,111,1321 130,8136,1135 39,551 ,9O5 PAGENO="0027" COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF BIDS CONSTRUCTION AND FINISH CONTRACTS- A ROUTE CONTRACT 1 AO 111 1A301 1 1AO~~21 1A0031 1A3031 1A001+3 1A004L,. 1A3 044 1A0061 1AOO91 1AO1O1 1AO1 1 ST A RT JANUARY 69 ESTIMATE $ 26,575,000 2,923,000 ~9,3O8,OOO 13 , 382, 000 686, ooo 5,176,000 8,6o4,ooo 2,206,000 27,938,000 28,587,000 0 27,365,000 $152,750,000 NOVEMBER 74 ESTIMATE $ 145,058,000 6,251 ,000 ~. 47;&99 ,000 25,132,000 3,895,000 13,254,000 17,979,000 8,902,000 30,000,000 32,815,000 32,592,000 52,1409,000 $285,986,000 ACCEPTED BID $37,957,343 5,479,707 23,042,898 3,510,529 7,119,735 11 ,71 1 ,697 8,948,000 30,632,773 3J+,~93J ,600 31,977,972 - 52,296,583 $251,119,366 Claims Accepted Above Bid Price TOTAL 41,839,102 $292 ,958,468~ *lncludes betterments, add-ons and handicapped facilities. PAGENO="0028" COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF BIDS CONSTRUCTION AND FINISH CONTRACTS - B ROUTE CONTRACT 1B0066 1BOQ1 1B3O1 1 1B0021 1B0031 1BOO32 1B0033 1B3032 1BOO14A 1BOO1IB 1B00112 1B00113 1BO057 1BO061 1614061 1 B0062 1B11O62 1130063 1B0O611 1BOO65 ST B RT JANUARY 69 ESTIMATE .0 $ 28,625,000 980,000 11,620,000 9,127,000 0 1,5511,000 200,000 5,239,000 350,000 0 1,369,000 27,1121 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,763,000 NOVEMBER ` 714 ESTIMATE - 1,965,000 $36,717,000 14,312,000 12,788,000 1 ,533,O0O~ 6,867,000 111,227,000 2,657,000 22~1 ,000 10,816,000 395,000 1 ,1457,000 3,025,000 1 ,o89,000 298,000 14,556,000 5114,000 27,250,000 6,162,000 23,9511,000. ACCEPTED BID 2,233,999 $ 33,7111,5214 3,971i,999 12,329,7814 ,.,.~.. 8119,800 6,377,010 13,208,001 2,1468,1911 2214,335 9,8119,570 351 ,265 1,1453,8911 3,171 ,o60 1 ,o60,876 2914,910 11,1136,585 1178,9 10 26,5311,071 14,7113,365 21,378,291 Claims Accepted Above Bid Prices $90,652,000 $158,8141,000 $1119,160,4~13 15,1117,677 *lncludes betterments, add-ons and handicapped facilitie5. $1614,578, 120k PAGENO="0029" COMPATATIVE DETAIL OF BIDS 022076 CONSTRUCTION AND FINISHCONTRACTS - C ROUTE CONTRACT lCOOl 1 1C3O1 1 1C0021 1C3021 1 COO31 1C3031 ICOO41 1C0051 1C3051 1C0061 1C3O62 1C0062 1CO063 1C0O65 1C3065 1C0071 1C0072 1C3071 1C0081 1 COO 82 1C0083 1C3O81 ST C RT Claims Accepted Above Bid Prices JANUARY 69 ESTIMATE $ 15,151,000 1 ,539,000 14,946,000 1,597,000 17,294,000 1 ,~4O5,O0O 14,170,000 6,053,000 1,779,000 8,363,000 1 ,63l ,000 10,170,000 0 1,610,000 0 20,249,000 0 1,525,000 13,740,000 5,537,000 0 0 $136,759,000 NOVEMBER 74 ESTIMATE $ 23,318,000 2,705,000 33,420,000 4,165,000 27,518,000 3,677,000 30,542,000 32,041,000 7,868,000 17,121 ,000 4,231,000 19,200,000 394,000 1 ,849,000 1 ,63o,000 1 ,936,000 16,000,000 4,117,000 19,195,000 4,622,000 14,385,000 2,961 ,000 $278,895,000 ACCEPTED BID $ 18,961,838 2,786,000 31 ,043,383 4,164,997 25,950,597 3,468,000 23,397,053 25,482,364 6,258,000 17,086,125 4,279 ,000 17,585,776 397,200 6,308,436 1,648,999 7,113,984 19,71 7;576 4,213,760 19,275,311 4,583,565 14,457,900 3,011,000 $261,190,864 30,795,966 $291 ,986,83O~ ~Includes betterments, add-ons and handicapped facilities. PAGENO="0030" COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF BIDS 022076 CONSTRUCTION AND FINISH CONTRACTS - D ROUTE CONTRACT 100011 1D3O11 1 DOO2 1 1 03021 1DOO31 103031 100041 1000142 1D0043 1D3O142 103043 1DOO61 103061 100071 1DO072 1 D3O71 1DOO81 1 00082 1D3081 1DOO91 1DO1O1 100111 100121 1D0131 1001141 JANUARY `69 ESTIMATE $ 11,582,000 1,1+88,000 15,006,000 1,1+88,000 27,890,000 3,196,000 13,551 ,000 13,237,000 6,916,000 1,588,000 1,509,000 18,398,000 1 ,650,000 7,219,000 0 1,138,000 18,935,000 0 1,903,000 1 ,65o,000 14,903,000 1,813,000 6,085,000 14,907,000 57,000 $176, 109,000 NOVEMBER `714 ESTIMATE 32,805 2,729,000 13,566,000 2,531 ,000 147,200,000 6,315,000 25,014,000 19,611,000 12,306,000 3,237,000 2,691 ,000 32,253,000 3,767,000 11,525,000 48,000 2,340,000 27,915,000 1,054,000 3,301 ,000 12,977,000 31 ,`i56,000 8,430,000 23,800,000 32,3148,000 14,900,000 $371+,l 19,000 ACCEPTED BID $ 29,153,893 2,766,000 14,747,388 2,559,000 48,8145,472 6,192,000 22,4142,2214 17,902,500 12,097,673 3,174,000 2,639,000 31,875,008 3,694,000 11,423,263 47,250 2,2914,000 27,436,012 976,7143 3,237,000 12,977 ,000 32,112,236 8 ,1+29 ,723 23,762,9148 33,6614,818 16,105,838 $370,554 ,989 $8,323 ,625 $378,878,614 ST 0 RT CLAIMS ACCEPTED ABOVE BID PRICES TOTAL `Total includes betterments, add-ons, and handicapped facilities. PAGENO="0031" COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF BIDS CONSTRUCTION AND FINISH CONTRACTS - K ROUTE CONTRACT 1KOO1J 1K0021 1K0031 1 K0041 1K0042 ST K RI JANUARY `69 ESTIMATE $17,230,000 22,768,000 17,531 ,000 4,344,000 17,1409,000 $79,282,000 NOVEMBER `74 ESTIMATE $ 141,91414,000 29,300,000 21,310,000 6,400,000 29,314,000 $ 128,268,000 ACCEPTED BID $ 41,9414,316 29,664,702 20,950,020 6,4o1 ,272 29,781,740 $128,742,050 (583,351) $128,158,699 `Total includes betterments, add-ons, and handicapped fad 1 ities. CLAIMS ACCEPTED ABOVE BID PRICES TOTAL CA~ PAGENO="0032" COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF BIDS / CONSTRUCTION AND FINISH CONTRACTS L ROUTE JANUARY `69 NOVEMBER `71i CONTRACT ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 1LOO21 $ 8,329,000 $ 8,191,000 1L0O22 9,619,000 12,675,000 1L0023 0 6,19L~,OOO ST L RT $17,9'8,000 $27,060,000 CLAIMS ACCEPTED ABOVE BID PRICES TOTAL ACCEPTED BID $ 8,191,890 12,~~57,58~4. 6, 1 93 ,71 ~ $26 , 8133 , 188 - 256,719 $27,099,907 ~ *rotal includes betterments, add-ons, and handicapped facilities. PAGENO="0033" COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF BIDS 022076 0 SYSTEMWFDE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. SYSTEMW I DE 1Z2O11 1Z2O21 1Z1 041 1Z1O42 1Z4O51 1Z4O52 1Z4O53 1z4o81 1z4O82 1ZOO91 1ZO092 1Z4O91 1Z4O92 1Z3O91 1Z3 101 1Z3 102 1Z3 105 1Z3 106 lz4loi iz4141 1Z4 142 1Z4 143 1Z42O1 1Z42O2 1Z42O3 1Z42O6 1Z42O8 1Z42O9 JANUARY `69 ESTIMATE $ 36,564,000 6,214,000 460,000 893,000 8,089,000 8,945,000 25,772,000 4,411,000 7,668,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,978,000 0 0 0 536,000 6,520,000 3,865,000 1,740,000 302,000 1,000,000 NOVEMBER `74 ESTIMATE - $ 50,384,000 8,688,000 1,420,000 2,954,000 14,802,000 13,471 ,000 8,895,000 11,234,000 13,080,000 145,000 297,000 145,000 297,000 1,151,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 950,000 5,775,000 7,416,000 3,219,000 416,000 801,000 ACCEPTED BIDS $ 42,074,675 5,450,845 1,075,613 2,379,000 12,381 ,521 13,467,998 8,887,312 8,313,862 12,553,147 224,878 683,145 146,388 69,124 1,150,500 1 ,332,900 69,864 290,646 110,850 11,674,192 945,665 3,484,000 1,032,480 792,000 5,548,000 5,592,770 2,425,540 298,073 776,064 PAGENO="0034" 022076 COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF BEDS SYSTEMWIDE CONSTRUCTLON CONTRACTS (Continued) JANUARY `69 ESTIMATE 0 $ 0 0 $120,957,000 NOVEMBER 171} ESTI MATE 0 $ 0 - 589,000 $11~5,5L~0,000 $1'6,129,000 ACCEPTED BIDS 69,366 $ 116,160 125,185 $143,51fl ,763 - 22,882,~O3 $166,It2Li,166 ~ SYSTEMWI DE 1z617D 1z617D lZ9091 ~ ~ TOTAL PRIME 1 SYSTEMWI DE CLAIMS ACCEPTED ABOVE BID PRICES TOTAL ~Tota1 includes handicapped facilities. PAGENO="0035" COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF BIDS 022076 SYSTEMWIDE EQUIPMENT PURCHASES SYSTEMWI DE 2Z1031 2Z1 032 2Z1033 2Z1042 2Z0061 2Z007A 2Z108A 2Z408A 2Z408B 2Z408D 2Z4082 2Z4092 2Z420C 2Z420D 2Z1i2OE 2Z420F SYSTEMWIDE 2 JANUARY 69 ESTIMATE $ 4,398,000 9,468,000 36,151 ,000 0 89,405,000 11 ,4144,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOVEMBER `74 ESTIMATE $ 1,980,000 11,459,000 4,059,000 0 91,624,000 65,635,000 0 3,720,000 0 0 155,000 226,000 943 ,000 291 ,000 190,000 $180,282,000 ACCEPTED BIDS $ 1,839,949 11,241 ,176 5,427,494 86,704 91,607,274 27,518,675 877,185 3,500,000 1 ,252,400 599,992 5,200 149,388 226,000 943,421 209,000 - 189,945 $145,673 ,8o3 (193,836) $150,866,000 CLAIMS ACCEPTED ABOVE BID PRICES TOTAL $145,479,967 PAGENO="0036" 022076 QUESTION 3 For each contract in Fiscal Year beyond Fiscal Year 1978 provide February 1969 estimate, November 1974 estimate, and the most current design estimate, and the date of that estimate. ANSWER Detail sheets supporting the summary by route of work beyond FY 78 are attached. SUMMARY OF UPDATED ESTIMATES BEYOND FY78 Current Design Route Estimate A $ 27,1478 B 23,272 E 21+7,591 F 171,977 K 141,435 System 151,956 TOTAL $663,709 Design & Admin. 70,489 Real Estate 15,587 Jndistrlbuted Fore- casted Amounts to Complete 69,030 $818,815 Previously Com˝~I,tted (368,211) $450,604 PAGENO="0037" 022076 * QUESTION 3 (,Cont'd) A. Route CONTRACT 1A31 11 1A3121 1A3]141 1A3151 ESTiMATE FEB. `69 $ 2,597 3,383 0 0 T~ ,9ff0 ALL COST IN 000's ESTIMATE NOV. $ 5,1443 6,723 7,648 CURRENT DESIGN EST. $ 5,443 6,723 7,648 7,6614 478~ DATE OF CURRENT EST. 11-74 11-74 1 1-74 11-74 I. 7,664 $27 ,1~7W PAGENO="0038" CURRENT DESIGN EST. $ 6,502 8,'~'~7 8,323 $23,272 DATE OF CURRENT EST. QU~.&~ION ~. ( iont'ci) B. Route CONTRACT 1B3091 1 B3101 022076 ESTIMATE FEB. `69 $0 0 ALL COST I N 000's ESTIMATE NOV. 7I~ $ 6,502 8, `~1i7 $23,272 1B3111 0 PAGENO="0039" QUES~fl0~I 3( Cont'd), 022076 CURRENT (1) DESIGN EST. E. Route ESTIMATE ESTIMATE CONTRACT FEB.'69 NOV. `74 lE3Oll $ 1,951 $ 4,297 1E3012 $ 0 3,677 lE3O2l 3,572 4,302 JEOO31 30,643 38,902 lE3O31 2,306 5,070 1EOO41 35,492 65,518 1E3041 3,943 6,477 1EOO51 8,722 36,404 1E3O51 . 0 3,084 JEOO61 29,242 38,623 1E3061 0 3,032 1E0071 11,074 19,012 1E3O71 0 5,979 1EOO81 7,461 8,233 1EOO91 2,866 $137,272 0 $242,610 ALL COST IN 000's DATE OF _________ ______________ CURRENT EST. 11-74 11-74 11-74 11-74 11-74 11-74 11-74 (1) WMATA is currently recognizing $30.6 million for delay costs to this route. An additional $67,730 million increase over the November estimates is currently anticipated for redesigning the route from the District Line (Portion of 1EOO51) to overcome environmental and sociological objections to the adoped route in Maryland. $62,749 million will come from funded contingency incorporated within our system estimate. Until these plans are finalized, we cannot provide a contract by contract breakout for the increase. $ 4,229 3,367 4,302 38,-O2 5,070 65,518 6,477 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) o (l) PAGENO="0040" F. Route CONTRACT I F3031 1 F00141 1 F0051 1 F3051 F0061 1 F3061 I F0071 1F3071 1 F0081 1 F0091 1F3081 1 F3082 ESTIMATE FEB. 69 $0 8,612 17,7146 0 28,871 0 9,096 0 17,005 0 0 0 $81 ,330 ESTIMATE NOV. 1714 $ 14,6614 1 14 ,351 31, 197 14,2146 1414,14146 5,302 16,1487 3,2714 29,1487 8,075 6,2614 14, 1 814 $171~T CURRENT DESIGN EST. $ 14,6614 114,351 31,197 4,2146 414,446 5,302 16,1487 3,274 29,487 8,075 6,264 4,184 $1 71,977 DATE OF CURRENT EST. 11-74 11-74 11-74 11-74 11-714 11-74 1 1-7~i 11-74 11-74 11 -74 11 -74 11-714 QUESTION 3 (Cont'd) 022076 ALL COST IN 000's PAGENO="0041" slioN 3 (Cont'd) 022076 ALL_COST IN 000's K. Route CONTRACT 1KOO71 1KO072 1K0073 1KO074 1KO075 1K3O71 1 K3072 ESTIMATE FEB. `69 $ 10,137 0 0 0 0 4,894 0 $15,031 ESTIMATE NOV. `74 $ 29,305 445 601 106 277 5 , 351 5,350 ~Zi ,435~ CURRENT (1) DESIGN EST. - $ 29,305 445 601 106 277 5,351 5,350 $41,435 DATE OF CURRENT EST. 11-74 11-74 11-74 11 -74 11-74 11-74 11 -74 1) WMATA is currently recognizing $17.5 million of delay costs due to the impact of the decision on 1-66. Until resolution of the highway problem, no updated estimates are available at this time. PAGENO="0042" ~0l4 3~,( Cont'd) 022076 ALL COST IN 000's SYSTEM WIDE CONTRACTS CONTRACT 1Z2O1A 1Z2O1D 1Z2017 1Z2O27 2Z1037 izio46 1Z10147 2Z10141 1Z14058 1Z1~087 1Z0097 1Z3096 1Z3097 1Z1iO96 1Z14097 1Z01914 1ZO 195 IZO 196 1ZO 197 ESTIMATE FEB. `69 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESTIMATE NOV. 714 $0 0 39,l4140 3,151 22,387 ~i,521 10,2140 0 21 ,1433 39,568 792 1487 786 237 3914 1 ,572 799 2,603 3,5I~6 $151,956 CURRENT DESIGN EST. 39,14140 3,151 22,387 14,521 1O,2~4O 21 ,1433 39,568 792 ~~87 786 237 3914 1 ,572 799 2,603 3,S'i6 $151 ,956 DATE OF CURRENT EST. 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 11-714 1) Although contracts have been identified for point that we can estimate amounts for the work. these items, the scope of work has not been finalized to the PAGENO="0043" 725 121775 QUESTION 4 For Phase through VII provide the most current estimates for: the number of miles operational, the number of cars and stations operational. Also provide the February `69 estimate for this data. OPERATIONS DATES 6~ ESTLM,\TE CURRENT ESTIMATE I Dec `72 Mar `76 II Dec `73 Jan `77 IA - Nov `77 III Dec `74 May `78 IV Dec `76 Nov `78 IVA - Feb `80 V Mar `78 Sep `80 VI Dec `79 Apr `81 VII - Dec `82 WMATA Board deferred Phas~e I Operation to March 27, 1976 on January 16, 1976. PAGENO="0044" 726 -2- l21~7f~ QUESTICN 14 (Ccntd) OPERATIONAL MILES (ACCUMULATED) PHASE 69 ESTIMATE CURRENT ESTIMATE 1 5.6 4.6 II 18.3 17.6 hA - 23.3 Ill 46.6 30.7 iv 64.1 34.1 IVA - 52.5 V 79.6 68.8 VI 98.0 91.1 VII 99.8 1) Includes the change in alignment of the H & J routes, and the addition of Shady Grove extension on the A route. PAGENO="0045" 727 -3- 121775 QUESTiON 13 (Cont'd) OPERATIONAL CARS PHASE 69 ESTIMATE CURRENT ESTIMATE 30 36 II 132 913 hA - 102 III 332 110 Iv 382 1130 VA 278 V 528 336 VI 582 1302 VII 1376 PAGENO="0046" 728 121775 QUESTION 4 (Cont'd) OPERATIONAL STATIONS (CUMULATIVE) 1) PHASE 169 ESTIMATE CURRENT ESTIMATE II 7 6 20 25 hA - 29 iii 47 34 IV 63 38 VA - 53 V 74 63 vi 86 79 VII 87 1) Includes the addition of Shady Grove extension on the A route. PAGENO="0047" Additional Data November 18, Request November 25, 1975 Question 4 4th RevisIon - February 12, 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Metrorail Cost Reduction Proposals Recommended (Policy items) a. Priced b. Unpriced II. Metrorail Cost Reduction Proposals Not Recommended (Policy Items) a. Priced b. Unpriced iii. Metrorail Cost Reduction Proposals -- Further Study Required (Policy items) a. Priced b. Unpriced - iV. Technical or Procedural Issues Recommended a. Priced b. Unpriced V. Technical or Procedural issues Not Recommended a. Unpriced Vi. Technical or Procedural Issues -- Further Study Required a. Unpriced PAGENO="0048" November 25, 1975 METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED PRI CED S Significant - over $500,000 M Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 insignificant - less than $100,000 et~2l2~'.. 3. Substitute alternative structure for concrete she,l4 canopy at above-grade stations. -.,nrtJ~v 1'. ~~2V~"Do not enclose car wash facilities. 5. Delete construction of second entrance at Cleveland Park Station. Defer construction of second entrances at Van Ness and Tenley Circle Stations (leave knock-out panels). 6. ,g~O"J~?ake provision for covered sidewalk in lieu of spccdwalk between Union Station and H Street. r ~. Eliminate acoustic treatment in tunnels. REMARKS COST RANGE Estimate based on conversion of all $I~,877,00O escalators in Phases Ill through VII to stainless steel. 93 escalators could be converted. Opera- tional cost savings estimated to be $372,000 annually. `~ /~ _____ Applicable to+to44.remaining stations. Original concept assumed on Eisenhower $2,560,000 complex north of H Street; this is no longer being considered. Monitor after operations begin to determine $7,800,000 extent of treatment required; install at that time If requirement is verified. !i~L DESCRIPTION 1. Substitute less expensive materials for bronze and glass In escalator balustrades. 2. Convert short, down escalators to stairs. $3,775,000 ~7&oOt2 Minimal effect on cleanliness of cars. $1,288,000 Capacity not essential for operation of $2,030,000 station. PAGENO="0049" 0 METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED PRI CED November 25, 1975 S Significant - over $500,000 N Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 I Insignificant - less than $100,000 (Continued) NO. 2s,LJ-' DESCRIPTION 8. ~ Defer landscaping of line construction. ~ ,tQ// ,2/a,75 ,rn'o/~'e' ~I4,7L/~)~/f `~`r i~o ,-e~.c/o're ~4WC.4 4tiA//~c 9. Use smooth form finish in lieu of 14 form board finish on concrete work beyond above- I grade stations. `J~p 10. Eliminate Infra-red comfort heaters. I7OO~~. ii. p~fyr Consider selective use of crib walls or (4 abion walls in lieu of retaining walls. 12. Delete card readers on mezzanine to platform (.11 elevators. 13.~OV~hange bronze clad doors and gates to steel. r~ 14. Use alternative materials for station platform r benches. 15. ~Q'~J6~'hange Nicholson Lane Station from cut-and-cover ~ pPri to open cut. REMARKS Complete Items essentIal to operations as highest priority. Outside station areas, the walls become less visible and require less architectural attention. Limited exceptions would be permi tted. Recommend deletion of heaters pending accumulation of operating experience at Rhode Island Avenue Station. Acceptable finish but higher maintenance cost. Permanence of material in this high use area must meet stringent fire code requirements. COST RANGE $2,500,000 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $293,600 $182,000 $52,000 $6,250,000 2 PAGENO="0050" November 25, 1975 S - Significant - over $500,000 N - Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 Insignificant - less than $100,000 METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED PRI CED (Continued) NO. DESCRIPTION REMARKS COST RANGE - I~v -~ 16. QQ'~ Recommend selective use of concrete block walls To be reviewed with the site location of the $158,000 in lieu of brick,~enmmrwallS at substations, structure. tie-breaker sta(~ons and yard structures. ~rnd 6/c,c/~ PAGENO="0051" Novemoer ~5, i~j/~, S Significant - over $500,000 M Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 Insignificant - less than $100,000 METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED REMARKS COST RANGE Staff to review present criteria. - Board has adopted policy paralleling policy of Montgomery County. A revision to the policy would be required. Maintenance by local jurisdictions can be studied. Proposals are being developed. - () UNPRICED n\ěv NO. DESCRIPTION - _______ l.~~2t Bejnoše selectivš in use pf floating slabs. 2. Minimize landscaping within parking lots, design for lo maint ance. 4 cQ/~,,4'/-i'5 ~ 3. oQ Moke bulk purchases of electrical equipment ~ 1111 and fixtures, track materials and other r' appropriate items. PAGENO="0052" November 25, 1975 S SIgnIficant - over $500,000 N Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 Insignificant - less than $100,000 METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS NOT RECOtIMENDED PRICED NO. DESCRIPTION REMARKS COST RANGE LJ~ 1. SubstItute concrete for granite at parapets Concrete an acceptable alternative but has $335,000 and paving at street entrance escalators, wearing problems and requires more mainte- nance at high use areas than does granite. 2. I6LJ Change granite edges of platform to precast Hardness and permanent non-slip character- $176,000 concrete. Istics of granite are critical to safety at this location. 3. SubstItute concrete finIsh for paver tIle Paver tile affords permanent non-slip $630,000 within stations, characteristics, and case of repair. Multiple Joints prevent large cracks requiring maintenance. Change escalator width from 1iO Inches to Possible application at low density stations $l,lliO,000 C-' 36 inches. only. 5' ~C~~Dcletc bronze cladding over concrete on Concrete is a code requirement and needs $l1~7,OOO ~ěI exterior of elevator entrance structures. more maintenance than bronze with natural f I n 1 s h 6. J~[~ Change bronze railings to steel. Material in high use area should require $~2,OOO iittie maintenance; steel requires painting. PAGENO="0053" November 25, 1975 NO. DESCRIPTION 1. 1J~.Revise concept of remaining underground stations to include rectangular station section with center columns. Eliminate "floating" mezzanine, narrow width of platforms 9nd reduce ancillary room requ I rement s $~6/dy `/~~~` ?╗=~e c 2.,~/61J'~e1ete air conditioning at stations. 3.I,.jJ~ Change remaining construction to less expensive ,,oI'I surface and aerial construction, shorter and more direct alignments, reduce noise controls, etc. t1./,~J~At remaining underground stations place mezzanine on surface end rgduce station cross-section9l area. 5i~i'c'9 /~ ~ 5 Cl minute station finish features such as platform ~J& edqe lights, Indirect lighting (to direct), granite, acoustical treatment, puhllc address system, closed circuit television system, etc. Increase car loading standard from an average ~ of 175 persons per car to 210 persons per car; may require modification of Interiors and addition of fourth door on both sides. *METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS NOT RECOMMENDED UNPRI CED S= Significant - over $500,000 N Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 I Insignificant - less than $100,000 ________ COST RANGI REMARKS Underground stations not under final design: Nicholson Lane, Forest Glen, Wheaton, Glen- mont, Columbia Heights, Georgia Avenue, Anacostla, Alabama Avenue and Ft. Totten (lower level). Would be retained at stations havIng heavy boarding volumes In P.M. rush hours. Should consider any specific proposals. Might permit raising of invert. Estimated at up to $30.0 million. N 6 PAGENO="0054" METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS NOT RECOMMENDED UNPRI CEO (Cant ˝ued) NO. DESCRIPTION 7.111)~imp1ify elevator frame design, reduce use of glass, re-evaluate alternative materials.. 8.O~Simpiify fare collection system. 9.1,.1JI2f~eview thickness of paving at parking lots and access rood~ substitute asphalt curbs for concrete curbs where practicable. lO.~J~,LJ~'iminate Closed Circuit TV in passenger ~ě1 stations. li.I&(J~i5'e1ete car wash facilities at other than Sic yards. i2.j~.(J~iete air conditioning of train operator rooms at temporary and permanent terminals. 13. ,jJ~Deiete rounded cove at Intersection of walls, ceilings end floors In possugeways. i'~.,1J~Substitute mercury vapor light fixtures for incandescent at surface ctations and reduce C' number of fixtures. l5j~~'Oeiete acoustical treatment from at-grade stations. 1G. l~(,J~e standard publIc telephone booth. ~oU1 S Significant - over $500,000 H Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 Insignificant - less than $100,000 COST RANGE REMARKS Security afforded by visual monitoring of elevators must be studied; materials used must be applIcable to use and maintenance program. DD-U-18 provides criteria which may be M altered subject to WMATA approval; asphalt curbs are cheaper inItially but require more frequent repaIr. Policy question of frequency of car washIng. H Temporary terminals generally required for H one year. SimplifIcation of concrete formwork; railings will continue to be mounted away from wal is. Maintenance wIll be more difficult. Mercury vapor fixtures are used at I)arkiflg lots but are oriented away front neighborhood; on station platforms Incandescent used to harmonize with station envIronment. Very little used at these locatIons. Savings questionable. 7 PAGENO="0055" METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED S SIgnifIcant - over $500,000 M Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 I InsignIficant less than $100,000 DESCRIPTION Eliminate coffers In underground station vaults and apply acoustic panels to resulting smooth surface. i~ 2. Reduce acoustical treatment In stations. 17 "~`"~`░`~" "u 3. Delete concourse and landing at Friendship Heights Station. REMARKS COST RANGE ArchItectural renderings prepared Illustrat- -_$-i-~-QO8,-O-O-G- Ing appearance. Alternative investigated increasing width of vault ribs (thereby facilitating reinforcing steel placement) if coffers were to be retained, Estimated savings $~50,O00. C~',#t7~ ,o,~/~4,-"~' ~i,p ~rp///5 ~~#T/$' Refer to D. C. and Montgomery Co. planning staffs for comment. Cost exceeds benefit. Future commitments should be avoided. ~Q~- PRICED Do not provide acoustical treatment for future at-grade sections of line. 2#~7~7' ~ d5~aˇe~ ~/~e~7' iAi ~L~7p ~~4,c4 `i~t'~ ~ ˝'o/ ~~if~9'7 ///~7~~ -~i ,6~o-eee- m~n~ $1 ,600,000 4~o~e6- ~427,~' 8 PAGENO="0056" November 25, 1975 S Significant - over $500,000 N Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 Insignificant - less than $100,000 ~`~1t' DESCRIPTION Put an incentive clause In contracts for com- pleting ahiad of schedule. i/at `~" 2. Review wrap-up lssurance to reward a contractor with a good safety record and penalize one with a poor record. ,Q i,~,e~'ch'a" /)`/ 3. Encourage action to eliminate sales taxes and permit fees. Eliminate station entrances where more than one entrance is planned. / Ad~i columns under platforms and tracks in Q I ` mc za ines of above-grade stations. X~Z~ 6. Delete re-heat electric hoatere Ir) station a I r conditioning. ,Qt~a"'c~~,~' ~ 7. Liberalize provisions for payment for materials and equIpment. ,A/~/ r~co,,~,z,i~-/e/ Alternative is to postpone construction of additional entrance until patronage clearly justifies It. Opportunity fofthis reduc- tion now restricted to Shaw Station. Cleveland Park, Van Ness and Tenicy Circle Stations are under ~ e~- ~ Reduction of beam span length possible with study on station by station basis. Patron circulation Is a consideration. Reduces cost at expense el level of comfort. Ultimately should be reflected In bids. IIETRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED UNPRI CEO REMARKS COST RANGE ~~,,4/4//2e~ ~ fMt~!C%~27l ~rij,~/~c/ffl/%'~: ~ ~/~lI/~c 4r7-e~%t7& ~?5P~5d' c%/~'7~c CAD H H H PAGENO="0057" !L2~.. DESCRIPTION 1. Reduce requirements for UPS system. METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES RECOMMENDED PRICED 2 ~ loop track at Greenbelt Yard. ~ loop track at Glenmont Yard. ~r~D El Iminate Naylor Road pocket track. 5.~e~0V~7U5e single story at-grade substations In lieu of two-story. ~ requirement of pre-bored holes for piles in selected areas. Review sizes of ancillary rooms at station 7~pf9~DV ~~nd yard buildings. 8.~ě2░ Discontinue use of boro-sllicate for duct nec let Ion. Use standard gauge metal for ductwork. November 25, 1975 * S Significant - over $500,000 H Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 I Insignificant - less than $100,000 REMARKS Present UPS system requires 3 hours UPS duration; this could be reduced to a lesser duration above grade; also spare capacity may be reduced. Substitute crossover. Recommended where feasible. COST RANGE $300,000 $1 ,58t1,000 $871 ,200 $232,000 $200,000 Soils data should be checked for each case. $7L4O,000 $1,000,000 Less expensive insulation can be used. $250,000 Boro-silicate is not required by code or performance criteria. System pressure does not require high $250,000 pressure gauge. 10 PAGENO="0058" METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES RECOMMEND ED PRICED (Continued) November 25, 1975 S SignifIcant - over $500,000 N Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 Insignificant - less than $100,000 Fixed-custom requires custom fabricated pipe supports. NO. DESCRIPTION REMARKS COST RANGE lO.š42tZ Dcietc encapsulated eloctrlc motors whore .~1 ~j~aP~roPriate. ~ Reduce inch topping on platform slabs at r surface stations. /1n10 i2,~2~1' Relax the design requirement of standard box ěY 9girdcrs. . Required only in wet locations. Permitted via elimination of heating cabins. Revise desIgn criteria to permit other types of girders. $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 l3.~~2 Substitute A-36 for A-21i2 steel for safety walk ~4r pgratings. Ii. o~OV Utilize galvanIzed steel pIpe conduits Initially for relocation of underground power cables, t) * Relax criteria to allow less expensive materIal. Could eliminate the requirement for a temporary enclosure and later construction o1~ permanent ducts and cables. $250,000 $250,000 15 012 Reduce spare electrical capacity. (~1 ~V Eliminate standby chilled water and condenser FI~' ~1~9pumps. l7.~š2~i Use standard adjustable pipe supports. Sincc power requirements are now identified, spare capacity could be reduced. ~ $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 11 PAGENO="0059" METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS TECMNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES RECOMMENDED PRICED (Continued) November 25, 1975 S Significant - over $500,000 M Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 I insignificant - less than $100,000 NO. DEScRIPTiON 18. El minute pre-packaged drain go pumping ~ ~2I systems. ~7~/~'~' ,~2 ~ i/S/'%l /~P~M~IT~ ,Ou.~z7,o~ af a//i4'..s'19.% Increase spacing for chilled water line i~V1 ~hangers. 20. OhIo Substitute roof-top air conditioning units for Interior units at surface stations. 2l~ptZO Delete sump storage tanks In cooling towers. 22. ~fl~Usc electric water level control for cooling tower. 23. Revise air balance specification require- mcnts and eliminate those not practicable until operational load exists. 2~. ~`)1LJJ Reduce the number of concrete construction joInts in subway structures where possible. REMARKS DD-M-i7 requIres pro-packaged drainage pumping system. Interim pumps may be adequate and could be left in place. Ancillary space would not be required for those units. Since cooling towers are not used In winter, those tanks can be eiimlnated. It is more economical than the present float system which requires running water lines from chiller room to cooling tower. Exact loading will not be known until operation is actually started. COST RANGE $1 50,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 12 PAGENO="0060" METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES RECOMMENDED PRICED (Cont I nued) November 25, 1975 S SignIficant - over $500,000 H Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 I insignificant - less than $100,000 NO. DESCRIPTION 25~~~O\$~'Substltute concrete for 12" X 12" granite sets to protect sloped surface at station entrances. 26p~~)~9 Delete double deflection grilles under platform cxhaue t. 27~O'~~0Dclctc painting of galvanIzed ductwork in mechanical equipment rooms. A ~2f2 Standardize pile bonding. Use tube axlgl fans ~ axial fans. 7Z/2~ `/Q/ 5 7~4' 3O.~2~9\J~2Reducc door heights to 7'-O" where possible. 31 Use service weight cast lro,~,il plpe,et'ce,~ A ~ ~ pt~e~ Substitute electric controls for pneumatic ~ controls where possible. REMARKS Textured concrete Is acceptable. COST RANGE $50,000 Volume dampers only are needed. $50,000 4~ $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Tube axial fans are more economical Criteria now calls for 7'-2" doors; this could be reduced to 7'-O" in many bce- t ions. Present specIfications require use of extra heavy cast iron soil pipe underground. Electric controls could be used in lieu of pneumatic controls in station service rooms, traction power substations and other small systems. 13 PAGENO="0061" November 25, 1975 S - Significant - over $500,000 H - Moderate ~ $100,000 to $500,000 - insignificant - less than $100,000 METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES RECOMMENDED PRICED (Continued) NO. DESCRIPTION REMARKS COST RANGE 33.,-~2 Change galvanized alloy steel conduIt to plain $92,000 11 r galvanized conduit. "p 314. ~70V~' Relocate utilities in advance of construction $1,000,000 where possible. 114 PAGENO="0062" METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES RECOMMENDED UNPRI CED November 25, 1975 S Significant - over $500,000 H Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 Insignificant - less than $100,000 NO. DESCRIPTION - ~I7 1. p~0 Revise criteria for car storage tracks. pP ~ 2. Review value engineering experiences and draw conclusions for future guidance. 3 Establish proccdure to review and evaluate changes ~pPF" suggested for the System prior to their incorpora- P1 tion. Continue efforts to provide early certification ~pr~ and timely procurement of real estate. 5 ProvIde lump sum bids to maxImum extent. 6. Continue efforts to standardize designs including tetlone, tunnels, structures, materials, etc. Expedite processIng of pay estimates. P1 Expedite settlement of modification. P1' Use more standard manufactured items REMARKS Permits more complete land use. (Criteria changed but savings negligible.) This Is a continuing review. Procedure has been established. Requires less administration. Ultimately should be reflected In bids. Ultimately should be reflected In bids. COST RANGE PAGENO="0063" HO. DESCRIPTION - ______ 10 oVP Place increased emphasis on Value ,~Vr Erj~lneering Program. r' 11 ILP Expedite handling of claims; 12 mprove procedir'~s for approval of shop and pP working drawings. 3 Provide bettor coordination for contractors A1~~ working in same area. 1~. ~~~ss1st contractor in obtaining permits and 4'r outside agency approvals. METRORAIL COST REDUCTiON PROPOSALS TECHNICAL. OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES RECOM1IEN DED UNPRI CEO (continued) November 25, 1975 S SIgnificant - over $500,000 H Moderate - $100,000 to $500,00() I Insignificant - less than $100000 REMARKS COS$ RAHGE Ultimately should be ~eflccted In bids. Implemented for most part by agreements with local jurisdictions. 1 5A PAGENO="0064" Revise train control duct bank requirements. 2. ff(J!2 Relocate first column under end wall at underground station end wall. 3. 1~~t~~Rcduce minimum emergency lighting for above- co grade stations. tlc~J'1~ Usq w,r~ glass in skyligi~ts In l)eupf acrylics. 1~ o~"~'9"~ o˘~ik' i~W// ~` ejce~' e~J/2epP Ccder 5. 1J01"Comprcss design and construction schedules to minimize escalation costs. 6. Permit precast concrete tunnel liners. I1~ `I Eliminate fare gate bulls-eye lamps. 8. ~(,I~lnciude escalation clauses In contracts of one year or sore duration. Consider cost ceiling plus lncentlve,fce ~` contracts. November 25, i975 S Significant - over $500,000 H Moderate - $100000 to $500,000 I insignificant - less than $100000 METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES NOT RECOMMENDED UNPRI CEO NO. DESCRIPTION REMARKS Appltcnble to one rema~n~ng etation with little or no cost savings to be realized while doin-gradlng appearance. The l0~ emergency lightng now specified con- sidered to be minimum level. Handling and maintenance costs exceed savings. Schedule already compressed to maximum extent. Previous studies have indicated this liner not suited for local underground conditions. Bulls-eye lamp Is used to provide lighting for exiting people and serves as emergency lighting. Would relieve contractors of obligation to `hold the line" on wages and prices. S Sav igs Qucs I 0 able. 16 PAGENO="0065" November 25, 1975 S SignIfIcant - over $500,000 II Moderate - $100,000 to $500,000 Insignificant - .less than $100,000 No. DESCRIPTION REMARKS ________ Underpinning - use more slurry walls or other Less underpinning would be more indirect methods of suoeort. economical. teduce requirement for 250 MVA minimimum short If It Is determined that this capacity 2,0\J~░ /c~v.~?c ~ a~ ~c ~ ,~`r/e,~ circuit capacity at Fh.e traction power sub-~1 . ~. could be reduced, the need for double stat ~ and triple power company feeders may be ~6'~//?5~464~/)2 ~t/I.~/4E'/7'/4Y eliminated in some cases. Shorten branch circuit feed"rs to fan Serve electrical p~ser loads from two separate panels .ln the nearest power sub- station rather than from two separate C' substations. Use single large chiller and cooling Considerable savings over the use of two tower for dual tatio air-conditioning units and multij~le pumps. ~~i~)es. ~ ~ ~ ,V24'~ a,a'7~/~' b 5.~~f~░Rcvise station power facilities so as to permit dropping all non-essential loads upon transformer ~ f~f~1 ~ ~c~/ŔV2 ~ 6. Revise specifications to permit more competition among manufacturers of chillers and cooling towers. 7net~20~ ver central ~ of chIller plants. 8.,~t7It~~nsolidate condenser water cl~cu~ts where more than one chiller is used 0 METRORA1L COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED UNPRI CED _____ COSt RA~C~ M M When transformer f~l1s on incoming service H on one end.of the station, the essential load on the end that fails is transferred to the other end; however, the non-essential load on the uninterrupted end is still carried. Present speclflcatlon~ g~ay llmlš competition. .~tr. - ~ p~'/.'/S~'Q' 4V~/ ~"~- -&~ ,, fcv~-:c$6v~ p~ ~/-~qt~ ~4r ~` 7~c~e,- 7'//,~ ,/~,7z. a~n~' ~ ~ Wojld minImize 1or~g rims of pipIng. ~ o'/~. - /149~7~šz ~~Uo~//d af~ ~1~~░z'~' /s 74~i,'~ ~`6j~/'i'~f PermIts use of only one pair of condenser M lInes Instead of two or three pairs (for two or three chillers). PAGENO="0066" November 25, 1975 METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES 11. Standardize cut-and-cover box desi~n~yn dct~il~ fo~ aerial ~ ~7~~'r ca~b~ /7i ~O˝~/ z"~/ L/eJt~J i~eo 12. Reduce rcquircd, j~nim structural wall thickncss. f-Ioi~ tec~/12,ne 13. R'duce nunber and 1~~,j.~~$lth of final design reviews. H v I c nsa tor a Peri;~a>~~/,~ ~ ,/~. ~ bee" ~ ,rnic,~ ewi'~/ Single UPS aystcn~~, c~~)ed load. JY~/ ~ /~ 9reS. 16. Revise specificatlons of control systems for chillers (remote control and surveillance fee t urea) ~ ~ 17~,~~OI~Revise rdqul renont for hero-silicate and thermal ii ing for nsadltgs high pressure duct works. l8.~g~J~s peC I fy type of I n t cr1 m I I gin t I ng that wool d supply sufficient illumination for contractor to use doing jof) - require him tod~cav~ behind for next contrac- to r. Significant - over $500,000 II Moderate - $100,oOo to $500,OQO Insignificant - less than $100,000 H Standardizing would elimInate requirement ti lye designs ~ection Dc~igners. ~~rI - ~ .~`c,4'a.e' ~c~cc a,~ d~~~~jred 2'-O" thickness urrent stan or ~ ,a~i ,er 1~1e~1/oV e,,~7r~$ ei'//1,~ - ,e~rnzy Present requirement Is for all motors over 1/2 liP to be 3 phase, !~6o volts and 1/2 HP and lower to be single phase, ~ volts. One per station in lieu of one at each end. Reduce number of remote cdntrol and survell-~ lance functions. flora-si I icate not .requi red. Standard conunercial Insulation satisfactory. DESCRIPTION FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED UNPR ICED (Con t I sued) REMARKS ~ST~ ~SAN1G I 2~~d' Some outer ring reinforcement required 9. Eliminate outer ring of reinforcement in C.I.P. tunnel ~ to control shrInkage. Sbme adjustment ~ might be made in ama un t. in 10. Reduce size of K Route yard operations Reduction in square feet required may be b u i I d i ng. 4~2/ 711~f/.'~.~1' poss I hi e. ci~ PAGENO="0067" DESCRIPTION METRORAIL COST REDUCTION' PROPOSALS TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED JNPR ICED (conti nued) 19. Revise grout pipe spacing requirements in tunnel COfl St ruct i on. 46/ i'~~,,',i~'z'd6'~g/. es24iecs6~ve /574? 4v'~ c~~'o~4" ~ I i72/n/~'/3e ~ minate 3-way.autcmatic control valve in air conditioning units, 2i.~pO~Y~Hminatc piping arrangement in chilled water plant for parallel and series flow of chilled wa~er throug~ ~ Hers. 2'/~',~'. ~ ~ eY'/ e~,'c~ ,ż `~,i~' p/a1n'nec. 22. Use THU insulation (wire and cable) in lieu of cross-linked polyethylene. 23. Delete requirement for CPM. ,`Jo/ rec~',fe,?c/~r" November 25, 1975 S SIgnificant - over $500,000 H Moderate - $100,000 to $500000 Insignificant - less than $100000 REMARKS CO!ST~1A~k[ Cirrent specifications may be too restrictive. More specific requirements in specifications would reduce construction costs. Face and bypass dampers will provide functions of temperature control with chilled water running constant through coil. Since all dual systems are operated in series, the garallel~ arrangement may not be necessary. Standard Specification Section 1602 (Wire and Cable) Article 2.1 (B)l, Single conductor cable, for size 1/0 AWG and smaller conductor requires cross-linked polyethylene. Simpler, less .expensive procedures will be considered. PAGENO="0068" 750 Submission #4 121775 November 18 Request QUESTLOfl 4 For Phase through VII provide ~e r~ost current esz~-a:es for: the number of miles operational, the nunber of cars and stSZicrs operational. Also provide the February `69 estimate for this data. OPERATI0:~S DATES PHASE `69 ESTIMATE CU??.EMT ESTIMATE I Dec `72 Feb `76 1) H Dec `73 Mar `77 HA - Nov `77 MI Dec `74 May `73 IV Dec `76 May `78 IVA - Feb `80 V Mar 73 Sep `80 Dec `79 Oct `81 vii - Oct `82 ) ~ThATA ~aard h~s under tonsi~era::- Eu~~e: Conn~::ee to ~defer P~.asa I operatIon tO ~ PAGENO="0069" I IA III IV I VA V VI VI 0PERATIC~L~L MILES (ACCL~I~LAT:D) `69 ESTIMATE 5.6 18.3 46.6 64.1 79.6 98.0 CURPE~1T ESTIMATE 17.6 23.3 30.7 34.1 52.5. 70.0 88.5 97~4 751 O'JESTIO; (Cont'd) PHASE II PAGENO="0070" LST~D~ I, (Cont'd) 69 ESTIMATE 30 132 CURRENT ESTIII.TE 36 102 no 140 278 336 402 752 0?ERATIO:AL c:~~s 121775 IA III 332 I'/ 382 V 528 VI 582 VI 476 PAGENO="0071" 753 121775 S EST;S~ (Cort'd) OPERAT O~L STAT ONS `69 ESTt~TE CUPSENT ESTINATE H 7 6 11 20 25 - 2~ iv 63 38 53 V 7~ 63 vi 86 78 vii - 86 PAGENO="0072" 754 November 18, 1975 Request (continued) Page 2 Question 5* Supply a summary generated funds. by month, of sources and uses of internally Source and Use of Internally Generated Funds (millions of dollars) Local Bond Bond Exec As of 1/31/75 Grants $62.0 Proceeds $147.7 Interest T16.8 Total $126.5 ilgmt $5.0 Const Program $121.5 2/28/75 63.1 50.14 16.8 130.3 5.1 125.2 3/31/75 65.5 55.3 18.7 139.5 5.2 1314.3 14/30/75 66.1 58.6 19.1 1143.8 5.3 138.5 5/31/75 66.6 61.6 19.7 11+7.9 5.3 1142.6 6/30/75 68.5 6'i.9 21.2 1514.6 5.1~ 149.2 7/31/75 70.1 65.9 22.1+ 158.1+ 5.5 152.9 8/31/75 71.1 67.3 23.2 161.6 5.6 156.0 9/30/75 10/31/75 71+.2 75.9 70.3 72.4 214.2 24.7 168.7 173.0 5.7 5.7 163.0 167.3 PAGENO="0073" 755 Additional Data: November 18, 1975 Request Question 5: Supply a summary, by month, of sources and uses of internally generated funds. (This data should be extended back to the inception of the fund not to January 31, 1975.) The data requested is submitted from date of inception to present on a fiscal year basis. Submission of data by month will require a very time-consuming process and extended period of time to accummulate When the data is obtained in that form, it will be forwarded to you if the data in present form is not acceptable PAGENO="0074" 772 ,1i146 7,326,271 7,268,712 28,263,821 53,711,057 614,296,832 32,092 ,5117 $193,731 ,686 1,012,502 10,0914,072 19,188,1+21 33,91+1 ,/+83 141,2149,571+ 12,013,9142 $117 ,1+99 ,994 772,14116 7,086,215 14,260,855 13,336,255 33,105,829 56,153,087 76,231 ,692 $76,231,692 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY SUMMARY OF INTERNALLY GENERATED FUNDS BY YEAR EARNED APPLIED $ - $ AVAI LABLE $ Fiscal Year 1967 Fiscal Year 1968 Fiscal Year 1969 Fiscal Year 1970 Fiscal Year 1971 Fiscal Year 1972 Fiscal Year 1973 Fiscal Year 19711 Fiscal Year 1975 Fiscal Year 1976 (Through December 31, 1975) TOTAL C-)' PAGENO="0075" WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY ANALYSIS OF INTERNALLY GENERATED FUNDS - CUMUL5TIVE BY FISCAL YEAR FROM INCEPTION TO DECEMBER 31, 1975 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 1976 SOURCE OF FUNDING 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 19714 1975 6 MONTHS Investment__Income Interest on Funds of Local Jurisdictions $ - $ - $77214146 $7,288,883 $13,717,030 $280145727 $145,7O8,1335 $6~4,8O9,6l5 $8121148140 Interest on Bond Proceeds Construction Fund - 8,157,590 29,692,931 51,163,089 62,001,662 Bond Interest Fund - 2,363,183 10,9514,816 2171414,807 26,120,839 Gain or Loss on Investments - Local Jurisdiction Funds - - 1421,885 1,0914,023 1,225,012 1,1495,875 1,381,373 1,168,273 Gain or Loss on Investments - Bond Proceeds Construction Fund - - - - - 2,389,123 7,359,0914 19,1476,758 19,699,661 Bond Interest Fund - - - - - 695,053 1,2147,752 2,008,378 2,072,989 Total Investment Income - - 772,14146 ~Ti÷768 114,811,053 142,875,688 ~ W38T T6~814šO9O 192,278,2614 Income from Property Management - Net of Management Costs ______ - - 387,9149 556,376 755,562 883,1401s 1,055,119 1,1453,1422 Total Internally Generated Funds - - 772,11146 8,098,717 15,367,1429 143,631,250 97,3142,307 161,639,139 193,731,686 ~pp1ications to Program Construction Program Budget - - - 9,000,000 27,032,652 59,895,578 100,0141,1714 1l1,592,17~4 Executive Management Costs _______ - - 1,012,502 2,106,574 3,262,343 14,3140,900 5,4414,878 5,907,820 Ava lab 1 e for App 11 cation - $ - $772 , 446 $7,086,215 $14,260,855 $1 3,336,255 ~~O~829 $56,153,087 $76,231,692 First Bond Issue - 1973 First Local Funds Received for Investment - 1970 Executive Management Began FY 1971 No Federally Invested Funds PAGENO="0076" 758 November 18, 1975 Request (continued) Page ~uestion 6. Supply a summary of highway funds received, by route, indicating the unescalated amount and the dollar escalation allowed. Funds Transferred to Date (In Mil lions) Route Unescalated Amount Escalated Amount 70S 61.6 123.1 Portion of -95 81.8 163.5 Totals l1~3.L~ 286.6 62~&tS ~32~i PAGENO="0077" 759 November 18, 1975 Request Question 7: Supply a copy of the detailed plan for a bus feeder system submitted by the Director of Planning in January of this year. There was no plan for a bus feeder system pre- pared in January l975~ The question thus must refer to the Study of the Interface between Bus and Rail with the Introduction of Phase II Metro Operations in 1977. A copy of the preliminary staff proposal of January 21, 1976 is submitted. PAGENO="0078" preliminary proposal * January1976 of floe of planning washington metropolitan area transit authority 600 5th street ny~ washington4o~20001 760 * * ~ctllon * m~trcrSll. ~ftuŘ m~i~robus *__ e PAGENO="0079" - 761 . .. . ~ . ~ . . comprehensive . ~~ona~ met~obus . . p'an . t~encourage . . . . - ~c~'eased . cornmute~' . . ~ _.:. ~ .. .~ . . . : * * * *~* * ~ . .. ~ ~o~d~r~atGd . ~th , . ~ . . . : ., ~ ~ ~ ,~. ~ :.. ~ . . . - . . . . ~g~rat~o˝ . ~ . of . ~ . . . . . . ~h~se ~ ~ : ~ :~ * * : ~ ~ fifi metro - operations PAGENO="0080" 762 CORRIGENDA S~ubsequent to the printing of this report, certain actions were taken that have changed some of the staff assumptions contemplated to occur with the Introduction of the rapid rail system. The staff has investigated these changes and finds that the basic concept of turning back Metrobuses at rail stations would still apply and that such changes would have little, if any, effect on the operational plans and cost estimates outlined in the report as based on the original assumptions. ~ Paragraph 15 Last Proposed Metrorail Fare Structure Change paragraph to read: As a result of the public hearings held in April, 1975, a Committee of the WMATA Board of Directors recommended a Metrorail fare system which was adopted by the Board to be effective during operational Phases I and II of the Metrorall system. The basic fare system adopted for Phase II is as follows: 16 2nd Metrorail Hours of Operation and Frequency of Service Change last five lines to read: During Phase II, service will operate 1~4 hours daily on weekdays, during the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:QO ~ with five-minute headways during rush hours and ten-minute headways during off-peak hours. Present plans provide for no Saturday or Sunday rail service. 24 2nd Change paragraph to read: Metrorail service will operate five days per * * * * week between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. * * . * * and present plans provide for no Saturday or Sunday -. * rail service. 80 2nd Change paragraph to read: Metrorail service to Virginia will operate five days per week during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and present plans provide for no Satur- - day or Sunday rail service. PAGENO="0081" I I. BACKGROUND* o The Authority 9 o PolIcy Objectives 9 o Goals 9 I I. METROBUS o General o Ridership and Service o Fare Schedule (Table) o Peak Hour Fare Zones (Map) o Non-Peak Jurisdictional Zone Boundaries IV. METRORAIL o General o Proposed Metrorail Fare Structure o Metrorail Hours of Operation and Frequency of o Parking Policy at Metrorail Stations o RegIonal Rapid Rail System (Map) V. PREVIOUS WMATA RAIL-BUS STUDIES o 1969 - Net Income Analysis Study o 1971 - Update Study of the Net Income Analysis o 1974 - Transit Technical Studies ~.. 1974 _:Staff Plan and Program for Useof.62O New Buses. o. 1974 - Update Study of the Net Income Analysis o 1975 - On-Board Bus Passenger Survey o 1975 - EIS of Contra-Flow Bus Lanes o 1976 - Proposed Study - Transit System Planning For Metrobus Interface With Metrorail Phases I and II VI. STAFF ACTION PLAN FOR INTERFACE OF METRORAIL AND METROBUS SERVICE DURING PHASE II. OF METRO OPERATIONS o Objectives o Service Classifications o Service Guidelines o~Complementary Radial Services o Crosstown Services o Cross-County Services o Owl Service 763 TABLE OF CONTENTS o OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY 1 o RECOMMENDATIONS 6 o EFFECT OF PROPOSED METROBUS CHANGES (Table) 7 I. 1NTRODUCTION 9 Service 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 21 22 22 23 23 23 23 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 6 PAGENO="0082" 764 VII. PROPOSED METROBUS CHANGES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBiA A. General Assumptions 24 B. Proposed Metrobus Changes 25 1. Rosslyn, Georgetown, K Street, Federal Triangle, Union Station Areas 25 2. Wisconsin Avenue, Georgetown, Pennsylvania Avenue, Shipley Terrace, Naylor Gardens and Hillcrest Areas 25 3. MacArthur Boulevard, Glover Park, Dupont Circle, CBD, Union Station, Trinidad and Ivy City Areas 27 4. Mount Pleasant, Dupont Circle, CBD, Union Station, Stadium-Armory and Seat Pleasant Areas 27 5. Connecticut Avenue and Southwest Employment Areas 28 6. Sixteenth Street, Potomac Park, Southwest Employment Areas . 28 7. South Capitol Street, Southwest Employment, CBD Areas 29 8. Federal Triangle, Capitol Hill, Navy Yard, Anacostia, Congress Heights, Bellevue and Livingston Areas 29 9. Foggy Bottom, Federal Center and Capitol South Stations. . . . 30 10. Carter Barron Parking Lot, Federal Triangle, S.W. Mall Areas . 31 11. New Hampshire Avenue, Federal Triangle, S.W. Hall Areas. . . . 31 12. South Capitol Street Parking Lot, S.W. Mall, Federal Triangle, Potomac Park Areas 31 13; Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Stanton Road, Southeast Community Hospital, Anacostia, Southwest Employment, CED, Farragut Square Areas 32 14. Massachusetts Avenue, Dupont Circle, Farragut Square, Federal Triangle Areas 32 15. Bladensburg Road, Stadium-Armory, Anacostia, Fort Stanton, Barry Farms Areas 33 16. Benning Heights, Ridge Road, Potomac Avenue, H Street, Southwest Employment Areas 33 17. Seat Pleasant, East Capitol Street, Federal Triangle Areas . . 34 18. Far Northeast, Benning.Road, H Street, CBD Areas 34 19; Kennedy Center, Foggy Bottom, Dupont Circle, Mt. Pleasant Areas 35 20. 14th Street, Southwest Mall Areas 36 C. Estimated Changes in Buses and Miles (Table) 37 D. Metrobuses-Serving Rail Stations (Maps) 39 1. Rhode Island Avenue 40 2. Union Station-Visitor Center 41 3. Judiciary Square 42 4. Gallery Place 43 5. Metro Center (Double Station) 44 6. Farragut North 45 7. Dupont Circle 46 8. Stadium-Armory 47 9. Potomac Avenue 48 10. Eastern Market 49 11. Capitol South 50 PAGENO="0083" 765 ii; 12. Federal Center . 51 13. L'Enfant Plaza 52 14. Smithsonian 53 15. Federal Triangle 54 16. McPherson Square 55 17. Farragut West 56 18. Foggy Bottom 57 ~E. Additional Metrobus Service Proposals 58 1. Extend Routes A-2 and A-4 to 11th and New York Avenue, N.W.. 58 2. Extend Route B-2 to Takoma Park 58 3. Extend Route B-4 to Alabama Avenue 59 4. Extend Route E-8 to Hospital Center 59 5. Extend Route 34 to Eastover 60 6. Establish a New Route A-6 Between Southwest Terminal and Livingston 60 7. Establish a New Route 35 Between Potomac Avenue Station and `the Fort Dupont Area 61 F. Estimated Changes in Buses and Miles For Additional Metrobus Service (Table) 62 VIII. PROPOSED METROBUS CHANGES IN MARYLAND A. General Assumptions 63 B. Ridership 63 C. Operating Characteristics 64 D. Surmnary of Route Changes 65 1. Montgomery County Dedicated Service 65 2. Prince George's County Dedicated Service 66 o Statistics of Revised Operations Rhode Island Avenue Station 67 o Statistics of Revised Operations Stadium-Armory Station 68 *o Statistics of Revised Operations Potomac Avenue Station 69 o Statistics of Revised Operations Capitol South Station 70 E. Metrobuses Serving Rail Stations (Maps) 71 1. Federal Triangle 72 2. Rhode Island Avenue 73 3. Stadium-Armory 74 4. Potomac Avenue 75 5. Capitol South 76 F. Estimated Changes in Buses and Miles For Additional Metrobus Service 77 1. New Route W-14/Fort Foote to Capitol South 78 2. New Route W-16/Fort Washington to Capitol South 78 3. Reroute W-l2/Padgetts Corner to Capitol South 78 4. New Route M-16/Eastover to Marlow Heights 78 5. New Route K-ll/Upper Marlboro to Potomac Avenue 79 6. Additional Service on Existing Routes 79 PAGENO="0084" 766 iv. IX. PROPOSED METROBUS CHANGES IN VIRGINIA A. General Assumptions 80 B. JustIfication for Cutback of Virginia Buses at Metrorail Stations 80 1. Impact on Cost and Deficit 81 2. Impact on Passengers 81 3. Future Impact 81 C. Rldership 82 D. Operating Characteristics 82 E. Proposed Metrobus Changes 83 1. Rosslyn Station Corridor 83 a. Wilson Boulevard Line . . . . . 83 b. Washington Boulevard Line . . . 83 c. Lee Highway Line 83 d. Pershing Drive-Arlington Boulevard Line 814 e. Chain Bridge Road Line 814 f. Alexandria-Arlington Line 84 g. Arlington Boulevard Line 85 h. Shirlington-Rosslyn Line 85 i. National Airport-Rosslyn Line 85 2. Pentagon Station Corridor 85 * a. Vienna Fringe Parking Lot Express Line 85 b. South Fairlington-ParkfairfaX Line 85 c. Lincolnia-Washington Line 86 d. Shirley Duke-Washington Line 86 e. Alexandria-Washington Line 86 f. Columbia Pike Line 87 g. Kings Park-Washington Line 87 h. Springfield-Washington Line 88 i. Huntington-Washington Line 88 j. * Fairfax City Express Line . 88 * k.' Shirllngton-Washington.Line . .* .. *. ..... * . . .. 88 1. Washington Boulevard Express Line 89 m. Glebe Road Line 89 n. OaktonPentagon Line 89 o. Hayfield Farms-Washington Line 89 p. Skyline Center-Washington Line 89 q. Fairfax-AnnandaleWashingtOn Line 89 r. Greenbrlar-Washington Line 89 3. Crystal City Station Corridor 89 a. Fort Belvoir-Washington Line 89 b. Alexandria-Washington Line 90 c. Calverton-Crystal City Line 90 d. Crosstown Routes 90 - k. National Airport StationCorridor 90 a. National Airport Line 90 b. W~odlawn-Fairfield~Washington Line 90 PAGENO="0085" 767 V. G. Virgin Ia Service~TT F. Metrobuses Serving Rail Stations (Maps) 91 1. Rosslyn 92 2. Pentagon a. Western Corridor 93 b. Shirley Highway Corridor 94 c. Southern Corridor 95 3. Pentagon City 96 4. Crystal City . . . . 97 5. NatIonal Airport ____________ .... 98 Statistics for Revised Operation of . . . . 99 1. Rosslyn Station Corridor. . . . 99 a. Weekday 99 b. Saturday and Sunday 100 c. Summary of Affected Trips 101 d. Weekday Peak Period Bus Volumes 102 2~ Pentagon Station Corridor 103 a. Weekday 103 b. Saturday and Sunday 103 c. Summary of Affected Trips 104 d. Weekday Peak Period Bus Volumes 105 3. National Airport Station Corridor 106 a. Weekday 106 b. Saturday and Sunday 106 c. Summary of Affected Trips 107 d. Weekday Peak Period Bus Volumes 108 H. Bus Assignment for Virginia 109 1. Weekday 109 2. Saturday 110 3. Sunday. 111 I. Proposal for Additional Metrobus Services 112 1. Background 112 2. Establish Rush Hour Route 17K 112 3. Increase Midday Frequency on Route 20 and Establish New Route 20N 112 4. Establish New Rush Hour Route 20M 112 .5. Extend Rush Hour Route 3M 113 6. Establish New Rush Hour Route 9D 113 PAGENO="0086" 768 o OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY General This report proposes a rational bus route plan for the integration of rail-bus service during the operation of Metrorail Phase II. The plan itself draws heavily upon the existing route layout so as not to disrupt established travel patterns and, more importantly, not to withdraw service which is presently well patronized. It does, however, drastically reduce duplicate services where Metrorail would operate and provide a speedier, more dependable and attractive operation and, as a consequence, it offers a substantial reduction in the Metrobus deficit. In the preparation of this report the Office of Planning staff utilized to full advantage data developed in previous studies and drew upon many of the findings for the major sources of input in developing this early action short-range plan. It should be recognized, however, that this Is a preliminary plan which has not been reviewed by the local jurisdictions nor by other WMATA staff outside the Office of Planning. Also, actual operating costs, revenues and patronage have not been developed in final detail. These definitive data will be finalized in subsequent studies and after the plan has been examined by appropriate staff and has been subjected to the jurisdictional review process. Based on the preliminary plan, estimates have been developed by jurisdiction to show order of magnitude changes that will result when the plan is implemented. These estimates are outlined by jurisdiction, as follows: District of Columbia Because of the dominance of the District of Columbia as a focus of bus travel, emphasis has been given to connecting the rail stations with an.appropriate number of Metrobus routes. This has been accomplished by turning back and restructuring routes so as to provide adequate access to each rail station. These actions are necessary to provide for a viable unified rail-bus service under Phase II Mc~trorail operation. In restructuring Metrobus routes in the District of Columbia consideration was given to the generation of additional customers and revenues on the consolidated transit system. The success of the plan, however, is directly related to the quality of service to be provided. Proposed Minimal Service Should budget considerations dictate an austere Metrobus program, minimal service changes and improvements could be inaugurated PAGENO="0087" 769 -2- with the introduction of the rapid rail system. These minimal and necessary changes would reduce peak bus requirements in the District of Columbia by 30 vehicles and weekday miles by 2,653. Also, it is estimated that the number of operators could be reduced by approximately L~O men. Saturday and Sunday changes would produce only slight and insignificant increases in bus miles. The net changes are tabulated by line and route as shown by the table "Estimated Changes in Buses and Miles (District of Columbia)" on pages 37 and 38. Proposed Expanded Service Due to the current trends of increasing Metrobus ridership and the anticipated new demand for service with the introduction of rapid rail, it Is proposed to provide a limited number of Metrobus service improvements -including new routes and extensions of existing routes. By implementing these proposals, it would change the statistics produced in the minimal service proposal by reducing the number of buses saved by seven and by restoring approximately l,0~+2 weekday, 9814 Saturday and 882 Sunday miles. it is the opinion of the staff that some Metrobus service improvements are necessary and will be required as a matter of public convenience and necessity. Therefore, these mcdest Metrobus changes are being recommended. Maryland Phase ii Metrorail will not extend into the Maryland suburbs. Nevertheless, it is feasible and practical to turn back buses at Rhode island, Stadium-Armory, Potomac, and Capitol South Stations. By terminating services at these stations, operating economies can be achieved, and passengers will be provided a speedier and more dependable trip to their downtown destinations. Specifically, Prince George's County will be greatly affected by Phase ii Metrorail operations, while Montgomery County will only be slightly affected. A summary of the proposed Maryland changes follows. Proposed Minimal Service - Montgomery County in Montgomery County, there is little opportunity to increase operating efficiency in connection with Phase ii Metrorail service. Consequently, the only feasible route changes are related to special services operating to the Southwest Mall employment area. By turning back these trips at the Federal Triangle Station, it is possible to reduce bus miles and operating costs without sacrificing the quality of service now provided. in fact, those persons destined to the Southwest Mall would be provided a more attractive service through a convenient transfer and frequent Metrorail service to Southwest Mall. it is estimated that 44 miles each weekday would be saved by this proposal. PAGENO="0088" 770 -3- Proposed Minimal Service - Prince George's County Prince George's County routes will be greatly affected by Phases I and II Metrorail operations. Many routes operate past Metrorail stations or can be easily rerouted to serve the stations. By terminating service at these stations operating economies can be achieved, and passengers will be provided a speedier and more dependable trip to their downtown destinations. The proposal to turn back Prince George's County Metrobus routes at Rhode Island Avenue, Stadium-Armory, Potomac Avenue and Capitol South Stations will result in substantial reductions in operating costs. It is estimated that these minimal changes in Prince George's County would reduce operating peak period bus r~qu1rements by 25 vehIcles and weekday miles by 1,998. Reductions on Saturdays and Sundays would amount to 792 and 174 miles respectively. Proposed Expanded Service In Prince George's County it is proposed to make modest service improvements with the introduction of Metrorail operating Phase II. These changes provide for the establishment of four new routes, the rerouting of one line, and the provision for additional peak period service to relieve overloaded conditions on two existing routes. Implementation of these modest proposals would reutilize 17 buses and would restore 1,038 weekday revenue miles that would have resulted by turning back buses at Metrorail stations under the minimal service proposal. The staff is recommending these expanded services in order to provide an acceptable level of service in Prince George's County. Virginia: * In Virginia there is an excellent opportunity to interface Metrobus service with Phase Ii Metrorail at the six Virginia stations scheduled to become operational during 1977. At the Rosslyn Station, all Metrobus routes operating across Key Bridge will turn back at the station. Other Metrobus routes presently operating through Rosslyn and across Roosevelt Bridge will be maintained, except service will terminate at Federal Triangle in lieu of operating to Southwest Mall. Metrobus routes now operating across Memorial Bridge will generally be maintained. Also, new Metrobus service between Rosslyn and the National Visitor Center via Key Bridge and 11 Street (Georgetown) will be added as a District of Columbia route. All Metrobus routes ]j~gJj~.the Shirley Highway ci4q~_ will be changed to turn back at either the Pentagon or Federal Triangle in downtown Washington. Transfer to the rail line at the PAGENO="0089" 771 -4- Pentagon Station for Farragut Square bound riders will offer a substantial time savings over that presently provided by bus. Service will be maintained at a lower frequency across the 14th Street Bridge to Federal Triangle or Southwest Mall, until the Metrorail South River Crossing becomes operational. A reduced frequency of Metrobus service, between the Pentagon and Federal Triangle areas, across the 14th Street Bridge from the Columbia Pike and South Arlington corridors will be provided. Due to the limited facilities for Metrobus at both Crystal City and Pentagon City, Metrobus routes operating in the Jefferson Davis Highway corridor will either be routed to the Pentagon Station or continue operating to Federal Triangle. Approximately one-third of the service operating in the George Washington Parkway corridor, from the south, will be terminated at the National Airport Station. Specific service proposals are outlined under Section IX, `Metrobus Changes Proposed for Coordination With Operational Phase II of Metrorail in Virginia." A summary of the proposed Virginia changes follows. Proposed Minimal Service By implementing the concept of turning back Metrobuses at Virginia stations during Metrorail Phase II operation, it is possible to realize substantial savings and, at the same time, improve the quality of the service being provided. The future of Metrorail depends upon this concept of feeder service to the stations. There- fore, it is in the best interest of the Authority and the jurisdictions to implement this concept during the early phases of Metrorail. The initial changes are esttmated toresult in a redUction of 52 peak period buses and approximately 64 operators. Also, there would be a reduction of about 5,7114 weekday, 2,0714 Saturday and 1,591 Sunday vehicle miles operated. These minimal changes do not reflect any growth in ridership due to the attractiveness of the combined Metrorail and Metrobus service and, as a consequence, the staff proposes modest increases in the area of coverage. Proposed Expanded Service In connection with the proposal to restructure Metrobus routes during Phase II Metrorail operation, it is also proposed to make modest service changes in Virginia to reflect the current increased ridership. More importantly, the provision for the attractiveness of Metrorail and a high quality Metrobus service should be considered so that the anticipated additional riders may be accommodated. In PAGENO="0090" 772 -5- this connection, the staff proposes the reutilization of 10 buses to operate 52 additional trips on six Metrobus routes. This proposal would also restore 635 daily weekday miles that were saved under the proposed minimal service plan. The staff is recommending these modest changes so as to provide an acceptable level of service. PAGENO="0091" 773 -6- o RECOMMENDATIONS The staff is recommending this preliminary proposal for transmittal to the local jurisdictions and for further review and analysis by WMATA staff. In order to meet the anticipated operational date for Metrorail Phase II in early 1977, it will be necessary to finalize this plan by April, so that public hearings may be scheduled for early summer 1976. Such actions are necessary to allow the Schedule Department to complete its work assignments and to permit the Union required work selection process to commence so that service can be implemented with the inauguration of Metrorail service. It should be noted that the staff is recommending the expanded service proposals to be included in the final plan. No doubt, other recommendations will surface as the proposals pass through the review process. PAGENO="0092" 774 EFFECT OF PROPOSED METROBUS SERVICE CHANGES TO PROVIDE MINIMAL AND EXPANDED SERVICE DURING METRORAIL PHASE II OPERATIONS Operators' Costs: Operators' Wages, Based on Current Wage Rates Operators' Fringe Benefits __________ Total Total. Cost . . The costs shown above were estimated. The actual net cost savings can be determined only after new schedules are built and runs coupled by the Schedule Department. Cost Savings Additional Cost In Providing In Providing Minimal Expanded Service During Service During Net Metrorail Phase Metrorail Phase Cost II Operations II Operations Savings $2,242,000 $ 600,798 $1,641,202 611,169 l63,778 447,391 $2,853,169 $ 764,576 $2,088,593 Maintenance and Service Personnel Costs: Maintenance & Service Personnel Wages $ 645,000 Maintenance & Service Personnel Fri~e~Benef its 175,827 Total $ 820,827 Other Costs: Tires and Tubes Fuel and Oil Materials and Supplies Injuries and Damages Total $ 210,000 $ 435,000 57,246 118,581 $ 267,24& $ 553,581 $ 37,428 $ 10,556 $ 26,872 273,997 77,279 .196,718 273,426 77,117 196,309 268,5.~ .i......7.5,lk~ __________ $ `853,420 $ 240,700 $ -6l2;720 _________ ..$l,272~.522 .$3.,254,891~ PAGENO="0093" 775 EFFECT OF PROPOSED METROBUS SERVICE CHANGES TO PROVIDE MINIMAL AND EXPANDED SERVICE DURING METRORAIL PHASE II OPERATIONS District ~ Vir~gJnia Total Operators Reduction of Operators in Providing Minimal Service During Phase II Operations (47) (31) (75) (153) Operators Required to Provide Expanded Service During Phase II Operations 8 21 12 41 Net Reduction in Operators T~T TThT T~T 1T1~T Net Operator Cost Savings (112 operators x 2,080 hours x $7,045) $1,641,202 Maintenance Force Current Number of Buses 2,030 Cureent Number of Maintenance Personnel 806 Ratio of Buses to Maintenance Personnel 2.5:1 Estimated Number of Weekday Buses To Be Eliminated (Net) 73 Maintenance Personnel Required to Maintain 73 Buses (73 2.5) * 29 Estimated Annual Wage Per Man $ 15,000 Estimated Savings (Wages) $435,000 Reduction of Miles to Provide Minimal Service District Mar land Vir inla Total Annualized Weekday (~653) ,Q 2 , 1k) TTh71~09) š2,6l2,659) Saturday 23 ( 79?) (2,G74) ( 2,842) ( 156,310) Sunday 27( ( 174) (1,591) (1,494) ( 88,146) Total C2~857,ll5J increase In Miles To Provide Expanded Service Weekday 1,042 1,038 635 2,715 681,465 Saturday 984 376 - 1,360 74,800 Sunday 882 (42) - 840 49 560 Total Net Reduction in Miles 2,051,290 PAGENO="0094" 776 -9- INTRODUCTION With a population of three million in 1972 and a projected increase to four and one-half million by 1992, the Washington metropolitan area is the seventh largest in the United States and has been one of the fastest growing. Between 197k and 1980, about 173,000 households and 2014,000 jobs are to be added and are expected to generate about 1.6 million daily person trips. Many of these trips will occur in areas already faced with severe congestion and limited transit service. Improved public transportation is vital to the proper function and growth of our metropolitan area. The construction of Metrorail and the design of a consolidated unified feeder bus network will solve many of today's transportation problems. Planning to meet future transportation requirements for the region should provide for a coordinated system, including both efficient highway and mass transit facilities, making full use of the advantages of each mode of transportation. I I. BACKGROUND Transit Authori.!.~ The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was created effective February 20, 1967, by interstate Compact by and between Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, pursuant to Public Law 89-7714 approved November 6, 1966. The Authority's prime function is to plan, develop, finance and provide for the operation of a rapid rail transit system serving the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Zone. Also, with the recent Compact amendment, pursuant to Public Law 92-517, permitting the Authority to acquire the private bus companies in early 1973, all regular route urban bus service in the region is now under public ownership. In the three years that the Authority has been operating bus service in this region, there have been some very gratifying accom- plishments. Service increases inboth quantity and quality can be demonstrated by the fact that bus miles have increased by 30 percent since acquisition and the consistent and increasing downward trend in ridership and service has not only been stopped but has been reversed. Pal icy~jectives The basic objective:of the Authority is to establish and main- tain high quality urban transit service in the region consistent with its legislative mandate and sound financial policies which assure sufficient funds to meet the cost of providing the service. Goals WMATA goals provide for the operation of high quality transit service, tempered by any social, economic and environmental constraints PAGENO="0095" 777 -10- imposed in the future, to deal effectively with fuel shortage problems, air quality standards and increasing subsidy requirements. Because of the complex nature of comprehensive planning in the National Capital Region, involving local governments and two States and the District of Columbia, and with major differences in political, social, economic and legislative characteristics, the adoption of an area-wide comprehensive regional rai 1-bus plan requi res careful planning, close coordination and understanding. I. METROBUS General In the Washington metropolitan area, mass transit bus service is provided by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) pursuant to Pubflc Law 92-517, which provided for the acquisition of the operating assets of D.C. Transit System, Inc., the Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company, Inc., the Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington Transit Company, and the WMA Transit Company. WMATA provides mass transit bus service within the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Zone which consists of the District of Columbia, the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church and Fairfax, and the counties of Arlington and Fairfax and political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia located in those counties, and the counties of Montgomery and Prince George's in the State of Maryland and the political subdivisions of the State of Maryland located in those counties. Except for the lightly settled outer portions of Fairfax County, Virginia and Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in Maryland, mass transit bus services extend throughout the Zone. With the delivery of the620 AM General transit buses and the acquisition of the Shirley Highway Express Bus-On-Freeway buses, WMATA owns and operates 2,008 mass transit buses within the Zone. Additionally, 130 buses originally scheduled for retirement are being retained in a stand-by status to provide the means for meeting public demands for increased mass transit service in this present era of energy crisis. Mass transit bus service is provided on 830 individual routes on 145 lines over approximately 1,320 miles of area streets. WMATA operates 15,615 trips each weekday. Service is provided 24 hours each day with weekday service being defined as: Early Base 5:01 a.m. - 6:29 a.m. A.M. Rush 6:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Midday Base 9:&l a.m. - 3:29 p.m. PAGENO="0096" 778 -11- P.M. Rush 3:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Late Base 6:01 p.m. - 12:00 a.m. Owl 12:01 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. Upon acquisition of the four area bus companies in 1973, WMATA adopted, with minor exceptions, the then existing fare structures. In March and April of 1975, seven public hearings were held on a unified fare structure (Docket No. B75-2). Following a review and analysis of testimony presented at the hearings, the Board of Directors adopted a new fare structure to be effective September 1,. 1975. The adopted system is a simplified zone fare structure with a peak/off-peak differential. An off-peak fare for senior citizens and handicapped of one-half or less of the corresponding peak hour fare was established. The fares and zones are shown on the table and maps on pages i~i~iiik. Ridership and Service The use of public bus transportation has declined at a rather steady rate throughout the Washington metropolitan area since the end of World War II, despite the rapid growth in urban population. The number of residents in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) has virtually doubled since 1950, increasing from about 1.5 million in 1950 to nearly 2.9 million in 1970, according to the national population census. Use of bus transit, on the other hand, has decreased from about 678,000 daily riders at the time of the 1948 home interview origin-destination survey to approximately 435,000 daily riders in 1972. The approximately 438,000 daily riders in 1973 and the increase in the 19714 ridership indicate a reversal of this downward trend. The annual trend in revenue passengers carried on publictransit in the Washington area is:~ 1968 157,679,062 1969 147,212,575 1970 136,804,746 1971 128,824,396 1972 124,068,510 1973 124,823,298]' 1974. 126,350,747 WMATA operates incidental charter service within the Zone and for a distance of 250 miles from Zero Milestone. No transit buses are specifically assigned to charter service. Charter revenues are used to reduce operating deficits. Within the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Zone, limited open-door bus transit service is provided by Greyhound Bus Lines, 1/ Actual for the first 52 weeks of WMATA ownership PAGENO="0097" 779 FARE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1975 Off-Peak Senior Citizens and ~ Off-PeakY Handicapped D.C. Base Fare .40 .40 .20 Md. & Va. Base Fare .50 .40 .20 Interstate Fares D.C. to Zone G (Va.) .60 .60 .30 D.C. to Zone 1 (Md. & Va.) .75 .60 .30 D.C. to Zone 2 (Md. & Va.) .90 .60 .30 D.C. to Zone 3 (Md. & Va.) 1.05 .60 .30 D.C. to Zone 4 (Md. & Va.) 1.20 .60 .30 Intrastate Fares 1 Zone in Va. .50 .40 .20 2 Zones in Va. .65 .40 .20 3 Zones in Va. .80 .40 .20 4 Zones in Va. .95 .40 .20 5 Zones in Va. 1.05 .40 .20 1 Zone in Md. .50 .40 .20 2 Zones in Md. .50 .40 .20 3 Zones in Md. .65 .40 .20 4 Zones in Md. .80 .40 .20 5 Zones in Md. .95 .40 .20 Special Fares D.C. School Fare .10 .10. Midibus - .10 - .25 .10 1/ Peak hours are from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 2/ 0ff-peak hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.; also, all day on Saturdays, Sundays and national holidays Transfer Regulations Transfers are issued upon request at time fare is paid in accordance with tariff provisions for one continuous ride requiring the use of different routes. The passenger must present the transfer at intersection of two routes, point of divergence, point of convergence, turn-back, or walking transfer point, between the routes involved on the day issued and within the indicated time limit. Transfer is not valid for stopover or return trip on same or other routes. A transfer is not transferable. 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 7 PAGENO="0098" 780 GEORGE'S COUL~fl' -13- M~ROBUS RUSH HOUR FARE ZONES WEEKDAYS 6:30 am. to 900 am. AND 330 p.m. to &00 p.m. ~PEARVYSflD \ GMTIIERSDURG ~ucrrv - ╝~ PAGENO="0099" 1~ 781 -1 k~ I~!]1ff~OBUS 1'1Of~RUSH (BASE DAY) PERIOD FARE ZONES WEE!~AYS 9:00 A~ to 3:30 Pfl~ and ~:00 P~ to ~:30 Af~ ALL ~AY SATURDAY, SU1~DAY AND Fi~DERAL HOLIDAYS PAGENO="0100" 782 -15- Continental Trailways and WMA Interstate Motor Lines, Inc., pursuant to certificates issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission. All other bus companies operating in the Washington metropolitan area provide charter and sightseeing services. IV. METR0RAIL General The Adopted Regional System was adopted in March 1968, revised in February 1969 and in June 1970, and was authorized by Congress in December 1969. Groundbreaking ceremonies were held at the Judiciary Square Station on December 9, 1969 and, thus, construction of the system was officially underway. This system will provide 38.3 miles of transit service in the District of Columbia; 29.4 miles in Maryland, and 30.3 miles in Virginia. The system will have 86 stations, including 53 underground. Forty-three stations will be located in the District of Columbia, twenty-two in Maryland, and twenty-one in Virginia. All stations will be equipped with escalators to provide service to and from street to the mezzanine and to the platform level. All stations will also be equipped with elevators to accommodate the handicapped. On March 6, 1975, the Board approved, subject to the availability of funding, a three-mile extension to the vicinity of Shady Grove Road in Montgomery County, Maryland. it is expected that Metrorail and Metrobus will serve 455,500,000 riders per year by 1990, and will connect areas of residential *.dÚns~tywithereas.of.concentrated employment, both those existing and those which are projected to develop in the future As a partof a fully coordinated transportation system, Metrorail will have ample parking, bus and automobile access. Parking facilities will have capacity ranging from 100 to 3,000 cars with a system total of approximately 29,300 spaces. An extensive Metrobus feeder system will provide ftequent convenient service to Metrorail stations from all stations of the region including those currently not served by buses. Upon completion of the full 98-mile system, service will be provided with a two-minute rush-hour headway on main routes and four-minute headways on branch lines. Metrorail will operate daily from 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Proposed Metrorail Fare Structure As a result of the public hearings held in March and April, 1975 a committee of the WMATA Board of Directors has proposed a Metrorail PAGENO="0101" 783 - 16- fare system which is now under consideration by the local jurisdic- tions prior to adoption by the WMATA Board of Directors. The public hearings also contained a proposal for the frequency of service for Phases I and II of the Metrorail system. These proposals, now under consideration, are as follows: o A Metrorail fare structure of 30 cents for the first mile and 10 cents for each additional mile during peak periods o A Metrorail fare of 25 cents for the first mile and 5 cents for each additional mile during the off-peak o Senior citizen/handicapped patron off-peak fare level of 50~ of the peak fare Metrorail Hours of Operation and Frequency of Service Phase I, which will run from Rhode Island Avenue Station on the "B" route to Farragut North Station on the "A" route, will cover a total of six stations and 4.5 miles. Trains will run five days per week from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with five-minute headways during rush hours and ten-minute headways during the entire day which is tentatively set to maintain the weekday hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Phase II will add service between the National Airport Station on the "C" route and the Stadium-Armory Station on the "D" route. Also, service will be extended on the "A route from the Farragut North Station to the Dupont Circle Station. This will provide service to 25 stations along 18 miles of the system. The increased ridership that will develop from the additional routes and stations brought into operation and from the sharp influx of visitors attracted by the Bicentennial celebration calls for an extension of service over that provided in Phase I. During Phase I, service will beextended from 6:00 a.m. to.l2:OO a.m. on weekdays with five-minute headways durLng rush hours and ten-minute headways during off-peak hours. Weekend service will continue as in Phase I with ten-minute headways tentatively set between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Parking Policy at Metrorail Stations Due to the limited amount of parking to be provided at Metro- rail stations and the desire to encourage feeder bus as the prime mode of arrival, the following parking policy is under consideration for the WMATA Metrorall parking lots: o Parking fee will be based on a flat daily rate. o Parking fee will be $1.00 in Metrorail lots through Phase II. o Parking will be free evenings and weekends (to encourage transit usage during those times). PAGENO="0102" 784 -17- REGIONAL RAPID RML TRANSIT SYSTEM Adopted March 1966. Rouisrd February 1969 * Juno 1970. Authorized by Cur~ress De~ernber 1601. [.` POtJTE&STATIO~d AUThORIZED EXTENSICtA cc acetate FUTURE EXTENSION ę SCALE 9 MILES S 1 2 3 4 F~etropolitan Area Transit Authority PAGENO="0103" 785 -18- It is being recommended that the parking fee at stations in subsequent phases be in inverse relationship with the distance from the Downtown, and that the actual parking fee be established by the Board of Directors at a later date. It is also understood that a separate parking policy may have to be established at stations with delineated short-term parking (such as Takoma and Minnesota Avenue). V. PREVIOUS WMATA RAIL-BUS STUDIES With the adoption of the Regional System by the WMATA Board on March 1, 1968, rapid rail transit development had reached the stage where a final and conclusive financial program had to be developed for submission to the federal and local governments. In order to develop the plan, an equitable and practical inter- connecting feeder bus system and fare structure had to be included. 1969 - Net Income Analysis Study The WMATA Board of Directors authorized the award of a contract in early 1968 to the joint venture frims of W.C. Gilman and Company, Inc. and Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. to conduct a study of traffic revenue and operating costs of the Regional Rapid Rail Plan and Program and including a description and discussion of coordinated bus and rail operations. This analysis covered the financial impact upon the four private bus companies and an analysis of three alternative fare systems. 1971 - Update Study of the Net Income Analysis - The objective of this study was to update the February, 1969 Traffic Revenue and Operating Costs Study to reflect the impact of new population and employment estimates for the Washington metro- politan area. In addition, the study assumed common ownership and operation of the rail and bus portions of the transit system, a unified fare structure, and unit costs updated to current (1970) * levels. Based on the assumption of common ownership and operation of the rail and bus portions of the system, this 1971 study estimated 352 million annual riders for the completed rail and coordinated bus system in 1990. Of the more than one_million daily transit trips forecast, 20 percent would use bus service exclusively while 81 percent would use bus service for at least part of the trip and the remaining 19 percent would use rail only. l97~+ - Transit Technical Studies On June 8, 1972, the WMATA Board approved the award of a contract to Wilbur Smith and Associates to conduct a series of Transit Technical Studies. The major objectives of the studies were to develop a plan to provide for the continuation of bus PAGENO="0104" 786 -19- service after the acquisition of the private bus companies, to assure efficient and economical operation of the area bus facilities before, during and after construction of the rapid rail system, and to establish a level of service compatible with the needs of the area. Among the principal products of the two-year series of studies are an on-bus origin-destination survey made in the fall of 1972, a statement of Metrobus service objectives, a short-range 197V75 integrated Metrobus service plan, analyses of numerous possible fare systems and fare schedules for Metrobus, a recommended garage construction and improvement program, and analyses of new ridership potentials through joint development of fringe parking lots and Metrobus express commuter services. - Numerous technical papers and Memorandum Reports which have been published for review and comment have enabled the staff to implement a number of improvements recommended during the conduct of the study. Other high priority recommendations are being investigated for possible implementation. l97~~ - Staff Plan and Program for Use of 620 New Buses The WMATA Office of Planning, through coordination with other departments and the participating local jurisdictions, developed a plan and program recommending Metrobus service improvements that could be implemented in conjunction with the delivery schedule of 620 new buses. Essentially, the plan provided for three scheduled implementation phases: Phase I, which provided for the first 100 bus deliveries to be used to supplement the existing Metrobus fleet so as to provide improved operations and to reduce overcrowding conditions on many of the lines This phase was implemented on April 28 l974~, Phase II, whichprovided for the next 369 vehicles to be used to replace older equipment. This action was to provide greater operating efficiency and more attractive and dependable service; and, Phase III, which provided for the remaining 151 new buses to be used to expand and improve service throughout the region. This portion of the plan was inaugurated on September 1, 19714. Also, in coordination with the WMATA Phase II program to improve service, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments implemented bus service improvements in the Congress Heights area of Southeast Washington, D.C., .as part of the Urban Corridor Demonstration Project. 19714 -Update Study of the Net Income Analysis The objective of this study was to provide information for the development of a revised financial plan for rail and bus operations, PAGENO="0105" 787 -20- and to develop information for recalculation of the local share of the net project cost of the transit system for allocation to each of the political subdivisions as required by the Capital Contributions Agreement of March 13, 1969. A further purpose of this Net Income Analysis Study was to develop updated information for planning and designing of stations and routes based on the latest land use activity data. Also, the requirement for the development of a feeder bus network adequate to serve the land use of the Washington metropolitan area in the year 1990 was considered. The study was to be completed by June 1, 19714, but the final report was delayed to include alterna- tive fare systems analysis and various operating characteristics. Based on the assumptions used in this study, an estimated 455,500,000 annual riders would be using the consolidated rail-bus system in 1990. Of the approximately 1.6 million daily transit trips forecast, 36 percent would use Metrobus exclusively while 73 percent would use bus service for at least part of the trip and the remaining 27 percentwould use rail only. 1975 - On-Board Bus Passenger Survey On January 16, 1975, the WMATA Committee on Development of the Metrobus Deficit Allocation Formula unanimously recommended that annual operating deficits beginning with Fiscal Year 1975 be allocated using specific formulae which measured costs and revenue. WMATA staff~conducted this system-wide bus passenger survey with technical and administrative assistance supplied by contract and with local jurisdictional assistance. 1975 - Environmental Impact Study of Contra-Flow Bus Lanes Along 14th and 15th Street Corridors This study was concerned with the development of one-way street and contra-flow bus operation on 14th and 15th Streets in downtown Washington. The contra-flow plan is part of a larger program to improve public transportation and encourage transit ridership in the National Capital Area. Such a concept is consistent with the goal of the Environ- mental Protection Agency to improve transit operations and to in- crease system ridership, which in turn reduces vehicle miles traveled. Bus Lane provisions were one of the sets of strategies promulgated by the EPA on December 6, 1973 (38 FR 234) for the three states (District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia) which make up the National Capital Interstate Air Quality Control Region. 1976 - Proposed Study - Transit System Planning for Metrobus Interface with Metrorail Phases II and III The primary purpose of this study is to provide detailed bus route planning for the consolidated rail-bus operations that will PAGENO="0106" 788 -21- o Link outlying shopping and business centers with the surrounding residential area o Provide continuation of certain radial routes within D.C. to serve riders not having direct Metro service, including areas between rapid rail stations o Link high employment areas not served directly by the rapid rail system with the nearest stations occur with the opening of the early stages of Metrorail. The basic route layout will be designed by the WMATA staff in coordination with the local jurisdictions. Consultant (COG) assistance will be secured to prepare ridership, revenue and operating cost data. Ridership will be evaluated for a low and high level of feeder bus service for each of the three corridors affected by the introduction of Metrorail operations. Study findings will provide guidelines as to the level of service that offers the most feasible and economical plan of operation. Also, the findings will supplement the staff study underway to detail an action plan for the interface of Metrorail and Metrobus service. VI. STAFF ACTION PLAN FOR INTERFACE OF METRORAIL AND METROBUS SERVICE DURING PHASE I OF METRO OPERATIONS This plan and program has been developed by the WMATA staff and is designed to maximize ridership and revenues through use of the combined rapid rail and surface Metrobus systems. Each Metrobus route has been carefully analyzed to determine the most attractive and feasible alternative route structure to interface with the Metrorail operations. In considering Metrobus route changes, special emphasis has been given to: (1) providing rail-bus connections that would offer convenient transfer privileges, (2) eliminating duplicate services where Metrorail would provide a speedier, more dependable and attractive service, (3) continuation of Metrobus routes where the rail system cannot adequately serve major destinations directly, and (14) the provision for more frequent service to areas now served, as well as extensions into certain communities where bus service is presently inadequate or nonexistent. ~jectl yes The primary objectives in the development of the bus routing network were to: o Link the residential areas with the rapid rail system a Improve crosstown and cross-county service PAGENO="0107" 789 -22- Service Classifications For use in design, five basic classifications of bus routes were identified as follows: o Feeder Route--a bus line that connects a tributary service area with a rail station, designed for the primary purpose of serving passengers who will continue on via rail to their ultimate destination o Complementary Radial Service--a bus route designed to give passengers going to major destinations a direct ride without need of transfer. Such a route performs the same basic function as a rail route, but serves passengers and those areas that cannot be well served by rail, including areas between stations. o Crosstown Service--a bus route running circumferentially or generally perpendicular to the rail routes and radial bus services o Cross-County Service--a bus route connecting outlying areas within the Transit District for the purpose of providing a minimum level of service to transit captive riders not other- wise served by the basic metropolitan bus and rail system o Owl Service--special skeletal service routes operated for riders requiring bus transportation in the early morning hours Service Gui~delines To assist in developing a logical and consistent bus-route design~service, guidelines were developed. These criteria were followed as closely as the geographic constraints of the area allowed. The principal guidelines are listed below for each of the service classifications: o Feeder Routes -- Feeder bus services should be provided when passengers from the bus route tributary area to the major destination can be given a faster and more convenient trip via a bus-rail combination than via a direct bus servi Ce. -- Feeder bus routes should provide opportunities for direct transfer to crosstown lines. -- Feeder bus routes should be designed to relieve surface street congestion in the central business district and areas of major business activity. PAGENO="0108" 790 -23- -- Feeder bus routes should be linked where possible to provide logical and useful outlying trunk services as, for example, connecting major non-downtown centers. -- Feeder bus services should be multi-purpose wherever possible; for instance, having a combined destination of a Metro station and an outlying office center would be desirable. -- Feeder bus services should be designed to minimize bus requirements. -- Feeder bus services should be introduced to serve new areas which could not have supported a through-bus service but which could support a feeder service. o Complementary Radial Services -- Complementary radial bus services should be provided where the rail system cannot adequately serve direct travel to major destinations, including areas between rail stations. -- Complementary radial bus services which are adjacent to stations in the downtown area or which have outer terminals near stations should be brought into or past these stations for the benefit of transfer passengers. o Crosstown Services -- Crosstown bus. routes should be designed wherever possible to offer high-frequency services. -- Crosstown bi.~s routes should connect.with rail stations and as many radial and feeder bus lines as possible and * should travel as straightas possible between these connect- ing points. o Cross-County Services -- Cross-county bus services should connect major outlying residential and employment areas. o Owl Service -- Basic owl service should operate over major traffic corridors to provide skeletal service during the hours when Metrorail is closed for cleaning and maintenance purposes. PAGENO="0109" 791 -2k- VI I . ]~c~AN~ES ~EROROSED~. FOR~C~QRn]~NATJfl~LWITH_OPERATI ONAL PHASE I I QF~MET~QJ~1LJ N_T~E_n1STR1CLf1EGQL1JMB IA A. General Assumptions 1. Metrorail operational Phase II will include rail operations between the Stadium-Armory and National Airport Stations on lines C and D and between Rhode Island Avenue and Dupont Circle Stations on lines A and B. 2. The i4etrorail service will operate seven days per week. 3. Bus facilities at the Rhode Island Avenue Station implemented in operational Phase I will continue in use, and three bus bays will be available at the Potomac Avenue Station. Also, the Southwest Terminal located adjacent to the LtEnfant Plaza Station will continue to be available for bus operations. All other Metro Stations in the District of Columbia to be opened with Metrorail Phase II will not provide special bus facilities. L1~ All Metrobus service now entering the City from Virginia via Key Bridge will terminate at Rosslyn. Metrobus service will be maintained via Roosevelt, Memorial and the lkth Street Bridges although reduced to reflect a lower passenger demand caused by transfers to Metrorail. 5. Metrobus passengers will prefer to transfer to Metrorail for all or a part of their trip. This shift in passenger usage will permit a reduction in bus service. However, bus service will not be eliminated in any area and passengers will still be able to travel by bus if they so desire but may be required to transfer in order to reach their destination. 6 New Metrobus routes or extensions of existing route~ will * nat be proposed except where such changes are considered to be essential to the continuity of the transit system. Proposals of this type will be included in a supplement to this plan for later consideration. 7. All Metrobus service will be monitored frequently, and changes will be made that can be justified by passenger demand. PAGENO="0110" 792 -25- B. Proposed Metrobus Changes 1. Rosslyn, Georgetown, K Street, Federal Triangle, Union Station Areas With the proposal to terminate all Metrobus routes now entering the District of Columbia from Virginia via the Key Bridge at Rosslyn, it will be necessary to establish a new Metrobus route to replace the service in D.C. previously provided by Virginia Metrobus routes, as shown below: LINE: N Street-Visitor Center Line, Route M-6 Route M-6 - From Rosslyn via North Moore Street, bus roadway, North Lynn Street, Key Bridge, M Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington Circle, K Street, 114th Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, Constitution Avenue, 1st Street, N.E. and National Visitor Center. SERVICE: Route M-6 will operate seven days per week from approx- imately 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., providing a 10-minute frequency of service during rush hours on weekdays and an approximate 15-minute frequency at other times. 2. Wisconsin Avenue, Georgetown, Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. and S.E., Shipley Terrace, Naylor Gardens and Hillcrest Areas The Pennsylvania Avenue Metrobus Line, Routes 30 through 39, now provides service between Friendship Heights and Shipley Terrace, Naylor Gardens and Hillcrest through the areas outlined above. Operational Phase II of Metrorail service will provide stations along or nearby the route of operation of the Pennsylvania Avenue Line between 1Iashington Circle ~nd 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.* Therefore, it is proposed to make changes in. the service, now provided by, this~ line, as * shown below: LINE: Pennsylvania Avenue Line, Routes 30,3~',37,38 Route 30 - Friendship Heights to Potomac Avenue via present route through Georgetown. Route 38 - Friendship Heights to Federal Center Station (3rd and D, S.W.) via Wisconsin Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, 2Oth-2lst Streets, and regular route to Independence and 3rd Street, S.W. Route 38 - Friendship Heights to Federal Triangle Station via present route through Georgetown. Route 37 - Friendship Heights to Visitor Center - no change PAGENO="0111" 793 -26- NEW LINE: Sousa Bridge Line, Routes 32,314,36 Route 32 - Potomac Avenue to Shipley Terrace via present route. Route 314 - Potomac Avenue to Naylor Gardens via present route. Route 36 - Potomac Avenue to Hillcrest via present route. SERViCE: Since this phase of Metrorail operations will not serve the portion of the line north and west of Washington Circle, it is proposed to maintain approximately the amount of service presently provided west of the Federal Triangle. The amount of service east of Federal Triangle will be reduced. We will also take this opportunity to respond to a long standing request to divert a part of the Wisconsin Avenue base service via Massachusetts Avenue and thus avoid the Georgetown congestion. This change will also permit bus-rail transfers at the Dupont Circle Station. It is assumed that the Potomac Avenue Station will become a major rail-bus transfer station and that most Metrobus routes will originate or terminate at this station. Therefore, Routes 32, 314 and 36 will be separated from the main line and will operate as feeder routes to the Potomac Avenue Station and be a part of the Sousa Bridge Bridge Metrobus Line. The present 24-hour/7 days per week scope of service on the Pennsylvania Avenue line will be maintained. The present basic midday frequency of service along Wisconsin Avenue consisting of eight trips per hour will be divided to provide four trips per hour on Route 30 through Georgetown and four trips per hour on Route 38 via Massachusetts Avenue. This proposed time, schedule will continue to prov~de eight trips per hour along the route between the Maryland-D.C. Line *and Massachusetts Avenue and between 20th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. and 3rd and independence Avenue, S.W. The amount of service along the route between 3rd and Ii,dependence Avenue, S.W. and 15th and Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. will be reduced by 50~. During weekday rush hours it is proposed to increase the number of trips on Routes 30 and 38 to six per hour. The present Route 37 peak- hour schedule of five trips per hour will provide a total of 11 trips in the peak hour via Massachusetts Avenue. The six Route 30 peak-hour trips will be supplemented by a sufficient number of Route 30 Federal Triangle trips to meet the peak-hour require- ment of 214 trips through Georgetown. The number of trips now provided on Routes 32, 314 and 36 will continue to operate as the feeder routes between Potomac Avenue and the Eastern terminals. PAGENO="0112" 794 -27- 3. MacArthur Boulevard, Glover Park, Dupont Circle, CBD, Union Station, Trinidad and Ivy City Areas The Glover Park-Trinidad Line, Routes D-2, D-14, operates through the Central Business District of the City and will duplicate Metrorail service between Dupont Circle and Union Station. The Route D-l and D-3 rush hour branches of this line will duplicate the portion of Phase II Metrorail service between the Federal Triangle Station and the Federal Center Station. In order to minimize this duplication of service, this line will be revised, as shown below: LINE: Glover Park-Trinidad Line, Routes Dl,D2,D3,D4,D9 Route D-l - Glover Park to Federal Triangle (cut back) Route D-2 - Glover Park to Ivy City (no change) Route D-3 - Mass. & Sangamore to Federal Triangle (cut back) Route D-4 - Sibley Hospital to Farragut Square via Q Street (cut back) Route D-9 - Sibley Hospital to Farragut Square via K Street (cut back) NEW LINE: Brentwood Road Line, Route E-8 Route E-8 - Union Station to Rhode island Avenue via Trinidad SERVICE: It is proposed to reduce Metrobus service on this line only in the area of duplicating service. Therefore, the number of trips now operating on the various routes will continue to be operated on the proposed routes. New Route E-8 will provide the same number of trips as previously scheduled on the east end of the D-14 route. * k. Mount Pleasant, Dupont Circle, CBD, Union Station, Stadium- Armory, Seat. PleasantAreas * * :; *~ The Mount Pleasant Line, Routes 140, 142, operates through the Central Business District of the City and will duplicate Metrorail service between Dupont Circle and Union Station. Route 144 is the owl service on this line and will be operating at times when the Metrorail is inactive. Route 145 operates between Mt. Pleasant and l14th and C Streets, S.W., and will duplicate Metrorail service between Dupont Circle and the Smithsonian Station. In order to minimize this duplication of service, the line will be revised, as shown below: LINE: Mount Pleasant Line, Routes 140,142,1414 Route 40 - Union Station to Seat Pleasant (cut back) Route 42 - Mount Pleasant to Stadium-Armory (no change) Route 44 - Mount Pleasant to Stadium-Armory (owl - no change) PAGENO="0113" 795 -28- SERVICE: It is proposed to reduce Metrobus service on this line only in the area of duplicating service. There- fore, the number of trips now operating on Routes 42 and 44 will be continued and the number of trips now operating on Route 40 east of Union Station will be continued. All Route 45 trips will be discontinued. 5. Connecticut Avenue, Southwest Employment Areas The Connecticut Avenue Line, Routes L-2,L-3,L-14,L-5,L-6, L-7, serves the entire length of Connecticut Avenue, the Central Business District, Potomac Park and the Southwest Employment Area. While the south end of Routes L-2, L-4, L-6 and L-7 duplicates Phase II Metrorail operations between Dupont Circle and the Federal Triangle, there appears to be adequate justification at present for these routes to continue without change. Route L-5 will not duplicate Metrorail operations and will not be revised. However, Route L-3 will duplicate Phase II Metrorail operations south of Farragut West Station and is proposed to be discontinued as Route L-3 and reassigned to L-4 trips. LINE: Connecticut Avenue Line, Routes L2,L14,L5,L6,L7 Route L-3 - (To or from S.W. Mall) Discontinue; reassign as L-4. SERVICE: The present frequency of service on the Connecticut Avenue line will continue without change except that all Route L-3 trips will be scheduled as L-4 trips. 6. Sixteenth Street, Potomac Park, Southwest Employment Areas The Sixteenth Street Metrobus Line, Routes S-l,S-2,S-3,S-4, * s-5,s-6,:serves. the entire length of 16th Street, N.W., the Central Business District Potomac Park area and the Southwest Employment Area. The south end ofRoutes S-2,S-4,S-5 and S-6 duplicates only a small portion of Phase II Metrorail operations and is not recommended for change at this time. It is proposed to reroute S-i northbound and southbound service so as to serve the Foggy Bottom Station in both directions. It is also proposed to discontinue all S.W. Mall service since Route S-3 would duplicate Metrorail service between McPherson Square and Federal Center Stations. It is proposed to reassign these S-3 trips to operate at S-2 trips. LINE: Sixteenth Street Line, Routes Sl,S2,S4,S5,S6 Route S-i - (To and from Potomac Park) Reroute via Foggy Bottom Station. Route S-3 - (To and from S.W. Mall) Discontinue; reassign to S-2. 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 8 PAGENO="0114" 796 -29- SERVICE: The present frequency of service on the 16th Street line will continue without change except that all Route S-3 trips will be scheduled as S-2 trips. 7. South Capitol Street, Southwest Employment, CBD Areas The South Capitol Street Express Line, Route A-9, provides rush hour express type service from the Livingston area of the City to the Federal Triangle area via South Capitol Street. The Atlantic Street Terminal Express Line, Route W-9, provides rush hour express type service from South Capitol and Atlantic Streets through the Southwest Employment Area to the Farragut Square area. The Route W-3 branch of this line now operates between South Capitol and Atlantic Streets and the Southwest Employment Area. Operational Phase II of tietrorail service will duplicate the service povided by Routes A-9 and W9 north of the Southwest Employment Area. Therefore, it is proposed to combine these lines and terminate all routes at the Southwest Terminal and reroute to operate via South Capitol Street, N Street, S.W., 6th Street, I Street, 7th Street and D Street to the Southwest Terminal located at 9th and D Streets, S.W. LINE: South Capitol Street Line, Routes A3,A9 Route A-3 - South Capitol and Atlantic Streets to South- west Terminal. Route A-9 - Livingston to Southwest Terminal SERVICE: The present Route A-9 time schedule will be maintained. The present Route \I_3,W_9 service will be redesignated Route A-3 and approximately 8o2~ of the number of trips now scheduled on Routes W-3 and W-9 will be scheduled on Route A-3. 8. Federal Triangle, Capitol Hill, Navy Yard, Anacostia, Congress Heights, BellÚvue and.Livingston Areas : The Anacostia-Congress Heights Metrobus Line, Routes A-l, A-2,A~1 and A-8, now provides service from 10th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. to the Greater Southeast Community Hospital, Belle- vue and Livingston through the areas outlined above. With operational Phase II of Metrorail service, it is proposed to change Routes A-l,A-2 and A-Li to operate via E Street, New Jersey Avenue, Independence Avenue and L~th Street so as to serve the Capitol South Station and to extend Routes A-2 and A-1i to 12th Street so as to serve the Federal Triangle Station. It is also proposed to change Route A-8 to operate via 8th Street, S.E. and terminate at the Eastern Market Station. The present single outbound Route A-3 trip and the one round trip on Route A-5 will be discontinued. These proposed changes are shown below: PAGENO="0115" 797 -30- LINE: Anacostia-Congress Heights Line, Routes Al,A2,A14,A8 Route A-I - Atlantic and South Capitol Streets to Potomac Park. Route A-2 - Congress Heights (S.E. Comm. Hasp.) to Federal Triangle. Route A-4 - Bellevue to Federal Triangle Route A-8 - Livingston to Eastern Market Station SERVICE: The present time schedule for Routes A-l,A-2,A-4 and A-8 will be maintained. One outbound a.m. A-3 trip will be discontinued, and one outbound a.m. and one inbound p.m. A-5 will be discontinued. 9. ~ggy Bottom, Federal Center and Capitol South Stations The present Metrobus route network does not provide base day service to all of the Metrorail stations that will be opened with Phase It of Metrorail operations. Midday service will be required between the Foggy Bottom Station and the Potomac Park area. There- fore, it is proposed that the Government Building Service, Route M-l, be extended on the west end of the line from the State Department to the Foggy Bottom Station. The entrance to the Federal Center Station will be located at 3rd and D Streets, S.W. Metrobus Routes 60 and M-2 now operate along L~th Street at D, S.W. Therefore, Route 60 will be changed to operate via ~th Street, S.W., E Street, 3rd Street, C Street, 14th Street, S.W., and regular route in each direction. Route M-2 will be changed so as to serve both the Federal Center and Capitol South Stations and will operate via kth Street, E Street, 3rd Street, C Street, Canal Street, D Street, 1st Street, S.E. and regular route. Route revisions outlined previously will provide Metrobus connections with theCapitol South Station from the south and west but adequate Metrobus service will be required to the Capitol Hill area. Therefore, it is proposed to change Route M-l to operate via C Street, S.W., Canal Street, D Street and 1st Street, S.E., in both directions. It is also proposed to change Route R-~ to operate via Independence Avenue, S.W., Canal Street, D Street and 1st Street, S.E., in both directions. The lines and routes proposed for change are outlined below: LINE: Eleventh Street-Ft. McNair Line, Route 60 Route 60 - 11th and Monroe Streets, N.W. to Half and 0 Streets, S.W., via Federal Center Station. Government Building Service Line, Route N-i Route M-l - Foggy Bottom to Union Station via Federal Triangle, L'Enfant Plaza, Federal Center and Capitol South. PAGENO="0116" 798 -31- Capitol Hill-Fourth Street Line, Route M-2 Route M-2 - Buzzard Point to Union Station via Federal Center and Capitol South. Calverton-Crystal City Line, Route R-4 Route R-L~ - Calverton. to Crystal City via Union Station, Capitol South and Smithsonian. SERVICE: The present time schedule on Routes 60,M-l,M-2 and R-~ will be maintained on the revised routings. 10. Carter Barron Parking Lot, Federal Triangle, S.W. Mall Areas The Carter Barron Parking Lot Service, Route B-9, provides rush hour express type service between the fringe parking lot and the Federal Triangle, with selected trips continuing to the Southwest Employment Area. Operational Phase Ii of Metrorail service will duplicate Route B-9 S.W.~M~all trips south of Metro Center. Therefore, it is proposid to'~terminate all B-9 trips at Federal Triangle. LINE: Carter Barron Parking Lot Service, Route B-9 Route B-9 - Carter Barron to Federal Triangle SERVICE: The present time schedule for Route B-9 will be maintained. Trips now scheduled to continue to S.W. Mall will be termina- ted at Federal Triangle. 11. New Hampshire Avenue, Federal Triangle, S.W. Mall Areas The New Hampshire Avenue Line, Routes K-2,K-3,K-L~,K-6, now provides service along the New Hampshire Avenue corridor to the Central Business District. Selected trips on this route continue beyond Federal Triangle to the Southwest Mall area and are designated Route K-3.. Operational Phase II of.Metrorail service will dupl icate RouteK-3 trips south ~f Metro Center.~..Therefore,.it is proposed. to reassign present Route K-3 trips to K-4. LINE: New Hampshire Avenue Line, Routes K-2,K-~,K-6 Route K-3 (To or from S.W. Mall) - Discontinue; reassign to K-h. SERVICE: The present frequency of service on the New Hampshire Avenue line will continue without change except that all Route K-3 trips will be scheduled as K-14 trips. 12. South Capitol Street Parking Lot, Southwest Mall, Federal Triangle, Potomac Park Areas The South Capitol Street Parking Lot Service, Routes P-7,P-9, provides Metrobus service from the South Capitol Street fringe parking PAGENO="0117" 799 -32- lot to the areas outlined above. Route P-7 operates through the Southwest Employment Area to Connecticut and K Street, N.W. and Route P-9 operates through the Federal Triangle area to 21st and C Streets, N.W. Operational Phase II of Metrorail service will duplicate Route P~-7 operations north of the L'Enfant Plaza Station. Revised Routes A-3 and A-9 will provide direct service from the parking lot to LEnfant Plaza. Therefore, it is proposed to discontinue Route P-7. LINE: South Capitol Street Parking Lot Service, Routes P-7,P-9 Route P-7 - South Capitol Street Parking Lot to Farragut Square - discontinue. SERVICE: The present schedule on Route P-9 will be maintained. 13.. Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Stanton Road, Southeast Community Hospital,~ Livingston, Anacostia, Southwest ~ployment, CBD, Farragut Square Areas The Southeast Express Metrobus Line, Routes V-l ,V-3,V-5,V-7, V-9, provides rush hour express type service in the areas outlined above. Routes V-l and V-3 enter the Southwest Employment Area via South Capitol Street and Routes V-5,V-7 and V-9 enter this area via the Southwest Freeway. Operational Phase II of Metrorail service will duplicate these routes north of L'Enfant Plaza Station. Therefore, it is proposed to terminate all trips on the Southeast Express Line at the Southwest Terminal located adjacent to the L'Enfant Plaza Station. LINE: Southeast Express Line, Routes Vl ,V3,V5,V7,V9 Route V-i - Naylor Gardens to Southwest Terminal Route V-3 - Southeast Community Hospital to Southwest Terminal Route V-5 - Fairfax Village to Southwest Terminal Route V-i - Stanton Road to Southwest Terminal RouteV-9 - Liv;ngston to Southwest Terminal SERVICE: The existing frequency of service will be maintained on all routes. l~4. Massachusetts Avenue, DupontCircle, Farragut Square, Federal Triangle Areas The Massachusetts Avenue Metrobus Line, Routes N-l,N-2,N-3 and N-4, serve the Massachusetts Avenue corridor between Glen Echo, Maryland and the Central Business District. Routes N-l and N-3 operate to the Southwest Employment Area and will be duplicated by Metrorail service south of the Federal Triangle Station. Therefore, it is proposed to terminate Routes N-l and N-3 in the Federal Triangle area. Route N-2 and rush hour Route N-~ trips now terminate at 18th and H Streets, N.W. Non-rush hour Route PAGENO="0118" 800 -33- N-k trips now terminate at 13th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. and will be duplicated by Metrorail service south and east of Farragut Square. Therefore, it is proposed to terminate all Route N-2 and N-k trips at Farragut Square. LINE: Massachusetts Avenue Line, Routes Nl,N2,N3,Nk,N5 Route N-l - Friendship Heights to Federal Triangle via Potomac Park Route N-2 - Friendship Heights to Farragut Square Route N-3 - Wesley Heights to Federal Triangle via Potomac Park Route N-k - Glen Echo or Wesley Heights to Farragut Square SERVICE: The present frequency of service now scheduled on the Massachusetts Avenue Line will be maintained on the revised routes. 15.. Bladensburg Road, Stadium-Armory, Anacostia, Fort Stanton, Barry Farms Areas The Bladensburg Road Line, Route B-2, operates between the Chillum area of Prince George's County, Maryland and the Martin Luther King Avenue and Good Hope Road area of D.C., passing the Stadium-Armory and Potomac Avenue Stations. In order to improve operations and to permit the schedule to be designed to meet the needs of the majority of passengers, it is proposed to divide this line into two segments with Route B-2 serving that portion of the line north of Potomac Avenue and reassigning the portion south of Potomac Avenue to the Sousa Bridge Line renumbering this portion as Route B-k. It is also proposed to combine the Fort Stanton Park line, Route B-3, and the Barry Farms line, Route B-5, with new Route B-k and provide direct service to the Potomac Avenue Station. These proposed changes are outlined below: ..~L!NE:~ Bladensbur9 Road Line, Route B-2 Route B-2 - Potomac Avenue to Chillum Route B-Z - Potomac Avenue to Mt. Rainier NEW LINE: Sousa Bridge Line, Routes B-3,B-k,B-5 Route B-3 - Potomac Avenue to Fort Stanton Route B-k - Potomac Avenue to Anacostia Route B-S - Potomac Avenue to Barry Farms SERVICE: The frequency of service now provided on Routes B-2, B-3 and B-5 will be maintained on the revised routings. 16. Benning Heights, Ridge Road, Potomac Avenue, M Street, Southwest Employment Areas The South Washington Line, Routes V-k,V-6, now provides Metrobus service in areas outlined above. Route v-k operates between 14th PAGENO="0119" 801 and C Streets, S.W. and Texas Avenue and Burns Street, S.E., and Route V-6 operates between 114th and C Streets, S.W. and 33rd and Blame Streets, N.E. Changes proposed for the Benning Metrobus Line, Routes U and X, to serve the Stadium-Armory Metrorail Station will duplicate that portion of Route V-6 north of Minnesota Avenue and East Capitol Street. Therefore, it is proposed to change Route V-6 to serve Benning Heights, as shown below: LINE: South Wash~j~gton Line, Routes V-14,V-6 Route v-4 - Bureau of Engraving to Ridge Road - no change Route V-6 - Bureau of Engraving to Benning Heights - over present route to Minnesota Avenue and Ridge Road then via Ridge Road, Texas Avenue, F Street, 146th Street, Hanna Place, H Street, Alabama Avenue, F Street and return over the same route. SERVICE: The frequency of service now provided on Routes V-4 and v-6 will be maintained on the revised routings. 17. seat Pleasant, East Capitol Street, Federal Triangle Areas The East Capitol Street Express Line, Routes X-7,X-9, now provides rush hour express type service from the East Capitol Street corridor to the Southwest Employment Area by Route X-7 and to the Federal Triangle area by Route X-9. Operational Phase II of Metrorail will duplicate Route X-7 service west of the Stadium-Armory Station. Therefore, since present Route X-7 riders can be accommodated by Route ~40 east of the station and by Metrorail west of the station, it is proposed to discontinue Route X-7. Route X-9 will continue its present operations. LINE: East Capitol Street Express, Route X-9 Route X-7 - Seat Pleasant to Bureau of Engraving - discontinue Route X-9 - Seat Pleasant to Federal Triangle - no change SERVICE: The time schedule nbw operated by Route X-9 will continue without change. All Route X-7 trips will be discontinued. 18 . Far Northeast, Benning Road, H Street, CBD Areas The Benning Road Line, Routes U and X, provides Metrobus service along the Benning Road-H Street corridor between Lafayette Square and seven separate destinations in the far Northeast-Southeast area. Operational Phase II of Metrorail service will directly duplicate the operations of Route U-5 west of the Stadium-Armory Station and will provide rail service nearby the entire Benning Road Metrobus Line at the Stadium-Armory, Union Station, Gallery Place and Metro Center Stations. In order to reduce duplicating services and provide Benning Road Line riders the opportunity to utilize Metrorail service, it is proposed to redesign Metrobus routings in this corridor. PAGENO="0120" 802 -35- Route U-14 will be changed to operate via Minnesota Avenue and East.Capitol Street and terminate at Stadium-Armory. Routes U-2,U-$ and U-8 will operate over their present route to the H Street ramp to the Visitor Center and will terminate at Union Station. Routes U-6,X-l,X-2 and X-3 will not be changed. Route X-Z, Mayfair-Parkside service, will be combined with ~ new branch from River Terrace and designated X-6 and X-$ to operate to the Stadium-Armory. Route x-8 will be.changed to operate via Maryland Avenue, C-D Streets and Massachusetts Avenue to Union Station. All Route U-5 service will be discontinued. These changes are listed below: LINE: Benning Road Line, Routes U & X / Route U-Z - Kenilworth to Union Station -Route U-2 - Seat Pleasant to Union Station via Kenilworth Route U-Li - Sheriff Road to Stadium-Armory Route u-6 - 60th and East Capitol to Lafayette Square Route U-° - Capitol View to Union Station Route u-8 - Benning Heights to Union Station Route X-l - Any eastern terminal to Potomac Park Route X-2 - Seat Pleasant to Lafayette Square Route X-3 - Any eastern terminal to 19th & R Streets, N.W. Route x-8 - Carver Terrace to Union Station NEW LINE: Mayfair-River Terrace Line, Routes x-6,X-° Route x-6 - Mayfair-Parks ide to Stadium-Armory Route X-~ - 33rd & Blame to Stadium-Armory SERVICE: The present frequency of service on each branch of the Benning Road line will be maintained where justified. However, trip times will be adjusted to provide a coordinated service along the route. 19. Kennedy Center, Fog9y Bottom, Dupont Circle, Mt. Pleasant Areas It Is not practical t˘divert any of the existing Metrobus lines to provide connections between the~Kennedy Center, Foggy Bottom Station and Dupont Circle Station. There will be a require- ment for Metrobus service between the Foggy Bottom Station and the Kennedy Center, particularly during hours of the day when performances are scheduled at the Kennedy Center. In addition, a Metrobus route along New Hampshire Avenue between Dupont Circle and Washington Circle will be beneficial to employees and residents of the area. Also, with the elimination of Route LcO, additional Metrobus service will be needed between Mt. Pleasant and Dupont Circle. Therefore, It is proposed to establish a new line to operate between Mt. Pleasant and the Kennedy Center to serve the Dupont Circle and Foggy Bottom Metro Stations. PAGENO="0121" 803 -36- LINE: Kennedy Center-Columbia Road Line, Route 46 Route 46 - Kennedy Center to Mt. Pleasant SERVICE: it is proposed to provide service seven days per week with a 15-minute rush hour and a 20-minute base frequency of service. 20. 14th Street, Southwest Mall Areas Operational Phase II of Metrorail service will not duplicate the 14th Street Metrobus service except for the weekday rush hour service provided by Route 53 to the Southwest Mall area. Therefore, it is proposed to discontinue Route 53 service and reassign these trips to Route 50. LINE: Fourteenth Street Line, Routes.50,52,53,54,56,58 Route 53 - Discontinue SERVICE: Reassign all Route 53 trips to Route 50. PAGENO="0122" 804 Page lof2 -37- C. ESTIMATED CHANGES IN BUSES AND MILES (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) Saturday Sunday No. Trips Mileage No. Trips Mileage Affected Change Affected Change Weekday No. Trips Mileage Affected Change 255 -1231 229 +1386 206 -1542 58 +363 3 -7 Line and Route Pennsylvania Ave. 3O,3~37,38 Sousa Bridge 32, 34 , 36 , B3 , B4, B5 Mount Pleasant 40,42,44,45 Kennedy Ctr/Mt. Pleasant 46 14th Street 53 11th Street 60 Anacostia-Cong. Hts. Al ,A2,A4,A8 S. Cap. St. Express A3,A9 Bladensburg Road B2 Ft. Stanton Pk. B3 . Barry Farms B5 Glover Pk/Trinidad Dl ,D2,D3,DL4,D9 Brentwood Road E8 New Hampshire Ave. K2 , K4, K6 Connecticut Avenue L2,L4,L5,L6,L7 Change in No. of Buses -18 +22 -13 +4 0 0 -2 +6 -3 1. -1 -Il +5 0 0 168 -131 108 - 9 159 +889 126 690 145 -872 95 -495 54 +338 54 +338 64 +13 52 +10 155 -166 142 -150 47 -223 4~ -232 48 -462 29 -279 45 +347 29 +223 70 196 57 75 .33. 23 89 73 2 5 + 14 - 202 + 162 - 356 - 96 - 60 754 +598 -6 - 13 PAGENO="0123" 805 Page 2 of 2 -38- Saturday Sunday No. Trips Mileage No. Trips Mileage Affected Change Affected Change Line and Route Govt. Bldg. Service Ml Cap. Hill-4th Street M2 M St.-Vlsltor Center M6 Massachusetts Ave. Ni ,N2,N3,N4 S. Cap. St. Pkg. Lot P9 Calverton-Crystal Cty. RL+ 16th Street Si ,S2,S4,S5,S6 Benning Road u&x Southeast Express Vi ,V3,V5,V7,V9 S. Washington V4,V6 Altantic St. Terminal W3,W9 Mayfair-River Terrace x6 xff E. Cap. St. Express X9 Change in No. of Buses 0 0 +6 0 -2 0 0 -8 -4 0 +3 Weekday No. Trips Mileage Affected Change 32 + 34 25 + 8 88 +898 13 - 31 4 - 43 45 + 18 46 + 2 287 -1550 41 -164 63 - 8 23 - 279 72 +359 80 +816 80 +816 34 +14 35 +14 189 -804 166 -831 36 - 5 29 - 4 54 +269 36 +180 -2 4 - 63 Net Change -30 2117 -2653 1278 + 23 1030 +271 PAGENO="0124" 806 -39- D. Metrobuses Serving Rail Stations (Maps) The following area maps show Metrobus routes that interface with each Metrorail Station within the District of Columbia. It should be noted that only those routes directly serving or within a block or two of the rail station are shown. Existing and proposed route numbers are identified within boxes, and those routes terminating at the stations are marked by a dot alongside the boxes. Individual route maps and route descriptions will be furnished at a later date and attached as an appendix. PAGENO="0125" 807 40 * ISLA~DAVEiESTATIa~ 1iETROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSAL~ METRORAIL PHASES I & II rgn C) C) egenc route number terminated route -..--~~metrobus route metroraji station PAGENO="0126" SOS METROBUS I ITERFACE HETRORAIL PHASES C SEreet LKII route number [ terminated route ~metrobus route metrorait station PAGENO="0127" 809 - 4z-~ METROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSALt METRORAIL PHASES I E II H SErCCE route number 1Ei13 terminated route r~metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0128" 810 -I~3-i GPJIERY. PL4Q STATIC~' METROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSALI 1IETRORML PHASES I & II E~t~ II H Street El El :_~_~ GALLERY PLACE! STATIONI F Street x~. C) E Street, N.W. legenc route number terminated route ~ route metrorail station PAGENO="0129" -~I. o~. ▒HJ-4 ~11~ !~E~I~1r~I llth Street 0 U" ~~OO ~D I~E~ 13th Street ft ~ N * -~ II hi ~1~J~p `12th Street :~ t~II~I~ll~ ~ I. i~E~E~i ~J I 1~iL~ j 1~JIFW~ ~ 11th Street 10th Street PAGENO="0130" 812 egÚn route number terminated route ~~metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0131" 813 -46-) LIPOPIT CIPCLE STATIO~ I METROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSALI HETRORAIL PHASES I & II egen L~J1 route number terminated route ~~~.metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0132" 814 ST~DI1~ - METROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSAL~ METRORAIL PHASES I & II egen route number terminated route ~!..~~,metrobus route metroraji station PAGENO="0133" 815 P3T011AC A'211E SThTIO~1 ;IETROBLJS INTERFACE PROPOSAH METRORAIL PHASES I & II egend route number terminated route ~~~metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0134" 816 -49-! EPSTEF~1 r~~~ir STATION HETROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSAL! HETRORAIL PHASE II ct egen route number terminated route ...~metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0135" 817 -50-' C4PITOL SOUTH STATION: METROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSAL! METRORAIL PHASE egen~ route number terminated route ~~~metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0136" 818 f~JJ route number terminated route ~~~metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0137" 819 L'E1FP$ff PLAZA STATIG~ HETROBUS UTERFACE PROPOSAL METRORAIL PHASES I &tI ct egen ~~jJ route number EE1~ terminated route _______metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0138" 820 -53-i route number terminated route ~ route metrorail station PAGENO="0139" -I /1~J~ ~Wi~J/. PAGENO="0140" 822 -55-f METROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSAL METRORAIL PHASES I & II egen E~EtI route number terminated route ~ route metrorail station PAGENO="0141" 823 FARRAGIJI \ST STATW4 JiETROBUS INTERFACE pgoposALt METRORAIL PHASES I & II a egen~ ~jj route number terminated route ~~-~metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0142" 824 r rte&i souai HETROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSALI HETROPAIL PHASES I & II egenc route number terminated route ~~~-~metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0143" 825 -58- E. Additional Metrobus Service Proposals The following Metrobus service proposals are designed to meet current trends of Increasing ridership and to link high-density residential areas, served directly by neither the rapid rail system nor Metrobus, with the nearest stations. 1. Extend Routes A-2 and A-k to 11th Street and New York Avenue, N.W. The first proposal to change Metrobus routes to coordinate with operational Phase II of Metrorail service recon~iiended extending Routes A-2 and A-k from 10th and Pennsylvania, N.W. to 12th Street. This proposal was considered a minimum recommendation and gave priority to rail-bus connections at the Federal Triangle Station. Rail-bus passengers will be better served by extending Routes A-2 and A-k to 11th and New York Avenue, N.W. since the Metro Center Station will be served, and bus passengers can transfer directly to either Metrorail line. Additionally, such an extension will directly serve the F and G Street shopping district. This extension will increase miles by approximately 0.35 miles on each round trip. LINE: Anacostia-Congress Heights Line, Routes Al,A2,A4,A8 Routes A-2 and A-k - Operate over regular route to kth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., then westerly on Pennsylvania Avenue, north on 11th Street, east on New -. York Avenue to terminal stand. Return via south on 10th Street, easterly on Pennsylvania Avenue and regular route. SERVICE: The present frequency of service on Routes A-2 and A-k will be maintained. SUMMARY: This proposed extension will reduce the savings outlined in the original proposal by one bus and by 67 miles on weekdays, kk miles on Saturdays and kO miles on Sundays. 2. Extend Route B-2 from New Hampshire and Eastern to Takoma Park Metrobus service Is not now available along Eastern Avenue between New Hampshire Avenue and Carroll Avenue, a distance of approximately one mile. This extension of Route B-2 would provide Metrobus service to an area not now served and will be in operation before the Metrorail service is extended through Takoma Park when such service will be required. LINE: Bladensburg Road Line, Route B-2 Route B-2 - Potomac Avenue to Takoma Park SERVICE: The present frequency of service provided to Chillum will be maintained on the extension to Takorna Park. PAGENO="0144" 826 SUMMARY: This proposed extension will reduce the savings outlined in the original proposal by one bus and by 64 miles on weekdays, 46 miles on Saturdays and 44 miles on Sundays. 3. Extend New Route B-4 thršugh Fort Stanton Park to Alabama Avenue The first proposal to *change Metrobus routes to coordinate with operational Phase II of Metrorail service recommended separating that portion of the Bladensburg Road line south of the Potomac Avenue Statl'on f~romthe main line and designating this portion of service as Route B-l+. It was also recommended that Route B-3 be combined with Route B-4 during weekday rush hours. The area between 18th and Frankfdrd Street, S.E. and Alabama Avenue is now served by five a.m. and fIve p.m. weekday Route V-l trips. Therefore, in order to provide a viable transit service to this area of the City, it is recomended that selected trips of new Route B-4 be extended to Alabama Avenue all day on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays via the appropriate portions of Routes B-3, B-4 and V-l and be designated as Route B-6. LINE: Sousa Bridge Line, Routes 32,34,36,B14,B5,B6 Route B-6 Potomac Avenue to Alabama and Ainger SERVICE: It is proposed to operate a number of B-6 trips in rush hours equal to the present B-3 schedule, a 30-minute midday service on weekdays and hourly service at n4ght and all day Saturday and Sunday. SUMMARY: This proposed extension will reduce the savings outlined in the original proposal by one bus and by 108 miles on weekdays, 67 miles on Saturdays and 67 miles on Sundays. 4. Extend New Route E-8 to Hospital Center The first proposal to change Metrobus routes to coordinate with operational Phase II of Metrorail service recommended that a new Route E-8 be established to operate between Union Station and the RhOde Island Avenue Station. Through extending this new route to the Hospital Center, an important link will be created between the Center and the Rhode Island Avenue Metro Station. Additionally, by selecting the route through 4th Street, Edgewood Street and 7th Street to Michigan Avenue, a large apartment complex and residential neighborhood can be linked to the Rhode Island Avenue Station. LINE: Brentwood Road Line, Route E-8 Route E-8 - Union Station to Hospital Center SERVICE: It is proposed to provide the same amount of service on the extension of Route E-8 as proposed for the original route. PAGENO="0145" 827 SUMMARY: The proposed extension will add approximately six miles to each round trip. This extension will reduce the savings outlined in the original proposal by two buses and by 348 miles on weekdays, by 270 miles on Saturdays and by 1714 miles on Sundays. 5. Extend Route 34 from Naylor Gardens to Eastover Southern Avenue has now been extended from 13th Street to 23rd Street, S.E. A bridge has been constructed over the Suitland Parkway but connecting ramps to Southern are not yet completed. It is anticipated that these ramps will be in place by the time the Phase II of the Metrorail system becomes operational. With the completion of these ramps, Southern Avenue will be open from Naylor Road to South Capitol Street and it will be possible to link all neighborhoods along this corridor by Metrobus. Therefore, it is proposed to extend selected trips on Route 314 to Eastover via Southern Avenue. LINE: Sousa Bridge Line, Routes 32,34,36,B1+,B5,B6 Route 34 Potomac Avenue to Eastover SERVICE: It is proposed to provide a 40-minute frequency of service between approximately 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., seven days per week on this route extension. SUMMARY: The extension of Route 34 to Eastover would reduce the savings outlined in the original proposal by one bus and by 157 miles on weekdays, Saturday and Sunday. 6. Establish a New Route to Operate Between the Southwest Terminal and Livingston Many requests have been received to provide all day service between downtown and the Livingston area via South Capitol Street. Also, requests have been received to provide Metrobus service closer to the waterfront along Maine Avenue to serve restaurant patrons and employees. These requests can be satisfied by establishing a new route to operate from the Southwest Terminal via D Street, 12th Street, Maine Avenue, M Street and South Capitol Street to Livingston. LINE: South Capitol Street Line, Route A-6 Route A-6 - Southwest Terminal to Livingston via Maine Avenue SERVICE: Revised Route A-9 service should satisfy the passenger demand during weekday rush hours in the flow direction. A 30-minute frequency of service is recommended at all other times between approximately 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. 62-418 0- 76 - Pt.2 - 10 PAGENO="0146" 828 -61- SUMMARY: Since the rush hour flow direction service will be provided by revised Route A-9, additional buses will not be required duringpeak periods. However, this new route will reduce the savings outlined in the original proposal by approximately 275 miles on weekdays and by 400 n~iles on Saturdays and Sundays. 7. Establish a New Route to Link the Potomac Avenue Station With the Residential Area Bounded by Minnesota Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, Texas Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue Requests have been received for weekday rush hour Metrobus service to the area outlined above. These requests can be satisfied by establishing a new route to serve this area over the following possible routing: Pennsylvania Avenue, Minnesota Avenue, N Street, Branch Avenue, Pope Street, Carpenter Street, Texas Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. If implemented, this new service will be designated Route 35. LINE: Sousa Bridge Line, Routes 32,34,35,36,B4,B5,B6 Route 35 - Potomac Avenue to Texas Avenue and Carpenter Street SERVICE: It is proposed to operate a 30-minute frequency of service in the flow direction between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:30 and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays only. SUMMARY: This proposal will reduce the savings outlined in the original proposal by one bus and by approximately 23 miles on weekdays only. PAGENO="0147" 829 -62- ESTIMATED CHANGES IN BUSES AND MILES (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSALS SBOWN IN SECTION E inc and Route Change in No. of~Buses Weekday No. Trips Mileage Affected Change Saturday No. Trips Mileage Affected Change Sunday No. Trips Mileaš Affected ~ nacostia-Congress Heights -2,A-4 + 1 135 + 67 101 + 44 94 + 40 lladensburg Road 1-2 + 1 32 + 64 23 + 46 22 + 44 ;ousa Bridge -6 + 1 48 . +108 18 + 67 18 + 67 Irentwood Road -8 + 2 58 +348 45 +270 29 +174 ousa Bridge 14 + 1 24 +157 24 +157 2k +157 ;outh Capitol Street ╝-6 0 32 +275 32 +400 32 +400 iousa Bridge 35 +1 10 +~23 - - . - - rotals + 7 339 +1042 243 +984 219 +882 4et Changes From Table C -30 - -2653 - +23 - +271 ~evised Net Change -23 -1611 +1007 +1153 PAGENO="0148" 830 VIII. METROBUS CHANGES IN MARYLAND PROPOSED FOR COORDINATION WITH OPERATIONAL PHASE II OF METRORAIL A. General Assumptions 1. The majority of the routes serving Montgomery County will not connect with the Phases I and II Metrorai~l operation. Those Interstate express routes that operate from Montgomery County to the Southwest Mall employment area will be able to transfer passengers at the downtown Federal Triangle Station. 2. Prince George's County Metrobus routes operating in the Queens Chapel Road, Rhode Island Avenue, and Annapolis Road corridors will be changed to terminate at the Rhode Island Avenue Station. 3. PrInce George's County Metrobus routes operating in the Kenilworth Avenue, Palmer Highway, and Central Avenue corridors will be changed to terminate at the Stadium-Arrr~ry Station. 4. PrInce George's County Metrobus routes operating in the Marlboro Pike, Pennsylvania Avenue, Suitland Road, and Branch Avenue corridors will be changed to terminate at the Potomac Avenue Station. 5. Prince George's County Metrobus routes operating in the Indian Head Highway corridor will be changed to terminate at the. Capitol South Station. 6. By. terminating service at these stations, operating economies can be achieved, and passengers will be provided a speedier and more dependable trip to their downtown destinations. B. Ridership - 1. The number of passengers transferring between Metrobus and Metrorail is based on the latest available passenger data. 2. A total of 793 daily transfers between Metrorail and Montgomery County Metrobus service will occur at the Federal Triangle Station. Of this total, 331 will transfer during the peak a.m. one-hour period. 3. A total of 4,225 daily transfers between Metrorail and Prince George's County Metrobus service will occur at the Rhode Island Avenue Station. Of this total, 1,392 will transfer during the peak a.m. one-hour period. 4. A total of 1,613 daily transfers between Metrorail and Prince George's County Metrobus service will occur at the Stadium- Armory Station. Of this total, 323 will transfer during the peak a.m. one-hour period. PAGENO="0149" 831 5. A total of 5,926 daily transfers between Metrorail and Prince George's County Metrobus service will occur at the Potomac Avenue Station. Of this total, 1,288 will transfer during the peak a.m. one-hour period. 6. A total of 2,077 daily transfers between Metrorail and Prince Georges County Metrobus service will occur at the Capitol South Station. Of this total, 415 will transfer during the peak a.m. one-hour period. C. Operating Characteristics 1. With the cutback of bus service at the rail stations, Maryland Metrobus routes will operate 2,042 less revenue miles each weekday. 2. It Is estimated that the termination of Maryland Metrobus routes at the rail stations will result in a reduction of 25 buses in the bus fleet requirements in Maryland. PAGENO="0150" 832 -65- D. Summary of Route Changes 1. ~š~gomery County Dedicated Service Phases I and II of Metrorail operations will have minimal impaŔt on Montgomery County bus service. Since convenient rail service will be provided between Capitol South-Federal Center, S.W.- L'Enfant Plaza-Smithsonian Stations and the Federal Triangle Station, all bus services from Montgomery County to Southwest Mall could be terminated at the Federal Triangle Station, reducing bus mileage operated and providing a more convenient and attractive service to the public, but not reducing peak period bus requirements. The following routes are proposed to be changed: SUMMARY OF REVISED OPERATIONS STATISTICS OF REVISED OPERATiONS Affected Trips Of f- Peak Peak Sat. Sun. Affected Route ~ MMes TrÓnsfers~ To Rail To Bus 69 0 84 0 86 0 `47 0 369 0 138 0 Peak l-Hour(AM) To Rail To Bus 42 0 32 0 33 0 13 0 176 0 -35 0 Net Total 51 -44.0 793 0 331 0 Route Between Revision K-7 Tamarack/SW Mall Cut ~ Fed. Triangle Sta. 4 N-9 Montg.Mall/SW Mall Cut 0 Fed. Triangle Sta. 8 0-9 Korvettes/SW Mall Cut ~ Fed. Triangle Sta. 6 1-7,9 Rockville/SW Mall Cut ~ Fed. Triangle Sta. 8 Y-3 L.World/SW Mall Cut ~ Fed. Triangle Sta. 11 Y-7 Rockville/SW Mall Reroute to State Dept. 13 1 - - K-7 N-9 0-9 T-7 , 9 Y-3 Y-7 4 -4.8 8 -11.2 6 -8.4 9 -13.5 11 -12.6 13 + 6.5k Route Y-7.rerouted to State Department in lieu of Southwest Mall PAGENO="0151" 833 -66- 2. Prince George's County Dedicated Service Phases I and II of Metrorail operations will have a major Impact on Prince George's County bus service. P.G. County routes can or do connect with Metrorail service at Rhode island Avenue, Stadium-Armory, Potomac Avenue, and Capitol South Stations. By terminating P.G. County routes at these stations, a considerable reduction in mileage operated can be achieved, and a reduction in bus requirements by approximately 25 vehIcles can be effected during the peak periods. Proposed route revisions and statistical data by station are as follows: SUMMARY OF REVISED OPERATIONS Cut ~ Rhode Is.Ave. Cut ~ Stadium-Armory Cut ~ Potomac Ave. Change to Rt. A-il Cut ~ Potomac Ave. Cut ~ Potomac Ave. Cut at Capitol *South Reroute to Highview .Cut at Rhode is.Ave. Cut at Rhode is.Ave. Cut Stadium-Armory Reroute at Highview Cut ~ Rhode is. Ave. Cut at Pot. Ave. Cut at Pot. Ave. Cut at Pot.. Ave. Cut at Pot. Ave. Eliminate Cut at Capitol South Cut @ Stadium-Armory Change to R-12 Cut @ Stadium-Armory Cut ~ Rhode is. Ave. Affected Trips Off- Peak Peak Sat. Sun. 5 1 - 7 2 16 29 3 1 22 30 13 30 40 27. 13 1 10 2 11 18 14 1 - 27 23 26 10 46 .79 54 36 8 2 - - 9 5 - - 2 - - - 6 - - - 15 22 15 - 3 - - - 17 23 31 31 59 28 33 12' 101 33 33 12 56 66 59 31 141 198 161 69 46 27 26 16 Route Between Revision 87 A-Il A- 12 A- 15, 17 B-V C-0 D-S-W F-5 , 7 F-9 F- 14 G-5,7,9 H-l 1-17 J-K M-9 M~-11,13 M-l5 P-I 7 R- 12-14 R- 11-15 T- 11 T- 12-19 13 10 16 College Pk/Pot. Pk. Cap. Plaza/Fa rr. Sq Cap.Piaza/Farr.Sq. Dodge Pk./Farr.Sci. Penn MarfFarF. Sq. Hillcrest Hts./F.Sq. Oxon Hill/Farr. Sq. PG Naza/Fed. Tn. Lewisdale/Pot.Pk. GlennDale Hosp/F.Sq. Highview/Pot.Pk. Heath. Hills/F. Sq Andrews AFB/F.Sq. P.Marr/Crys.City A. Manor/Fa rr . Sq Suitland/SW Mail Oxon Hill/F.Sq. Greenbelt/F.Sq. Greenbel t/F.Sq. Belai r/Farr.Sq. Beiai r/Farr.Sq. 33 33 15 26 13 Total By Station - Rhode island Avenue Stad i urn-Armory Potomac Avenue Capitol South PAGENO="0152" 834 -67- STATISTICS OF REVISED OPERATIONS - RHODE ISLAND AVENUE STATION WEEKDAY *Deno~~ some riders will be required to transfer to other bus. Orˇutes to reach their destinations in Potomac Park SATURDAY Transfers To Rail To Bus Transfers To Rail To Bus 116 0 116 0 Route 87 F-5,7 F-9 G-5,7,9 T-12-19 Affected Transfers Peak 1-Hour (AM) Trips Miles To Rail To Bus To Rail To Bus 6 - 214.0 160 0* 60 0* 14 - 56.0 480 0* 175 O~ 12 - 48.0 355 0* 94 0* 15 - 60.0 364 0* 152 87 -234.9 2866 0 911 0 Total 134 -422.9 4225 0* 1392 0* 375 375 0 0 Affected Route Trips Miles T-l2-14 ~ -89.1 Total 33 -89.1 SUNDAY Affected Route Trip~ Miles T-l2-lk 12 -32.4 Total 12 -32.4 PAGENO="0153" 835 -68- STATISTICS OF REVISED OPERATIONS - STADIUM-ARMORY STATION WEEKDAY Route A-I I , 15, 17 F-i 4 R T-1 1 Total Affected TrIps Miles 13 - L~4.2 29 +34.L 40 -136.0 40 -136.0 122 -281.8 Transfers To Rail To Bus 291 145 226 56 538 134 558 79 1613 411+ Peak 1-Hour (AM) To Rail To Bus 85 43 28 10 118 29 92 13 323 95 Route F- 11+ R- 12 T-1 1 Total SATURDAY Affected Trips Miles 13 +46.8 15 - 51.0 !L -105.4 59 -109.6 Transfers To Rail To Bus 78 19 118 27 .150 22 346 68 Transfers To Rail To Bus SUNDAY Affec ted Route Trips Miles F- 14 R-l2 T-l 1 ~j -105.4 117 17 Total 31 -105.4 117 17 PAGENO="0154" 836 -69- STATISTICS OF REVISED OPERATIONS - POTOMAC AVENUE STATiON `~ Denotes M-15 discontinued, passengers shown on M-11,13 WEEKDAY Route Affected Trips Miles Transfers To Rail To Bus Peak 1-Hour (AM) To Rail To Bus A-12 B-V C-O H-ll-17 J-K M-9 M-ll,l3,l5 45 52 143 50 125 10 l8~ -175.5 -202.8 + 33.6 -195.0 -1487.5 - 83.0 - 22.8 1451 998 282 1252 1351 3146 2146 162 468 129 1400 1017 25 36 98 174 93 271 414 126 112 21 36 6 48 81 7 14 Total 343 -1133.0 5926 2237 1288 203 SATURDAY Route Affected Trip~ Miles Transfers To Rail To Bus A-l2 33 -l2&.7 1133 145 B-12 33 -128.7 1490 2145 0-12 15 + 33.0 74 20 H-12 26 -101.4 649 215 J-K 54 -210.6 639 165 Total 161 -536.4 2985 790 SUNDAY Route Affected Trips Miles Transfers To Rail To Bus A-l2 13 50.7 2~40 35 B-12 10 + 22.0 26 6 H-l2 10 + 22.0 26 9 J-K 36 + 6.0 208 52 Total 69 - 0.7 500 102 PAGENO="0155" 837 -70- STATISTICS OF REVISED OPERATIONS - CAPITOL SOUTH STATION WEEKDAY Route D-S-W P- 17 Affected Transfers Peak 1-Hour (AM) Trips Miles To Rail To Bus To Rail To Bus 67 -1147.1+ 1947 216 386 43 6 - 13.2 130 14 29 3 73 -160.6 1+15 46 Total Route * D-W Total 2077 SATURDAY Affected Trips Miles ~ -57.2. 26 -57.2 SUNDAY 230 Transfers To Rail To Bus 400 44 400 Transfers To Rail To Bus Affected Route Trips Miles D-W 16 -35.2 71 7 Total 16 -35.2 71 7 PAGENO="0156" 838 -71- E. Metrobuses Serving Rail Stations (Maps) The following corridor maps show Prince George's County Metrobus routes that will terminate at Metrorail stations during Phase II rail operations. It should be noted that each corridor is identified and associated with the closest Metro station to achieve the most efficient and economical service possible. Until the rapid rail service is extended into suburban Maryland, this early action plan offers an attractive alternative for a feeder bus concept which may later be revised to take advantage of extended rail. service. PAGENO="0157" 839 Z4L1RI~GLE..STATIO1 ~ HETROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSALJ NETRORAIL PHASE II I route number terminated route ~ route metrorail station PAGENO="0158" 840 -73-, RHOtE ISL'~JID A\~NLE SThTION METROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSAL METRORAIL PHASE II Rhode Island Avenue Station! egenc lED route number terminated route ~~,..~metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0159" 841 ~P~PU~fl:fiKPW $IA11Q~ir HETROBUS IHTERFACE PROPOSA IIETRORAI I. PHASE Ii ~egenc ~jJ route number~ terminated nute~ ~metrobus rout6, ~ metroraij station PAGENO="0160" 842 iegen route number terminated route ~metrobus route metrorail statiob PAGENO="0161" 843 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 11 PAGENO="0162" 844 -77- F. ESTIMATED CHANGES IN BUSES AND MILES FOR ADDITIONAL METROBUS SERVICE In order to improve public transportation service in Prince -- George's County, four (4) new routes are proposed, one (1) existing route Is proposed to be rerouted, and two (2) exIsting routes are proposed for additional peak period service to relieve overloaded conditions. Implementation of the additional services as proposed will increase weekday revenue miles of operatIon by 1,038. implementation of the additional services as proposed will increase the bus fleet requirements for Maryland service by 17 buses. PAGENO="0163" 845 1. New Route W-14 - Fort Foote to Capitol South From Oxon Hill Road and Fort Foote Road, via Fort Foote Road, Oxon Hill Road, Kerby lUll Road, Livingston Road, Lindsay Road, Leyte Drive, Haven Avenue, Wentworth Drive, Livingston Road, Indian Head Highway, South Capitol Street, and D Street to Capitol South Station. (12.9 miles one-way) Service to~ˇperate at 30-minute frequency during peak periods and 120-minute frequency during off-peak and Saturday: 20 trips on weekdays, 16 trips on Saturdays. Route would require four additional vehicles and would operate 76,368 miles annually. 2. New Route W-16 - Fort Washington to Capitol South From Fort Washington Road and Warburton Drive, via Fort Washington Road, Indian Head Highway, ABC Fringe Parking, Indian Head Highway, Oxon Hill Fringe Parking, Indian Head Highway, South Capitol Street, and D Street to Capitol South Station. (14.5 miles one-way) Service to operate at 30-minute frequency during peak periods and 120-minute frequency during off-peak and Saturday: 20 trips on weekdays, 16 trips on Saturdays. Route wQuld require four additional vehicles and would operate 85,8140 miles annually. 3. Reroute Route W-12 - Padgetts Corner to Capitol South From Padgetts Corner, via Temple Hills Road, Brinkley Road, Oxon Hill Road, Livingston Road, Indian Head Highway, South Capitol Street, and D Street to Capitol South Station. A savings of 5.2 miles per trip would be realized, for an annual savings of 33,904 miles. 4. New Route M-l6 - Eastover-Marlow Hei9hts From Eastover Shopping Center via Indian Head Highway, Livingston Road, Bock Road, Tucker Road, Allentown Road, Old Branch Avenue, Manchester Drive, Branch Avenue, Old Auth Road, Auth Place, Auth Road, and Branch Avenue to Marlow Heights Shopping Center. (ll.~ miles one-way) Service to operate at 60-minute intervals on weekdays, totaling 26 trips. Route would require two additional vehicles and would operate 714,693 miles annually. PAGENO="0164" 846 -79- 5. New Route K-Il - Upper Marlboro-Potomac Avenue From fringe parking at intersection of Route k and Route 301 via Route 4 and Pennsylvania Avenue to Potomac Avenue Station. (15.9 miles one-way) Service would operate four a.rn. and four p.m. peak period trips. Route would require four additional vehicles and would operate 32,054 miles annually. 6. Additional Service on Existing Routes Route P-12 - 2 buses - to operate 30 minute peak period frequency Route A-l2 - I bus - to. relieve peak hour overload Total - 3 buses - 46,897 additional miles annually Other overcrowded conditions could be taken care of by schedule adjustments to evenly distribute the loads. PAGENO="0165" 847 -80- IX. METROBUS CHANGES PROPOSED FOR COORDINATION WITH OPERATIONAL PHASE II OF METRORAIL IN VIRGINIA A. General Assumpt Tons 1. Metrorail operational Phase II will Include rail operations between the Stadium-Armory and National Airport Stations, serving the Rosslyn, Arlington Cemetery, Pentagon, Pentagon City, Crystal City and National Airport Stations In Virginia. 2. Metrorall service to Virginia will operate seven days per week. 3. All Metrobus routes operating across Key Bridge between Rosslyn and Washington, D.C. will terminate at the Rosslyn Station. Passengers will transfer to the rail system for downtown locations or to new Metrobus Route M-6 for intermediate points including Georgetown. Metrobus routes operating through Rosslyn and across Roosevelt Bridge will be maIntained, except service will terminate at~ederal Triangle in lieu of operating to Southwest Hall. 4. Generally, most Metrobus routes operating across Memorial Bridge will remain as presently operated. 5. All Metrobus routes operating in the Shirley Highway corridor will be changed to terminate at either the Pentagon or Federal Triangle. Transfer to the rail line at the Pentagon Station for Farragut Square bound riders will offer a substantial time savings over that presently provided by bus. Service will be maintained across the 14th Street Bridge to Federal Triangle or Southwest Mall, although at a lower frequency of service, until the Metrorall South River Crossing Is operational. 6. A reduced frequency of Metrobus service will be provided between the Pentagon and Federal Triangle areas across the 14th Street Bridge from the Columbia Pike and South Arlington corridors. 7. Due to limited Metrorail facilities at either Crystal City or Pentagon City, routes operating in the Jefferson Davis Highway corridor will eIther be: routed to the Pentagon Station or contlnueoperating to Federal Triangle. 8. ApproxImately one-third of the service operating In the George Washington Parkway corridor from the south will be terminated at the National Airport Station. B. Justification for Cutback of Virginia Buses at Metrorail Stations 1. Impact on Cost and Deficit a. Cutting back of bus service at the rail stations would reduce miles and time.~. PAGENO="0166" 848 -81- b. Better allocation of costs would be possible with a majority of service operating intra-Virginia. c. Cost of operating rail could be offset by the reduction in cost of providing bus service. d. A reduction In the length of routes would result in a reduction of cost per trip provided; i.e., buses now able to operate only one trip in the rush hour would be available for second trips. e. More utilization of each bus would also reduce manpower requirements based upon the same amount of service presently provided. 2. Impact on Passengers a. Buses could achieve better schedule adherence through eliminating that portion of their route in the congested downtown area. b. More frequent service could be provided on many routes running identical routes in. the suburbs but serving different employment centers. For example, Route 28G to Farragut Square and 28~ to the~ Pentagon could be combined to serve the Pentagon Station providing service to both employment centers with one route. c. Passengers in many cases will be required to transfer to complete their home to work trip due to cutting of service at the rail stations. However, this inconvenience will be more than offset by wider coverage of the suburban area, more frequent service, more reliable service, and in many cases, the time required to complete a trip will be reduced. d. While the effects of Phase Ii of Metrorail will have more impact on ridership from Virginia, the impact on ridership in the District and Maryland will be substantial. Congested roadways in the District will be relieved, thereby creating better operating conditions in the downtown area. 3. Future Impact a. The future of Metrorail depends upon the concept of feeder service to the stations. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Authority to implement this concept with the first phases of rail operation and orient passengers to this mode of travel. PAGENO="0167" 849 -82- b. Development of the concept of a bus-rail network will lessen the impact on the passengers when rail operation is expanded further into the suburbs. C. Ridership 1. The number of passengers transferring between Metrobus and Metrorail for the peak period has been determined using passenger counts taken during the fall of 1975 and for midday and weekend periods based on the May, 1975 survey. 2. The projections are based on the staff's knowledge of the operating characteristics of each individual line. 3. The ridership data reflect current conditions and do not reflect any projected growth due to the attraction of Metrorail service. k. A total of 19,361+ passengers from the Rosslyn Station corridor will transfer to the rail system daily at either the Rosslyn or Federal Triangle Stations. Of this total, 3,306 will transfer during the peak a.m. one-hour period. 5. A total of 16,1+37 passengers from the Pentagon Station corridor will transfer to the rail system daily at either the Pentagon or Federal Triangle Stations. Of this total, 1+,629 will transfer during the peak a.m. one-hour period. 6. A total of 3,569 passengers from the National Airport Station corridor will transfer to the rail system daily at National Airport Station. Of this total, 826 will transfer during the peak a.m. one-hour period. D. Operating Characteristics 1. With the cutback of bus service at the rail stations, 5,711+ miles will be saved each weekday. 2. It is estimated that the proposed revision of bus service will result in a reduction of 52 buses in the bus fleet requirement for Virginia. PAGENO="0168" 850 Proposed Metrobus Changes 1. Rosslyn Station Corridor in the Rosslyn Station corridor, 11th and E Streets service operates during weekday, Saturday and Sunday periods; Pentagon and Southwest Mall services operate during peak commute hours only. a. Wilson Boulevard Line, Route I (1) 11th and E Streets and Pentagon Service it is proposed to terminate all of the present Route 1 11th and E Streets and Pentagon service at the Rosslyn Metro Station. Passengers will transfer to the rail system for downtown Washington destinations or for the Pentagon. A new Route M-6 between Rosslyn and Union Station will be established to serve intermediate points in Washington, D.C. The present frequency of service will be maintained on the Virginia portion of the route. (2) Southwest Mall Service it is proposed to maintain the present service via the Roosevelt Bridge, into the District of Columbia; however, trips will be terminated at Federal Triangle. Passengers destined for Southwest Mall will transfer to rail service at either the Rosslyn or Federal Triangle Metro Stations. b. Washington Boulevard Line, Route 2 (1) Union Station Service The proposal will terminate all Route 2 Union Station service at the Rosslyn Metro Station. Passengers will transfer to the rail system for fast convenient service to downtown locations or to new Metrobus Route M-6 for intermediate points. The present frequency of service within Virginia will be maintained. (2) Southwest Mall Service The present time schedule for Route 2 service via the Roosevelt Bridge will be maintained; however, service will terminate at the Federal Triangle Station in lieu of operating to the Southwest Mall. c. Lee Highway Line, Route 3 (1) 11th and E Streets and Penta9on Service The proposal will terminate all Route 3 11th and E Streets and Pentagon service at the Rosslyn Metro Station. Downtown Washington and Pentagon riders will transfer to the rail system for a continuation of their journey. A PAGENO="0169" 851 new Route M-6 will be established to serve intermediate points between Rosslyn and Union Station. There will be no change in the frequency of Route 3 service within Virginia. (2) Southwest Mall Service Service via the Roosevelt Bridge will be maintained; however, all Southwest Mall trips will be terminated at Federal Triangle. d. Pershing Drive-Arlington Boulevard Line, Route ~ (1) 11th and E Streets Service It is proposed to turn back all Route 4 11th and E Streets service at the Rosslyn Metro Station. Passengers will transfer to the rail system for downtown Washington destinations or to new Metrobus Route M-6 for intermediate points. There will be no change in the service frequency of Route 4 within Virginia. (2) Southwest Mall Service Service via the Roosevelt Bridge will be maintained; however, all Southwest Mall trips will be terminated at Federal Triangle. e. Chain Bridge Road Line, Route 5 (1) 11th and E Streets Service Via Key Bridge It is proposed to terminate all Route 5 George Washington Parkway-Key Bridge service at the Rosslyn Metro Station. Passengers will transfer there for continua- tion of their trips into Washington via either the rail systemor new Route M-6. (2) 11th and E Streets Service Via Chain Bridge Since the ramps from the George Washington Parkway to Rosslyn are closed during the a.m. commute period, it will be necessary to maintain Route 5 Chain Bridge Road service as presently operated. An alternative during the p.m. rush period would be to operate certain outbound trips via Key Bridge in lieu of the present Chain Bridge operation. f. Alexandria-Arlington Line, Route 10 It is proposed to extend all Route 10 service from Wilson Boulevard and Courthouse Road to the Rosslyn Station. This will provide increased capacity along the most heavily used portion of Wilson Boulevard, between the Clarendon area and Rosslyn and, in addition, provide direct service from portions of Glebe Road to the Rosslyn Station. PAGENO="0170" 852 -85- g. Arlington Boulevard Line, Routes 20/24 (1) 11th and E Streets Service The proposal will terminate all Route 20 11th and E Streets service at the Rosslyn Metro Station. Downtown Washington riders will transfer to the rail system, and those destined for intermediate points to new Route M-6. There will be no change in the frequency of Route 20 service withIn Virginia. (2) Southwest Mall Service The present schedule for Route 20 and 2. service across the Roosevelt Bridge will be maintained; however, the route will be cut back at the Federal Triangle Station. h. Shlrlingtˇn-Rosslyn Line, Route 21S The proposal will terminate all service on Route 21S at the Rosslyn Metro Station. Passengers will transfer to the rail system for downtown Washington destinations or to new Route M-6 for intermediate points. i. National Airport-Rosslyn Line, Route 25A/B ~The proposal is to discontinue Routes 25A and B, as the Metrorail line duplicates this route in its entirety. 2. Pentagon Station Corridor a. Vienna Fringe Parking Lot Express, Route 5X The proposal is to terminate, rush hour Route 5X at the Pentagon. Passengers destined for the DiStrict of Columbia will transfer to either the Metrorail system or to Metrobus Routes 7, 14 and 16. b. South Fairlington-Parkfairfax Line, Route 6 (1) Federal Triangle Service Currently, Routes 6 and 8 operate with many rush hour branches. In order to simplify and clarify present route structure, this proposal combines the various routings Into four basic routes. The proposal is to operate Routes 6J and 6K to the Federal Triangle in lieu of operations to Farragut Square. During the rush hours, trips will operate express service bypassing the Pentagon and, during the base periods, buses will operate via the Pentagon Station. Weekend and evening Route 6V will also be routed via the Pentagon Station. PAGENO="0171" 853 -86- (2) Pentagon Service Two rush hour feeder routes will be established to the Pentagon: Route 6G from Fort Ward via South Fairlington and Route 6H from Alexandria via Janney's Lane and Parkfairfax. (3) Discontinued Routes The following routes in the South Fairlington-Park- fairfax area will be discontinued and replaced by the revised route structure: 6B, 6E, 6F, 6L, 6N, 65, 6T, 6U, 7S, BA, 8B, 8E and 8F. Passengers utilizing these routes today will be able to utilize revised Routes 6G, 6H, 6J and 6K. c. Lincolnia-Washington Line, Route 7 (1) Constitution Avenue Service The proposal is to continue all Route 7 Union Station and Southwest Mall via Constitution Avenue trips as presently operated. (2) Farragut Square Service It is proposed to terminate all of the present Route 7 Farragut Square trips at the Pentagon Metro Station, with the exception of Route 7G. Route 7G will be maintained into Washington, D.C.,however will terminate at Federal Triangle. (3) Southwest Mall Express Service It is proposed to maintain Route 7M and where necessary increase the frequency to provide direct service to the Southwest Mall area. d. Shirley Duke-Washington Line, Route 8 (1) Constitution Avenue Service The proposal is to continue all Route 8x Federal Triangle via Memorial Bridge trips as presently operated. Current Route 8 service from the South Fairlington area will be merged with Route 6. (See previous discussion.) (2) Farragut Square Service It is proposed to terminate all of the present 8W, BY and 8Z Farragut Square service at the Pentagon Metro Station. e. Alexandria-Washington Line, Routes 12-15 (1) Braddock Heights Service, Route 12 It is proposed to maintain the present Route 12A routing direct to Federal Triangle. All service on Routes l2B, 12P and l2Z would be combined as new Route l2B and operate to Federal Triangle via Pentagon City, ePen~gpji_ and Memorial Bridge. Route l2E service will be discontinued. PAGENO="0172" 854 -87- (2) Potomac Yards Service, Route 13 It is proposed to reestablish Route 13A to its routing prfor to September 1, 1975, and replace service to the Marriott Twin Bridges with Route R-6. A new Route 13B will be established, to replace Route 25B between Crystal City and the Pentagon via the River House. Route 13 will operate with alternate trips operating to either Federal Triangle or the Pentagon Metro Station. (3) Arlington Ridge Road Service, Route 14 The proposal is to maintain Route 14A service as presently operated. Off-route trips on Routes l4B, l4D, l4F, l4H and 14V will be discontinued and replaced by other services. (4) Russell Road Service, Route 15 The proposal is to maintain Route l5A service as presently operated. All, service on Routes 15B, 15C, 15D and l5J will be combined into a feeder.route serving the Pentagon City and Pentagon Metro Stations. All service on Routes 1SF, l5N, l5R, l5T, 15U, 15W, and 15Y will be combined into feeder Route l5P connecting Ama Valley with the Pentagon Metro Station. The propos~1s for Routes 14 and 15 will discontinue all bus service on the portion of South 23rd Street between Army-Navy Drive and Arlington Ridge Road. f. Columbia Pike Line, Route 16 (1) Federal Triangle Service The proposal is to maintain all Federal Triangle service via either the 14th Street or the Memorial Bridges as presently operated. (2) Farragut Square Service It is proposed to cut back all Route 1GZ Farragut Square service at the Pentagon Metro Station. (3) Southwest Mall-Union Station Service It is proposed to maintain Route 16M service to Union Station and to increase frequencies to meet anticipated shift of riders from cut back 16Z services. (14) Shirley Highway Express Service It is proposed to maintain Route 16G to Farragut Square as these buses will connect with the Metrorail system at the Foggy Bottom Station. g. Kings Park-Washington Line, Route 17 (1) Farragut Square Service It is proposed to terminate all Route 17G, 17H, 17S, l7T, 17Y and 17Z service at the Pentagon Metro Station. PAGENO="0173" 855 (2) Southwest Mall Service The proposal Is to maintain Route l7M service to the Southwest Mall and to increase frequencies to meet shifts In ridership from cut back routes. h. SpringfieldWashington Line, Route 18 (1) Farr~gut Square Service The proposal is to maintain Route l8G West Spring- field service through to Federal Triangle at a reduced frequency. The remainder of the 18G service will operate to the Pentagon. All service on Routes 18K, l8H and 18X will be changed to terminate at the Pentagon. (2) Southwest Mall Service it Is proposed to operate Route l8M as an express from West Springfield to Southwest Mall. The inner portion of Route 18M will be covered by a new Route 18E as described below. (3) Federal Triangle Service it is proposed to change the Springfield local service via Hanover Avenue and Bren Mar to terminate at the Pentagon Metro Station. (L1) 12th Street Expressway Service it is proposed to establish a new route between Springfield Plaza and Federal Triangle via the 12th Street Expressway to be designated Route 18E. This route will replace portions of Routes l8A, 18B, 18D, l8M and 18X. I. Huntington-Washington Line, Route 19 it is proposed to maintain Route 19 service through to Federal Triangle, with certain trips cutting back at the Pentagon Metro Station. j. Fairfax City Express Line, Route 20E it Is proposed to maintain Route 20E service through. to Federal Triangle utilizing existing trips and to add Route 20Z trips to the Pentagon. k. Shirlington-WashingtOfl Line, Route 21 The proposal is to change Route 21 into a feeder route from the Shirlington area to the Pentagon Metro Station. Rush hour service will be maintained to Crystal City via Ama Valley. PAGENO="0174" 856 -89- 1. Washington Boulevard Express Line, Route 22 No change in Route 22 service is proposed. m. Glebe Road Line, Route 23 The proposal Is to terminate all service on Routes 23C, 23E, 23G and 23H at the Pentagon Metro Station. n. Oakton-Pentagon Line, Route ~ It Is proposed to change Route 2~ (now designated 25) to operate to the Pentagon via Washington Boulevard similar to the Route 20L service. o. Hayfield Farms-Washington Line, Route 27 (1) Franconia-Farragut Square Service It is proposed to terminate all Route 27B, 27G, and 27H service at the Pentagon Metro Station. (2) Alexandria-Fa~j~gut Square Service It is proposed to maintain through service to Federal Triangle on Routes 27E and 27Y. p. SkylIne Center-Washington Line, Route 28G The proposal is to terminate all service on Route 28G at the Pentagon Metro Station. q. Fairfax-Annandale-Washington Line, Route 29 (1) Farragut Square Service The proposal is to terminate all service on Routes 29G, 29H, 29L and 29X at the Pentagon Metro Station. (2) Federal Triangle Service The proposal is to maintain and increase the frequency of service wherever required on Route 29E to the Federal Triangle via the 12th Street Expressway. r. Greenbriar-Washington Line, Route 29Z The proposal is to terminate all service on Route 29Z at the Pentagon Metro Station. 3. Crystal City Station Corridor a. Fort Belvoir-Washington Line, Route 9 It is proposed to maintain the present through service to Federal Triangle on Routes 9A, 9B, 9C, 9E, 9F and 9Q and to the Pentagon on Routes 9W and 9P. PAGENO="0175" 857 -90- b. Alexandria-Washington Line, Routes 12-15 See description listed under Pentagon Station corridor. c. Calverton-Crystal City Line, Route R-k The proposal is to change the Virginia portion of Route R-1+ to operate via the Marriott Twin Bridges Motel replacing Route 13. Current express operations on Route R-3 will be maintained at a 30-minute frequency. d. Crosstown Routes There are no changes proposed for crosstown Routes 23S, 23T, 26A and 26B. Li. National Airport Station Corridor a. National Airport Line, Route 11 (1) Federal Triangle Service The proposal is to maintain through service to Federal Triangle on Routes llA and liE. These two routes, combined'with Route 11W (see below), will provide a 15-minute frequency between National Airport and Federal Triangle. Routes liB, liC and llD will be converted to feeder operation and terminate at National Airport Station. Through rush-hour service to Federal Triangle via Memorial Bridge will be maintained. (2) Southwest Mall-Union Station Service The proposal will maintain the present through service to Union Station on Route 11M. (3) Farragut Square Service It is proposed to terminate all Farragut Square trips on Routes llY and lIZ at the National Airport Station. b. Woodlawn-Fairfield-Washington Line, Route 11W The proposal is to maintain through service to Federal Triangle on Route 11W; however, all trips will be rerouted via the National Airport Station. PAGENO="0176" 858 F. Metrobuses Serving Rail Stations (Maps) The following station maps show proposed Metrobus routes serving rail stations in Virginia. It will be noted that the Pentagon Station is divided into three corridors: Western, Shirley Highway and Southern. Certain route changes withinVirginia have not been shown on these maps since they cover only the immediate vicinity of the stations. Routes terminating at Metrorail stations are noted by a dot alongside the route number. Individual route maps will be added as an appendix to this report. PAGENO="0177" 859 egenc ~jJ route number _____ terminated route ~metrobus route metroraij station 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 12 PAGENO="0178" 860 -93-, PE~ffAGDN STATIC~N WTERN ~RRIlYJR 1IETROBUS IHTERFACE PROPOSAL. METRORAIL PHASE II To Federal Triangle vial Constitution Avenue To D.C. vi lL~th St. egen EI~J route number ii:~ terminated roule .~.~~metrobus route metroraji station PAGENO="0179" 861 FEffAGO~ STATI~~- $~IIRLEY HIGi34AY CORRI]~R ?4ETROBIJS INTERFACE PROPOSAL* METRORAIL PHASE II To D.C. via 14th St. BrIdget genc E~J1 route number terminated route ~~~~metrobus route ~ metrorail station NOTE: « indicates Farragut Square trips « indicates New or Revised routes PAGENO="0180" 862 PAGENO="0181" /~-~ PEiffAG~4 CI]Y STATION METROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSAL~ METRORAIL PHASE II 863 egend ~ route number terminated route -~,~,metrobus route metrorail station PAGENO="0182" 864 CR~'SThL. CITY STATION HETROBUS INTERFACE PROPOSAL METRORAIL PHASE 1 PAGENO="0183" ,~- ~TIO~IPL AIi~o~~ si~i-io~i k- METROBLJS iNTERFACE PROPOSAL' METRORAIL PHASE II egend route number terminated route .~metrobus route metrorail station 865 -98- Airport Station To D.C. To Pentagon~ To Alexandria NOTE: indicates Constitution Ave. limited service PAGENO="0184" Total Wkdy. Mileage Route New Terminal ~ Change 1 Rosslyn Station 152 - 501.6 1 Fed. Triangle 12 - 12.0 2 Rosslyn Station 137 - 657.6 2 Fed. Triangle 10 - 10.0 3 Rosslyn Station 198 - 653.4 3 Fed. Triangle 28 - 28.0 4 Rosslyn StatIon 139 -458.7 4 Fed. Triangle 19 - 19.0 5 Rosslyn Station 64 - 211.2 10 Rosslyn StatIon 61 + 61.0 20 Rosslyn Station 52 - 171.6 20 Fed. Triangle 31 - 31.0 21 Rosslyn Station 6 - 19.8 25 Discontinued 100 - 565.6 Total 1,009 -3278.5 Transfers All Day Adt. Peak 1-Hour To Rail To Bus To Rail To Bus 3,359 593 485 54 87 0 24 0 3,890 686 365 41 69 0 28 0 5,150 909 1,141 127 205 .0 75 0 2,824 498 538 60 126 0 42 0 723 128 0 0 439 49 30 10 1,317 233 295 33 186 . 0 52 0 243 27 119 14 746 0 112 0 19,364 3,123 3,306 339 866 -99- G. Statistics for Revised Operation of Virginia Service 1. Rosslyn Station Corridor a. Weekday Mileage Change and Transfer Passengers NOTE: Statistical data based on present ridership and frequency of service. PAGENO="0185" 0~ 0 * `.nOO%Jt~-~ C z CD (I) o CD -I `-C z -~ -0000000 0. -< 0 -I 0I ~~<-<-<-<-<-< CD CD -I ~ * ~ U) U) ~ ~ ~ - 0. - - CD.OICDCDOICDCDCD CD C 2 CD - a- Ui -. C_n U3 UO 0%ui -1 U.~3 4 4 - CD * Ui .-4 )~J %.J .~4 %~) C_CD C_fl CO - CD CD * * Ca U' I 4.11 S CD CD - 0. - P.O .0~UA P.) -.j P.ioa%co.0-tna'C_n 0 P.) 0)UJ COO 0)0 -J CD .-.1 -4ADO-~C_D-iO.0 *0 CD CD CD CD .0- CD. `-P P~) P.) P3 P.) C_fl P.) 0)00 -I * C_CD C_n CC_Ui C_CD U) C-.) C.)) - -` -. COP.) CC_O% .0~ 0000 CD - -i - CD -D 0' 0' 0'-4 %~) 0 0 0 * 0 0 .~4 U) .0 .0-C_CD C_CD .0- LA * CD I-CUD-I Ca -AC * .0- liCO CD -` - P.) C-.) U) U) U) 4 -) -.4 -.4 I- ~ pp -~ CD LtD -4 ~ .0- p.) Ui Ui UI 0 to * CD in .0 iA - 1+11111 -< .0- C-) - -. P.) P.) U) P.) 1w -~ 0' P.) 0'..) 0 .0- .0-Ui U) 10 CD 0 C_fl - (LA .0-U.n 0 ~ 0 - C-a CD CCDCCD .0- ..) UD 0 QSU~ CC) .0-0 CD CD a 0 CD - * CO P.) -. I-i U) .0-Ui CD -` 0% JOU)-40%~M -CD .0- U.0-PD0)0%0000' -~ -CC CD -.4-' OLD - W C_fl 0% P.) - 0%C_CD 0 CD C .0- 0 `.0 -4 .0CD 0 .0- -. LA PAGENO="0186" 868 -101- c. Summary oLAf.fec~ted Trips Affected Trips Off- Route Between Revision Peak Peak Sat. Sun. I Fairfax Co./ilth & C NW Cut at Rosslyn Station 659 87 78 70 1 Fairfax Co./S.W. Hail Cut at Fed. Triangle 12 0 0 0 2 Falls Church/Union Sta. Cut at Rosslyn Station 51 86 75 73 2 Westover/S.W. Mall Cut at Fed. Triangle 10 0 0 0 3 Falls Church/llth & E NW Cut at Rosslyn Station 1009 98 139 73 3 Falls Church/S.W. Mall Cut at Fed. Triangle 28 0 0 0 4 Culmore/iith & E NW Cut at Rosslyn Station 56 83 73 73 4 Arlington/S.W. Mali Cut at Fed. Triangle 19 0 0 0 5 Fairfax/lith & E NW Cut at Rosslyn Station 9 55 57 32 10 Alexandria/Arlington Extend to Rossiyn Sta. 25 36 63 34 - 20 Fairfax/llth & C NW Cut at Rosslyn Station 27 25 33 33 20 Falrfax/S.W. Hall Cut at Fed. Triangle 31 0 0 0 21 Shiriington/llth & C NW Cut at Rosslyn Station 6 0 0 0 25 Rosslyn/National Airport Discontinue 41 59 37 37 Totals 480 529 555 425 9 Includes trips currently operating to Pentagon and Navy Annex NOTE: Statistical data based on present ridership and frequency of service. PAGENO="0187" 0 - >- o = ~ 0= > IA 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0- = ~ =0. Lu LU LA >_ 00 0 869 IL O0iAl0'.0 (~I 0 0 - I- o .? LA-? LA -~ LA -~ `.0 -~ `.0 -~ LA LA LA~0'.00~'.O ~ Al ~ o o 00000000000 0 ci 0000-0-O'-OOO t~\ O~-L 0 -o--000-000- LA ci 00 0OAl--AlAl000 0 - 0 4~ 0 O-0000-0- `.0 Li 00 ~O~0~0000 `.0 LA~ 000000000000 0 LI 00 O0Al~0-Al0 0 - 0 0 ~~O-O - LI o ci --0 Al Al Al Al Al I'i Al Al - 0 Al 0 -- Al- - ci o ci - - Al ill `.0 LA t-'.0 LA-? - - Al 0 LI 00 ~0~~~AlAlAlAl LA - -~ 0 0 O--O LI 0 ci - Al - - Al Al I'~ C'L Al Al - - - Al 0 I- 0 -L--?-?A--0 0 0 `.OLA'.0 - (LI tIll II I 00 `.OLA'.0LACiLAN-%0'.0LA Al 0 ci 000-0000 Il_I 0000000000 0 ~ O4~ ~-0 0 00000 LA LI 0 _o000.0 LA LA~ 0000000000 0 LI 00 ~-00Al0AlAl 0 0 -0 Al Al Al. r~ Al - - LI. 00 -O-.-00 t~ - -? 0 Al~AlLALA~.?'..0.?Al ~i LI 0 00 ----AlAl Al - AlIL `.0 0 Al - - Al Al Al - Al - Al - LI 0 - -~ 0 - - - Al - Al LA Al Al Al - LI 0 00 -Al-Al Al - * 0 LAO LAO LAO LAO LAO LA E Z ~~-IL 0 - i'l-? 0 - (`1.? 0 - -~ l-< ca0cO0~C~ LI * LAO LAO LAO LAO LAO -? 0 - ~ -? 0 - I'~(L 0 ~-0. .?.?LALALALA'0 PAGENO="0188" In (a < (* CD - (3 CD Cl 0. 0. :3 -< I-, :0 o - a- CD CD (1 (P CD -. 0 o ~) o CO CD CD Cl o .-u C CD CD CO 13- 0 -u u 01 01 ~fl 01 01 01 fi) fl fi) 01 .0 .0 -u fl3 .0.0 0 -11 ~ CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD~CDCDCDCD CD 01 01:3 0~ 0.0.0.01:3:3:3:30.01 0~ 0. ~ .< U) 01010101 0)0101 0)010)0101 0) 01 -4 011 (a(OW)0 -4101010 -I---I-1101010(a(a -110-110-4 CD - OOOO~OOO-I-)~OOOOQ~ě-)~-) 1 01 CDO 01 010)01 Ci CU 01 -. Wa (a (a (a (a. (a (a (a 01 CD - --- - - - 0 CD CDCDCD CD CD CD -` I-10.--I 010 I~13O OC J-0..-t CD [01 CD :3 lCD CD 0(10404-304040404 Ui 301-0 a'-J -J 3~J -0 CD 0)001-_i .J GUi F-) 03'.) _i 0' a"040'1-n-M--.4 _434.. -~._i - 0'.) a'a'030 0033DM -31-01-0 - -04- (3 M- - - 0' 04300' -l 0Q~ `.4-04 -~ ~ 0-33.30 0-3 04 ~- 0-3 `.3 `.3 ~`J0M0CDa'Oa'-.J~-CD *O a'0~-f9O0OO'a'(0030cx30 d 0 ) a (1 CD 0. i (1 -* ~` .0 ((1 -~ 04(0'..) -t(1 .00'M'-1 -C01t..3 P4.11 ~3fl-~j ~-J0Ui~4a'UiMa'CDa'(7%QtJ)O-.(flO'.4 0 )3 C) ~ -~ CD U) CD i CO :3 0. 1 -~ CD Ui .1~ - 03) `-1 04 41.1-n 4. 01- - .01.Ui - -~ Ui (.1(0 0 Ui 0) -3 `.4 .1 0-1 04 0~(Ji `-3 0 0 `4-JO U) -~ Cl) 000 -~ `4 -~ Q-.0 -.000 -I 0 w c CD -~ 41- 0~ - Vi 0-3 31 -~ -~ - (-1 Ui -~ 0-) - `-3 - -4)3 0. ~. CD CD 1-0 `-400U)UiU)OUiOUi000'4a'1-004Ui04a'1-D--4 ` -. -CD < (U CD * - ~3- 1-0 t~) . - - - -- -- (1-) - .0- CU-I `04 0)1-n - .0- - 0)1-U) 1-0 l-.) -~ 04 (3 -0 Ui 0 Ui 0001-0 04 U) 0)0-0--fl 0 -I-- 0) 010 ~ a -1 PAGENO="0189" 871 -104- c. Sumary of Affected Trips Affected Trips Off- Route Between Revision Peak Peak Sat. Sun. 6 Alexandria/Farragut Sq. Cut B Fed. Triangle 50 29 0 0 7 Landmark/Farragut Sq. Cut B Pent. Station 39 0 0 0 7 Lincolnia/Farragut Sq. Cut B Fed. Triangle 47 0 0 0 8 Shirley Duke/Farragut Sq. Cut B Pent. Station 39 0 0 0 l~ Alexandria/Farragut Sq. Cut B Fed. TrIangle 7 0 0 0 15 Alexandria/Fed. Triangle Cut B Pent. Station 14 0 0 0 16 Barcroft/Farragut Sq. Cut B Pent. Station 34 0 0 0 17 Kings Park/Farragut Sq. Cut B Pent. Station 39 33 0 0 17 N. Springfield/Farragut Sq. Cut B Pent. Station 9 0 0 0 18 Springfield/Fa'rragut Sq. Cut B Pent. Station 49 29 0 0 18 Springfleld/Farragut Sci. Cut B Fed. Triangle 16 0 0 0 19 Huntington/Farragut Sq. Cut B Fed. Triangle 29 0 0 0 20 Fairfax/Farragut Sq Cut B Fed. Triangle 10 0 0 0 21 Shlrllngton/Fed. Triangie Cut B Pent. Station 26 30 0 0 23 Glebe Rd./Fed. Triangle Cut B Pent. Station 31 35 0 0 27 flayfield/Farragut Sq. Cut B Pent. Station 31 26 0 0 27 tandmark/Farragut Sq. Cut B Fed. Triangle 10 0 0 0 28 Skyline/Farragut Sq. Cut B Pent. Station 21 0 0 0 29 Annandale/Farragut Sq. Cut B Pent. Station 46 16 0 0 29 Greenbriar/Farragut Sq. Cut B Pent. Station 8 0 0 0 5 Vienna/Fed. Triangle Cut B Pent. Station 4 0 0 0 Totals 559 198 0 0 NOTE: Statistical data based on present ridership and frequency of service. PAGENO="0190" 872 `~ ~ LAN- N.r~1%b r~~r- A~ .0 I- 0 - ~ O~0-Np'~r~4 ~ %~~:2LA 2 3 N.0 3 - 0 13 I- N - o -3 == ~- I-- << a\0a ~ LAO ~ ~ ~z :1.~ .-~J ~ ~- A~3 = ~- ~z ~IA ~ ~ ~ 31 ~ I `0 31 ~ -1 31 ~ `C 01 LA `.0 ~`0 C'.O N.? 0 0'. ~. 0 N ?~ C'. "1 N ~ LA.? ~ N N `.8 N N'.0 0 `.8 LA LA N LA 0000000000 N C'. 000000000000 0 0-S- fA'~~0 I". -I'.4....0000000 `.0 0~-.?NN000 LA 0 ~0N0--N--0-O 0.O00O~ N 0~-0N0.--0-0- 0 N---'-OOOOOOO `.0 0000-.-00000 r~ 00000000-0-0 N NN fl'.'.O LAO'..? N~N 0 `.0 0~000000-0'0 ~` 0 ~ I"..? ~8 LA.? -~ ~% 0 0 - .? .? .? `.0 `.0 `.0 N.? N N I". C'. ~0N000O ~ 000000000000 0 ,*,.tIIIII1I 00NN~000O 0 000000000000 0 0 N N I~L.? ~ N 0 0 ~~~LALA?'.%0LA000 `.0 0000_0-0-000 1~ 00~N~N~~000 000000000000 0 0000N01~00000 IA e0~f~~r".r".~-.? N 000~00000 N o N-N 0000000000 0 000f~NN~".N0 - O0~~000 LA ON C'. ~00~N0' 0 ~0'00"0'" `.0 000.0.~000 ~%. *0 000 `.0 . ~O'.8IA~L'~ `.0 IA 00.I'%0?~'. .~O~000000 ~`. -IA1A-~.?O tALAIA~ ..~--NNN .r 0- IA IA N i.'~ 0 LA 0~0~00 `.0 000NNI'.~~0O ~000000O00 0 -- 0IALAIAN.?N N 0000000000 0 00-- `.0 `.0 `.0 IA N N -- ~00~~0 `.~ 0-0- N N IA N - - o-0-0-O0'~ LA 000I'4N000 š 0 lAO LAO LAO LAO LAO IA I) LAO LAO LAO LAO LAQ E I.'..~0-IA.? -f"..CO E~ ~ ~ PAGENO="0191" b. Saturday and Sunday Mileage Change and Transfer Passengers Total Total Sat. Mileage Transfers Sun. Mileage Transfers Route New Terminal j~ Change To Rail To Bus flJ~2. Change. To Rail To Bus llC-B-D National Airport 79. - 300.9 587 251 33 - 125.7 135 58 11W Fed. Triangle 29 0 118 0 29 0 59 0 llE-A-X Fed. Triangle 9L~ 0 285 0 67 0 97 0 Total 202 - 300.9 990 251 129 - 125.7 291 58 873 -106- 3. National Airport Station Corridor a. Weekday Mileage Change and Transfer Passengers Total Wkdy. Mileage All Day A.M. reak I-hour Rail To Bus Route New Terminal 8~ Change . ToRa i 1 To Bus To liZ-V National Airport 30 - lZ,7.9 987 329 388 . 129 I1C-B-D National Airport 8k - 320.1 1,596 6811 111 0 11W I1E-A-X Fed. Triangle Fed. Triangle 39 101 0 0 203 783 0 0 131 0 Total 2511 - 11~8.0 3,569 1,013 826 2113 NOTE: Statistical data based on present ridership and frequency of service. PAGENO="0192" 874 -107- c. Sumary of Affected Trips Affected Trips Of f- Route __ __ Peak Sa~ liz-v 0 0 11C-B-D 51 79 11W 22 29 I1E-A-X 63 94 Total 118 136 202 Between Revision Peak Alexandria/Farragut Sq. Cut at National Airp. 30 Alexandria/Fed. Triangle Cut at National Airp. 33 Woodlawn/Fed. Triangle Route via Nat'.l. Airp. 17 Alexandria/Fed. Triangle No Change 38 Sun. 0 33 29 67 129 NOTE: Statistical data based on present ridership and frequency of service. PAGENO="0193" 0~ ~ ,-t a ~ - .0 ~-C~- 0 .~- Z - a - 0 ~ -~ 0 ~ ~ bC 0 Ui 0 Ui 0 D.flO Cr10 Ui CD CI Ui 0 Ui 0 Ui 0 Ui 0 Ui 0 Ui 0 0 -~ - -~ 0 000 0 000000 ~ 0 %~J 0 - 0 - `~J tn tnJ N tn - 0 0 ~ 0 liii liii liii II I I IS-p ~ CD CD 0 - F-) - N N N F-) 000 0 0 000000000000 0 N C- C- (1)0 N N -Ia o~ C-CD 0----ONONON CD0 - NN0-'0--0--- ~O in C C w~c 111$ I I Iii C I III liii,.,. In -<0 CD CD > o -0--O-N0-- 0 - 0---NN-N-O0- 0 --< C- N C- Ui nt- I~ in in > -4c in 0 _,, -~ C tn 0-000-000- ~0 0' -0-Q-0-0-0-0 ~ 0 -nU C C in C III I In I 1111 I III I,, ~w - ~- 0-0-0-0-00 OCD _ -000-000-000 ~ g 0 -n I- 0 c~ `Dx 03 -0-0---ON- ~0 Ui ~ I I III I~P 1111111 III c r -0-- N 00-0- 0 CD - - - ~ N 0 - - - - N - 0 0 nt- it 03 --1 0 0 >1~ in> in) --1 (13 --I -~ 0 - N N - - In - N N CI- ~ 0 tO C--n N C--I tni CI- CI- CI- .0-Ui C.~J N N ~ 0 `D -4 I I II I I ICC I I I I I 111111 CC (13 InN InUi InIntn N -.N 0 N F-) - N -Ui N NtIICIJ - N N C) -4 -1 0 0 - Ui UiOInIntnJ CC C) Ui UitnJUi IntO C~0~S) OInIn-0- PAGENO="0194" 876 -109- H. Bus Assignment for Virginle 1. Weekday Present Proposed Route Line A .M. P .M. Base A .M. P.M. Base 1 WIlson Boulevard 22 25 12 18 21 9 2 Washington Boulevard 21 19 12 18 17 9 3 Lee Highway 40 41 12 35 36 9 4 Pershing Drive-Arl. Blvd. 18 23 7 16 21 6 5 ChaIn Bridge Road 10 12 7 9 11 6 6 Parkfairfax 16 13 4 15 12 4 7 Lincoln Ia 42 50 7. 39 47 7 8 ShIrley Duke 29 25 0 24 20 0 9 Ft. Belvoir 11 11 5 11 11 5 10 Alexandria-ArlIngton 4 4 4 5 5 5 11 National Airport 50 45 15 46 41 12 12-15 Alexandria-Washington 44 40 13 42 38 12 16 Columbia Pike 57 62 10 53 58 10 17 Kings Park 28 28 5 25 25 4 18 Springfield 42 38 5 38 34 4 19 Huntington 7 6 0 7 6 0 20 Arlington Boulevard 26 25 3 24 23 2 21 Crystal Clty-Shlrlington 6 5 3 5 4 2 2lS Shirlington-Rosslyn 2 4 0 2 3 0 22 Wash. Blvd.-Pentagon 5 5 1 5 5 23 Glebe Road *8 9 . 4 7 8 4 23S Glebe Road 4 4 4 4 4 4 25 Oakton-Pentagon 2 3 0 2 3 0 25A Rosslyn-National Airport 4 4 2 0 0 0 26 AlexandrIa-Arlington 0 0 4 0 0 4 27 Hayfield Farms 14 17 3 12 15 2 28 SkylIne Center 4 6 0 4 5 0 28A Alex.-Tysons Corner 5 6 5 5 6 5 29 AnnandalePentagon 18 20 3 16 18 2 29A Alex~-N. SprIngfield 2 2 2 2 2 2 29Z -Greenbriar . 4 4 0 4 4 0 3Z Tysons Corner Express 6 6 0 6 . 6 0 5X Vienna Express 2 2 0 2 2 0 Total 553 564 152 501 511 130 NOTE: Proposed bus assignment based on present level of service. PAGENO="0195" 877 -110- 2. Saturday Present Proposed Route Line A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Wilson Boulevard 6 6 4 4 2 Washington Boulevard 6 6 5 5 3 Lee Highway 13 13 9 9 4 Pershing Drive-An. Blvd. 4 4 3 3 5 Chain Bridge Road 6 6 5 5 6 Parkfairfax 3 3 3 3 7 Lincolnia 5 5 5 5 9 Ft. Belvoir 5 5 5 5 10 Alexandria-Arlington 4 4 5 5 11 National Airport 15 15 12 12 12-15 Alexandria-Washington 5 5 5 5 16 Columbia Pike 5 . 5 5 5 20 Arlington Boulevard 3 3 2 2 23 Glebe Road 4 4 4 4 25 Rosslyn-National Airport 1 1 0 0 28 Alex.-Tysons Corner . 5 5 5 5 29 * Alex.-N. Springfield 2 2 2 2 Total 92 92 79 79 NOTE: Proposed bus assignment based on present level of service. PAGENO="0196" 878 -111- 3. Sunday Present Proposed Route Line A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Wilson Boulevard L, 14 3 3 2 Washington Boulevard 5 5 3 3 3 Lee Highway 14 14 3 3 Li Pershing Drive-An. Blvd. 4 4 3 3 5 Chain Bridge Road 2 2 2 2 6 Parkfairfax 2 2 2 2 7 Lincolnia Li 4 Li Li 9 Ft. Belvoir Li 4 Li 1~ 10 AlexandrlaArlington 2 2 3 3 11 NatIonal Airport 8 8 7 7 12-15 Alexandria-Washington 5 5 5 5 16 Columbia Pike Li 14 4 4 20 Arlington Boulevard 2 2 2 2 23 Glebe Road 4 14 .14 4 25 Rosslyn-National Airport 1 1 0 0 28 Alex.-T.ysons Corner Li Li 4 4 Total 59 59 53 53 NOTE: Proposed bus assignment based on present level of service. PAGENO="0197" 879 -112- I. Proposal for Additional Metrobus Services 1. Background The proposals outlined in Section "E" (Proposed Metrobus Changes) consider route adjustments to meet only current operating conditions. in Virginia, new services are necessary to meet the trend of Increasing ridership and to link high density areas not currently served by the Metrobus system with the rapid rail system. This section considers areas where bus routes should be added or adjusted to meet these new demands. 2. Establish Rush Hour Route 17K it Is proposed to establish a new rush hour Route 17K from Middleridge to the Pentagon also serving the communities of Country Club View, Oak Walk and Kings Park West. This route would operate as follows: From Middleridge via Paynes Church Road, Ox Road, Portsmouth Road, Sideburn Road, Commonwealth Boulevard, Guinea Road, Braddock Road, interstate 1495, Shirley Highway Busway to the Pentagon Metro Station. initially, three a.m. and three p.m. commute period trips would be operated. This proposal would require three additional vehicles, and would operate 33,264 miles annually. 3. increase Midday Frequency on Route 20 and Establish New Route 2ON it is proposed to increase the midday frequency of service on Route 20 from 60 minutes to 30 minutes by establishing Route 20N from the Northern Virginia Community College, as follows: From Northern Virginia Community College via Lake Drive, Wakefield Chapel Road, Little River Turnpike, King Arthur Drive, Holly Lane, Gallows Road and Arlington Boulevard to the Rosslyn Metro Station. in addition, rush hour Route 20X would be extended from Fairfax Hospital to NVCC and redesignated 20N. This proposal would not require any additional rush hour buses but would increase the base requirement by three buses. The proposal would result in an increase of 86,688 miles annually. 14. Establish Rush Hour Route 2CM it is proposed to establish rush hour service between Annandale and the Rosslyn Metro Station, as follows: PAGENO="0198" 880 -113- From Annandale, via Maple Place, Annandale Road and Arlington Boulevard to the Rosslyn Metro Station. This proposal would require two additional a.m. and p.m. buses and would operate 12,096 miles annually. 5. Extend Rush Hour Route 3M It is proposed to extend Route 3M service from McLean to McLean Hamlet, as follows: From the intersection of Old Dominion Drive and Chain Bridge Road, via Old Dominion Drive, Dolley Madison Boulevard, Lewinsville Road and Falstaff Road to_ McLean Hamlet. This proposal would require two additional a.m. and p.m. buses and would operate 4,132 miles annually. This route would provide direct service from MCLean Hamlet to the Rosslyn Metro Station. 6. Establish Rush Hour Route 9D It is proposed to establish rush hour service between the Fort Belvoir area and the National Airport Metro Station, as follows: From bus terminal at Mount Vernon Road and Hudson Road, via Mt. Vernon Road, Virginia Highway 235, Richmond Highway (u.S. #1), Patrick Street, Franklin Street, Washington Street, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Smith Boulevard to the National Airport Metro Station. The proposal would require three additional a.m. and p.m. buses and would operate 23,9140 miles annually. PAGENO="0199" 881 November 18, 1975 Request (continued) Page 3 Question 8. Submit supporting documentation and analysis for the 15 percent con- tingency estimate. In reviewing the cost estimates consideration has been given to establ ishing a contingency to cover cost of such imponderables and unforeseeable delays as those identified by GAO. The purpose of the contingency is to cover possible cost increases but not to cover potential cost increase. For example, alignment revisions will be subject to rigorous application of the WIIATA add-on policy. Summary sheets detailing the contingency allowance are attached. PAGENO="0200" 882 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY METRORAIL CAPITAL COST ESTFMATE The Metro capital cost November 1975 forecast is $L~,65O.7 million. At the strong suggestion of the General Accounting Office, the Authority has been following the practice of quarterly adjustments of the capital cost estimate since May l97~. The current estimate provides for all identifiable cost increases and decreases which can be quantified, includ- ing potential cost growth such as current designer estimates, contract mod- ifications, and delays associated with strikes, litigation and floods, and the Shady Grove adjustment. It also includes the capitalization of pre- operations and Phase I operations. A contingency of fifteen percent beyond the forecasted estimate is included to cover cost of imponderables and unforeseeable delays which cannot be quantified but which can reasonably be expected to occur. Use of a contingency was also suggested by the General Accounting Office in its review of WNATA construction costs. The contingency would cover such items as the following: Route alignment revision, including that dictated by Federal law (1-66, Greenbelt and Branch routes) Capitalization of spare parts, test equipment, motor vehicles and software. Further delays resulting from strikes, litigation, etc. New environmental requirements New safety requirements (Railroad Safety Board and Fire/Police communications) Also, Urban Mass Transit Administration requires that a contingency be included in grant applications. Fifteen percent was the approved con- tingency in the UMTA grant growing out of the transfer of interstate highway funds resulting from highway projects deleted by the District of Columbia. Fifteen percent of the unexpended forecast system cost is $~67.O million and appears reasonable and adequate. In the light of an assumption to finance completion of the system through the transfer of interstate highway funds, it is assumed that any necessary financing of contingency items will be covered by an increasing level of available interstate highway funds which continue to escalate to the point of grant approval. Strong Board and staff control would continue efforts to keep the ceiling on the total Metro cost to $~,65O.7 million, or as close to that amount as possible. Revised Dec 23, 1975 PAGENO="0201" 883 TABLE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY METRORA1L CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS) November 1974 Estimate $4,453.7 ~gust 1975 Adjustments Obligations versus estimates $(7.3) Proposed contract modifications 34.6 Revised contract estimates 67.5 Pre-operationS & Phase operations 27.6 1-66 delay 17.5 139.9 August 1975 Forecast $4,593.6 November 1975 Ad justments Obligations versus estimates $21.6 Proposed contract modifications 6.4 Revised contract estimates 10.3 Pre-operations & Phase operations 4.6 Hurricane Eloise S 0.5 Greenbelt route delay 30.6 Branch route delay 9.0 Strikes 9.0 SAVE cost reductions (34.9) November 1975 Forecast $4,650:7 NOTE: Provision is made for a 15?~ contingency in addition to the forecasted estimate. The contingency amount is $467.OM derived by taking I59~ of the unexpended portion of the system cost forecast. The contingency is not funded, but will be obtained from escalation of tb.e Federal Highway Funded programs applicable to Metro. [Calculation = .15 (forecast-expenditures) = .15 ($4,650.7 - $1,537.5) = $467.0) * Continuing activity S PAGENO="0202" Table I Office of Budget WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY ESTIMATED COST OF ADOPTED REGIONAL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES (In Millions of Dollars) Present Program (Base) Base ~+,65O.7 Branch Route (B Alt.) (167.3) -66 (217.0) Greenbelt (288.0) Shuttle Branch (F Route) -- Funded Program `~,G5O.7 Contingency (l5~)~! `~67.O Total Funded Program I~,65O.7 1/ Federal Interstate Highway Funds transferred to Metro General Fund. 21. The contingency is not funded, but will be obtained from escalation of the Federal Highway Funded programs applicable to Metro. PAGENO="0203" 885 November 18, 1975 Request (continued) Page Li Question 9. Supply a copy of the maintenance agreement with Rohr. There is no maintenance agreement with Rohr Industries for the rail transit cars they are manufacturing for the Authority. The Authority is furnishing its own maintenance on the transit vehicle delivered and accepted by the Authority. There is a guaranty on the vehicle and its parts and if during the maintenance of these vehicles, parts which are under guaranty have to be replaced, the part is furnished to the Authority in accordance with the guaranty provisions of the contract. The Authority believes it more economical and advantageous in the long-run of maintaining its own force in servicing and repair of the transit vehicles rather than contracting it out to the supplier. PAGENO="0204" 886 November 18, 1975 Request (continued) Page 5 Question 10. Supply FY 1975 financial performance vs.budget at a reasonable level of detail for all funds controlled by Wt1ATA. Budgeted vs. Actual comparisons as follows: Salaries and Wages Fringe Benefits Support Costs Totals Metro Management Budget (Administrative Costs in Support of Rail Construction) Metrobus Operations Budget Metrorail Operations Budget $4,827,015 797,195 1 ,673,47o _________ $7,297,680 Category Salaries and Wages Fringe Benefits Support Costs Totals Budgeted $ 7,134,680 1,177,220 2,385,460 $10,697,360 Difference Actual (Over) Under $ 6,384,520 1,304,299 2,354,109 $10,042,928 Operators Wages $ 47,780,950 $ 46,778,358 Other Wages and Salaries 23,476,750 22,066,524 Fringe Benefits 16,82'l,535 17,393,375 Support Costs 16,480,765 15,560,755 Totals $104,560,000 $101,799,012 $750,160 (127,079) 31 ,351 $654,432 $1 ,002,592 1,410,226 (571 ,840) 920,010 $2,760,988 $1,517,835 $3,309,180 223,812 573,383 410,173 1,263,297 $2,l51,8~÷ $5,145,860 PAGENO="0205" 887 Additional Data: November 18, 1975 Request Question 10: Supply FY `75 financial performance vs. budget at a reasonable level of detail for all funds controlled by WMATA. (This answer should also cover the capital funds administered by the Authority.) METRORAIL CAPITAL BUDGET FY 1975 Budgeted Committed & Item of Budget Program Obligated ~(Tn thousands) Engineering and Design 15,281 145,882 Construction 393,560 3314,821 Real Estate & Rights-of-Way 16,759 29,737 Total 1+25,6OO~ 410,14140 ~Inc1udes fa~i1ities for handicapped in amount of $214.3 million. METROBUS CAPITAL BUDGET FY 1975 Original Committed & Item Budgeted Program Obligated Acquisition of Facilities Construction 6,600.0 0 Purchase of Maintenance Facility 5,720.0 0 Equipment Purchase of New Equipment 23,351.6 0 Repainting Existing Equip- ment 188.1 0 Total 35,859.7 `~Program not approved by UMTA during FY 1975. Accordingly, no funds were committed during the year. PAGENO="0206" 888 November 18, 1975 Request (continued) Page 6 Question 11. Provide a description of the FY `75 -all coratr~ction program goals and your progress against these. Fiscal Year 1975 planned to cortinue the accelerated pace of construction for the Rapid Rail Transit System `~oile design and rights- of-way acquisition obligations decli~m. Phase I operations was planned to commence during this period. 411 of Phase II would be under con- struction and approaching completion. All structural, finish and stage contracts would be underway for Phase ill, as well as all structural, most finish and stage contracts for Ihase IV. t~ost Phase V structural contracts would have commenced and most design contracts for Phase VI. The 1975 program would involve design contracts covering approximately eight project units while the construction program would involve advertising 13 construction'contracte, six finish contracts and five stage contracts for a total of 117 prime contracts under construction concurrently. Through Fiscal Year 1975, there are to stations completed, 39 stations and over 45 miles of the syatam under construction. Construc- tion is underway for 19.3 miles from north of Silver Spring to Rockville Pike and the Beltway (1-495) on the Glenmont/Roc~ville Routes; for 19.9 miles from south of National Airport to the New Carrollton service yard on the Huntington/New Carrollton Routes; for 2.2 miles from Gallery Place Station to Waterfront Station en the Green~elt/Branch Routes; for 2.9 miles from Rosslyn to west of Glthe Road Station on the Vienna Route; and for 1.1 miles between the Pentagon and East Potomac Park on the L'Enfant Plaza/Pentagon Route across the Potomac River. The Phase I portion of the system is now scheduled for revenue operation during Fiscal Year 1976 due to late deliver,' of rnetrorail cars. PAGENO="0207" 889 November 18, 1975 Request (continued) Page 7 Question 12. Provide detailed support for the $57 million increase necessary to reach the $4.65 billion total cost. A breakout of the $57 million increase is incorporated under Table 1 of the supporting documentation submitted for Question 8. PAGENO="0208" 890 November 18, 1975 Request (continued) Page 8 Question 13. Submit supporting documentation for the 37 percent fuel price inflation rate. The estimate of diesel fuel costs for the FY 1977 Hetrobus Operations Budget was based upon a unit price of 45 cents per gallon. The price per gallon used in estimating the cost of fuel in the FY 1976 Budget was 32.7 cents per gallon. The 1977 estimate represents an increase of 12.3 cents or 37.6 percent over the 1976 estimate for fuel. The factors considered in arriving at the 45 cents per gallon estimate are as follows: 1. Since acquisition of the bus companies in early 1973 to the date of estimate, the price of diesel oil from prin- cipal suppliers had increased from 11.85 cents per gallon to 31.95 cents per gallon, an increase of 170 percent. 2. At the time of making the estimate, it appeared certain that price control on petroleum products would be lifted before FY 1977, thus opening the door to increased prices. 3. Indications had been made by foreign oil resources that increases in oil were being planned. 4. Normal inflationary factors dictated increased fuel costs. 5. Inquiries into the petroleum industry gave indications that a price of 45 cents per gallon ;;as not unrealistic. Since date of estimate, price of diesel oil had increased to over 34 cents or 6 percent per gallon. Accordingly, it was the considered judgment of the Authority that an amount of 45 cents per gallon for fuel was justifiable for estimating purposes. PAGENO="0209" 891 November 18, 1975 Request (continued) Page 9 Question 1~4. Submit documentation of your consultants wi:h D~3, DOT and UMTA concerning your selection of 15 percent as a cofltingency factor. The May 8, 1975 GAO report to Senator Byrzf, identified numerous imponderables and unforeseeable delays. Discussions with UMTA revealed that UMTA required a contingency of an unspecified snount. Fifteen per- cent is the maximum contingency acceptable to U~TA ithout special justi- fication. UMTA reviewed the possible use of a 20 percent contingency, as suggested by the District of Columbia, and conchded that 15 percent was adequate. Attached is a copy of UMTA's Phase A Grant with the 15 percent contingency approved. Subsequently, this was discussed with DOT with no objections or revisions. 62-418 0 -76 - Pt.2 - 14 PAGENO="0210" 892 f~ I A: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTA iiO~ ADMI\~STRATiON WASH!NGTON. 00. ZC~ T;~t D~-uN1aTRAT0R OCT. 3 ~S75 Mr. Jackson Graham General Manager, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 600 Fifth Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20001 Re: Project No. IT-23-9001 Dear Mr. Graham: I am pleased to advise you that your application for capital assistance under the Interstate Substitution provisions of the 1973 Federal-Aid Highway Act (23 U.S.C. 103(s)(4)) has been ~ in the maximum amount of $2P5,560,000. We have reserved the full $286,560,000 for this project. To assist your staff in administering this project, va are enclosing a copy of our Guidelines for Project Adninistratiom as well as UNWA computer information forms which ahculd be completed and submitted tQ us. Two copies of the aneroved project budget are also enclosed. Na have also prepared seven (7) counterparts of am Offer of Contractual Assistance. I suggest that this arojact agrsement be executed by UI~A, the Government of the District of Columbia (the District) and the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (kIlATA) at an early and mutually convenient time and place. Execution of the agreement should be in accordance with appropriate resolutions or sicilar authorizing documanta of WLATA mcd Edatrict, mcd such document should be certified by Counsal to each. In the event that Counsel for either WMATA or the District of Columbia is unable to make the certification because of pending legislation which might affect the timely implementation of the project, a concise description of the reasons should be forwarded to Etfi prior to execution of the grant agreement. PAGENO="0211" 893 -2-- A great deal of effort and cooperation have been nod eroahan by narticipating agencies in the Washington metropolloan area to cake possible this significant stop toward completion of the regional ~-1strorai1 system. I congratulate you and all who participated and look forward to expeditious implanen:a:ion of the project with you. S incero~-? ~ ~ Robert E. Patricelli Enclosures Identical letter to Mr. Douglas N. Schneider PAGENO="0212" 894 APPROVED FINA~;cING Estimated Gross Project Cost $358,200,000 41.00.00 Deduct Revenue Financing -0- ESTI~1ATED NET PROJECT COST $358,200,000 U~A Share $286,560,000 Local Share $ 71,640,000 CASH DISBURSE2~NT SCHEDuLE The cash drawdowr' schedule for the disbursenent of funds to conpiete contract commitm~flt5 is estimated to be as follovs: Period U~A Grant FY 1976 2nd Quarter $22,400,000 3rd Quarter 13,600,000 Zth Quarter 18,400,000 $ 54,400,000 F'! 1977 147,200,000 FT 1978 83,200,000 FT 1979 TOTAL $286,560,000 IcOTE: Distribution of these costs by co~itract section is detailed in Exhibit A of the final project application, dated September II, 1975. PAGENO="0213" 895 APPROVED PROJf CT BUDGET Project No. IT-23-9001 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and Coverarent of the District of Coluabia Project budget items and corresponding cost estimates are as follovs: Project Budget Estimated Line Item Ccde Descrip~on Cost 15.06.00 Real Estate Acquisition sod Relocation Assistance Engineering and Design Construction Management and Inspection Legal Services Real Estate Acquisition Appraisal Services Demolition Construction of facilities Including Utility Agreements and Construction Insurance Supporting Services: Direct Staff. Salaries Direct Staff Fringe Benefits Indirect Staff Salaries and Fringe Banefits Contingencies Estimated Cross Project Cost September 1975 15.08.01 15.08.02 15.08.03 15.08.04 15.10.00 15.11.00 15.16.10 15. 16. 20 15.16.90 32. 00. 00 $ 4,537,000 116,000 10,520,000 100,000 39,000 137,000 285,308,000 7 ,473,625 1,318,875 1,939,500 ~,7ll,000 $358,200,000 PAGENO="0214" 896 November 18, 1975 Request No. 15 - Submit documentation of your consultations with UMTA regarding the capitalization of rail start-up costs. Extensive discussions have been held with key UMTA staff relative to capitalization of rail start-up costs. These start-up costs involve pre-operation testing and training. The basis for the estimates were provided, indicating the length of training for rail employees and the extensive nature of the test program to assure safe and reliable operations (similar to data provided the Committee in this set of questions). UMTA has stated that they will make a decision within the next several weeks. If the decision is favorable, funding for capitaliza- tion will be on an 80 percent Federal/20 percent local basis, using funds from the highway transfer program. If the decision of UNTA is not favorable, funding for capitalization will continue to be from the Federal grant on a two-thirds Federal, one-third local basis. Thus, the UMTA decision on capitalization will determine whether one-third local funding or 20 percent local funding will be applied. Adequate funding under the two-thirds/one- third grant program are avai1a~le for capitalization of start-up costs. PAGENO="0215" 897 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATIO ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC 2 5 3 THE ADMINISTRATOR JAN Mr. Sterling Tucker Chairman, Board of Directors Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 600 5th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Dear Mr. Tucker: With the approval last October of a substitute transit project for Metrorail construction under Interstate transfer provisions of recent highway legislation, new hope was generated for completion of the regional system. Your personal role, and thmt of Mayor Washington, was essential in the local decision to use these highway funds for transit. The opportunity now exists for all governments within the Washington metropolitan area, through the Interstate transfer process, to provide for sustained Metrorail construction. Tho use of these Interstate transfer funds will bring the Urban Mass Transportation Administration more closely in touch with the project, and I look forward to working closely with the WMATA Board and staff to ensure continued progress on the Netrorail System. The WMATA staff has requested guidance on a number issues that involve IJMTA because of the use of Interstate transfer funds. I am writing to discuss our position on each of these points. 1. Contract reviews for Part A grant. We have arranged to fleet on February 2, 1976 with the WNATA offices of Engineering and Program Control to complete our review of all contracts included in the scope of the approved grant. In this meeting we will want to discuss further the opportunities for cost reduction in underground construction for Metrorail segments contemplated for future Interstate transfer grants. A number of these opportunities have been identified by the Department's Transportation System Center as it mssisted in our review of the Part A contracts. PAGENO="0216" 898 -2-- 2. Eligibility of WHATA's 1976 General Engineering and General Design Consultant Contracts for funding. We have reviewed an informally submitted draft application prepared by the WHATA staff in which $29 million is requested to fund this consultant work. We are prepared to review an application f or a project amendment to cover these costs. Further, we would be prepared to extend "no prejudice" authority to WMATA to contract for the General Engineering Consultant work, subject to our later review of such an amendment. As to design work, we cannot approve funds for specific segment design until priorities have been established for operable segments to be constructed during the next several years. In this regard, we stand ready to meet with the staffs of TPB and WHATA to discuss definition and timing of operable segments for inclusion in the next (Part B) and subsequent Interstate substitute grants for Netrorail construction. 3. Capitalization of startup costs. We have reviewed materials submitted in support of a request that Interstate transfer funds be approved to meet training and acceptance testing costs associated with the startup of each new phase orsegment to become operational. Also requested is approval of these funds to capitalize the cost of operating Netrorail Phase I f or up to nine months. UNTA has provided assistance in funding the start-up costs of other systems, but in eac5h case such assistance has been limited to the costs of training and acceptance testing. Based upon our review of the submitted materials, we are prepared to assist in funding similar one-time training and acceptance testing costs f or Metrorail. However, we cannot approve the use of UMIA-administered capital funds for normal initial operating costs of Phase I or other system segments. We have received a description of the required acceptance testing activities, but no cost estimates for these activities were provided. We will be happy to review these estimates when they become available. I hope this clarifies our position on these matters. We look forward to working with you as we proceed with Metrorail construction. Si~,~rely, ~7) 1~Li~:. ~ Robert E. Patricelli PAGENO="0217" 899 November 18, 1975 Request (continued) Page 10 Question 16. Submit copies of the Ernst and Ernst management letters for the last three years. The management letter for 1971, 1972, and l97'4 are attached. The 1972 letter is a draft form as no final report can be located. There was no management letter in FY 1973. PAGENO="0218" 900 ERNST & ERNST 1225 CONNCCTICUT AVE.N.W. WASHiNGTON, D.C. 20036 .January 13, 1972 Mr. Delner ISOn, Secretary-Treasurer Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 950 South L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20024 Dear Mr. Ison: During the course of our examination of the financial statements of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and our related review of the accounting procedures and internal controls, several items came to our attention which we feel are worthy of your consideration. We realize that a nunber of these problems have resulted from the rapid ex- pansion of the Authority over the past few years. We also recognize the fact that you have already started strengthening some of these controls, but we feel that they deserve mentioning at this time. INVEST~NTS The Authority has proposed that beginning in the fiscal year 1972 that an investment register be maintained on an automated data processing system. If this register is maintained on an up-to-date basis, it could serve as a subsidiary investments ledger to the General Ledger by the ac- counting department. This would save many hours of manual posting by the accounting personnel. It is the current practice of the accounting office to accrue all interest on bonds manually. It is also the current practice of not ac- counting for bond premi~ and discount. We recormend that bond premiun and discount be accrued and/or amortized as a normal accounting function and that such accounting, including the accrual of interest, could be planned for and incorporated in the prograrming of the new data processing system. PAGENO="0219" 901 -2- INTERNAL AUDIT DEPAR~NT We believe that the internal audit department is doing a good job in their reviews. To strengthen the effect of their reports, we suggest that procedures be established which will permit changes to the recoinnended reports only to remove errors in facts. Corranents concerning recommendations discussed with interested parties are usually covered in a final section of the report which sets forth the results of the discussions, including arguments for or against such recorranendations and/or planned steps to implement the recommendations. We believe that, other than errors in facts, all reccmmendations should be reported and replied to. - COST SYSTEM During our review of the Authority's cost accounting system, we noted that all of the cost reports are issued on a monthly basis. Although we realize that the cost records are useful for historical purposes, we question the need for having all of the reports issued on a monthly basis. We feel that the reports needed for monthly reconciliations should be printed on a monthly basis; the back-up reports should be retained on tape for access purposes. GENERAL The following items came to our attention during our examination and are noted here for your consideration. 1. Vendors' invoices are not marked paid when they are paid. We recommend that all invoices be marked in some specific manner in order to avoid the duplicate payment of invoices. 2. During the course of our examination we obtained directly from the bank names of the persons who were authorized to sign checks for the Authority. Although eight people can sign checks, the American Security and Trust bank confirmed only three of them to us. We suggest a review be made to be certain the bank recognizes all authorized signatures. 3. We noticed during our tests of the Authority's records that if a pay- roll check was voided and a new check was issued in its place that no record was made of the cancellation or the reissuance of the check. This practice was brought to the attention of your personnel and subsequently corrected. We have enjoyed working with your personnel during our engage- ment, and wish to thank them for their cooperation. We will be glad to discuss any of the following comments further at your convenience. Very truly yours, #~a~/Vp ~ PAGENO="0220" 902 DDATT ~ ~ /z~y ~ 2 Soverber 13, 1972 hr. Jackson Graham General Wanager Washington Xetropols.tan Area Transit Authority Washington, D. C. Dear hr. Graham: Our examination of the financial statements of the Washington Xe~ro- politan Area Transit Authority for the year ended June 30, 1972 included a review of the system of internal control and accounting procedures of the Authority. During our review, certain items care to our attencion which we feel merit consideration in the interest of strengthening controls, improving procedures, and increasing operating e~ficiency. Our torments are derived from our normal auditing procedures which are based on tests of the accounting records, and n~on in-depth studies of the areas covered. (1) Since the volume of security transactions has and will continue to increase substantially, the Authority s,hould proceed,with the implemantation~ soon as practicable he proposed automation of its investments register. In this regard, we suggest that the integration of the requirements of the accounting department with ~eese of the Treasurer's office be pursued to eliminate duplicate record-keeping. This, of course, will require careful planning and joint efforts en the part of the two departments with the system designer. (2) The AuthoritY i& required by the Transit Bond Resolution to value PAGENO="0221" 903 the investments acquired from bond proceeds at cost or principal amount, whichever is less. As this valuation process is not in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, we suggest that theAurhority maintain its current valuation basis for invest- ments, namely.cost, for financial reporting purposes and report the lower of cost or principal basis in any special reports required. We understand that this is the s'~me conclusion reached by the Accounting Department and that plans are to report in this manner. Since the requirement has been set forth in the Transit Bond Resolution of ~he Board of pirectors of the Authority, we suggest that clarification of this interpretation be obtained from the Board. INTERNAL AUDIT During the course of our examination, we reviewed the reports issued by the Authority's internal audit department as well as reports issued by various government agencies. The overall scope of the Authority's internal audit. ~function is good and produces several benefits including: (1) A strengthening of the Authority's control over assets and accounting transactions. (2) Increased assurance to management that established policies are being followed and that procedures and controls are subject to periodic review. (3) An indicated reduction in the audit time required of the independent public accountants to complete the annual audit of the Authority's financial statements. (4) The establishment of an excellent training ground for future management positions. As automation of the Authority's records continues to increase, the importance of internal review of computer generated d~ca will intensify. This PAGENO="0222" 904 will be particularly true when the Authority acšuires in-house computer capability. To perform the internal audit function of testing the contents of computer files, considerable design and programring rime will be rešuired to develop the programs necessary to accomplish these objectives. Certain systems designed for this purpose have are~dy been developed such as the Ernst & Ernst Auditronic 16 System which is utilised by our own auditors in their test work. We suggest that an evaluation of the various systems available be made to minimize the cost and effort rešuired to develop your own proprietary systems. Internal Audit reports, by their very nature, are usually subject to a reply on the part of the department being teviawed. Prešuently, such replies are in the nature of actions taken or p~oposad to be taken on the recorrmendations contained in the reports. Since management is not only interested in what is wrong but what steps are being taken to follow the recormendstions, we recommend that provision be made in future internal audit reports to comment on the discussions with the effected department head and his plans for implementing the recommendations. It is our understanding that such a program is presently being planned by Internal Audit. During our examination of the Authority' & financial statements for.the year ended June 33, 1973, we will follow up with Internal Audit on this procedure. CONTRACT XODIFICATIONS We reviewed the modification procedures as set Jorth in the Standard Procedures for Processing Construction Contract ~odifications and Claims ?~anual, discussed these procedures with representatives of the various depart- ments involved, and reviewed a specific contract file including 26 contract ~odificationa to determine whether existing procedures were being followed. PAGENO="0223" 905 Our review disclosed no apparent weaknesses in the contract modifications procedures and we found adequate documentation to support the modification, including fully documented negotiarions. Our comments are based on conditions noted during our audit and are not intended to be all inclusive. We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments and recommendations for your consideration and we are prepared to discuss them further at your convenience. Very truly yours, PAGENO="0224" 906 ~ 7'?' ERNST & ERNST 225 CON N ECT!CL)T Al EN. 21. WASHINGTON, DC. 20036 May 15, 1975 Jackson Graham, General Manager Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Aut'nority 600 5th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. Dear General Graham: Our examination of the financial statements of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for the year ended June 30, 1974, included a review of the aye tern of internal controls and accounting procedures in order to determine the degree of reliance that could be placed thereon in establishing the extant of our audit tests. This review, although not an in-de?th study, did disclose certain procedures which we believe nerit your consideration. Should the following recommendations be adopted, existing procedures and internal controls should be strengthened. INTERNAL AUDITING Traditionally, the internal audit function at the Authority has concentrated its efforts in reviewing and auditing outside contractors as their work pertains to the construction activity. Very little effort has, in the past, been expended in auditing the financial and accounting transactions appearing in the financial statements of the Authority. As a rosult, the testing of such transactions has been the primary responsibility of the independent accountants. During a discussion with the Director of Audit we learned that pians are underway to increase the internal audit staff to approximately 22 people and to begin a comprehensive program of auditing financial and accounting transactions. We compliment the Authority on this undertaking and we believe such a step will prove very beneficial to the Authority by improving the quality of the regular financial statements, strengthening internal controls, and could assist in reducing the time required to com?lete the annual audit. To .accomplash the maximum benefits which could be derived by such a move, however, we recommend that the internal audit function report directly to the General Manager of the Authority rather than to the Cnnptroller. We understand that a recent study performed by an outside contractor also made this recommendation and we concur. T'ne role of the Comptroller of the Authority includes the establishment of proper internal controls to safeguard the assets PAGENO="0225" 907 -2- of the Authority. One of the functions of the Internal Audit Staff is to review these controls and make recommendations for improvement or to report deviations from established procedures. It is very difficult, from an organizational viewpoint, to provide indtpendent and unbiased evaluations and suggestions covering areas over which the officer to whom the auditor reports has responsibility. We understand that the staff of the Authority does not feel that such a change is necessary; however, we feel obligated to rscoamend it in order to place the internal audit function in a position of inde?endence, not only in fact but in appearance. GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND OTHER ACCOUNTING HATTERS Currently, many decisions are made by the Authority having accounting and financial reporting ramifications without consideration as to the possible effects of what is referred to as generally accepted accounting principles. Concepts such as depreciation, prerail operating costs, capitalized interest costs and claims for injuries and damages have been viewed more from budgetary implications than accounting implications. The Authority's accounting staff has frequently recommended the accounting treatment resulting from a particular decision after the budgetary procedures have been completed; however, we feel that the accounting considerations should be evaluated early in the decision making process. Aside from the interest of the Authority's line of credit banks and the General Accounting Office as to the use of generally accepted accounting principles, we note that the regulations for Section5 funding of the Urban Hess Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, include a requirement f or a certification that the actual and projected results of operations "are reported in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis." Additionally, the regulations require that 1J111A also approiie any accounting changes made by the Authority. The recently created Financial Accounting Standards Board end its predecessor, the Accounting Principles Board, have issued or have in draft stage several pronouncements which affect the Authority including: Audits of State and Local Government Units Accounting for Research and Development Costs Accounting and Reporting by Development Stage Companies Accounting for Contingencies Statement of Position on Contingencies Arising from Energy Shortage We recommend that an overview of the nature of generally accepted accounting principles be made by the officers of the Authority arid the effects on the Authority's financial accounting and reporting of recently issued or pending promulgations be studied. We are available to meet with you end to provide you with any information you may require or to answer any questions you have. 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 15 PAGENO="0226" 908- -3- O~ir discussions with UIICA officials on the requirenants for the aforemsotioned Section 5 funding, for which the Authoqity has recently apalied, indioste the Authority will be required to file a statement of its alan of ailcoation of expenses between funds. Currently, such allocation is basad wean de?artmeotal estimates of tine and costs; however, the estimates are to a large degrae judgusatal. We recommend that the Authority, in order to more properly measure actual costs and to provide documentation for such allocations, perform time studies over a representative period of tine using sound allocation principles and emalyze the allocation of other costs such as building maintenance and office supeiies. As an alternative, a tine reporting system could be designed to capzmme such costs but such a method is both tine consuming and subject to cuss:ionable accuracy. Y-i~ CLISIlIC A~D ?RE?~RATION FOR AUDIT - Our examination of the financial statement of the Authority for the year ended June 30, 1973, was not completed until February 1974. Tnis was due prizaril~ to the problems arising as a result of the takeover of the four bus companies, changing over their systems to conform to that of the Authority, a significant number of year-end adjustments, and other matters requiring time of the accounting staff. Our examination for the year ended June 30, 1974, was not completed until January 1975. Tale was due primarily to the involvement of the accounting personmal in the implementation of the new "FARE" system, and as a result, expected completion dates for the audit were delayed. In addition, in both years muerous adjustments (in excess of 100 each year) were required to the accounts. This raises serious question as to the accuracy amd usefulness of the ontnlv financial statements. We believe that much could be gained by proper planning and schaluling of the year-end audit~. To accomplish this we recommend: - Analysis of the major accounts be performed on a regular basis (at least quarterly) and adjustments to-the accounts be made as required. - Schedule the year-end work by account by individual responsible sad establish firm due dates u-hen they are to be done. Consul: on a regular basis throughout the year with. the independent accountants and internal audit on matters of - - questionable or unusual transactions, accounting changes, application of generally accepted accounting principles as they may apply to the Authority, and reporting re~juire=ents to establish proper treatment during the year - rather than waiting until year-end which may require a number of adjustments and reworking certain schedules. * -~ - Baked on established completion dates by the internal staff, establish in conjunction with the independem~ accountants a scheduled completion date for the audit. PAGENO="0227" 909 -4- If such planning is partormed and deadlines established and adhered to, toe year-end audit should be completed in a reasonable time and any adjustments required will be reflected in the monthly financial statements making those statements more meaningful. In discussing this recommendation with the accounting department we were informed that, due to the many activities, systems changes, budgetary requirements, etc. that require the time o~f the accounting staff, year-end closing problems have cot been given high priority becausa no formal date has been set for statements other than early in Marchof the following year. Howe~?er, the accounting department recognized the advantages to completing the audit sooner and have set a date of completion of their work by October 1, 1975 so as to be ready for the outside auditors at that time. We are planning to work closely with a representative of the Authority staff, assisting in the planning process, establishing raaiistic schedule completion dates, and discussing accounting and reporting cuestions early. INTERFUND AccOUNII2;G AdD OTHER During our examination we reviewed the interfumd transfers of monies and the accounting and balancing procedures for the interfund accounts. As a result of our procedures we offer the following recommendations: Amounts due to the Construction Fund from the detrobus Operating Fund representing principally the salaries of personnel allocated to Metrobus and the purchases of office supplies should be repaid on a timely basis. Of the amount due at June 30, 1974 seas items ware ovar 90 days old. While these amaunts have been subsequently repaid, it is our understanding that fiscal 1975 charges are accumulating. Procedures for transferring funds should include a documented review and approval of the source and intended use of the funds to insure that all such transfers are in accordance with the function of the funds. We noted instances where amounts had been transferred from or deposited in a particular fund, which were subsequently changed. Reconciliations of amounts due to and from the various funds sheuld be made monthly. Considerable effort was expended at year end to reconcile the interfund accounts as a result of a complete year's activity in the accounts not having been previously reconciled. In connection with the accounting for investments, we noted that a new system was being utilized aubaequent to fiscal 1974. The system, as it has been described to us, would represent an improvement in efficiencies and record keeping because information such as accrued interest and market value data would be more accessible. PAGENO="0228" 910 -0- RESLEVE ~OR I~JURIES A~i) DAMAGES The Authority's policy during 1974 was to prbvide a reserve for injuries and damages based upon 50 of gross revenue. Fe understand that beginning in fiscal 1975, this reserve is being provided at of ex~enses. Actual payments made are netted against the reserve provision and. the resultant amount at any point in time represents the eatinated liability for: (1) Claims pending (2) Claims incurred but not reported (3) Expanses of settling claims currently pending (4) Enpaid insurance expense (for insurance above the $100,000 sslf-insurance retention) Ehale using a fixed percentage is a reasonable interim estimating procedure, the results of this estimate should be regularly com~arod with actual. The Claims Department maintains listings of pending cases and a realistic ex?ected settlement value for each case. From historical date using basic actuarial principles, estimates of the liability for claims incurred but not reported and expenses of unsettled claims can be regularly redo. Fe recoccaend that on at least s quarterly basis, the above calculation of the reserve liability be made. If major variances exist between this calculation and the liability derived using the fixed percentage, then arpromriate adjustments should be made. In discussions with the Comptroller on this recommendation, we are informed that this is the procedure currently employed in 1975. CHARTER ACCOEMTS RECEIVABLE During our examination, we reviewed the charter accounting systom and selected several accounts for confirmation directly with the debtor of the amount due at May 31, 1974. The responses to our confirmation procedures produced an extremely high exception rate. All confirmations indicating an exception were given to Authority personnel. Alternatively, wa reviowed all subsequent collection activity to December 31, 1974. Of the $339,137 of balances selected for confirmation, $137,912 was still outstanding 7 months later. Additionally, from the dates of acquisition of the local bus companies to the end of but field work, we noted that there had been no accounts charged off ss uccollectible despite extended periods of delinquency; however, the accounts receivable supervisor regularly mskes account reductions for rate adjustments attributable to quality of service, number of buses provided etc. We recommend that a thorough analysis oi the charter accounting functions be performed and that all accounts on which collections appear doubtful be charged off. Charged off balances should be controlled separately and the appropriate collection effort maintained. Additionally, we recommend: All adjustments on charter receivables made in the chatter accounting section should be approved by the Director of Accounting PAGENO="0229" 911 -6- A separate report should be made of the amounts of adjustments, as currently this information is not available A regular monthly review should be made of all delinquent accounts. This review should encompass views of the Narketing and Accounting Departments. Decisions should be made as to whether accounts should be charged-off and action must be taken to insure service does not continue for uncollectible accounts * The Board of Directors should be informed monthly as to the amount of receivables more than 90 days past due * Consideration should be given to instituting a service charge for late payment of charter invoices We understand that such procedures are being implemented at this time and that a request for a tredit manager has been made to improve the follow-up collection problems. We coend the Authority for this action and we hope a credit manager cam be appointed soon. CASH During our examination we reviewed and tested cash transactions and bank reconciliations. Wnile no errors of a significant nature were noted, minor exceptions were found indicating a degree of carelessness in cash accounting. Discussions with representatives of the Controllers and Secretary- Treasurers' Offices indicated that these minor exceptions, since being brought to their attention, have been corrected. We complement the Authority on these improvements. Our commonts and recommendations are submitted as constructive suggestions to assist you on strengthening controls and procedures, and are not intended to reflect on the ability or integrity of any employee. We appreciate the opportunity to present.these comments and recommendations for your consideration and are prepared to discuss them further at your convenience. Very truly yours, Lii ~ PAGENO="0230" 912 November 214, 1975 Request Submission #2 Percent 100.0 25.5 58.1 12.14 base day. (Total Number Percent Planned 3,178 100.00 Working Regular Runs - Weekday Straight 1,1~46 36.06 * Swings 959 30.18 ** Working AM & P11 only 199 6.26 Provided for Saturday & Sunday work 3514 11.114 Days Off - Extra Personnel 53 1 .67 Absences - Vacation, Sick, etc. 1467 14.69 Partially used during base day Not scheduled during base day but available for extra duty Percent of Total Paid Hours Unused Hours Daily Pay Hours Weekday: Regular Runs Tripper Runs Extra Personnel Guarantee Total Weekday Saturday Runs Sunday Runs General Questions: 1. Submit percentage of buses idle during the base day. Question Buses Total Buses - Fleet Total Buses - Base Day Total Buses - Incremental Peak Total Buses - Spares Question 2. Submit percentage of labor force manhours per day unused but paid Personnel Numbe r 2,030 600 1,179 251 unused during the for) 263 12 568 8143 66 1 .28 0.05 2.76 0.73 5l4 o.85 PAGENO="0231" 913 Submission No. 2 November 214, 1975 Request (continued) Page General Questions Question 3. Submit percentage of labor force working split shifts. Personnel Number Percent ;~Swings 959 30.18 ~Working a.m. and p.m. only 199 6.26 Total PAGENO="0232" 914 lovember 214, 1975 Request Question 4 Comment on the possible increases suggested in the staff mer~oranda and explain the cost reduction in the Authority's estimates. The reduction in the subsidy requirements in out years reflect the reductions in the FY 1977 Budget estimates by the Board Budget Review Committee of the Authority contained in the schedules attached. These reductions include service adjustments and adjustments resulting from budget review which when projected during the years 1978 - 1980 result in lower subsidy requirements. Accordingly, these amounts are based on the Authority's best estimates of costs and revenues for this period and assumptions of availability of Federal assistance and cap- italization of certain rail operating costs. The increases suggested by committee staff are, for the most part, speculative in nature. They may or may not occur and if they do could be much more than suggested or much less than suggested. The Authority does not agree with these speculations. The estimates made are based on certain operating criteria with regard to costs and revenues and reflect the Authority's best estimates of their impact. PAGENO="0233" 915 November 24, 1975 Request General Questions Question 4. Please submit comments on attached staff estimates of Metro~s deficits frQm FY 1975 to F( 1980. The total deficit amounts for fiscal year 1978 through 1980 are not in accord with Authority estimates as follows: (In Millions) Committee Amount Authority Estimate Difference 1978 102.9 53.7 1979 148.4 59.7 88,7 1980 159.6 53.9 105.7 The Board Budget Committee in reviewing the FY 1977 Metrobus and Metrorail Operating Budgets has recons-ended reductione in costs affectng not only 1977 but subsequent years thereafter. Accordingly, the Authority estimates are adjusted downwards reflecting the gap tn Authority and Committee projections. The Metrobus subsidy program has been approved by the Board. The Metrorail subsidy has been submitted to the Board. PAGENO="0234" The following summary details findings of the Budget Committee On Metrobus operations which reduced the operating subsidy from $64.6 million to $54.7 million or $9.9 million: SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Revenue Expense ________ 1977 Budget Estimates - Request** $66,429,750 $131,051,178 5614,621,428 ADDITIONS: From Budget Review Accounting Lease Cost Increased Contribution to Union Retirement Trust - From Revenue Adjustments Extend Peek Periods `Establish lOf Transfer Charge--- Revised Revenue Estimates _________ _________ Total Addition DELETIONS: From Service Adjustments - Saturday - Sunday Service 195,000 41 Bus Operators Non-Personnel Cost Weekday Marginal Lines 600,000 78 Bus Operators 16 Maintenance Personnel - Non-Personnel Cost Owl Servic 89,000 29 Bus Operators Non-Personnel Cost Turnback Buses for Phase II ofRail -0- 125 Bus Operators 29 Maintenance Personnel Non-Personnel Cost From Budget Review Travel Reduced to 1976 Level-~~ Planning Experimental Service-~ Correct Overestimate of Charter Cost Personnel - Non-Personnel - Management Services Non-Personnel Cost Claims - 4 Personnel - Non-Personnel Cost"~ - Provision for Payment, of Claims of Claims 28 Maintenance Personnel 15 Bus Operators 2 Accounting Personnel Personnel - Non-Personnel Cost.-- Fringe Benefits (Educational Reimbursement) 1 General Counsel Positio Cost-of-Living Reduction from 8.7~ to 5f~ Marketing - 3 Position - Non-Personnel Costs Reston Service Eliminated $ 840,000 22 Bus Operator .8 Maintenance Persor,ri~i- Non-Personnel Cost Provision for Merit and Promotion Increase Claims Reserve-- _________ ___________ Total Deletion _________ 23~~7~140 ~ 916 1 ,000,000 2,000,000 1 ,337, 000 $47337, 000 12,400 I ,53l ,000 $1 ,543,400 844 ,26O 314,610 1,578,160 245,450 516,200 309,110 l3F,97O 1,135,570 254,220 388,350 18,119 500,000 225,139 44,598 62,315 46,987 18,700 (65,687) 540,111 290,705 41,438 5,600 3,000 26,300 284 ,26O 52,300 160,200 481,525 145,320 144,710 17,1415 7-~$-~-~ "8'~8 35~,538 Committee Recommended Budget PAGENO="0235" Total Cost Per Budget ADDITIONS: Retirement Plan Adjustment Increase Security by 15 PositIons Total Additions WA$UIN1~TQN MET1~Q?QI,~TAN M~A Tf~AN$l~T ApTUQMTY FT 1977 M~TI~ORAtL QP~PAT(ONS SUMMARY OF COMM ITTE~ RECOMMENDATIONS Start-up and Phase I Pre-Operatlons $l2,5O9~9O3 $2,855,415 +$ 68,290 1$ 15,180 $ 68,290 $ 15,180 DELETIONS: ~Do Not Open Gallery & Pentagon City Stations -$ 228,000 Reduce AFC Contract Maintenance Reduce Cost of Living from 8.66~ to 5~ - 72,000 - 16,000 Lapses - 60,000 - 10,000 Reduce Kiosk Operators from 2 to I ElIminate 3 Sec-Treas Positions-Personnel Costs . Reduce Sec-Treas Non Personnel Costs - 8,000 Eliminate 4 Safety Positlons~ - 38,380 Eliminate i Purchasing Position Eliminate Schedule Positions Reduce Travel 4,030 Power Adjustment Eliminate 18 Maintenance Positions 300,000 - 100,000 Reduce Clothing Allowance - 2,900 Reduce Dues and Subscriptions - 1,200 Lapse 15 System MainE. Positons until April Lapse 15 Car Maint. Positions until April Lapse 13 Plant Maint. PosItions~untii April Reduce Coesnunity Services Non-Personnel Costs ~I,OO0 Reduce Accounting-Non-Personnel Costs -Pers. Costs (lapse 3 positions) 900 3,800 Reduce Claims Reserve 62,000 Reduce Marketing -Personnel Costs -Non-Personnel Costs 2,300 18,700 Total Deletions $806,210 $126,000 Training for Total to be Total Funds Phase Ii Capitalized Phase Ii Subsidy Required $974,436 $16,339,754 $18,407,878 $34,747,632 +$ 7,590 +$ 91,060 ¸$ 98,640 +$ 189,700 163,310 163,310 116,047 279,357 $T70,900 $ 254,370 $ 214,687 5 469,057 -$ 16,o8o -$ 244,080 -$ 238,762 -$ 482,842 - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - 8,000 - 96,000 - 105,000 - 201,000 - 70,000 - 60,000 - 130,000 - 184,130 - 184,130 - 732,490 - 916,620 - 4,729 - 4,729 - 28,374 - 33,103 - 8,000 - 17,000 - 25,000 - 7,675- - 46,055 - 46,051 - 92,106 - 1,988 - 1,988 - 11,929 - 13,917 - 26,144 - 26,144 - 4,030 - 8,060 - 12,090 - 400,000 - 800,000 - 1,200,000 - 73,129 - 73,129 - 213,051 - 286,180 * - 2,900 - 5,760 - 8,660 - 1,200 - 2,400 - 3,600 - 148,395 - 148,395 - 146,835 - 146,835 67,785 - 67,785 - 4,000 - 6,000 - 10,000 - 900 - 1,800 - 2,700 - 3,800 - 11,750 - 15,550 - 62,000 - 169,500 - 231,500 - 2,300 - 13,700 - 16,000 - 18,700 - 26,300 - 45,000 Coimnittee Reco~mnended Costs Budgeted Revenue Comittee Recoennended Funds Required Debt ServIce on Authority Bonds $11,771,983 $2,744,595 $849,605 605,000 _________ _______ $11,166,983 $2,744,595 $849,605 $295,731 $ 1,227,941 $ 3,887,086 $15,366,183 $14,735,479 _______ 605,000 3,415,000 __ $~,76 1,183 $H,32O,47~ 15,027 $30,101,662 4 020 000 PAGENO="0236" 918 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY House Committee on the District of Columbia Questions General Questions: Question 5. Please submit a description of work rules determining the movement of drivers and maintenance employees between bus and rail. Suppl ementary Agreement By and between The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and Local Division 689, Amalgamated Transit Union. Section 103 (a) System seniority shall be applicable in two basic seniority Districts: Operating and Non-Operating. Each of these Districts shall include both bus and rail systems. - (b) In the Operating District, permanent vacancies and new jobs shall be available system-wide, and shall be awarded to the senior bidder who qualifies or is able to qualify within a reasonable period. Cc) Permanent vacancies in the Non-Operating District shall be advertised first internally. For this purpose, internally requires posting of a job in the appropriate one of the four separate internal systems 1. Bus Equipment-Bladensburg, and Bus Garages 2. Rail equipmmnt-Brentwood and Satellite Shops 3. Way and Structures (includes present Building Maintenance) L~. Systems Department If the new job or permanent vacancy is not filled as a result of the internal posting for pick, the job shall be available on a system-wide basis. In each case the job will be awarded to the senior qualified employee in the area in which the posting occurs. There shall be an annual system pick in the garages associated with the bus equipment section. There shall also be an annual system pick in the satellite rail equipment stations. These annual system picks shall be in addition to the posting of new jobs and permanent vacancies for bid. PAGENO="0237" 919 Section 20t1 Initial Train Operator vacancies will be filled by the senior bargaining unit employees (based on Operating Department seniority) who meet the published qualifications of the job, and who have performed their duties in a satisfactory manner as reflected in their on-the-job work records. All employees accepted for a Train Operator position will be expected to spend at least one year in that position. If an individual desires to bid out of the Train Operator position in less than the one-year period such bidding out will only be to a current bona fide vacancy and the individual will be required to wait two years before applying for lateral movement to any other position. This rule may be applied more than once if similar circumstances occur. The number of months spent in the Train Operator position by an employee who bids out in less than one year will be offset against the two-year waiting period. Except as provided above for employees accepted for a Train Operator position, an employee having moved laterally (to a job at the same or a lower rate of pay) from bus to rail and back to bus, or from rail to bus and back to rail, will thereafter be prohibited from further lateral (to a job at the same or a lower rate of pay) transfer until he has been on the then-current job for one year. PAGENO="0238" 920 November 2~i, 1975 Request General Questions Questton 6. Detail for the records the negotiating process with jurisdictions through which subsidy levels are set. There ~s no direct or specific negotiating process that the Transit Authority engages in with the local jurisdictions for which specifft subsidy levels are established. There have been indications made by the Northern Virginia jurisdictions that operating revenues should fund approximately two-thirds of lietrobus operating costs, but no specific levels established. The Authority prepares its estimates of operating revenues and costs for a budget year and submits them to the Board of Directors. The budget estimates are referred then to the Budget Review Comittee of the Board which, ~iith the assistance of technical and financial staff members of the local jurisdictions, re- views by office and line item the entire budget. It is during this process that an acceptable level of subsidy is established for sub- mission to the Board of Directors for approval. When the budget estimates are approved by the Board, appropriate allocation of the subsidy is made to the jurisdictions for which they become financially responsible to provide funding. PAGENO="0239" 921 November 2L~, 1975 Request (continued) Page 2 General Questions Question 7. Please submit the minutes of WMATA Board Peetings at which METRO-PEPCO problems were discussed. Attached are the minutes and back-up naterial on METRO-PEPCO problems. PAGENO="0240" 9:30 A. H. Approval of Minutes-of November 20, 1975. Report by Chairman Report by General Manager Report by NVTC, D. C., and WSTC Monthly Report of Office of Comptroller Monthly Report of Office of Secretary-Treasurer Monthly Report of Office of Minority Development. Bimonthly Report of Director of Construction Bimonthly Report of Director of Real Estate Quarterly Report of Director of Program Control Report of Board Budget Corrniittee XII. Staff Report and Recommendations on Public Hearing on Environmental Impact Study of Franconia and Springfield Routes and Alter- native Alignments Hr. Roohr XIII. Authority to Award Contract for Procurement of New Metrobuses (2W9200) Mr. Wood 922 WA*IINGTOP4 METROPOLITAW AREII T~/1N~IT AIJTHOf~ITY 6Oof,FrP~rr~'Ee'rui~ šI~F#CTOti~OC 2~OO1 (╗=o~) 6~7-,2pt AGENDA 1463rd Meeting of Board of Directors December 14, 1975 (A). 11(8). 11(C). IV(D). v(E). vl(F). vI~ (G) i/I 11(H) IX (J). x(K). X1(L). * . . Chairman Mr. Alexander Hr. Graham Mr. Hunsay Mr. Tucker Hr. White Hr. Boleyn Mr. Icon Mr. Dowdy Hr. Alldredge Mr. Rofl Hr. 0 Hearm Mr. Barnett Hr. Munsey Hr. Moore XIV. Report by Cost Review Co-rrnittee nr. Mr. Mr. Mr. i-r-. Chr Ste] ler Tuckar Phillips Coetee Sickles (oV ER) PAGENO="0241" 923 Agenda December li, 1975 Page 2 XV(N). Status Report on New Electric Service Agreement with Potomac Electric Power Company for Provision of Electrical Energy for Metrorail *(MA-O'+3) Mr. Garrett Mr. Pinkney Mr. Robertie Mr. Trott XVl. Authority to Amend FY 1976 Metrobus Operations Budget to Fund Retirement Plan for Local 689, ATU Mr. Barnett Mr. Dewey XVII. Authority to Modify Construction Contract, Metro Section D-1O (1DO1O1) Aerial Crossing Anacostia River Mr. Alldredge XVIII. Authority to Modify Construction Contract, Metro Section D-11 (100111) New Carrollton Yard Mr. Alldredge 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 16 PAGENO="0242" BRdRfDi~ct~s JOSEPH ALEXANDER Di rectors STERLING TUCKER Mr. DXGXt Hf CHIAWbU Mr. V,~& CSR,H~RH Mr. FRANCISW WHITE Mr. SRRXHdV$KXCwIH~~ EVERARD MUNSEY WALTERE WASHWJGTON Mr. CLEATUS E. BARNETT Mr. MafyIaXd Mr. ~ Mr. RUFUS PHILLIPS Mr. CHARLESE BEATLEYJR. Mr. V~5WIR Mr. JAMES E. COATES Mr -~JERRY A. MOORE. JR -\DIStfIUt of CoIGo~bia Mr. ,)ARLTON R. SICKLES Mr. NORMAN L. CHRISTELLER Mr. Mo~yIood Mr. Mr. OffiRo~ Mr. JACKSON GRAHAM M WARREN QUENSTEDT Mr. OXpUfyGooXHIMRXXgR~ Mr. WILLIAM A. BOLEYN Mr. EXODXIX'O Of!:OR~ ~RdCORptI'OIIRI' Mr. DELMER SON Mr. SRR~RtO~Y-T~RRsX!R~ Mr. JOHN R. KENNEDY Mr. GROR~OICOXHXI Mr. ROY T. DODGE Ch!RIOI000IDH Mr. XXX COHSIXXUUOO Mr. RALPH L WOOD Mr. CUiof of Opo~af~ooo OHS MX!XI0000RR Mr. Mr. MTMr. metro Joseph Alexander Sterling Tucker Everard Munsey Cleatus E. Barnett Jackson Graham Warren Quenstedt William A. Boleyn Delmer son John R. Kennedy Roy T. Dodge Ralph L. Wood William Herman John Bowman Charles Dowdy Mathew Platt John Warrington Vernon Garrett J. Godfrey Butler Ralph Sheldon Michael Bresnahan Richard Lawson Millard L. Seay Donald D'Hearn Joseph Muldoon Philip Price Earl Fawbush A. E. Savage Harry Smyth G. Richard Raville Joseph Garbacz Mr. William Leonard Thomas Trimmer William T. Fauntroy, Jr. (202~ 637-1234 MINUTES Others Mr. EdwaidDaniel Ms. Gloria Fischer Miss Dee Allison Mr. E. E. Wilhoyt Mr. Cohn Alter Ms. Judy Valentine Mr. Irving McNayr Mr. Wayne McDaniel Mr. Harold (assoff Alternate Directors Mr. Rufus Phillips Rev. James E. Coates Mr. Carlton R. Sickles Mr. Charles E. Bestley, Jr. Rev. Jerry A. Moore, Jr. Mr. Norman L. Christeller Mr. Edward Waddell Ms. Tillye Ehrlich Ms. Marilyn McGinty Mr. Howard Lyon Mr. Sprague Thresher Mr. Emanuel Mevorah Mr. Stanley Underwood Mr. Nicholas Roll Mr. William Alldredge Mr. David Gaul Mr. Roger Hassett Mr. Alvin Williamson Mr. Edward Jasnow Mr. Herbert Leonard Mr. Albert Roohr Mr. Allen Long Mr. Frank Fihiatreau, Jr. Mr. Cody Pfanstiehl Mr. Ray Russell Mr. George Keyes Mr. El 1 is Perlman Mr. John Ansley Mr. Fritz Becker Mr. 1. Donald Dewey Mr. Richard Silas Mrs. Pat Sestito Mr. Angus MacLean Ms. Saundra Stevenson Mr. John Robertie Mrs. Chris Simerman Mr. William Cullen Mr. Thomas Crosby Mr. Ralph Begleiter Mr. Stephen Lynton Mr. Rudolph Brewington Mr. Jack Meyer Mr. Chris Core Mr. Jackson 8am 924 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 Fifth Street, NW.. Washincto~. 0. C. 20001 AM END ED 463rd Meeting of Board of Directors December 4, 1975 The meeting was called to order at 9:39 A. M. Present were: Staff Mr. George Howie Mr. Stanley Allan Mr. Pat Lily Mr. John Drayson Mr. David Cummings Mr. Robert O'Neil Mr. Jerome Alper Mr. Anthony' Rachal Mr. N. K. Mook, Jr. PAGENO="0243" 925 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of November 20, 1975, were approved as submitted. REPORT BY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Alexander reported that the Board had received a letter from the General Manager requesting replacement and that it was with regret that the Board accepted his request, effective January 31 , 1976. Mr. Alexander stated that the Board as a Committee of the Whole would undertake the selection of a new General Manager. REPORT BY GENERAL MANAGER: Mr. Graham reported that Metrobus Public Hearings Nos. 146, 147, and 148 had been held as scheduled and referred the Board to furnished hearing packets for December 9 Public Hearings Nos. 149 ~nd 50 on Sections 5 and 3-H having to do with UMTA funding. Mr. Graham deferred to Mr. Quenstedt who reported that the thrust of the Authority testimony December 2 before Congressman Harris with respect to fuel allocation regulations was that FEA regulations which provided for assurance of fuel supply did not require competitive bidding as to price. Mr. Quenstedt reported that FEA testimony had confirmed this and that while the FEA regulations were imposed during the fuel shortage period, reconsideration of the ruling was underway which would permit competition now that the fuel crisis Is over. Mr. Graham reported that the Chairman and staff was scheduled this date to appear before Congressman Natcher's Subcommittee on the Metrorail capital requirements and handicapped facilities, and Metrobus capital and operating subsidy requirements. Mr. Graham noted that on December 9 the Authority was to appear before the House D. C. Committee to discuss minority development, with the three Chairmen to appear December 10 before the same Committee to address certain requested areas of discussion. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Gaul who referred to his December 3 memorandum to the Board, noting that as of December 1, the shortfall in shipment of cars was fourteen, as compared to the last reported shortfall of fourteen. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Kennedy who referred to and summarized his December 14 memorandum to the Board covering the results of meetings between management and Local 689 of ATU relative to the October 29 work slowdown which had affected regular A. M. peak hour service. Mr. Kennedy reviewed the results of the meetings and the agreement between management and labor as to the division of responsibility in identification and repair of certain "defects" on buses to be dispatched in revenue service. With respect to the Authority's discipline code, Mr. Kennedy reported that discussions had been held, with areas of agreement and disagreement having been identified, and that it was believed that these matters could be mutually resolved within the next two weeks. -2- PAGENO="0244" 926 Mr. Graham called on Mr. Dodge who referred the Board to furnished copies of bid tabulations covering the November 26 receipt of bids for Contract 2W9231 , Bus Passenger Shelters, and Contract 1Z4200, Structural Modification to Brentwood Shop. Mr. Dodge reported that bid opening scheduled for Wednesday, December 3, on Section G-l, Benning Road Station, had been postponed at the request of UMTA until their comments could be furnished on the review of plans and WMATA's response received. Mr. Dodge noted that this would also apply to G-2 and G"3 contracts. Mr. Graham called on Mr. MacLean who referred the Board to furnished copies of the General Manager's December 3 memorandum to the Board with respect to problems in providing public safety commun!cations capability between local fire and police and the Metro system. Mr. MacLean reported that considerable attention has been devoted to the expressed desires of local police chiefs to have direct communi- cations with their personnel scheduled for duty in subsurface stations, using their respective equipment. The matter is further complicated by the fact that some of these departments use a duplex radio system as opposed to the simplex system used by other departments as well as the Authority. He stated that to provide direct radio communications from the respective police headquarters to their personnel on duty in sub- surface rail stations will probably require the installation of a repeater with antenna conflguration and associated equipment, and the cost figure for purchase and installation of such equipment cannot be accurately established pending. receipt of more detailed information from the respective departments. He reported that it is anticipated that a sizeable capital cost will be necessary which is neither programmed for or otherwise reflected in the Authority's program. Mr. MacLean reported that cost and budgetary considerations have resulted in suggested alternatives being studied or considered as feasible or possible options. He reported that costs for the system could range between $400,000 to $1,000,000, with the funding and responsibility of the system to be determined. He stated that an Executive Committee of .OG and WMATA staff was being set up to address the problems. REPORT BY NVTC, D.C. AND WSTC: Mr, Moore reported that he had been approached by several handicapped and senior citizens on the possibility of reserving the front seats of the Metro vehicles for handicapped and elderly patrons. Mr. Graham responded that the staff would make a report and recom- mendation to the Board on this at an early date, noting that other systems had initiated the arrangement. -3- PAGENO="0245" 927 MONTHLY REPORT OF COMPTROLLER: Mr. Boleyn referred to and summarized Report No. 95 of the Office of Comptroller, copy of which has been made part of the official file. MONTHLY REPORT OF SECRETARY-TREASUR~!: Mr. son referred the Board to furnished copies of Report No. 87 of the Office of Secretary-Treasurer, copy of which has been made part of the official file. MONTHLY REPORT OF OFFICE OF MINORITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Dowdy referred the Board to furnished copies of Report No. 47 of the Office of Minority Development, copy of which has been made part of the official file. In discussions which followed Mr. Phillips requested that the staff come to the Board with specific proposals, including time tables, for fulfillment of WMATA's affirmative action goals with regard to Spanish Surname employment and contracting. Mr. Dowdy responded to Mr. Phillips that the staff would present the Board with recommendations in the area of affirmative action for Spanish Surname employment and contracting. Mr. Dowdy reported that he would furnish Mr. Moore with a breakdown as to the number of minority women employed by Metro in professional and sub-professional levels. BIMONTHLY REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCT1ON: Mr. Alldredge referred the Board to furnished copies of Report No. 54 of the Office of Construction, copy of which has been made part of the official file. BIMONTHLY REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE: Mr. Roll referred the Board to furnished copies of Report No. 110 of the Office of Real Estate, copy of which has been made part of the official file. QUARTERLY REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM CONTROL: Mr. O'Hearn referred to and summarized Report No. 7 of the Office of Program Control, copy of which has been made part of the official file. REPORT OF BOARD BUDGET COMMITTEE: Mr. Barnett reported that the Report of the Board Budget Committee had been previously furnished the Board with respect to the Fiscal 1977 Metro Management, Metrobus Operations, and Metrobus Capital Budgets. -4- PAGENO="0246" 928 Mr. Barnett reported that the Metrorail Operations Budget review is still in process. Mr. Barnett reported that the Committee had recom- mended that the Metrobus operating subsidy in FY 1977 be held to FY 1976 level; that bus-rail integration be initiated; that marginal bus service be reduced; and that the Metrobus capital program be held to a lean budget level He reported that major Committee decisions involved revenue adjustments with a transfer charge and extension of peak hour periods; reductions in service; and management guidelines with respect to personnel, maintenance and operating efficiencies. Mr. Barnett moved, seconded by Mr. Phillips that the Committee Report be referred to the local jurisdictions for review and placed on the December 18 agenda for further Board action. The motion was unanimously passed. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Coates and Mr. Sickles. STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMEI'~DATIONS PN PUBLIC HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY OF FRANCON1A AND SPRINGFIELD ROUTES AND ALTERNATIVE ALIGN MENTS: Mr. Roohr reported that this item had been deferred on November 20 and referred the Board to previously furnished copies of the staff report and recommendation covering the May 13 public environmental impact hearing with respect to the proposed alignment, station location, access and related facilities for that portion of the proposed Springfield Route from Linnean Street (extended) to vicinity of Backlick Road and Proposed Franconia Route from Junction ~`!ith Springfield Route to approximately one mile south of Franconia Road and Alternate Alignments. Mr. Roohr noted that no public comments had been received. Mr. Roohr referred the Board to furnished copies of a proposed Resolution which, if adopted, would approve that portion of the route as presented for public hearing on general plans at a later date. Upon motion by Mr. Alexander, seconded by Mr. Tucker and unani- mously passed, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors conducted a public hearing on May 13, 1975 to elicit the views and comments of the public with respect to the proposed alignment, the station location, access and related facilities for that portion of the proposed Springfield Route from Linnean Street (Extended) to vicinity of Backlick Road and Proposed Franconia Route from Junction with Springfield Route to approximately one mile south of Franconia Road and Alternate Alignments; and PAGENO="0247" 929 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors was furnished and has carefully considered the report of the Board's environmental consultant and copies of the transcript of the said public hearing together with comments and proposals received within 10 days after the public hearing date and comments of agencies, organizations, governmenta.l bodies, persons and their firms whose views were solicited pursuant to Article VI, Section 15, of the Compact; and WHEREAS, copies of the staff report were sent to all witnesses, persons submitting material for the records, and other persons requesting a copy of the staff report; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors approved the location of the Van Dorn Street Station and related alignments on October 23, 1975; and WHEREAS, WMATA's Board of Directors is desirous of minimizing any environmental and aesthetic impacts of the construction of this portion of the system as well as all other portions of the system; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: 1. The Springfield Route west of the Franconia Route junction `be deleted from the ARS with the provision that the transit line in the vicinity of the ARS junction of the Spring- field and Franconia Routes be designed to permit a possible future extension toward \~test Springfield. 2. The Franconia Route be extended south of Franconia Road along the west side of the RF&P Railroad to the point where the Northwest Fork of Long Branch passes beneath the rail road. 3. The ARS Springfield Station be relocated to a site on the west side of the RF&P Railroad immediately south of 1495. ~ The ARS Franconia Station be relocated to a site on the west side of the RF&P Railroad between the Northwest Fork of Long Branch and Springfield Forest Subdivision. 5. The facilities of the relocated Springfield Station be arranged in a configuration similar to Alternate concept Site Plan C-l in the EIS report. -6- PAGENO="0248" 930 6. The facilities of the relocated Franconia Station be arranged in a configuration similar to Alternate concept Site Plan 1 in the ETS report. 7. The facilities of the relocated Springfield Station be modified to include a special charter and commuter bus facility for approximately 50 buses in lieu of approximately 375 park & ride spaces. Ayes: 4 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Munsey and Mr. Barnett. AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR PROCUREMENT OF NEW METROBUSES (2W9200): Mr. Wood referred the Board to previously furnished copies of the staff report and recommendation and Procurement Action 2, Contract No. 2W9200, for the award of contract to Flxible Company for procurement of 145 motor buses, on which action had been deferred November 20. Mr. Alexander requested that the staff explore the use of a vinyl covering for the seating which is self extinguishing and currently on the market, provided such material would be acceptable under federal safety standards, following which Mr. Alexander moved, seconded by Mr. Tucker, that Procurement Action No. 2 be approved as recommended, which motion was unanimously passed. Ayes: 5 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett and Mr. Coates. REPORT BY COST REVIEW COMMITTEE: Mr. Christeller referred the Board to furnished copies of the Report of the Board Cost Reduction Committee which had been furnished the Board earlier in the week coverin9 the examination of design and construction experience to date to determine whether changes in design criteria, con- struction practices, Board policies or staff procedures could produce cost reductions without undue reductions in the operating characteristics, safety or utility of the system. He reported that the examination had been carried out by two subcommittees: one subcommittee working with the SAVE Panel of the WMATA staff examining the construction experience to date and reviewing a wide range of suggested changes in design criteria and construction specifications; the second subcommittee having worked with the jurisdictional staffs and WMATA staff reviewing the Board's "add-on" policy, factors that caused past cost increases, and suggested policy and procedural changes to minimize future cost increases. Mr. Christeller requested that the Board receive the report for review and discussions in the coming weeks. Mr. Christeller reported that the Cost Reduction Committee ~ias charged with the responsibility for reviewing the fire hazard report to make recommendation for possible replacement of the seating materials in the Metrorail cars. Mr. Christeller requested this matter be scheduled on the December 18 agenda for further action. -`7- PAGENO="0249" 931 STATUS REPORT ON~ NEW ELECTRIC SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY FOW ~ROVISION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR METRORAIL (MA-043): Mr. Garrett reported that the Board had directed to staff on November 6 to commence negotiations with PEPCO and report back to the Board in three weeks on the status and progress of negotiations. Mr. Garrett reported that meetings had been conducted each Monday with PEPCO and that agreement had been reached on six of the nine points being negotiated. Mr. Garrett reported that continuing progress would be reported to the Board. AUTHORITY TO AMEND FY 1976 METROBUS OPERATIONS BUDGET TO FUND RETIREMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL ~9, ATU: Mr. Barnett referred the Board to furnished copies of the Budget Committee's November 20 memorandum and recommendation for the amendment to FY 1976 Metrobus Operations Budget that the Authority's contribution to the Local 689 Retirement Plan be increased from 12 percent to 14 per- cent, effective December 6, 1975, and deferred to Mr. Dewey. Mr. Dewey reported that this recommendation had been referred to the local jurisdictions for comment and that no comments had been re- ceived. Mr. Dewey requested approval of the Committee's recommendation. Upon motion by Mr. Barnett,. seconded by Mr. Tucker and unani-- mously passed, the budget amendment was approved. Ayes: 4 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Munsey and Mr. Barnett. AUTHORITY TO MODIFY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, METRO SECTION D-1O (lDolol) AERIAL CROSSING ANACOSTIA RIVER: Mr. Alidredge referred the Board to furnished copies of Procurement Action No. 2, Contract No. 1DO1O1 and related attahcment, requesting authority to modify the contract with Peter Kiewit Sons' Company for provision of all labor, material and equipment necessary to add a train control room to tie breaker station No. 2 with duct banks and related electrical and structural work through the aerial and retained fill structures. Upon motion by Mr. Munsey, seconded by Mr. Tucker and unanimously passed, Action No. 2 was approved as requested. Ayes: 4 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett and Mr. Sickles. AUTHORITY TO MODiFY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, METRO SECTION D-ll (lDolll) NEW~ CARROLLTON YARD: Mr. Alldredge referred the Board to furnished copies of Procurement Action No. 2, Contract No. lDOlil and related attachment, requesting -8- PAGENO="0250" 932 authority to modify the contract with Savoy Construction Company to provide duct bank and manholes to provide service from PEPCO in lieu of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. Upon motion by Mr. Munsey, seconded by Mr. Barnett and unanimously passed, Action No. 2 was approved as requested. Ayes: L~ - Mr. Tucker, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett and Mr. Sickles. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:06 P.M. Delmer son, Secretary PAGENO="0251" J~SEPH ~iEX.~NDER STt4uCCa V~ ~A~CcS e~*~rE úvir~\RO jU;ISE E i~ anET r V(E). Fifth Biannual Report on Authority Insurance Programs Mr. son VI(G). Proposed Revisions to Metrobus Rules and Regulations Mr. Herman Mr. Russell VI (i-i). Environmental Impact Study and Recommendations for Implementation of Contra-Flow Bus Lanes Along 14th and 15th Street Corridors Mr. Russell Authority to Award Contract for Metro Trackwork Tie Procurement, TW-3 (2Z408D) Mr. Lyon Staff Report and Recorrrnendations on Public Hearing Environmental Impact Study of Franconia and Springfield Routes and Alternative Align- rnents Mr. Roohr Authority to Enter into Service Agreeoent with Potomac Electric Power Company for Provision of Electrical Energy for lietrorail (MA043). . . Mr. Mr. Mr. CONSENT CALENDAR: (A). Authority to Award Contract for Installation of Metrobus Passenger Shelters, Stage 3 (1y9o73) Mr. - ,T:..~ ~\ ~ 9m~ 933 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 Fifth Sheet. N W W;htn~:i. D C 20001 202) h37-I234 A G E N D A 460th Meeting of Board of Directors November 6, 1975 9:30 A.M. (A). Approval of Minutes of October 30, 1975. 11(B). Report by Chairman 111(C). Report by General Manager IV(D). Report by NVTC, D.C. and WSTC Chairman Mr. Alexander Mr. Graham Mr. Munsey Mr. Tucker Mr. White C-~ST ETLEYJe CO i.S A `OOTE. ER 00 f CJ0~0NR SICKE.ES `OAt L CEesrELLER A TUNtTtZO VllI(K). ~ IX(L). x. RAE-i I tOTED ~ XI(M). metro Garrett Pinkney T rott Lyon PAGENO="0252" .JOi.Pl'. ALEXANDER Si' RIING TUCKER D last of Colombia FRAN(.iS W. WHITE Sao.'odVsoChaiamao EVt RARD MUNSEY WAL'lI:R P WASHINGTON Otttrict of Colombia CLEATUS E. BARNETT AlIaaaaatR Dia,otoas RUFUS PHILLIPS CHARt ES F. BEATLES, JR. JA.4E: E. COATES JEFIIY S MOORE. JR Ot 11151 of Colombia CAI.LTON R SICKLES NORI.SN L CHRISTELLER Off IcRas JB'tKSUN GRAHAM alMaoagm' WAI REI'JQUENSTEDT Dop.'y(oooralManaget' Wt' LIAM A. BOLEYN I aes.,t,oe Oflicea ELMER lOON S,~p'o y'TPPaaXPRI JC IN II KENNEDY 01 F DODGE ho. of Dooigo I LIHL.WOOD C ol.'fOpaoaliooa metro Di rectors Mr. Joseph Alexander Mr. Sterling Tucker Mr. Francis W. White Mr. Everard Munsey Mr. Walter E. Washington Mr. Cleatus Barnett Mr. Jackson Graham Mr. Warren Quenstedt Mr. William A. Boleyn Mr. Delmer son Mr. John R. Kennedy Mr. Roy T. Dodge Mr. Ralph L. Wood Mr. William Herman Mr. Charles Dowdy Mr. Vernon Garrett Mr. Howard Lyon Mr. William Leonard Mr. Nicholas Roll Mr. J. Godfrey Butler Mr. Albert Roohr Mr. Hugh Halloran Mr. Ray Russell Mr. Paul Hyatt Mr. Michael Bresnahan Mr. Mark Akins Mr. Robert Codding Mr. Richard Lawson Mr. Eckhard Bennewitz Mr. Charles Fizer Mr. N. K. Hook, Jr. Mr. Peter Obendorf Mr. William Cullen Mr. George Howie Ms. Marlee Inman Miss Dee Allison Mr. Edward Daniel Mr. Douglas Schneider Mr. E. E. Wilhoyt Ms. Judy Valentine Mr. Walter McCarter Alternate Directors Mr. Carlton R. Sickles Mr. Charles E. Beatley, Jr. Rev. Jerry A. Moore, Jr. Mr. Norman L. Christeller Mr. Paul Willis Mr. Johan Sikkar Mr. Gerald Gough Mr. Mathew Platt Mr. David Gaul Mr. Angus MacLean Mr. William Alidredge Mr. Joseph Garbacz Mr. Richard Silas Mr. Sprague Thresher Mr. Joseph Huldoon Mr. John Bowman Mr. Donald O'Hearn Mr. Cody Pfanstlehl Ms. Pat Sestito Mr. Philip Price Mr. Herbert Leonard Mr. George Keyes Mr. Alvin Williamson Mr. Robert Lewis Mr. A. E. Savage Mr. Lucius Pinkney Mrs. Chris Simerman Ms. gloria Fischer Mr. Anthony Rachal Mr. Irving McNayr Mr. Shiva Pant Mr. Harold Kassoff Mr. Wayne McDaniel Mr. Cohn Alter Mr. Ralph Beglelter Mr. Stephen Lynton Ms. Mary Margaret Green Mr. Clifford Trott ~55 934 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AU IHORITY 600 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, D. C. 20001 (202) 637-1234 MINUTES Lt6Oth Meeting of Board of Directors November 6, 1975 The meeting was called to order at 9:38 A. H. Present were: Staff Others PAGENO="0253" 935 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: With reference to the work stoppage by Metrobus operators the morning of October 29, Mr. Barnett referred to the sentence in the Minutes "No Board comments supported staff actions or criticized suspension of service." He stated that he had not made comments with respect to the discussion as in his opinion the discussion should not have taken place; that the Issue was between the bus operators and management and should have been handled by management; and that In his opinion management had handled the situation properly. He stated that the origin of the dispute was not entirely clear toPim but he was convinced that it was not a safety Issue, and that the entire matter was illegal and in violation of the contract. He stated that the bus operators had acted in contempt of the public Interest and the Board's cr1 tlcI.sm of management's handling of the matter can only encourage further "irresponsible" action on the part of the bus operators. He conclud~d by saying that management is sound and should have the support of the Board. Mr. Alexander stated that he was inclined to respond but would not; that he did not think anyone on the Board supported the work stoppage. Mr. Sickles stated that the Minutes should reflect what happens and not what does not happen; that in his opinion the sentence referred to by Mr. Barnett should be deleted from the Minutes. Mr. Alexander moved that the sentence be deleted whereupon Mr. White, stating that he associated himself with the comments of Mr. Barnett, seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously passed and the Minutes were approved with the sentence deleted. Ayes: 5 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, and Mr. Barnett. Mr. Tucker stated that If Mr. Barnett felt that his comments would have been out of order last week that for the same reason they were out of order today. REPORT BY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Alexander reported that the failure of the $25 million bond referendum in Arlington County did not In his opinion reflect opposition to Metro as much as it represented the mood of the voters with respect to long-term Indebtedness. REPORT BY GENERAL MANAGER: Mr. Graham also reported with respect to the bond referendum that had failed to pass the voters, referring the Board to a tabulation on the Arlington County Bond issues showing that while Metro had garnered 40 percent support, the six other losing Issues had only received 18 to 31 percent support. Mr. Graham reported that Public Hearing No. 44 had been held as scheduled November 5 on the Bicentennial Transportation Program. -2- PAGENO="0254" 936 Mr. Graham referred the Board to furnished copies of an October 29 letter to the Chairman from Congressman W. S. Stuckey and Romano L. Mazzoli, Subcommittee on Commerce, Housing and Transportation and Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs, and to a November 3 letter to Mr. Quenstedt from Congressman Herbert E. Harris, Subcommittee on Bicentennial Affairs, covering the series of hearings on the funding needs of the Metrorail system which began November 5. Mr. Graham reported on the staff's appearance at the November 5 hearing, referring to furnished copies of his opening statement. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Lyon who referred the Board to furnished copies of bid tabulations covering the November 5 receipt of bids for Contract No. 1BOO66, Brookland Station Superstructure, Glenmont Route and Contract 2ZL~O9A for the procurement of ash receptacles. Mr. Graham called on Mr. son who referred the Board to furnished copies of the weekly revenue comparison since the new fare structure, stating that except for the work stoppage on October 29, the trend is continuing at approximately 2~ net revenue increase. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Gaul who referred the Board to furnished copies of his November 5 report and schedule showing the status of delivery of revenue cars, indicating the shortfall in shipment of cars as of November 3 being ten, as compared to last week's reported shortfall of eight. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Herman who reported that the Board had approved December 9 hearing date for Section 5 funds of the UMTA Act for operating assistance and requested thatthe December 9 hearing include Sections 3 and 3-H relative to WMATA's application to UMTA for financing the Metrobus Capital improvement Program for FY 1976. Upon motion by Mr. Alexander, seconded by Mr. White and unanimously passed, the application was approved for hearing on December 9. Ayes: 5 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, and Mr. Barnett. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Kennedy who reported that on Tuesday, November 4, the staff and Local 689 representatives had met as scheduled, anšl that another meeting would be held on Friday, November 7. REPORT BY NVTC, D. C., AND WSTC: No reports were given. FIFTH BIANNUAL REPORT ON AUTHORITY iNSURANCE PROGRAMS: Mr. son summarized the Fifth Biannual Insurance Report, copies of which were furnished the Board and made a part of the official file, which report covered the status of the Authority Coordinated Insurance Program as of June 30, 1975. -3- PAGENO="0255" 937 IROI'OS LI) REV I S I ONS U Mt. tRORU~ RUt I S ANI1 Ut (II Al I ON' Mr. He rman referred to furn shed Cop es of the P roiset Rv ore. to the Metrobus Rules and Regulations, which had been deferred on October 23. Mr. Barnett requested that action be deferred for two additional weeks to allow further discussion in Montgomery County. The Board agreed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CONT~K-FLOw BUS LANES ALONG 14TH AND 15TH STREET CORRIDORS: Mr. Russell referred the Board to furnished copies of the General Manager's November 4 memorandum to the Board for improved traffic circu- lation through the development of bus priority streets with a proposed concept for contra-flow bus lanes along the 14th and 15th Street ~orridors. He referred to furnished copies of the final report by consultants and reviewed the three alternatives which had been selected for detailed study--Alternatives 2, 4, and 6, with Alternative 6 being the recommended alternative for implementation. He reported that the staff of the 0. C. Department of Transportation is developing two alternative plans for bus priority treatment in addition to the alternatives studied in the WMATA environmental assessment of the corridors and that D. C. DOT is investigating the most feasible and cost effective plan since they are the implementing agency. Mr. Russell stated that while the staff feels that Alternative 6 is the most feasible for implementation by the Bicentennial that the staff be given authority to transmit all the materials developed by staff, along with the Consultants report, to D. C. DOT for their consideration and implementation. Discussion follwed wherein the D. C. members expressed their willing- ness to have the report and recommendation submitted to D. C. DOT, but felt that the WMATA Board should have a further opportunity for review of the project. Following further discussion, Mr. Washington moved that the materials be submitted to 0. C. DOT for expeditious review and recommendation and be brought back to the Board for further review and action. The motion was seconded by Mr. Alexander and unanimously passed. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Washington, Mr. Barnett, and Mr. Sickles. AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR METRO TPACKWORK TIE PROCUREMENT, TW-3, (2Z4080): Mr. Lyon referred the Board to furnished copies of Procurement Action No. 2, Contract No. 2ZLt08D and related attachments, requesting authority to award a contract to Koppers Company for procurement of timber ties. -`4- PAGENO="0256" 938 Ayes: 6 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Washington, and Mr. Barnett. STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PUBLIC HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY OF FRANCONIA AND SPRINGFIELD ROUTES AND ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS: Mr. Roohr referred the Board to furnished copies of the November 5 staff report and recommendations on the May 23, 1975, Public Hearing concerning Environmental Impact Studies for a portion of Proposed Springfield Route from Linnean Street (extended) to vicinity of Backlick Road and Proposed Franconia Route from Junction with Springfield Route to approximately one mile south of Franconia Road and Alternate Alignments. Mr. Roohr requested Board review of the materials for detailed presentation on November 20 by the staff, at which time Board action would be requested on the recommendations. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY FOR PROVISION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR METRORAIL (MA_OL,31: Mr. Garrett reported that on October 31 the Wt~TA staff had received the corrirents from the D. C. staff with respect to the proposed PEPCO agreement and that the staff had responded to the D. C. comments on November 3, with all documents furnished the Board, and that the two staffs had met for discussions on November 3 and that the staff was now in a position to negotiate the issues with PEPCO. Board discussions were held for the staff to begin negotiations and report back to the Board in three weeks. Mr. Washington moved, seconded by Mr. Beatley that the staff proceed with negotiations with PEPCO on the ten points in the D.C. staff paper and come back to the Board in three weeks. Mr. Barnett moved that the motion be amended to delete Item 10 from the D. C. staff paper, which motion was seconded by Mr. White and unanimously passed. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Washington, Mr. Barnett, and Mr. Beatley. The motionas amended was then passed. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Washington, Mr. Barnett, and Mr. Beatley. CONSENT CALENDAR: By consensus of the Board the following item was approved: PAGENO="0257" 939 (A). Authority to Award Contract for Installation of Metrobus Passenger Shelters, Stage 3 (1Y9073). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:18 A. ii. elmer son, Secretary -6- 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 17 PAGENO="0258" 940 AGE~1DA ITEM -- - - WASHNGTON METAO~C~JTAN AREA T~A~0S~T AUTHORITY * 600 S.~- 0 0 2C~ d37-~ IIEIIORANDUM TO: Chairman and Members of the Board SUBJECT: Proposed Electric Service Agreement MA-0k3 -- between WMATA and PEPCO .`A~E .-~GTO~J Enclosed for your inforrretion are comments from the District of Columbia (Attachment 1) concerning the proposed Electric e~e~.sr~ Service Agreement together with the Authority response (Attach- - ment 2) to those corraents. The proposed Electric Service :.~-`-~:~-:0 Agreement is-enclosed as Attachment 3 The Authority staff hays intentionally not elaborated to a ~ great extent on our reaction to the District staff's comments. ~oRJR It is our belief that to do so would not be in the best interest of the Authority, since the staff would possibly be edgotiating - o-'~c-. c.ces these matters with PEPCO. - - - - -~ - -- iIomb~ts- o~ tbe-Authori t',' staff are- to meet with repre- - se~tativ~of~tbetistrict of Col-uchie cn Monday Uoieober- 3, r~75-~o-~srt'-~er th cu~ om ooin by poim bas,s tbe~r - ~0- ~`-`~-` corrmerrts and cur response. - - -- ~~:----- - a - Attachments as stated PAGENO="0259" 941 GOVERNMENT OF THE DiSTRiCT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION October 31 197o /~ ri~ tivrb ~`c~ j.~ T1L-J~i_ Mr. Jacason Graham GeneralManager ~ OCT31197E~ Washington Metropolitan Area WIBTI~ p- Transi Authority 600 Fifth Street, N. W. ~ashngon D C 20001 Dear Mr. Graham: The District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Office of Budget and Management Systems, and the Corporation Counsel are of the opinion that the currently proposed contract between WMATA and PEPCo contains certain deficiencies which must be iemedied in order to assure that the contract and its performance and administration will be not only in the public interest but that the rights of all parties will be adequately secured. In our view these deficiencies fall into the following general categories: A. The negotiation of electricity rates and a clear definition of a Rail-Transit (R. T.) rate. B. Audit provisions and schedule of payment provisions. C. The contract provisions concerning performance by PEPCo should be tightened to precisely specify what delays by PEPCo will be excusable and to include clauses that PEPCo will use its best efforts to complete construction, supply sufficient energy capacity and furnish energy restoration on a priority basis. These provisions should be strengthened by the inclusion of a disputes clause. D. The term of the contract should not be for thirty years, but for a shorter period of time. Additionally, WMATA should be able to terminate the contract for convenience in a manner that would fully protect PEPCo1s rights. PAGENO="0260" 942 Mr. Jackson Graham Page Two We have prepared specific amendments to the proposed contract which we believe represent minimum changes that are necessary to adequately protect all interests. 1. We have drafted a provision that will require PEPCo to negotiate electricity rates with WMATA which rates should be agreed to and made part of a separate agreement between the parties. That agreement should also spell out procedures to be followed in the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement as to the matter of rates. The WMATA staff states that it was the intentionhi of the parties that the electricity rates would be negotiated and agreed upon, but the proposed contract does not so state; It provides that PEPCo will unilaterally prepare a rapid rail transit schedule. As a result, WMATA will have no substantive contribution to the developent of electricity charges (which may constitute one-third to one-half of the subway operating costs) other than to engag~e in protracted hearings before the Public Service Coromission. Further- more, the annual budgeting process of the Authority and each of the participating jurisdictions will have no insulation from the effects of recurring rate cases. The purpose of our amendment is thus merely to spell out in the contract the intentions of the parties. (See Attachment A) 2. There is uncertainty as to the exact de~nition of the contemplated R. T. rate and exactly what services would be included fri that rate, i. e., service to stations, chillers, etc. If, indeed, there will be more than one rate, this should be specified and each rate should be clearly defined. If the electricity rates are fully negotiated by the parties and made a separate agreement, this matter should be dealt with in that agreement. - 3. We recoin-mend that the proposed contra~ct should be modified to establish that construction contributions will be made on the basis of progress reports for work performed. This can be accomplished by adopting the DistrictTs standard contract PAGENO="0261" 943 Mr. Jackson Graham Page Three provision for payments for "Payments to Contractor. ` This amendment is a substitute for construction S-Curve payment provisions contained in the proposed contract. The proposed contract contemplates that construction payments for work in progress will be made on an "S-Curve" which is in substance a hypothetical completion formula for advance payments. Thus, if work is for any reason delayed or interrupted, partial payments nevertheless must be made on the basis of the formula set at the beginning of the project. We believe payments for work in progress should be based on progress reports for work performed. This is the normal procedure invariably used in govern- mental-type construction contracts. It ensures that Metro has actually received the work for which it pays. It will also minimize disputes between PEPCo and WMATA. (See Attachment B) 4. We recommend that the `retention of records" standard contract provision be utilized in the contract. The audit provisions of the proposed contract exclude any audit by WMATA of (i) subcontractsand change audits of less than $100, 000 and (ii) subcontracts issued by PEPCo pursuant to competitive bidding. In addition, WMATA'S rights to examine PEPCoTs books are extremely limited. As a result, WMATA will be unable to obtain an exact accounting of expenditures for construction representing $40 to $60 million. This lack of accountability could place the local governments in a difficult position in justifying the necessary capital appropriations. We therefore believe that broader and more effective audit provisions are required. (See Attachment B) 5. We recommend that the standard "Disputes" clause be utilized in the contract. The proposed agreement contains no provision for the resolution of disputes which may arise concerning the estimation of project costs and other matters dealt with PAGENO="0262" 944 Mr. Jackson Graharri Page Four in the contract. As a result. ~RvL~TA will have only two choices: either accept entirely PEPCoTs position on all matters concerning the contract; or engage in costly and protracted litigation during periods when construction may be halted. An all-disputes clause, which is customarily contained in contracts with governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, would enable work to proceed while disagreements are resolved. We note that the proposed contract is silent on the effect of the parties failing to reach an agreement on estimated construction costs. (See Attachment C) 6. The contract should require PEPCo to maintain separate books for all construction accounts with WMATA. Under the contract, most of the cost of construction (80 percent) will be paid by WMATA and the rest (20 percent) will be paid by PEPCo. PEPCo will redover its 20 percent investment through operatingr rates (R. T.) described above. It is therefore essential that PEPCo maintain separate books of account showing the exact amounts of payments (contributions) made by both WMATA and PEPCo and the treatment of those amounts in the determinatlon of proper rates. (See Attachment B) - 7. The contract should contain a standard form Termination for ConvenienceTt clause. Contracts with quasi-governmental agencies and governmental bodies usually contain a provision permitting termination by the agency, with appropriate compensation tothe contractor, when it is deemed by the agency to be in the public interest. The proposed contract contains no such provision. We believe greater flexibili~ is needed and that the standard termination for convenience clause should be added. (See Attachment C) 8~ The contract should contain a standard Termination~Delays? clause and should also contain a provision requiring PEPCo to PAGENO="0263" 945 Mr. Jackson Graham Page Five timely complete construction, to supply sufficient energy capacity and to furnish energy restoration on a priority basis. These two items are related. We fully understand that circumstances beyond PEPCo~s control may cause delays or interruptions in construction and may cause interruption of electricity once the system is in operation. At the same time, we believe that because of the public importance of the rail system, PEPCo must use its best efforts to complete complete construction in as timely a manner as possible, and to provide energy for the operation of the system on a high priority basis. The contract does not obligate PEPCo to do so. As worded, P.EPCo is excused from delays merely because itcannot obtain materials from its hlusual sources. Similarly, PEPCo is not liable for lack of capacity and energy for operating the system or for the restoration of electricity in the same order of priority as required for other vital services which affect public safety and welfare. A best efforts requirement is necessary. This is simply a matter of correcting contract language. (See Attachment D) 9. The contract should contain a provision making reestimations of construction costs subject to WMATA approval. This item is also simply a matter of contract drafting. Under the proposed contract, PEPCo is required to obtain Board approvals for original estimates of cost. But it is required to obtain approval of any changes in the estimates once work is started ~ if there is a change in design. A simpie language change to the contract would assure that all re- estimations are subject to prior Board approval. (See Attachment C). 10. The period of the contract should be for a period of ten years with notice of termination to be provided two years prior to the contract expiration date. PAGENO="0264" 946 Mr. Jackson Graham Page Six It is important to stress that the recon~mendations we have ntude in no way undermine the fundamental concepts and structure of the agreement you have reached with PEPCo. Instead, what we are proposing is that the contract language be clarified where necessary to reflect more closely the intentions of the parties and that several provisions customarily used to protect the parties be incorporated into the agreement. Therefore, you will note that many of the proposed amendments are taken directly from standard construction contracts used by the Federal and District Governments in their construction projects, and which I believe are included in most WMATA construction contracts as well. Enclosed are copies of the suggested language to accommodate these amendments except that we have not attempted to define the R.T. rate. Sincerely yours, N. SCHNEIDER, Acting Director Enclosures PAGENO="0265" 947 ATTACHMENT A Suggested language for Amendment No. I in the covering letter. Negotiated and Agreed upon Rate Amendment Delete paragraph II~B; substitute therefor: The Utility will conduct a cost of~ervice study applicable to the authority as a separate customer.' Based upon the results of the cost of service study (and criteria reflecting a fair rate design and fair return to Utility) the parties shall agree upon a rapid-rail transit rate or rates as applicable to Authority, which shall be made a part of a separate agreement, and shall define with particularity, the applicability of such rate or rates and all.terms and conditions of service thereunder. Such agreement, together with supporting data, shall be filed with the appro- priate regulatory Commissions; provided, however, if the parties are unable to reach agreement on such rapid-rail transit rate or rates after due and diligent efforts and all matters pertaining to the establishment of a rate or rates applicable to authority shall be submitted to and determined by the appropriate regulatory Commission as required by law. PAGENO="0266" 948 ATTACHMENT B Suggested language for Amendments No. 3,4, &6 in the cover~g letter. Payment and Audit Pr~ovision Amendments The Retention of Records and `Payments to Contractor standard contract provisions for District of Columbia construction projects are attached hereto. If adopted, other conforming amendments should be made in the contract. PAGENO="0267" 949 The Contracting Officer will nOtify the Contractor of any noneoronliance with the foregoing provisions arid the action to be taken. The Contractor shall, otter recept of such notice, im;nedint:!y action. Such notice, when delivered to the Contractor or his representative at the site of th~ work, shall be deemed sutTicient for the purpose. If the Contractor fails or refuses to comply promptly, the Contracting Oh- cer may issue an order stopping all or part of the work until satisfactory corrective action has beer. tat:cn. No part of the time lost due to any such stop orders shall be made the subject of claim for ce:tcr.sion of time or for excess costs or damages ha' the Contractor. This Article is. applicable to all subcontractors used under the Contract and compliance `.vith these provi- sions by the subcontractors will be tise rcspansibility of the Contractor. (In Contrccls invoicing work of short chiratioin or of r.onhazardous character, fOe following Section 2. wilt be deleted by Speciat Provision) B. CONTRACTOR'S PROGRAM SUBMISSION-Prior to commerccrnent of the work, the Contractor shall: 1. Submit in writing to the Contracting Officer for his approval his program for complying with this Article for accident prevention. 2. Meet with the Contracting Officer's Safety Reprdsentative after submission, of the above terograrro to develop a mutual understanding relative to the administration of the overall safety program. ARTICLB 28. BETEIiTtON OF IIECORDS Unless othems'ise provided in the Contract, or by applicable statute, the Contractor, from the effective date of Contract completion and for a period of three years after final settlement undor the C~ntract, shall preserve and make available to the District at all reasonable times at the office of the Contractor but with- out direct chorge to the District, all his books, records, documents, and other evidence bearir.g ocr the costs and expenses of the Contractor under the Contract. - Iltility shall maintain separate books for all construction accounts with the Authority PAGENO="0268" 950 - This Ar~ic1e do~ riot predudc co~skicratinn o~ qucsti~m. of !~i~: ~i conncctkn v.ith ckcision~ provided for in the prcviouo paragrz~ph. Nothinz~ in the Contract, hov;ever, sh~1L bo construed as mol:ing imnat the decision of any adrninistra~ive official, representative or board on a question of law. ARTICLR 5. PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR The District will pay the contract price or prices as hereinafter provided. The District will snake progress payments monthly as the work orisceeds, or at more frccrr:ient intervals as determined by the Contracting Officer, on estimates approved by the Contracting Officer. Tire Contractor shall furnish a breakdown of the total Contract price showing the amount iscluded therein for each princitsat cate- gory of the work, in such detail as requested, to provide a basis for determining erogress psymerits. Irs the preparation of estimates the Contracting Officer, at his discretion. i-nay authorize material delivered on the site and preparatory work doo~ to be taken into constoci-seico. Hatcrisl delivered to the Contractor at lo- cations other than the site may also be taken into consideratton: - 1. If such consideration is specifically authorized by the Conk-act; 2. If the Contractor furnisher satisfactory evidence that he hro _acquircd title to such material, that it meets Contract requirements and that it will be utiLized on the work cov~rtd by the Contract; and 3. If the Contractor furnishes to the Contracting Officer an itemized list. In snaking such orogress payments, there shall be retained 10 eercent of the estimated amount of the progress payment until SinaI completion and acceptance of the Con~eet work. However, if the Centracting Officer, at any time after 50 percent of the work has bc-an con-raicted, drids that satisfactory prog-rees is being made, he may authorize any of the remaining progress payments to h-a made in full or may retain from such remaining partial payments less than 10 percent thereof. Also, -cvheaever work is subotantially comotete, the Contracting Officer, if Isa considers the amount retained to ha in excess of the amount adequate for the protection of the District, at his discretion, mcy release to the Con:rancr all or a portion of such excess amount. Furthermore, on completion and acceptance of each separate building, public work, or other division of tire Contract, on which the price is stated separately in the Contract, payment may be made therefor without retention of a percentage, less authorized deductions. - AU material and work covered by progress payments made shall thereupon become the 5010 procerty of the District, but this provision shall not be construed as relieving the Contractor frona the role rasponsibtlity for all material and work upon which payments have been made or the restoration of any damaged ~votk, or as waiving the right of the District to require the ftildliment of sit of the tori-na of the Contract. - Upon completion and acceptance of all work, the amount due th~ Contractor under the Contract shalt be paid upon presentation ot a pr-pony executed vouches- end aLien rho Con:rcctor shall have furnished the District with a release, if requires), of all claims against the Dinnict arising by virtue of the Contract, other then claims in stated amounts as may be spedllcatiy exceo:ed by the Contractor from the operation of the release. ARTICLE 9. TRANSFER OR ASSIONMENT Unless otheraise provided by las', neither the Contract nor any interest -therein may be tmaneterred or assigned by the Contractor to any other party without the written consent of the Contracting Officer nor with- out the written acceptance by the surety on the performance and pc:.rnent bond securing the Contract of the assignee as the Contractor and the principal on such bond; and arty attempted transfer or eszignmncnri net au- thorized by this Article shall constitute a breach of the Contract and the District may for such came terminate the right of the Contractor to proceed in the same manner as provided in Article 5 herein, and the Contractor and his sureties shall be liable to the District for any excess cost occasioned the Diotnict th-arahy. - - ARTICLE 10. MATERIAL AND woRl:MANsI-IIP A. GENEIIAL.-Unless otherwise specifically provided in the Contract, alt equiement, ct-tcterial and ar- ticles incorporated in the work covered by the Contract stroll h~ new and of the mast suiiatnie grade for the purpose intended. Unless otherwise spceidcaily provided in the Contrct, reference to any equiemnont, material, article or patented process. by trade name, make or catalog rrancbcr, shall be regarded ins estebuiihinng a stand- ard of quality and shall not be construed as limiting comt:anition, sad the Contractor mrv use any onuherntent, material, article or process which, cn the jud;smncnt of the Contracting Officer, is equivalent to that. ran-red unless other-vise specified. The Contractor ~hat5 furnish to the Conk-racing Officer for Iris approval the rmanie of the manufactr:rer, the r.sedel r~raber, end other indecmt:fving stats and iictormation respecting the performance, capacity, nature tact rating of the mechanical and olhrr ecuipmnemts which the Co:r;ractor contennptatss incor- porating in the work. Machinery end equipment shall be in proper condition. When required by the Ct-etc-act or when called for by the Contracting Off:cer, the Contractor shait fur-ic-h the Contracting Officer for apsreval fel1 i's. -ra -i c n r 0 h s I ssa rr g ac directed, saraptes shall be aubrrtittcd for appru.at at tire Contraessr's c:ep~'ncse, v.ith all shipping chargee prepaid. Machinery, cqcdprrent. maternal, and art:cies stalled or esed wtthout required approval shall be at the risk of subsequent rejection and subject to satisfactory roplamment Ci Contractors expense. - it PAGENO="0269" 951 ATTACHMENT C Suggested language for Amendments No. 5, 7, and 9 in the covering letter. Termination for Conven~ence, Procedures for Revie~i and Approval of Re-Estimated ProjectCosts and a Disputes Procedure Amendmant A. `Termination for Convenience' and "Disputes" clause provisions for District of Columbia construction projects are attached hereto. If adopted, other conforming amendments should be made in the contract. B. Delete the last sentence of Section Ill-B and substitute therefor the following: "Utility will make no change in the estimated cost of contribution in aid of construction approved by the authority pursuant to this a:greement tiithout * prior approval of authority of any and all such changes." PAGENO="0270" 952 ARTICLE 6. TERMiNATION FOR CONVENlENCC OF Ti-SC DIflTttlCT A. The performance of ~`m-k under the Contract rrtay be terminated Lv the District in nccordattco st-jIb this Article in whole, or in pall, ;vhenevcr the Contracting Oflicc-r shag detcrznire that such tcrrnin~tiori is in the best interest of the District. Any such termination shalt be mafecteci ba delivery to th~ Con- tractor of a Notice of Terrn:aatiori soecifying the extent to which ncrfernsarice of work under the Con- tract is terminated, and the cab upon which such termination becorcra effective. B. After receipt of a Notice of Termination, and except as otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall: 1. Stop work under the Contract on the date and to the extent specified in the Notice of Termina- tion. 2. Place rio further orders or subeontrects for materials, set-vices, orfaciiiti-e-s except as racy be necessary for completion of such pertion of the work under die Contract as is not torm:natcd. 3. Terminate all orders and subcontracts to the extent that they relate to the performance of work terrnirtated by the Notice of Termination. 4. Assign to the District, in the manner, at the times, and to the extant directed `c; the Contract- ing Officer, all of the right, title and interest of the Contractor under the orders and sulicoti- tracts so terminated, in which case the District shall have the right, in its discretion, to settle or pay any or all claims arising out of tile termination ci such orders and subcontract-s.- 5. *Settle all outstanding liabilities and alt claims arising out of such termination of orders or subcontracts, with the approval or ratification of the Contracting Oilicer to the extdnt he may require, which approval or ratification shall b-a final for all aurposes of this Article. 6. Transfer title to the District and deliver in the manner, at the times, and to the extent, if any, directed by the Contracting Officer: a. The fabricated or unfabricated parts, work in progress, completed work, aunptioa, and other material procured as a part of, or acquired in connection with, the performance of the work terminated by the Notice of Termination, and b. The completed, or partially completed plans, drawings information and other property which, if the Contract had been completed, would have been recui:e-d to be furcaistiad to the District. - 7. Use his b-sat efforts to sell, in the manner, at the tints, to the extent, and at th~ price cr prices directed or -authorized by the Contracting Officer, any prorerty of the types refto-red to ira 6 above provided, hossever, that the Contractor: - - - - - a. Shall not be required to extend credit to any eurbhaser, and b. May acquire any property under the conditions prescribed and at a price or pricer ap~roved by the Contracting Officer, and - c. Provided further, that the proceeds of any such tranofir or diapasition shall be applied in reduction of any payments to be made by the District to the Contractor under the Cars- tract or shall other'a'ise be credited to the price or cost of the work covered by the Contract or paid in such other manner as the Con:racting Officer may direct. 8. Complete performance of such part of the work as shell rot have been terminated by the Notice of Terrainatiors. 9. Take such action as may be necessary, or as the Coritrcct~ Officer may direct, for tlse pro- tection and presara'ation of the property related to the Ceeerac: which is in the r-ossessicn of the Contractor and in which the District has or n-icy acqc▒e art interest 10. The Contractor shall proceed immediately with the rerfoirmnca of the above obligatbina not- withstanding any delay it-. determining or adjusting the cost, or any item of :cLrs-tbursalcte cost, under thts Arue!e. - - 11. "Plant clearance period" means, for each particular propo~ ctaseificatien (sueD as rev; ma- terials, purchased pee-is and `cork in progress) at any one ptont or location, a period begin:sir.g with the effective date of the termination for convenience erd ending 90 days alter receipt by the Contracting Officer of acceptable inventory schedules ce-caring all items of that particular property classification in the termination inventory at that plant or location, or ending on such later date as raa~.' `cc agreed to by the Contrttctu-ig Officer cad the Contractor. Final phase ci a plant clearance period rrur-~is that part of a plant clearame period which occurs after the receipt of aeceplabte inventory schedules covering all items of the particular proust-i'; clesaiti- cation at the plant or location. At any time after expiration of the plant clearance period, as drOned above, the Corttraclsr may submit to the Contracting Officer a list, certified as to psantity and audit';, of any or all i~ -is o - a r a y r a a d d 1 e o -`s ~ -, of whIch has been de-rectcd or authorized by the Contracheg Officer, and may request the PAGENO="0271" 953 D:st-ict to r~rnove ~stich items or entc~ into a stoct~ ~icem~nt covc:~ng ~ Not Iritor thzin 15 days thercattar, the District will accept titte to such items sad remove them or enter into a storage agreement covering the same; provided, that the list submitted shall be subject to verification by the Contracting Officer upon removal of the items or, it list items are stored, within 45 clays from the date of submission of the list, and any necessary adjust- ment.s to correct the list as submitted, shall be made prior to final settlement. C. After receipt ol a Notice of Termination, the Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Oi'licer his termination claim, in the form with the certsflcat:cn prescrsbcd by the Contracting Officer.. Such claim shall be subm:tted promptly but in no event toter than one year from the effective date of termina. fion, unless one or more extensions in writing are granted by the Contracting Officer upon reqtiest of the Contractor made in writing within such one year period or authorized extenston thereof. Ho;ves'er, if the Contracting Officer determines that the facts justify ss:cts action, he may roccive and, eel upon any such termination claim at any -tinie alter such one year perio~i or extension thereof. Upon fa~ture of the Contractor to submit his termination claim within the time allowed, the Contracting Officer ri-toy, sub- ject to any review required by the District's procedu.res in effect as of the date of execution of the Contract, determine, on the basis of information avatlable to bins, the amount, if any, due to the Con- tractor by reason of the termination and shall thereupon pay to the Contractor the amount so determined. D. Subject to the provisions of C above, and sub;ect to any review required by the District's procedures in effect as of the date of execution of the Contract, the Contractor and Contracting Officer may agree upon thewhoie or any part of the amount or amounts to be paid to the Contractor by reason of the total or partial termination of work pursuant to this Article, which amount or amounts may Include a reasonable allowance for profit on work done; provided, that such agreed amount cc amounts, exclu- sive of settlement costs, shall not exceed the total Contract price as reduced by the amount of payments otherwise made and as further reduced by the Contract price of work not terrr.inatad. Thc Contract shall be amended accordingly, and the Contractor shall be paid the agreed amount. Nothing in N be- low prescribing the amount to be paid to the Contractor in. the event of failure of the- Contractor and the Contracting Officer to agree upon the whole amount to be paid to the Contractor ba reason of the termination of work pursuant to this Article, shall be deemed to lunit, restrict or other',vise determine or effect the amount or amounts which may be a~eed upon to be paid to the Contractor pucsua~' to this paragraph. N. In. the event of the failure of the Contractor and the Contracting Officer to agree as provided in D above upon the whole amount to be paid to the Cer,tsactor by reason of the termination of svork pur- suantto this Article, the Contracting Ofdcer shalt, subject to any review required by the District's pro- cedures in effect as cf the date of execution of the Contract, determine, on the beds of information available -to him, the amount, if any, due thd Contractor by reason of the termination and shall pay. to the Contractor the amounts determined by the Cancmacting Officer, as fotous, but without cluplica- tion of any amounts agreed upon in accordance with 0 above: 1. With - reipoct to alt Contract work psciorcr.ed prior Ia the effective date of ths Notice of Termi- nation, the total (without duplication of an', stems) c.f: a. The cost of such work; b. The cost of settling and paying ctairns arising out Of the termination of svo:k under sub- contracts or orders as pnevtded in B 5. above, exclusive of the accounts paid or payable on account of supplies or materials delivered or ser~ ices furnished by the subcontractor prior to the effective date of the Dolts of Termnhietion of `sort: under the Contract, which - amounts shall be included in the cost on account of which payment Is made under E l. a. above; and - c. A sum, as profit on N. 1. a. above, dat-n-mined by the Contracting Officer to be fat:' a.~d reasonable; provided however, it-sat ii It anpeors that the Contractor would nave ousta:nsd a loss on the entsrc Contract had i: been comp-esed, no profit shall ba ioch~dcd or allowed under this subparagraph and an apprc-priste a-djcctmnent shall be made reducing the amount of the settlement to reflect the cci .zsced rate of :cs-s; and provided further that proflt shall be alto-ed only on preparations made and v.or'adurie by the Contractor for the terminated - portion of lice Contract but may no: be alloyed on the Contractor's settlement ee:penscs. Anticipatory pswffts and consoqueotiat damages will not be allowed. .Arsv reasonable me- thod may ba used to arrive at a fair nroflt, sopentelv or as part of the whole settlement. 2. The reasonable cost of the preservation end protcceon of pro,ert~' incurred ns'rsiiarit to 5 9; and any other reasonable cost incidccckcl to tcrmimnOian of :vod-c under the Contract including expense incidco:at to lii.' clcternsinatiori c~ the accost due to lice Contractor as the result of the termtnatio:s of sort: under the Contract. ~`. TI-se total sum to he paid tu sac Contractor strider N I. shove shall not cxceed the total Contract price as reduced by the amount of payment. otisewive made mci as further rcduccf isv tt:o Contract price of work not terminated. Except for noranol sooctage, and ermpt to the extent list the District shall have oticer,vise expressly assumed thct riot of less, tItian stscdi be exctuded irons the amounts payable PAGENO="0272" 954 to the Contractor FisCi El. above, the fair val cc determined by the Contracting Officer, of prop- erty which Ia destroyed, lott, staler, or damaged so as to become cr~~"e-ebte to th~ District, or to a buyer pursuant to B. 7. above. 0. The Contractor shalt have the right of appeal, under Article 7 hrr~s, from any determination made by the Contracting Ohlicer under C. or B. abovy. except that, if the ~-mtrccctor has failed to submit his claim Within the time provided in C above and cias failed to request ext~naton of such time, he shall have no such right of appeal. In any case where the Contracting Officer ~.s made a delcjsninaticju of the amount due under C. or B. above, the District shall pay to the Contractor the following: 1. If there is no sight of appeal hereunder or if~ no timely appral has been taken, the amount so determined by the Contracting Oflicer,~hr 2. If an appeal had been taken, the amouht finally determined cmi such appeal. H. In arriving at the amount due the Contractor under this Article ~mro shall be deducted: I. all unutenidated advance or other payments on account thermofore macto to the Contractor, applicable to the terminated portion of the Contract; 2. any claim which the District may have against the Contrarior in connection with the Con- tract; and 3. the agreed price for, or the proceeds of sale of, any materials, supplies or other things kept by the Contractor or sold, pursuant to the provisions of this Article and not otherwise re- covered by or credited to the District. . . - I. If the termination hereunder be partial, prior to the settlement of the terminated portion of the Contract, the Contractor may file with the Contracting Officer a reocres in writing for en ecucitable ad- justment of the price or prices specified in the Contract relating to the continued portion of the Contract (the nortion not terminated by the Notice of Termination), and suth equitable adjustment cc may be agreed upon shall be made at such price or prices; however, nothing contained herein shall limit the right of the District and the Contractor to agree upon the amount or amounts to be paid to the Con- tractor for the completion of the continued portion of the Contract when said Contract does not con- - tam an established Contract price for such continued portion. - - .1. The Dtstr~ct may from time to time, under such terms and condithos as it may picecribo, make par- tial paymenIa against costs incurred by the Contractor in connection with the terminated porhon of the Contract whenavor in the opinion of the Contracting Officer the af~wgate of such payments shah be within the amount to which the Contractor will be entitled hereunder. If the total of such payrner.ts - is in excess of the amount finally agreed or determined to be due under Ihis Article, such excess shall be payable by the Contractor to the District upon demand, together with inisrest computed at the rate of C percent per annum for the period from the date such excess is received by the Conlrr.rtor to the date on which such excess is repaid to the District; provided however, that no interest shall be charged with respect to any such excess payment attributable to a reduction in the Contractor's claim by reason of retention or other disposition of termination inventory until ten days after the date of such retention or disposition, or such later dote as determined by the Contracting O~cer by reason of the circunsetacecs. K. Unless othersvise provided in the Contract or by applicable statute, the Contractor from the ofiec- tive date of termination and a'or a period of three years after final settIument under th~ Contract, sheLl preseere and malts available to the Dcstrict at all reasonable times at the otff cc of lice Cortrzsctar, but without direct charge to the District, all his books, records, docu~ots and other evidence bearing on the costs and expenses of the Contractor under the Contract end reisting to the work terminated hero- under, or, to the extent approved by the Contracting Officer, photc~aphs and other authentic repro- ductions thereof. ARTICLE 7. DISPUTES Except as otharwise provided in the Contract, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under the Contract which is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by ~ie Contracting Officer, who shall reduce his decision to writing and. maP or othemviso furnish a copy thereof to the Contracttu, The dacirim of the Contracting Officer shall be final and conclusive unless, within 30 datufrocn the datc of receipt of such copy (the 30-day period shall start en the date the Contracting Officer's sc-trIer, decisir.n is received by the Contractor), the Contractor mails or olhoms.'ise furnishes to the Contract !cppeais Board a written ~rpeal. The decision of the Contract Appeals Board for the determination of such appels shall be final. and conclusive, This provision shall not be pleaded in any suit involving a question of Ect arising under the Contract as limiting judicial review of any such decidon to cases where fraud by sudb orficial or his representative cr - beard is alleged; Drovtdefi. however, that any such decision shall `se fiflut cad conclusive unless the same is fraudulent, capricious, arbctrar.' or so grossl~' erroneous as neces~arily to in-ely bad faith or is not sccpp':ted by substantial evidence. In connection with any appeal proceeding under this Article, the Contractor shalt be afforded-an opportunity to be heard and to otter evhience in suprert of his anneal. Pe'~dhmig final decision of a dispute hereundar, lice Contractor shall proceed diligently with the .jsctorntsnce of lice Contract and in accordance with the Contracting Officer's decision. 10 PAGENO="0273" 955 ATTACHMENT D ~uggested language for Amendment No. 8 in the covering letter. Contractual Obligation of Pepco Amendments A. The "Termination-Delays' provision for Districof Columbia construction projects is attached hereto. If adopted, other conforming amendments should be made in the contract. B. The following should be a separate added provision - of the contract: "The Utility recognizes the importance of the continued operation of the Rail System to the welfare of the metropolitan and its inhabitants. It. will give due recognition thereto in connection with the planning and operatfon of its system and in an operating emergency will conduct its operations diligently to maintain or re~tore service on a priority basis The Utility will provide and maintain durinci the term of.~ this Contract electrical capacity and facilities sufficient to assure the safe and adequate supply of electricity service under this Contract, subject to dontinoencies beyond the Utility's reasonable contraol, and the parties 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 18 PAGENO="0274" 956 FOUR Page Two agree to cooperate with each other so as to enable such service to be provided on an efficient basis~. PAGENO="0275" 957 ARTICLE 4. DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS The Contractor shall promptly, and before such. conditions are disturbed, notify the Contracting Officer in writing of: 1. Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing materially frosic those indicated in the Contract, and 2.. Unknown physical conditions at the site, of an unusual nature, differing materially from those ordinarily encountered or indicated in the Contract and generally recognized as inhering in work of the character provided fur in the Contract. The Contracting Officer will promptly investigate the conditions, and if he flr.ds that such conditions do materially so differ sad cause an increase or decrease in the Contractor's r'~st of, cr the time requited for, asrformaace of any cart of the work under the Contract, v;iiathcr or ret chasigad as a rca-ak of such conistiena, an equitable adjustmeiit shall be made and the Contract modified in writing accordingly. No claim of the Contractor under this Article will be allowed uritess the Contractor has given the notice required. No claim by the Contractor for an equitable adjustment hereunder wilt be allowed if asserted after final nayment under the Contract. .-. -- . ARTICLE 5. TERMINATION-DELAYS - If the Contractor refuses or falls to prosecute the work, or any separable part thereof, with such diligence as will insure its completion within the time specified in the Contract, or any* extension thereof, or fails to complete aaid work within specified time, the District may, by written notice to the Contractor, terminate h:s right to proceed with the work or such part of the work involving the dalay. In such event the District may take over the work and prosecute the sanse to completion, by contract or otherwise, and may fake possession of and utilize in completing the work such materials, appliances, and plant as snag have been paid for by the District or may be on the site of the work and necessary thcrefor. Whether or not the Contractor's right to proceed i'iith the work is terminated, he and his sureties shall be liable for any liabiisty to the District result- ing from his refusal or failure to complete the work within the speetfied linac. If fixed and agreed liquidated damages are provided in the Contract and if the District so terminates the Contractor's right to proceed, the reoulIing liability wtll consist of such liquidated damages unlsl such rea- sonable time as may be required for final cornpletsots of the work together with any inc-eased costs occasioned * the District in completing the work. If fixed and agreed Uqutdated damages are provided in the Contract and if the District does not so toe-rat- * nate the Contractor's right to proceed, the resulting damage wilt consist of such liquidated damages until tne work is completed or accepted. The Contractor's right to proceed shall not be so terminated nor the Contractor charged with resulting damage if: 1. The delay in the completion the work arises from unforaseeable causes bovond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, including but not restricted to acts of God, acts of the public enemy, acts of lisa D~siriet in either its sovereign or contractual capsints', acts another contractor in the performance of a contract with the D:atriet, fires floods, epidemteo, quar- antine rcstrictions, strikes, freight embargccs, climatic conditions beyond the normal schick could be anticipated, or delays of subcontractors or suppliers arising from unforasceable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and such subcor.trartors or se:p- pliers (the term subcontractors or suppliers shall mean subcontractors or suppliers at any ncr); and 2. The Contractor, within 10 days from the beginning of any such delay, (untast the Contracting O~E- cer grants a further per:od of time before the date of flnal payment under the Contract) notifies the Conlracting Officer in writing of the causes of delay. - The Contracting Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent 0f the delay and extend the time for com- pleting the worlc ss'hen, irs his judgement, the findings of fact justify saudi an extension, and his findings of f act shall be final and conclusive on the parties, subject only to anpeal an provided in Article 7 herein. If, after notice Of termination of the Contrabtor's tight to proceed under the provisions cf this Article, it is determined for any reason that the Contractor st-as not in dc-fault cinder the provisions of this Article, or that the delay was excusable uniter the provisions of this Arlicle, the rights and olsllgetions of the paA:cas shall be in accordance \sitit Articte 6 herein. Fsuiurc to apace to any such cidjuatancul shall be a d~spute con- cerning a question of fact within the meaning of Artiete 7 herein. - The rights anti remedies of the District provided in this Article are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under the Contract. The District rosy, by written notice, terminals the Contract or a poe-lion ttscreof as a result of an E:ccccm- live Order of the President of Ihe United States with respect to the prozecutiuts of tar or in the interest ot national defense. When the Contract is so terminated, no claim for loss of anticipated profits will be permitted. 7 PAGENO="0276" 958 -, WAS;~GToN METROPOL1TAN A~1EA TRA>31T AUT~-~ORTY b~OTh )S ~ t J/ ligo D C ~ :~ is:: - _C'~'~JER S~E~G~C~ER Mr. Douglas N. Schneider, Jr. O.;~~'5~ Director of Transportation a'~ Government of the District of Columbia - ~? :.L~~;;-~ - Department of Transportation Room 508 Ev5sA?~.umeEy 415 Twelfth Street, Ii. 1. Washington, D. C. 20004 ~ ~~GON Dear Mr Schneider In reference to your letter of October 31, 1975, you CUFLSP-WPS indicated that there were four general problem areaswnich must CwARLCSE.CEAT5v.Js. be remedied in order that the public interest and the righcs of the parties be adequately secured in the currently proposed Elec nc Service Agreen~nt between kTA and cPCO I are also of the opinion that the contract and its performance end adam- CA~TC~~S istration must be in the public interest rand that the rights of `.oR~/A'~.c~STELLER all parties be adequately secured. This was the objective of - our negotiating team and shall continue to be their objective to the successful conclusion of said contract. `Ic are enclo ing a copy of our comr its ho ever circe ~.A;ss~c~s-eTEDT is possible that the negotiating team nay very well be called ~ upon to reopen discussion with PEPCO concerning sees of the specific proposals that you enumerated, we have intentionally not elaborated to a great extent. As this letter will be widely distributed we have avoided coenents that cay be beneficial to the Utility in the event discussions are reopened. ~ie have -E:~cY agreed to meet with members of your staff on Noveeber 3, 1975 to C fur ,e di ~uss on a ~oint b1 poin b. is e en o- `~o~r cc-- -i The Authority staff's response to your co~iienee is listed - in the sacs order as they occur in your letter oF October 31, - ~ 1975. - PAGENO="0277" 959 2 - Mr. Douglas N. Schneider, Jr. 1. The electrical rates could be the subject of a separate agreement. However, there are general provisions in this agreement which are applicable and should be retained, end therefore, we believe that this should be done by an amendment to the existing agreement. We generally agree with the recommendation of the District staff in that the Agreement should reflect the intent of the parties during negotiations. We would, however, suggest that the clause as proposed by the District staff be modified. (See Revised Attachment A.) 2. The definition of the "RT' rate is implicit within the contents of Article lEA of the proposed Electric Service Agreement. However, for clarification, we would propose that the following definition be added ~o the list of definitions in the proposed Agreement. Article I. N. H. "RT Rate" means a uniform rate for all electricity provided to the Authority at primary voltage (13 kv class or higher) on contiguous Authority right-of-way including but not limited to the points of delivery and metering as listed in Appendix D. 3. We agree that the proposed contractshould be modified to establish that construction contribution be made on the basis of progress reports for work performed. The District of Columbia's proposed attachment B utilized a normal payment to the contractor clause for a fixed price construction contract. In our opinion, its provisions do not reflect the conditions found in cost-reimbursable situation. For~ these reasons we recommend that consideration be given to~ modifying the existing contract clause to reflect the actual practice under which the Utility is fully paid on a continuing basis for work performed (see Revised Attachment B (1)). 14 The Authority's procurement practices have been modeled after those of the Federal Government. The Federal practice has been to exclude subcontracts and change orders of less than $100,000.03 and those contracts that are competitively bid. For further clarification the proposal as stated in Revised Attachment 3 (2) is offered. 5. A `Dispute' clause was proposed to PEPCO in a draft contract submitted to them in February 1973. However, the Authority was unable to obtain agreement that the provision be retained in the proposed agreement. We do agree with the District' staff that a dispute article is desirable and we would therefore propose to reopen discussions concerning this article with the objective of obtaining agreement for PAGENO="0278" 960 - 3 - Dr. Douglas N. Schneider, Jr. the re-insertion of the article or some alternative procedure for resolving disputes short of litigation in the courts. 6. The Authority staffs proposed wording for Section ts concern- ing the maintenance of separate books for all construction accounts is contained in the attached Revised Attachment B (2). 7. tIe would agree that it is desirable to have a `Termination for Convenience clause for the Authority. We recommend using the "Termination for Convenience" clause as used in our Standard Specifications with any appropriate modifications. (See Revised Attachment C.) 8. A. This proposal is an extension of the existing force majeure clause presently in the contract and the inclusion of such- terms are deemed acceptable. We would, therefore, recompend that the Authority's standard clause Termination for Default - Damages for Delay - Time Extensions' with appropriate medification be pro- posed. (SeeRevised Attachment D I.) B. We would agree to propose the good faith clause as suggested by the District staff as an added provision of the contract. (See Revised Attachment D 2.) 9. (The Authority staff agrees with the recommendation making re-estimates subject to \-fl-tATA approval.) The Authority staff's response to this is covered in the attached Revised Amendment B (1). 10. The Authority st.aff has previously agreed to this recommendation relative to the term of the contract. it is anticipated that the recommendation of the District of Columbia's staff will not undermine the fundamentel concepts and structure of the agreement. Where clarification is maceaser',', t;ne staff will seek to clarify all areas of the agreement and incorporate the other provisiofl5 customarily used to protect all parties. Sincerely, PAGENO="0279" 961 REVISED ATTACHMEIIT A Suggested language for Amsndment No. I in the covering letter. Delete paragraph 11-B in the proposed agreement; substitute therefore: The Utility will conduct a cost of service s:udy applicable to the Authority as a separate customer class." Based upon the results of the cost of service study (and criteria reflecting a fair rate design and fair rate of return to Utility), the parties shall agree upon an initial rail rapid transit rate or rates as applicable to Authority, which shall be made a part of this agree- ment, and shall define with particularity, the applicability of such rate or rates and all terms and conditions of service thereunder. Such rate or rates, together with supporting data, shall be filed with the appropriate regulatory Commissions; provided, however, if the parties are unable to reach agreement on such rail rapid transit rate or rates after due and diligent efforts and all matters pertaining to the establishment of a rate or rates applicable to Authority shall be submitted to and determined by the appropriate regulatory Commission as required by law. PAGENO="0280" 962 REVISED ATTACdIIEUT ~(l) Succosted languegu for Aeendment lb. 3 in the covering letter. 3eiste paragraph Hi A.2; A.3; A.k in tue proposed agreement; substitute 2. Upon receipt of such notification and information, Utility will proceed irocedietely to estimate by Authority Project, tnthin a reasonable period of time and using Utility's Standard Accounting and Estimating Practices: (a) the estimated cost of constructing the Utility Projects pursuant to Utility's standard construction practice as if there were no Technical Provisions applicable, and (o) the estimated cost of constructing the Utility Projects pursuant to the Utility's standard construction practice but in accordence with the Technical Provisions. - The difference in these estimated costs will be the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction. (See exaople, Appendix F.) Such estimates and any re-estimated costs shal I be subject to approval by the Authority. 3. The Utiiit~' miii make these estimates in accordance with standards of engineering and materials not exceeding the sta~dard utilized in the performance of work otherwise conducted by Ubility excapt where necessary to meet the Technical Provisions. Utility Will prepare a plan of detailed engineering end construction work and estifnated completion dates as necessary to construct end ccciplste the Utility Projects and shell commence work upon receipt of a work authoriza- tion from the Authority. The Authority will reimburse Utility, at monthly intervals for work actually performed, on the basis of actual costs incurred. however, the reimbursable cost of Utility Projects shall not include the costs that Utility would have expended in its cost on the Project if it were constructed pursuant to Utility's standard construction practice uitocut Authoruty's Technical Provisions. - 3. C:iiity rmser'ies the right to re-estimate by Utility Project periodically soy Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction or pert thereof -~j:-,i.;n was originally estimated pursuant to Article ii AZ above (and t:ne re-estimatad cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction, or o o to ou a~ 0 ~ to a it ~c~je) of each Au:horitv ?-:ject~ Utlllt;/ will suhot to - ~o - - -I -~) -i tom the Au:ocr~:v Pr-oiect, en: payment will he-e~e as required to toe E::~-woeo Cost -of C-on:ribation in Aid of Ccnstruc:Eon ~ t:~ Cost, aci toe resulting amount will be the Actu~i Cost of Cont-i- :-ucbon in o~ Construction For the Author-iCY Projects (See Appendix - - PAGENO="0281" 963 S REVISED ATTACHISENT E(z) Sugccsted language for Amendment 10. L~ in the coverirhl Totter. Delete Section IV in the proposed agreement; substitute therefor,j~ IV Examination of Records Ltilt / Projects Utility shall maintain separate accounts for the purpose of accumulating Authority's construction costs by project or work authoriza- tion. These books, records, documents, papsrs, corn-notations, projections, and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices, sufficient to refle~t properly all direct and indirect costs of whatever nature claimed to have been incurred and anticipated to be incurred for the performance of this Agreement. The foregoing constitute "records" for the purpose of this clause. S The Utility agrees that~ the Authority or any of its duly authorized representatives shall have access to and the right to examine eny "records" of the Utility involving transactions related to Estimated and Actual Costs of Contributions in Aid of Construction, jor the sole purpose of validating the Estimated and Actual Costs, unt~l the expiration of three years after final payment for any Util icy Project constructed under this Agreement. S &. Subcontracts The Utility further agrees to include in all [heir subcontracts in excess of 5100,003 not entered into by teens of forcal edvertising and cod ificac ions thereof in excess of $100,033 hereunder ec~arded subsequent to the date of this Agreement for the construction of Utility Projects, a provision to the effect that the subcontractor agrees that the Authority or any of its duly authorized representetives stall, until the expiration of three years after final payment under the subcontract for work per- formed on that Utility ProJect, Oave access to end the richt to exejine any `records of toe subcontractor invoicing transactions related to the Agreement for the purpose of auditing their actual casts. - For purposes of ocr ify ing thee cost or~ nr ci no dete es used in the test of Service 3iudy, or any subseocenc study or activity that- resuj Os in a chance of the rail rapid transit rare, conducted by toe Utility, ereeccurete, complete and current, the Authority or any of its duly eethocized representatives shall, until the exoiretion of three years f-cm the date of Final payment under this Agreement, nave the right to *e~temine t.noss boo~s~ recoros, docurrecte, pepers~ and otnsr enocorting tate which in-iol'ie transactions related to that Cost of Service Study, or any suoseousnt study or update thereof, or which ii cermi t adequate evaluation 0F the cost or pricing tate csed, along wi:n toe ccmputatjo~~ end projections used therein: - 5- ..~ 5 PAGENO="0282" 964 RVISED ATTACF~E~iT C ~c~ted 12 for Am~n~o2nt No. 7 in the covering letter is attached her eta. PAGENO="0283" `~:~) ;:i th~ event this con~r~c~ is srminau~ ~s provird n tn~ C~r~r~.:to~ sh~W, *.vi~h~:t funh~r Iiabiii~y 1Lmi~h ~- p3(;.?~~-sph (a) hereoi. ins Authority sh~:~il b2 entit!~'J (-;) tQ d~r~c~ ~~rcpri~t? tO ~ ~x~1n~ton ro~~ sny Fsc~- pi~;~ th? S~Ui15 reie~es zigsinst the Contractor is it e~zi!. Sa~. or :Gca~ ~:L!~, )O'!~)d flZttC'flCi5flC~ 5pp!~3ri- tou~zt )ur~:Ie in il~ c*ve~-u o~ a breach of th~ Cori~ract by a~ ~ ~2~ish ex~mpt~an f~m ao~ Fe~eraI oscise ~ax or fhe Co~t~actor, and (2; as a c~n3fty by I:r.v. to examp'a~y duty .;~ich ma; c'.~va risc ~o ~ incisage or dac~easo in ca~n~a~ in an amoini (as daisrmin~f by tho Eloarci or its tf~ cr~rrct y~ice .~.!; ba f n.~ce~1 onj at ha cf;sccc~on duly ~u~horized r~pmes2oiafive) which shall o~ flOt I~ss of tr~ u:nor;~i. t:-~2n (~re5 n~r more thrinten ilmes the costs nc~rrad by (~~) ~ Contractor sha;f prornp:~y notify tha Cott~ac~inq n 0 inpre ga ~ Ii r ~t ba ~ c - abner or wrron~ vi - .~::* -, : v y-c~, 5.0 shab n-.a ~c:i.xn o~vbs and remedves or tire Au~.horiiy provided in `:idh ivosect thereto as drecied by trio Contrandrig 0th- thiS article shall rot ho exclusive and are in addition to cor. any other rights and remedies provided by lea or under * this contract. 33. TERMiNATION FOR CO)'VENIENCE OF- THE * 32. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAXES AUTHORiTY (a) The contract price includes all applicable Federal, (a) The performance of work under this contract may be - State sod local taxes and duties. - terminates by the Authority in accordance with this arti- (b) Nevertheless, with respect to any Fedsrcl excise tax cIa in whole, or from time iO limo in part, whenever the - or du y ov the rana ct ova or propertj cos d bj fits Coo a rig C c sh Ii d Icr" n th I such ter-'itr co r a i a sta u co t d cision r t n ruling or ttor 0 ~` i at o n thor ty Any uch j j~ or t es et ct t r lv con act ox an mm o a I b ft S oj d r~ o It' Co-dr or of a Notice or Terminaion soecityivo the extant to whian (t) results in the Contractor being requires to pay or pariorrner.ce of work under thc contract is terminated, bear the burden of any such Federal excise lax or duty or and the date uoon which such termination becomes increase in tne rate thersol which would not otharwise efiective. hers been payoble on such transactions or property, the ,. co tr p c so I b in ea d by tee soou'it of a h (o) c ot 0 o I lii t on cxc pt tax o .i y or ra e nc orosid a the Cor r dons ~ 0 01 t d b Coot cciv C a r ti rents in writing that no anount for such newiy imposed Con:reccr aria: Federal excise tax or duty or rate increase was included (1) atop work under the contract on the date and to ir the contract price as a contingency resarve or other- the extent specified ri the itozice c?Terrrtinetion; s'iisv: or (21 oboe no furfhar orders or subcontracfs for mate- (2) revu'fa iri iha Contractor not being roqutrad to pay rids. serviovu or faci,idee, excop: as may ~e nacasasry or c a er o or ii 1' ob 1 r uod or co o o c v a t o a to sio in e drv-.vback of, any auth Federvi excise tax or duty which contra-a: as is riOt termi.oatsd: - wou:d otherwise have seen payable on such tranevctioss (3) te'minete au ordere arid subcontrects to `tine cx- or property or which was the basis of so i.ocreaee in the tvnt tost they relate 10 the p.erf-arc-ance of work tarmoat- contract p000. the cootrect prics ShCli be dacressed by ed by the N3tice oi Terminatton. th~ emaunt of the rebet, retund, or drawback, or that ~ vs&vn to the ~uti:oritv, ri the rianrar, at the I id o t `to r'y a a b t bj I C C 0 r pr s lb -lIry Cc l~ otoOn c 1 t o Coo a iroj hst o 1 lot I co oil . ru. r r a ojob r h 000 c ri -s n' or r r'O oF o c :s.~orduty. . srdl - oo)bo 3 o ~ ii - / rot j"ir X Coo c ~C (Cr hr ea)u~lovntof 12S0 trtan siCO shall be wade in the cv:. to the extv-ov tie mar- rac,;brv.'.'oabtn a:pro'ialcrrath~- c-noire:: once pursuant to pongraph )b) abc-v.- cat on zr-si 35 riSi icr a 05 no ron sos rib r'tiv ewin'v; 0 5.0 a pvrvqrepo ct abc/v. toe terra .:ccntracs y/i Thsaeicr toe :" de'-~ a ho Au.tiinorh',' in. no - 0 a cnrtract, thos c:vt~o0t cats. As 1-0 a-ddtC-0~i ~ Eon.':, ~0; toe ~:`:vatvd or urti:cr,nat. a' av~,cas pr-Jo_tel by rnodvicat:-an a :r-s so ca--a -`are :n cranisa. corr-y~vtcv *`ork. ouco0vs. ccc cc.' va: terra `corrac: dzts' means itS CSC 01 c ax: n~.e"a c:::jreca vs cart of. or scn'jirec it sot a no. :x::-:n. ccc v-in -an `-in. pxrr-rmvrcv ot. the "ore twotiirO'ert a -~ 0 * -aunt on : - artiptian, `c ~..`ric'1r-' upon toe tomcat at pots -y anna e:el civ': a. cra.wriys. ,otsrmrivi!cn, start - `GP- -~ PAGENO="0284" - C C I -~ 3!) - - `4 p - - ~`I U -` ~ C ~C pE~:;E:~.~c ~ ~ ~ ~ :~&S~ ~ ~u L~~C `~ - 4 0 C _ - - p - L~ ~ L~ - 9 v~ j ~ y3 - 1_c I - - J : LI~ ~ - ~ F > `__ 211 E ~ 3~-' L~ _ _` -_ D ~ ss eo.~d s~occ e;cqs J Q 3 - 0 P J( - 0 C U 03 C -~C3 ú(1~ ;spon O~;C': (C L05( -PP3J 5J( SO p `;ucc.ws op 0w C( S~S11SCS L0PS0~C~.! (0 - - : Jc13?;3.1C3 SIp 01 53p;IiIlCws S.~ ;0 CpSo~UJS;Ep SIp 04 00 &I!W;SiS? ,(SL! 33 S (0SC1_C3 51(1 - - s;p(~( 500c'iIe 6030; Op003 sc~: ioctn jic;s ~o su U'1(41M WIp3 oC 502353 5(14 33I00~I1 C3 00(13:52 33 0S~ 3503 IOJCSSOi cOO ~US 531 10 2InpS uC~fl 35:Stp 004500335 io p:::sc ~q C CO 3 ~1J 3 0 OUO( 0 ~3 S _4 L 34-0 L C P~ 4-01 S~J S 44 5 ~(3 (z) 1 3 DL i 0 - PS - p S C( 0 3 3IpLI5l~( ~3 14~ SSUPUJ 3 ~ 32 4- 3 1 - e~so 300wep;os 5143 ;o ~orows 233 thJl:ipsJ spsw eq (023503 uo(sue3xs PSZ~CP1n2 Jo- P3!JSd sef. soo 1_S LO~ 1 0 C d - p - (3 5 1 qis 414 UI It 60 0 LI U JO 24-03 C SPUO 0 1 5 1 3 dwoo ~o o S 1353 1/1 LI 03 2 1 o q C 1( 3 CO 3 9 o rs essq U S CU JO 0 S C 0 - 3 1 PlO'S 0 ~J3UO35U3 045 C 31. ~ ~ 3 1.OJ3JSIS 000 54 oers.u ro' c o scid qu~sse p 5 1 1 o ?J4L~3 545 ~ qns eq JS 3 L3r9 23 3 C 3 * J(q p504133032? `eocqs toe) 00 ~uc:s ss ~os -~ e~ lq CSqIJOSOJd uoiisopp:e3 4(113 pUs 13134 533 L ~ ~ .0 lU. 54S54J 0 03 4- C U 1 LOLl 3340 0 P0 3 00 03 U p 301 q C3 2 00 1L S~ 0 I o\ (C .110145 SpJr0UJ2 14011(15 (353003 21145 .ISpUI1 (0 UO3SU (S53&(Ui US Siflb3S Asw ssq c40C~4i21 5(1 -(13351 (0 53130(.( 503 (0 esOp 55133525 533 Ci JOOd 30335.13 14311450 Ui ~U2 30(3534003 503 (0 tioisssssod 501 123 53 14314'S -uooqrls etp ~q P51(5103114 5531035530 ~2353i(S~ 5(5132(5W (0233003 Siu3 03 p515(53 l~3sdo3d 5143 (0 0014533555.0 30 s~ijddos ~o 3U110305 00 S4C2~145~ JO pisd 5130053521(4(0 pUS UC1332(OJd 21(4 304 351(P 13513 323(1(0 5u4::s.~u03 - -~ - - -arisnpxa `sooqo (~) (q) L(dsJSsJsd U! psp!510dS5 SJ5~JO -- 51(4 so ~o `Aissseoeu sq 13sw so ucpos qons s (6) io s~osi;uooqns Jepol io o 1.0 ilL 4 5144 (0 300 15 4 SOISI S SU!O(3 Su 13so pos 6 (0 3 ~ 3 ~ U WJSI 0 23 (C 54 p 01W 02 1 0 .1 3' C 4 S 04003 3 V SOY 00 0144 0 ~i2 0 0 0 5 U5.. C 3553 53~_ 0(51... If 5(000 C p300q(If0)(S( ~ plow I 05░'i░~ 0 3 U -~ 03 113 U01450IUJ O~ 10 2 C 213 0 50 21(5 14 03 J2~4 0 43flS Ut prd 0 3(30 SIt, r14 33 C .153 PSIJJC 20 JOt 53 0 3 1 03 4 I I (1) (0 03 0 31 d 04 40033 q S 0. 4 04 (p) _(C i s ~ o ~j s w uodn 1_CO SIt, ap ft 30 5 03 51 03 01, pCe.15s S3erow2 cus to uopsoi;cnp 350133. :nq SlICuOl 214 03 53JSW35d 40 uOi3OflpSJ UI pCl(ddO sq ~5.2 031 ~ ~~30 5u!1323:003 514 b P2U(03151314 2(1_flOWS 244 -(SOdS(p JO 32SU231 4315 .cus (C 5p2230353 ~1(1 (5-1532.114 - 3143234303 sU3 03 LIod (5(5 333133 62:05:4003 21(1 S~ psp:;o:d ~US 353513 6013032003 52 bq poso.~:3 52~░ - -035 5244 14 3050S31.C( 1(30% 0 20123210321 522 ~03a03 Aq 30 53(353 3 45 COO bo o~q:oso;d soo-:-p~ -~ ol - 3 C - Op I 3535 53 I. . I C 0 0 3 .1 U03 C 4 3 3 ~JS 35 0 14 300 1. i) 3 ~ po 0 5 1 3 0 3 1.3 LI (a) 1. 32 3 p ,~ J COO O) 3! 0 (p) LId C 4 0(3 r i s 3U03 514(40 ~1 c1o 53 `1 31 32 3 10 C 14 03 p so 20 03 UOCI1 ~I so 3 L s unows JO P 2 13 JO 0 23 43 3" 3)05 4- 0 U 0U 34 33 5 JO p 1 0 (343(5 ~ UI 13 4- 1 03 53 C 0 LI 3 1314 0 pews p 14 1 LI 2 s o P nd 3(30 - 30.00!35U111234 0143 (0 UC-552J fq 30302.3203 244 04 plod -n'o 0143 05 ~2L4SiUJfl1 214 Cu pSJiilb2J uIaq 0-214 - 20 03 ~Lfl 335 2(041 24 1. S C I 0 51_I 32.14 2 UC3 U q o J 3 43 I LI 996 PAGENO="0285" - bJ(~4 ~-(J~' : ~ ~ i~~_p ~ 5Ja:~~!:s~ ~ I~::G!s~*:.~~ -~C~ ~ ~ EL~C~ ~E ~ ~; ~ uc ~~J~2C ::~ __J J_J 0 ~_ ~ _J 0 S ~- ~q c ~ D 1 ~ f'~ a Jc pJ-~ ú~ J i ~ CF 0 ~ ~ 0 ~` C 3 ~ J - CS JO q ~r~r C -~ ~J J_J ~ ,Je S.~ U .JU ~ I~~J ~ C _J~ - SL ~.. I > /JD L ` C ~~jC )~ ~-> C -::~ ~S~Z~C~;Eq3 a~ 3SJ~'JC~ S~u~ 0 ~~sd C s~ i SUC~SVfl~CC~ *~~J_~J ~ ~ ~ - :~ pC~ S5~4~?JZ~ ~ pS~ueSC~;c~ ~░:~-;~~! 0~ ú5 1iS:.~ ~ ucSES.; ~ ~ ~U~C)~L~OO C:.~; /q p?uIwiS~Sp C~ s:s * SE I~4 L -~y iq L JL~C > u r S ~ L C t~ 0 EU,! ~O UOq3E~SU! -~ WcJ qSJISJ.5255 ~ 5J. S/SD USJ pSJfl /JcILS:u: UC u:wis~ ~o SI CI 0 1 J 3SL a q i 511! LC C ~q L. S IC C -qo JO S~SJJ5~!l~ S3spClSqrIs Pus scs~-~s ~o fioCsnb ~15 ui uoqoccej a s~:iCuns :uaw/cd SSSOYU !;~1S I L, S b3 EL J - 1, 4 5 0 15 ss5~e'~s s.cir~ JC~OC4UO3 ~4! 0 LC/ `pwcud /iJCI:rv 51:1 01 11155) ISL1150 S~Z~1~ I C ~L1Ifl iS C I L 511 I ~ U 0 C3 q J Li CD 10 sL~ 10 S~J 1 C I JL S \ I 355 J /C J I ~US JO 0 3 S a so c ci US i d J5 J C S 0 5 511 p 1 0)03 U q JEIIWIS JO SEp!~ ~ iSi!) JSI~SSS 10 S5qUJS~JS3Ufl isIflS~o~ piswsp 11005 fluoulrV Sq~ 01 10135)UC3 Pd P503 J& 0 3 3 J 0 II 05 ~ /~q c k q L 55 5 4 flS II S SILl P-I P `iJSISW O S55ICS P1'S &qpusq lS5C~S!p UOPSIJCdSUSJI sq o~ CsuIwJsJsp io pesi~S I~auij Iurcws sq~ 0 5553 UOth! ~!iS~q ssoq~ o~ ps;ou~ssj iou ;np župn~oui >jJCM -as u~ 51115w/sd qons Jo SIO~ 5L~J IJ `J3~Ufl3J51J p~:i; ~ ~L!iDSi~r ~P!PU0O 5L4~ 01 -E SS~/~ P~!~!!-S ~ -us sq 11W J0~C5~U03 5111 qz~qis 01 JUSOWS sq~ U!Lp!M SC - - pe~s5qseru: SEq sq 15141 S55P5~MCU~OS )O13S)~UO3 ~k. 15145 SJUSWcsd 14355 jo s~~6ai55s 5144 J53IJJ~ 6L!105J111C3 - - NO!JXE(!S2AN! 8JJS `9~ ░14 JO u0!U!da 5544 Iii JSA3USqI' 13S)~U03 S!'-fl JO UO14JCO -- - -JSU!WJSI s~i q~I,i uoqosuuoo U! ~0l35~WOO 545 sq p?)JCL J s ~ a C I~! ~ LI S 50 JSU S 4110 S UO uASd P s I - ii- -- ~i JSd assw 5)355id Isw JI 55 SuOIJIPUOO pus sw~s; -185 ~U5 F~UI0T sq 1545 uiIlus LOSS UDSE 51!IUS J5~j ~JO - - . - - - U5144 5)0W 40 P8S!Jd WOO SI J5~Ufl3J554 Jc435J1U03 314J JI 1435S JOPUIl `SOUl 01 SW14 WOJJ SW 1!~oq,nv eqj -. - - ~O!OV~INO3 ~O NOWSOdL~4O3 53~J~ uors U! spsw sq j~14~ uodn peeJ5S sq ~sws~us~ - - - - - - -!snlpS e~qsJmbs 54055 PUS `(uot~su~wJs~ JO 53!C~4 514 sq - Sl35JJuOoqrs us ui P5PflIOU! sq i~qs 513!115 SILL (0) pEJSUIWJSJ IOU UCIJOd 5544) 435J4U03 sq~ jo uoq~od psa - - -c~JC145fl~ a541 I~J!UW5P! OJ -UI4U00 sql oj uU!45452 IO5JJUOO SqJ U! P354!3sdS S531id JO pssi6s.seq JOIO2JIUOO sq~ aisqsi ~dsoxs fl!JOqInv GLJJ 40 soid SUJ JO JUS WISnIPS s~qs~inba US JCJ 5U!lUSi U! ISSIb SSU5~X9 Sql IS peqS!uJnJ eq I!S14S UC14SWJOJU! pus SOUSp -~ ~ J3D!JJQ uUIIOSJIUO3 eq~ ~ 51!J cSW JOJO5)51103 - -!~ Lj3fl9 `1311513 JO 5455 14055 04 6u:uisped JOJOSJIUO3 8511 IOSJWOO 5114 JO UO1JJOd PSISU!WJSI 8544 JO IUSUSIJSS 514140 UO!SSSSSOd U! uoqSWJoJu! PUS eouSp!a3 IS eowd - 5111 0; icud `15!lJsd sq Jepunsaq Uo!ISU!W3e! 811! 1! (u) župos~uo~ 5544 Aq pa~Ssnbsi usqss fqcq~ny sql 01 -/luOqlry LJSIWOJ 4548 JOIOSJ1UO3 554) `Japunssq pewioJiad 583~ -- -/1)85 JO >30W JO PSqSIwnJ SaIjddflS iIU5 JO 855 eq~ jo ;no 514! 04 P354P~J3 JO Aq paiesoosj SS!tusqlO ~ou pus - JO `OSJIUOO s~ip JO G3USWJOJJEd SU) `0150 uUI5IJ5 11)5W -!1~5 S!14! JO SU0:Si1OJd 354! CJ !UEflSind `P105)0 J0JO5J~U03 -S5UIJJUI ;u5u~cdoo JO lUelSd p5655 fus JO IUS033S uo sql f~ P5~'!nb35 S6U!Lfl Jsqlo JO `55!Iddfls 5j5!3845W 1cu 1c4IJO54)rs' sq 511 6s IllS JO U 5 3 1.1 0 4U /13 11 u~ (q) JO SS JO OS ooid 54) JO JOJ OIJd pssi5s SU) (c) p - - - - - *IO5J1UOO SNI 145451 U0I)OSUUOO UI JO5OS54U03 3111 l~-!----- - `5Cp551~b0h11 5514 JOIOSJI 8:sq fsw I!!JOqlnV 5544 qO!IM W!SlO AUS (~) `43531100 ~!14~ -UO3 84) 143414/5 ;o lOSilUco ~!~1l JO soucwJoJJsd s4l U0 JO UOIJJOd pSJI1IIIWJS4 51.11 01 ajqSo!jdds J0JOSJ!uo3 511,4 01 psssq )LQUJS6Uiuui ~q6uIdoo JO 4U545d JO W1,SIO JO ~░!1 spsu SJOJO4SJS544 4U50335 JO S4USWA5d ieq~o JO 3315/pS -01) 11353 1!SI5P U5454J!/1 5jqS'JOSSSJ U! POU AfldWod ~ ps5pflbJufl 1,5 (1 ps~~npsp sq 1,5545 ~ 51~!1~S SP-1! -!JJO 6U!1o?JJUC3 5544 04 120053 !l~145 JOIOSJIUO3 514j (c) JGpun J0!OC)4UC3 aq~ sop 4U10W5 554J 45 6U!SWE UJ (C - - -- - I S C C i I q 55 0 U I (u)io J 3 10 UI! L~UC3 I !JSJ~90:-~4~NJ IHD!54AdOO 0NVJJJ~ DSUIWJ5ISP as jUnOWS stp `usss~ useq 5214 sedds (~~u:~ -LVd ~J!0~V~i~ ~3~4V1SISSV ONV 30LLON tC ou Jo Jepufleisq sSdcis JO 45461) OU 51, ~~~54)4! (j) DU(I C! -101 5154 )OIOSJIUOO SuJ 01 i(sd 1,5545 fuJoqlnV ░141 `011CC!! - JOSJC'J5 5U0!lonpO.idsJ ░!l'J~54l~S J01J40 (s) io (o) qds5wsd JSPUS enp lIiflOW5 Oil JO UC(IC~ JO qdsJ6olo C 3 IU ci 0 IC 4 0 5 435 J Wi 4 p Op/u ~ 3 Q 6u 1100 -II 015 1 -1)63 SqJ ~cq pSSCJ~dS 5UEIJXO 5541 C-~ JO `JOJlUSOJOIJ p54511 (1)5 124 jsodds 40 5116!) 14355 OU 05554 I111IJS 054 UIU!! 43/lu -!WJ511(JOF/iSi110465!IsISJ PU5IOSJIUO35I4IJ5PUfl)OIOCJI UO!SIJS4XS ISCS5SJ C4 P~l!~! SSI4 pus enoqs (o) 14C1!il)U$uC L96 PAGENO="0286" 968 - REVSED ATTACN1~Ei1T D(1) Suy~sted ~anyue~e for ~mendr~ont ~o. 8 in the covering letter is attachs~ hereto. PAGENO="0287" 969 (c) No c~m by the Contractor for an equitabie adjust- * and his fir~iuigs o! faci shn~ bn i~a! and conclusive on , *rnen~t hereunder shall bo atlovied ii assnrteci after finni thn pacti9s, Subj~c~ cn~y to appeai as provided in the payment under this contract. Osputes' articie of thss~ Gunerat Pr~vjsjona. 5 TER~ NATION FOR DFAULT DA AGES FOR ~Q~' ~ rtne po 01 t acit~ DELAY-TIME EXTENS!ONS terrrtined fo~ any reason that the Contractor was not in (a) Ii the Contractor retuaes or fai~a to prosecute the dstau~t under th~ provsinr~s of this articie. or that tha \1o k or any s p~rao a psrt ti reo ~i n jc~i d~hš c C J exc~ ~ a u i i c o c . as v;id insure its compstion ~iithin lbs tme s)en~iie~ in ~ ~t~r~3 nn~ o~n~c~ ~ :~e pe~es 3h~i~ c~ thssane 0 J ~) 0 3 0 5' 0 1 i 0 5 ISSU d p~r uatt 0 a seFi t r ~iithin su h bme tee ~utno I j nay bj to e Tsrr-~ n-i o Co r rc of the Au `~ority nt n no a to tf Contractor e nina a his r!g~t to a 0 ih Cer ra P o ~ procasd auth the work or such part of the work as to (i) The rights and remedies Ci the Autholty provided in which there has been delay. In such event the Authority this clause are in addition to any other rights and reme~: may take over the work and prosecute the same to corn- dies provided by law or under this contract. . - - pie ion by contract or otnersits and maj t K ~O5S a o-i of nd utilize in comple ing the work sucri mate ala 6 DISPUTES appliances, and plant s~ may be on the site ci the dOrK (a) Except as otherwise proiidad in this contract any and neceasary therefor. `i/nether or not tna Contracors dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this r~ghtto proceed v~It!i the work is terminated, ha and t1is contract whch is riot disoosed of by a~reernent shall be sureties shall be mote for any damage to the Auihorily decided by the Contracting Officer, who shill reduce hi~ resultrng from his refuaal or failure to complete the work decision tO writing end mail or otherwise iumistc a copy in ~ne spcified time. . thereof to the Contractor. The decision of the Contract- (b) If fix d id agreed liquidated d mag a are pro~v d trig Orri e shall b final a ~ cor'clxsrv unle sit hin 30 ii Ihe oft act and if me Authority so t `-tinate the dais on he date o rec p o a h cooy the Con ra C `ilractor a r ght to proceed ti recitIng d rage nih for re i or cli u 1 n to n Con rac rg On consist of such liquidated damages until such reasons- cera written apoeai addressed to the Board of Directors. ble lime as may be required for final completion of the The decision of the Authority Board Of Directors or its work togslher with any increased costs occasioned the duly authorized representative br the determination of i~ no in compi 1mg en or such op 1 a a11- In I -is conci un' ssd I (c) If fixed and agreed liquidated damages are provided mined by a dourt of competent jurisdiction to have been in the contract and if the Authority does not so terminate freuduisnt, or capricious, or arbitrary, or so grosaty erro- r0 Ir c or a right o oroce d cc r si r o `is n y 5 c S ri or' jo at h o notsu,., ~ c,.,n I or uch liqu d d ma a until lb niors is e bj Si S S tat i cc In `ir' on ii n 5'J ~o o~p e or a cap d p I p oirg u I e'~ t Co rae or sh II (o) Tb Contr .,r a right to proc so at' Ii rot be ~ b at o ded ar oipci'tuni / o b n o an'-' Ic di' r eu run d nor th Co-i act r crarg I h ir5 d 1 5~PP cc o h aP P `-idin9 Ii a a o o C a o h reu r ne Co to r I p ocead ci g n / -t ri o r'c `--anc 0 CO -act and in (1) Tb ay in n o'-tpl ion of In wore sri Co ~ n is Co ~ On ~, r a a on I s~ un or bI axe b on" th on 01 a / o r a I or nag' c of t Con c o i d `ig (o) This 0 5 a d .t pr d c n ra bu o d o ectao God a so p.m tonG 0 5 iC 5i5 ir cc on r c o ti Author r 1 o r I ~ ~ ~ pro ii r oh o r --i o o `rt' p o"an ac Ic ~ / sal "i-trgan Ira u a no i y r a onde e t q i n Bo D p ~ t... r I -br cc u ~ ~ 01 j 0 i C e j ISJOC3 1 1 0 5 O~t 11 ~ ~ 0 Tb'QC'i 3'-O "T"~ r orcu o ri flOT - `-` "-`--` h ci r I d n t'-' 1 o ii g rce (a) T .-, o t 1 o a r `rat Cci t or n-t i CO r.. 3 0 .i I p a (ti1' `-a u-' t- ~` (0 The Con:roctor, witntn 10 rays from the beginning as li-s -.`,cstt orcasecia, cr at ri-ore irecusrrt ntsrv~ts as - 0' 2i-y such defaj (urt!ess the Contracting Oificer grants detsrrn;r-.a.s by the Ccr-irscring Osficer, on estimates ap- -. - r -`b rt 0"l 00 C -`C Ir,, db ccrrtract), nottiras the Contraccng Obrcer in Cor'traczrng Officer, she Oo:ruc:cr Shell iurn;sh a of he causes of daisy. The Contracting Oif.cer dc-tn or th~ total controct oric c' turns sum bin tame trw facts end lbs extant ol he dSiSy end . scour nj tire araor,nt ncf toed cnarain for, each Orinc~oel tar cornpiat!ng trw worfc `.`,her, in his cstngcnj of t~a work. i' ocon d~~~ii as requested, to arc- r -crc of f / i r 1 5 C 1 s j" r n PAGENO="0288" 970 (2) Sungested lang~inge for ?~s-ends-cnt do. 8 in the co-farina lettar. followins is orcoosed as an added rrovision of this contract. - - Toe Utility recognizes the importance of the ccntinu~d operation of the ~pid Traisit Si tan o io a a a o t e oojl~ - inhabitants. The Utility will give due recosnition there~o in connection with the planning and operation of its sy.stacs end in an operating as-ar- gency will conduct its operations diligently t3 maintain or restore service on a priority baa is. Tha Utility will provide and maintain during the tare of this Contract elec- trical capacity and facilities sufficient to assure the safe and adequate -. SCppiy of elwctrical service under this Contract, subject to contincancies beyond the Utility's reasonable control,, and the parties agree to cooparata with each other seas to enable such service to be provided on an efficient basis. , . PAGENO="0289" 971 EL~] metro ELECTF~C ~ AG~EE~E~T BETWEEN WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ~LECTRIC SERVICE AGREEMENT 10. MA-043 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 19 PAGENO="0290" 972 AGRFEMFNT BY AND BETI'1EEN POTOMAC ELECTPTC Pcl!ER COMPANY A!JD WASHINGTON ~ TPO░OLITAM ~YFA TRANSIT ATJTNOPTTY THIS AOPEEMETTT, entered into this _____ day of __________ 1975 by and between POTOMAC ELECTRIC POllER COMPANY (Utility), a District o~ Columbia and Virginia corooration also authorized to do business in the State of Maryland, whose princimal~place o' business is 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, IT. W,, Washington, B. C., and the WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Authority). WITNESS: WHEREAS, Authority is established by Interstate Corssact by and between Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, pursuant to Public Law 89~7711 (Law), an Act to trant the consent of Congress to the establishment of an organization empowered to provide transit facilities in the National Capital Region; and WHEREAS, Authority will construct and operate or cause to be operated the Washington Area Transit System (System) in the District of Columbia; Montromery and Prince Georre's Counties, Maryland; Arlington and Fairfax Counties, V▒rmimia; and the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church and Fairfax, Virginia (Zone); and WHEREAS, Utility is an electric public utility, t:oe present exclusive Service Area of which for the retail sale of electric energy is the District of Columbia, ma.ior oortioms of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland and a small segment o~ Arlincton County, Virminia (all as shown by the mao attached hereto as Appendix A and exoressly made a part hereof); and WHEREAS, Utilltv is regulated by the Public Service Commissions of~ the District o0 Columh~a and Maryland and the State Corporation Commission of Virginia as to rates and service for the sale of electricity at retail; and WHEREAS, Authority is currently constructing and ~~ill oserate a rapid transit System to serve the Wash~nmton Metromoli- tan Area (as shown by the man attached hereto as Ameendix B and expressly made a mart hereof), all ora nortion o~' such Area lyinr within Utility's Service Area; and Authority desires to purohase all electricity from Utility to onerate and maintain the ranid transit Systen within Utility's Service Area; and Utility desires to sell all electricity to Authority for that ourrose; NOW, THEREFORE, Utility and Authority exmressly recognizing the foregoing further state and agree as follows: PAGENO="0291" 973 I A. "Authority's System" means the rapid rail transit system, approximately 93 m~1es in lenrth, a man ~ which is attached hereto as Appendix B, which Authority is currently constructinC. B. "Authority Project" means the various portions of the Authority's System which are to be identified by Authority durinc the construction of the Authority's System. C. "Utility Project" means the specific construction, including rearrangements and/or removal by the Utility, including but not limited to, wire, cables, conduits, manholes, transformers, meters, and other electric equipment that will be required to supply electricity to the Authority Projects. D. "Periodic Payments of the Estimated Contributions in Aid of Construction" means payments in cash for Utility Project con- struction, calculated and made as more specifically agreed, according to Section III, infra. E. "Contributions in A~d of Construction" means contributions in cash for construction purposes, as defined in Electric Plant Instructions of the Uniform System of Accounts of the Federal Power Commission and adopted by the Eegulatory Commissions. Con- tributions in Aid of Construction shall conform to the Utility's General Terms and Conditions for construction in connection with the sale and distribution of all electricity for any use, and shall in any event be calculated and paid as more specifically agreed, according to Section III, infra. F. "Technical Provisions" means the technical criteria of the Authority's Projects as amelicable to Utility Projects which will supply electricity to Autho~ity's System; a cony o'~ the Technical Provisions is attached hereto as Aopendix C and is expressly made a part hereof. G. "Estimated Cost" of Contribution in Aid of Construction means all direct costs of and indirect costs reasonably allocable to Utility Projects pronerly chargeable to the appropriate accounts in accordance with the Uniform System oc Accounts of the ~ederal Power Commission. These costs, as determined by Utility's Standard Accounting and Estimating Practices, shall include all overhead costs not chargeable directly to accounts pertaining to construc- tion of Utility Projects and which are determined on the basis o~ a rate or percentun factor supnorted by overhead heanine accounts in accordance with Utility's Standard Accounting Practices. H. "Actual Cost" of Contributions in Aid of' Construction means all direct costs of and indIrect costs reasonably allocable -2- PAGENO="0292" 974 to construction of Utility Projects oroperly charreahie to the various amprooriate accounts in accordance with the Uniform Systen of Accounts of the Federal Power CorcHnsion. These cont~ as deternined by Utility's Standard Accounting and Ustirr,~tinT Practices, without any element of profit to Utility, shall include all overhead costs not chargeable directly to accounts pertaininc to Utility Projects and which are determined on the basis of a rate or percentun factor supoorted by overhead bearinc accounts in accordance with Utility's Standard Accounting Practices. I. "Service Area" means all the territory of the District of Columbia and all that portion of Uontgorery County and Prince George's County, Paryland and Arlinrton County, Virginia desig- nated as such accordinr to the mao attached hereto as Appendix A, and any territorial addition thereto as hereafter ray he made by Utility. J. "Regulatory Commissions" reams the District of Columbia Public Service Commission, the Uaryland Public Service Corsnission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the successors of each or any. K. "Rate Schedule PT" means Utility's Rapid Transit Pate Schedule "(PT)" as filed by U~ility wIth the appropriate Regula- tory Comnissiqns. L. "Utility's Standard .Rstirating Practices' and "Utility's Standard Accounting Practices' shall he such oractices as are applied by Utility in adninisterinT its other construction prorrars at the tine Estimated Costs: are deternined and Actual Costs are incurred. II PATES AND .sER~TICE A. Utility shall sell to Authority and Authority shall nun- chase from Utility oursuant to Rapid Transit Pate Schedule (R) all electricity used by Authority in Utility's Service Area, except electricity generated by J\uthonitF for enerserlcy operations, at primary volt-are on contiguous authority rir.iit of way at the moints o~ delivery and metering.aO listed in Appendix D attached hereto and exoressly made a part hereof, trovided hcwever that~ delivery at secondary voltage shall he separately metered and billed under Utility's generally aonlicable rate schedule(s). Authority ar~ees to purchase in Utility Service Area all electricity from Utility pursuant to Utility's General Terms arid Conditions, and Electric Service Rules and Regulations, all as from time to tine effective in each jurisdiction within which Utility operates, not specifically modified herein. For a oeriod of two yearn or until the Virginia State Corooration Commission assumes direct ~rulation over -3- PAGENO="0293" 975 utility rates to crovernrnental bodies, whichever sh'dl eccur fi~t, the rate schedulePT annlicable to Authority in the U:tstrtct o~ Columbia shall apply to cormarable sales o~ electricIty to Authority in Virginia. AuthorIty shall for the neriod of this Contract use electricity as its only source of traction nover in Utility's Service Area exceot for diesel powered locomotives used for switch- inc and in emergency ocerations. B. The Utility will conduct a cost ~ service study as applicable to the AuthorIty as a serarate customer class. Based upon the results of the cost o4' service study (rerlectinp criteria and a fair rate of return for UtIlity, made amolicable by the aperooriate Regulatory CommissIon), UtIlity-will establish a rail rapid transit rate schedule for aoolication to the Utility's primary electrIc service delivered to the Authority's rail rapid transit system on contiguous Authority righ~t of way. Il-I PAYMENTS FOR UTILITY PROJECT COUSTRUCTION A. Pursuant to Utility's General Terms and Conditions on file with and anproved by the anplicable Regulatory Commissions and in addition as arreed herein, Authority acrees to make Contributions In ~id o~ fonstrtc~iom ~ Utility Proiects calculated as ~ollors 1. Upon Authority'/s determination that an AuthorIty Project is identifIable to t~ie extent required to enable UtIlIty to design electric service facilities as nart of corresnondinc Utility Projects, AuthorIty will so notify Utility In writjnr accompanied by such Information as is reasonably reouired by Utility. / 2 Upon ~c~io~ of ~`uch ~otiCication ~md n~ornatIoq UtIlity will proceed immediately to estimate by AuthorIty Project, within a reasonable period of tire and using Utility's Standard Accounting and Estlrrratinc Practices: (a) the estimated cost of constructln! the UtIlity Prolect~ mursuant to UtIlity's standard construction practice as jf~ there were no Technical Provisions applicable, and (h) the estimated cost of constructinc the UtIl5ty Projects pursuant to Utility's standard construction eractlce but in accordance with the TechnIcal Provisions. The difference in these estimated costs will he the Estimated Cost 0r Contribution in Aid of Construction. (See exanrle, Atmendix C). 3. The Utility will make these estimates in accordance with standards 0C encineering and materials not exceedInc~ the standards utilized in the performance or work otherwise conducted by Utility excent where necessary to meet the Technical ░rovisions. ~I. Upon accentance by the Authority of the calculation of the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid o~ Construction snecifled -4- PAGENO="0294" 976 by Utility, Util~ty will prepare a olan o~' dotailed engineering and construction work and estimated comnlet▒on dates as necessary to construct and complete the Utility Projects. These plans will be the source of a pair of' "S" curves which will be used as the basis of' the Periodic Payment of the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction by Authority (these curves as developed, one set for each Authority Project, shall he attached hereto an Appendix E, expressly made a part hereof')~ Too each Authority Project, the engineerinc "S" curve will begin prior to the con- struction "S' curve, and it will likewise terminate earlier. Payments, comprised of the sum of' the aporopriate amounts from the two curves, will be made on a monthly basis, the first pay- ment made at the end~ of' the first month following the start of the engineering "5" curve if Authority's acceptance of the calcu- lation of' the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction is later than the date of the beginning of the engineering "S' curve, the first payment shall consist of' all amounts owed to that date as determined by the engineering "3" curve. 5. Utility reserves the right to re-estimate by Utility~ Project periodically any Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction or part thereof which was originally estimated rursuant to 2. above, and the re-Estipated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction, or part thereof, shall be paid according to the sane "5" Curve as prepared pursuant to ~ above, for payment of the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction as orIginally estimated. 6. At the completion of each Authority Project, Utility will submit to Authority the Actual Cost incurred by Utility for. the Utility Projects within the Authority Project, and payment will be made as required to adjust the Escinated Cost of' Contri- bution in Aid of Construction to the Actual Cost, and the resultIng. amount will be the Actual Cost of' Contribution in Aid of Construc- tion for the Authority Projects (iee Apoend~x F). B. Subject to the terms hereof, Utility agrees to construct or cause to be constructed all Utility Projects reasonably reriuircd to distribute all electricity to Authority for the oureose of operation of a raoid transit system. Utility will utilize its own personnel, sustaining or non-sustaining contractors, or any mix thereof, as it deems appropriate, in accordance with the stan- dard procedure then being used by Utility in perfornin~z such work generally. Utility will make no change in the design of Utility Projects which will increase the EstImated Cost of' Contribution In Aid of Construction as accepted pursuant to Section III, Paragraph A.~f, without approval of Authority. C~ Changes: In the event Authority changes an Authority Project or a Utility Project after notification to Utility and after Utility has *incurred cost in complying with the Project as issued or approved, Utility shall conform to the changed Pro.ject -5- PAGENO="0295" 977 and Authority shal]. In addition to other payments reciuired by this Contract reimburse Utility all cost incurred by Utility that otherwise would not have been incurred had the Project an subsequently chancred been initially issued or anoroved, as applicable. Reimbursements for such Changes shall be made promptly as costs are Incurred by Utility. B. Each month Utility and Authority will meet to discuss the progress being made on the various Utility Projects and such other matters as may be aooropriate and requested bg either party. Iv EXAMINATION OF RECORDS A. Utility Projects The Utility agrees that the Authority or any of its duly authorized representatives shall, for the sole purpose of validatine EstImated or Actual Cost, until the exniratlon of two years after final payment for any Utility Project constructed under this Acree- ment, have access to and the right to examine any directly perti- nent books, documents, papers, and records of the Utility InvolvIng transactions related to Estimated and Actual Costs of ContributIons in Aid of Construction. B. Subcontracts The Utility further agrees to include in all their subccntracts hereunder awarded subsequent to the date of this Agreement for the constructIon of Utility Projects, a provision to the effect that the subcontractor agrees that the Authority or any of its duly authorized -reoresentatlves shall, until the expiration of two years after final payment under the subcontract for work oerf'orrned on that UtIlity Project, have access, for the sole nurpose of validating actual cost, to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of such subcontractor. The tern "subcontract' as used in this clause excludes suhcontracts (and purchase orders) not exceeding $100,000 per UtIlity Project and subcontracts awarded competitively in accordance with Utility's Standard Operating Procedures. V OFFICIAL NOT TO BENEFIT Mo member of Coneress; or delegate to Congress; or Resident Commissioner, Board Member, Officer or Employee of' the Authority, shall be submitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit that rna.y arise herefrom, hut this restriction shall not be construed to extend to this Agreement if' made with a corpo- ration or company for its general benefit. -6-- PAGENO="0296" 978 VI EQUAL OPPORTUUITY During the performance of this Agreement (unless such Aeree- ment is exempt under the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor), Utility agrees as follows: A. Utility will not discriminate against any enoloyee or applicant for emoloyment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national or!g~n. Utility will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national ori~in. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: * Emoloyment, uogradin~, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruit- ment advertising; lay-off or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensatIon; and selection for training, including aoorent▒cÚshlp. Utility agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applIcants for enoloyment, notices to be orovlded by AuthorIty * setting forth provisions of this non-discrimination clause. B. Utility will, in all solicitatIons or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Utility., state that all quali- fied applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religIon, sex or national origin. *C. Utility will send to each labor union or representatIve of workers with which he has a collective bargainIng amreenent or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be orovided by the Authority, advIsing the labor unIon or workers' representatives of UtIlity's commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order 112146 of September 214, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places avallabl to employees and applicants for employment. D. Utility will comply with~ll provisions of Executive Order 112146 of Seoterrber 214, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevant orders df the Secretary of Labor. E Utility will furnisn all inro~ration and reno~ts raquired by Executive Order 112146 of September 214, 1965, and by the rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will oermit access to his books, records, and accounts by Authority and the Secretary of Labor for ourposes of investigation to ascertain compliance wIth such rules, regulations and orders. F. In the event of Utility's noncompliance with the nondis- crimination clauses of this Agreement or with any of such rules, regulations, or orders, this Agreement may be cancelled, termi- * mated, or susoended in whole or in part and Utility may be declared ineligible for further Authority contracts in accordance with oro- cedures authorized in Executive Order 112146 of Septemher 214,1965, and such other sanctions may he imoosed and remedies invoked as -7.- PAGENO="0297" provided in the said Executive Order 112116 o~ Smotenher 21!, l065 or by rule, rerulation, or order or the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. Utility will include the orovisions or pararraphs A. throurh F. in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by Rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary o~ Lttbor issued nursuant to Section 2011 of Executive Order 112116 pf September 211, 1965 so that such provisions will be bindinr~ upon each such subcontractor or vendor. Utility will take such action with resoect to any sub- contract or purchase order as Authority may direct as a means o~ enforcing such provisions, including sanctions roy noncomoliance; orovided, however, that in the event Utility becomes involved in, or iS threatened with, litigation wIth a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by AuthorIty, Utility may renuest Authority to enter into such litIgation to orotect the interests of the AuthorIty. VII JURISDFCTIOH The jurisdictIons o~ the Rerulatorv CommIssions as to all matters arisinm under this Agreement shall he the same as the jurisdiction of the Regulatory CommissIons as to all matters affecting UtIlity and Its customers generally. All matters arising under this ~4mreement other than matters whIch are initIally within the jurisdiction & any Regulatory Commission, :as stated above, may he placed before any court o~ comootent lurisdictiom ~or adjudication exceot that the Authority has the right of removal therefrom to an aporooriate United States District Court pursuant to Section 81, Public Law 77k, 80 (Stat.) 13211. 110 other jurisdIction as to facts or law is intended by Authority or Utility. \TII~ FORCE MAJEURE Util t~ ~hal_ not be Lable ~`or failure to ror"orri or ~or delay in nerformance due to fire, flood, unusual or severe weather, strike or other labor difficulty, act or failure to act of any governmental authority or o~ Authority or its subcontractors or suppliers, riot, embargo, car shortame, wrecks or delay in trans- portation, inability to obtain necessary titles, easements, ncr- mits, rights ~f' way, labor, materIals or manufacturinm facilities from usual sources, lack o~ canacitv or lack of enerrv, or due to any other cause beyond its reasonable -control. In the event of delay in per~ormqncm due to any such-cause, the date of delIvery or time for completion will be nostooned by such length & tIme 979 -8- PAGENO="0298" 980 as nay he reasonably necessary to comoensate for the delay. TERE OP AG░E~iPNT This Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by mutual asreement of Utility and Authority. The tern of this Agreement is thirty (30) years cancellable thereafter by either Utility or Authority upon one (1) year's written notice. Hoither this provision nor any other orovis ion of this Anreonent, however, shall operate to orevent Utility from filing any amending, new, or superseding Rate Schedule, General Terms and Conditions, or Electric Service Rules and Regulations, governinm any rates or terms of service for electricity sold by Utility to Authority, with any Regulatory Commission for the purpose of causing such amending, new, or suoersedincr provisions to become effective according to the rules and regulations of the Regulatory Coonissions, in like manner as Utility's standard practice as to its customers cenerally. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Anreement as of the day and year first written above. (Corporate Seal) ATTEST: S. J.\Bright Assistant Secretary (Corporate Seal) ATTEST: POTO'.TAC ELECTRIC ?G~ER COMPANY If:, ~ By~~ /( ~,. Executive Vice President Ellis 1. Ccx WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY By: General lianager -9-. PAGENO="0299" 981 LIST (W APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F - ~F~O'S SE9~TICF AREA ~ - NETRO'S RE('~IONAL SYSTEN ~ - TECHNICAL PROVISIONS - ELECTRIC POWER DELIVERY AND NETE?TNG POINTS - "S" CURVES - ESTI'4ATING PROCEDURE PAGENO="0300" 982 APPENDIX C TECHNICAL PROVISIONS I. Each traction power substation shall be supplied from a single PEPCO substation by two (2) feeder circuits with no other customers conn~cted to the circuits. Each circuit shall be capable of carrying the entire load at each traction power substation. The circuits shall be separated at the PEPCO substation by a minimum of two (2) station bus tie circuit breakers where possible. Unless otherwise mutually agreed adjacent traction power substations shall not be supplied from the same PEPCO substation. The provisions of meters, delivery points, voltages, loads and operational dates, etc., shall be as specified ~n Appendix D unless otherwise mutually agreed. II. The maximum calculated short circuit duty at th traction power substation shall not exceed 750 MVA with the tr,.ctiort power station bus tie closed and the minimum calculated short circuit duty should not be less than approximately 250 MVA with the traction power station bus tie open. The minimum duty (250 tWA) shall be based on the loss of the largest transformer at the PEPCO supply substation. III. Passenger stations, yards, shops shall be fed from PEPCO's nearest available commercial feeder in .~ccordance with Appendix D, except as otherwise mutually agreed. / IV. The various classes of service that may be provided to permanent METRO facilities will have characteristics as follows, unless otherwise mutually agreed. / Class of Service Characteristics 13 KV Unregulated 13 LV nominal, three phase, three wire, 60 Hz alternating current. Allowable short term voltage regu/ation is ▒5% around a nominal value. The nominal value will fall between 14437 and 13063 with changes of nominal value limited to two or less per year for traction .power and between 14437 and 12420 for other uses. 265/460 volt Regulated 265/460 volt nominal, three phase, four wire, 60 Hz alternating current. Maximua allowable voltage range 238/414 volts to 278/483 volts. 120/208 volt Regulated 120/208 volt nominal, three phase, four wire 60 Hz alternating current. Naxirnum allowable range 114/197 volts to 126/219 volts. This class of voltage could also be supplied as 120/208 volt nominal single phase, three wire, with the sane range applicable. PAGENO="0301" API'ENE)IX D WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE I T9ACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Approximate Location Metro Stationing Class of Passenger Stations Point Service A3 (41+35) Bl (15+05) Al (0+0) * 81 (34+70) 03 (69+07) 04 (162+20) Name Farragut North Gallery Place Metro Center Judiciary Square Union Station Rhode Island Ave. Farragut North Gallery Place Union Station New York Avenue Rhode Island Ave. Farragut North OCCB Union Station Metro Center Major Repair Shop Connecticut Ave. & K St. N.W. 8th & G Sts., NW. 12th & G Sts., N.W. 4th & E Sts., NW. 1st St. & Massachusetts Ave. Rhode Island & Franklin Ave. Connecticut Ave. & DeSales St. 9th & C Sts. Union Station N. Y. Avenue & Q St., N.E. Rhode Island Ave. & 8th P1., N.E. Connecticut Ave. & DeSales St. 5th & F Ste., N.W. 1st & G Sts., NW. 12th & C Sts., N.M. 5th & T Sts., N.W. A3 81 B3 B5b B4 (46+05) (10+90) (65+12) (123+00) (76+00) Utility Project Construction Estimat~ed q~p~etion Date 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13kv 265/460 v 265/460 v 265/460 v 265/460 v 13 kv Operational Date 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 CHILLEIt PLANTS A3 (48+75) B (25+00) 03 (75+00) C (2+50) STORAGE & INSPECT [ON YARDS B5b (135+00) -1- 1975 PAGENO="0302" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS Name Dupont Circle Stadium-Armory Potomac Avenue Eastern Market Capitol South Federal Center LEnfant Plaza Smithsonian Federal Triangle McPherson Square Farragut West Foggy Bottom Ross lyn Arlington Cemetery Pentagon Approximate Location Passenger Station~p_ Dupont Circle 19th & Independence Ave., S.E. 14th & C Sts., S.E. 7th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., S.E. 15th & D Sts., SE. 3rd & D Sts., SW. 7th & D Sts., SW. 12th & Independence Ave., S.E. 12th & Pennsylvania Ave., NW. 15th & I Sts., N.W. 17th & I Sts. , H.W. 23rd & I Sts., NW. Wilson Blvd. & N. Lynn S~. Memorial Dr. & Jeff. Davis Hwy. Fern St. & Pentagon Rotary ltdwy. Class of Operational Service Date 13 kv 1975 13 kv 1975 13 kv 1975 13 ltv 1975 13 kv 1975 13 kv 1975 13 kv 1975 13 kv 1975 13 kv 1975 13 1mr 1975 13 kv 1975 13 kv 1975 13 kv 1975 13 kv 1975 13 kv 1975 Utility Project Construction Estimated Completion Dt 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS PHASE II Netro Stationing Point A4 (68+40) 08 (208+46) 07 (170+96) 06 (138+07) 04 (111+04) D4 (80+52) 03 (62+69) D2 (36+52) Dl (:16+36) Cl .~(23+5O) C2 (1S~5I) C3 (71+17) CS (141+75) C6a (191+21) C6b (261+33) Dr. & S. Fern St. C7 (277+35) 13 tv 1975 1975 Shirley Highway Blvd. & Jeff. Davis Hwy. C6a (218+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. & Ft. Meyer Dr. CS (i5/,+O0) 13 kv 1975 1975 Rosslyn Arlington Ave. & 27th St., N.W. C4 (89+49) 13 kv 1975 1975 Potomac Virginia , NW. C2 (39+46) 13 ltv 1975 1975 Farragut West 17th &.I SEa., G NW. Al (0+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 Metro Center 8th & Sts., SW. D2 (44+50) 13 kv 1975 1975 SmIthsonian 12th & C Sts., SW. D4 (87+19) 13 kv 1975 1975 Federal Center 2nd & D Ste., Ave. & 4th St., SE. 06 (126+30) 13 ltv 1975 1975 Scmiard Square No. Carolina Ave. & E St., S.E. D8 (187+78) 13 ltv 1975 1975 -2- PAGENO="0303" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE II (Con't) CHILLER PLANTS Approximate Location Passeneer Stations Name Farragut West Rosslyn Pentagon LEnfant Plaza Federal Center Potomac Avenue Stadium-Armory 18th & I Sts., N.W. Arlington Blvd. & Ft. Meyer Dr. Army-Navy Dr. & So. Fern St. 9th & D Sts., S.W. 2nd & D Ste., NW. 13th St. & Pcnnsyvlania Ave., S.~. 19th & A Sts., SE. Metro Stationing Point C2 (48+50) CS (154+00) C6b (277+35) D3 (60+00) D4 (87+19) D7 (161+20) D8(212+5O) Utility Project * Construction Class of Operational Estimated Service Date Completion Date 265/460 v 1976 1975 265/460 v 1976 1975 13 icy 1976 1975 265/460 v 1976 1975 265/460 v 1976 1975 265/460 v 1976 1975 ~265/460 v 1976 1975 -.3- PAGENO="0304" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE IIA PASSENGER STATIONS 3rookland ew Hampshire takoma 3ilver Spring Brookiand Ave. at 16th & Puerto Rico Sts., N.E. 2nd & Nicholson Ste., N.E. Takoma Ave. & Baltimore Ave. East-West Hwy. & Colosville Rd. Name Approximate Location Passenger Stations takoma Cedar & Carroll Sts., NW. 136 (379+15) :lrookland 8th & Monroe Sts., N.E. 86 (207+25) ilver Spring East-West Hwy. & Colesville Rd. B6 Utility Project Construction Metro Stationing Operational Estimated Point Class of Service Date Completion Date TRACTION POWER SUB9TAT-IONS 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 86 (249+86) B6 (311+76) B6 (392+50) B6 (457+64) 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 cc -4- PAGENO="0305" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE III PASSENGER STATIONS 0 Approximate Location Passenge~Stations Metro Stationing Point TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS STORAGE & INSPECTION YARDS Utility Proje ConstructiO Estimated Complction~PA Minnesota Ave. & Grant St., N.E. Minnesota Ave. & Polk St., N.E. Cheverly Ave. & Columbia Park Rd. Hanson Highway & 1st St. Operational Class of Service Date Name Minnesota Deanwood Cheverly Landover Stadium-Armory Minnesota Ave. Deanwood Cheverly Landaver Road Beaver Dam Creek New Carroilton New Carrollton 13 kv 1977 1977 012 Dl3 (304+77) (422+60) 13 kv 1977 1977 13 kv 1977 1977 C St. & B. C. Stadium D9 Minnesota Ave~ & Grant St., S. E. DlO Minnesota Ave. & 48th St., S.E. D12 Columbia Park Rd. & Hanson Hwy. 013 Landuver Rd. & Beacon Hwy. 013 Dl4 Cobb Road & John Hanson Hwy. Dll Cobb Road & John Hanson Hwy. (312+93) 13 kv 1977 1977 13 kv 1977 1977 (424+65) 13 kv 1977 1977 (502+93) 13 kv 1977 1977 (551+62) 13 kv 1977 1977 13 kv 1977 1977 (30+00) Dli (9+00) -5- PAGENO="0306" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE IV PASSENGER STATIONS Zoological Park WTI Waterfront Approximate Location Passenger Stations Netro Stationing Point CHILLER PLANTS TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Name Zoological Park Cleveland Park Van Mesa WTI Archives Waterfront Navy Yard A6 (131+00) A6 (168+60) A6 (201+60) Flb (17+57) F2 (92+05) F3 (139+30) Connecticut Ave. & Woodley Rd. N.W. Connecticut Ave. & Ordway St. N.W. Connecticut Ave. & Van Ness St. 7th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 21st & N Sts. , SW. 5th & N Sts., SE. 24th St. & Cathedral Ave., N.W. Connecticut Ave. & Veazey St. N.W. M & Half Sts., S.E. Connecticut Ave. & Devonshire P1. Connecticut Ave. & Veazey St. 7th & 0 Ste. , NW. 7th & Maine Ave., S.W. 3rd & H Ste., SE. Ohio Dr. 6 Rochambenu Mom. Bridge Jeff. Davis hwy. & Pentagon Bldg. A6 (131+00) AG (205+30) P3 (118+00) Utility Proj cc Construction Operational Estimated Class of Service Date Completion Oat 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 265/460 v 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 265/460 v 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 13 Ky 1978 1977 Klinglo Bridge Van Ness Pennsylvania Ave. Maine Ave. Navy Yard Ohio Drive Jeff. Davis Hwy. A6 (157+00) AG (205+30) Plo (14+57) P2 (69+31) P3 (134+83) L2n (105+90) L2b (215+96) -6-- PAGENO="0307" WMATA FACiLITIES LOCATIONS PHASE V PASSENGER STATIONS Utility Projec Construction Approximate Location Netro Stationing Operational Estimated Name Passenger Stations Point Class of Service - Date Completion Dat Henning Road Henning Rd. & 44th St., N.E. Cl (342+35) 13 Isv 1978 1978 Capitol Heights S. Capitol & E Sta., SE. 02 (420+50) 13 Isv 1978 1978 Addison Rd. Cabin Branch Rd. & Central Ave. 03 (472+60) 13 kv 1978 1978 CHILLER PLANTS Banning Rd. Benning Rd. & 45th St. Cl (345+00) 265/460 v 1978 1978 Capitol Heights E. Capitol & Davis Sts. G2 (423+00) 265/460 v 1978 1978 TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Ft. Mahan Minnesote Ave. & Benning Rd. Cl (312+00) 13 Isv 1978 1978 50th St. & Central Ave. 50th St. & Central Ave. G2 (307+50) 13 Isv 1978 1978 Capitol Heights H. Capitol & Davis Sts. G2 (423+50) 13 Isv 1978 1978 Addison Rd. Central Ave. & Cabin Branch Rd. G3 (469+16) 13 Isv 1976 1978 PAGENO="0308" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE VI TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS PASSENGER STATIONS Metro Stationing Point A9 (301+15) All (392+07) All (447▒30) A13 (565▒46) El (26▒35) El (55▒37) A9 (26O~OO) E2 (80▒37) Name Friendship Bethesda Medical Center Grosvenor Federal City College Shaw Tenley Circle 12 Street Tenley Circle Bethesda Medical Center Nicholson Lane Federal City College U Street Tenley Circle Oliver Street Bethesda Medical Center Federal City College U Street Peeks lull Grosvenor 7lontrose Ave. Approximate Location * neL~J~ions Wisconsin Ave. & Jennifer St. N.W. Wisconsin & Montgomery Ayes. Wisconsin Ave. & Jones Bridge Rd. Tuckerman Lane & Rockville Pike 7th & H Sts., N.W. 7th & S Sts., N.W. Wisconsin Ave. & Brandyvine St. 11th & U Sts., NW. Elliot & 42nd Sts., NW. Hamden Lane & Wisconsin Ave. Wisconsin Ave. & South Drive 7th & P St., NW. 13th & U Sta., N. W. Wisconsin Ave. & Albemarle St. NW. Wisconsin Ave & Oliver St. N.W. Wisconsin Ave. & Montgomery Ave. NIH & Naval Medical Lab. 7th & N Sts. , NW. 13th & U Sts. , N.W. looks 11111 Rd. & Wisconsin Ave. Rockvillo Pike & Tuckerman Lane Rockville Pike & Montrose Ave. CHILLER PLANTS A9 (277▒25) All (388▒ All (450▒ 114 El (40▒50) E2 (83▒75) Class of Service 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 lee 13 kv 13 kv 13 tv 13 kv 265/460 V 265/460 V 265/460 v 265/460 V 265/460 V 13 kv 13 kv 13 cv 13 tv 13 kv 13 cv 13 tv 13 kr 13 cv Operational Date 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 UtilLty Proj Cons tructi Estimated ~Qgp~gtiej~p 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 A9 (256150) AlO (325▒65) All (396▒00) All (450▒40) El (29+85) E2 (84113) All (510+70) 113 (569▒50) 113 (545▒50) -8-. PAGENO="0309" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASO VII PASSENGER STATIONS Name Approximate Location Passenger Stations Netro Stationing Point Class of Service Utility Project Construction Operational Estimated Date ~ggp~etion Date Nicholson Lane Rockyille Pike & Wall Lane A14 13 kv 1981 1980 Twinbrook Dorchester Ave. & Fishers Lane A15 13 kv 1981 1980 Rockville Stone St. & Highland Ave. Al5 13 kv 1981 1980 TForrest Glen Forrest Glen Rd. & Georgia Ave. B9 13 kv 1981 1980 \tbeaton Georgia Ave. & Reedic Drive BlO 13 kv 1981 1980 Gleneont Georgia Ave. & Glenallen Ave. Bll 13 kv 1981 1980 Columbia Hta. 14th & Irving Sts., N.W. E2 (133+59) 13 kv 1981 1980 Georgia Ave. Kansas Ave. & Varnum St., N.W. E3 (176+75) 13 kv 1981 1980 Chillers Chillum Rd. & 19th Ave. E5 13 kv 1981 1980 Prince Ceorge'a Plaza East-West Hwy. & Beicrest Rd. E6 13 kv 1981 1980 Collage Park Bowden & Calvert Rds. E7 13 tv 1981 1980 Greenbelt Rd. Greenbelt & Netzerot Rds. E7 13 kv 1981 1980 Anacostia Good Hope Rd. & Wino. Ave., S.E. F5 (198+88) 13 Isv 1981 1980 Alabama Ave. Naylor Rd. & Erie St., SE. F6 13 kv 1981 1980 Baylor Rd. Baylor Rd. & Suitland Pkwy. F7 13 kv 1981 1980 Su&tlerrd Silver Hill Rd. & Suitland Pkwy. F8 13 Isv 1981 1980 Branch Ave. Branch Ave. & Adama Dr, F8 13 Isv 1981 1980 CHILLER PLANTS . Forrest Glen B8 1981 1980 Wheston lb 1981 1980 Glenrront Bil 1981 1980 Anacostia P5 1981 1980 Alabarra Avenue PG 1981 1980 Colsrnbia Heights 14th & Columbia Rd., NW. E3 (130+75) 265/460 v 1981 1980 Georgia Avenue 265/460 v 1981 1980 -9- PAGENO="0310" A016 E008 Approximate Location Passcnger Stations Utility Projec Constructior Estimated Completion Da~ 1980 1980 Name WHATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE VII (ConTt) STORAGE & INSPECTION YARDS Metro Stationing Oporational Point Class of Service Date 13 kv 1981 13 kv 1981 TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS (See Noto 2) -10- PAGENO="0311" 1. Locations of Stations are approximate street addresscs. 2. Phase VI and VII Traction Power and Chiller Plant locations and Passenger Station Coordinates have not been determined with the exception of A9, AlO, All, Al3, El and E2. * Operational Date - Means the data that the Authority has scheduled for the commencement of Test Operation of trains and associated electrical operations. ** Estimated completion dates will be updated from time to time as provided in "Payments for Utility Project Construction", Paragraph Al suj~~. -11- PAGENO="0312" 994 L -~ - - - -- - -~ - - - -- - r2 c) - - - - ~1 - - - -- - - I -- - - - - L - --t- --- -- -- V - -a-- --~ -- il__i i--------- ---- - - L1_ _~iii_~~ - - - - - - - --- - - - - -_ -- - - U - - ~ 2 ~S~k *-1~ ~ .-- :.:- -. ~. ~ -~\_ - - - - ~ - L - ~.; ~ ~ - - - - ~ š~ s . -: - -. -: . . ...-. ~ -- - - ~"~~1*~~ :. :1. ~ H~H ~ ~ .:.:.._.E' ~ ~ ~-~- ~-~----~ PAGENO="0313" -" r loo,o~' C-- 1;~/1~ J7/~/c'~c ,~` - - - ~ ~ _____ A~rrP~'ti~~-71 Jrr//~-) / - I:i_ 1zG~a~~ ~o.*i~ - - -- - - /~ ~ L~L5E ,:.~ ~ ~-- ~ 3f. ~ ~ i-il' ~-~;c ~//~ /~j ,w~c PAGENO="0314" 996 ~PPEhDIX -~ EsTI;b~T~b~ FEOCEDURE SectionS G and iir 2. of the Acreeeent refer to the standard estiaeting r,ractices: end standard esti eting procedures; rasprctivaly. The fo11o~;i~g is a specification of the estinating procedure and will govern ti'~iscctions made under this Agreient. - - J. !Jpc;n receipt of a ififTA `Authority Project identification, PEPCO~. `~ fi `ir ~`- i - `~c. riic 1 LO F3 in the associated !Jti Pity Project. This is done in two ports, with and without Technical Provisions, as stated in Section 111 2 of the i~rjreeaent. - 2. PEPCO's Transmission ard Distribution System Engineering Depart.Tent takes the System Planning plans and deteriiines feasibility, working with System Planning to make adjustments if necessary. Once the plans ore agreed to be feasible, cost estimates for the outside plant portions.of the Utility Project are determined. Outside Plant is * everything beyond the supply station feeder cable terarinetions. In making these estimates, T & 0 uses its standard unit cost estimating looks to apply costs to the physical units of conduit, cable, poles, wires, ctc. datorwired necessary. Tine-cost escalation ~-ili be ap~lieti to roficct costs at tim:escf act~iei `~crk by using indices derived from ?SPCOs his torical experience. 3. The T- & D estimates are then passed to PEPCOs Civil and Substation Eepineering Department where cost estimates of the `inside plant' portion of the Utility Project are made in a similar wanner. Civil and Substation Engineering then fon:ards the coiplate Utility Project estimate to the Building Sercices Department where a proposal to TA is prepared. - 4. The formal proposal consists of a statoreent of the estimated costs with and without the Technical Provisions, with the difference being identified as the Estimated Cost' of the Contributieh in Aid of Construction; a series of enginearing and construction cost S curves; and a schedule of monthly payments to be made by WRATA to PEPCO. 5. After tile iitilit~ Project is cew-Jieted ii the field, actual costs will be determined in accordance with standard PEPCO accounting practices. Once the actual cost of the Utility Project is known it will be divided by the estimated cost of J~ility Frojact for service in accordance with the Technical Provisions, as found in the formal proposal , and time resulting quotient will b2 rmrultipl ied by the estimated cost of Utility Project for service withc;ut the Technical Previsions. The revised estimate derived from this mel tiplication will be used as the Estimated Cost for comparing with the Actual Cost in determining the Actual Cost of Contributions in Aid of Construction. PAGENO="0315" 997 $2,286,000 $iT,003,000 -2 ,2t)~ )000 ~1,714,OO0. $1,714,000 1 ~50C),O03 $ 214,000 $2,000,000 $3:500 ,U6O $3,500,000 -2,000 ,000 o~O~ 1h2 ~)c~nng ~lo is pro'ndea ~o' clarification. : Ej~OtCd Cost of Utility Project thout Tech~ic~~l p~-~flsiois With Technical Provisions .`EsLir~at~d Cost' oF ContributiOn in Aid oF Construction - (Paid by Authority to Utility on * "S' curve basis) Actual Cost of Utility Project (frcci standard accounting practi ces) $4,000,000 Quotient for Cost Adjustsient $4,000,000 ~- $3,500)000 = 1.143 Adjusted Estiaated CosL of Utility Project Without Techni cal Provisions "i1ctr'l Cost" of Constructions in Aid of Construction $2,000,000 X 1.143 hc~)itiofal An~ount to be Paid to Utility by Authority PAGENO="0316" 998 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY t;u) E~f(h offi. ~J iV.. \V.~tn(Rn. I) (~ `((01 .0: :1 2:14 AGENDA 458th Meeting of Board of Directors October 23, 1975 9:30 A. M. 1(A). Approval of Minutes of October 16, 1975 . . Chairman 11(B). Report by Chairman Mr. Alexander II 1(C). Report by General Manager Mr. Graham 1V(D). Report by NVTC, D. C., and WSTC Mr. Munsey Mr. Tucker Mr. White V(E). Proposed Revision to Metrobus Rules and Regulations Mr. Robertie Mr. Russell V1(L). Approval for Public Hearing on Proposed Tariff for Metrobus Charter, Contract, and Special Services Mr. Warrington Mr. Fawbush VII. Use of Fiscal 1976 Section 5 Funds, National Mass Transportation Act of 1974. Mr. Herman V1Il(F). Report of Revenue and Operations Comittee-- Proposed Metrorail Fares Mr. Barnett Mr. Tucker Mr. White Mr. Munsey Mr. Coates Mr. Beatley IX(G). Staff Report and Recormnendation on Public Hearing on Metro Springfield Route, Van Dorn Street Station, Section J-2 Mr. Roohr X(H). Authority to Modify Metro Desgin Contract 3C0091 for Realignment to Minimize Encroachment in Flood Plain Mr. Dodge Xl. Authority to Reimburse D. C. Department of Envi ronmental Services for Sewer/Water Restoration in Metro Section D-1 (6D0012) Mr. Dodge metro (OV ER) PAGENO="0317" 999 AG ENDA Page 2 October 23, 1975 Xi 1(J). Authority to Reimburse Washington Gas Light Company for Additiona' Corrosion Protection Services (6Th213) Mr. A1ldredge Xlii. Authority to Enter into Service Agreement with Potomac Electric Power Comapny for Provision of~E1ectric~1 Energy for Iletrorail (MA-Ol+3) ~and~Reimbursement for Construction for Phases II and `hA through October 31, 1975 (6z3188) Mr. Garrett Mr. Pinkney Mr. Trott Mr. Robertie PAGENO="0318" Boa~d~fDI~ct~s JOSEPH ALEXANI)I Ii ITrRLINO TUCKER Di. K F F FIANCIS W. SF1111 Ss:dV~s~Chs~ IVIRAIID MUNSF WALTI A V WASHINOI IN DFSiVt IF CIlIlIlbiFI CLEATUS V F3AF1NET I MIlylaIld RUFUS SIll LIPS (IIARI LV F ULATLE' Ill JAMES F COAT I FERRY A MOORE III DI';Inct Ill Colusi CARITON A SF00 I NORMAN L CHRISTE- 11111 Of F JACKSON IIRAI1AM IFIIlIl~IIMSII5l0 WAIIFIF:N OUENFTI I I IH';yly GlIllIll MIII WIllIAM A IIOLE'II JUl IN A KENNLI I. Directors Mr. Joseph Alexander Mr. Sterling Tucker Mr. Francis W. White Mr. Everard Munsey Mr. Walter E. Washington Mr. Cleatus Barnett Mr. Jackson Graham Mr. Warren Quenstedt Mr. William A. Boleyn Mr. Delmer son Mr. John R. Kennedy Mr. Roy T. Dodge Mr. Ralph L. Wood Mr. William Herman Mr. Charles Dowdy Mr. Eckhard Bennewitz Mr. David Gaul Mr. Thomas Trimmer Mr. A. E. Savage Mr. Michael Bresnahan Mr. Ray Russell Mr. Angus MacLean Mr. Joseph Garbacz Mr. Albert Roohr Mr. Mathew Platt Mr. Robert Codding Mr. Herbert Leonard Mr. Cleve Amos Mr. George Keyes Mr. Earl Long Mr. Paul Johnson Mr. Vernon Garrett Mr. Lucius Pinkney, Jr. Ms. Judy Valentine Mr. N. K. Hook, Jr. Miss Dee Allison Mr. Cohn Alter Mr. Harold Kassoff Mr. Robert Moore Mr. Richard Wilhelm Mr. Douglas Schneider Mr. Clifford Trott (202) 637-1234 MINUTES Others Alternate Directors Mr. Rufus Phillips Rev. James E. Coates Mr. Carlton R. Sickles Mr. Charles E. Beatley, Jr. Mr. Norman L. Christeller Mr. John Bowman Mr. Joseph Muldoon Mr. Earl Fawbush Mr. Sprague Thresher Mr. G. Richard Raville Mr. Ellis Perlrnan Mr. Donald O'Hearn Mr. Peter Sheehan Mr. John Warrington Mr. Cody Pfanstiehl Mr. Robert Plckett Mr. Philip Price Mr. Nicholas Roll Mr. Richard Silas Mr. John Robertie Mrs. Pat Sestito Mr. Allen Long Mr. Mark Akins Mr. Roger Hassett Mr. Gerald Gough Mr. Howard Lyon Mr. Paul Willis Mr. Alvin Williamson Mr. William Leonard Mr. Edward Lassen Mr. William Alldredge Mrs. Chris Sirnerman Mr. Wayne McDaniel Mr. Jack Crawford Mr. Edward Daniel Mr. Jack Meyer Mr. George Howie Ms. Marlee Inrnan Mr. Anthony Rachal Mr. John A. Drayson Mr. Thomas Crosby Mr. Ralph Begleiter 1000 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 Fifth Street, NW.. Washington. D. C. 20001 458th Meeting of Board of Directors October 23, 1975 The meeting was called to order at 10:20 A. N. Present were: Staff H metro PAGENO="0319" 1001 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of October 16, 1975 were approved as submitted. REPORT BY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Alexander reported that the delay in the start of the meet- ing was due to over-run of the Board's earlier meeting with the Secretary of Transportation for discussions on Metro financing. Mr. Alexander re- ported that he felt the meeting had been most beneficial in that the Authority's position and financial needs had been fully addressed. REPORT BY GENERAL MANAGER: Mr. Graham reported that Metrorail public hearing No. 81 had been held as scheduled October 21, concerning the location of the Farragut North Station elevator for the handicapped. Mr. Graham referred the Board to furnished copies of an October 20 memorandum covering the public hearing schedule for the month of November and first week of December, covering Metrobus Public Hearings Nos. 1i4-1i8. Mr. Graham referred the Board to furnished copies of his October 21 covering memorandum to correspondence between the Authority and Fairfax County, whereby the County agreed to pay for any cost increase above 6~ for Community-Type Contract Service to Mantua Hills. Mr. Graham noted that in accordance with the County's indemnifying WMATA against loss under the contract, contract addendum had been transmitted to Mantua Hills for execution. Mr. Graham referred the Board to furnished copies of his October 22 covering memorandum transmitting a signed amended Memorandum of Under- standing reporting that pursuant to ~oard action on August 5, 1975 instructing staff to include all community-type mileage in the capital cost allocation formula, it was necessary to amend the existing Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Graham called on Messrs. Sheehan and Alldredge who reported that the sheet metal workers and the plumbers strikes had been settled leaving only the steam fitters to reach settlement. Mr. Alldredge reported that the strikes were impacting the Phase II operations day for day. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Ison who referred to the Board to furnished copies of the comparison of revenue since the adjusted fare structure went into effect, showing a 2.fl net revenue increase. -2- PAGENO="0320" 1002 Mr. Graham called on Mr. Gaul who referred the Board to furnished copies of his October 22 memorandum to the Board covering the status of delivery of Metro revenue cars as of October 18, noting that Rohr was six cars behind schedule as compared to four cars behind schedule as of last week. He reported that the staff Equipment Engineer was this date in Winder, Georgia to discuss and seek a solution to the del ivery schedule. Board discussion was held concerning the need to evaluate Rohr's delivery performance in view of future phase requirements. REPORT BY NVTC, D.C. AND WSTC: No reports were given. PROPOSED REVISION TO METROBUS RULES AND REGULATIONS: Mr. Robertie referred the Board to furnished copies of the pro- posed revised Metrobus Rules and Regulations which had been previously furnished the Board and referred to the local jurisdictions for review. Mr. Robertie reported that NVTC had approved the revisions but that WSTC and D.C. had not given approval. Mr. White reported that WSTC had discussed the revisions at its October 22 meeting and requested that action be deferred two weeks to allow further review and comment. The Board agreed and the matter was ordered to be placed on the November 6 agenda. APPROVAL FOR PUBUC HEARfNG ON PROPOSED TARIFF FOR METROBUS CHARTER~ CONTRACT, AND SPECIAL SERVICES: Mr. Warrington referred the Board to furnished copies of the General Manager's October 23 memorandum and related WMATA Tariff No. 3, reflecting a number of price changes to be presented at a proposed public hearing on December 2. Mr. Warrington pointed out that the in- creases are for added costs, primarily operators' wages, and added fuel costs, for Metrobus Charter, Contract and Special Services, with the objective of retaining competitive position on pricing while as- suring net revenue from operations, and he reviewed the proposed changes in the rate structure. After discussion, upon motion by Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Wash- ington and unanimously passed, the date of December 2 was approved for public hearing. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Washington and Mr. Barnett. -3- PAGENO="0321" 1003 USE OF FISCAL 1976 SECTION 5 FUNDS, NATIONAL MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF l97~~: Mr. Herman referred the Board to furnished copies of the General Manager's October 22, 1975 memorandum and related project application to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration for use of Section 5 Funds for the Metrobus operating subsidy. He requested Board approval to forward the proposed program of projects to the Metropolitan Wash- ington Council of Governments and UMT.A1~and to approve a joint public hearing with the jurisdictions on December 9, 1975, to receive public comments on the program of projects and the filing of the application with UMTA for Section 5 operating funds. He noted that the program had been coordinated with the local staffs, and in response to Board inquiry reported that this procedure was in accordance with the procedures adopted for fund applications. Upon motion by Mr. Barnett, seconded by Mr. Tucker and unanimously passed, the staff request was approved. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Washington and Mr. Barnett. REPORT OF REVENUE AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE--PROPOSED METRORAIL FARES: Mr. Barnett reFerred the Board to furnished copies of the previously furnished August 28 report and recommendation of the Revenue and Operations Committee on Metrorail Fares and requested adoption of the Report. The Chairman inquired If the Northern Virginia Transportation Com- mission had taken formal action on the recommendation and was informed that only Arlington County had taken action. Mr. Alexander requested that action be deferred to November 20 to allow the Virginia jurisdictions to take formal action. The Board agreed. Mr. Barnett opened discussion concerning the flat cost per mile cnarge being proposed as a basis for the Metrorail fares. He stated that in his opinion the fares to outlying points, such as Shady Grove and points iii Fairfax County, should either be based on a declining scale or that a maAimum fare be established. Following further discussion it was the consensus that the approval of the Metrorail fares at the present time should relate only to Phases I and II; that no attempt should be made to establish fares for additional phases, wherein Mr. Barnett moved, seconded by Mr. White and unanimously -4- 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 21 PAGENO="0322" 1004 passed, that paragraph 3, page 2 of the Committee Report be deleted. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Washington and Mr. Barnett. Mr. Christeller pointed out that for Phase I operations the Revenue and Operations Committee had recommended a flat fare of 4O~ but that under the proposed mileage fares, after the AFCS is installed, the off- peak fare from Rhode Island Avenue Stat.ivn to Farragut North Station will be only 35g. It was the consensus that this and other matters would be addressed by the Board at the time of Board action on the Metrorail fare structure. STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PUBLIC HEARING ON METRO SPRINGFIELD ROUTE, VAN DORM STREET STATION, SECTION J-2: Mr. Roohr referred the Board to furnished copies of the October 8 staff report and recommendation and proposed resolution, which if adopted, would approve that portion of the proposed Metro Springfield Route from Linnean Street (Extended) to Franconia Route Junction approximately 2500 feet west of Van Dorn Street including Van Dorn Street Station, on which a public hearing had been held May 14, 1975. Following discussion, Mr. Alexander moved, seconded by Mr. White and unanimously passed, the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors conducted a public hearing on May 13 and 14, 1975 to elicit the views and comments of the public with respect to the proposed alignment, the station location, access and related facilities for that portion of the proposed Springfield Route from Linnean Street (Extended) to Franconia Route Jun~tion approximately 2500 feet west of Van Dorn Street including the Van Dorn Station; and WHEREAS, the Board was furnished and has carefully considered the report of the Boards environmental consultant and copies of the transcript of the said public hearing together with com- ments and proposals received within 10 days after the public hearing date and comments of agencies, organizations, govern- mental bodies, persons and their firms whose views were solicited pursuant to Article VI, Section 15 of the Compact; and WHEREAS, copies of the staff report were sent to all witnesses, persons submitting material for the records, and other persons requesting a copy of the staff report; and -5- PAGENO="0323" 1005 WHEREAS, the Board had reviewed the staff report, the analysis of the record and any comments received; and WHEREAS, the Board is desirous of minimizing any environ- mental and aesthetic impacts of the construction of this portion of the system as well as allother portions of the system; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED .by.the Board of Directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: 1. That the alignment of the portion of the Springfield Route from Linnean Street (Extended) in the City of Alexandria to the Franconia Route Junction approximately 2500 feet west of Van Dorn Street in Fairfax County, Virginia be approved as proposed. 2. That the location of the Van Dorn Street Station platform be approved a~ proposed. 3. That the revised site plan for off-street facilities at the Van Born Street Station, as contained in the staff report, developed in response to the requests of the City of Alexandria and the property owner, the Southern Railway, be approved as herein proposed including park & ride facilities, reduced to 500 spaces. 4. That the parking to be deleted at the Van Dorn Street Station be moved to the relocated Franconia Station to meet additional demand created at that station by the proposed changes on Routes J and H. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Washington and Mr. Barnett. AUTHORITY TO MODIFY DESIGN CONTRACT 3COO91 FOR REALIGNMENT TO MINIMIZE ENCROACHMENT IN FLOOD PLAIN: Mr. Dodge referred the Board to furnished copies of Procurement Action No. 2, Contract No. 3COO91-0O7, and reviewed the background for the request to modify the contract with Byrd, Tallamy, MacDonald & Lewis for additional engineering services required to revise the plans, speci- fications and estimates for the realignment of approximately 4,700 feet of the 10,921 foot-long section to minimize the encroachment of the sloped embankment construction in the Potomac River Flood Plan in the -6- PAGENO="0324" 1006 City of Alexandria and to add a Train Control Room in the relocated North Substation, Huntington Route, Design Section C-9. Following discussion with respect to the redesign being a system cost, Mr. Tucker moved, seconded by Mr. Phillips and unanimously passed, Procurement Action No. 2 was approved as requested. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Coates. AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE D.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR SEWER/WATER RESTORATION IN METRO SECTION D-l (6DOO12): Mr. Dodge referred the Board to furnished copies of Procurement Action No. 2, Contract No. 6DOO12-OO1, requesting authority to reimburse D.C. Department of Environmental Services for construction services to repair their sewer and water facilities which have been damaged due to settlement of the ground during tunneling of Section D-l between Pen- nsylvania Avenue and the D-l/A-l interface. The exact extent of necessary repair will be undetermined until the facilities within the area of tunneling influence are uncovered and inspected. He reported that the cost for the work would either be recovered through insurance or charged to the contractor. Upon motion by Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Washington and unani- mously passed, Action No. 2 was approved as requested. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Washington, Mr. Barnett and Mr. Phillips. AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY FOR ADDITIONAL COR ROSION PROTECTION SERVICES (6ZL~2l3): Mr. Alldredge referred the Board to furnished copies of Procurement Action No. 2 and related attachment, requesting authority to reimburse Washington Gas Light Company for technical personnel to monitor, inspect, test and supervise work on corrosion control facilities for their buried steel gas pipelines, which will be performed systemwide at all Metro construction sites wherever WGL facilities have been or are being re- located by WMATA. Upon motion by Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Phillips and unanimously passed, Action No. 2 was approved accordingly. Ayes: 6 - hr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Washington, Mr. Barnett and Mr. Phillips. -7- PAGENO="0325" 1007 AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER ~÷MPANY FO~1~OVIS1ON OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR METRORAIL ~MA-o43) AND RETMBURSEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR PHASES II AND HA THROUGH OCTOBER 1, 1975 (6Z3l~T: Mr. Garrett referred the Board to furnished copies of an October 20 transmittal memorandum to the Board and five related attachments covering a proposed electric service agreement between WMATA and the Potomac Electric Power Company for PEPCO~to provide construction of electric service facilities required by Metrorail, reimbursement to PEPCO by WMATA for special facilities required by WMATA, establish- ment of WMATA as a customer class, a Cost of Service Study, and establishment of a rapid transit rate schedule. Mr. Garrett reported that this matter was submitted to the Board on July 31, 1975, August 14, 1975 and August 21, 1975 and action was deferred pending comments on the proposed agreement by the District of Columbia staff. Mr. Garrett re- ferred to attachment 1~ thereof being the staff response to the D.C. staff comments of October 15. Mr. Garrett reviewed the issues previously considered by the WHATA staff during their negotiations with PEPCO over the last two and one-half years. He reported that by letter of October 15, PEPCO had advised the Authority that continuing construction for Metrorail would not be guaranteed after October 23, 1975, unless PEPCO receives written as- surance that they will be paid for work already accomplished and for ~rk performed in the future, which work estimate by October 31 is $~,OOO,0OO and total work estimate is $8,881,700. Mr. Garrett requested approval of the agreement and authority to reimburse PEPCO for work completed through October 31, 1975. Mr. Washington stated that the Authority should first deal with the costs to be reimbursed and then deal with the agreement, and that he supported the PEPCO position for a letter of intent for the payment from the Authority before performing future work. Mr. Garrett furnished the Board a proposed letter of intent by the Authority to PEPCO covering utility reimbursement for Phase It and HA facilities. After further discussion, Mr. Tucker moved, seconded by Mr. Washington that Procurement Action 2 for reimbursement to PEPCO in the amount of $8,881,700 be approved as requested and the letter of intent to PEPCO be approved. The motion was unanimously passed. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Washington, Mr. Barnett and Mr. Beatley. -8- PAGENO="0326" 1008 Mr. Washington reported that there were provisions to the agreement which needed to be addressed further before the District could sign off on the agreement and requested that action be deferred to October 30 to allow the WMATA staff and D.C. staff to etternpt to resolve the agreement. The Board agreed. OTHER BUS!NESS: Mr. Barnett requested that the Board Budget Conmittee Report be submitted on November 13 instead of October 30. The Board agreed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:06 P.M. /// ~ /~/ Delmer son, SOcretary -9- PAGENO="0327" `iVASH(NGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 Fifth Street, NW., Washington. 0. C. 20001 (202)637-1234 OCT 2.0 `i975 MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman and Members of the Board JOSETH ALEXANDER SUBJECT: STERLINS TUCKER CE~b5 FRANC;SW.WHIrE Negotiations between WHATA and the Potomac Electric Power SoVC!e:We'~ Company (PEPCO), to establish an Agreement under which facilities EVERARDMUNSEV would be installed and electric services supplied to Metrorail, have been conducted through a series of meetings over a period of WALTER E.V/ASHINGTON two and one-half years. D~s~ict 5 C~N~bia CLEATU~EBARNETT The proposed agreement (Attachment 1) provides for construction by PEPCO of electric service facilities required by Metrorail, All~~ t~D~eea~ reimbursement to PEPCO by WMATA for special facilities required by C RE e YJR WMATA establishment of Metro as a customer class a Cost of Service Study, and establishment of a Rapid Transit Rate Schedule. This JAMES E.coATes . matter was submitted to the Board on July 31, 1975, August 1k, 1975 JERRYA MOORE, JR and August 21, 1975. Action was deferred pending comments on the ofCoIA~b~a . proposed agreement by the District of Columbia's staff. Background RST Es nformatio~ relative to the proposed agreement is enclosed (Attach- ment 2) Cohn and Marks, consultant for the District of Columbia staff, has prepared commmnts on the proposed agreement (Attachrrent 3) Copies of these comments were furnished to the Authority on October 15, 1975. The Authority staff's response to the D. C. staff's consultant's comments is contained in Attachment 4. The effort expended in preparing these comments is appreciated, but the comments themselves reiterate issums previously considered by the WMATA staff during their negotiations with PEPCO over the last two and one-hal f years. 1. The suggestion that WMATA provide its own generating and distribution facilities was originally considered prior to any negotiations with PEPCO. However, the initial capital investment by WMATA was estimated to be one-half billion dollars versus a WMATA cost of $40 million to have PEPCO construct the necessary facilities as provided under the proposed agreement. 2. The proposed agreement provides for a Cost of Service Study to be furnished by PEPCO. This study was received on October 15, 1975. 1009 Approval of Proposed Electric Service Agreement No. MA-O1i3 Between WMATA and the Potomac Electric Power Company, and Reimbursement for Construction otrw,~~ Op.-,ef t.U~eg,~ WARREN OLJENSTEDT D~pAiy ~ 5Oege~' W!LUAM A. BOLEYN - DELMEFIISON Roy T. DODGE CAX~oFO~F,g~ RALPH L WOOD c~w XtOpe~~tiXX~ rn et ro PAGENO="0328" 1010 Page 2 3. The 30-year term of agreement as proposed Is advanta- geous to the Authority since it permits compatibility of WNATA equipment with PEPCO's, removes the possibility of an 8 to 12~ surcharge per annum on WtIATA's cost of construction, retains the Authority as a special class of customer with a special class rate, and obligates PEPCO to provide the special facilities required by the Authority over the long term at PEPCO?s actual cost without any element of profit. - 4. The Authority staff considers the provisions in the Agreement for audit and cost control of the Authority's contri- butions in Aid of Construction to be adequate. 5. The force majeureclause contained in the proposed Agreement is adequate to protect the Authority's interest. PEPCO has advised WtIATA by letter of October 15, 1975 that continuing construction for Metrorail would not be guaranteed after October 23,. 1975, unless they receive written assurance that they will be paid for work already accomplished and for work performed in the future. PEPCO's estimate for construction of Phase II is $6,886,900 and $1,994,800. for Phase ha. This is~currently being evaluated by WHATA's staff. PEPCO stated that its actual expenditure as of September 31, 1975 is $3,925,331 of which $3,061,578 is reimbursable by WNATA. It is estimated that by October 31, 1975, reimbursable expenditures will be approximately $4,000,000.. It is considered that the proposed Electric Service Agree- ment is in the best interest of the Authority and approval is recommended. It is further recommended that, Attachment 5, the request for expenditure of funds to reimburse PEPCO for work completed through October 31, 1975 be approved. Roy T. Dodge Attachments: (1) New Electric Service Agreement (2) Background Information (3) DIstrict of Columbia staff's Consu1t~nt's Memorandum (4) WHATA staff's Response to D.C. staff's Consultant's Memorandum (5) Form 2 PAGENO="0329" 1011 rnet~o ELECThIIC SERVEICE A~REE~E~T BETWEEN WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ELECTRIC S~RV~CE AGREEMENT ~O. MA-043 PAGENO="0330" 1012 AGGEE'li'N'[ DY P!!D flEitJEI;U PflT0~AC ErECTPTC PCT!r:P C~)~"A~JY A!!!) WASHTNGTflD FFT0000TTTAM !DLA 9RAMSTr !IJTUOSTTY THIS AnOEEr!EDT, entered into this _____ day of __________ 1975 by and between PGTODAC ETECT9TC POSER CO~OANV (Utility), a Disf;rict 0P ~rj Virginia cornoratlon also authorized to do business in the State o~ Maryland, whose orincloal miace cc business is 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. S., Washington, 0. C., and the WASIiIN000S EET0000LTTAN APEA TRANSIT AUTHOtmTTY (AuthorIty). WITNESS: W}!~9EAS, Authority is establisned by Interstate Commact by and between Maryland, VirgInia, and the District of Columbia, pursuant to Public Law 89_77!! (Law), an Act to grant the consent of Compress to the establIshment of~ an organization empowered to provide transit facilities in the Nttional Capital Region; and WHEREAS, Authority will construct and onerate or cause to be operated the Washington Area Transit System (System) ln the District of Columbia; Montromery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland; Arlington and Faireax Counties, Vir~inia; and the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church and Fairfax, VIrginia (Zone); and WHEREAS, Utility is an electric mublic utility, the present exclusive Service Area of which for the retail sale of electrIc energy is the District of Columbia, ma.ior nortioris of Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, Nary]and and a small segment oC Arlington County, tTlreinia (all as shown by the mao attached hereto as Appendix A and exnressly made a part hereof); and WHEREAS, Utility Is regulated by the Public Service Commissions of the District o~' Columbia and Maryland and the State Corporation CommIssion of Virginia as to rates and servIce for the sale of electricity at retail; and WHEREAS, Authority Is currently constructing and will omerate a rapid transit System to serve the WashIngton MetronolI- tan Area (as shown by the man attached hereto as Ammendli: B and expressly made a mart hereoC), all or a nortion o~ such Area ly▒nm within UtilIty's Service Area; and Authority desIres to purchase all electricity from Utility to onerate and maintain the ramid transit System withLn Utility's Service Area; and UtIlIty desires to sell all electricity to AuthorIty for that ourmose; NOW, TI!EREFOOM, Utility and Authority exnressly recognIzing the foregoing further state and agree as follows: PAGENO="0331" 1013 I ~* "Authority's System" means the rapid rail transit system, aunroxirnately 98 mIles in lenmth, a man o~' which is attached hereto as Appendix B, which Authority is currently constructing. B. "Authority Project" means the various portions of' the Authority's System which are to be identiCied by Authority durin~ the construction of the Authority's System. C. `Utility Project" means the specifIc construction, including rearrangements and/or rersov-~il by the Utility, including but not limited to, wire, cables, conduits, manholes, transformers, meters, and other electric equipment that will he required to supply electricity to the Authority Projects. D. "Periodic Payments of the Estimated Contributions in Aid of Construction" means paymonts in cash Car Utility Project con- struction, calculated and made as more specifically agreed, according to Section III, Infra. E. "Contributions In Aid of Construction' means contributions in cash for construction purposes, as defined in Electric Plant Instructions of the Uniform System or Accounts of' the Federal Power Commission and adonted by the Regulatory Commissions. Con- tributions in Aid of Construction shall conforn to the Utility's General Terms and Conditions Car construction In connection with the sale and distribution of all electricity Car any use, and shall in any event he calculated and paid as more specifically agreed, according to Section III, in~ra. F. "Technical Provisions" means the technical criteria of the Authority's Projects as anolicable to Utility Projects which will supply electricity to Authority's System; a copy of' the Technical Provisions is attached hereto as Aopendix C and is expressly made a part hereof'. C. "Estimated Cost" of Contribution in Aid of Construction means all direct costs of' and indirect costs reasonably allocable to Utility Projects properly chargeable to the appropriate accounts in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts of the tmederal Power Commission. These costs, as determined by Utility's Standard Accounting and EstImating PractIces, shall include all overhead costs not chargeable directly to accounts pertaining to construc- tion of Utility Projects and which are determined on the basis of a rate or percentum factor supsorted by overhead hearing accounts in accordance with Utility's Standard Accounting PractIces. H. "Actual Cost" of ContributIons in Aid of Construction means all direct costs of and indirect costs reasonably allocable -2- PAGENO="0332" 1014 to construction or Utility Projects oroperly charreable to the various asprooriate accounts in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts or the Pederal Power Commission. Those costs as determined by UtiUty's Standard Accounting and Estimatinc' Practices, without any ░lomont o~ refit to Utility, shall include all overhead costs eel; chargeable dlrectly to accounts pertaining to Utility Projects nod which are determined on the basis of a rate or percentun f'nctor sunoorted by overhead bearing accounts in accordance with Utility's Standard Accounting, Practices. I. "Service Area means all the territory of the District of Columbia and ml]. thst nortion of Pontronery County and ?rince George's County, Karymand and Arlington County, Virginia desig- nated as such according to the man attached hereto as Aorendix A, and any territorial addition thereto as hereafter nay he made by Utility. J "9ec~ulntorv Conmissions" means the District of Columbia Public Service Commission, the Doryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Comnission, and the successors of each or any. K. "Date Schedule PT' moans Utility's Panid Transit Pate Schedule "(UT)" as riled by Utility with the appropriate Pegula- tory Commissions. T~. "Utility's Standard Fstin-nling Practices" and "Utility's Standard Account~ng Practices" shall he such nractices as are apelied by Utility in adminmoterinr its other construction nrograms at the tIme Fstimatecl Costs are doterrined and Actual Costs are incurred. IT RATES AND.SER~TICE A. Utility shall sell to Authority and Authority shall pur- chase from Utility nursuart to Pamid Transit Hate Schedule (PT) all electricity used by Authority in Ut~lit's Service Area, except electricity generated by Authority for emergency operations, at primary voltame on coot Ipuous authority right of way at the moints or delivery and metering ne listed in Anpendix D attached hereto and exoressly made a cart hereoC, orovided however that delivery at secondary voltage shall he senarately metered and billed under Utility's generally aonlicahle rate schedule(s). Authority ar~ees to purchase in Utility Service Area all electricity from Utility pursuant to Utility's General Verne ~od Conditions, and Electel c Service Rules and Regulations, all as Cron time to time effectIve in each *i un sclictioo within which Utility onerates, not scecifically modified herein. For a neniod of two years or until the Virrinia State Cornoratlon Correcission `rosunos direct rerulatlon over PAGENO="0333" 1015 utility rates to ~overnrnental bodies, whichever shall occur fi~t, the rate schedule PT applicable to 4uthority in the Pistrict of Columbia shall apply to conna~ahle sales o~' electricity to Authority in Virrinia. AUthorlty shall for the nerl.od of' this Contract use electricity as its only source of' traction nower In Utility's Service Area exceot for diesel powered locomotives used for switch- inc and in enerEency operations. B. The Utility will conduct a cost of service study as applicable to the AuthorIty as a separate customer class. Based upon the results of the cost o' service study (reflectinc criteria and a fair rote of return f'or UtIlity, made applicable by the approoriate Pemulatory Commission), Utility will establish a rail raoid transit rate schedule for application to the Utility's prinary electrl.c service delivered to the Authority's rail racid transit system on contifuous Authority richt of way. 11.1 PPY'WNTS POP U~TrT'~Y pPQTPCC COU~TRUCTIO"T A. Pursuant to Utility's (leneral Terms and Conditions on ~`ile with and approved by the snolicable PefulatorV Commissions and in addition as acreed herein, AuthoritV acrees to make Contributions In Aid of' Construction o4' Utility Projects calculated as follows: 1. Upon Authority's deterrlnation that an AuthorIty Project is identifiable to the extent renuired to enable UtIlity to desifn electric service facilities as cart of corresnondin.~ Utility Projects, AuthorIty will so notify Utility in writinm accompanied by such ~nf'ormation as is reasonably reouired by Utility. 2. Upon r~ceipt of such notification and information, Utiiity w~l] proceed immediately to estimate by Authority Project, within a reasonable period o~' tire and usincs Utility's Standard Accounting and Estimntin~ Practices: (a) the estImated cost of' constructinr the Utility Projects pursuant to UtIlity's standard construction nractic~ as jf there were no Technical Provisions applicable, and (b) th" estimated cost of constructinc the Utility Projects pursuont to utility's standard construction oractice hut in accordance with the TechnIcal Provisions. The di~'ference in these estimated cpst~ will he the Estimated Cost of' Contribution in Aid of Construction. (See expomle, Appendix w). 3. The Utility will make these estimates In accordance with standards of' enrlneorinf and materials not exceedin~ the standards utilized 4n the per~'orn0nCe of' work otherwise conducted by Utility exc~nt where necessar~T to meet the Tecnnlcal ░rovisions. JJpp~ aeceotance bV the Authority of' the calculation of' the Estimated Cost of ContributiOn in Aid o~' Construction soeci~'Ied -4- PAGENO="0334" 1016 by Uti Lity, Utility viii. prepare a p]an o'~ detailed enr:ineerinrr arid construction won: and estimated COflPlCt~Ofl dates as necessary to construct an(1 comniete the Utility Projects. These olans will he the source of a pair of "S' curve:3 which will ho usod as the basis of the Periodic Payment of the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction by Authority (these curves as devoloned, one set for each Authorit; Project, shall he attached hereto as Appendix 5, exnressly made a part hereof). For each Authority Project, the engineenins "S' curve will bemin prior to the con- struction "3" curve, and it will likewise terminate earlier. Payments, comprised of the aura of the anoronriate amounts from the two curves, will be made on a monthly basis, the first pay- ment made at the end or the first month following the start of the engineering "Si' curve if Authority's acceptance of the calcu- lation of the Estimated Cost or Contribution in Aid of Construction is later than the date of the beginning of the encineering "3" curve, the first payment shall consist o~ all amounts owed to that date as determined by the engineering "8" curve. 5. Utility reserves the right to re-estimate by Utility Project periodically any Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction or mart thereof which was origInally estimated rursuant to 2. above, snd the re-Estimated Cost of Contribution in AId of' Construction, or mart thereof, shall be paId acaording to the same "3" Curve as precared pursuant to ~i. above, for payment of the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction as oriminally estimated. 6. At the completion of each Authority Project, Utility will submit to Authority the Actual Cost incurred by UtilIty for the Utility Projects within the Authority Project, and pament will be m~de as reaiii.red to adjust the Estimated Cost of Contri- bution in Aid of Construction to the Actual Cost, and the resu]ting amount will he the Actual Cost of Contribution in AId of Construc- tion for the Authority Projects (~.ee Appendix F). 13. Subject to the terms hereof, Utility agrees to construct or cause to he constructed all Utility Projects reasonably renuired to distribute all electricity to Authority for the ourpose of operation of a ran~d transit system. UtilIty will utilize its own personnel, siintalning or non-sustatning contractors, or any mix thereof, as it deems aporepriate, in accordance with the stan- clard procedure then being used by Utility in performing such work generally. Utility will make no change in the desIgn of' UtIlIty Projects which will increase the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction as accepted nursuant to Section 1113 ?ara~raph A.LI, without approval of' Authority. C. Changes: In the event Authority changes an Authority Project or a Utility Project after notification to Utility and after Utility has incurred cost in complyin~ with the Project as issued or approved, Utility shall conform to the changed Project -5- PAGENO="0335" 1017 ~nd Authority shall In addition to other payments reciuired by this Contract reimburse Utility all cost incurred by Utility that otherwise wo~iid not have been incurred had the Project an subsequently chanmed been initially issued or approved, as aeplicable. Reimbursements for such Changes shall be made promptly as costs are incurred by Utility. D. Each month Utility and Authority will meet to discuss the progress being made on the various Utility Projects and such other matters as may he anoroprlate and requested by either party. Iv EXAMINATION OF RECORDS A. Utility Projects The Utility agrees that the Authority or any of its duly authorized representatives shall, for the sole purpose of validating Estlmated or Actual Cost, until the exniration of two years after final payment for any Utility Project constructed under this Ar~ree- ment, have access to and the right to examine any directly perti- nent books, documents, napers, and records oC the Utility involving transactions related to Estimated and Actual Costs of Contributions in Aid of Construction. B. Subcontract.s The Utility further agrees to include in all their subcontracts hereunder awarded suhneouent to the date of this Agreement for the construction of Utility Projects, a provision to the effect that the subcontractor rtc~rees that the Authority or any of its duly authorized representatives shall, until the exniration of two years after final payment under the subcontract for work oerf'orr'ied oi that Utility Project, have accese, for the soi~ nurnose of validating actual cost, to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, onpers, and records of such subcontractor. The tern "subcontract" as used in this clause excludes suhcontracts (and purchase orders) not exceeding $100,000 per Utility Project and suhcontrncts awarded competitively in accordance with Utility's Standard Operating Procedures. V OFT~ICIAL NOT TO BENEFIT No member of Conmress; or delegate to Congress; or Resident Commissioner, Board 5emher, Of'Cicer or Emnloyee of the Authority, shall be submitted to any share or part 0P this Agreement or to any bcneCi.t that may arise herefrom, hut this restriction shall not he construed to extend to this Agreement iC made with a corpo- ration or company for its general heneCit. -6- PAGENO="0336" 1018 During the perf'ormancr' of' thin Agreement (unlena such Arr'ee- went is exemnt under the rules sod rr'gulot;lon:; of' the Seerotar:J of' Labor), Utility arrees a:; follows: A. Utility will not discriminate against an'j ennloyee or applicant for eanloynent because of' race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Utility will ta:e aff'irrcative action to ensure that aopliconta are nnnloyed, and that emnloyees are treated without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, hut not he limited to, the following: Emnloyment, upgradin~, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruit- ment advertlstnr; lay-off' or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including anmrent~ceshi~. Utility agrees to nest in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for enoloyment, notices to be nrov~ded by Authority setting Corth provisions of this non-discrimination clause. B. Utility will, in all solicitations or advertisements for enrloyeos placed by or on behalf Of Utility, state that all quali- fied applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. C. Utility will send to each labor union or representative of' workers with which he has a collective bargaining arreemont or other contract or understanding, a notice, to he provided by the Authority, advising the labor union or workers' reoresentatives of Utility's commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order 112116 of September 2~1, 1965, and shall post copies or the notice in consnicuous places availabi to emnloyees and aenlicants for emoloyment. P. Utility will comoly with ,~ll orovisions of' Executive Order 1121:6 of' September 21, 1965, and of' the rules, regulations and relevant orders ~ the Secretary of Labor. E. Utility will f'urnich all inrormation and reports roquired by Executive Order 112116 of' September 211, 1965, and by the rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will neratt access to his hooks, records, and accounts by Authority and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and orders. F. In the event of' UtIlity's noncompliance with the nondis- crimination clauses of' this Agreement or with any of' such rules, regulations, or' orders, this Agreement may he cancelled, termi- nated, or susnended in whole or in nart and Utility may be declared inelirible f'or further Authority contracts in accordance with nro- ceriures authorized in Executive Order 112116 of' September 211, 1965, and such other sanctions may he Imnosed and remedies invoked as PAGENO="0337" 1019 * prOVi(1Oc1 in the said Executive Order ]1?b6 of' Sootenher ?It, 1065 or by rule, rerulatlon, or order of' t;hr Or'cretary of' Labor, or as otherwise provided by law Uti.l ity will I tic lu'lr the nrovis I on~ of' pe rnrrrtph:; A. I'. in every subcontract or nurchase order unless excnptrui by ░uier,, regulations or orders of the Secretory of' Labor issued nursu~nt to Section 2O~I of' Executive Order ll2~I6 of' September 2'l, 1965 so that such orovisions will be hindinc~ upon each such subcontractor or vendor. Utility will take such action with resoect to any sub- contract or purchase order as Authority may direct as a means of' enforcing such orovisions, I.ncludinr sanctions for noncor'oliance; orovidecl, however, that in the event Utility becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation wIth a subcontractor or vendor as a resull; of such directIon by AuthorIty, Utility may reciuest Authority to enter Into such litigation to orotect the interests of the Authority. VII JURISDICTION The jurisdictions of' the P.egulatorv Commissions as to all matters arising under this Arreement shall he the same as the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Commissions as to all matters affecting Utility and Its customers generally. All matters arising under this Agreement other than matters whIch are inItIally within the jurisdiction 01' any Regulatory Commlssion,:as stated - above, may he placed before any court of' competent jurisdiction f'or adjudicatIon excont that the Authority has the right of removal therefrom to an aporooriate United States District Court sursuant to Section 81, Public Jaw 7711, 80 (Stat.) l32~1. No other jurisdIction as to facts or law is intended by Authority or Utility. VIII FORCE MATEURF Utility shall not he liable f'or failure to nerf'orn or f'or delay in nerformance clue to fire, flood, unusual or severe weather, strike or other labor diff'icultv, act or failure to act of any governmental authority or of Authority or its subcontractors or suppliers, riot, embarrro, car shortamo, wrecks or delay in trans- nortatlon, inability to obtain necessary titles, easements, ner- mits, rir'hts of way, labor, materials or manuf'acturincr 1'acilities from usual sources, lack o~' canacitv or lack of energy, or clue to any other cause beyond Its reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delIvery or time for completion till be nostooned by such 1en~th o~ tire `-8- 62-418 0- 76 - Pt.2 - 22 PAGENO="0338" 1020 ~S may be reanonabJ y necosar to coanennate for the dol~iy. TERr*~ oi~ P~:'ir~f[ This Agreement may be modified or amended at an:, time by mutual agreement of Utility and Authority. The term of this Agreement is thirty (30) years cancellable thereafter by either Utility or Authority upon one (1) year's written notice. Heither this provision nor any other orovision oC this Agreement, however, shall operate to prevent Utility from filing any amending, new, or superseding Rate Schedule, General Terms and Conditions, or Electric Service Rules and Regulations, governing any rates or terms of service for electricity sold by Utilit to Authority, with any Regulatory Commission for the rurnose of causing such amending, new, or superseding provisions to become effective according to the rules and regulations of the Regulatory Commissions, in like manner as Utility's standard practice as to its customers generally. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. (Corporate Seal) POTO'IAC ELECTRIC POWER ATTEST: COr1FANY Executive Vice President (Corporate Seal) WASHIRSTON RETROPOLITAN AREA ATTEST: TRANSIT AUThORITY By:_____________________ General Manager -9-- PAGENO="0339" 1021 I,I~T (~P AT~PENDTCE~ APPENDIX A - APPENDIX B APPENDIX C - APPENDIX D - APPENDIX E - APPENDIX F PEPCO'S ~ER1TICE ABEA MAP METRO'S RE('~IONAT~ SYSTEM MAP TECHNICAL PROVISiONS ELECTRIC POWER DELIVERY AND METERING POINTS ttS" CURVES ESTIMATTNG PROCEDURE PAGENO="0340" 1022 TECHNICAL PROVISIONS 1. Each traction power substation shall be supplied from a single PEPCO substation by two (2) feeder circuits with do other customers connected to the circuits. Each circuit shall be capable of carrying the entire load at each traction power substation. The circuits shall he ne1;irared at the PEPCO substation by a minimum of two (2) station bus Lie circuit breakers where possible. Unless otherwise mutually agreed adjacent traction power substations shall not be supplied from the same PEPCO substation. The provisions of meters, delivery points, voltages, loads and operational dates, etc., shall be as specified in Appendix D unless otherwise mutually agreed. II. The maximum calculated short circuit duty at the traction power substation shall not exceed 750 tWA with the traction power station bus tie closed and the minimum calculated short circuit duty should not be less than approximately 250 MVA with the traction power station bus tie open. The minimum duty (250 MVA) shall be based on the loss of the largest transformer at the PEPCO supply substation. III. Passenger stations, yards, shops shall be fed from PEPCO's nearest available commercial feeder in accordance with Appendix D, except as otherwise mutually agreed. IV. The various classes of service that may be provided to permanent METRO facilities will have characteristics as follows, unless otherwise mutually agreed. Class of Service Characteristics 13 KV Unregulated 13 KV nominal, three phase, three wire, 60 Hz alternating current. Allowable short term voltage regulation is ▒5% around a nominal value. The nominal value will fall between 14437 and 13063 with changes of nominal value limited to two or less per year for traction power and between .14437 and 12420 for other uses. 265/460 volt Regulated 265/460 volt nominal, three phase, four wire, 60 Hz alternating current. Maximum allowable voltage range 238/414 volts to 278/483 volts. 120/208 volt Regulated 120/208 volt nominal, three phase, four wire 60 Hz alternating current. Maximum allowable range 114/197 volts to 126/219 volts. This class of voltage could also be supplied as 120/208 volt nominal single phase, three wire, with the same range applicable. PAGENO="0341" APPENDIX D WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE I TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Point Se~y~qq Date Name Farragut North Passenger Stations A3 Bi (41+35) (15+05) 13 kv 13 kv 1975 1975 Connecticut Ave. & K St. N.W. Gallery Place 8th & G Sts., NW. N.W. Al (0+0) 13 kv 1975 Netro Center 12th & Sts., Bi (34+70) 13 kv 1975 Judiciary Square 4th 8 E Sts., Ave. 63 (69+07) 13 kv 1975 Union Station 1st St. & Massachusetts B4 (162+20) 13 kv 1975 Rhode Island Ave. Rhode Island & Franklin Farragut North Connecticut Ave. & DeSales St. A3 Bl (46+05) (10+90) 13 kv 13 kv Gallery Place 9th & G Sts. 83 (65+12) 13 kv Union Station Union Station B5b (123+00) 13 kv New York Avenue N. Y. Avenue & Q St., 13 kv Utility Protect Construction Estimated 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 CHILLER PLANTS Farragut North B (25+00) 265/460 v 1975 1975 OCCB 5th & F Sts., N.W. 63 (75+00) 265/460 V 1975 1975 Union Station 1st & G Sts., N.H. C (2+50) 265/460 v 1975. 1975 Metro Center 12th & C Sts., N.H. . STORAGE & INSPECTION YARDS Major Repair Shop 5th & T Sts., N.H. B5b (135+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 -1- PAGENO="0342" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS Approximate Location Possenser Stations Metro Stationing Class of Point Service TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS PHASE II Utility Project Construction. Operational Estimated - Date Completion Date Dupont Circle Dupont Circle A4 (68+40) 13 kv 1975 1975 Stadium-Armory 19th & Independence Ave., SE. D8 (208+46) 13 kv 1975 1975 Potomac Avenue 14th & G Sts., S.E. D7 (170+96) 13 kv 1975 1975 Eastern Market 7th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., SE. D6 (138+07) 13 km 1975 1975 Capitol South 15th & D Sts., SE. D4 (111+04) 13 km 1975 1975 Federal Center LEnfant Plaza 3rd & D Sto., SW. 7th & D Sts., S.W. D4 D3 (80+52) (62+69) 13 kv 13 kv 1975 1975 1975 Smithsonian 12th & Independence Ave., S.E. D2 (36+52) 13 km 1975 Federal Triangle 12th & Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Dl (16+36) .13 kv 1975 1975 McPherson Square 15th & I Sts., NW. Cl (23+50) 13 kv 1975 1975 Farragut West 17th & I Sts., N.W. C2 (43+51) 13 kv 1975 1975 Foggy Bottom 23rd & I Sts., NW. C3 (71+17) 13 kv 1975 Rosslyn Wilson Blvd. & N Lynn St CS (141+75) 13 kv 1975 Arlington Cemetery Memorial Dr. & Jeff. Davis Hwy. C6a (191+21) 13 kv 1975 1975 1975 Pentagon Fern St. & Pentagon Rotary Rdwy. C6b (261+33) 13 kv 1975 1975 Beleont Rd. Belmont Rd. & Connecticut Ave. ,N.W. A4 (108+45) 13 1w 1975 Shirley Highway Army-Navy Dr. & S. Fern St. C7 (277+35) 13 kv 1975 1975 Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. & Jeff. Davis hwy. C6a (218100) 13 km 1975 1975 Rnsnlyn Arlington Blvd. & Ft. Meyer Dr. CS (156+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 Potomac Virginia Ave. & 27th St., NW. C4 (09+49) 13 kv 1975 1975 Fareagut West 17th & I Sta. N.H. C2 . (39+46) 13 kv 1975 intro Center 8th & G Sto., NW. Al (0+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 Smithsonian 12th & C Sts.,S .W. 1)2 (6/4+50) 13 kv 1975 1975 Feitrat Center 2nd & D Sts. , SW. D4 (07+19) 13 1w 1975 1975 Seward Square No. Carolina Ave. & 4th St., S.C. D6 (126+30) 13 1w 1975 PStoniac Avenue Potomac Ave. & N St., SIt. DII 1975 -2- PAGENO="0343" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE II (Con't) CHILLER PLANTS . ** . Utility Project * Construction Approximate Location Metro Stationing Class of Operational Estimated Name Farragut West Passenger Stations C2 Point (48+50) Service 265/460 v Date 1976 Cotr~pletion Date 1975 - 18th & I Sts., NW. Rosslyn Arlington Blvd. & Ft. Meyer Dr. C5 (154+00) 265/460 v 1976 1975 ?eatagon Army-Navy Dr. & So. Fern St. C6b (277+35) 13 kv 1976 1975 LEnfant Plaza 9th & D Sts., SW. D3 (60+00) 265/460 v 1976 1975 Federal Center 2nd & D Ste., N.M. D4 (87+19) 265/460 v 1976 1975 ?cfooac Avenue 13th St. & ~ennsyvlania Ave., S.E. D7 (161+20) 265/460 v 1976 1975 Stadium-Armory 19th & A Sts., SE. 08 (212+50) ~265/46O v 1976 1975 -3- PAGENO="0344" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE hA PASSENGER STATIONS Brookland New Hampehire Takomo Silver Spring Brookland Ave. at 16th & Puerto Rico Sts., N.E. 2nd & Nicholeon Ste., N.E. Takoma Ave. & Baltimore Ave. East-West Hwy. & Colesville Rd TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Fort Totten Takoma Brookiand Silver Spring . Utility Project . * Construction Approximate Location Metro Stationing Operational Estimated Passenger Stations Point Class of Service Date š~pletion Date 1st & Calloway Sts., N.E. Cedar & Carroll Sts., N.W. 8th & Monroe Sts., N.E. East-West Hwy. & Colesville Rd. B6 (278+76) 136 (379+15) B6 (207+25) B6 (454+00) 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 136 (249+86) B6 (311+76) 136 (392+50) 136 (457+64) 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 -6- PAGENO="0345" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE III PASSENGER STATIONS TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS STORAGE & INSPECTION YARDS Operational Class of Service Date 13 kv 1977 13 kv 1977 13 kv 1977 13 kv 1977 Utility 3 Constr Estim Completi' 197 197 197 197 Name Minnesota Deanwood Cheverly Landover Approximate Location Pass er Stations Minnesota Ave. & Grant St., N.E. Minnesota Ave. & Polk St., N.E. Cheverly Ave. & Columbia Park Rd. Hanson Highway & 1st St. Metro Stationing Point 012 (318+75) 012 (304+77) D13 (422+60) 013 (522+60) Stadium-Armory C St. & D.: C. Stadium D9 (235+75) 13 kv 1977 197 Minnesota Ave. Minnesota Ave. & Grant St., S. E. D1O (312+93) 13 kv 1977 197 Deartwood Minnesota Ave. & 48th Sr., S.F. Dl2 (369+15) 13 kv 1977 Cheverly Columbia Park Rd. & Hanson Hwy. D13 (424+65) 13 kv 1977 197 Landover Road Landover Rd. & Hanson Hwy. Dl3 (502+93) * 13 kv 1977 197 Beaver Dam Creek Dl4 (551+62) 13 kv 1977 New Carroilton Cobb Road & John Hanson Hwy. Dll (30+00) 13 kv 1977 197 197 New Carroliton Cobb Road & John Hanson Hwy. Dli (9+00) -5- PAGENO="0346" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE IV PASSENGER STATIONS * Zoological Park WTI Waterfront CHILLER PLANTS TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Name Zoological Park Cleveland Park Van Ness WTI Archives Waterfront Navy Yard i~fr . Utility Project Metro * ConstructL. Stationing Point Class of Service Operational Date Estitsated Completion Date A6 A6 (168+4O) 13 kv 1978 1977 A6 (201+60) 13 kv 1978 1977 Fib 13 kv 1978 1977 P2 (92+05) 13 kv 1978 1977 13 kv 1978 1977 Approximate Location Passenger Stations Connecticut Ave. & Woodley Rd. N.W. Connecticut Ave. & Ordway St. N.W. Connecticut Ave. & Van Ness St. 7th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., N.H. 21st & N Sta., S.W. 5th & N Sts., S.E. 24th St. .& Cathedral Ave., N.W. Connecticut Ave. &,Voazey St. N.H. H & Half Sts., S.E. Connecticut Ave. & Devonshire P1. Connecticut Ave. & Veazey St. 7th & D Sto., N.H. 7th & Maine Ave., S.W. 3rd & N Sts., S.E. Ohio Dr. & Rochambeau Hem. Bridge Jeff. Davis Hwy. & Pentagon Bldg. A6 (131+00) A6 (205+30) P3 (118+00) Klingle Bridge Van Ness Pennsylvania Ave. Maine Ave. Navy Yard Ohio Drive Jeff. Davis Hwy. 265/460 v 13 kv 265/460 V 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13kv 13 kv 13 kv 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 A6 (157+00) A6 (205+30) Pie (14+57) P2 (69+31) P3 (134+83) L2a (105+90) L2b (215+96) 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 PAGENO="0347" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE V PASSENGER STATIONS Ft. Mahan 50th St. & Central Ave. Capitol Heights Addison Rd. Metro Stationing Point Class of Service 01 (342+35) 13 kv G2 (420+50) 13 kv 03 (472+60) 13 kv CHILLER PLANTS TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Name Benning Road Capitol Heights Addison Rd. Benning Rd. Capitol Heights Utility Project Construction Operational Estimated Date Completion Date Approximate Location Passenger Stations Benning Rd. & 44th St., N.E. S. Capitol & E Ste., S.E. Cabin Branch Rd. & Central Ave. Beaning Rd. & 45th St. E. Capitol & Davis Sts. Minnesota Ave. & Beaning Rd. 50th St. & Central Ave. E. Capitol & Davis Sts. Central Ave. & Cabin Branch Rd. 01 (345+00) 02 (423+00) 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 265/460 V 265/460 V Gl (312+00) 13 1w G2 (307+50) 02 (423+50) G3 (469+16) 1976 1978 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 -7- PAGENO="0348" CHILLER PLANTS TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Name * WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE VI PASSENGER STATIONS Approximate Location Passenger Stationa Metro Stationing Point Class of Service Utility Project Construction Estimated Con~pletion Date Operational Date Friendship Wisconsin Ave. & Jennifer St. N.W. A9 (301+15) 13 kv Bethesda Wisconsin & Montgomery Ayes. All (392+07) 13 kv 1979 Sledical Center Wisconsin Ave. & Jones Bridge Rd. All (447+30) 13 kv 1979 1979 Grosvenor Tuckerman Lane & Rockville Pike A13 (565+46) 1979 1979 Federal City College 7th & N Ste., N.W. . El (26+35) 13 kv 1979 1979 Shaw . 7th & S Sts., N.W. El (55+37) kv 1979 1979 renley Circle Wisconsin Ave. & Brandywine St. AD (260+00) kv 13 1979 1979 LI Street 11th & U Ste., N.W. E2 (80+37) kv 13 kv 1979 19.79 1979 1979 Cenley Circle Elliot & 42nd Ste., N.W. AD (277+25) Iethesda Hamden Lane & Wisconsin Ave. All 265/460 v 1979 1979 ledical Cenier Wisconsin Ave. & South Drive ) All (450+ ) 265/460 v 1979 265/460 1979 licholeon Lane A14 v 1979 1979 ?ederal City College 7th & P St., N.W. * El (40+50) 265/460 1979 1979 Street 13th & U Ste., N. W. E2 (83+75) v 265/460 v 1979 1979 1979 1979 Fenley Circle Wisconsin Ave. & Albemarle St. N.W. A9 (256+50) 13 Icy )livcr Street Wisconsin Ave. & Oliver St. N.W. AlO (325+65) 13 1979 1979 c~heeda Wisconsin Ave. & Montgomery Ave. All (396+00) 13 kv 1979 1979 ~edical Center NIH & Naval Medical Lab. . All 19.79 1979 ~Űderal City College 7th &N Ste., N.W. * El (29+85) 13 Icy 13 Icy 197.9 1979 I Street 13th & U Ste., N.W. .E2 (84+13) 13 1w 1979 1979 ~ooki~ lull Pooks Hill Rd. & Wisconsin Ave. All (510+70) 13 Icy 1979 1979 ~roevenor Rockvillc P11cc & Tuckerman Lane A13 (569+50) 1979 tontroac Ave. Rockvillc Pike & Nontrooc Ave. A13 (545+50) 13 kv 13 1w 1979 1979 1979 1979 -8- PAGENO="0349" WMAFA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE VII STATIONS . . Utility Project * Construction Approximate Location Netro Stationing Operational Estimated Passenger Stations Point' Class of Service Date Compie LioC Date Rockyille Pike & Wall Lane Al4 13 kv 1981 1980 Dorchester Ave. & Fishers Lana A15 13 kv 1981 1980 Stone St. & Highland Ave. Al5 ----- * 13 kv 1981 1980 Forrest Glen Rd. & Georgia Ave. B9 ---- * 13 kv 1981 1980 Georgia Ave. & Reedie Drive BlO 13 kv 1981 1980 Georgia Ave. & Glenallen Ave. Bll 13 k~r. 1981 1980 14th & Irving Sts., N.W. E2 (133+59) 13 kv 1981 1980 Kansas Ave. & Varnum St., N.W. ` E3 (176+75) ` 13 kv 1981 1980 Chillum Rd. & 19th Ave. E5 ------ 13 kv 1981 1980 Plaza East-West Hwy. & Belcrest Rd. E6 13 kv . 1981 1980 Bowden & Calvert Rds. E7 13 kv 1981 1980 Greenbelt & Netzerot Rds. E7 ----- 13 k'~ " 1981 1980 Good Hope Rd. & Ninn. Ave., S.E. P5 (198+88) 13 kv 1981 1980 Naylor Rd. & Erie St., S.E. P6 13 kv 1981 1980 Naylor Rd. & Suitland Pkwy. P7 ------ 13 kv 1981 1980 `Silver Hill Rd. & Suitland Pkwy. P8 ---- 13 kv 1981 1980 Branch Ave. & Adams Dr. P8 --- 13 kv 1981 1980 Name Nicholson Lane Twinbrook Rockville Forrest Glen Wheaton Glenmont Columbia Hts. Georgia Ave. Chillum Prince George'a College Park Greenbelt Rd. Anacos tim Alabama Ave. Naylor Rd. Suitland Branch Ave. Forrest Glen Wheaton Glenmont Anacos tia Alabama Avenue Col~imbia Heights Georgia Avenue 14th & Columbia Rd., ILW. CHILLER PLANTS B8 810 Bll P5 P6 E3 (130+75) 265/460 v 265/460 V -9-. 1981 1981 1981 1981 * 1981 1981 1981 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 PAGENO="0350" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE VII (Con't) STORAGE & INSPECTION YARDS Utility Proj ect Construction Approximate Location Metro Stationing Operational Estimated Name Passenger Stations Point Class of Service Date Completion Date A016 13 kv 1981 1980 F008 13 kv 1981 1980 TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS (See Note 2) -10- PAGENO="0351" 1. Locations of Stations are approximate street addresses. 2. Phase VI and VII Traction Power and Chiller Plant locations and Passenger Station Coordinates have not been derernined with the exception of A9, AlO, All, A13, El and E2. * Operational Date - Neans the date that the Authority has scheduled for the commencement of Test Operation of trains and associated electrical operations. ** Estimated completion dates will be updated from time to time as provided in "Payments for Utility Project Construction", Paragraph A.l ~ -11- PAGENO="0352" `~Ofc~1, 14 C~ L L~ (_ (1 J _:2c~ c~.'nifl, - I 77/ ~ 1 /1 - C ( / `IC Ce C - I - - - (~/, Lc2 d,- C, ,` //j1~ / C~-c~i~PH /UO 2 3 2 / ~ i~ š~ c 17~-~i of ~`, - - I / ( coi~crP~c~T,c~ ~!~1\ź=c (? L4. C - / I ~ `I~ `~ I I /: `:`.:.I!~.;..:.l *1 I I 0 __~-- . 1 ~ ~ I~.C, S)/\'i Ii~L. t.~II'~ (Ill?, ~2l*IV Â.1i I ;C~ ~ CDCLC. ~pjiI ~ (~ tIf,~. (~`~ ,~iV(t PAGENO="0353" 1O3~ j7/~6 ,vc,'i4~~ O6-/'J~ ~ 1 (A PLOT O~ Ci~ź=,-/ AP~'/~-~ ~ i~r-c ~ ~`E ri-;~) ,7 - . a / ..~*. * -. 6;,~rc~ - / - F ~ ~. //);`&/J&.' ~ ~))O,0V7 - - I- - - -- - * / *. - c ~PP~s~c~-' - - - - / - -- -/ L - :1' *. *.~ / - ~~~▒1~ -i /1 - * ~ *~ ~rr CCT tU)). :.c. 3i~*.' rc z? i.~. !1I~. 1 4? -.nt~~t ~ 1) : //j ~ __________ fl2-41I~ (*) - ~. - r. 2 - PAGENO="0354" 1036 i X .`:. ES ~1U!C PEOCEDURE S~ctions I C and III 2. oF tho Anceoaont refer to the `standard estlating proctii:cs: and "standard esti;raUrig procedures", r~spncv~ly. The lollowing is a spucificalion of the c ii~aL~ng procedure aiw.! will govari tr~nsoctions made Lrrier this Agreement. - 1. !Jpcn reccipt of a ~L4iA "Authority Project" identification, PEPCO~S. ~ Plrrnjrc' I~e~a:'.:'~r.rt deter~aines the feeder circuits to ha usad in the ~sscciated `!JtiJitsi Project.'~- This is done in two parts, with and without Technical Pro'iisions, as stated in Section III 2 of the i~cjreesscit. * 2. PEPCO's Transmission and Distribution System Engineering Depnrb~ent takes the System Planning plans and determines feasibility, working with Systars Planning to cake adjustments if necessary. Once the plans are agreed to be feasible, cost estimates for the "outside plant' - portior.sof the Utility Prdject are determined. `Outside Plant' is everything beyond the supply station feeder cable terminations. : In making these estimates, T & D uses its standard unit cost estimating books to apply costs to the physical units of conduit, cable, poles, wirc~s, ctc. dntor-.ained necessary. inc-cost escalation will bc applied tn reflect costs at times c-f ect~si sicrk by using indices derived from P~PCO `s historical experience. 3. - The f & U estimates ar~╗= then passed to PEPCO's Civil and Substation En~jneering Departicant where cost estimates of the "inside plant" portion of the Utility Project a6e made in a similar manner. Civil and Suhstaticn Engineering then forwards the complete Utility Project estimate to the Duilding Ser~'ices Department where a proposal to ~i~TA is prepared. 4. The formal proposal consists of a statesiect of the estimated costs with and without the Technical Provisions, with the difference being identified. as the "Estimated Cost" of the Contributioh in Aid of Construction; a series of engineering and construction cost "5" curves; and a schedule of monthly i~a~'mants to be made by W~TA to PEPCO. 5. After the it ijit~' project is cewaleted i-i the field, actual costs s:ill be determined in occcrdnnce s:i th standard PEPCO accounting practices. Once the actual cost of the Utility Project is known it will be divided by the catimated cost of Utility Vroject for service in accordance with the Technical Provisions, as found in ti~o fared proposal, and the resulting quotient will be c-ultiplic-d by the estimated cost of Utility Project Ice service withcimt the Technical Prcvisicns. The revised estimate c!n'-ived free this mul Lipl icalion will be used as the "Estimated Cost" for comparing with the `Actual Cost" in determining the "Actual Cost" of Contributions in Aid of Construction. PAGENO="0355" 1037 $2,286,000 $4,000,000 -2,285,000 $1,714,000. ~i,7l4,0O0 1 ,50O,000 ~ 214,000 $2,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,300,000 -2,000,000 12~O~0 Cc;))13 iS pro'idoo U Cldr~IiCUt1O!1. : Es~inrtt.ed Cost. of Ut.iflLy ProjecL t~'i thcuit TUChniCdl Pio'i~s iOfl:~ Ui tn Thchn ical Provisions "Es tirsttc~d Cos 1' oF Con t.r i~)i Li on in Aid oF Construction (Pdid bY Authority to Utility on r~t curve basis) Actual Cost of Utility Project. (froai standard accounting practices) $4,000,003 ~uoLient for Cost. Adjustraent $4,000,000 $3,500,000 = 1.143 Adjusted Estiniated Cost. of Utility Project Without Technical Provisions "Actual Cost.' of Constructions in Aid of Construction $2,000,000 X 1.143 i~Jitional i;uaunt to be Paid to Utility by Authority PAGENO="0356" 1038 BACKGROUND INFORMATION - S On July 7, 1972, a Letter of intent was prepared end executed for work - performed by the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPcO) for electric service for Phase I traction power substations, passencer stations, chiller plants end yerd. - S - On February 7, 1973, a proposed new electric service agreement was sent to-;- PEPtO. In March 1973, the Authority opened discussions with PEPCO concerning construction of facilities arid the sale of electric energy to Hetrorail. AFter.-:~ an exchange of communications, a meeting followed at which WMATA's proposed agree ren~ and PEPCO s proposed agreer~nt were discussed . SPEPCO at that.tirco i~equested. that negotiations be postponed since :its staff * was involved in hearings for an electric rate increase before the Commissions in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. Contact was re-established on November 23, 1973 when a revisedWMATA proposed ~graement was sent to PERCO and a meeting date of December 5, 1973 was set. PEPCO again requested a delay of :~~-~J-: * - nagotiations since their staff was heavily involved with the energy crises. Subsequent meetings were held and correspondence exchanged until January 21; 19Th - -. when an apparent Impasse was reached concerning voltage regulation, cash advances ~- -- aid a Me'~rorail rate schedule After P..PCO cancelled subsequent meeting with WMATh a letter was sent ~o tha President of PEPCO requesting that their negotiating team be composed of :- members who could indeed act on their behalf. After_~ further exchange of ::--.:~1:.~ * correspondence between PEPCO and WMATA, it was appar~nt that an impasse had been -* reached. - S *---: - On June 11 197k the sta'f presented a Ste us Report of tna W .~TA-PEPCO negotiations at the June 13, 1974 Board of Directors Meeting in which the staff recommended that the various commissions should decide the issues between PEPtO - and ~4MATA. The staff continued to work with PEPCO to see if the issues could be resolved. - - : - At that time, Chairmen Barnatt requested that the policy Cf issuing 1ett~rs-. o irtent be discoitin~ed On June21, 1974, I4MATA met with PEPCO for further negoti~tions. A PE?CO Vice President was nmi assigned to their negotiating team. Between June 1374 -:--::-~~~ end June 1975, many meetings were held with PEPCO to work out the languace of the agreement acceptable to both sides. PEPCO, during the course of this time~:~~ requested many postponements because of the many hearings before Congress end *---~ the n ious cosnissions con~erning the cos o erergy On June 24, 1975, an agreement w~s reached at staff level. The document ~ executed and transmitted to WHATA for approval on July 2, 1975. The agreement established the guidelines, procedures and working relationship bst~-;een WiIATA and~.- th~ Potomac Electric Power Company for the installation of new electric service - to serve the Matrorail facilities in the Potomac Electric Power Company's - - - service area, with provisions for determining en electric rate for ~stroreT1. : - -_ - PAGENO="0357" 1039 Background Information Page Two The principal provisions contained in the agreement are as follows: 1. The Authority's facilities to be served arid need dates for service are defined. 2. PEPCO will own, operate, maintain and replace as required facilities installed by PEPCO. 3. The Authority will reimburse PEPCO the cost of installing service in excess of the normal installation cost.' ~ A Cost of Service Study will be made by PEPCO and WHATA to determine PEPCO's cost of serving Metrorail. The results of the Cost of Service Study will be used to developan electric rate for Metrorail for primary electric service. Secondary - service will be billed at applicable filed tariffs. 5. The Authority shall have access to PEPCO's pertinent documents concerning bills rendered to the Authority by PEPCO. 6. The Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by mutual agreement by the Authority and PEPCO. The term of the Agreement is thirty years. " The staff presented said contract to the Board of Directors for approval at the July 31, Atfgust 11f and August 21, 1975 meetings. Each time action was delayed at the request of the District of Columbia. On August 19, 1975, the staff met at length with the District representatives and a lengthy detailed discussion followed on all aspects of the contract. A subsequent meeting was held on September 9, 1975. The WI~ATA staff's file on the record of negotiations was delivered to the District's staff on September 12, 1975. WMATA'S staff has been in verbal contact with the District staff, but there was no correspondence to \4MATA documenting their comments, until October 15, 1975, when comments were presented by the D. C. staff. The connents were prepared by the D.C. staff's consultant, Cohn & Marks. The Authority's staff has prepared a re- sponse to the D. C. staff's consultant comments. A letter to the Authority dated September 16, 1975 and October 15, 1975 from PEPCO stated that PEPCO has continued to construct facilities for Metrorail without a contract for a period of well over a year. In the absence of a signed contract or an additional letter of agreement, the only remaining course of action for PEPCO would be to stop work on the project. As a matter of clarification, although during the 2-1/2 years of negotiations with PEPCO, they have requested many postponements due to hearings before Congress, various Regulatory coemissions and the public concerning the energy crisis, PEPCO PAGENO="0358" 1040 3ackground Information Page Three has continued to construct facilities without an agreement and with the full understanding that WHATA could not advance monies under a Letter of Intent. Without this kind of continued construction effort, it is very doubtful that Metrorail facilities would have been completed in time for WMATA's need dates. In a way of summarizing, the following is offered: a. WHATA's staff has negotiated a contract with PEPCO which has been presented to the Board for approval. Provisions were made in the contract to provide for payments for continuing construction costs and for a Cost of Service Study and rate development. This was done so that negotiation concerning the rate would not delay the conclusion of the present agreement. This would allow that construction of W1iATA facilities would not be held up while rate negotiations proceeded. The agreement upon a rate between WMATA and PEPCO does not affect the - contract. After the Cost of Service Study is received, it could be several months before a final rate is agreed upon. - b~ The District of Columbia's staff has been analyzing the agreement, and comments prepared by its staff's consultant was received by the Authority on October 15, 1975. The Authority has responded to their comments. c. PEPCO has advised WHATA that construction will be halted unless the Contract is signed, a Letter of~ Intent is issued or some other arrangement is made to assure them that they will be paid for work already accomplished and will be paid for work performed in the future. - The date for suspension of work, as we understand it, is October 23, 1975. d. PEPCO's estimate for construction of Phase 11 is $6,086,900 and $1,99L~,8OO for Phase Ha. This is currently being evaluated by \4MATA's staff. PEPCO stated that its actual expenditures as of * September 31, 1975 are $3,925,331 of which WHATA's share is $3,100,000. It is estimated that by October 31, 1975 reimbursable expenditures will be approximately $1~,00O,O00. In view of the foregoing, and in order that construction continue on the installation of facilities for Hetrorail Phases Ii and lie, it is recommended that the following be approved: a. New Electric Service Agreement MA-0k3. b. Approval of funds to reimburse PEPCO for expenditures for construc- tion performed through October 31, 1975. PAGENO="0359" 1041 ~Background Information Page Four Attachments: (1) Summary Chronology of Action Relating to PEPCO and WMATA New Electric Agreement. (2) Letters.from Frank S. Walters to Jackson Graham, dated September 16, 1975. (3) Letter from U. Reid Thompson to Jackson Graham, dated October 15, 1975. PAGENO="0360" 1042 SUMI~ARY CHRO~IOLOGY OF ACTIOU RELATIUG TO - .. . PEPCOJ14MATA UEW SERVICE AGREEME~IT . - - Julj7 1972 Letter of Intent, batween PEPCO end VM~TA, coverin; the basic i.'nder- - standing of service connections facilities for Phase I. - .- - - - February l~ 1973 .~: W~1ATA.p~oposed new el~ctric~serv!ce.agreercentserLt to PEPCO.-jetter*.: from Jackson Graham to W. Reid Thompson. -:. TI. *-::: *T-~-~: - Iiarch 21 1973 Letter from PEPCO with attached counter-proposal for me~. electric -: service agreement Letter to Jactsoi Graha-i rro~'i C W Nicolsoi PEPCO met with WMATA to e~laTn their counter-proposal. ~ajor : points oF discussion were rates, FE?CO's terms and conditions, construc- tion advances energy requirements load acto-~s etc Future meetings postponed at request of PEPCO snce their staff was - involved in hearings for en electric rate increase before the various Comics ions April 3 1973 - - Letter responding to PEPCO letter of tlarch 21, 1973. W1-'~TA reaffirred its position. Letter to Charles W. flicolson from Vernon K. Gerrett, Jr. ~ovenoer 23 1973 - Revisedproposed- new electric service agreement dated lleveeber 15, 1373 -~ sent to PEPCO. Suggested meeting date of Decether 5, 1973. Letter to Charles W. Nicolson from Vernon K. Gerrett,Jr. .~- -- .; :- -. I::. Decerrber 3 197) ~C_. `.1. ILicolson telephoned Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. and eskedfor post- ponement of December -5, 1973 meeting date due to their inv6ivsoent in the-: enegy crisis January 10 l97lL fleeting date was set: for January 21, 1974 at tha Authority's off ~CC3.~ - Telephone call b3t~ie~~ CnalLs d col oi a~d Lziu~ P~~s/ Jr PAGENO="0361" 1()4~ January 16, 1974 Revised proposed ncw electric service agreement datod January ~4, 1974 sent to PEPCO. Clarification of Defintions were made. Letter to C. W. NIcolson from Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. - January 21 , 1974 Mcetin3 with PEPCO at Authority's offices. Disegroed oc three major points: - - - -: 1 Voltage regula on - 2. Application of Federal Power Coirreission Uniform System of Accounts - "Account 252 Customer Advances for Construction" and `Accoun 271 - Cash Advance~ 3. Application of Federal Pcwer Commission Uniform System of Accounts - "Account 446 - Sales to Railroads and R~ilw~ys" -- to the Metro System. .- - - Apparent impasse reached. Both sides agreed to meet on January 23. 1974 to decide if there was a deadlock. - January 28. 1974 - C. W. Nicolson telephoned Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. and cancel led the~ planned meeting of January 28, 1974, stating that PEPCO had nothing fur- ther to discuss at that time. - - .- - February 4, 1974 Letter sent to PEPCO cc~cernin: cancellation of Jau:a--y 1~7/ meeting. Suggested that PEPCO send represontative with autha itv ~ act on their behalf. Letter to W. }~~ld Thccpson from Je:kaor -:hcm February 7, 1974 l~irutee of Jon.~ary LI, 1974 coasting sa~c to ░EPC3. C. Micol~on from \Jec,ioi K. C~rr~Lt, Jr. Februaiy 11, 1974 -- Letter from PEPCO a General Cours ml to Jackson Grehao sat' Tog that us had reached an impasse. A copy of the letter was sent b, PtPC3 tc' the - various reqclatory coreni scions. - - -i March 19, 1974 - Letter cent to PE?~O orJ Co~e~i.-aion. Latter eig.-~ed La J ~ \t'1'~TAmainteins itsoriginal positio~i. April 30, 197t John Robertie suggested that t4IATA proceed with log-al action against PEPtO. -2-- PAGENO="0362" 11)44 ~ 16, 1974 * *.: :.. -~ Letter from PEPCO stating their position. E~ard A. Caine to-John : R. Kennedy. -. * : Hay 30 197~+ Staff briefed the Board in Executi'13 Session ~ i~~esse that WiIATA had reached with PEPCO. - ~- . June 7 197t Staff met with PEPCO to discuss the n~ee (3) areas or aispu-e text meeting scheduled for June 21 1974 June 13 1974 - Staff presented "Status Report" of. WMATA/PEPCO negotiations at the June 13 1974 Board of Directors Meeting June 21 1974 - WMATA staff met informally `.ith PEPC~. Negotiation meet~ngstheduled for June26, ~974 rescheduled to August 9, 1974 to allow WHATA staff to gather addi~ional inforra on on WHATA lo_ds requas ed by PE░C~ July 18 l97~' WI~TA staff informally presented PEPCO with requested TnFormati~n. PEPCO stated that additional information-was required. The August 9, . 1974 meeting was postponed until WHATA's staff could provide requ~sted data August 20 1974 -. Information furnished PEPCO on kilowatt hours ~er car mile,~nu~er of ~-: cars per mile by phases, dates for initial corc~-ercial o?eration, chiller :..7~ * plant loads by phases, area maps for WHATA facilities, and passenger ste- tion loads. Letter to Frank S. Walters f~om Verncn i-Z. Garrett, Jr. .:-- *. - Nesting ~ias scheduled ~o oiday Sep er~r 9 1~7- Scpterrber 9 197L Staff met with PEPCO to discuss terms of the Proposed Agreement. PEPCO was to prepare a proposal for W~TA's consideration. Next meeting scheduled for Friday Sspterber 27 1974 - S~.pter5er 2' 1974 - - - ~eeting ~or Friday So~rei~e 27 197t po~ o-~d F-i~-j Cc ooe- L 1974 b~ PEPCO due to their h~aring DC 0 a Cces~ _3.. PAGENO="0363" 1045 September 30, 1974 - Minutes of September 9, 1974 meeting sent to PEPCO. Letter to Frank S. Walters from Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. - Octobsr 3, 1974 - Meeting for Friday, October 4, 1974 cancelled by Frank S. Walters of PEPCO because they did riot have proposal ready. Meeting rescheduled for Friday, October II, 1974. October 8 1974 PEPCO submitted revised proposed new Electric Service Agreement to * 11MATA. Letter to Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. from Edward A. Caine. -: -..: - - October 11 l971~ Staff met with PEPCO to discuss terms of the revised proposed -_ Agreement submitted by PEPCO on October 8, 1974. ~.4MP~TA gave PEPCO marked up copy of proposal with suggested changes. PEPCO said that the~ * would review suggestions and will get back with WMATA. *.-~ October 17 1974 Telephone call by L. Pinkney to Frank Walters to find out status of proposed Agreement. Mr. Walters said they woŘl~ have something for us the week of 21st - 25th of October. - -. October 23 1974 T~1ephone call by Nose Lewis to Edward Caine to find out status of proposedAgreement. Mr. Caine was not in but a message was left to have him call Mr. Lewis. Telephone call was not returned. - - -. - October 29 1974 * - Telephone call by Lucius Pinknay, Jr. to Ec~sard Caine to findout status of proposed Agreement. Mr. Caine was not in but a message was- left to have him call Messrs. Lewis or Pirikney. Telephone call was not - returned. - - *- - -: November 7, 1974 - * I -- - *- = -- Minutes of October 11, 1974 meeting sent to PE?C0. Letter to Frank -- S. Walters from Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. -- - - - - - *. -: November 11, 1974 --- - - -. . -- WMATA had not received response Froc PEPCO Concerning suggested - changes to revised proposed Pgreerrmnt, nor had PEPCO responsed to our -- * - PAGENO="0364" 1046 * telephone calls. WMATA starf redrafted the Agreert~nt along ~nth the suggested change for hand delivery to PEPCO. Mr. V. K Garrett would -~ also call F. Walters to see if we could meat the week of ~ovembar 11-15. November 14, 1974 :-Y Re~JTsed proposal hand delivered to PE?CO. Letter te Frank 9 Walters from Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. dated loisrrber 12, 1374. Left word - - for Frank S. Walters to call Mr. Garrett, since Mr. Walters was at a .- -- Maryland Public Service Hearing.- Telephone call was not raturned.- November 15 1974 Telephone call by LLcius Pinkney to FranK S lTa1e'~ ~e se~tp meeting. Mr. Walters was not in. Telephone call was not returned.--- *~--~::~ November 25 l97~ Telephone call by L. Pinkney to Messrs. E. Caine and F. Walters.--.-~- Neither was in Telephone calls were no rati'-ed December 2 l971L - - .-Telephone call by L. Pinkney to F. Walters who agreed to meet with -~-~--~ WIATA on Tuesday Decaroer 10 1974 - - December 9 1974 Additional information concerning electrIcal loads sent to PEPCO. .::-~ Letter to Frank S. Walters from Vernon K.- Garrett, Jr. -- ~:- December 9 l97~ Telephone call by Fra-k Walters to L. Pinknay and V. K. Garrett to cancel scheduled December 10, 1974 meeting due to so~ legal probiers. - - Mr. Garrett suggested that Mr. Walters direct his Legal (Mr. Caine)to - - meet with our Legal (Mr. Robartie))to work out the problem. Mr.Robertie :~ ;as in~orned and said ha he ~ould corta~ Mr E Caine - Jen~ary 13 1975 * PEPCO had no~ responded to telephone calls by J. Robertie. - However, it was pointed out that PEPCO was proceeding ahead with the construction -or Me roral January 16 ]_~ Telephone call by L. Pinkney andClifford Trott to Fran'~S. ~21t~rs We informed him that J. P3bertie's telephone cells to E. Caine were not being returned and that Mr. Robercie had been trying to reach Mr. Caine -- -- since December 1974. Mr. halters said that he `.,ould look into the - .-~. - situation and would let us kno~. - - - ~.- - - - - - :- - -5- - PAGENO="0365" 1047 January 22, 1975 * Telephone call by L. Pinkney to Mr. Srnidth arid told him of problems with getting Mr. Caine together with Mr. Robsrtie. Mr. Smidth said that he would meet with Mr. Walters and work out something with Messrs. Caine and Robertie. -. J~nuar~ 23, 1975 - Telephone call by L. Pinkney to Messrs. Caine and Smidth to arrange: meeting between Messrs. Caine and Robertie. Could not get both together because of busy lines or not in ofrice January24 1975 Telephone call by L. Pinkney to Frank Walters. Mr. Walters said that January 30 or 31, 1975 would be acc~ptable for a mÓeting. This 7. would be verified after Mr. Caine talked wi th Mr. Robertie. Meeting was set up fˇr February 3, 1975. - February 3 1975 Staff, met with PEPCO along with Messrs E. Caine and J. Robarti~ to ciscuss legal difficulty in contract Discussion involved I Examination of Records clause 2. All 48o volts service to be classed es secondary voltage.- 3~,. All other Metrorail service to be 13.8k'! on WHATA contiguous property. . . . . .* l~; Cost of Service Study to be completed by hay 15, 1975 by PEPCO. February 14, 1975 . -. Minutes of February 3, 1975 meeting sent to PEPCO. Letter to Frank - S. Walters from Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. - - - --- -~:: : - February 21 1975 Meeting with Mr. Caine and WMATA staff schedulsd for February 21,1975 * cancelled after Mr. Robertie talked with Mr. Caine concerning WMATAs audit- -- ing of PEPCO's subcontractors. WMATA and PEPCO are to come up with . sLggested iording ro his portion February z6, 1975 -- - - . *. - WMATA received GSA's Area Wic!a Public Utility Contrecc with PEPCO and adopted its `examination of records' Clause. Meeting scriaduied with PEPCO week oF March 3-7, 1975. . ~* .* S * - - 0- PAGENO="0366" 1048 March 3, 1975 -. - Telephone call by L. Pinkney to Messrs. E. Caine end Frank Walters. Neither were in. Telephone cells were not returned. Requested that J. Robertie cell E. CaIne. -~ March 5, 1975 - Requested that Mr. Robertie cell Mr. Caine, Purpose: To r~aaton ~ording -or 1cx_n;na on or records clause Marc~ 7 1975 * -.~ Telephone call by L. Pinkney to F. WÓtters. Mr. Walters said that - - -he had instructed l~r. Caine to call and arrange meeting for disct.~sTon of "e~mination of records's clause. Mr. Walters also said that they were - working on ~`Cost of Service Study" and he was aware of Ilay 15, 1975-com~ pletion date March 11 1975 - * Request by L. Pinkney and G. Keyes that John Robertie call Mr. Caine to resolve legal question Marci 13 1975 - - Telephone call by 1. Pinkney to E. A. - C9ine, Concerning `exacination of records" clause. Both were in Baltimore for rata hearings.. Telephone - call5 ware not returned. - - : -= March 20 1975 - - Telephone call by L. Pinkney to F. Walters. Reached an agreement to reet w~ h PE░C0 oi March 21 1975 I~arth 21 1975 - WMATA staff oct with PEPCO on examination of record" claz~e. Both * sides presented proposals. WMATA was to revie.-i PEPCO's pro~osal with - AUDIT. it was agreed that allothar areas ofthe ccntrect were resolved. I-'ee ing .ia~ scneduled or March 28 1975 Marcn 28 975 - -- - WMATA staff r~t with PEPCO and w3rked out differences on lre~minat ion - of records clause. PEPCO was to re-typs Agrecoant and forward it to - i~rtlJ~TA Mr. Walters said that he would have a submittal on the Cost of -: - - - Service Study on i-lay 1, 1975. - - - - - - - ~ -- - -:~---~ April..1i, 1975 - - - -. -- * -- - -- ** - - Telephone call by L. Pinkncy to F. ~1al tars on Statcs of ~grcsrrcnt. - Requested: - - * - * - -- - - - -: - -- - *-: - * -7- --~ PAGENO="0367" 1049 I. Latest rate case presentation. : 2. FPC Form I and FPC Form 12. - - 3. Available information on Cost of Service Study. - i-ia was not in. Telephone cell was not roturned. - -* April 7, 1975 -- - - :-~ Telephone call by L. Pinkney to F. Walters on status of Agreement. He was In Baltimore for a hearing. Requested Form I and Form 12 and -. - available work sheets on Cost of Service Study,. Telephone call was not returned. *- - - - Aoril 8 1975 Received from PEPCO r,aterial on latest rate case April 11 1975 Received from PEDCO ~ Re-typed Agreement 2 Latest Rate Ca~e Information 3 Form I 19711 April 15 1975 PEPCO re-typed Agreerent circulated in-hou e ~or final co-rents April 18 1975 Ilinutes of March 21, 1975 and March 28, 1975 rreetingsse'ntto PEPCO. Letter to F Walters ~ron V K Garrett Jr April 28 1975 Sent final typed coo" of Agr~eent to PEPCO ror signature `-`ay 6 1975 Telephone call by 1. Pinkney to F. Walters to find out status of Agreement. He was not in. Call was not returned. - - **- May ~; 1975 - -. - Telephone call by L. Pinkney to F. Walters end Hr Snidth to find -- - out status of Agreement. Mr. Walters was in Florida until May. 12, 1375. Telephone call returned. Mr. Smidth said Agreement ~ being re-typed. - -8- - PAGENO="0368" 1050 Hay 13, 1975 Telephone call by L. Pinkney to F. Walters to find out status of Agreement. Mr. Walters said that it was circulating and that he would ex?edite it. He said that he had done nothing further on the Cost of Service Study. - - flay 19, 1975 Telephone call by V. K. Garrett, Jr. to F. Walters to find out status of Agreerrent. Mr. Walters said that he would try to get it to us. week of Hay 19-23,. 1975. Mo further development on Cost of Service Study 1Aay 23 1975 Telephone call by L. Pinkney to F. Walt~rs t~ find out statu~of Agreement. Mr. Walters was in hearings at the Federal Power Con~oiss ion. Telephone call was rot returned. - - flay 28 1975 - Telephcne call by L. Pinkney to F. Walters to find out status of-- Agreement. Mr. Wal ters was not in. Telephcna call was not returnod.J. Hay 30 1975 Telephone call by L. Pinkney to F. Wa!ter~to find out status of - Agreement. Mr. Walters said they were having a disagreement in-house on the "examination of record clause. They will ha meetir.g on June 3, 1975 and will resolve it at that time. - June 3 1975 t4~TA staff met to determine a course of e:tion since PEPCO had not sent Agreement back. It was decided to: : - 1. Send a letter to PEPCO signed by General Hsnagsr askir~g forT * completion of Agreement or a favorable rate if agreement is : no reacned on an interin basis 2. Hr. Clifford Trott, WMATA Consultant who participated in the negotiations, will prepare a detailed Cost of Service Study for suonittal to ATA by A~us~ 1 1975 J~.na 6 1975 Telephone call by Lucius Pinkney to Frank ~a1te-s to find out - - status of Agreonant. Hr. Walters said that their legal psopie still had the Agreon'snt and would be releasing it soon. - - - -9- -- PAGENO="0369" li~5 1 June 9, 1975 Telephone ccl I by Lucius Pinkney to Frenk ~1a1 ters to find out status of Agreement. Mr. Walters said that their leg-si hod resolved the dispute and WMATA would get it as soon as it was re-typed. JL'fle 10, 1975 Received from PEPCO Computer Print-out on Class of Business Cost Allocation for Year ended December 30, 19Th" ~-f~ich will be used in our Cost of Service Study. - June 11 1975 1. Advised by WMATA Legal staff not to send letter to PEPCO ask- ing for completion of Agreement or favorable rate, as was - * : decided in WMATA staff meeting of June 3, 1975. It was. - believed that this would weaken our bargaining position. 2. Telephone call by Lucius Pinkney to S. H. Thoniassen (PEPCO's * Associate General Counsel) on status of Agreement. Meeting - * seas scheduled for Friday, June 13, 1975 at PERCO offices. ~ June Il 1975 Received revised copy of Agreement from PE░C0 Juno 13, 1975 . :. . ~-- WMATA staff reviewed revised Agreement as submitted by PEPCO. Three members of the team (L. Pinkney, C. Trott, F. Filiatreau) met with S. H;.. -. Thonmasen to discuss changes proposed by PEPCO. Next meeting was sche- duled for Friday, June 20, 1975. -. . *~. : June 20, 1975 . .:. Four members of the negotiating team CL. Pinkney, C. Trott~, F. Filiatreau, R. Ganeriwal) met with S. H. Thomassen to discuss changes preposed by PEPCO. Each party was to review.proposedchanges with their respecti'/e leaders for acceptance of the changes as tentatively proposed duringthis meeting. * - * - - ** *. - June 24 1975 Proposed changes were reviewed and deemed acceptable by WlL~TA staff. July 2,1975 * - * - - - - - -- - - *--* -* Received two executed originals of the proposed Agreoront from PEPCO. Letter to Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. F roo Samuel M. Thoeasson, Jr. - July 31, 1975 * * - ** * _*~*i -* - Staff presented Agreement to Board for approval. Action delayed two weeks at request of Mr. Moore. - . **. . - - - * -10-* - 2-41R C) - 7) - )~. 2 - 24 PAGENO="0370" 1052 August l~, 1975 1' ~:-~ Staff presentcd Agreement to Board for approval. Action de1~yed one week at request of Mr. Moore. - - : -* - - August 19, 1975 `- `` Staff met with District representatives. All asmacesof contract di scus sad. - - - - : - - - -- - - - ALgust 21 1975 - Staff presented Agreement to Board f~r approvarJ Action :del eyed until late September, 1975. : - `` -- `:` ~" `-~: ~`, August 28 1975 - * Letter with PEPCO1s Cost Estimates for Phas~,l1 and IJa~-Letter'f-'~ to R T Dodge fran John Derrick -Jr September ~i 1975 - Letter to PEP~O stating-status of Agreement and requesting th~t-' ~fl response be directed to General Manager. -- - :- `i~--:---~~ -~ Septer-ber 8 1975 * : letter to PEPCO stating that because of.large a~unt of work ~o be done), it would take some ties to verify the d'stimate~ Letter to John * II. Derrick~ Jr. from Vernon K. Garrett) Jr. - - - *`~ September 9 1975 Staff met with District representatives All aspects of cont~ct -discussed. District requested file on negotiations. : -- *` -: September 12 1975 All files relating to negotiation 01cr 2-1/2 year period ~elivered to Jack Hartley Letter to Jack Hartley from Vernon K. Gsrrett, Jr. - -- Septeroer 16 1975 Letter from PEPCO stating that they would have to stop work' if Contract is not signed o if Let or o~ In ant is not -or hconi g Letter to Jackson Graham from Frank S; ~4e1ters~' -. -` ` -- Septeroer 22 1975 - - - Telephone call by Vernon K. Garrett and Lucius ?inkne. to J. Hartley - to inform him oF PEPCO's letter. i-ia was not in. Mr. J. Hartley returned call stating that their la~'yers were reviewing contract.' 1-ia wc~ld let - us know when it was completed. - - - .- - a--- -- -- PAGENO="0371" 1053 September 29, 1975 . Telephone call from Mr. Volner, 0. C. DOTEs lawyer, who asked questions concerning length of contract, Cost of Service Study,. Cost estimates. Hr. Garrett explained our position and also informed him of the urgency of the matter. .. . . . *. .... . -. Telephone call from John Drayson of DOT, who said that they would have a response for us on Wednesday, October 1, 1975. :. -- - Septerber 30 1975 Telephone call by Lucius Pinkney to Mr. Smidth of PEPCO. Because of computer difficulties, they would have Cost of Serilce Study by weak of October 6-10, 1975. .. . .. .. -. --.. ~Telephone call from J~ Hartley of D. C.DOT. He said that the Dis-. trict was meeting today on their recommendations and would let ~4MATA -. . - know on October 1, 1975. . . . .. ~. October 2 1975 Telephone call by L. Pinkney and V. Garrett to J. Hartley and Doug Schneider of DC DOT to find out status of Agrearent. Both were not in. Cells were not returned. . ~. :- *- -:- Hr. Garrett and Mr. Pinkney talked with J.~Drayson of D. C. DOT,at - WMATA~s Board Meeting concerning PEPCO Agreee~nt. M~. Drayson said that 0. C. DOT had met on the Agreement and the report would be forthcoming. October 3 1975 Telephone call by L. Pinkney to F. Walters of PE?C0 to cheek on Costof Service Study. He was out of town until October 6, 1975. Telephone call to J. Hartley of D. C. DOT. Hr. Hartley said they had a mama but were withholding it until they received clearance to send it to us. He was informed that PEPCO had compu:ar problems and would get the Cost of Service Study to us the week of October 13-17, - 1975. . . .. ..--~- ~er9 1975 PEPCO's counsel (Mr. Danzanky) visited Mr. Garrett to inform him that PEPCO was at the point of suspending further activities unless the proposed - Contract was executed October 15, 1975 . . . . Letter from PEPCO stating that they would not guarantee further work, *.- -- after October 23, 1975, if Contract is not signed or Letter of Intent. `~ not forthcoming. Letter from Mr. W. Reid Thompson to Mr. Jackson Graham. -12-- PAGENO="0372" 1054 PoToMac EIE0rRIC P0-WEB CoMP~Y 1900 ~ Avz.,N. W. - WAS~c0T0T, n. C. 20065 - W. R2ID THOMPSON October 15, 1975 ~ -_ rwr Mr Jac]~.son Graham ~ ~E' r4I~ ~ General Manager j~' II `.JLJ U WASHINGTON NETROPOLIT~ . . ~ ~ ~ * AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY U ~ I 6 ~ 600 Fifth Street, N.W. WMA1~A, Washington D C 20001 ~ ) . ~ ~ :- Dear Mr. Graham: ~. -~- . . .- . ~. . -~ By letter dated September 16, 1975, Mr. Frank S. Walters, Vice President, Rates and Regulatory Practices, responded to a September 4, 1975,- letter from Vernon ~. Garrett, Jr. of your staff, wherein Mr. Garrett outlined a chronology projecting further delays to the execution of a final Service Agreement be- tween PEPCO and WMATA. In his letter of reply, Mr. Walters, * expressing PEPCO's growing concern over the lack of final action~ by the ~1MATA Board of Directors, recounted the following history: that PEPCO had, in good faith, participated in 18 months of . - arduous negotiations with the WMATA staff; that these negotia- tions had resulted in the drafting of a "final" Service Agree- ment between the parties; that on July 2, 1975, that Agreement was executed on behalf of the company by Ellis T. Cox, Executive Vice President; and that the WMATA Board, for reasons not made clear, has not yet authorized the Authority to execute the docu- ment in question. Mr. Walters thereupon urged the Authority to either- sign the contract or execute some interim document. such as a "letter of intent" to assure PEPCO that the construction servines performed over the past year under a very uncertain con- * tractual arrangement would be compensated. In absence of any affirmative action on the part of WMATA, PEPCO's only remaining course of-action, Mr. Walters suggested, "would be to stop work on the project Nearly a month has passed since Walters wrote his letter and thus far, we have heard nothing by way of response from tha PAGENO="0373" 1055 - PoTo~c Ei~xcmic Pow~n CoMP~╗=ir Mr. Jackson Graham PageTwo . October 15, 1975 Authority. This latest series of events, or rather non-events, is deeply disturbing. As you know, during Phase I construction, PEPCO performed close to $3,000,000.00 worth of services in the design and construction of such service facilities as are re- -- quired to supply electricity to the subway system. The parties operated by the terms of a July 7, l972,"letter of intent" where-. under all work performed by PEPCO was funded by cash advances made by the Authority at appropriate intervals; the Authority's obligation re compensation owing to PEPCO for the construction of service connection facilities was to be more definitely estab- lished in a separate general agreement. to be negotiated. . When Phase ii construction commenced in July of 1974, PEPCO continued to perform work despite the fact that its costs exceeded the initial advance made under Phase I and further despite the fact that in 1974, the WMATA Board of Directors in- structed its General Manager not to advance any further sums to PEPCO under the July 7, 1972, "letter of intent" until a final general agreement had been negotiated between the parties. As an expression of corporate citizenship, and because negotiations, though lengthy and quite technical, were proceeding smoothly, I personally authorized the continuation of construction work under Phase II. As of September 30, 1975, the cost of this work to the company has amounted to $3,925,331.00. From October - to December, 1975, new construction is expected to average about $925,000.00 a month, adding an additional exposure by year's end of $2,775,000.00 or a total of uncompensated service by year's end (less approximately $1,000,000.00 of Phase I overage) of $5,606,622.00. Aside from the severe cash squeeze that such a - deficit imposes upon a publicly held corporation, my legal staff has advised me that in light of last year's action by the ~. Authority's Board of Directors shutting off further advances arid/or obligations under the July 7, 1972, "letter of intent", it would be unwise and imprudent for ~ne to authorizo the perfor-~ mance of any additional constructIon work without some legally binding document setting forth the rights and/or obligations of the parties as well as the terms of payment. Such a document must, of course, be accompanied by sufficient funds to cover almost $4,000,000.00 worth of construction work performed under Phase II. PAGENO="0374" 1056 PoTo~c ELECTRIC PoWER CoMPA~Y Mr. Jackson Graham Page Three October 15, 1975 Because of the confusion which has ensued since PEPCO and the WMATA staff committed to writing the final terms of ~a Service Agreement, I thought it appropriate to set forth hereinabove the company's position. I have been informed that our legal counsel has consulted with your staff and that - as a result, this matter has been placed on the agenda of the meeting of the Authority's Board scheduled for Thursday, October 16, 1975. I have been further informed that the matter will be finalized, if possible, at that meeting but in no event later than at the meeting scheduled for October 23, 1975. Please be assured. that PEPCO stands ready to assist you and your staff by providing any and all relevant background materials, information or expertise. We look forward to a final resolution on either the 16th or the 23rd. If by the end of October, I receive no affirmative word from the Authority's Board of Directors on a course of action legally acceptable to PEPCO as hereinabove outlined, we will have no alternative * but to halt all further investment in the Metro project. 1~E D T~O~SON /1 PAGENO="0375" 4~ in.. ~ h ~~c) 0 ~ -4 * * . r4 `d C.~ ~ -1 44~~ * . 0 .` ~) * 0 c~. * *. *.. *. * *: * PAGENO="0376" 1058 PoTox.~c ELECThIC Pow~ CO)LP~Y `r JacLsoa Gra~u - 2 - Septer,er 16 1975 in seeking approval by the District of Colurbia Public Senvi ~ This process u_gct ta~e ~ nurber of ns'ttzs LO ccr.'~.ete - Becau~a of theadditiooal tine required if the rate schedule wer~a t~ be inuceporated in the present tentative agreensat, an a?~rovad. coatna~.~ would~ not be In affect relative to reimbursenant of the Potc~E ~iz. * Power Coaipaay for the construction work perforr~ad~ In the absanac o.f such, a contract it. would be necessery to draft a "Letter of Intent~ -` simiLar to that executed by you on 3uly 7, 1972. ` It ~as crur t~darst~jn~' earlier that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority didh~t~ * want to handle the next phase of thty project in that nannar~ - We are concerned about the absence of a cQntrzctun~. don at ~ present tirne, and urge that the ~asci_ngto ietrocoLt~n ~zea Trnns~ Authority Board of Directors reconsider their position in this natter. In the absence of either a signed contract or an addjricco2. "Letter ~ * Intent' toe o-tl~ re=a_n.ng co~irse of actio~t aor toe Co-~a- ~ - stop work on toe pro3ect We will be glad to nest with you to discuss this natter In nora' deta_l if yoi_ so desire S_car- / PAGENO="0377" I ()5~) (202) 637-1 23~ ~ -~ . - Ssp~c.-eber4, 1975 -) a1 CT S * itr Fran~ ~_1ter~ * Vice President of Rates Potomao Electric Power Company E55~5DMU~:S5Y ~.19O0 Pennsylvania Avenue, M.W: ~ :Washington, D.C~ 200G9 iAiTem Z.~:i.CHl5CTON ** - ~i C~-5~ - .. - -. *. - csx~~ssrr - Dear Mr. Walters: - *. - -~ - :~- - - -** - - - - -~ - - -~ - - This is to inror~ ~,ou o~ the r~c~n~ devslopr'ants coicc thO Electric Service Agreement bet~een PEPCO and WHATA. :~Ase~ee-7Lsy.Ja. - : - -_ - :--::. As you are aware, after many e~ntha of negotiations th~ ~C3JR Authority a staf and PE CO st~~' cc-i ~--~ated ~n Electric Servico Agreement. *..~::; -i-- - ~atc L_P On August l~ 1975 the Agree-' n a?rasented ~o the Authori~y a Boaro o~ Direc era ror a ro~ I ; ois rict - -- ~- representhtiv& and member of the Board rcquasted.additiona~ - time for the District staff to evaluate th~ context of the ~- - C `J-~ CT -- * On August 19, 19Th, a meeting was held between the - c Au 1-on y a s c- a-wi th. District ~ o~ Tr~-i pores- - C tion at.ff a ~h ch a vary 1engtn~ ~c -. 0-i e~ Led aid - many šuastions were asked relating to the ignceeent. - The *. * AuthonityT$ staff respor~ded in detail, ex?iainin-; th~ cb~p1~t~ -io~aem-'-se-- -contents and the intent of the Agreecent arid the nerirrerin *~ - inch it w~ o C ~ On ALCu~ 21 1975 Li Els it Se~icc P; a nt ,~ -again presentad to the Autheri.ty~ Eosrd tiP Directere..:.-The~- Eo~rd was in o iwi h~- ~ S~ vi.. -~ ~-- rs c-i d iiith * - - -- -. * :~W25 reasonable arid ron-preferentiaL The District represente- tiva requested that the Authority staff correuawieta, end - - present to the Board of Directors, eceriDiato Ccr-es~-enti:iich ~ - - would )nc1ud~ the Electric Service A~reeeant acid riactnic j Vie oO_ d cie d - 0 CC l~1 U ii or s- 0 ij r 1j75 PAGENO="0378" 1060 ~ Frank `dalters Pag~2 in view of tha dave1op~r~r~ts mndi~atad ~are~na~d our .~conc~rri for continuing th~ electric service `~;ou1d be appreci~tad if your resoonsa ith rr~tt~rscu1d. be o rected to tna ~ 5 -~-a~ -ia~~- As always, your cooparatio-r is ~p?-ectatec.. * Very tr ` yo.~'-s~ Vernon K.. Garrett, Jr.. l3ire~tor - Office of Engi~~rin~ - PAGENO="0379" C ~ 197E~' ~ OFFICE OF EI~Gl~1~ At your request, we have undertaken an examination of the proposed agreement between Metro and Pepco for the provision of electric energy and equipment services. This memorandum constitutes our report on that agreement., It is based upon several meetings which we have held with Metro officials, a review of the relevant memoranda and correspondence pertaining to the agreement which the Metro officials provided us and follow-up conversations.' We conclude, for the reasons more fully described in * ~ this report, that there remain a number of matters which, at the very least, ought to be clarified and ideally resolved before the agreement is finally approved by the Metro Board. A. History of Negotiations and Summary of Agreement I. On July 7, 1972, Pepco and Metro entered into a letter of intent covering the provision of electric- ~service connection facilities during Phase I of Metro. The letter of intent, which is presumably still in force, provides that all work performed by Pepco will be funded initially by `cash advances" made by Metro. It calls for. the negotiation and execution of a `separate general agre&ment" to govern the obligations and liabilities of Metro to Pepco in connection with the service connection facilities. The negotiations looking toward the creation. of that separate general agreement have been conducted intermittently since the execution of the letter of intent and have culminated in the present proposed draft. We have been advised by Metro officials that some time ago a dispute arose as to the cash advances under the letter of intent; and that Metro officials have been instructed - by its Board to make no futher payments until a final agreement has been entered into. As a result, Pepco 1061 COHN AND MARKS MEMORANDUM TO: Douglas Schneider John H. Hartley FROM: Edwin B. Spievack'~ Ian D. Volner. DATE: September 24, 1975 SUBJECT: Pepco-WMATA Agreement PAGENO="0380" 1062 -2- is owed some $2 million for work which it has previously performed. In addition, we are advised extensive additional construction involving Pepco is anticipated over the next several months. Pepco has taken the position that it is very reluctant to go forward with additional work until the total of the past-due amounts have been paid arid until the definitive agreement has been entered into, 2. The proposed agreement deals exclusively with the installation of service connections and the provision of electric energy to Metro.1/ The salient provisions of the proposed agreement are these: (a) Metro will buy all of its electric energy for operation of the subway system within Pepco's franchise areas (D.C., Maryland and a small portion of Virginia) exclusively from Pepco. The contract is supposed to provide that all purchase~ of energy on Metro's contiguous right-of~-way will be made pursuant to a newly created single rate designated IrRT.i Purchases of energy for - - delivery to other locations owned by l'ietro -- i.e., bus terminals;, chiller plants, executive offices, etc. -- are to be made at Pepco's generally applicable rate for that type of use. (b) Pepco will install service connections -, in accordance with the technical standards specified - by Metro. It will be compensated for this investment and labor in the form of Contributions-in_Aid_of_Construction The Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construction requirement is premised upon the concept that Metro's technical standards will cause Pepco to incur a larger investment and more labor costs than the company would have incurred in connecting other (more "normal') customers. Contribution-in-Aid- ~of-Construction thus purports to represent the difference between (i) the cost, to Pepco of investment and construction in accordance with Metro's technical requirements and (ii) the lesser cost which Pepco would have incurred were it not for Metro's specific engineering standards. 1/ During the course of construction in the streets, ~etro has `required considerable relocation of Pepco's underground facilities. These relocation projects are carried out by Pepco work crews but the utility is re- imbursed by Metro. The relocation arrangements are the subject of a separate agreement which, we are advised, was entered into some time ago. PAGENO="0381" -3- 1063 (c) The Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction are to be computed in accordance with a complex formula which operates in the following manner: (i) At the commencement of a project involving Pepco, the utility will estimate the cost of construction on two bases: (1) in accordance with the utility's normal standards but without regard to Metro's technical requirements; and (2) in accordance with the utility's standard construction practice but in conformance with Metro's technical.~equirements. The difference between these two estimates constitutes the "Estimated Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construction.". Metro will make advance payments based on this figure during the construction of the specific project; these payments will be scheduled on the basis of pre-determined: "5" curves, representing the various stages in completion.:: of the project. (ii)-~ At the completion of the project, Pepco will determine the Actual Cost of Construction. The balance of Metro's Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construction is then determined: (1) the Actual Cost of Construction is divided by the Estimated Cost in accordance with Metro's technical provisions; (2) the resultingquotient is I multiplied by the Estimated Cost without Metro's technical~ requirements; and (3) the Total Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construc- tion is then determined by.subtracting the result of this multiplication from the Actual Cost of Construction. Metro is required to pay at the end of the project the difference between the amount which it has theretofore paid in accordance with the "S curves and the Total -~ Contribution-im-Aid-of-ConStrUc~iOfl. (d) Pepco may re-estimate any Estimated Contribu- tion-in-Aid-of-Construction as described above; and the increased amount ~of such estimate must be paid by Metro along with the "S' curve. In addition, if ~-1etro changes the conditions of a project resulting in a increase in cost~ Pepco is to be reimbursed as those increased costs are incurred. - - - -: (e) The agreement gives Metro the authority to examine Pepco's books `for the sole purpose of validating estimated or ~ctual costs' during the project and for a period of two years after final payment. Metro has a similar authority to examine the books of Pepco's sub- contractors for the same two-year period after final mayrnent; but this audit authority does not apply to sub- contracts for less than $100,000 and to subcontracts : "awarded competitively.' - -. PAGENO="0382" 1064 (f) The proposed agreement contains standard provisions, prohibiting bfficials, members ßf Cong~ess, etc: from "benefItting from the. contracts; an.d requiring equal employment opportunities as specified by law. The agreement recites that the Public Service Commissions of Maryland, the District and Virginia shall have jurisdiction over the agreement to the extent that they wouldotherwise have such jurisdiction as provided by their respective enabling statutes. . (g) The agreement excuses Pepco from liability for non-performance or delay in performance as the result of circumstances beyond its reasonable control. But circumstances beyond Pepco's rea~onable control is defined to include `inability to obtain . . . labor, materials or manufacturing facilities `from usual sources, lack of capacity or lack of energy.!' (h) ,The agreement specifies a term of 30 years, cancellable thereaf.ter~by'either party upon one year~s written notice. The agreement, however, is subject to the further condition that' it shall not in any way. prevent Pepco from filing amended, new or superseded rate schedules, general terms and conditions or rules and regulations "gov~rning any rates or teems of service for electricity sold by utility to authority" with any regulatory commission having `jurisdiction in the premises. :` B. Substantive Matters . The matters which we cons~~der to be in need of clarification fall into two categories: (i) pr9blems of substance ` and (ii) problems of contract drafting. This section of the' memorandum deals with the substantive matters; the problems of drafting are noted in the succeeding section. . ` I RT Schenule The single rost inportant problem arises from the requirement that Pepco establish an "RT" rate. (Contract, Section II.A.) In' essence, this RT schedule will constitute the basis upon which all Metro payments to operate its trains and stations will. be made. - We are informed by Metro officials that Pepco i's supposed to prepare a cost of service study and develop the RT schedule from that study. The study~ however, has not yet been dcwe. (Section u.S.) Immediate problems therefore arise: I ` PAGENO="0383" 1065 -5- (a) Rate design is of great importance to a uti- lity. user like Metro which has unique energy usage charac- teristics. Metro's officials and consultants have described to us the rate design which they contemplate for the RT schedule in some detail; and, as described7 the rate design may not be entirely satisfactory. Metro's consultant anti- cipates that there will be a -two-tier rate design consisting of (i) a demand charge representing Metro's proportionate share of Pepco's investment in production facilities and (ii) an energy or variable charge reflecting the actual cost of. providing electric energy to transit operations. Such a rate design may be in accordance with normally accepted rate making procedures and may be favorable to Metro without unduly dis- criminating against other Pepco customers. However, the de- sign of the RT rate is decidedly not spelled out in the proposed contract (Section II.B.); and there is no docurnenta- tion in the files which we have examined showing that Pepco ~*is in agreement as to this.proposed rate design. There is thus no assurance that the rate will, in fact, be designed as described. Any other rate design -- i.e., a single chargecovering both fixed and variable costs -- could well~ be detrimental and extremely costly to Metro. (b) Because no cost of service study has been performed, there is no way to determine wh.at the rate levels (that is, the precise charges) to Metro under the RT schedule will be. 2/ This makes it impossible for the Metro Board at the present time to make an accurate esti- mate of Ci) the total amount in dollars which it will be teguired to pay Pepco for the provision of energy in a year and (ii) the amount, expressed as a percentage, that energy costs will represent to Metro's total operating costs. Moreover, until the cost of service study has been completed a number of technical rate questions~-- which may be of interest to the Metro Board *-- cannot be answered. For example, because of differences in the authorized rates of 2~/ Rate levels are directly a function of the cost of ser- iice analysis. Under accepted rate making principles, . Pepco is entitled to earn a specified rate of return on its investment or rate base. Pepco's determination of the rate base properly attributable to Metro is made in the cost of se~vice study; and will thus absolutely control the rate levels which Metro will be required to pay. PAGENO="0384" 1066 -6- return in Maryland, Virginia and D.C., the RT rate in each jurisdiction may be different. No procedure is established in the contract to obtain uniform rate treatment, but the extent of rate differences among the resoective jurisdic- tioris cannot now be determined. Similarly, until the cost of service study is done, Metro cannot determine whether Pepco properly computed the Metro Rate Base. 2. At the present time, then, acceptance of the agreement would effectively commit Metro's Board to the pur- chase of all electric energy from Peoco without any know- led~ of how the charges will be imposed (rate desig~~r how much it will cost. Metro officials have suggested that there is some tact icaJ. advpn e to e~:ecution of the agree- ment before the PT schedule has been drafted and the cost of se~rvice study r~rep~reo.. ~e do not understand the basis for this suggestion. Further, Metro officials point out that the RT schedule must, in any case, be submitted to the Public Service Commissions in each of the three jurisdic- tions; they suggest that if the FT schedule is unacceptable in design or levels, Metro would be free to contest imple- mentation of the rates before the Public Service Commis- sion. That may be correct. Nevertheless,~in our view, prudence dictates teat the herro Foard have bcfore it a CO~L C cL~71CC a-~a1~'s1E a~ ~ato so ec.._~ cc ~ e~e~s into a contract which absolutely commits it to buy from Pepco. - 3. The Cont~ibuticns-in-~Aid-Of-COmStrUCti0~ Metro's technicas sLandards will :uquira Pep-cc to more investment and lasor costs than would otherwise be the case if proper controls were established. Under the contract, Metro iS temuired to pay at ICESt a portIon of the service connection investment and associeted costs. There are, however, a number of questions concerning the implementation of thiF concept: ~.a) The audit controls are inadequate. Under the agreement, Metro is not required to pay the full cost of service connections but only thet crocortion of the cost representing the difference between what it would cost Pepco to connect a more normal customer and the. higher cost of connection resulting from Metro's specific PAGENO="0385" 1067 -7- technical requirements. 3/ Unless proper audit controls are established, Metro will have no means of satisfying itself that it has received full credit for all of its Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction and that these con- tributions have been applied exclusively to reduce Metro's rate base and not the rate base of some other class of customer. The only audit provision in the contract, how- ever, limits Metro's audit power to verification of the estimates:and actual amounts of construction (Section. IV). This is insufficient to assure Metro that its rate base is not being improperly exaggerated. We suggest that the contract should require Pepco to maintain at all times separate books showing (i) the net amounts of Contributions- in-Aid-of-Construction made by Metro and (ii) the manner in which such contributions have been applied to Metro's rate base. We are led to believe that Pepco does not in- tend to maintain such separate books in any case. There is no reason why they should not be required to do so by contract. (b) The various estimates of Contributions-in- Md-of-Construction include not only direct costs," but ~`indirect" costs. Pepco's methods for the ~allocation of overhead and other indirect costs to various projects has, in other contexts, been a source of considerable controversy. We therefore believe that the formal cost estimates which Pepco Os required to submit should se~a- rately state the amounts of direct and indirect costs and should describe with particularity themanner in which the indirect costs have been determined and allocated. Since the Contributions-in-Aid-of--Construction are supposed to be "without any element o-f profit," such a separate breakdown of direct and indirect costs will enable Metro to assure itself that there is no profit factor included. (c) The formula specified for the determina- tion ~f Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction provides no 3/ Thus, Metro will not own the service connections out- ~ighb. A portion of the service connections will be in- Cluded in Pepco's determination of the rate base for Metro.., The amount of the service connections in rate base should be reduced by the amount of Contributions-in-Aid-of-Con- struction made by Metro. ` 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 25 PAGENO="0386" 106S -8- incentives or pressure qn P~pco to keep the cost~of construction at a rninimum~ The payments to be made by Metro along the S curve represent, as indicated, the difference between the estimated cost of construction in accordance with Metro's technical requirements and the estimated costs without regard to those special conditions. The greater this spread, the more money Pepco will receive during the construction period. Since this represents money `up front," there is a substantial advantage to Pepco -~- particularly over a long-term project -- to underestimate the Estimated Cost without regard to Metro's special requirements. In addition, by keeping down the Estimated Cost without regard to Metro's special requirements, Pepco will actually increase the total amount of Contributions-~ in-Aid-of-Construction required from Metro. 4/ There are a number of ways of d~aling with this problem. One possibility is to add a provision stating that, if the Actual Cost of the project exceeds the Estimated Cost in accordance with Metro's technical rquirements by a -_ specified percentage, then the total amount of the Contribu- tion-in-Aid~of-Construction will be reduced in proportiOn. -~ to the excess percentage. Such a formula would put enormous pressure on Pepco to make its estimates as accurate as possible and to complete the constructioh project as closely as possible to the estimated cost. Nor would such a restriction unduly penalize Pepco: to the extent. that the costs of construction are not recovered through the contributions, Pepco's investment would still be included in its rate base for Metro. 4/. Appendix F to the contract contains an example of ~Ehe procedure to be used in determining Contributions-in~Aid- of-Construction. A variance of one figure set forth inthat example will' demonstrate the effects of the present formula described above. Under the illustration contained in the agreement, the estimated cost without regard to - Metro's special requirements, is $2.0 million; If Pepco had underestimated this figure by $500,000, projecting an Estimated Cost Nithout Technical Provisions of $1.5 million, then (i) the amounts paid by Metro on the 5 curve would ha~!e been $2 million (rather than $1.5 million) and the total amount of Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construction would be $2,285,500 (rather than $l.7l4 million). Thus, - Metro would have paid more over the S curve and in aggregate solely because Pepco had underestimated the cost without technical provisions by $500,000. PAGENO="0387" 1069 -.9- (d) The provision (Section III. 5.) which authorizes Pepco to re-estimate its estimated costs at any time while work is in progress is likely to create havoc for Metro in the area of budgeting. The example contained in Appendix F illtistrates this problem: under the example, Metro would have budgeted $1.5 million as the amount to be paid along the S curve; if, in the middle of the project, Pepco suddenly revised its estimate upward, Metro would be obligated to make payments along the S curve for which there had been no advance budgeting. Moreover, the re-estimating provision could result fri payments by Metro along the S curve in excess of the amount of the Total Contribution. 5/ No provision is made in the agreement to deal with the problem of overpayrnents, It is likely that, to the extent that such overpayment * exists, Pepco will attempt to simply apply the overpayments to future projects; such a practice would create serious audit difficulties for Metro. For.these reasons, we believe that Pepco should not be entitled to re-estimate the Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction except where Metro has changed the project so that it results in increase~ costs to Pepco. Such a provision provides further incentive for accurate estimates. 4. Force Majuere. The provision of the agreer~nt (Sectthri VIII) excusing Pepco.frorn liability from non-perform- ance is detrimental to Metro in several respects: (a) The clause stating that Pepco is not liable for `~lack of capacity or lack of energy' is so broad that we suspect that it does not really mean what it says. 5/ Again, the example in Appendix F illustrates this problem: under the example,, Metro must make estimated contributions of $1.5 million on the basis of the S curve and an additional $214,000 upon completion of the project, * for a total of $l.7l4 million. However, suppose Pepco * re-estimates during the course of the project, increasing the total payments on the S curve from $1.5 million to $2 million. This means that, at the completion of the project, Metro would actually have overpaid Pepco by $286,000. PAGENO="0388" 1070 If read literally, the provision means that Metro is absolutely committed to buy all its energy from Penco, but Pepco has no obligation to provide either energy or capacity to meet that commitment. In fact, we suspect that what Pepco is concerned about is intermittent power failures which nay occur because of circumstances that could not be foreseen. In any case, clarification of what exactly is meant by this provision seems to us essential. (b) The provision also excuses Pepco from liability for non-performance or delay if it is una&le to obtain labor, materials or manufacturing facilities "from usual sources.' This can create serious problems. Read literally, this means that if Pepco has customarily purchased cable from Anaconda, but Anaconda is unable to provide cable without-extensive delays, then Pepco is under no obligation to seek to obtain the materiel from another source -- i.e., Kennicott. This provision could cause serious difficulties to ~1etro in meeting its timetable for the commencement and expanasion of operations, a problem with which the authority is already familiar. In our judgment, Pepco should~ be put~ under an obligation to make all reasonable efforts to meet the construction timetables specified in its proposals. 5. Term. The 30-year contract term (Section IX) is, in our judgment, excessive. We note that the original draft of the agreement prepared by Metro's attorneys specified a ten-year term and that the agreement between Metro and Vepcq also specifies a ten-year term. ~1etro officials have suggestea that the 30-year term is, in some fashion, advantageous to the authority; we are unable * to perceive the merits of this view. Whatever the advantages of a 30-year term, they can be equally achieved by a shor~er term (i.e., 10 years), subject to successive renewals unless sooner terminated; and such successive renewals, gives ~1etro greater flexibility than it has now~. In our judgment, the effect of the 30-year term is to lock Metro into a contract even thoughthe service may be thoroughly inadequate and even though a1ternative~~ means of energy or power supply may then exist. Such an approach seems to us undesirable. PAGENO="0389" 1071 -11- 6. Termination. The agreern~nL is subject to the condition (Sectioi~i IX) that it does not in any way prevent Pepco from filing amended, new or superseded rate schedules, general terms and conditions, etc. with the Public Service Commissions governing any rates or terms of service' for energy or service sold by Pepco to Metro. This effectively gives Pepco the authority to abrogate its obligations under the agreement at any time by simply filing new rates or service conditions with -the appropriate regulatory authorities. It does not appear that Metro has the corresponding prerogative to terminate the agreement at any time; moreover, ?letro does not have the contractual right to contest any filings which Pepco might make with the Public Service Commission. The clause is addressed to a genuine legal problem: under the existing laws, the respective Public Service Commissions unquestionab-ly have jurisdiction over Pepco's rates to ~-1etro, including the power to compel Pepco to increase those rates if deemed necessary. Similarly, the Public Service Commissions have, in a general way, jurisdiction over the terms of service. Nevertheless, in its present form, the agreement is entirely one-sided and there are ways of redressing this imbalance. First, Pepco should be required by contract to use its best efforts to obtain Public Service Commis~ion approval for the initial filing of the RT schedule, after approval of that schedule by Metro. Secondly, Pepco should be required to consult with Metro prior to the filing of any proposals contemplating changes in the rates. Third,. a provision should be added stating that no changes will be proposed by PepcO to Public Service Commissions which will have the effect of increasing the amounts of Contribu- tions-in--Aid-of-Construction required by Pepco from Metro; although there is some question whether such a clause is enforceable as against the Public Service Commissions, it is likely the Cšrnmissions will accept it. Finally, a provision should be added stating that if the terms a˝dconditions of the agreement are abrogated or substantially changed as the result of an act of a Public Service Commission, then Metro, as well as Pepco, will be entirely relieved from its obligations under the agreement. - C~ Matters of Contract Draftinq There are, in addition, a number of. questions- where the language of the agreement is unclear. Based PAGENO="0390" 1072 -12- upon our review, it appears that these questions are the result only of imprecise contract language and do not raise substantive problems. It may, of course, turn out that some of these problems are indeed substantive: 1. Definitions. The definition of `actual cost of Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction" (Section I.E.) ~tates that the actu~1 cost is to be determined "without any element of profit to utility. The definitions of Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction (Section I.E.) and "estimated cost of Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construction" (Section I.G.) are supposed to correlate with this provision. However, neither of these definitions contain the phrase "without any element of profit to utility." Since the three definitions are intended to correlate, each of the three should contain the pertinent phrase. 2. RT Coverage. As indicated above, we understand, based upon the dotuments which have been provided and our discussions with Metro officials, that the RT schedule is supposed to cover all purchases of energy on Metro's contiguous right-of-way. What the contract, in fact, states, is that the RT schedule will cover the provisiÓn of energy Pat primary voltage on contiguous authority right-of-way" and that `delivery at secondary voltage" will be billed under the utility's generally applicable rate schedules. As thus worded, it appears that deliveries of energy at secondary voltage but on the contiguous right-of-way will not be covered by the RT schedule. If this is what is intended, then serious substantive questions are raised. If this is not what is intended, the language should obviously be changed. 3. ~~g~ptance Procedure. The agreement (Section III.A.4) provides that "upon acceptance" by Metro of Pepco's estimates, the utility will proceed with the work on the project. To avoid future disputes, the contract should provide that the "acceptance" must be in writing and by a designated official of Metro. Moreover, there is ~io provision in the agreement to deal with the problems which will arise if Metro considers the proposal unacceptable. A provision should be added calling for a re-estimatioa:~ proceeding or for negotiations of the difference between Pepco and Metro *in such. case. In making this observation, we assume that Metro has either consultants or in-house capacity to decide whether a particular proposal by Pepco is or is *not reasonable. PAGENO="0391" 1073 -13- 4. Examination of Records. The provision (Section IV.B.) granting Metro the right to audit sub- contracts is defective. As the last sentence of the clause is worded, contracts of less than $100,000 or contracts awarded competitively are immune from Meo audit. Thus, two types of~subcontracts have been excluded from audit. 6/ We suspect that what was intended was not to exclude two types of contracts, but, rather, to exclude contracts which meet both conditions in that they are Ci) for less than $100,000 and (ii) awarded through competitive bidding. If we understand the intention of the contract correctly, the language must be changed. If the present language is not changed, then the provision is hollow: Pepco can avoid the entire audit process by the simple expedient of performing all Metro construction work through contractors, all of whom have been retained as th~ result of competitive bidding. D. Other Matters Our review has been limited to considerations of rate and general contract. There are other questions which may arise as to which we do not have sufficient information to reach any conclusions. These would include the following: S 1. What are Metro's obligations with respect to the contract in the event that the Transit Authority is dissolved and its responsibilities transferred to other organizations or organization? 2. What are Metro's obligations with respect * to thecontract in the event that a decision is made by the Board to complete less than all of the presently scheduled system or to defer construction of significant portions? Specifically, consideration ought to be given * to the consequbences `of the agreement if there is a delay in the extension of the system out of the District of Columbia and into Virginia and/or Maryland. 6/ On a substantive level, we are at a loss to ur~derstand ~hy contracts Mwarded competitively are immune from audit. PAGENO="0392" 1074 -14- E. - Conclusions For the foregoing reasons, we believe that there are a number of matters which, at the very least, should be clarified and ideolly resolved before the agreement is approved by the Metro Board. We understand that some satisfactory arrangement must be reached between Metroand Pepco with respect to the $2 million balance presently due to Pepco and with respect to additional construction which is scheduled in the immediate future. It seems to us, however., that this matter can be resolved through interim arrangements -- for example, continuation of the existing letter of intent -- until a proper and satisfactory agreement has been drafted. PAGENO="0393" 1075 / STAJECT; PROPOSED METRO/PEPCO CONTRACT We wish to present our detailed reasons for concluding that the proposed contract *bet~een METRO and PEPCO should not be signed. Appended to this summary is a mocp detailed analysis of the contract and adoLr~istrative 1nfirm1t~es created by the prcposed contractual relationship. 1. The proposed contract commits METRO to otain all its energy requirements from PEPCO for a period of thirty years, but places PEPCO under no compar- able obligation to furnish servIce during the period, excuses PEPCO f~on liability for delayed performance or non-nerformance, and permits PEPCO to change, alter or modify practically any tern or condition of the contract merely by filing tariff revisions with District, Maryland and Vir~ginia re- gulatory authorities * (a) Although energy. charses and rates are central to the contract, PEPCO * has furnished no Indication bf what this cost will be. The contraat * provides only that PEPCO will file a rate or rates with the regul~-~ tory commissions. There is no assurance that these rates will be uni- form or uniformly treated among the respective jurisdictions. PEPCO was toprovida METRO with a cost of service study showing how costsand * rates for METRO electric service will be determined, but to data the study has not been completed. If it ~s submitted after the contract - ~s s5gneci, METRO will hovo littlo or no negotiatinc~ latitude, and will have to argue through numerouc rate cases about any disagreements it may find in coat and pricing methodologies used by PEPCO. (b) Current information indicates that METRO has not considered alternative - ways of setting rates by contract or otherwise, and has not explored alternative sources of energy through wholesale purchases or other. means. . . (a) It does not appear that METRO has explored meang of insulating itself from treatment like that of any other aiectric consumer who must bear the burden of rising energy costs based on inflated capital expansion of PEPCO's entire e1ectr~c plant without regard to METRO's requirements. * 2. METRO Contributions-in-Aid~ofCOnStrUCti0n - The proposed contract commits }~TRO to pay, in the form of contributions-in-aid-of-costruction, the casl- - tel cost of electric transmission and distributIon facilities (i.e., service connections), based on the difference between the coat PEPCO would normally incur for auch facilities and the cost PEPCO will incur for the facilities as constructed to METRO's unique specifications. This difference, or ao-. called added cost, is what METRO pays. (a) The estimation of the difference, or added cost, is entirely controlled * by PEPCO and no adequate audIting procedureg or controls are established under the proposed contract to pr~event PEPCO from exaggerating its share * of the investment for the purpose of inflating its rate base and there- by increasing METRO charges for electricity. * PAGENO="0394" 1076 -2- (b) PEPCO can understate its estimated construction costs to increase METRO's capital contributions, or can re-estimate costs during con- atruction to obtain METRO contributions in excess of total construc- tion costs. (c) METRO does not aensar to have any clear idea of the total coht of con- struction for METRO service ~onnection facilities. ~1orcovor, sinc~ PEPCO is not requirdd, by contract or otherwise, to kaep separate capi- tal accounts for METRO contributions, these METRO oaynents may be de- ducted from PEPCO's entire rate base and nay have minimal or no effect in terms of reduced rates to METRO. (d) It does not appear that METRO has considered the financial advantages, if any, of requiring METRO to establish a mimi-rate base exclusive1~y for the benefit of METRO, treating METRO as a separate and distinct * class of customer, and off-setting METRO's capital contributions against a METRO rate base for the purpose of obtaining lower rates than night otherwise result from PEPCO's current intention to credit METRO contr~~ butions against its entire capital investment in electric plant used for all customers. -~ * (a) There is no information indicating that MET~O has cogsidered the over- * all beneficisl effects, if any, of substantially lower long-term alec- - trlc ratca if METRO waco to pay all of thc capital ccat'of acrvica.: connection facilities rather than sharing the coat with PEPCO. Und~r - the federal matching program, 80% of the cost~would be absorbed by the federal government, and the balance, as amortizedthrough revenue and general obligation bonds, might result in substantially lower operating * : costs compared to PEPCO's higher cost of capital based on debt and equity requirements which are guaranteed after the addition of hypo-. thetical federal income taxes.*/ There is reason to believe this method ~f financing might achieve as much as 12 to 14 percent lower annual operating costs for energy related servIce compared to the cost of sharing contributions wIth PEPCO. - - Conclusions-* -- -* - - I. At present approximately $2 million is owed to PEPCO for servIce connection construction. Because of ~1ETRO Board restrIctions, this service has beeir- *1 The District Public Service Commission permits PEPCO to calculate its return or profit on the basis of a 47% federal income tax rate even though, for federal income tax purposes, PEPCO uses accelerated depreciation and only pays a federal Incohe tax rate of nhout 14% on adjusted revenues. This practice substantially Increases the cost of electricity, and gives PEPCO substantially greater reYenue than it appears to earn under its authorized rate of return. PAGENO="0395" 1077 -3- withheld pending final execution of a contract with PEPCO. It now ar)Deare that the obligation is immediately due whether or not the contract is signed; and that because of the contract problems, the Board's restric- tion on payment should be removed. 2. It appears that the risks involved in signing the proposed contract, with advance knowledge of its legal infirmities, lack of cost infornation, absence of cost, accounting and auditing controls, and the apparent failures to ex- plore alternatives, outweigh the need to sign the contract in order to li- quidate past due obligations to PEPCO --~ particularly since the obligation to PEPCO is extraneous to the contract and can be met without inpedinent to continuing construction regardless of whether the contract is signed. - 3, For the above reasons, the proposed contract with PEPCO should not be signed. Action ehould be deferred pending the receipt of more information and the promised, but past due, submission of PEPCO's cost study. When all information is received, it can then be determined what further negotia- tions will be required PAGENO="0396" 1078 ATTACHMENT ~t- October 20, 1975 WHATA STAFF RESPONSE TO D. C. DOT CONSULTANTS COMMENTS ON PEPCO-WMATA PROPOSED AGREEMENT - The District of Columbia Department of Transportation consultantts, Cohn and Marks, memorandum to Douglas Schneider and John E. Hartley dated September 24, 1975, Subject: PEPCO-WMATA Agreement, and a summary of the memorandum has been analyzed by the WHATA staff. Response to the comments, findings, conclusion and recommendation follow in the same sequence as in the memorandum. . Paragraph A. History of Negotiations and Summary of Agreement The history of negotiations and summary of agreement as. stated in Paragraphs A.l., A.2.(a) - A.2.(h) is substantially correct. Paragraphs B.l.(a), (b) RT Schedule The Cost of Service Study. has been prepared and sizbmitted to WMATA. The RT Rate Schedule has also been prepared and submitted to WMATA. The dollar values indicated therein are illustrative onfy as PEPCO has a pending rate increase petition before the D. C. Public Service Commission. The actual values cannot be determined until the D. C. Commission rules on that petition. Paragraph B.2 PEPCO has prepared Cost of Service Summaries which are to be used in preparing WMATAs RT Rate Schedule. The summaries range from a rate of return of 5.85~ through l0.5?~. The proposed agreement ~s designed with the basic provision for continuation of construction and raking provisions for a Cost of Service Study and subsequent rate development. Thk was so that construction would continue without getting construction tied down or halted while the rate development proceeded. . The WI~TA staff agrees that the RT Schedule must be submitted to the Public Service Commission in each jurisdiction and that if the RT Sche- dule is unacceptable in design or levels, the Authority is free to contest implementation of the rates before the Public Service Commission. Paragraph B.3.(a) The Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction Since WMATA is not a federal gency, there was no legal requirement that the contract contain an examination of records type provisions or any PAGENO="0397" 1079 other type of clause granting WHATA a contract right to audit PEPCO's cost records. However, the company did agree to a federal examination of records provision, substantially similar to that used by the Federal Government, pro- vided that the clause contain the phrase, "for the sole purpose of validating estimated or actual cost.. .related to estimated and actual cost contributions- in-aid-of-construction". It was understood that the only restriction being imposed on the Authority's auditors was that they would not be able to examine any of the company's records not directly pertinent to contributions-in-aid- of-construction. In the event of any disagreement as to the pertinence of records, the Authority does have recourse to the Public Service Commission. Maintenance of books and accounting procedures followed by PEPCO are those prescribed by the Federal Power Commissions and state regulatory commissions under the Uniform System of Account principle. Any deviation from such procedures would require approval of the Federal Power Commission and the appropriate state regulatory commissions; Since PEPCO is now adhering to the established accounting procedures as prescribed for the fore- going regulatory bodies, it is not necessary to approach these bodies to request that PEPCO be required to establish separate books when the proposed agreethent provides that we shall have access to all pertinent records pertaining to WHATA's cost of contributions-in-aid-of-construction, Cost of Service Study and WMATA rate deviation, in any event, PEPCO is required by commission regula- tions to maintain records which will permit the Authority to audit all expendi- tures in connection with the contributions-in-aid-of-construction. Paragraph B.3.(b) A response to this particular subparagraph is difficult because the statement is made that there is "considerable controversy" concerning the allocation of overhead and other indi.rect costs. WHATA is not aware of any controversy concerning such allocations with respect to contributions-in-aid- of-construction. However, if the concern is in connection with the control of the cost estimates submitted by PEPCO, the proposed agreement provides under ARTICLE III for complete review prior to acceptance by WMATA. The staff considers that these are adequate controls concerning the submission of estimates by PEPCO for contributions-in-aid-of-construction. - Footnote 3 With respect to WHATA ownership of the facilities installed by PEPCO, under the contributions-in-aid-of-construction, it was determined that retention of ownership would not be advantageous to WHATA because of the fact that retention of ownership would require (1) that WHATA establish and main- tain a staff to operate and maintain the facilities, (2) WMATA would have to establish a procedure for coordinating the operation of the facilities with PEPCO, and (3) WHATA would be responsible for the replacement of facilities. Paragraph B.3.(c) Cd) The contributions-in-aid-of-construction as made by WMATA are deductedfor rate making purposes from PEPtO's rate base. PEPCO cannot earn -2- PAGENO="0398" 1080 any profit on the amount contributed by WMATA. There is no advantage to PEPCO to inflate the construction cost as they would not benefit from such inflation. The estimates as submitted by PEPCO will undergo review by WMATA prior to acceptance. The provision for PEPCO to re-estimate by utility project any estimated cost of contribution-in-aid-of-construction or part thereof was mutually acceptable with the knowledge of the fact that the Authority's projects have suffered extensive delays and that inflationary pressures have increased all of WHATA's costs. It was assumad that the inflationary pressures would also increase the cost of the facilities to be provided by PEPCO. It was in recognition of this possibility that WMATA agreed to the re-estimating procedure. All re-estimates are subject to acceptance by WHATA and are not binding on WHALA until so accepted. In any event, a penalty type provision as suggested by the 0. C. consultant, to force PEPCO to submit accurate estimates, is legally unenforceable. Paragraph B.4.(a) Force Hajeure Under Article II, Rates and Service, Paragraph A provides that "Utility shall sell to Authority and Authority shall purchase from Utility pursuant to Rapid Transit Rate Schedule (RT)all electricity used by Authority in Utility's service area...". Furthermore, the Utility is obligated by Corcrnission regula- tions to provide service to all applicants in its service ares in accordance with the "General Terms and Conditions for Furnishing Electric Service" end the various rate schedules currently in effect. The Utility is obligated to provide continuous service within prescribed voltage ranges in accordance with the terms of the contract. Normally, the only deviation permitted by Cormsission- regulations is when interruptions in service or reduction in voltage occur beyond the control of the Utility. The Utility is required to rectify such conditions as rapidly as possible. Paragraph B.1.(b) The Utility would not construct the facilities required by the Authority if they were to be accountable to the Authority for any inability to obtain labor, materials or manufacturing facilities from its usual sources. It is considered that the operative language in the Force Majeure clause which would control those conditions under which the Utility would not be liable for failure to perform are the words "beyond its reasonable control". Paragraph B.5 Term The term of the proposed agreement is 30 years. The 0. C. consultant suggestion that a ten-year term be applicable so that at that tirms WiIATA would be free to procure electric service from another utility or generate its own electricity is not practical. There is no other private utility corrpany in the franchised area served by PEPCO. For WMATA to provide its own generating plant and distribution system would cost W?-tATA an estimated one-half billion dollars. The WHATA staff considers it advantageous to coc~mit PEPCO to a long- term (30 year) contract which is consistent with the expected life of \4HATA's equipmant designed to be compatible with PEPCO's. -3- - PAGENO="0399" 1081 Further, a 30-year term commits PEPCO to operate, maintain and replace the facilities installed by PEPCO under the contributions-in-aidofconStruction provisions without a specific charge to WMATA over the life of the contract (such charge usually ranges from 8~ to l2~ per annum of the amount of the customer's contribution-in-aid-of-construction for the duration of the electric service requirement of the customer). Also, a 30-year term retains WMATA as a Rapid Transit Class of customer with a specific RT rate. Alternate methods of WMATA procuring required electric service were reviewed and evaluated over 3 years ago. At that time, it was deemed impracticable for WMATA to install its own generating plant, transmission facilities, transforma- tion facilities and feeders required for service to WMATA. ThIs was predicated in part on the capital cost estimated to be in the order of one-half billion dollars and the fact that WMATA's right-of-way acquisition and rapid rail system engineering did not include any provision whatsoever for the right-of-way and the facilities that would be required for WMATA to provide for its own electric service. Further, it was estimated that the cost of the operation, maintenance and replacemant of WMATA's facilities would be substantially greater than the cost for similar service from PEPCO. The possibility of securing power from and/or Baltimore Gas and Electric, and the Virginia Electric and Power Company was reviewed and deemed impracticable due to franchise limitations since it would be necessary for the Utility to provide substantial new transmission and transformation facilities, and further because it is impossible for WMATA to install the required high voltage transmission and transformation facilities. Paragraph B.6 Termination WMATA as a customer has the right to submit complaints to the appro- priate commissions. PEPCO provides service to its customers only under the General Terms and Conditions and rate schedules on file with the appropriate commission. WMATA and PEPCO will use their best efforts to reach an agreement on the RI Schedule prior to any filing of the schedule with the appropriate commissions. If the parties cannot agree on the terms of the RI Schedule, the matter will be referred to the appropriate commission for resolution. Neither WtIATA nor PEPCO can by contract abrogate the regulatory authority of the commissiOn. Paragraph C. Matter of Contract Drafting Paragraph C.l Definitions Since it is clearly the understanding of the parties that thm "Actual cost of Contributions-in-aid-of-Construction" as defined in Section IN will not contain any element of profit to PEPCO, it is superfluous to include this definition in IE and 1G. -k- PAGENO="0400" 1082 Paragraph C.2. RI Coverage Delivery of electric service by the Utility to the Authority under the RI schedule will be provided at primary voltage (13Kv). Secondary voltage (2L~o/48o) will be provided at applicable secondary rate schedules. Paragraph C.3. Acceptance Procedure PEPCO and WMAIA will designate officials to implement the acceptance procedures by the Authority and to deal with day to day operations. Paragraph C.4. Examination of Records In recognition of the fact that the Authority is not a federal agency and thus cannot rely upon federal statutes or regulations governing the examina- tion of records of private organizations, PEPCO could not be required to include in the contract any clause pertaining to examination of its records. However, in recognition of the fact that substantial surre of rrmney would be transferred to PEPCO for construction of WNATA facilities, PEPCO agreed to virtually all of the provisions contained in the standard federal clause pertaining to the examination of records. Also, PEPCO would not accept an examination of records provision unless subcontracts awarded competitively or were less than $100,000 were excluded. Ihis procedure is in complete consonance with the Federal Pro- curemant Regulations. Paragraph D. Other Matters 0.1 - WiiATA's staff is not aware that WMATA may be dissolved and its respon- sibilities transferred to other organizations. The parties did not negotiate the proposed agreerrent with such an eventuality in mind. 11.2 WMAIA is only obligated to reirthurse PEPCO to the extent that-it authorizes PEPCO to construct utility projects. In the event the system is not constructed as designed or significant delays in construction occur, Wi~AIA would only be obligated to reimburse PEPCO for that portion of previously authorized projects that have been completed, in ~tiole or in part, by PEPCO at the time WMAIA stops further work. - -5- PAGENO="0401" 1083 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY ACTION NO. 2: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL- OF AWARD 6z318B Contractor: Potomac Electric Power Company Contract Number: ___________________ Address: 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 Project Name: Utility Reimbursement for Phases II and ha WMATA Facilities Significant Revision, if any, to Procurement Action as described on reverse Side: No Form 1 previously submitted. The Authority requests authorization to reimburse PEPCO for actual expenditures through October 31, 1975 for new Electric Installation for Phase II and ha. This reimbursement will be subject to provisions of the new Electric Service Agreement upon its execution by the Authority. Upon execution of the Agreement, additional funds will be requested for the total cost of constructing electric service for Phase II and la. The WMATA facilities are: Passenger Stations - Potomac Avenue, Eastern Market, Capitol South, Federal Center, LEnfant Plaza, Smithsonian, Federal Triangle, McPherson Square, Farragut West, ~Foggy Bottom, Rosslyn, Arlington Cemetery, Pentagon, Stadium~Armory, Ft. Totten, Takoma,Metro Ctr Brookiand, Silver Spring. Traction Power Substations - Shirley Highway, Washington Blvd., Rosslyn, Potomac, Farragut West, Metro Center, Smithsoqian, Federal Center, Seward Square, Potomac Avenue, Brookland, New Hampshire, Takoma, Silver Spring. Chiller Plants - Farragut West, Rosslyn, Pentagon, L'Enfant Plaza, Federal Center; Potomac Avenue, Stadium-Armory Cost $ 11,000,000 - - - Contingency $________________________ - Total Estimated Cost. 5__11,000,000 - Signature: Roy T. Dodge ~ (9~._T Il ,q7ź=- Title: Contracting Officer Complies With Applicable 13" Approved - - Funds Av iloble ~ CornvtroHrr / ~. / j///~4 Statutes And Regulaticne ~ Gener~t Cou~set / Date 7 T-z~ i~ 7 ~ 0 Not Apprsi4~ ~ ,,/` Gao~~i,d4, / ~ie ~2O, /9Z~ Action Approved by Board of Directors at its regular meeting on - S,cretary to 18, Board 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 26 PAGENO="0402" WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSiT AUTHORITY 600 Fifth Street. NW.. Washinqtcn. 2G07)i 202) 637-1234 AGENDA ~U+9th Meeting of Board of Directors August 21, 1975 1084 9:30 A. N. i~~? EVECACD CJNSEY WAITEC S WASHINGTON CLISUSE HARNETT CT.SRESi~ SEATIEY.JR AMES S OATES A 5~Q5~ JR CARSTOS S SZCKLES NOSMAN.. U-IRISTELLER SC-IU;.ES OWE JOiN S CENNEOY metro 1(A). Approval of Minutes of August 1~, 1975 Chairmen 11(8). Report by Chairman Mr. Alexander 11(c). Report by General Manager Mr. Graham IV(D). Report by NVTC, D. C., and WSTC Mr. Munsey Mr. Tucker Mr. White V(E). Amendment of Fiscal 1976 Operation Budgets . . . Mr. Barnett Mr. Munsey Rev. Moore VI. Discussion of Fiscal 1977 Budgets Mr. Boleyn VII. Authority to Enter into Service Agreement with Potomac Electric Power Company for Provision of Electrical Energy for Metrorail (MA-043) . . . Mr. Garrett Mr. Pinkney Mr. Trott VIII. Board Consideration of Staff Report and Recorrmendations on Proposed Metrobus Route Changes to Interface with Phase I of Mstrorail Operations, Docket B75-5 Mr. Russell 1X(F). Board Consideration of Public Mearings on Portion of Proposed Glerirnont Route on April 1~t & 15, 1975, from Vicinity of B&O Railroad to Parker Avenue including the Forest Glen and Wheaton Stations Mr. Platt X(G). Authority to Initiate Procurement Action for Design of Metro Section 8-9, Forest Glen Station (360091) Mr. Dodge Xi(H). Authority to Initiate Procurement Action for Design of Metro Section 6-10, Wheaton Station (360101) Mr. Dodge (OVER~ PAGENO="0403" 1085 AGENDA Page 2 August 21,1975 Xli. Authority to Modify General Soils Consultant Contract 3Z752M-OOl to Provide for Subsurface investigation in Support of General Plans for the Branch Route Mr. Dodge xiii(J). Authority to Award Contract for Procurement of Tamper-Liner for Metrorail Track & Way Maintenance (7XkOOl) Mr. Wood XIV(K). CONSENT CALENDAR: (A). Authority to Award Annual Requirement Contract for Brake Blocks for Metrobus Fleet (M-28036) Mr. Wood PAGENO="0404" Rod DEeoto~s JOSEPH ALEXANDER Di rectors Vogicia STERLING TUCKER Mr. Joseph Alexander DistEctoICoIo~cbia Mr. Francis W. White 1:09 Pa::~'oaa Mr. Everard Munsey FRANCIS P1. WHITE Maylacd Mr. Cleatus E. Barnett Secocd Vice Chaccocn E V ER APD MU NS EY V/ALTER E WASHINGTON DioNict of Colotobia CLEATLISE BARNETT Mr. Jackson Graham Mocylacd Mr. William A. Boleyn A 0 Mr. Delmer Ison RUFUS PHILLIPS Mr. John R. Kennedy CHARLESE.BEATLEY.JR. Mr. Roy T.Dodge V:aln:a Mr. Ralph L. Wood JAMES E. COATES Mr. Wi 11 iam Herman ~ Mr. Pete E. Brown Mr. John Warrington CARLTON P. SICKLES ORMAS L. CHRISTELLER Mrs. Pat Ses t I to /a:,ocd Mr. Howard Lyon Mrs. Marilyn McGinty Offiocts Mr. Mathew Platt JACKSON GRAHAM Mr. Robert Sloan Geleral Macager Mr. Cody Pfanstiehl WARREN OiJSNSTEDT DepofVGecc:alM00059r Mr. Joseph Muldoon WILLIAM A. BOLEYN Mr. Stanley Underwood Execut'c Olboer Ms. Kathe Truschke acdCc'ccVcller Mr. Vernon Garrett DELt/ERISON Sccrcfa'y-Treaoorer Mr. Angus MacLean JOHN R.KSNNEDY Mr. Alvin Williamson Gccora Cooooel Mr. Joseph Garbacz ROYT DODGE Mr. Paul Willis Coefo'Oeogo cod C3I'Iir,Ction Mr. Ri cha rd S las RALPHL 1/ODD Mr. David Gaul C:;efofOp~'afoco Mr. J. Godfrey Butler Mr. Charles Dowdy Mr. Shiva Pant Mr. Edward Daniel Ms. Judy Valentine Mr. Harold Kassoff Mr. Irving McNayr Mrs. Gloria Fischer Mr. Cohn Alter Mr. *Lewis Jones Mr. Jack Eisen Mr. John A. Drayson (202) 637-1234 MINUTES Staff Alternate Directors Mr. Rufus Phillips Mr. Carlton R. Sickles Mr. Charles E. Beatley, Jr. Rev. Jerry A. Moore, Jr. Mr. Norman L. Christeller Mr. John Brick Ms. Antoinette Martin Mr. Richard Dawson Mr. Curtis Siegel Mr. Eckhard Bennewitz Mr. Leonard White Mr. Donald Stayer Mr. Melvin Siegel Mr. Fritz Becker Mr. Robert Barringer Mr. Herbert Leonard Mr. George Care Mr. Ray Russell Mr. Philip Price Mr. Michael Bresnahan Mr. William Alldredge Mr. Donald OHearn Mr. A. E. Savage Mr. John Robertie Mr. Sprague Thresher Mr. Thomas OHagan Mr. Ellis Penman Mr. Paul Myatt Mr. Allen Long Mr. Richard Lawson Mr. Emanuel Mevorah Mrs. Betty Weber Miss Dee Allison Mr. N. K. Hook, Jr. Mr. Wayne McDaniel Mr. Kevin Kennedy Mrs. Eileen Stephens Mr. Anthony Rachal Mr. Jack Meyer Ms. Marlee Inrnan Mr. Thomas Crosby 1086 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, D. C. 20001 ~49th Meeting of Board of Directors August 21, 1975 The meeting was called to order at 9:37 a.m. Present were: metro Others PAGENO="0405" 1087 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of August 1~i, 1975, Were approved as submitted. REPORT BY GENERAL MANAGER: Mr. Graham called the Board's attention to the August, 1975, issue of furnished copies of Metro Memo, directing special attention to the countdown on page 8.. He pointed out that the number of miles of Metro under final design is downm.ibstantially from last year due to the requirement for environmental impact studies. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Kennedy Who referred the Board to furnished copies of Judge Richey's memorandum opinion with respect to the location of Farragut North Station elevator for the handicapped. Mr. Kennedy summarized the opinion and noted that the Court had directed that another public hearing be held. He stated that the Board would be requested to approve a hearing date next week. AMENDMENT OF FISCAL 1976 OPERATION BUDGETS: Pursuant to request by Mr. Barnett, this item was deferred for one week. DISCUSSION OF FISCAL 1977 BUDGETS: Mr. Boleyn summarized the General Manager's Budget Estimates for FY 1977, which document had been placed in the hands of the Board members and jurisdictional staffs on August 15. A press briefing on the budget was held on August 19. He pointed out that this is a working copy only and that a bound copy will be furnished after the Board has adopted the Budget. Mr. Alexander expressed pleasure at having a working copy of the FY 1977 budget ready this early and pointed out that it would give all concerned adequate time to review the figures and make recommendations before final action is taken. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY FOR PRDVISION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR METRORAIL (MA-043): Mr. Moore stated that the District of Columbia was still not satisfied with the proposed agreement. He stated that D. C. would like to see all documents that will become a part of the agreement and that these documents will not be available until the latter part of September. After considerable discussion, it was agreed that this item would be deferred until late in September. -2- PAGENO="0406" 1088 BOARD CONSIDERATION OF STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED METROBUS ROUTE CHANGES TO INTERFACE WITH PHASE I OF METRORAIL OPERATIONS, DOCKET B75-5: Mr. Moore stated that the two problems the District of Columbia had with this item still had not been resolved to the satisfaction of the District of Columbia, namely the circulation of buses on the approach to the Rhode Island Station and the question of who would be responsible for the cost of installing a signal light on Rhode Island. Mr. Moore requested that the item be deferred until the problems could be resolved. Mr. Alexander, after lengthy discussion among the Board members, stated that the item would be deferred two weeks. BOARD CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PORTION OF PROPOSED GLENMONT ROUTE ON APRIL i~+ & 15, 1975, FROM VICINITY OF B&O RAILROAD TO PARKER AVENUE INCLUDING THE FOREST GLEN AND WHEATON STATIONS: Mr. Platt referred the Board to the staff report on the subject public hearing, which report was furnished the Board on August 8. Copies of the report were also sent to all witnesses at the two public hearings and to persons who submitted written statements for the record. These people were asked to transmit any additional comments on or before August 21. Mr. Christeller reported that the Montgomery County Council had been meeting with interested parties to discuss the possible alternatives and to come up with a recommendation for the Board. These meetings have not yet been completed; therefore, Mr. Christeller requested that this item be deferred until such time as the meetings are concluded and Montgomery County Council can present appropriate resolutions covering their recommendations. AUTHORITY TO INITIATE PROCUREMENT ACTION FOR DESIGN OF METRO SECTION B-9, FOREST GLEN STATiON (3BO091): This item was deferred pursuant to staff request. - AUTHORITY TO iNITIATE PROCUREMENT ACTION FOR DESIGN OF METRO SECTION B-b, WHEATON STATION (3BO1O1): This item was deferred pursuant to staff request. AUTHORITY TO MODIFY GENERAL SOILS CONSULTANT CONTRACT 3Z725M-OOl TO PROVIDE FOR SUBSURFACE INVEST1GATION IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL PLANS FOR THE BRANCH ROUTE: Mr. Dodge referred the Board to furnished copies of Procurement Action No. 2, Contract No.3Z725M-OO1 to modify the contract with Mueser, Rutledge, Wentworth &Johnston' for 89 borings along the Suitland Park~;ay Median and Alternate "B alignments of the Branch (F) Route. -3- PAGENO="0407" 1089 Upon motion by Mr. Barnett, seconded by Mr. White and unanimously passed, Action No. 2 was approved. Ayes: 5 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett, and Mr. Moore. AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR PROCUREMENT OF TAMPER-LINER FOR METRORAIL TRACK & WAY MAINTENANCE (7X~~OOl): Mr. Wood referred the Board to furnished copies of Procurement Action No. 2, Contract No.7X1+OO1 and related attachments, for the procurement of tamper-liner for Metrorail track and way maintenance from Plasser American Corp. Upon motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Munsey and unanimously passed, Action No. 2 was approved. Ayes: 5 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett, and Mr. Moore. CONSENT CALENDAR: By consensus of the Board the following item was approved: (A). Authority to Award Annual Requirement Contract for Brake Blocks for Metrobus Fleet (M-28O36). In response to a question from Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wood reported on progress for the receipt of Metro cars from Rohr. He said that under the schedule the Authority should receive six cars in August but has received only two to date. Mr. Wood stated that the complete operational readiness report would be made to the Board on September 4. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 A. M. ~ Delmer son, Secretary -14- PAGENO="0408" metro * . . . Chairman * . * . Mr. Alexander * . * . Mr. Graham * . . . Mr. Munsey Mr. Tucker Mr. Uhite V(E). Bimonthly Report of Director of Engineering Hr. Garrett VI. Authorization to Acquire and Operate Shirley Highway Bus Project Facilities Mr. Robertie Mr. Herman VII. Authority to Award Contract for Renovation of Metrobus Garage Facility, Southeastern Division (1Y3080) Mr. Dodge VIII(F). Authority to Enter Into Service Agreement with Potomac Electric Power Company for Provision of Electrical Energy for Metrorail (MA-OL~3) Mr. Garrett Mr. Pinkney Mr. Trott 1>1(G). Board Consideration of Staff Report and Recommendations on Proposed Metrobus Route Changes to Interface with Phase I of Metrorail Operations, Docket B75:5 . . . Hr. Russell 1090 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANS(T AUTHORITY 600 Fifth 3Iie~I. N W We~;hinq Ion, Li 0 `0001 (20262.' `231 A G E II 0 A 1i1i8th Meeting of Board of Directors August iL, 1975 9:30 AM. 1(A). 11(B). 111(C) IV(D). ,JRMEO C COATLS- JI.riIiv A MOORE. .111 A Approval of Minutes of August 7, 1975 Report by Chairman Report by General Manager Report by NVTC, D.C. and WSTC * . PAGENO="0409" ~,v~Ths LM metro Di rectors Mr. Joseph Alexander Mr. Francis W. White Mr. Jackson Graham Mr. Warren Quenstedt Mr. William A. Boleyn Mr. Delmer son Mr. John R. Kennedy Mr. Roy 1. Dodge Mr. Ralph L. Wood Mr. William Herman Mr. Robert McEvily Mr. Pete E. Brown Mr. Nicholas Roll Mr. John Warrington Mrs. Pat Sestito Mr. Howard Lyon Mrs. Marilyn McGinty Mr. Mathew Platt Mr. Robert Sloan Mr. Cody Pfanstiehl Mr. Joseph Muldoon Mr. Charles Mills Mr. Stanley Underwood Mr. Lee M. Rhoads Mr. Irving McNayr Mrs. Gloria Fischer Miss Dee Allison Mr. N. K. Hook, Jr. Mr. Wayne McDaniel Mr. David Cummings Alternate Directors Mr. Rufus Phillips Mr. Canton R. Sickles Mr. Charles E. Beatley, Jr. Rev. Jerry A. Moore, Jr. Mr. Norman L. Christeller Mr. Russell Rushton Mr. Paul Perritt Mr. Ray Russell Ms. Mary Gibson Mr. Philip Price Mr. Michael Bresnahon Mr. C. Richard Raville Mr. William Alldredge Mr. Donald O'Hearn Mr. Gerald Gough Mr. A. E. Savage Mr. John Robertie Mr. George Keyes Mr. Sprague Thresher Mr. Ellis S. Penman Mr. Paul Willis Mr. Richard Silas Mr. David Gaul Mr. Paul Myatt Mr. Allen Long Mr. Richard Lawson Mrs. Chris Simerman Mr. Henry Hulme Mrs. Eileen Stephens Mr. Jerome Alper Mr. Anthony Rachal Mr. Jack Meyer Mr. Henry Satinskas Mr. Jack Eisen Mr. Ralph Begleiter 1091 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA T AU HCR!TY 600 Fifth Street, N W W ~!nn~r I (:`0~i t,IiÝ' ~ MINUTES 1448th Meeting of Board of Directors August ltt, 1975 The meeting was called to order at 9:1i1 A.M. Present were: I'll Al XAN 13FF! I HI INC TIILK[Ii D!1C~cC ~C 1CIACCCb~1C CIIANiIS A' WIIITF 1Vi:11A11[) MUNSFY WA! 1FF! F WASHINGTON DNCCUC `f CCCI(CCCCbYI LI IAIIJS I IC,\I1NI Cr IA!!!! I! lILAC LIC. III CAf~1I. :1 F COA CC I! .1! lii', A f1O('RL. `Ii! 15CC,!:! `f CAIIL ION R YAWl F S NOFIMAN I CHRIS C! I F! R M,,, `i!,i,d IACKION GFCAIIAM WA!!!!! N IJIIFNSTCIOT WILLIAM A BOLEYN F orI,f,A' OCf'ce, I)LLMECI ISON S.CU1(Cfl),y-F,,~,,,,,,,., JOHN R El NUt-os `COY C C) 110131 Ch,& AC LiI'IqCC 1!,! C',~ CCC CYClIC, 11511'!! 1 WOI1O F:!!, C C Op., Cl `Cl I Staff Dthers PAGENO="0410" 1092 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of August 7, 1975, were approved as submitted. REPORT BY GENERAL MANAGER: Mr. Graham introduced former Board member and present Fal.ls Church Vice Mayor, Lee H. Rhoads, In connection with the showing of a film on the history of mass transit produced by his son, Lee Rhoads. Mr. Graham called on John Warrington, who referred the Board to furnished copies of a flyer "The Metro TTY" describing a system just installed for informing deaf citizens in the metropolitan area of Metrobus and Metrorail information by means of teletyped questions and answers. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Boleyn who reported that the Fiscal Year 1977 Budget would be furnished the Board in advance of the next Board meeti ng. REPORT BY NVTC, D. C., AND WSTC: Mr. Phillips reported that the NVTC Chairman was in the process of appointing a committee to work on the transfer of Virginia Interstate Highway 66 funds to Metro construction. Mr. Moore referred to a newspaper article which quoted the General Manager as stating that the pending D. C. application to transfer inter- state highway funds to the Authority probably delayed a long-term solution to the Authority's financial problems. Mr. Moore stated that the District of Columbia was acting in good faith in offering to transfer to Metro *the interstate highway funds and strongly challenged the remarks of Mr. Graham in connection therewith. He noted that Mr. Graham was doing an excellent job as an engineer in building the system. Mr. Moore stated that his remarks represented his o.-in views and that he was not speaking for any other person. Mr. Alexander opened discussion' concerning the Federal commitment to provide the major portion of the financing required to complete the 98 mile system. He stated that Metro was seeking federal contributions under the same formula by which systems in other cities are being funded; that the federal government Is contributing 8O~ of the funding for these other cities, and therefore should contribute 8O~ of the financing required for Metro. Other Board members supported the Chairman's statement. Mr. *Sickles stated that the adoption of the Compact, which provided for the regional system, depended from the very beginning on substantial federal financial support. -2- PAGENO="0411" 1093 BIMONTHLY REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING: Mr. Garrett referred the Board to furnished copies of Report No. 110 of the Office of Engineering, copy of which has been made a part of the official file. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE AND OPERATE SHIRLEY HIGHWAY BUS PROJECT FACI LITI ES: Mr. Alexander noted that the Resolution proposed on August 7 had been deferred at his request to examine further the long-term require- ments of the Backlick Road Metro property now being utilized as a fringe parking facility for the Shirley Highway Express Bus Project. Mr. Alexander moved adoption of the proposed Resolution by amending the last paragraph to delete the words "until such time as it shall be determined that such property is no longer required for the construction of the regional rail rapid transit system." The motion was seconded by Mr. White with discussion held relative to the costs of WMATA operating the parking facility and the process by which the property would be disposed in the future should it be determined excess property. The staff responded that operational costs would be minimal and that future disposition of the property should it be determined to be excess would be brought to the Board for approval, pursuant to established policy. Mr. White inquired if the bus miles incurred on the Shirley Highway Express service would be included in the cost allocation formula. Mr. Herman responded affirmatively. Mr. Alexander withdrew the amendment and moved adoption of the Resolution in its original form, which motion was seconded by Mr. White and unanimously passed, which Resolution reads as follows: WHEREAS, the Federally-assisted Shirley Highway Bus Project terminated on December 31, 19714; and WHEREAS, there is a demonstrated need for the continuation of such service; and WHEREAS, this Board on June 30, 19714, authorized the acquisition of the 90 buses being used in the Shirley Highway Project; and WHEREAS, it is considered to be in the best interests of the Authority to also acquire title to all other property, including but not limited to the bus maintenance facility, being used in the Shirley Highway Project; and WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Transportation has informed the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission that: -3- PAGENO="0412" 1094 "The existing grant contract can be amended to release NVTC from its obligation to purchase or dispose of project equipment providing the equipment is retained for use in providing transportation service."; and WHEREAS, the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission and WMATA entered into an agreement dated October 2, 1972, under which WMATA leased to NVTC for a five-year period the property located at Backlick Road in Fairfax County for use as a fringe parking facility; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Manager is hereby authorized to take such action and execute all necessary agreements to provide for the transfer to the Authority, at no cost, the 90 buses and other equipment and facilities used in the operation of the Shirley Highway Project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Authority shall, effective as of January 1, 1975, continue to operate the service being rendered to the Shirley Highway corridor as a part of its area- wide Metrobus service; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Authority shall terminate, at no cost to Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, the lease for the real property at Backlick Road in Fairfax County, Virginia; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Authority shall operate effective as of January 1, 1975, at its cost, the fringe parking facilities at Backlick Road in Fairfax County until such time as it shall be determined that such property is no longer required for the construction of the regional rail rapid transit system. Ayes: Ii - Mr. Alexander, Mr. White, Mr. Moore and Mr. Christeller. AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR RENOVATION OF METROBUS GARAGE FACILITY SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION (1Y3O8O): Mr. Dodge reported that action had been deferred on this recommenda- tion pursuant to the District of Columbia's request for more detailed information. Mr. Dodge reviewed the proposed rehabilitation program and scope of work for renovation of the facility. Mr. Moore reported that the District of Columbia had reviewed the proposal and was in agreement and moved approval of Procurement Action No. 2, Contract No. 1Y308O, to award the contract to Thomas E. Shroyer & Company. The motion was seconded by Mr. White and unanimously passed. -Li- PAGENO="0413" 1095 Ayes: 14 - Mr. Alexander, Mr. White, `Mr. Moore, and Mr. Christeller. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY FOR PROVISION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR METRORAIL šMA-o143): Mr. Dodge noted that this item had been deferred on July 31 at the District of Columbia's request and deferred to Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore reported that the District had not resolved two remaining concerns--one relating to a thirty-year commitment and the second concern being advance monies for capital improvements. Mr. Moore requested another week's deferral for resolution. The Board agreed. BOARD CONSIDERATION OF STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED METROBUS ROUTE CHANGES TO INTERFACE WITH PHASE I OF METRORAIL OPERATIONS, DOCKET B75-5: Mr. Russell referred the Board to furnished copies of a proposed covering Resolution to the staff's August 6 recommendation on the June 214 public hearing No. 141 on Proposed Metrobus Route Changes to Interface with Phase I of Metrorail Operations, Docket No. B75-5 for changes in Metrobus Routes 82, 814, 86, 88, E-2, E-14, E-6, G-14, 87, 9, F-5, F-7, F-9, G-5, G-7, G-9, F-i, and F-14, as proposed in the hearing document. Mr. Russell reviewed the changes proposed. Discussion was held wherein Mr. Moore requested that action be deferred one week to allow clearance by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation on the traffic circulation pattern at the Rhode Island Avenue Station. The Board agreed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:37 A. M. Delmer son, Secretar -5- PAGENO="0414" 1096 AGENDA ITEM VII WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTH~RIr1' i;oc; Filth S1rI!~l. N W Wa~hifffJt(~i. U C (202) 631-1234 JUL 2 8 Â975 f C `A'AfOfIi'J O!JENSTr ur SCHU(LER oWE E~w~~'e Off,E. JOHNR RENNEPE G~E Roy I C000f metro MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman and Board of Directors SUBJECT: Proposed Agreement Between WHATA and the Potomac Electric Power Conpariy An Agreement has been negotiated with the Potomac Electric Power Company. The main features of this Agreement are: 1. Potomac Electric Power Company will provide service for each facility by the need dates as defined in the Agreement. 2. PEPCO will own, operate, maintain and replace, as required, facilities installed by PEPCO. 3. The Authority will reimburse PEPCO the cost for installing equipment in excess of that which PEPCO would normally install. 4. A Cost of Service Study will be made by PEPCO and UNATA to determine PEPCO's cost of serving Metrorail. The results of the Cost of Service Study will be used to develop an electric rate for primary electric service. Secondary service furnished will be billed at applicable filed tariffs. 5. The Authority shall have access to PEPCO pertinent docu- ments concerning any bills rendered to the Authority by PEPCO. 6. The Agreement may be amended or modified by mutual agree- ment by the Authority and PEPCO. The term of the Agreecent is thirty years. It is recommended that the Board approve the attached Agreement. Attachment as stated PAGENO="0415" 1097 E~~J1 metro ~L~CTR~C SEP~VllCE ~ BETWEEN WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE POTOMAC ELECTRiC POWER COMPANY LECTR~C SERVICE AGREEMENT :3.MA-043 PAGENO="0416" 1098 AGREEMENT BY Id~D BETWEEN POTOMAC ELECTRTC POIE~ COMPANy AND WASHINGTON METBOPOLITI\N AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this - day of' ___________ 1975 by and between POTOMAC ELECTRIC PONER COMPANY (UtilltyY, a District of' Columbia and Virginia corroration also authorized to do business in the State of Maryland, whose princAoal olace of' business is 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, U. N., Washington, 0. C., and the WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Authority). WITNESS: WHEREAS, Authority is established by Interstate Comnact by and between Maryland, Virginia, and the District of' Columbia, pursuant to Public Law 89-77~4 (Law), an Act to grant the consent of' Congress to the establishment of' an organization empowered to provide transit facilities in the National Capital Region; and WHEREAS, Authority will construct and onerate or cause to be operated the Washington Area Transit System (System) ifl the District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland; Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia; and the cities of' Alexandria, Falls Church and Fairfax, V▒rginia (Zone); and WHEREAS, Utility is an electric public utility, the present exclusive Service Area of' which for the retail sale of' electric energy is the District of' Columbia, major oortions of' Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland and a small segment of Arlington County, Virginia (all as shown by the mao attached hereto as Appendix A and exoressly made a part hereof'); and WHEREAS, Utility is regulated by the Public Service Commissions or the District of' Columbia and Maryland and the State Corporation Commission of Vircinia as to rates and service for the sale of electricity at retail; and WHEREAS, AuthorIty is currently constructing and will operate a rapid transit System to serve the Washington Hetroooli- tan Area (as shown by the map attached hereto as Anoendix B and expressly made a mart hereof'), all or a portion or such Area ly▒nr within Utility's Service Area; and Authority desIres to purchase all electrIcity from Utility to onerate and maintain the ranid transit System within Utility's Service Area; and Utility desires to sell all electricity to Authority for that purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, Utility and Authority exoressly recognIzing the foregoing further state and agree as follows: PAGENO="0417" 1099 I ~ "Authority's System" means the rapid raIl transit system, aonroximately 98 mIles in lenrth, a man o~' whIch is attached hereto as Appendix B, which Authority is currently constructir-ic. B. "Authority Project" means the various portions of the Authority's System which are to be Identified by Authority dur!nc the construction of the Authority's System. C. "Utility Project" means the specific construction, includIng rearrangements and/or removal by the Utility, includIng but not limited to, wire, cables, conduits, manholes, transformers, meters, and other electric equipment that WIll be required to supply electricity to the Authority Projects. D. "Periodic Payments of the Estimated Contributions In Aid of Construction" means payments in cash for Utility Project con- struction, calculated and made as more specifically asreed, according to Section III, infra. E. "Contributions In Aid of Construction" means contributions in cash for construction purposes, as defined in Electric Plant Instructions of the Uniform System of Accounts of the Federal Power Commission and adopted by the Regulatory Commissions. Con- tributions in Aid of Construction shall conform to the Utility's General Terms and Conditions for construction In connection with the sale and distribution of all electricity for any use, and shall in any event be calculated and paid as more soecifically agreed, according to Section III, infra. F. "Technical Provisions" means *the technical criteria of the Authority's Projects as anolicable to Utility Projects which will supply electrIcIty to Authority's System; a copy o~ the Technical Provisions is attached hereto as Appendix C and is expressly made a part hereof. G. "Estimated Cost" of Contribution in Aid of Construction means all direct costs of and indirect costs reasonably allocable to Utility Projects prorerly charreable to the appropriate accounts in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts of the ~ederal Power Commission. These costs, as determined by Utility's Standard Accounting and Estimating PractIces, shall include all overhead costs not chargeable directly to accounts pertaining to construc- tion of Utility Projects and which are determined on the basis of a rate or percentum factor supnorted by overhead hearing accounts In accordance with Utility's Standard Accountinc Practices. H. "Actual Cost" of Contributions In Aid of Construction means all direct costs of and indIrect costs reasonably allocable -2- 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 27 PAGENO="0418" 1100 to construction of Utility Projects nroperly charneable to the various approoriate accounts in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts of the Federal Power Commission. These cnsts as determined by Utility's Standard Accounting and Practices, without any element of profit to Utility, shall include all overhead costs not chargeable directly to accounts mertainjng to Utility Projects and which are determined on the basis of a rate or oercentun factor sunoorted by overhead bearing accounts in accordance with Utility's Standard Accounting Practices. I, "Service Area" means all the territory of the DistrIct of Columbia and all that portion of ?iontgonery County and Prince George's County, 1~aryland and Arlington County, lTireinia desig- nated as such accordinr to the man attached hereto as Appendix A, and any territorial addition thereto as hereafter may be made by UtIlity. J. "Regulatory Commissions" means the District- of Columbia Public Service Commission, the Paryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the successors of each or any. K. "Rate Schedule PT" means Utility's RapId Transit Fate Schedule "(RT)" as filed by Utility with the appropriate Regula- tory Commissions. L. "Utility's Standard Estimating Practices" and "Utility's Standard Accounting Practices" shall he such nractices as are applied by Utility in administerinm its other construction nrograr.s at the tine Estimated Costs are determined and Actual Costs are incurred. II RATES AND .SERVTCE A. Utility shall sell to Authority and Authority shall pur- chase from Utility oursuant to Rapid Transit Pate Schedule (PT) all electricity used by Authority in Utility's Service Area, ewcemt electricity generated by Authority for emergency orerations, at primary voltare on contiguous authorit~i right of way at the coints of delivery and meteringas listed in Appendix D attached hereto and exoressly made a part hereof, provided however that delivery at secondary voltage shall he separately metered and billed under Utility's generally annlicahle rate schedule(s). Authority ac-~'ees to purchase in Utility Service Area all electricity from Utility pursuant to Utility's General Terms and Conditions, and ElectrIc Service Rules and Regulations, all as from time to tine effective in each jurisdiction within which Utility operates, not specifically modified herein. For a neriod of two years or until the Virginia State -Corporation Commission assumes direct regulatIon over -3-- PAGENO="0419" 1101 utility rates to governmental bodies, whichever shall occur the rate schedule PT anpflcable to Authority in the C~strlct o░ Columbia shall coply to conoarable sales o" electricity to AuthorIty in Virginia. Authorlty. shall for the neriod of' this Contract use electricity as its only source of' traction oower in Utility's Service Area exceot for diesel powered locomotives used Par switch- mr and in emergency onerations. B. The Utility ~till conduct a cost o~ service study as applicable to the AuthorIty as a senarate customer class. Based upon the results of' the cost o~' service study (ref'lectlng criteria and a fair rate of' return for UtIlity, made armlicahle by the appropriate Regulatory Commission), Utility will establish a rail rapid transit rate schedule for aoolication to the Utility's primary electric service delivered to the Authority's rail rapid transit system on contiguous Authority right of way. III PAYMENTS FOR UTrLITY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION A. Pursuant to Utility's General Terms and Conditions on file with and aoproved by the anolicable Regulatory Commissions and in addition as agreed herein, Authority agrees to make Contributions In Aid of Construction of Utility Projects calculated as follows: 1. Upon Authority's determination that an AuthorIty Project is identifiable to the extent required to enable Utility to design electric service facilities as oart of' corresoonding Utility Projects, AuthorIty will so notify Utility in writing accompanied by-such information as is reasonably reauired by Utility. 2. Upon receimt of' such notif'ication and information, UtIlity will proceed immedIately to estinate by Authority Project, within a. reasonable period of' tire and using Utility's Standard -Accounting and Estimating Practices: (a) the estImated cost of' constructinc~ the UtIlity Proiects oursuant to UtIlity's standard construction practice as jf' there were no Technical Provisions applicable, and (h) the estimated cost of' constructinr the Utility Pro~ects Pursuant to Utility's standard construction oractico but in accordance with the TechnIcal ProvIsions. The di~f'erence in these estimated costs will be the Estimated Cost o~' Contribution in Aid of' Construction. (See exannle, Aooendix P)~ 3. The Utility will make these estimates In accordance with standards o~' enrineering and materials not exceedIng the standards utilized in the p~rf'ornance of' work otherwise conducted by Utility exceot where necessary to meet the Technical provisions. 11. Unon accentance by the Authority of the calculation of' the Estimated Cost of' Contributionin Aid of' Construction sneciPied -4- PAGENO="0420" 1102 by Utility, Utility will prepare a alan Of~ detailed enm~neerjnrr and construction work and estimated coan1ct~on dates as necessar;r to construct and complete the Utility Projects. These olans will be the source of a nair of' "S" curves which will be used as the basis of the Periodic Payment of the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of' Construction by Authority (these curves as developed, one set for each Authority Project, shall be attached hereto as Appendix E, exaressly made a part hereof). For each Authority Project, the engineering "S' curve will berm prior to the con- struction "S' curve, and it will likewise terminate earlier. Payments, comprised of the sum of the aoorooriate amounts from the two curves, will be made on a monthly basis, the first pay- ment made at the end of the first month following the start of the engineering "5" curve if Authority's acceptance of' the calcu- lation of the Estimated Cost of' Contribution in Aid of Construction is later than the date of the beginninr of' the enmineering "3" curve, the first payment shall consist of all amounts owed to that date as determined by the engineering "5" curve. 5, Utility reserves the right to re-estimate by Utility Project periodically any Estimated Cost of' Contribution in Aid of Construction orpart thereof which was originally est~nated pursuant to 2. above, and the re-Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction, or part thereof, shall be paid according to the same "5" Curve as prepared pursuant to 14, above, for payment of the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction as oririnally estimated. 6. At the completion of each Authority Project, Utility will submit to Authority the Actual Cost incurred by Utility for the Utility Projects within the Authority Project, and payment will be made as required to adjust the Estimated Cost of Contri- *bution in Aid of Construction to the Actual Cost, and the resulting amount will be the Actual Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construc- tion for the Authority Projects (~ee Apoendix F). * B. Subject to the terms hereof, Utility agrees to construct or cause to be constructed all Utility Projects reasonably required to distribute all electricity to Authority for the purpose of operation of a raoid transit system. Utility will utilize its own personnel, sustaining or non-sustaining contractors, or any mix thereof, as it deems aporopriate, in accordance with the stan- dard procedure then being us.ed by Utility in oerforming such work generally. Utility will makd no change in the design of Util▒tv Projects whiph will increase the Estimated Cost of' Contribution in Aid of Construction as accepted pursuant to Section III, Paragraph A.14, without approval of Authority. C. Changes: In the event Authority changes an Authority Project or a Utility Project after notification to Utility and after Utility has incurred cost in conalying with the Project as issued or approved, Utility shall conform to the changed Project -5-- PAGENO="0421" 1103 and Authority shall in addition to other oayrients recluired by this Contract reimburse Utility all cost incurred by Utility that otherwise wo~ild not have been Incurred had the Project am subsequently chanred been initially isnued or anrroved, an aoplicable. Reimbursements for such Changes shall be made promptly as costs are incurred by Utility. D. Each month Utility and Authority will meet to discuss the progress being made on the various Utility Projects and such other matters as may be aooropr~ate and requested by either party. Iv EXAMINATION OF RECORDS A. Utility Projects The Utility agrees that the Authority or any of its duly authorized representatives shall, for the sole purpose of validatin~ EstImated or Actual Cost, until the exniration of two years after final payment for any Utility Project constructed under this Agree- ment, have access to and the right to examine any directly rerti- nent books, documents, papers, and records of the Utility InvolvIng transactions related to Estimated and Actual Costs of ContrIbutIons in Aid of Construction. B iubcontracts The Utility further agrees to include in all their subcontracts hereunder awarded suhseouent to the date of this Agreement for the construction of Utility Projects, a provision to the effect that the subcontractor agrees that the Authority or any of its duly buthorized representatives shall, until the expiration of two yqars after final payment under the subcontract for work oer~'ormed on that Utility Project; have access, for the self nuroose of validating actual cost, to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of such subcontractor. The term "subcontract" as used in this clause excludes suhcontracts (and purchase orders) not exceeding $100,000 per Utility Project and subcontracts awarded competitively in accordance with Utility's Standard Operating Procedures. V OFFICIAL NOT TO BENEFIT No member of Con~ress; or delegate to Congress; or Resident Commissioner, Board Member, Officer or Emnloyee of the Authority, shall be submitted to any share or part of thin Agreement or to any benefit that may arise herefrom, hut this restriction shall not be construed to extend to this Agreement if~ made with a corpo- ration or company for its general benefit. -6- PAGENO="0422" 1104 VI EQUP 1, 0PP0RTU~TTTY * During the performance of this Agreement (unless such Arree- rnent is exempt under the rules and regulations of the Secretar~ of Labor), Utility agrees as follows: A. Utility will not discriminate against any ennloyee or apmlicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Utility will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed,, and that employees are treated without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national orisin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Emoloyment, upgradlnm, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruit- ment advertising; lay-off or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including amorenticesh▒m. Utility agrees to post In conspicuous places, available to emnloyees and applicants for employment, notices to be mrovided by Authority setting forth provisions of' this non-discrimination clause. B. Utility will, in all solicitations or advortisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Utility, state that all quali- fied applicants will receive consideration for emrloyment wIthout regard to race, color, religIon, sex or national origin. C. Utility will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining arreenent or ether contract `or understanding~ a notice, to be provided by the Authority, advising the labor union or workers' reoresentatives of UtIlity's commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order ll2~6 of September 211, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places availabl to employees and applicants for employment. D. Utility will comply with_all provisions of Executive Order l12146 of Seotember 211, 1965, and of the rules, regulatIons' and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. E. Utility will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 1l2'16 of September 2~, 19o5, and by the rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and wil.l oermit access to his books, records, and accounts by Authority and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance wIth such rules, regulations and orders. F. In the event of Utility's noncompliance with the nondis- crimination clauses of this Agreement or with any of' such rules, regulations, or orders, this Agreement may be cancelled, termi- nated, or susnended in whole or in part and Utility may he declared * ineligible for further Authority contracts in accordance with cr0- cedures authorized In Executive Order 112116 of' September 2L1, 1965, and such other sanctions may he imoosed and remedies invoked as PAGENO="0423" 1105 orovided in the said Executive Order 1121~6 o~ Sentenher 2h, 1░~5 or by rule, rec-u]otiOn, or order of' the Secretary of' Labor, or as otherwise orovided by law. Utility will include the nrovisions o~' nararrenho A. th'-ouš~. F. in every subcontract or ourchase order unless exennted by t)ules, regulations or orders o~ the Secreter'z of' Labor issued nursu~nt to Section 2G~1 o~' Executive Order 112116 of' Senterber 2'i, 1965 so that such orovisions will be bind~nm unon each such subcontractor or vendor. Utility will take such action with resnect to any sub- contract or purchase order as Authority nay direct as a reams 0r enforcing such r'rovisions, includine sanctions "or noncomoliance; orovided, however, that in the event Utility becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litimation wIth a subcontractor or vendor as a result of' such direction by Authority, Utility may reruest Authority to enter into such litIgation to orotect the interests of' the Authority. VII JUSISDTCTIOD The jurisdictions of' the Pemulatory Commissions as to all matters arisinc under this Acreement shall he the same as the jurisdiction of the Re~ulatory Commissions as to all matters affectinm Utility and its customers c'enerally. All matters arising under this Amreenent other than matters which are initially within the jurisdiction of' any Rerulatory CommIssion, :as stated above, may he olaced before any court 0" comoetent jurisdiction f'or adjudication excent that the Authority has the rI~ht removal therefrom to an acnroorlate United States District Court eursuant to Section 81, Public Law 7714, 80 (Stat.) 13214. Do other jurisdiction as to facts or law is intended by Authority or Utility. VII] FORCE MAJEURE Utility shall not be liable f'or faIlure to nerf'orn or "or delay in oer"ormance due to fire, flood, unusual or severe weather, strike or other labor difficulty, act or failure to act of any movernmental authority or of Authority or its subcontractors or sunoliers, riot, embarmo, car shortame, wrecks or delay in trans- portation, inability to obtain necessary titles, easements, ncr- nits, rirhts ~f' way, labor, materials or manufacturlnm facilities from usual sources, lack 0" caoacitv or lack of' enerrv, or due to any other csuse beyond its reasonable control~ In the event of delay in oerf'ormanco due to any such cause, the date of' delIvery -- or time for completion will be nostooneci by such len~th 0" tIme -8-- PAGENO="0424" 1106 as may he reasonably necessary to corimensate for the delay. TERN OF AGPF.E~.irNT This Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by mutual agreement of Utility and Authority. The term of this Agreement is thirty (30) years cancellable thereafter by either Utility or Authority uron one (1) year's written notice. Neither this provision nor any other orovision of this Amreenent, however, shall operate to orevent Utility from filing any amending, ne~r, or superseding Rate Schedule, General Terms and Conditions, or Electric Service Rules and Regulations, gov~rning any rates or terms of service for electricity sold by Utility to Authority, with any Regulatory Comnissionfor the ouroose of causing such amending, new, or superseding provisions to become effective according to the rules and regulations of the Regulatory Conniss ions, in like manner as Utility's standard practice as to its customers generally. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. (Corporate Seal) ATTEST: S. J.\Bright Assistant Secretary (Corporate Seal) ATTEST: POTO~~AC ELECTRIC POllER COMPANY BY~4 ~ Executive Vice President Ellis T. Cox WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY By: -9- General lianagar PAGENO="0425" 1107 LIST (W APPE~JDICT~S APPENDIX A APPENDIX B AP?ZNDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E AP?ENDIX P - PEt~COTS SEP~TICF AREA ~`AP - NFTTRO'S RE(~IONAL SYSTEM MI\P - TECHNICA.L P~ROVISIONS - ELECTRIC POWER DELIVERY AND METERING POINTS - U511 CURVES - ESTIMATING PROCEDURE PAGENO="0426" 1108 APPENDIX C TECHNICAL PROVISIONS I. Each traction power substation shall be supplied from a single PEPCO substation by two (2) feeder circuits with no other customers connected to the circuits. Each circuit shall be capable of carrying the entire load at each traction power substation. The circuits shall be separated at the PEPCO substation by a minimum of two (2) station bus tie circuit breakers where possible. Unless otherwise mutually agreed adjacent traction power substations shall not be supplied from the same PEPCO substation. The provisions of meters, delivery points, voltages, loads and operational dates, etc., shall be as specified in Appendix D unless otherwise mutually agreed. II. The maximum calculated short circuit duty at the traction power substation shall not exceed 750 MVA with the traction power station bus tie closed and the minimum calculated short circuit duty should not be less than approximately 250 MVA with the traction power station bus tie open. The minimum duty (250 MVA) shall be based on the loss of the largest transformer at the PEPCO supply substation. III. Passenger stations, yards, shops shall be fed from PEPCO's nearest available cor~ercial feeder in accordance with Appendix D, except as otherwise mutually agreed. IV. The various classes of-service that may be provided to permanent METRO facilities will have characteristics as follows, unless otherwise mutually agreed. Class of Service Characteristics 13 KV Unregulated 13 LV nominal, three phase, three wire, - 60 Hz alternating current. Allowable short term voltage regulation is ▒5% around a nominal value. The nominal value will fall between 14437 and 13063 with changes of nominal value limited to two or less per year for traction power and between 14437 amd 12420 for other uses. 265/460 volt Regulated 265/460 volt nominal, three phase, four wire, 60 }Iz alternating current. Maximum allowable * voltage range 233/414 volts to 276/483 volts. 120/208 volt Regulated 120/208 volt nominal, three phase, four wire 60 Hz alternating current. Maximum allowable range 114/197 volts to 126/219 volts. This class of voltage could also be supplied as 120/203 volt nominal single phase, threewire, with the same range applicable. PAGENO="0427" A1I'ENULX WMATA FACIL~TIES LOCATIONS PHASE I Metro Stationing Point TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS STORAGE & INSPECT [ON YARDS Class of Operational Service Date Utility Project Construction Estimated ~9Hpletion Date Approximate Location P~~~c'~r Name Ferragut North A3 (41+35) 13 kv 1975 1975 Connecticut Ave. &. K St. N.W. Gallery Place 8th & C Sts., N.W. 81 (15+05) 13 kv 1975 1975 Metro Center 12th & G Sts., N.W. Al (0+0) 13 kv 1975 197~ Judiciary Square 4th & E Sts. , N.M. 81 (34+70) 13 kv 1975 1975 Union Station 1st St. & Massachusetts Ave. 83 (69+07) 13 kv 1975 1975 Rhode Island Ave. Rhode Island & Franklin Ave. 84 (162+20) 13 kv 1975 1975 Farragut North Connecticut Ave. & DeSales St. A3 (46+05) 13 kv 1975 1975 Gallery Place 9th & G Sts. 81 (10+90) 13 kv 1975 * 1975 Union StatioN Union Station B3 (65+12) 13 kv 1975 1975 New York Avenue N. Y. Avenue & Q St., N.E. B5b (123+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 Rhode Island Ave. Rhode Island Ave. & 8th P1., N.E. 84 (76+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 CHILLER PLANTS Farragur North Connecticut Ave. & DoSalos St. A3 (68+75) 265/460 v 1975 1975 OCCB 5th & F Sts., MW. B (25+00) 265/460 v 1975 1975 Union Station 1st & C Sts., NW. B3 (75+00) 265/460 V 1975 1975 Metro Center 12th & C Sts., N.H. C (2+50) 265/460 v 1975 1975 5th & T Sts., M.W. B5b (135+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 Major Repair Shop -1- PAGENO="0428" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Approximate Location PHASE II Metro Stationing - Point Class of Operational Service Date Utility Project Construction Es tirsated Completion Date - Dupont Circle Dupont Circle A4 (68+40) 13 kv 1975 1975 Stadium-Armory 19th & Independence Ave., S.E. D8 (208+46) 13 kv 1975 1975 Potomac Avenue 14th & C Sts., SE. D7 (170+96) 13 kv 1975 1975 Eastern Market 7th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., S.E. 06 (138+07) 13 kv 1975 1975 Capitol South 15th & D Ste., SE. D4 (111+04) 13 kv 1975 1975 Federal Center 3rd & D Sts., SW. D4 (80+52) 13 kv 1975 1975 L Enfant Plaza 7th & 0 Sts., S.W. D3 (62+69) 13 kv 1975 1975 Smithsonian 12th & Independence Ave., SE. 02 (36+52) 13 kv 1975 1975 Federal Triangle 12th & Pennsylvania Ave., N.H. Dl (16+36) 13 kv 1975 1975 McPherson Square 15th & I Sts., NW. Cl (23+50) 13 kv .1975 1975 Farragut West 17th & I Sts., N.H. C2 (43+51) 13 kv 1975 1975 Foggy Bottom 23rd & I Sts., NW. . C3 (71+17) 13 kv 1975 1975 Rosslyn Wilson Blvd. & N. Lynn St. CS (141+75) 13 kv 1975 1975 Arlington Cemetery Memorial Dr. & Jeff. Davis Hwy. C6a (191+21) 13 kv 1975 1975 Pentagon Fern St. & Pentagon Rotary Rdwy. C6b (261+33) 13 kv 1975 1975 Belmont Rd. Belmont Rd. & Connecticut Ave. ,N.W. A4 (108+45) 13 kv 1975 1975 Shirley Highway Arny-Nnvy Dr. & S. Fern St. C7 (277+35) 13 kv 1975 1975 Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. & Jeff. Davis Hwy. C6n (218+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 Rosslyn Arlington Blvd. & Ft. Meyer Dr. C5 (154+00) 13 tv 1975 1975 Potomac Virginia Aye., & 27th St., N.H. C4 (89+49) 13 tv 1975 1975 Farragut West 17th & I Sts. , N.H. C2 (39+46) 13 kv 1975 1975 * lotte Center 8th & C Sts., N.H. Al (0+00) 13 tv 1975 1975 Smithsonian 12th & C Ste., SW. 02 (44+50) 13 kv 1975 1975 Federal Center 2nd & 0 Sts., SW. D4 (87+19) 13 tv 1975 1975 Sew7rd Square No. Carolina Ave. & 4th St., S.E. 06 (126+30) 13 ky 1975 1975 Potomac Avenue Potomac Ave. & E St., S.E. D8 (187+78) 13 cv 1975 1075 -2- PAGENO="0429" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PMASE II (Con't) ChILLER PLANTS Utility Project Construction Approximate Location Metro Stationing Class of Operational Estimated Name Passenger Stations - Point Service Date š~gp1etion Date Farragut West 18th & I Sts., NW. C2 (48+50) 265/460 v 1976 1975 Rosslyn Arlington Blvd. & Ft. Meyer Dr. C5 (154+00) 265/460 v 1976 1975 Pentagon Army-Navy Dr. & So. Fern St. C6b (277+35) 13 kv 1976 1975 LEnfant Plaza 9th & D Sts., SW. 03 (60+00) 265/460 v 1976 1975 Federal Center 2nd & D Sts., NW. D4 (87+19) 265/460 v 1976 1975 Potomac Avenue 13th St. & Pennsyvlania Ave., S.E. D7 (161▒20) 265/460 v 1976 1975 Stadium-Armory 19th & A Sts., SE. D8 (212+50) ~265/46O v 1976 1975 I. PAGENO="0430" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE IIA PASSENGER STATIONS TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Name Approximate Location Passenger Stations * Utility Project Construction Metro Stationing Operational Estimated Point Class of Service Date Completion Date Fort Tottan 1st & Calloway Sts., N.E. B6 ~278+76) 13 kv 1976 1976 Takoma Cedar & Carroll Sts., N.H. B6 (379+15) 13 kv 1976 1976 Brookiand 8th & Monroe Sts., N.E. 86 (207▒25) 13 kv 1976 1976 Silver Spring East-Heat Hwy. & Colesvillc Rd. B6 (454+00) 13 kv 1976 . 1976 Brookiand Now Hampshire Brookiand Ave. at 16th & Puerto Rico Sto., ~nd & Nicholaon Ste., N.E. N.E. 86 B6 (249▒86) (311+76) 13 13 kv kv ~l976 1975 1976 1976 Takoma Takoma Ave. & Baltimore Ave. 86 (392+50) 13 kv 1976 1976 Silver Spring East-West Hwy. & Celceville Rd. B6 (457+64) 13 kv 1976 1976 -4- PAGENO="0431" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE III PASSENGER STATIONS Minnesota Deanwood Cheverly Landover Metro Stationing Point STORAGE & INSPECTION YARDS Utility Projec Construction Operational Estimated ___________ Comp le tion Dat Name Approximate Location Passenger Stations Minnesota Ave. & Grant St., N.E. 012 Minnesota Ave. & Polk St., N.E. 012 Cheverly Ave. & Columbia Park Rd. D13 Hanson Highway & 1st St. D13 (318+75) (304+7 7) (42 2+60) (522+60) Class of Service Date `TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS S tadium-Armo~y Minnesota Ave. Deanwood Cheve rly Landovor Road Beavar Dam Creek New Carrollton New Carrollton D9 (235+75) D1O (312+93) 012 (369+15) Dl3 (424+65) D13 (502+93) 014 (551+62) Dll (30+00) C St. & D. C. Stadium Minnesota Aye; & Grant St., S. E. Minnesota Ave. & 48th St., S.E. Columbia Park Rd. & Hanson Hwy. Landover Rd. & Hanson Hwy. Cobb Road & John Hanson Hwy. Cobb Road & John Hanson Hwy. 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv I. 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 Dll (9+00) -5-. PAGENO="0432" WHATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE IV PASSENGER STATIONS Name Zoological Park Cleveland Park Van Ness WTI Archives Waterfront Navy Yard Approximate Location Passenger Stations - CHILLER PLANTS TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Utility Project Construction Operational Estimated Date Completion Date Netro Stationing Point Class of Service A6 (131+00) A6 (168+40) A6 (201+60) Flb (17+57) F2 (92+05) P3 (139+30) Connecticut Ave. & Woodley Rd. N.H. Connecticut Ave. & Ordway St. N.H. Connecticut Ave. & Van Ness St. 7th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 21st & N Sts., S.W. 5th & N Sts., S.E. 24th St. & Cathedral Ave., N.W. Connecticut Ave. & Veazey St. N.H. N & Half Sts., S.E. Connecticut Ave. & Devonshire P1. Connecticut Ave. & Veazey St. 7th & D Ste., N.W. 7th & Maine Ave., S.W. 3rd & N Sts., S.C. Ohio Dr. & Rechasbeau Hem. Bridge Jeff. Davis Hwy. & Pentagon Bldg. Zoological Park WTI Waterfront Klingle Bridge Van Ness Pennsylvania Ave. Maine Ave. Navy Yard Ohio Drive Jeff. Davis Hwy. AG (131+00) AG (205+30) P3 (118+00) 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 265/460 V 13 let 265/460 v 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 A6 (157+00) A6 (205+30) Plc (14+57) P2 (69+31) P3 (134+83) L2a (105+90) L2b (215+96) -6- PAGENO="0433" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE V 0 PASSENCER STATIONS Utility Proj ed Construction Approximate Location Metro Stationing Operational Estimated Passenger Stations Point Class of Service Date Completion Dat Benning Road Banning Rd. & 44th St., N.E. Cl (342+35) 13 kv 1978 1978 Capitol Heights S. Capitol & E Sts., SE. C2 (420+50) 13 kv 1978 1978 Addison Rd. Cabin Branch Rd. & Central Ave~ G3 (472+60) 13 kv 1978 1978 CHILLER PLANTS Banning RL Benning Rd. & 45th St. Cl (345+00) 265/460 v 1978 1978 Capitol Heights E. Capitol & Davis Ste. 02 (423+00) 265/460 v 1978 1978 TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Ft. Nahan Minnesota Ave. & Banning Rd. Cl (312+00) 13 kv 1978 1978 50th St. & Central Ave. 50th St. & Central Ave. C2 (307+50) 13 kv 1978 1978 Capitol Heights E. Capitol & Davis Sts. C2 (423+50) 13 kv 1978 1978 Addison Rd. Central Ave. &.Cabin Branch Rd. G3 (469+16) 13 kv 1978 1978 PAGENO="0434" PHASE VI Approximate Location Passcn~~ations CHILLER PLANTS THACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Utility Projcc Construction Es time ted Comp~p~ion Dmt PASSENGER STATIONS Metro Stationing Operational Point Class of Service Date Friendship Wisconsin Ave. & Jonnifet St. N.W. A9 (301+15) 13 kv 1979 1979 Bethesda Wisconsin & Montgomery Ayes. All (392▒07) 13 kv 1979 1979 Medical Center Wisconsin Ave. & Joacs Bridge Rd. All (41,7+30) 13 kv 1979 1979 Grosvenor Tuckerman Lane & Rockville Pike A13 (565+46) 13 kv 1979 1979 Federal City College 7th & H Ste., N.W. El (26▒35) 13 kv 1979 1979 Shaw 7th & S Ste., N.W. El (55+37) 13 Icy 1979 1979 Tenley Circle Wisconsin Ave. & Brandywine St. A9 (260▒00) 13 kv 1979 1979 U Street 11th & U Sts., N.H. E2 (80▒37) 13 kv 1979 1979 Tenley Circle Elliot & 42nd Sts., N.H. A9 (277▒25) 265/460 v 1979 1979 Bethesda Hamden Lane & Wisconsin Ave. All (388▒ ) 265/460 v 1979 1979 Medical Center Wisconsin Ave. & South Drive All (450▒ ) 265/460 v *. 1979 1979 Nicholson Lane Al/, 1979 1979 Federal City College 7th & P St.,N.W. El (40▒50) 265/460 v 1979 1979 U Street 13th & U Ste., N. W. E2 (83▒75) 265/460 v 1979 1979 Tenley Cir~1e Wisconsin Ave. & Albemarle St. N.H. A9 (256+50) 13 kv 1979 1979 Oliver Street Wisconsin Ave. & Oliver St. N.H. AID (325▒65) 13 cv 1979 1979 Bethesda Wisconsin Ave. & Montgomery Ave. All (396▒00) . 13 kv 1979 1979 Medical Center NIH & Naval Medical Lab. All (1,50+40) 13 kv 1979 1979 Federal City College 7th & N Ste., N.H. El (29+85) 13 Icy 1979 1979 U Street 13th & U Ste., N.H. E2 (84▒13) 13 kv 1979 `1979 Pooka Hill Pooks Hill Rd. & Wisconsin Ave. All (510▒70) 13 cv 1979 1979 Grosvenor Rockville Pike & Tuckerman Lane Al3 (569+50) 13 cv 1979 1979 Montrose Ave. Rockville Pike & Montrose Ave. A13 (51,5+50) 13 cv 1979 1979 -8- PAGENO="0435" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS Forrest Glen When ton Glenmont Anucostia Alabama Avenue Colambia Heights Georgia Avenue 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 3981 1980 PHASE VII PASSENGER STATIONS Approximate Stations Point Class of Service Name Passenger Nicholson Lane Rockyillc Pike & Wall Lane * A14 A15 Twinbrook Dorchester Ave. & Fishers A15 Rockville Stone St & Highland Ave. & Ave. B9 Forrest Glen Forrest Glen Georgia Drive B1O ` ITheaton Georgia Ave. & Bli Glennont Georgia Ave. & Glenallen Columbia Hts. 14th & Irving Scs., NW. NW. El E3 (133+59) (176+75) Georgia Ave. Kansas Ave. & Varnum St., Ave. ES Chillnn Chillum Rd. & E6 Prince Ceorgea Plaza East-West Hwy. & Belcrest Rds. E7 College Park Bowdcn & Calvert Rds. E7 ------ Greenbelt Rd. Greenbelt & Neteerot F5 (198+88) Anacostia Good Hope Rd. & Minn. Ave., SE. 96 ------ Alabama Ave. Naylor Rd. & Erie St., SE. Suitland F7 Paylor Rd. Naylor Rd. & Pkwy. Suitlarid 98 Suitland Silver Hill Pkwy. & Adams Dr. F8 Branch Ave. Branch Ave. Operational Date 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 Utility Project Construction Estimated ~pp~4etion Date 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1~8O 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 13 kv 13 kv 13 Isv 13 kv 13 Isv 13 Isv 13 kv 13 Isv 13 Isv 13 Isv 13 Isv 13 Isv 13 Isv 13 kv 13 Isv 13 kv 13 Isv 265/460 V 265/460 V CHILLER PLANTS 88 BlO 811 95 96 E3 (130+75) 14th & Columbia Rd., N.W. -9- PAGENO="0436" WNATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE VII (Con~t) STORAGE & INSPECTION YARDS Utility Projoct Construdtion Approximate Location Metro Stationing Operational Estimated Name Passenger Stations Point Class of Service Date Completion Date A016 13 kv 1981 1980 E008 13 kv 1981 1980 TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS (See Note 2) -30- PAGENO="0437" 1. Locations of Stations are approximate street addresses. 2. Phase VI and VII Traction Power and Chiller Plant locations and Passenger Station Coordinates have not been determined with the exception of A9, AlO, All, Al3, El and E2. * Operational Date - Means the date that the Authority has scheduled for the commencement of Test Operation of trains and associated electrical operations. ** Estimated completion dates will be updated from time to time as provided in "Payments for Utility * Project Construction", Paragraph A.l ~ -11- PAGENO="0438" 1120 ___`~) --~-- -I-- - _~_i-~- ~ . :- ~. ::. -- - . I- ______ . . .. . .* . . . . ~1c~~3 ~) - . ---*----------~.: - _i1 -~i zi-:ii:i~ii --~ - ---Th -- -1~~ -i -=-i---~~ - - U ___t -----_-T...--------.---- -- -~------~-- .~-- -- - -----J- - -- -- ---- - I--- -- - - - -- -- - -- ~ ~J ~ U~ ~. ~-J - - - - -- - --- - ~ j~-z~ - - - - ~%J1,~ ~ `J \~c `~ ~ . ... .). .. ..........~) :. .: :._.:_.~ . - .~\~ii~4▒i~: k *:~~ ~ L._.~ ...:...._.__~. -`~-.~---.~--.~------. PAGENO="0439" 1121 - - -. - .- ..-. - -- 777'~f ~~/h:- O6-/~'t ct/(.'~ (A 1L~'~ Or Ci~ź=t-i Ai~~-iC-~ /~ - - us IT f-~ij~i/l\ ~ ii~-;~~~.) - ~ / .. : -- . . 1~c ~ - / &/~P't ~O 1~1 F HHH -~ `H H --H-~ F ~r~) loo,~) H L~ -- - ~t~L'~';, ~ ~c~r cci ,)o'~i. ~ 1r, rc~ r.~-? ~ ~ 1' ~T;t?~C ~ //~) ,7L1'~'~~/j7/c - >- PAGENO="0440" 1122 lcF2 APPE1~DIX-~ E5Ti;;:~TrhG PkOCCD~RE - Sections S and III 2. oF the Agreement refer to the `standard e~ting practices: and standard esti:raUrig procedures', respectively. The oilo~-;~ng is a specificatlon oF the cc .it:ating procedure and will ge'ior1 tredsoctions made Order this Agreement. 1. Upon receipt of a kRrtTP "Authority Project' identificetie:;, PEPCO~ S'.'-~tce' Plrn,iine Dope: eru't deterrathes the feeder circuits to ha usud in the associated `!Jti i~" Project.' This is done in two ports, with and without Technical Provisions, as stated in Section ill 2 of the i\rjre~c;y~c. 2. PEPCO's Transmission and Distribuiion System Engireering Depnrt-r.ent takes the System Planning plans end determines feasibility, working with System Planning to make adjustments if necessary. Once the plans are agreed to be feasible, cost estimates for the `outs~dc plant' portioesof the Utility Project are determined. "Outside Plant" is evcry~thing beyond the supply station feeder cable terminations. In making these estimates, T & D uses its standard unit cost estimating - books to apply costs to the physical units of conduit, cable, poles. wires, etc. dmtera,ir,ed necessary. Tine-cost escalation will be applied to reflect costs at times of actual ucrk by using indices derived free PSPCO's historical experience. 3. The T & D estimates are then passed to PEPCO's Civil and Substation Engineering Daparticant where cost estimates of the `inside plant" portion of the Uti i Ly Project are made in a similar manner. Civil and Substation Engineering then Forrards the complete Utility Projact estimate to the Suilding Sermfces Department where a proposal to `~DbtTA is prepared. 4. The formal proposal consists of a statement of the estimated costs with and without the Technical Provisions, with the difference being identified as the `Estimated Cost" of the Contribution in Aid cf Construction; a series of engineering andconstruction cost "5' curves; - and a schedule of monthly payments to be made by lkL~TA to PEPCO. 5. After the iJtilit~ Project is ccuoieted in the field, actual coats will be determined in accordance with standard PEPCO accounting practices. Once the actual cost of the Utility Project is known it will be divided by the estimated cost of Utility Frojact for service in accordance with the Technical Provisions, as found in the formal proposal, and the resulting quotient will be multiplied by tile estimated cost of Utility Project for ser'iice without the Technical Previsions. The revised estimate d~~ivad from tillS mol Liplicetion ;-!il I be used as tile "Estimated Cost" for cco;p~rieg with the `Actual Cost" in determining the "Actual Cost" of Contributions in Aid of Construction. PAGENO="0441" 1123 1.~ io Ow:;~ c::~)la is prf3'fldCd or den Ncation. : Esti~reted Cost of Utility Project Wi the.;t Tecinicel P(o'/iSiOns With Technical ProvisionS .`Esliuated Cost. or Cort~ihition in Aid or Construction (Paid by AuthOrity to Utility on 5' curve basis) Actual Cost of Utility Project (frcri standard accounti n~j p'acti ces) Quo tient for Cost Adjustment $4,000,000 Adjusted Estimated Cost of Utility Project Without * Technical Provisions "Actual Cost" of Constructions in Md of Construction V ?,~ditional A;uount to be Paid to Utility by Authority $2 ,00() ,000 $3; 500 >000 $3,500,000 -2,000,000 $4,000,003 ~$3,500,033 1.143 $2,000,003 X 1.143 $2,286,000 $4,030,000 -2,285,000 $1, 7-14 , 000 V $1,714,000 1 ,50(),000 ~ 214,030 PAGENO="0442" 1124 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORIfl' 600 Fifth Street. N.W. Washington. D. C. 20001 (202) 637-1234 AGENDA 446th Meeting of Board of Directors July 31, 1975 9:30 A.M. WALTERS WASHINGTON OUTIKI ~ cLEArus EBARNLTT RUFUS PHILLIPS CHARLES E BEATLEY. JR JAMES E COATrS JERRY A MOORE. JR Distl,ct RI CRIIW~b~3 CARLTONR SICKLES NORMAN L. CHRISTELLER MaTyOTS JACKSON GRAHAM WARREN QUENSTEOT DaRKly GRRR'aI M,aag~ SCHUYLER LOWE E WcKI'~R Off,RR! DELMER ISON JOHN R KENNEDY ROYT DODGE ChiT! K! OT!igK RALPH L WOOD Ch,B!a!Opa~aI:bHs H metro 1(A). Approval of Minutes of July 24, 1975 Chairman 11(B). Report by Chairman Mr. Alexander 111(c). Report by General Manager Mr. Grahem 1v(D). Report by NVTC, D.C. and WSTC Mr. Murisey Mr. Tucker Hr. White V(E). Bimonthly Report of Director of Construction Hr. Alldredge Mr. Portlock Vl(F). Bimonthly Report of Director of Real Estate. . Mr. Roll VII. Approval of Tariff Implementing New Metrobus Fare Structure Mr. Herman VIII. Reformulation of Board of Directors Meetings Chairman IX(G). Experimental Express Fringe Parking Lot Metrobus Service from Oxon Hill, Maryland to Farragut Square Mr. Codding X(H). Board Consideration of Proposed Metrobus Route Changes in Virginia, Docket 75-4 . . . Mr. Russell XI . Authority to Initiate Action and Approval to Enter into Agreement with COG and UMTA for Study of Non-Standard Size Buses (P-04343) Mr. Pickett Xl I. Report on Request for Additional Service to Herndort Mr. Warrington (oVER) PAGENO="0443" AGENDA Page 2 July 31, 1975 1125 XIII. Attitude Survey: Resident and Metrobus Rider Attitudes toward Metrobus Mr. Warrington Mr. Noonchester XIV. Authority to Award Contract for Renovation of Metrobus Garage Facility, Southeastern Division (1Y3080) XV(J). Authority to Award Contract for Renovation of Metrobus Garage Facility, Northern Division (ivio8o) XVI. Authority to Modify Metro Car Contract (2Z0061) for Replacement of Seat Cushions XVII(K). Authority to Enter Into Service Agreement with Potomac Electric Power Company for Provision of Electrical Energy for Metrorail (MA-01+3) Mr. Dodge Mr. Dodge Mr. Dodge * Mr. Garrett Mr. Pinkney Mr. Trott XVIII. Transfer of 500 Parking Spaces from Cheverly Station to New Carroliton Station Mr. Platt XIX. Status Report on Cost of Metro Facilities for the Handicapped Mr. O'Hearn XX(L). CONSENT CALENDAR: (A). Authority to Award Contract for Procurement of 4000 Gallon Metrobus Tank Truck (2W926M) Mr. Wood (B). Authority to Award Contract for Procurement of Met robus Armored Truck (2W926N). . . Mr. Wood PAGENO="0444" Bc~rdcfDircctcr~ JOSEPH ALEXANDER Virgcria Directors STERLING TUCKER Mr. Djstrict or C,Ircsb~ V,coCha:ror~rr Mr. FRANCISW WHITE Mr. Marylord Mr. Secood V,co Chaoarrasl EVERARD MUNSEY Virgioia WALTER E. WASHINGTON DictrlctotColarrsbH Mr. Jackson Graham CLEATUSE BARRETT Mr. Warren Quenstedt Marylcod Mr. Schuyler Lowe Alt to Ditactors Mr. Delmer Ison RUFUS PHILLIPS Mr. John R. Kennedy cHARLESE. GEATLEY.JR. Mr. Roy T. Dodge Mr. Ralph L. Wood Mr. Will jam Boleyn District of Colrjasbia Kr. Mathew Platt cARLTONR.SIcKLES Mr. Joseph Garbacz NORMANL CHRISTEL~ER Mr. Nicholas Roll Marytcod Mr. David Gaul Mr. Stanley Underwood OBsors Mr. Thomas O'Hagan JACKSON GRAHAM Mr. Peter Ciano WARRENQUENSTEDT Mr. Phiflp Price DcputyGcncctlXtarrager Mr. John t/arrington SCHUYLEIXLOWE Mr. Herbart Leonard Mr. Angus MacLean DELtIERISON Mr. William Hughes ScrataryTrcccar~r Mrs. Pat Sestito JOHN P. KENNEDY Mr. Vernon Garrett Gcrcs!Cccctcl Mr. William Herman Mr. Russell Rushton acdCcastcstco Mr. Howard Lyon RALPHL WOOD Mrs. Marilyn McGinty ch,otctopcrItcrc arId Ma,rIyr~rrcc Alternate Di rectors Mr. Rufus Phillips Rev. James E. Coates Rev. Jerry A. Moore, Jr. Mr. Norman L. Christeller Mr. Earl Fawbush Mr. Cody Pfanstiehl Mr. Mark Akins Mr. Michael Bresnahan Mr. Robert McEvily Mr. Emanuel Mevorah Mr. G. Richard Raville Mr. Joseph Mul doon Mr. John Bowman * Mr. William Alldredge Mr. Peter Sheehan Mr. Donald OHearn Mr. Robert Codding Mr. W. Dona 1 d Dewey Mr. Gerald Gough Mr. Wa 1 te r McWahon Mr. A. E. Savage Mr. Robert Pickett Mr. Michael Noonchester Mr. Ray Russell Mr. John A. Robertie Mr. Alvin Williamson Mr. George Keyes Mr. Sprague Thresher Mr. Ellis Perlrnan Mrs. Chris Sirnsrman 1126 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 Filth Street. NW., Woshirtgtcn, D. 0. 20001 (202) 637-1234 MINUTES 1th6th Meeting of Board of Directors July 31, 1975 The meeting was called to order at 9:35 A. M. Present were: Sterling Tucker Francis W. White Everard Munsey Cleatus E. Barnett STAFF metro OTHERS Mr. Irving McNayr Ms. Judith Valentine Mr. Henry Hulme Mr. David Cummings Mr. George Motile Mr. Jack Meyer Mrs. Gloria Fischer Mr. Warren Corbett Mr. Harold Kassoff Mr. Ed Meyer Mr. Wayne McDaniel Mr. Edward Daniel Mr. John A. Drayson Mr. Robert N. Winick Ms. Eileen Stephens Mr. Jack Eisen PAGENO="0445" 1127 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The MinUtes of July 2~, 1975, were a~proved as submitted. REPORT BY GENERAL MANAGER: Mr. Graham called on Mr. Warrington who referred the Board to furnished copies of the General Manager's July 30 memorandum to the Board transmitting the Technical Specifications for an Automated Information Directory Service (AIDS), which would be presented to UMTA fulfilling grant requirements of the iitial grant for the computerized telephone information project. Mr. !arrington reported that recent discussions with UMTA's Office of Research and Development revealed that IIMATA could become the recipient of a grant for the system that would be used as the prototype for the industry, in which caso no local funding requirements would be necessary. *Mr. Graham called on Messrs. Sheehan and Alidredge who reported that labor settlements had not been reached, but negotiations were pro- ceeding daily. Mr. Graham responded to Mr. Munsey's inquiry that a full investi- gation would be made on the p'ossibility of initial Phase II Metro service being put into operation betwee.n National Airport and Farregut l!est Station. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Quenstedt who reported that the House of Representatives had passed the Metro Transit Police Force legislation and that the Bill would go to the Senate after the legislative recess. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Boleyn who referred to and reviewed the July 30 memorandum to the Board and related tables relative to immediate and continuing funding needs to meet certain Metrorail capital costs. Mr. Boleyn reported that the staffs of *the District of Columbia, Council of Governments, UMTA, and WHATA were t)orking on preparation of an application to UMTA for the transfer of interstate highway funds that have been determined by the District of Columbia to be no longer necessary for highway needs, which funds are anticipated to be made available by mid-September. He reported that the funds could be utilized only for specifically identified projects approved.by the District of Columbia City Council and set out in the application, and that UMTA had determined that the application niay not contain projects which are already underway, which might have been financed or partially financed from other sources. In addition to these categories, other funding needs within the Authority could not await the interstate highway funds.. Mr. Boleyn explained that action had been taken to make avuilable $31~ million in internally generated funds to match Federal funds which could be obligated to meet essential items for operational readiness, -2- PAGENO="0446" 1128 Mr. Graham called on Mr. Lowe who reported that the Metrobus fiscal 1975 operations subsidy had totalled $38.1 million against the $39.7 million estimate. Mr. Graham noted the retirement of Mr. Late and Mr. Elward effective August 1, and both received applause for their service. BIMONTHLY REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION: Mr. Alldredge referred the Board to furnished copies of Report No. 1i5, Office of Construction, copy of which has been made a part of the official file. BIMONTHLY REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE: Mr. Roll referred the Board to furnished copies of Report No: 108 of the Office of Real Estate, copy of which has been made a part of the official file. APPROVAL OF TARIFF IMPLEMENTiNG NEW METROBUS FARE STRUCTURE: Mr. Herman noted that this item had been deferred on July 2~ to allow local staff review and that changes had been made as requested, with approval recommended as contaii~ed in the furnished copy of the Tariff of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority en tietro bus lines within the Washington Metropolitan Area; including Intrastate and Interstate Operations, to become effective September 1, 1975. Upon motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Munsey and unenin~ously passed, the Tariff was approved as requested. Ayes: 5 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Phillips and hr. Moore. REFORMULATION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS: Mr. Tucker referred to the July 16 menorandum and recommendation of the Staff Metrohus Implementation Committee which had been under Board consideration, that meetings of the Board be alternately devoted to Metrobus matters and Metrorail matters, with appropriate staff alter- nating. Discussion followed in support of the recommendation, wherein Mr. Phillips moved, seconded by Mr. Moore that the recommendatien be imple- mented. The motion was unanimously passed. Ayes: 6 - Mr.Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Moore. -3- PAGENO="0447" 1129 Mr. Barnett opened dVscussion relative to the public hearing procedures allowing public questioning of the staff and whether this procedure should be continued, as in his opinion the staff was on occasion subjected to undue comments and criticism. It was the consensus of the Board that the hearing officer should continue to be responsible to maintain appropriate conduct by the public. EXPERIMENTAL EXPRESS FRINGE PARKING LOT METROBUS SERVICE FROM OXON HILL, MARYLAND, TO FARRAGUT SQUARE: Mr. Codding referred the Board to furnished copies of the General Manager's July 23 memorandum to the Board recommending approval of ex- perimental express route P-17 between the Oxen Hill Fringe Parking Lot and Farragut Square. He reported that this proposed service had been coordinated with the staffs ef the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Prince George's County Department of Public Works and Transportation, and WMATA. Upon motion by Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Munsey and unanimously passed, the staff recommendation was approved. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Moore. BOARD CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED METROBUS ROUTE CHANGES IN VIRGINIA, DOCKET 75-A: Mr. Russell referred to and summarized the General Manager's July 28 memorandum and attached Resolution, recommending that Metrobu~ Routes lB, llB, llD, l7M, and l8H be changed pursuant to Metrobus Public Hearing No. AD held June 18, Docket B75-A, with Metrobus Routes 2lA, 2lB, 2lE, 7Q, AG, and 4H continuing as presently operated and not changed as proposed. Mr. Russell described the need for a traffic control signal in the area of Arlington Boulevard and Manchester Street or Montauque Street, and with Board approval proposed a letter to the Virginia Department of Highwaysand Transportation concerning this need. Discussion was held wherein it was agreed that an appropriate Resolution, addressing the need for the subject traffic control signal would be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portati on. Mr. Munsey moved, seconded by Mr. Phillips, that the staff recoin- mendation and Resolution be adopted, and further that an appropriate Resolution be forwarded by the Chairman to Virginia Department of PAGENO="0448" 1130 Highways and Transportation, addressing the traffic signal request. The Resolution reads as follows: WHEREAS, the Board `of Directors of the llashington Metro- politan Area Transit Authority conducted a public hearing pursuant to Article XI I, Section 62(a) of the Washington Metroplitan Area Transit Aythorrty Compact on June 18, 1975, to elicit the views and comments *of the public with respect to the Proposed Metrobus Route Changes in Virginra, Docket No. B75-Li; and WHEREAS, the Board was furnished and has careful lyconsidered copies of the transcript and supplemental material of the said public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the staff analysis of the record and noted its recommendations with respect to the matter; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority that it approves the recommendations as set forth in the General Manager's Memoran- dum of July 28, 1975. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Moore. AUTHORITY TO INITIATE ACTION AND APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT MITH COG AND UNTA FOR STUDY OF NON-STANOARDBUS~(~7~3~: Mr. Pickett referred the Board to furnished copies of Procurement Action No. 1, and revised scope of work, Contract No. P-O~3143 and sup- porting Resolution for filing an application with DOT for a technical studies grant. Mr. Pickett explained that the study will prepare im- plementation plane for the utilization of non-standard size buses (both low and high capacity) with the objective of recommending the extent non-standard size buses should be utilized in future WI1ATA operations. Mr. Pickett reported that ection had be.en deferred on July 2~ to revise the scope of work and to consider ho~i much of the study could be done in-house. Mr. Pickett reported that staff coordination and active participation will be provided with $16,380 pledged to cover the local share of the costs. Mr. Munsey moved epproval of the Procurement Acti6n No. 1 and adoption of the following Resolution, which motion was seconded by Mr. Phillips and unanimously passed: ` -5- PAGENO="0449" 1131 WHEREAS, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized, pursuant to the Urban Mass Transportation Act of l96t~, as amended, to make grants and loans to asSist states and local public bodies and agencies thereof in improving moss trans- portation systems and services; and WHEREAS, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is authorized, under Article V, Section 12 of the t!ashington Metropolitan Area Transit Aithority Compact, to apply for and accept grants and loans from the Department of Transportation pursuant to the Urban Mass Transportation Act of l96'~, as amended, for the purpose of improving *mass transportation systems and services; and WHEREAS, the Authority has need to conduct technical studies in order to assess the applicability of non-standard size buses 5or service in the Washington Metropolitan 1~cgion; and WHEREAS, the net project cost of the studies to be conducted will be $81,900 and will require a local share contribution of $16,380; HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Di rectors of WMATA: 1. That the General Manager of WMATA is authorized to execute and file on behalf of the WMATA with the.U.S. Department of Transportation for a technical studies grant having a net project cost of $81, 900. 2. That the amount of $16,380 in staff services is hereby pledged by the WMArA to cover the local share of the costs of the above project for a period of nine months; and 3. That the General Manager is so authorized to executc all such documents as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Resolution and to furnish such additional inforeation as the U.S. Department of Transportation may require in con- nection with said application. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. BarOett, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Moore. REPORT ON REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICE TO IIERWDON: Mr. Warrington reported that on July 10 the staff was directed to explore in cooperation with NVTC staff all potential methods of providing additional transportation service to Herndon. Mr. Warrington reviewed 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 29 PAGENO="0450" 1132 the four service alternatives: (1) add buses on the existing route; (2) add buses via Dulles access road; (3) operate some of the exist- ing service via the Dulles access road; and (`4) extend some existing Reston Commuter Bus service to Herndon. Mr. Warrington reported that the alternatives had been discussed with NVTC and reviewed the con- clusions of each alternative. He stated that agreement was reached with re~pect to alternative `4--extension of some existing RCB com- munity bus service to Herndon---that Coremunity Type mileage would be charged under the capital cost allocation formula to the jurisdiction in which the service is operated, and that the charge would be imple- mented if the Board chose that alternative. Mr. Phillips moved, seconded by Mr. Munsey, that extension of the RCB service to Herndon be implemented, which motion was unanimously passed. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Moore. ATTITUDE SURVEY: RESIDENT AND METROBUS RIDER ATTiTUDES T0~!ARD NETROBUS: Mr. Warrington referred to the Attitude Survey furnished July 2'4 on Resident and Metrobus Rider Attitudes, which had been deferred to allow Board review for discussion. Mr. Warrington introduced Mr. Noonchester who reviewed portions of the survey and Mr. Munseys suggestion that the staff pursue some means by which signs could be placed on the buses, giving more route information other than destination. Mr. Noonchester stated that this would be studied. AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR RENOVATION OF METROBUS GARAGE FACILITY, ~ This item was deferred a week pursuant to Mr. Coates request. AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR RENOVATION OF METROBUS GARAGE FACILITY, NORTHERN D IVISTbWJIY 1080): This item was deferred a week pursuant to Mr. Coates request. AUTHORITY TO MODIFY METRO CAR CONTRACT (2zoo6l)F0R REPLACEIIENT OF SEAT CUSHIONS: Mr. Dodge referred the Board to copies of the previously furnished Procurement Action No. 2, Contract Mo. 2ZOO6l, to modify the contract with Rohr Industries to replace self-skinning polyurethane seats in the first 300 cars with vinyl~overed neoprene cushions. -7- PAGENO="0451" 1133 Mr. Dodge stated that action had been deferred July 21i pending a meeting with the area fire chiefs to obtain their endorsement of the new material. Mr. Dodge reported that the fire chiefs had de- dined endorsement. Mr. Dodge reported that the National Bureau of Standards' testing of the new material had been conducted and he reported on their observations revealing the neoprene to be less flammable material. He reported that the National Bureau of Standards report would not be submitted before 30 days. He stated that the fire chiefs, while in support of the changed material, responded that they would await receipt of the National Bureau of Standards report. Mr. Dodge reported the view of the staff that the neoprene is the best available material and requested authority for cQntract modifica- tion. He noted that within One month, should the National Bureau of Standards report indicate that this was not acceptable, the contract could be changed. Mr. Moore moved, seconded by Mr. White, that action be deferred until the National Bureau of Standards report is received. Lengthy discussions were held following which the motion was with- drawn, and Mr. Munsey moved that authority be granted to commence negotiations for the substitution of the neoprene cusions with the understanding that the results of the negotiations will be brought back to the Board for for final procurement action. The motion was seconded by Mr. White and unanimously passed. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. t/hite, Mr. I1unsey, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Moore. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY FOR PROVISION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR MET MA-0~3T~ Mr. Garrett referred the Board to furnished copies of the General Manager's July 28 memorandum to the Board requesting approval of the agreement between WMATA and the Potomac Electric Power Company and re- viewed the main features of the agreement. Mr. Garrett responded to Mr. Barnett that the major areas of concern previously reported to the Board, which dealt with voltage and rates, had been resolved. At Mr. Moore's request, action was deferred twowaeks to allow the District of Columbia further review. TRANSFER OF 500 PARKING SPACES FROM CHEVERLY STATION TO NEW CARROLLTON STATION: Mr. Platt referred the Board to furnished copies of the General Manager's July 30 memorandum to the Board covering request from Prince PAGENO="0452" 1134 George's County to transfer 500 parking spaces from Cheverly Station to Mew Carroilton Station. lice reported that the May 20, 1971, add-on policy provided 1,000 parking spaces each at the Cheverly and Mew Carroliton Stations. On June 3, 1971, the Board adopted the General Plan for the Cheverly Station with 500 spaces to be constructed initially and 500 future, with.the expansion to the full 1,000 spaces being dependent on development of a flood control program. Mr. Platt stated that Prince George's requested that the Cheverly Station parking facility be held to 500 spaces and that 500 spaces be transferred to the Mew Carrollto~ Station, making a total of 1,500 at New Carrollton. Mr. Platt reported that it was the recommendation of the staff that the transfer be approved as requested. Discussion was held regarding cost implications of the transfer and the lack of cost figures being available to make comparisons, wherein the Board requested that future similar changes bepresente~ with accompanying cost estimates. Upon motion by Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Barnett and unanimously passed, the transfer was approved. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Tucker, Mr. White, Mr. Munsey, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Moore. STATUS REPORT OM COST OF METRO FACILITIES FOR ThE HAUDICAPPED: Mr. .O'Hearn referred the Board to furnished copies of a summary - sheet containing obligations and estimates for Metro facilities for the handicapped, in response to WSTC Executive Secretary Fiechers letter of June 25, concerning cost overruns for handicapped facilities. hr. O'llearn reported that twepty-five stations have ceached the stage where meaningful comparisons can be made between the estimates and the obli- gations, with the overall program running under the sum of the estimates by more than $5.3~ million. He noted that the funds would be monitored with reports made to the Board. CONSENT CALENDAR: By consensus of the Board the following items were approved: (A). Authority to Award Contract for Procurement of 400 Gallon Met robus Tank Truck (2lI92614) -9- PAGENO="0453" 1135 (B). Authority to Award Contract for Procurement of Met robus Armored Truck (2W926N) ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:10 P.11. Delmer son, S cretary -10- PAGENO="0454" 1136 AGENDA ITEM xvII(K) WASHINGtON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUIFIORITY 600 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, D. C. 20001 (202) 637-1234 JUL28 1975 JOSEPH ALEXANDER STERLING TUCKER OisI~icf III CRIXITbiX FRANCIS W. WHITE 5000,10 Vj~~ Chao WOR WALTER F WASHINGTON Di~1,icI of Colombia CLEATUS E. BARNETT RUFUS PHILLIPS CHARLES E. BEATLEY. JO JAMES E. COATES JERRY A. MOORE. JR Dislricl 01 Colombia CARLTON R SICKLES NORMAN L CHRISTELLER Offlo,s, JACKSON GRAHAM G000I&MOTO5TT WARREN OUENSTEGT D~pa1y Goomal MXTRgOT SCHUYLER LOWE E000Ulioe Office, DELMER SON JOHN 0. KENNEDY G000T&CRXIIT& ROYT DODGE ChioIoI O~oiq,, RALPHL WOOD 1~-~11 metro MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman and Board of Directors SUBJECT: Proposed Agreement Between %4)'~ATA and the Potomac Electric Power Company An Agreement has been negotiated with the Potomac Electric Power Company. The main features of this Agreement are: 1. Potomac Electric Power Company will provide service for each facility by the need dates as defined in the Agreement. 2. PEPCO will own, operate, rraintain and replace, as required, facilities installed by PEPCO. 3. The Authority will reimburse PEPCO the cost for installing equipment in excess of that which PEPCO would normally install. ~. A Cost of Service Study will be made by PEPCO and UMATA to determine PEPCO's cost of serving Metrorail. The results of the Cost of Service Study will be used to develop an electric rate for primary electric service. Secondary service furnished will be billed at applicable filed tariffs. 5. The Authority shall have access to PEPCO pertinent docu- ments concerning any bills rendered to the Authority by PEPCO. 6. The Agreement may be amended or modified by mutual agree- ment by the Authority and PEPCO. The term of the Agreement is thirty years. It is recommended that the Board approve the attached Agreement. Attachment as stated PAGENO="0455" 1137 ELECTR~C SERV~CIE AGREE~V~ENT BETWEEN WASHINGTON MET ROPOL ITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY metro ELECTRIC SERViCE AGREEMENT ~O.MA-O43 PAGENO="0456" 1138 AGREEMENT BY AND flE~1EEN POTOMAC ELECTRIC PONER. COMP ANY AND WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN PPEA TRANSIT AUTHORITY THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this _____ day of - 1975 by and between POTOMAC ELECTRIC PO~IER CON?ANY (UtfljtV)~a District of Columbia and Virginia corporation also authorized to do business in the State of Maryland, whose principal place of business is 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. U., Washington, D. C., and the WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Authority). WITNESS: WHEREAS, Authority is established by Interstate Compact by and between Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, pursuant to Public Law 89~77t~ (Law), an Act to grant the consent of Congress to the establ▒shment of an organization empowered to provide transit facilities in the National Capital Region; and WHEREAS, Authority will construtt and operate or cause ~o be operated the Washington Area Transit System (System) in the District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince George's CountIes, Maryland; Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia; and the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church and Fairfax, Virginia (Zone); and WHEREAS, Utility is an electric oubllc utility, the present exclusive Service Area of which for the retail sale of electric ener~y is the District of Columbia, major portIons of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland and a small segment .of Arlington County, Virginia (all as shown by the mao attached hereto as Appendix A and expressly made a part hereof); and WHEREAS, Utility Is regulat~d by the Public Service Commissions of the District of Columbia and Maryland and the State Corporation Commission of Virginia as to rates and service for the sale of electricity at retail; and WHEREAS, Authority Is currently constructing and wIll operate a rapid transit System to serve the WashIngton Metronoli- tan Area (as shown by the map attached hereto as Aooemdix B and expressly made a part hereof), all or a portion of such Area lying within Utility's Service Area; and Authority desires to purchase * all electricity from Utility to ooerate and maintain the raoicl * transit System within Utility's Service Area; and Utility. desIres to sell all electricity to Authority for that purpose; * NOW, THEREFORE, Utility and Authority expressly recognizing the foregoing. further state and agree as follows: PAGENO="0457" 1139 .1 A. "Authority's System" means the rapid rail transit system, aoproximatelY 98 n~les in length, a mao of which is attached hereto as Appendix B, which Authority is curmertly constructini~. B. "Authority Project" means the various portions of the Authority's System which are to be identified by Authority durin~ the construction of the Authority's System. C. "Utility Project" means the s~ecif▒c construction, including rearrangements and/or removal by the Utility, includIng but not limited to, wire, cables, conduits, manholes, transformers, meters, ~nd other electric equipment that will be required to supply electricity to the Authority Projects. D. "Periodic Payments of the Estimated Contributions In Aid of Construction" means payments in cash for Utility Project con- struction, calculated and made as more specifically agreed, according to Section III, infra. E. "Contributions In Aid of ConstructiOfl" means contributions in cash for construction purposes, as defined in Electric Plant Instructions of the Uniform System of Accounts of the Federal Power Commission and adopted by the Regulatory Commissions. Con- tributions in Aid of Construction shall conform to the Utility's General Terms and Conditions for construction in connection with the sale and distribution of all electricity for any use, and shall in any event be calculated and paid as more specifically agreed, according to Section III, Infra. F. "Technical Provisions" means the technical criteria of the Authority's Projects as anolicable to Utility Projects which will supply electricity to Authority's System; a copy of the Technical Provisions is attached hereto as Appendix C and is expressly made a part hereof. G. "EstImated Cost" of Contribution in AId of Construction means all direct costs of' and indirect costs reasonably allocable to Utility Projects properly chargeable to the appropriate accounts In accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts of the Federal Power Commission. These costs, as determlnedby Utility's Standard Accounting and Estimating Practices, shall include all overhead costs not chargeable directly to accounts pertaining to construc- tion of' UtIlity Projects and which are determined on the basis of a rate or percentum factor supoorted by overhead hearing accounts in accordance with Utility's Standard Accounting Practices. H. "Actual Cost" of' Contributions in AId of Construction means all direct costs of and indirect costs reasonably allocable -2- PAGENO="0458" 1140 to construction of' Utility Projects properly chargeable to the various appropriate accounts in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts of the Federal Powe~ Commission. These costs as determined by Utility's Standard Accounting and Estinatinp- Practices, without any element of profit to Utility, shall include all overhead costs not chargeable directly to accounts perta▒ninm to Utility Projects and which are determined on the basis of a rate or percentum factor supported by overhead bearing accounts in accordance with Utility's Standard Accounting Practices. I. "Service Area" means all the territory, of the District of Columbia and all that portion of Nontgonery County and Prince George's County, Maryland and Arlington County, Virginia desig- nated as such according to the map attached hereto as Appendix A, and any territorial addition thereto as hereafter nay be made by Utility. 3. "Regulatory Commissions" means the District of Columbia Public Service Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the successors of' each or any. K. "Rate Schedule PT' means Utility's Rarld Transit Rate * Schedule "(PT)" as filed by Utility with the aporopriate Regula- tory Commissions. L. "Utility's Standard Estimating Practices" and `Utility's Standard Accounting Practices" shall be such practices ~s are applied by Utility in administering its other construction programs at the time Estimated Costs are determined and Actual Costs are incurred. II RATES AND.SERVICE A. Utility shall sell to Authority and Authority shall our- chase from Utility pursuant to Rapid Transit Pate Schedule (PT) all electricity used by Authority in Utility's Service Area, except electricity generated by Authority for emergency orerations, at primary voltage on contiguous authority right of way at the poInts of delivery and metering.as listed in Appendix P attached hereto and expressly made a part hereof, provided however that delivery at secondary voltage shall be separately metered and billed under Utility's generally applicable rate schedule(s). Authority ac'rees to purchase in Utility Service Area all electricity from Utility pursuant to Utility's General Terms and Conditions, and Electric Service Rules and Regulations, all as from tine to tire effective in each jurisdiction within which Utility onerates, not specifically modified herein. For a neriod of' two years or until the Virginia State Corporation Conmission assumes direct regulatIon over -3- PAGENO="0459" 1141 utility rates to governmental bodies, whichever shell occpr first, the rate schedule PT aprlicable to Authority in the flistrict or Columbia shall aopl.y to conrarable sales of~ electricity to AuthOrity in Virginia. Authority shall for the neriod of this Contract use electricity as its only source of' traction mower in Utility's Service Area exceot ror diesel nowered locomotives used for switch- ing and in emergency omerations. B. The Utilit~ will conduct a cost of servIce study as applicable to the Authority as a semarate customer class. Based upon the results of the cost o~' service study (reflectIng criteria and a fair rate of return for Utility, made arrnlicable by the appropriate Regulatory Commission), Utility will establish a rail rapid transit rate schedule for application to the Utility's primary electric service delivered to the AuthorIty's rail rapid transit system on contiguous Authority right of way. III PAY?:IENTS FOR UTILITY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION A. Pursuant to Utility's General Terms and ConditIons on. file with and aoproved by the aomlicable Regulatory Commissions and in addition as agreed hereIn, Authority agrees to make Contributions In Aid of Construction of Utility Projects calculated as follows: 1. Upon Authority's determination that an Authority Project is identifiable to the extent renuired to enable Utility to design electric service facilities as part of corresponding Utility Projects, P.uthority will so notify Utility in writing accompanied by such Information as is reasonably reauired by Utility. - .2. Upon receiot of such notification and information, Utility will proceed immediately to estimate by Authority Project, withIn a reasonable period of' time and using Utility's Standard Accounting and Estimatlnr Practices: (a) the estimated cost of constructing the Utility Projects mursuant to UtIlity's standard construction practice as if there were no Technical Provisions applicable, and (h) the estimated cost of constructing the Utility Projects pursuant to Utility's standard *construction practice but in accordance wIth the TechnIcal Provisions. The difference in these estimated costs will be the Estimated Cost of' Contribution in Aid of Construction. (See exam.mle, Aomendix F). 3. The Utility will make these estimates in accordance with standards of' enrineering and materials not exceedIng the standards utilized In the performance of work otherwise conducted by Utility excent where necessary to meet the Technical tmrovisions. ~. Upon accentance by the Authority of the calculation of' the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid o~ Construction specified - -4- PAGENO="0460" 1142 by Utility, Utility will prenare a elan of detailed engineerinc~ and construction work and estimated completion dates as necessary to construct and comolete the Utility Projects. These plans will be the source of a pair of IT5fl curves which will be used as the basis of the Periodic Payment of the Estimated Cost of ContributIon in Aid of Construction by Authority (these curves as developed, one set for each Authority Project, shall be attached hereto as Appendix E, expressly made a part hereof). For each Authority Project, the engineering "5" curve will begin prior to the con- struction "3" curve, and it will likewise terminate earlier. Payments, comprised of the sum of the appropriate amounts from the two curves, will be made on a monthly basis, the first eay- ment made at the end of the first month following the start of the engineering "3" curve if Authority's acceptance of the calcu- lation of the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction Is later than the date of the beginning of the engineering "S' curve, the first payment shall consist of all amounts owed to that date as determined by the engineering tT~Y curve. * 5. Utility reserves the right to re-estimate by Utility Project periodically any Estimated Cost of ContrIbution in Aid of Construction or cart thereof which was orIgInally estimated pursuant to 2. above, and the re-Estimated Cost of Contribution In AId of * Construction, or part thereof, shall be paid according to thesarne "S" Curve as prepared oursuant to t. above, for payment of the Estimated Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construction as originally estimated. 6. At the completion of each Authority Project, UtIlity will submit to Authority the Actual Cost incurred by Utility for the Utility Projects within the Authority Project, and payment will be made as required to adjust the Estimated Cost of Contri- bution in Aid of Construction to the Actual Cost, and the resulting amount will be the Actual Cost of Contribution in Aid of Construc- tion for the Authority Projects (~.ee Appendix F). B. Subject to the terms hereof, Utility agrees to construct or cause to be constructed all Utility Projects reasonably required to distribute all electricity to Authority for the ~urnose of operation of a rapid transit system. Utility will utilize its own personnel, sustaining or non-sustaining contractors, or any mix thereof, as it deems aporonriate, in accordance ~-rith the stan- dard procedure then being used by Utility in performing such work generally. Utility will make no change in the design of UtilIty Projects which will increase the Estimated Cost of ContributIon in Aid of Construction as acceoted pursuant to Section III, Paragraph A.14, without approval of Authority. C. Changes: In the event Authorit~i changes an Authority Project or a Utility Project after notification to UtilIty and after Utility has incurred cost in complyinr, with the Project as issued or approved, Utility shall conform to the changed Project -5- PAGENO="0461" 1143 and AuthoritY shall in addition to other payments reciuirecl by this Contract reimburse Utility all cost incurred by Utility that other~1iSe would not have been incurred had the Project as subsequently chanced been initially issued or approved, as applicable. Reimbursements for such Changes shall be made * promptly as costs are incurred by Utility. p. Each month Utility and Authority will meet to discuss the * progress being made on the various Utility Projects and such other matters as may be appropriate and requested by either party. Iv * EXAMINATION OF RECORDS A. Utility Projects The Utility agrees that the Authority or any of its duly authorized representatives shall, for the sole purpose of validating Est~nated or Actual Cost, until the exniration of two years after final payment for any Utility Projectconstructed under this Agree- ment, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertI- nent books, documents, papers, and records of the Utility involving transactions related to Estimated and Actual Costs of Contributions in Aid of Construction. B. Subcontracts The Utility further agrees to include in all their subcontracts hereu~ider awarded subsequent to the date of this Agreement for the construction of Utility Projects, a provision to the effect ~that the subcontractor agrees that the Authority or any of its duly authorized representatives shall, until the expiration of two years after final payment under the subcontract for work performed on that Utility Project, have access, for the sol~ puroose of validating actual cost, to and the right t~o examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of such subcontractor. The tern "subcontract" as used in thIs clause excludes suhcontracts (and purchase orders) not exceeding $100,000 per Utility Project and subcontracts awarded competitively in accordance with Utility's Standard Operating Procedures. V * OFFICIAL NOT TO BENEFIT No member of ConcresS; or delegate to Congress; or Resident Commissioner, Board Member, Officer or Employee of the Authority, shall be submitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit that may arise herefrom, but this restriction shall not be construed to extend to this *Agrtemeflt if made with a corpo- * ration or company for its general benefit. -6- PAGENO="0462" 1144 VI EQUAL OPPORTWJITY During the performance of this Agreement (unless such Arree- ment is exempt under the rules and regulations of the Secretar'y of Labor), Utility agrees as follows: A. Utility will not discriminate against any emoloyee or applicant for emoloyment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Utility \zill take affirmatIve action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that emoloyees are treated without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the followin~: Emoloyment, upgradinm, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruit- ment advertising; lay-off or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selectio~ for trainIng, including aoorentlceship. Utility agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to emoloyees and applicants for emoloyment, notices to be orovided by AuthorIty setting forth provisions of this non-discriminatIon clause. B. Utility will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Utility, state that all audI- fied applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. - C. Utility will send to each labor union or representative e~ workers with which he has a collective bargaIning arreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the Authority, advising the labor union or workers' representatives of Utility's commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order 112146 of September 214, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice In conspicuous places availabl; to ernoloyees and applicants for employment. D. Utility will comply with ~.gll provisions of Executive Order ll2~6 of September 2~I, 1965, and of the rules, regulatIons and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. E. Utility will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 112146 of September 214, 1965, and by the rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by Authority and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and orders. F. In the event of Utility's noncomollance with the nondis- crimination clauses of this Agreement or with any of such rules, regulations, or orders, this Agreement may be cancelled, termi- nated, or suspended in whole or in part gnd Utility may be declared ineligible for further Authority contracts in accordance with oro- cedures authorized in Executive Order 112146 of September 2~, 1955, and such other sanctions may he imposed and remedies invoked as -7- PAGENO="0463" 1145 provided in the said Executive Order 112116 cc Sootembor 211, 1q65 or by rule, remulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as other~Ii5e provided by law. Utility will include the nrovisions of parap-raphs A. through F. in every subcontract or ourchase order unless exempted by Rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of' Labor issued pursuant to Section 2311 of Executive Order 112116 o~' September 211, 1965 so that such provisions will be bindincr upon each such subcontractor or vendor. Utility will take such action with respect to any sub- contract or purchase order as Authority may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncoroliance; provided, however, that in the event Utility becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation wlth *a subcontractor or vendor as a result ~f' such direction by Authority, Utility nay request Authority to enter into such litIgation to orotect the interests of' the Authority. VII JURISDICTION. The jurisdictions of the RegulatOry Commissions as to all matters arising under this Agreement shall be the sane as the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Commissions as to all matters affecting Utility and its customers generally. All matters arising under this Agreement other than matters which are initIally within the jurisdictIon of any Regulatory Commission, as stated above, may be placed before any court of competent jurisdiction. for adjudication excent that the Authority has the right of removal therefrom to an.aporooriate United States District Court oursu~mnt to Section 81, Public Law yyII, 80 (Stat.) 13211. No other jurisdiction as to facts or law is intended by Authority or Utility. FORCE MAJEURE Utility shall not be liable f'or failure to oerf'orm or f'or delay in performance due to fire, flood, unusual or severe weather, strike or other labor difficulty, act or failure to act of any governmental authority or o~' Authority or its subcontractors or ~uooliers, riot, embarrro, car shortage, wrecks or delay in trans- portation, inability to obtain necessary titles, easements, per- mits, rimhts of' way, labor, materials or nanuf'acturinm facilities from usual sources, lack ~ capacity or lack of energy, or due to any other c~use beyond its reasonable control. In the event of' delay in performance due to ar~ such caupe, the date of delIvery or time for completion will be postponed by such length o" time -8- PAGENO="0464" 1146 as may be reasonably necessary to compensate for the delay. TERM OF AGMEENRUT This Agreement may be modified or amended at any tine by mutual agreement of Utility and Authority. The term of this Agreement is thirty (30) years cancellable thereafter by either Utility or Authority upon one (1) year's written notice. Meither this provision nor any other provIsion of this Agreement, however, shall operate to prevent Utillty from filing any amendine, new, or superseding Rate Schedule, General Terms and ConditIons, or- Electric Service Rules and Regulations, governihg any rates or terms of service for electricity sold b~ Utility to Authority, with any Regulatory Commission for the purpose of causing such amending, new, or superseding provisions to become effective according to the rules and regulations of the Regulatory Commissions, in like manner as Utility's standard practice as to its customers generally. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. (Corporate Seal) - POTOMAC ELECTRIC PO?1ER ATTEST: COMPANY ~ Ellis T. Cox (Corporate Seal) WASHI NGTOM EETROPOLITA~ AREA ATTEST: TRANSIT AUTHORITY By: -9- PAGENO="0465" 1147 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E - APPENDIX F - - PEPCO'S SEPITICE AREA MAP - METRO'S REGIONAL SYSTEM MAP - TECHNICAL PROVISIONS - ELECTRIC POWER DELIVERY AND "S" CURVES ESTIMATING PROCEDURE METERING POINTS 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 30 PAGENO="0466" 1148 * API'hNDlX u TECUNICAL PROVISIONS I. Each traction power substation shall be supplied from a single PEPCO -substation by two (2) feeder circuits with no other customers cbnnected to the circuits. Each circuit shall be capable of carrying the entire load at each traction power substation. The circuits shall be separated at the PEPCO substation by a minimum of two (2) station bus tie circuit breakers where possible. Unless otherwise mutually agreed adjacent traction power substations shall not be supplied fron the same PEPCO - substation. - - - The provisions of meters, delivery points, voltages, loads and operational dates, etc., -shall be as specified in Aependix D unless otherwise mutually agreed. - II. The maximum calculated short circuit duty at the traction power substation shall not exceed 750 MVA with the traction power station bus tie closed and the minimum calculated short circuit duty should not be less than approximately 250 MVA with the traction power station bus tie open. The minimum duty (250 UVA) shall be based on the loss of the largest transformer at the PEPCO supply substation. III. Passenger stations, yards, shops shall be fed from PEPCO's nearest available cor~ercisl feeder in accordance with Appendix D, except as otherwise mutually agreed. - IV. The various classes of service that may be provided to permanent HETRO facilities will have characteristics as follows, unless otherwise mutually agreed. - Class of Service Characteristics 13 KV - Unregulated 13 KV nominal, three phase, three wire, - - - 60 Hz alternsting current. Allowable short tern v~ltage regulation is ▒5% around a nominal value. - The nominal value will fall between 14437 and 13063 with changes of nominal value limited to two or less - per year for traction power and between 14437 and 12420 for other uses: - 265/460 volt * Regulated 265/460 volt nominal, three phase, four wire, 60 Hz alternating current. Hsximum allowable voltage range 238/414 volts to 278/483 volts. 120/208 volt Regulated 120/208 volt nominal, three phase, four wire 60 Hz alternating current. Maximum allowable range 114/197 volts to 126/219 volts. This class of voltage could also be supplied as 120/208 volt nominal single phase, three wire, with the sara - range applicable. - PAGENO="0467" APPENDIX D WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE I Farragut North Gallery Place Union Station New York Avenue Rhode Island Ave. TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Approximate Location PassenRer Stations Name * Farragut North Gallery Place Metro Center Judiciary Square Union Station Rhode Island Ave. * Metro Statior~ing Point Utility Project - Construction Class od Operational Estimated Service Date Completion Date Connectic~it Ave. & K St. N.W. A3 (41+35) 13 kv 1975 1975 8th & G Sts., NW. Bi (15+05) 13 kv 1975 1975 12th & G Sts., N.W. Al (0+0) 13 kv 1975 1975 4th & ESts., N.W. Bl (34+70) 13 kv 1975 1975 1st St. & Massachusetts Ave. B3 (69+07) 13 kv * 1975 * . 1975 Rhode Island & Franklin Ave. B4 (16242O) 13 kv 1975 1975 Connecticut Ave. & DeSales St. A3 (46+05) 13 kv * 1975 9th & G Ste. Bi (10+90) 13 kv 1975 Union Station B3 (65+12) 13 kv 1975 IL Y. Avenue & Q St., N.E. B5b (123+00) 13 kv 1975 Rhode Island Ave. & 8th P1., N.E. B4 (76+00) * 13 kv 1975 CHILLER PLANTS Connecticut Ave. & DeSales St. A3 1975 5th & F Sts., N.W. * * B 1975 1st & 0 Sts.,N.W. * 83 * 1975 12th & 0 Sta.,N.W. C 1975 - STORAGE & INSPECTION YARDS 5th & T Ste., N.W. B5b (135+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 Farragut North OCCB Union Station Metro Center Major Repair Shop 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 (48+75) (25+00) (75+00) (2+50) 265/460 V 265/460 V 265/460 V 265/460 V -1-S PAGENO="0468" Approximate Location TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE II Metro Stationing Point Utility Project Constructicfle Class of Operational Estimated Service Date Completion Date Manic Dupont Circle A4 (68+40) 13 kv 1975 1975 Dupont Circle Stadium-Armory 19th & Independence Ave., S.E. 08 (208+46) 13 kv * 1975 1975 Potomac Avenue 14th & G Sts., S.E. 07 (170+96) 13 kv 1975 1975 Eastern Market 7th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., S.E. 06 (138+07) 13 kv 1975 * 1975 Capitol Seuth 15th & 0 Ste., S.E. . D4 (111+04) 13 kv 1975 1975 Federal Center 3rd & 0 Ste., S.W. 04 (80+52) 13 kv 1975 1975 LEnient Plaza .7th & 0 Ste., SW. 03 (62+69) 13 kv 1975 . 1975 Smithsonian 12th & Independence Ave., S.E. D2 (36+52) 13 kv 1975 1975 Federal Triangle NcPherson1Square 12th & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 15th & I Ste., NW. Dl Cl (16+36) (23▒50) 13 kv 13 kv 1975 .1975 . 1975 1975 Farragut West 17th & I Ste., N.W. C2 (43+51) 13 kv 1975 1975 Foggy Bottom 23rd & I Ste., N.W. C3 (71+17) 13 kv 1975 1975 Roeslyn . Wilson Blvd. & N. Lynn St. CS (141+75) 13 kv .1975 1975 Arlington Cemetery Memorial Dr. & Jeff. Davis Hwy. CGa (191+21) 13 kv 1975 1975 Pentagon Fern St. & Pentagon Rotary Rdwy. C6b (261+33) 11 kv 1975 1975 Belmont Rd. Belmont Rd. & Connecticut Ave.,N.W. A4 (108+45) 13 kv 1975 1975 Shirley Highway Army-Navy Dr. & S. Fern St. C7 (277+35) 13 kv 1975 1975 Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. & Jeff. Davis Hwy. CGa (218+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 Roselyn Arlington Blvd. & Ft. Meyer Dr. CS (154+00) 13 kv 1975 1975 Potomac Virginia Ave., & 27th St., N.W. C4 (89+49) 13 kv 1975 1975 Farragut West 17th & I Ste., N.W. C2 (39+46) 13 kv 1975 1975 Metro Cei~ter . 8th & 0 Ste., NW. . Al (O+O~) 13 kv 1975 1975 Smithsonian 12th & C Ste., S.W. 02 (64▒50) 13 kv 1975 1975 Fedoral Center 2nd & 0 Ste., SW. 04 (87+19) 13 kv 1975 . 1975 Seward Square Potomac Avenue Nd. Carolina Ave. & 4th St., S.E. Potomac Ave. & E St., S.E. 06 08 (126+30) (187+78) 13 kv 13 1w 1975 1975 * 1975 1975 -2- PAGENO="0469" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE II (Con t) CHILLER PLANTS Name Farragut West Rosslyn Pentagon L'Enfant Plaza Federal Center Potomac Avenue Stadium-Armory Approximate Location Passenger Stations 18th & I Sts., NW. Arlington Blvd. & Ft. Meyer Dr. Army-Navy Dr. & So. Fern St. 9th & D Sts., S.W. 2nd & D Sts., NW. 13th St. & Pennsyvlania Ave., S.E. 19th & A Sts., S.E. Metro Stationing Class of Point Service C2 (48+50) C5 (154+00) C6b (277+35) D3 (60+00) D4 (87+19) D7 (161+20) D8 (212+50) Utility Project Construction Operational . Estimated Date Completion Date 265/460 V 265/460 V 13kv 265/460 V 265/460 v 265/460 v %265/460 V 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1975 1975 .1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 I. PAGENO="0470" WHATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS * PEASE IIA PASSENGER STATIONS oakland w Hampshire koma ~1ver Spring Brookiand Ave. at 16th & Puerto Rico Sts., N.E. 2nd & Nicholson Sts., N.E. Takoma Ave. & Baltimore Ave. East-West Hwy. & Colcsville Rd. Utility Project Construction Operational Estimated Class of Service Date Completion Date Name 1rt Totten kkoma *eokland * Approximate Location Passenger Stations - Metro Stationing Point B6 (278+76) B6 (379+15) B6 (207+25) 1st & Calloway Sts., N.E. Cedar & Carroll Sts., N.W. 8th & Monroe Sts., N.E. `lver Spring East-~Wast Hwy. & Colesville Rd. B6 (454+00) TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 B6 (249+86) B6 (311+76) B6 (392+50) 36 (457+64) 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 Cji * -4- PAGENO="0471" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE III PASSENGER STATIONS STORAGE & INSPECTION YARDS Dli (9+00) 13 kv 1977 1977 Approximate Location Passenger Stations Metro Stationing Point Utility Project Construction Operational Estimated Class of Service Date Completion Dat Minnesota Ave. & Grant St., N.E. 012 (318+75) Minneaota Ave. & Polk St., N.E. Dl2 (304+77) Cheverly Ave. & Columbia Park Rd. 013 (422+60) Hanson Highway & let St. Dl3 (522+60) TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Name Minnesota Deanwood Cheverly Landover S tedium-Armory Minnesota Ave. Deanwood Cheverly Landover Road Beaver Dam Creek New Carrollton New Carrollton 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv C St. & D. C. Stadium Minnesota Ave. & Grant St., S. E. Minnesota Ave. & 48th St., S.E. Columbia Park Rd. & Hanson Hwy. Landover Rd. & Hanson Hwy. Cobb Road & John Hanson Hwy. Cobb Road & John Hanson Hwy. 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 09 (235+75) DlO (312+93) Dl2 (369+15) D13 (424+65) Dl3 (502+93) Dl4 (551+62) 011 (30+00) 1977. 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 CAD ..5.. PAGENO="0472" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE IV PASSENGER STATIONS Name ~oologica1 Park ~leve1and Park Ian Ness WTI ~rchives ~aterf rent ~avy Yard Approximate Location Passenger Stations Connecticut Ave. & Woodley Rd. N.W. Connecticut Ave. & Ordway St. N.W. Connecticut Ave. & Van Ness St. 7th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 21st & N Sts., S.W. 5th & N Sts., S.E. Class of Service 13 kv 13kv 13 kv 13 ki.~ 13 kv 13 kv Utility Project Construction Operational Estimated Date Completion Date 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978. 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 CHILLER PLANTS TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS Netro Stationing Point *A6 (131+00) A6 (168+40) A6 (201+60) Flb (17+57) P2 *(92+O5) P3 (139+30) ~oological Park 24th St. & Cathedral Ave., N.W. A6 (131+00) 265/460 v 1978 1977 ~TI Connecticut Ave. & Veazey St. N.W. A6 (205+30) 13 kv 1978 1977 ~aterfront. N & Half Sts., S.E. 93 (118+00) * 265/460 v 1978 1977 Zlingle Bridge Connecticut Ave. & Devonshire P1. A6 (157+00) 13 kv 1978 1977 Van Ness Connecticut Ave. & VeazeySt. AG (205+30) ` . 13 kv 1978 1977 Pennsylvania Ave. 7th & D Ste., N.W. . Fla (14+57) 13 kv 1978 1977 Name Ave. . ~avy Yard 7th & Maine Ave., SW. 3rd & M Ste., S.H. 92 93 (68+31) (134+83) 13 kv 13 kv 1978 1978 1977 1977 Dhio Drive Jeff. Davia Hwy. Ohio Dr. & Rochambeau Hem. Bridge Jeff. Davis Hwy. & Pentagon Bldg. L2a L2b (105+90) (215+96) . 13 kv 13 kv 1978 1978 1977 1977 -6- PAGENO="0473" WMATA PACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE V PASSENGER STATIONS Utility Project Construction Approximate Location. Metro Stationing Operational Estimated Name Passenger S1~ations Point Class of Service. Date ~pp~etion Date ~enning Road Benning Rd. & 44th St., N.E. Cl (342+35) 13 kv 1978 1978 ~apito1 Heights S. Capitol & E Sts., S.E. G2 (420+50) 13 kv 1978 1978 ~ddison Rd. * Cabin Branch Rd. & Central Ave. G3 (472+60) 13 kv 1978 1978 CHILLER PLANTS I lenning Rd. Banning Rd. & 45th St. Gl (345+00) . 265/460 v . 1978 1978 ~apitol Heights E. Capitol & Davis Sts. G2 (423+00) 265/460 v 1978 1978 TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS ?t. Mahen Minnesota Ave. & Bonning Rd. Cl (312+00) 13 kv 1978 1978 30th St. & Central Ave. 50th St. & Central Ave. G2 (307+50) 13 kv 1978 1978 apitol Heights E. Capitol & Davis Sts. G2 (423+50) 13 kv 1978 1978 ~ddison Rd. Central Ave. & Cabin Branch Rd. 03 (469+16) 13 kv 1978 1978 PAGENO="0474" Approximate Location Passenger Stations TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS -8- Utility Project Construction Estimated Completion Date Nam~ WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE VI PASSENGER STATIONS Metro Stationing Operational Point Class of Servicc Date Friendship Wisconsin Avo. & Jennifer St. N.W. A9 (301+15) 13 kv 1979 1979 Bethesda Wisconsin & Montgomery Ayes, All (392+07) . 13 kv 1979 1979 Medical Center Wisconsin Ave. & Jones Bridge Rd. All (447+30) 13 kv, 1979 1979 Grosvenor Tuckerman Lane & Rockville Pike Al3 (565+46) 13 kv 1979 1979 Federal City College 7th & N Ste., N.W. . ~l (26+35) 13 kv * 1979 1979 Shaw . 7th & S Sts., N.W. El (55-r37) 13 kv 1979 1979 Tenley Circle Wisconsin Ave. & Brandywine St. A9 (260+00) 13 kv 1979 1979 U Street 11th & U Ste., N.W. E2 (80+37) 13 kv 19.79 1979 . Tenley Circle CHILLER PLANTS Elliot & 42nd Sts., N.W. A9 (277+25) 265/460 v 1979 . 1979 Bethesda llamden Lane & Wisconsin Ave. All (388+ ) 265/460 v 1979 1979 Medical Center Wisconsin Ave. & South Drive All (450+ ) 265/460 v * ., 1979 1979 Nicholson Lane Al4 1979 1979 Federal City College 7th & P St., N.W. El (40+50) 265/460 v 1979 1979. U Street . 13th & U Ste., N. W. E2 (83+75) 265/460 v 1979 1979 Tenley Circle Wisconsin Ave. & Albemarle St. N.W. A9 (256+50) 13 kv 1979 1979 Oliver Street Wisconsin Ave. & Oliver St. NW. AlO (325+65) 13 kv 1979 1979 Bethesda Wisconsin Ave. & Montgomery Ave. All (396+00) . 13 kv 1979 1979 Medical Center NIH & Naval Medical Lab. All (650+40) . * 13 kv 1979 1979 Federal City College U Street 7th & N Ste., NW. El (29+85) 13th & U Ste., NW. E2 (84+l'3) 13 kv 13 kv 1979 1979 1979 1979 Peeks lull Pooke Hill Rd & Wisconsin Ave. All (5101-70) 13 cv 1979 1979 Grosvenor Rockville Pike & Tuckerman Lane *Al3 (569+50) 13 kv . 1979 1979 Mor?ttose Ave. Rockvillc Pike & Montro3c Ave. Al3 (545+50) 13 kv 1979 1979 PAGENO="0475" WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE VII Forrest Glen Wnea ton Glenmont Anacostia Alabama Avenue Colu~bia Heights Ceor1gia Avenue CHILLER PLANTS * B8 B1O B11 * F5 PS E3 (130+75) 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 Name PASSENGER STATIONS Nicholson Lane Twinbrook Rockville Forrest Glen Wheaton Glenmont Utility Project Construction Operational Estimated Date š~p1etion Date 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 198t 1980 Columbia Hts. Georgia Ave. Chillum Prince George'a College Perk Greenbelt Rd. Anacos na Alabama Ave. Naylor Rd. Suitland Branch Ave. * Netro Stationing * Point A14 A15 A15 B9 B1O Bil E2 (133+59) E3 (176+75) E5 E6 El E7 F5 (198+88) P6 F7 P8 P8 Approximate Location Passenger Stations Rockville Pike & Wall Lane Dorchester Ave. & Fishers Lane Stone St. & Highland Ave. Forrest Glen Rd. & Georgia Ave. Georgia Ave. & Roedie Drive Georgia Ave. & Glenallen Ave. 14th & Irving Sts., N.W. Kansas Ave. & Varnurs St., N.W. Chillum Rd. & 19th Ave. Plaza East-West Hwy. & Belcrest Rd. Bowden & Calvert Rds. Grecnbalt & Netzerot Rds. Good Hope Rd. & P1mm. Ave., S.E. Naylor Rd. & Erie St., SE. Naylor Rd. & Suitland Pkwy. Silver Hill Rd. & Suitland Pkwy. Branch Ave. & Adams Dr. 14th & Columbia ltd., N.W. 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 Class of Service 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv l3kv~ 13 kv 13kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 13 kv 265/460 V 265/460 V 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 -9- PAGENO="0476" 016 008 4 Approximate Location Passenger Stations WMATA FACILITIES LOCATIONS PHASE VII (Con't) STORAGE & INSPECTION YARDS Metro Stationing Point Class of Service 13kv l31~v TRACTION POWER SUBSTATIONS (See Note 2) Utility Project Construction Operational Estimated Date Completion Date 1981 1980 1981 1980 I. :~ c,3 -10- PAGENO="0477" 1. Locations of Stations ore approximate street addresses. 2. Phase VI and VII Traction Power and Chiller Plant locations and Passenger Station Coordinates have not been determined with the exception of A9, AlO, All, A13, El and E2. * Operational Date - Means the date that the Authority has scheduled for the comm~ncement of Test Operation of trains and associated electrical operations. ** Estimated completion dates will be updated from time to time as provided in "Payments for Utility Project Construction", Paragraph A.l E~~* -li- PAGENO="0478" 1160 - -r--~ ---TI------ - : ____________ ~ - -- ~ITiIiiiiIT C -- -- I I _ __ __ : ::~.I - - - - - - - = -- - - ~ - -: ~-- ~ ~-- __Iiii_Ii__iI_i_I____-iii-i-=i-ii~ . ~ -: : ~. :T.~T - - -- . -. - -- Ri -J ~ ~ ~:2 ..~ _~.. .*~_** ..~ ~ -- -- ____~L__ - -- " ~. .- --- .:- ~.-: ~ - - ____iI_~ ~ -- ----- -------- - --~- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - __________ - 2 ~ ~ Â~ ~ . .L... .~` Cs (J-C:_ PAGENO="0479" 1161 -~ ~ 7~//~ AJOM~4~~- 06-/veT ~c~'g . -* (ft P'-07 0- Ci~ź=1-J /~iC~ ~~-r--'---- ft Pu 41C - 1-) c}T 77,- eT) ,7 -- ~ / - - - - / - - / I.: .~it 0 ~tI LiJ::~' ~ -----------:~~L:i ?7rn76 7/3 ,~t~~7jjj77'š _-~__-__-- PAGENO="0480" 1162 lef 2 APPEIiDIX EST~:\T~hG FROCEDURE -. Sections I C and III 2. of the Agreesmnt refer to the `sLor~Lard estireeting p,racUccs: and standard estimating procedures", respectively. The follcwhicj a spucification of the estimating procedure and will govern transactions made * under this Agreement. 1* Upon receipt of a ~iATA "Authority Project" identification, PEPCO~. ~ ~l `-`ur P~ r ~e r i es ~ ~ede ~UC~1~ LO Fe in thz~ associated Utility Project." This -is done in two parts, with * end without Technical Provisions, as stated in Section 111 2 of the Agreerseit: 2. PE~CO's Transmission and Distribution System Engiree~'ing Depar~eent takes the System Planning plans and determines feasibility, working with System Planning to make adjustments if necessary. Once the plans * are agreed to be feasible, cost estimates for the "outside plant" portior.s.of the Utility Project are determined. `Outside Plant" is everything beyond the supply station feeder cable terminations. * In making these estimates, I & D uses its standard unit cost estimating -. books to apply costs to the ph~'sical units of conduit, cable, poles, wires, etc. determined necessary. Time-cost escalation will be applied to reflect costs at times of actual work by using indices derived from PEPCO's historical experience. - - . - * 3. The T- & D estimates are then passed to PEPCO's Civil and-Substation Engineering Department where cast estimates of the "inside plant" portion of the Utility Project are made in a similar manner. - Civil and Substation Engineering then forwards the complete Utility Project estimate to the Building Seretces Department where a proposal to W~ATA is prepared. . - - 4. The formal proposal consists of a statement of the estimated costs - - with and without the Technical Provisions, with the difference being - identified as the "Estimated Cost" of the Contributioh in Aid of . - * Construction; a series of engineering and construction cost "S" curves; - and a schedule of monthly payments to be made by W~4ATA to PEPCO. * 5. After the Utiiit~' Project is cemoleted in the field, actual costs `~;ill be determined in accordance with standard PEPCO accounting practices. Once - the actual cost of the Utility Project is known it will be divided by the estimated cost of Utility Frojact for service in accorda;ice with the * * Technical Provisions, as found in the formal proposal, and the resulting * quotient will be multiplied by the estimated cost of Utility Project for service without the Technical Prcvisicns. The revised esti;eate derived free this multiplication will be used as the "Estimated Cost" for cosip~ring with the `Actual Cost" in determining the "Actual Cost" of Contributions in Aid of Construction. PAGENO="0481" 1163 ij~ lo c~iin~ e;:aa~le is providod for ciar~uication. : Estina~ed Cost~ of UU11[y Project ~i tho~: Tcchni cal i'rov~sions $2,000,000 With Technical Provisions $3,500,030 ."EsLiraated Cost of Corirjiition in $3,300,oo~ Aid of Construction -2,000,000 (Paid by Authority to Utility on ?~1,503,QoQ 15 curve basis) . Actual Cost of Utility Project (from standard accounting practices) $4,000,ooo QuoUent Icr Cost Adjus~sient $4,000,000 ~3,5Oo,0o3 = 1.143 Adjusted Estima~ed Cost of Utility Project Without Technical Provisions $2,000,000X 1.143 $2,286,000 ."Actu~l Cost of Constructions in $4,000,000 Aid of Construction -2,286,000 ~1,7.14,000. Additional Amount to be Paid to $1,714,000 Utility by Authority L53O,000 ~ 214,000 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 31 PAGENO="0482" WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT A~ rIORITY 600 Fifth Street. NW.. Washington. D. C. 20001 Teiephone (202) 637-1 234 A G E N D A 391st MeetIng of Board of Directors June 13, 1974 CLL..IIJSE EARNEST 9:30 A.M. - N[R5E~TEHARRJSII 1(A). Approvalof Minutes of-June 6, 1974 Chairman JERR~ A MOORE. JR. I (B). Report by General Manager Mr. Grahen 111(c) Report by )JSTC NVTC and D C Mr White M.,~yJ~d Mr. Alexander JOSEPM L.FISHER Mr. Nevius ~ Iv(D). Bimonthly Report of Director of Goverrosent - - Relations Mr. Perlr.on ~ V(E). Approval of FY 1975 Budgets Mr. Barnett Mr. Harris JOSEW-LELEXANDER Mr. Nevius H:NXY ~ 50~~~~ard Consideration of Takema Site Plan Hr. Feuntr~ Consideration of Staff Report on Metrobus on~ -JJ~' ~P Public Heorings Pbs. 18-24, Docket 74-4, .,ACES(NGRALjAM (_/N ~91' Phase III Plan and Program Mr. Russell ~ VIII(G), Status Report on Negotiations between WMATA 5CU~LER LOWE and PEPCO Mr. Garrett .~..~(p:o/R~ ~L~ta~L. Preliminary Report on Environmental Study for (I Sections A 14 A 15 and A 16 and Rockville SENNEDY Extension Mr. Garrett (SAY,.? CW,,M Mr. Roberts XCI). Authority to Award Contract for Metrobus Stop RALPAL WOOD Signs, Contract No. 2Y9ll0 Xl. Authority to Modify Design Contract, Section D-9 (300091), Implementation of Value Engineering Change Proposal XII. Authority to Acquire and Operate D~int~vner Project as Experimental Service XiitOi). Inspection Tour of Dupont Circle Station . 1164 F~m~ metro * . Mr. Wodd Mr. Dodge Hr. Herman Mr. Alldredge PAGENO="0483" BKdKtDi~Bw~$ CLEATUS E BARNETT CKU HERBERT E HARRIS II VIKK CSAHI,WI JERRY A MOORE, JR DI$IIIUt Ut CKIIIIK5,K SRUHHdVYKChUI,,,~H WILLIAM W GULLETT JOSEPH L FISHER JOHN A NEVIIJS DIKIUKI Ut CHIU~b,B FRANCIS W WHITE HENRYS ROBINSON STERLING TUCKER DIKIIIKI Kt CUIHIKb,~ JACKSON GRAHAM GKKHIUIMW~nR! WARREN OUENSTEDT DKPUIY GKKR~U MUK~QK~ SCHUYLER LOWE EYKUII'K OIIIKK, ,I!ld CBYIPItUIIR( DELMER ISON SKK~KUY-TKU$U,KI ROY S DODGE Mr. Cleatus E. Barnett Mr. Herbert E. Harris II Rev. Jerry A. Moore, Jr. Mr. Jackson Graham Mr. Warren Quenstedt Mr. Schuyler Lowe Mr. Delmer Ison Mr. John Kennedy Mr. Roy Dodge Mr. Ralph Wood Mr. William Herman Mr. William Fauntroy Mr. John Robertie Mr. Mathew Platt Mr. David Gaul Mr. Emanuel Mevorah Mr. William Alldredge Mr. John Patteson Mr. Ray Russell Mr. David Semendinger Mr. Sprague Thresher Mr. Ellis Perlman Mr. Howard Lyon Mr. Joseph Elward Mr. George Care Mr. Irving McNayr Mr. Edward Daniel Mr. Wayne McDaniel Mr. Harold Kassoff Mr. Bernard O'Donnell Mr. George Howie Ms. Jan Notopoulos Ms. Sheila Thomas Mr. Donald Kolodne Alternate Directors Mrs. ldamae Garrott Mr. Joseph Alexander Dr. Henry S. Robinson Mr. Francis W. White Mr. Charles E. Beatley, Jr. Mr. Sterling Tucker Mr. Robert Codding Mr. Ado Valge Mr. Russ Rushton Mr. Donald O'Hearn Mr. Edward Jasnow Mr. Perry Nutwell flr. Gerald Gough Mr. Herbert Leonard Mr. Cody Pfanstiehl Mr. Richard Lawson Mr. Nicholas Roll Mr. Hose Lewis III Mrs. Marilyn McGinty Mr. Alvin Williamson Mr. Russ Neff Mr. T. J. Kim Mr. Richard Raville Mr. Al Roohr Mr. Charles Dowdy Mr. Angus MacLean Mr. Pete Brown Mrs. Chris Simerman Mr. Shiva Pant Mr. Henry Hulme Mr. David Erion Mr. William Maxwell Mr. Eric Ellen Mr. Harry Hadaway Mr. Jack EisÚn Mr. Thomas Crosby 1165 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, D. C. 20001 Telephone (202) 337-1234 MINUTES 391st Meeting of Board of Directors June 13, 1974 The meeting was called to order at 9:35 A. M. Present were: Di rectors Staff Others u~Jj metro PAGENO="0484" 1166 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of June 6, 1974 were approved as submitted. REPORT BY GENERAL MANAGER: Mr. Graham reported that Metrobus public hearings 25 and 26 were held as scheduled June 10 regarding Montgomery County Project Trip, and June 12 concerning route changes for Kennedy and Nicholson Streets. Mr. Graham referred the Board to furnished copies of his June 13 reply to Senator Frank E. Moss concerning the status of the petroleum supply situation affecting the supply and costs for Metrobus operations. Discussion followed wherein Mr. Harris requested that a Resolution be prepared for Board adoption on June 20 requesting (1) the Department of Justice investigate the supplying of fuel for Metrobus operations and the possibility of restraints in trade with respect thereto; (2) the Federal Energy Office be advised as to the effect of the programs which have been oper- ating, and requested to develop a program to return competition to this field, especially with regard to public operations; and (3) Congress be asked to consider legislation to regulate the petroleum industry as a utility. Mr. Graham reported that Mr. Robertie would work with Mr. Harris in preparing the Resolution to be presented June 20. Mr. Graham called on Mr. Dodge who referred the Board to furnished copies of a tabulation covering the opening of bids June 12 on Section K-3. REPORT BY WSTC, NVTC AND D.C.: Mrs. .Garrott inquired as to the status of Mr. Neal Potters request as presented June 6 concerning construction of a second temporary pedestrian bridge in the vicinity of Juniper Street. Mr. Dodge reported that the contractor had been contacted and it was believed the staff could negotiate a cost estimate of $35,000-$k0,000 for the temporary structure. -2- PAGENO="0485" 1167 Discussion was held as to whether this would be an add-on cost or a system cost. Mr. Dodge noted that final determination of financial responsibility in the changes requested by Montgomery County was yet to be made, and that the temporary facility could be constructed and be considered in the overall negotiations with Montgomery County concerning the replacement of the planned vehicular bridge with a permanent pedestrian bridge. Following discussion Mr. Barnett moved, seconded by Mr. White, that the construction of a second temporary bridge in the area of Juniper Street be approved with the question of financing to be taken up along with other changes requested by Montgomery County, as noted above. Ayes: 6 - Mr. Barnett, Mr. Moore, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Robinson, Mr. White and Mr. Beatley. Noes: None. Mr. Alexander reported that the Dial-a-Ride service in Fair- fax City was going very well and that a staff report would be available at a subsequent date covering the service. Mr. Moore made inquiries concerning new Metrobuseshe had observed broken down, and older Metrobuses with nonfunctioning air conditioning. Mr. Graham requested that Mr. Moore provide the staff with the bus numbers which he had recorded so the staff could make specific checks on the equipment, and referred Mr. Moore to the June 5 memorandum which had been the subject of discussion at the Board meeting on June 6 covering air conditioning deficiencies and other problems. Mr. Moore also requested that the staff provide him back- ground information concerning a report he had *received of discriminatory firing of black employees by a Metro construction contractor. Mr. Dowdy reported that this information would be available following the meeting and would be provided to all Board members. -3- PAGENO="0486" 1168 APPROVAL OF FY 1975 BUDGETS: Mr. Barnett presented the Board's Budget Committee report and reviewed the committee's findings and recommendations con- cerning the FY 1975 Budgets for Metro Management, Metrobus Operations, Metrorai 1 Operations, Metrobus Capital and Metrorai 1 Capital. Following discussion, at the request of the District of Columbia, final action was deferred to June 20. BOARD CONSIDERATION OF TAKOMA SITE PL~~N: This item was deferred to June 20. BOARD CONSIDERATiON OF STAFF. REPORT ON METROBUS PUBLIC HEARINGS NOS. 18-24, DOCKET 74-14, PHASE III PLAN AND PROGRAM: Mr. Russell noted that the staff recommendation had been presented on May 30 and that the Board had requested a two week deferral to allow further local review of the staff report on the Phase III Plan and Program. Mr. Russell reported that changes had been requested as result of the jurisdictional review and that those changes had been incor- porated and were being recommended for adoption. Mr. Russell referred the Board to furnished copies of a pro- posed Resolution which, if adopted, would approve the recommendation. Mr. Barnett reported that the Montgomery County Council and Planning Board had requested WMATA to take recognition of discrimina- tory fares in Montgomery County and take measures to establish equity in fares with the other jurisdictions. Mr. Russell reported that in order to change the structure the ring zone fare system would have to be revised through the public hearing process. Mr. Barnett requested that Mr. Kennedy address the situation from a legal standpoint and that the staff present a proposal on June 20 with regard to the fare discrimination. STATUS REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH WMATA AND PEPCO: Mr. Garrett gave a detailed summary of actions and negotia- tions with PEPCO concerning Authority electrical needs for Phase I Metro operations, involving voltage regulation, cash advances and rate schedule. -14- PAGENO="0487" 1169 Mr. Garrett reported that it was the opinion of the staff, as result of recent meetings with PEPCO, that the rates for power could be successfully negotiated and that it would not be neces- sary to invoke the jurisdiction of the D.C. Public Service Com- mission as earlier anticipated. PRELIMINARY REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR SECTIONS A-lL~, A-l5, AND A-l6 AND ROCKVILLE EXTENSION: This item was deferred to June 20, l97~~. AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR METROBUS STOP SIGNS, CONTRACT NO. 2Y9llO: Mr. Wood referred the Board to furnished copies of his June 5 memorandum and attached Procurement Action No. 2, requesting authority to award contract to White Advertising Company for bus stop signs and poles. Upon motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Harris and unanimously passed, Procurement Action No. 2 was approved accord- ingly. Ayes: 5 - Mr. Barnett, Mr. Harris, Mr. Moore, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Beatley. Noes: None. AUTHORITY TO MODIFY DESIGN CONTRACT, SECTION D-9 (3DOO91), IMPLEMENTATION OF VALUE ENGINEERING CHANGE PROPOSAL: Mr. Dodge referred the Board to furnished copies of Procure- ment Action No. 2, Contract No. 3DOO91-5O3, requesting authority to modify contract with Joseph K. Knoerle to provide for services required to prepare, update or modify contract drawings and specifications resulting from the implementation of the construc- t ion contractor's Value Engineering Change Proposal. Upon motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Harris and unani- mously passed, Procurement Action No. 2 was approvedaccordingly. Ayes: 5 - Mr. Barnett, Mr. Harris, Mr. Moore, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Beatley. Noes: None. -5- PAGENO="0488" 1170 AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE AND OPERATE DOWNTOWNER PROJECT AS EXPERI MENTAL SERVICE: Mr. Herman referred the Board to furnished copies of the General Managers June 10 memorandum and rciated attachment recommending (1) that the Authority acquire the fifteen midi- buses acquired by the District of Columbia under UMTA grant, and operate the Downtowner Project as an experimental service; (2) that the present routes and fares be continued with the under- standing that any operating deficit incurred should be treated separately from other system deficits and reimbursed the Authority by the District of Columbia; and (3) that in view of the termina- tion date of the demonstration project, the 30-day review period by local jurisdictions be waived and action on the matter be requested at the June 20 Board meeting. Following discussion the 30-day waiver was moved by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Harris and unanimously passed. Ayes: 5 - Mr. Barnett, Mr. Harris, Mr. Moore, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Beatley. Noes: None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:37 A. M., with the Board de- parting for an inspection tour of the Dupont Circle Station. Delmer Ison, Secretary -6- PAGENO="0489" 1171 STATUS REPORT , / TALKING PAPER 4~7 WMATA-PEPCO NEGOT 1 AT I ONS On February 7, 1973 a proposed new e1ectric~:service agreement was sent to the Potomac Electric Power (PEPCO). In March 1973 the Authority opened discus- sions with PEPCO concerning the sale of electric energy to Metro. After an exchange of communications, a meeting followed at which WMATA's proposed agree' ment and PEPšO's proposed agreement were discussed. PEPCO at that time requested that negotiations be postponed since its staff was involved in hearings for an electric rate increase before theConimissiors in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. Contact was re-established on November 23, 1973 when a revised WHATA proposed agreement was sent to PEPCO, and a meeting date of December 5, 1973 was set. PEPCO again requested a delay of negotiations since their staff was heavily involved with the energy crisis. Afterr contacting PEPCO in early January 19711, a meeting date of January 21, 1971i ~ias set The items relating to the Metro procurement of electric services that were - agreed upon at this meeting include 1. General responsibility of the Authority for public transportation and PEPCO's responsibility concerning the sale and delivery of electrical energy. 2. Definitions. 3. Examination of records concerning the sale of electrical energy to the Authority. 4. Conflict of interest terms 5. Equal opportunity terms. -~ 6. Disputes. PAGENO="0490" 1172 S 7. Term of Agreement 8. Responsibility as a result of an Act of God The unresolved items were: 1. Voltage Regulations: WMATA purchased power transformers for its Phase 1" operations based on PEPCO's recommendations received in a letter dated January 23, 1970. PEPCO stated that these transformers were not suitable because the voltage rating and transformer tap settings did not S conform to PEPCO's system voltages and voltage regulations. PEPCO's present position was not in accord with their recommendations. The Phase- I" electric power transformers as installed were designed for normal operation within the range of 13110 to 11+1+90 volts. This is a normal voltage of 13800 volts with taps at ▒5 percent. A letter from PEPCO's Legal Counsel, Jack E. McGregor, dated February 11, 1971+ stated that PEPCO's voltage regulation was established at 13200 volts + 7.5 percent. The actual voltages of their system, therefore, could range from 12210 volts to 11+190 volts. S Further, PEPCO implied at the January 21, 1971+ meeting that the normal voltage of 13200 volts could be further reduced as an energy saving requirement to a normal voltage of 12540. This would mean that the operating voltage could range from 11600 to 13480 with taps at + 7.5 * percent. A letter from PEPCO's Legal Counsel, Edward A. Caine to John R. Kennedy dated May 16, 1974 referred to a PEPCO voltage regulation of ¸ 10 percent. -2- PAGENO="0491" 1173 The voltage of their system could, therefore, range from 11880 volts to l~520 volts. In order to clarify the voltage regulation problem, PEPCO has been requested to provide nameplate data relevant to the transformers that PEPCO is currently purchasing and what data is PEPCO furnishing to other users of 13KV for customer purchase as required for compatibility with the PEPCO system. WMATA position was that PEPCO dhould be required to replace \IMATA's existing ~ransformers, if necessary, to make them acceptable to PEPCO. WMATA would purchase future power transformers at whatever standard voltage and regulation PEPCO requires for future phases. 2. Cash Advances: In a letter of intent executed July 7, 1972 by PEPCO's Director of Consumer Services, the basic understanding covering service connection to Metro facilities was established. The letter of intent provided for "cash advances" from WMATA to PEPCO at eppropriate inter- vals as the work by PEPCO progressed. WHATA's final obligations and liability with regard to compensation would be subject to negotiation and refunds were to be made in cases of overpayment. PEPCO proposed to consider cash advances as non-negotiable, non-refundable, "Contributions. in Aid of Construction". Ongoing construction of the Metro System must be continued for Phases II, Ia, Ill, IV, V and VI. However, before cash advances are made for these phases, we must have a clear under- standing that all cash advances are to be subject to final negotiation. -3-- PAGENO="0492" 1174 3. Metro Rate Schedule: With respect to a rate schedule, it is the Authority's position that all purchases of electric energy are merely ancillary to its responsibility to provide a rapid rail transit system. Therefore, a single rate scbedule should be developed for rapid rail transit facilities with incorporation therein of all of the Authority's rapid rail transit system electric service requirements. PEPCO planned to develop a rate only for the propulsion power portion of Metro with presently published rates applying to the passenger stations, chiller plants, and repair shops. WMATA's position is that the Federal Power Commission's Account 41~6, "Sales to Railroads and Railways", is appli- cable to the rapid rail transit system and that necessary tariff rules and regulations should be developed by WMATA and PEPCO for filing with the Commissions. This account includes the billing for electricity supplied to railroads and interurban and street railways for general railroad use including the propulsion of cars or locomotives. WMATA is expected to consume approximately 1,506 million kilowatt hours- per year when the entire system is completed in 1980, as served by PEPCO, VEPCO and BG&E. Metro will consume approximately 1,205 million kilowatt hours or 80.01 percent of the total electrical energy from PEPCO, 277 million kilowatt hours or 18.39 percent from Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) and approximately 2~ million.kilowatt hours or 1.6 percent from Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG&E). PEPCO said that WMATA could not use their standard published rates for its traction power service and that rates would have to be developed -4- PAGENO="0493" 1175 PEPCO inferred that the traction power demand would warrant a higher KWHR rate than the now published rates for large power customers. Esti- mates as to how much PEPCO developed rates would cost is unavailable. WHATA and PEPCO agreed that they would meet on January 28, 197k and decide if an impasse had been reached. On the morning of JanLary 28, 197k PEPCO called WMATA to cancel the meeting saying that they had nothing further to discuss. A letter to PEPCO from WHATA signed by the General Manager dated February L~, 1974 requested that they begin serious negotiations and send a representative with the authority to act on their behalf. WMATA reaffirmed its previously stated posi- tion to PEPCO. On February 11, 1974, WMATA received a letter from PEPCO's General Counsel saying that the discussions had reached an impasse. A copy of the letter was sent by PEPCO to the Regulatory Commissions of the three jurisdictions. On March 19, 1971+ WMATA responded to PEPCO's letter of February 11, 1971+ with a copy to each of the Commissions (Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia). WMATA, in an effort to advance the negotiations, called PEPCO's Legal Counsel on April 22, 1974. We were informed that a letter was forthcoming from PEPCO by Friday, April 26, 1974. On April 30, 1971+, John Robertie suggested that WMA'FA go ahead with its plans to put the issue before the Public Service Commission. On May 16, 1974, WMATA received the promised letter from PEPCO's Legal Counsel in which PEPCO reaffirmed their original position. On May 30, 1974, the staff briefed the Board in Executive Session on the contents of this paper. The Board approved the general plans for requesting the Public Service Commission to arbitrate the apparent impasse, if necessary. On June 6, 1971+, PEPCO responded to WMATA attempts to meet with them by agreeing to meet on Friday, June 7, 1974. -5- PAGENO="0494" 1176 During this meeting, attended by Mr. Frank Walters, PEPCO's Vice President of Rates and Regulatory Practices, two of the three unresolved areas were agreed upon. 1. On the issue of voltage regulations - both parties agreed that the dif- ficulty in reaching an agreem~nt was a difference in the published rules and regulations and PEPCO's actual installation and operating practices of their system. Legally PEPCO's voltage regulation could range from 13.2KV + 7.5 percent in Marylai,d and 13.2KV ▒ 10 percent in the Distri&t of Columbia. Actually the voltage range would be 13.8Kv +5 percent in * Metro Phase I area of the District of Columbia. In practice, PEPCO is purchasing its transformers at 13.8Kv + 5 percent and all of PEPCO's customers are purchasing their transformers at 13.8KV + 5 percent in the same service area as Metro's Phase I. This fact makes it academic for PEPCO to have a voltage swing of 13.2KV + 10 percent. It was agreed that the Authority's transformers as procured for Phase I will be suit- able for operation on PEPCO's electrical system. 2. The misunderstanding with regard to cash advances was resolved by the parties agreeing that the "cash advances" were actually cash advances In aid of construction. It was further agreed that the total amount that the Authority would contribute would be based upon actual cost of the facilities to PEPCO less the estimated cost of the normal facilities as * agreed by the parties that would be at PEPCO's expense. The difference between the actual cost and the agreed PEPCO's cost of normal facilities would be paid by the Authority. The total amount of the Authority's advance payments would be adjusted either by a credit or by an-additional payment as the case may be so that the total payment would reflect the total cost that should be paid by the Authority. -6- PAGENO="0495" 1177 3. On the issue of a Metro rate PEPCO stated that they desired to charge Metro fair, reasonable, non-preferential and non-discriminatory rates. WHATA stated that it would seek the best possible rate for Metro. Both parties agreed that we would begin a series of meetings starting June 26, l971~ and would work together on the development of PEPCO's cost for providing service to ~4MATA. This would be the basis for the determina- tion of a rate that would be fair and equitable to WHATA and PEPCO without being unduly preferential or discriminatory with respect to the Utility's other customers. Conclusion and Recommendations In view of the progress made at this negotiating session with PEPCO, that is the resolution of two items of contention and the setting in motion a series of meetings for resolution of the third, we feel thatit will not be necessary at this time to proceed further with the Commission. Lucius Pinkney, Jr. - Electrical Engineer NOTE: A "Summary Chronology of Action Relating to PEPCOWMATA New Service Agreement" is attached. PAGENO="0496" 1178 SUMMARY CHRONOLOGY OF ACTION RELATING TO PEPCO-WMATA NEW SERVICE AGREEMENT February 7, 1973 WMATA proposed new electric service agreement sent to PEPCO. Letter from Jackson Graham to V. Reid Thompson. - March 21, 1973 Letter from PEPCO with attached counter-proposal for new electric service agreement.. Letter fto~nC. I.~Nico1son to Jackson Graham. * PEPCO met with WHATA to explain their counter-proposal. Major points of discussion were rates, PEPCO's terms and conditions, construction ad- vances, energy requirements, load factors, etc. -. Future meetings postponed at request of PEPCO since their staff was - involved in hearings for an electric rate increase before the barious Commissions. *: - -- Noveml:er 23, 1973 Revised proposed -new electric service agreement sent to PEPCO. Suggested meeting date of December 5, 1973. Letter from Vernon K. Gaj-rett, : Jr. to W. Reid Thompson. - :1 .- December 3, 1973 - C. V. Nicolson telephoned Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. and asked for post- ponerpent of December 5, 1973 meeting date due to their involvements in - - the energy, crisis. - - - January 10, 197k - Meeting date was set for January 21, 197k at the Authority's offices. PAGENO="0497" 1179 -2- January 16, 1974 Revised proposed new electric service agreement sent to PEPCO. Clarification of Definitions were made. Letter from Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. to C. W. Nicolson. January 21, 1971, Meeting with PEPCO at Authority~s offices. Disagreed on 3 major points. . - -. 1. Voltage Reg~ilation. 2. Application of Federal Power Commission Uniform System of Accounts- "Account 25Z Customer Advances for Construction" and "Account 271 - Cash Advances". - - - 3. Application of Federal Power Commission Uniform System of Accounts - "Account 446 - Sales to Railroads and Railways" to the Metro Systers. - Apparent impasse reached. Both sides agreed to meet on January 28, 197k to decide if there was a deadlock. January 28, 1974 C. W. Nicolson telephoned Vernon K. Garrett, Jr. and cancelled the planned meeting stating that PEPCO had nothing further to discuss a~ that time. - 1 -. February 1,, 1974 Letter sent to PEPCO concerning cancellation of January 28, 1971+ meeting. Suggested that PEPCO send a representative with authority to act on their behalf. Letter from Jackson Graham to W. Reid Thompson. 62-418 0 - 76 - Ft.2 - 32 PAGENO="0498" 1180 -3- Feb ruary 11, 1974 Letter from PEPCO's General Counsel to Jackson Graham saying that we had reached an impasse. A copy of the letter was sent by PEPCO to the various Commissions. March 19, 1974 - - --letter sent to PEPCOan&Commission,. - Letter signed by Jack Kennedy. - WHATA maintains its original position. ~pril 30, 1974 John Robertie suggested that WHATA proceed with legal action against PEPCO. May 16, 1974 Letter from PEPCO stating their position. Edward A. Caine to John R. Kennedy. May 30, 1974 Staff brief the Board in Executive Session. June 7, 1974 Staff met with PEPCO to discuss the three (3) areas of dispute. PAGENO="0499" S !3SflNE~i~T HE'ITE `AE'EE'i H-i?,' P0355. JS. P'ILLIPM 0 G1PLETT JOSEPH L. FiSHER JOHN A. 55055 350.5 5APR05? ú P?ATLLEE'. JR. `iii' S. PiOPENSON 5!JCEER 0-it's: P VJA?h'EN OUNNSIEDT COs-ty 05555 Msssce' SCFEJ'(L-ETS LOWE ESLMER SON JOHN is. ss:sse HOP'. DODGE C-isiS it a'S CsssssstCP 1181 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TFlANS1T AUTHORITY 600 Filth Street, NW.. Washington, D. 0. 20001 Telephone ~202) 637-1234 MINUTES 389th Meeting of Board of Directors May 30, 19711 EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting was called to order at 11:09 A.M. Present were: Alternate Directors Di rectors Hr. Cleatus E. Barnett Mr. Herbert E. Harris Ii Mr. William W. Gullett Mr. Joseph L. Fisher Mr. Jackson Graham Mr. Warren Quenstedt Mr. Schuyler Lowe Mr. Delmer Ison Mr. John B. Kennedy Mr. Roy T. Dodge Mr. Jerome Alper Mrs. Idamae Garrott Mr. Joseph Alexander 7 Mr. Francis Ii!. White Mr. Charles E. Beatley,Jr. Staff - Mr. Ralph Wood -. Mr. Vernon Garrett Mr. Lucius Pinckney Mr. Art Luhrs Mr. Hose Lewis III Mrs. Chris Simerman Others Mr. Cliff Trott PAGENO="0500" 1182 STATUS OF PEPCO AGREEMENT - RATE NEGOTIATIONS: Mr. Dodge and Mr. Garrett reported on the status of negotiations with PEPCO from 1970 to date, concerning Authority electrical needs for Phase I Metro operations and the impasse which had developed as to agreement on voltage regulation, cash advances and rate schedule. Lengthy discussions were held wherein it was agreed that the matter would be referred to the Public Service Commission but that negotiating efforts would continue with PEPCO to try to reach an agreement. It was also agreed that the Chairman would issue a release stating that the matter would be scheduled for discussion in open session at a subsequent date. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 1l:L~5 A.M. Delmer Ison, Secretary -2- PAGENO="0501" (0 B 2 - 1979 1300 2 2~;' `~ 2 A (0 - ID ~ 27,330 21,505 - `0 -. 0 (0 5,507 3,848 .. `, 0 0) 0) -~ 3,887 3,833 1(0 -, 2,698 318 ~ 8,391 6,578 a, -n ID 6,342 48~; `< ,~1 ~ 182 175 -~ 2 2 20 13 ;. B 0O)~~ 5,330 5,805 2 2 2 (030 ~l33 2 293 27'l ID 83 25 -. -n 0 18,683 16,715 ~` ~ (0 111,973 1,273 2- " 2 0. `00 -. 00 6,841 0,129 ,-n 2 0 7,467 526 2' `0 0 01(0 6,300 5,464 - 8,009 506 ~- : ~ 13,141 11,533 (0 0) 15,469 1,032 22 18-' 59,154 49,013 -. 2 45,949 4,45 UI 0, ii OPERATIII6 082 CAI'ITAL (080 REQUIPEOEVTR FOOlI LOCAL JUDISDICTIOIIS 88 (`AYIiEIiT YEAS 8100 A~1Y0AL `ARE INCREASES (5ooo'~) 1373 PrIor 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 District of Coiunbla Operating 8011 3,120 16,208 23,697 33,841 31,008 Capital 72517 27,32' 37,728 18,115 34,914 39,879 ~j~ia. Alexandria Operating 103 420 2,650 3,366 3,929 3,935 Capital 20,097 3,973 6,161 2,527 5,426 6,228 ~j~3lOn Operating 156 630 3,724 5,086 8,773 9,1423 Capital 36,274 7,027 1(094 4,352 1(4,298 16,557 Operating 14 17 98 1314 168 185 Capital 1,673 330 8143 21 (66) 27 Falrfeo Cxnntt Opxraiinš 11(0 571 3,932 4,551 5,396 5,561 Cnpii~i ((0,61(7 7,970 33,3(33 6,700 13,615 15,/96 Fails Clinrch 8 34 106 267 288 310 Capital 663 110 161 92 163 174 Total Virginia ÷~6~ating 1411 1,680 9,000 13,3811 18,5314 19,414 Capital . 100,154 19,1430 25,398 11,772 33,436 .30,782 ~yj~nd 75~2nerp Connt~ Operating 152 638 3,363 3,058 5,741 6,123 Copliai 70,238 13,977 19,"79 0,042 16,883 19,610 ú~j~Gnoro'sCox11l Operatng 33 562 2,902 2,689 4,490 5,777 Capital 55,367 11,007 16,581 6,457 18,151 21,189 Tote! 141r51Ind Oporating 205 1,200 6,345 5,767 10,239 11,900 Capilal 125,555 24,904 . 35,760 14,635 35,0314 40,799 TOTAL Operating 1,564 6,830 32,353 i~2,848 62,614 62,322 Copitci 398,256 71,735 100,006 1(11,386 03,384 119,460 1/ incix/es debt-serol co rdqn irnoents nod In an xl Sectixo 5 (cclx. PAGENO="0502" 1184 GENERAL QUESTIONS Question 9. Please submit the Senate study regarding use of Dulles access road for Metro. Answer. The "Dunes Airport Rapid Transit Service" study of July 1971 Is attached. (Submitted for the committee's files, report by Department of Transportation.) Question 10. Please submit the percentage of the bus fleet immobile daily along with comparable data from other transit authorities. Answer. See table below. Number Percent WMATA: Total fleet Average immobile daily New York City Transit Authority: Total fleet Average immobile daily Chicago Transit Authority: Total fleet Average immobile daily Cleveland Transit Authority: Total fleet Average immobile daily Philadelphia Transit Authority: Total fleet Average immobile daily 2,030 210 4,500 450 2,376 238 1,007 121 1,700 207 100.00 10.34 100.00 10.00 100.00 10.00 100.00 12.02 100.00 12.20 Question 11. Please submit the average length of immobilization for buses and the average (mean) time between immobilization periods along w-ith comparable data from other transit authorities. Answer. WMATA-Information not available 1; New York City Transit Authority-Information not available; Chicago Transit Authority-Information not available; Cleveland Transit Authority-Information not available; and Philadelphia `Transit Authority-Information not available. QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET Question 1. In their July report GAO found that the Authority underestimated their program for 1976 by $312 million. Please provide estimates of the FY 76 and EY 77 programs reconciling this amount. You may recall that the study of the FY 1976 program was initiated because neither the Administration nor Congress had acted upon the $4,454 million finan- cial plan and W~IATA was facing a $211 million shortfall in FY 76 funding. In May 1975 we advised Congressman Diggs that our total funding need was ~734 million, which included several unfunded FY 75 contracts which, because of rising escalation costs, had to be carried over. GAO's statement, "WTe concluded the cost estimate for projects planned in Fis- cal Year 1976 was understated by $312.9 million . . .~, is very misleading. The Com~tro1ler Generals letter to Congressman Mazzoli on this subject clearly shows the following: [In thoussnds[ . WMTA programed amount GAO amount Difference Fiscal year program Fiscal year 1975 carryover Startup costs Total ~584,857 149, 358 0 ~699,393 180, 413 18, 050 $114,536 31, 055 18, 060 734,215 897,856 163,651 When WMATA was first presented GAO's findings we pointed out a number of errors of fact. These errors of fact included: 1 WMATA is now working on a system of reporting which will provide this Information on a regular basis. PAGENO="0503" 1185 1. Miscalculations of design estimates by GAO. 2. Incorrect Section Designer estimates for structural aoid stage contracts. 3. Failure to account for inclusion of betterments, add-ons and handicapped facilities in the Section Designer estimates, all of which are funded 100% from other sources, and 4. Failure to recognize $28.5 million in contingencies which were included in the $734.2 million. At that meeting it was agreed that the staffs of WMA.TA and GAO would work together to resolve the errors of fact to their mutual satisfaction. Substantial progress was made when GAO suddenly ceased and reverted to their previous position. We feel that, had GAO corrected their errors of fact, the letter to Congressman Mazzoli would have read as follows: [In thousandsj WMATA programed Corrected amount GAO amount Difference Fiscal year 1976 program $584, 857 $637, 035 $52, 173 Fiscal year 1975 carryover 149,358 163,455 114,087 Start-up costs 0 18,060 18,060 Add-ons 1 0 (2, 190) (2, 190) Handicapped facilities 10 (14,682) (14,682) Total 734,215 801,678 67,463 I Separately funded. [In thousandsi Programed Corrected amount GAO amount' GAO amount' Fiscal year 1976 program: Structural construction contract $376, 971 $468, 431 $441, 875 Stage contracts 79,814 98,743 88,015 Finish construction contracts 14,475 13,662 13,662 Design contracts 16,027 20,394 16,860 Administration 97, 570 98, 158 76, 623 Total 584, 857 699, 393 637, 053 `Includes betterments, add.ons and handicapped facilities. 2 Contingencies listed in administration by GAO, distributed to offset increases in estimates. [In thouoands[ Programed Corrected Amount GAO amount GAO amount' Fiscal year 1976 carryover program: Structural construction contracts Administration Total $129,217 20, 141 $160,453 20, 170 $150,263 2 13, 192 149,358 180,413 163,455 `Includes betterments, add-ons and handicapped facilities. 2 Contingencies listed in administration by GAO, distributed to offset increases in estimates. Question 1. In their July Report, GAO found that the Authority under- estimated their program for 1076 by $312.0 million. Please provide estimates of the Fiscal Year 1976 and Fiscal Year 1977 programs reconciling their amount. Answer. The $312.9 million referred to in your question represents the dif- ference between the WMATA estimates for the Fiscal Year 1976 prograsn sub- mitted in May 1975 and the total GAO unadjusted amounts for the Fiscal Year 1975 carryover program, the Fiscal Year 1976 program and start up costs. Table 1 summarizes the difference. Detail sheets supporting Table 1 are attached. PAGENO="0504" 1186 TABLE I [Dollar amounts in thousands( WMATA programed Description amount GAO amount Difference Fiscal year 1976 program $584, 857 Fiscal year 1975 program Start-up costs $699, 393 iso, 413 18, 060 $114, 536 180, 413 18, 060 Total 584, 857 897, 866 313, 009 You may recall that the study of the Fiscal Year 1976 prograsn was initiated because neither the Administration nor Congress had acted upon the $4453.7 million financial plan and WMATA was facing a $211 million shortfall in FY 76 funding. In May 1975 we advised Congressman Diggs that our total funding need was $734 million, which included several unfunded FY 75 contracts which, because of rising escalation costs had to be carried over. If the GAO had followed the intent and main objective of the report vis-a-vis a funding need of approximately $734 million for work rather than conveying the impression that we had underestimated the work, the summary table would have appeared as follows: TABLE II (Dollar amounts in thousands( Description WMATA programed amount GAO amount Difference Fiscal year 1976 program Fiscal year 1975 carryover Start-up cost Total $584, 857 149,358 0 $699, 393 180,413 18, 060 $114, 536 31,055 18, 060 I 734, 215 1 897, 866 163, 651 I The detail sheet supporting table II is attached. Table II shows a difference of $163,651 w'hich represents the difference between GAO unadjusted figures and our programmed estimate, a difference that has never been accepted by the Authority. When WMATA was first presented GAO findings, a number of differences of opinion arose between our staff and the GAO. The principal differences included: (1) Miscalculation of design estimates by GAO. (2) Use of latest Section Designer estimates taken at face value which in many cases included amounts for betterments, jurisdictional add-ons and handi- capped facilities, all of which are funded by other sources. Also, many of these estimates have proven to be overstated as evidenced by recent bids opened by the Authority. At that meeting it was agreed that the staffs of WMATA and GAO would work together to mutually resolve the major differences. During the period of negotiations between WMATA staff and GAO, the dead- line to report back to your committee became critical and none of the differences were resolved when the letter from GAO to Congressman Mazzoli was for- warded. At a subsequent hearing on November 18, 1975 before your committee, several of the differences of opinion mainly the approval for calculatinz design estimates had been resolved. The major difference of opinion which is still not resolved is the use of unadjusted Section Designer estimates, and we are cur- rently at a standstill w-ith GAO concerning this matter. The "Current Amount" Column in the attached detail sheet reflects the latest updated estimates and bids received thru January. Since the Mazzoli letter, bids have been taken for Contracts 1B0066, 1G0031, 1F3012, 1F3011, 1GOO11, 100021, and 1LOO11. Cumulatively these bids are $35.4 million under the section designer estimates contained in the letter to Congressman Mazzoli. PAGENO="0505" 1187 If this trend continues during the next six months we firmly feel that we will have a legitimate case for not using the updated section designer estimates at face value without the benefit of detailed analysis. DETAIL SHEETS November 1974 estimate Contract No. amount GAO original amount Current amount 1C0104 $978 $1,561 $1,613 1A0062 49, 124 48, 250 58, 353 1CO1O1 7,354 9,904 9,904 1C0103 17,105 21,348 21,348 ijoon 4,797 3,500 3,500 1A0131 19,853 25,217 25,072 1B0066 3, 965 2, 653 12, 234 1C0113 2, 125 5, 500 7, 151 1C0112 5,648 4,600 4,600 1EOO11 33,507 50,100 48,200 1F0031 54,636 71,400 58,933 1G0031 24, 461 32, 237 1 25, 934 1C0091 28,611 27,698 24,308 1C0102 57,381 57,381 54,452 1E0012 26,853 44,200 41,657 1CO111 7,159 6,500 6,500 1E0021 33,414 56,382 42,040 1Z0093 142 142 200 2Z1034 5,328 5,328 13,507 1Z4084 12,618 15,000 15,049 1Z2O1B 3,267 3,267 585 1Z4055 12,944 16,626 11,229 1Z2024 1,423 1,423 1,423 1Z2014 9,154 9,154 9,154 2Z1035 12,359 12,359 12,359 1Z4085 22, 130 35, 000 24, 267 1Z0094 449 700 1F3012 3, 166 2, 346 12,385 1F3011 3,120 4,100 12,744 1K3021 3,915 3,131 3,182 1K3011 4,274 4,085 4,274 Design, fiscal year 1976 16, 027 20, 394 16, 860 Administrative, fiscal year 1976 97, 570 98, 158 98, 158 Subtotal 584, 857 699, 393 653, 392 Fiscal year 1975 carryover projects: 1LOO11 36,070 38,109 138,625 1K0043 11,855 9,943 9,932 1GOO11 41,344 51,161 141,991 1G0021 39,948 61,030 142,266 Administrative, fiscal year 1975 20, 141 20, 170 20, 170 ST fiscal year 1975 carryover 149, 358 180, 413 152, 984 1 Denotes bids received. Qvestion 2. In the Authority's August program control report, an increase in the total system cost of $139.9 million was reported. Please comment on the source of this increase. Was any part of the increase from contracts not yet obligated? Answer. The $139.9 million increase is basically two categories. $34.6 million is to complete work already obligated and $105.3 million is for contracts not yet obligated. Question 3. What changes were made In the contracts programmed for FY 77 and FY 78 since the Airlie meeting of November 1974 and what were the reasons for these changes? Answer. The Vienna Route from K-4b on outward has been deferred approxi- mately 18 months due to the I-GO controversy. The Springfield contract 3-3 has been realigned to the Franconia line as H-2 and redesign is underway. The final design of the Branch Route from F-4 on outward and the Greenbelt Route from E-4 on out are deferred. Studies are presently being made on these two route alignments. Question ~. Explain how the revenue bonds were issued, how the Interest Is paid and who is liable for the debt service. The Authority has sold 5 revenue bond issues with a total value of $997 million. Four issues, with a value of $820 million were sold through a competitive bid- ding process during the period October 1972 until April 1074. All four Issues were PAGENO="0506" 1188 purchased by an underwriting syndicate headed by Merril Lynch Government Securities, Goldman Sachs Company, Salomon Brothers Trust Company. All issues had at least two bidding syndicates competing, and on two occasions there were three. Bidding on all four issues was extremely competitive. Issue Rate Amount V/inning bid Losing bid Losing bid Series A Series B Series C 7. 30 7. 35 7. 75 ~225, 000, 000 220, 000, 000 150, 000, 000 7. 364 7. 385 7. 783 7. 373 7. 387 7. 434 7. 788 Series D 8. 15 225, 000, 000 8. 234 7. 8. 239 In all cases the lowest losing bid was tendered by a syndicate headed by The First National City Bank of New York. The fifth issue, totaling $177 million was sold to the Federal Financing Brtnk, an agency of the U.S. Treasury, at a negotiated rate of 8.35% in March, 1975. There are no securities of this issue on the public market. It is held exclusively by the U.S. Treasury. Interest is paid on all public issues, Series A through D, on January 1, and July 1, of each year through the Federal Reserve Bank of Xew- York, the fiscal agent of the Authority. Interest on Series E, the issue sold to the Federal Financing Bank, is payable on the same dates. This payment is sent directly to the U.S. Treasury. Debt service on all revenue bond issues is the primary obligation of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. All issues have been guar- anteed by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Public Law 92-349, approved July 13, 1972. Question 5. Are add-ons and facilities for the handicapped included in the $4651 billion estimate? Provide a breakout of these amounts. Answer. No, these items are not included in the $4651 billion. Estimates of these items are as follows: 3f11110n8 1. Facilities for the handicapped ($52 million Federal and $13 million local $65. 0 2. Add-ons: _____ Federal: Arlington Cemetery Station and Smithsonian entrance___ 7~ 4 District of Columbia: Mid-City line 8. 8 Rhode Island Avenue Station .8 Gallery Place Station changes . 5 Brookland Station changes .0 U Street Station changes 1. 8 Arlington County: Clarendon Station change .4 Ballston and Glebe Road Station changes .3 Total add-ons 14. 9 Question 6. Please reconcile the figures contained in statement #16 of the August and September 1975 Comptroller's Reports. Answer. The item in Statement #16 of the August and September 1975 Comp- troller's reports which may cause an apparent misunderstanding is the line "Available for Obligation and Commitment". The September amount for this item is one total of $151.2 million, but includes funds restricted for handicapped facilities, 80% Federal-20% local match funds and for purchase of real estate. The amount indicated in the August report under the same caption does not include these items-rather they are called out separately. Accordinglo-, all of these items must be added together to determine the total amount of funds available for obligation and commitment in the August report as follows: Funds restricted: Millions Handicapped $26.3 80-20 match 60. 4 Real estate 8. 0 Available for obligation and commitment (all other) 30.7 Total available for obligation and commitment 125. 4 PAGENO="0507" 1189 Reconciliation of the amounts, therefore, Is as follows: Million8 Available for obligation and commitment (August report) $125. 4 Capital funds received (September 1975) 297. 8 Total available (September 1975) 423.2 Funds obligated and committed during September 1975 272. 0 A~vailable for obligation and commitment (September report) 151. 2 Question 7. Please explain why the amount for FY 1979 and beyond in the METRO Capital Budget (Office of Budget November 10, 1975 Revision No. 2) has been reduced from the Airlie Program. Answer. The Airlie Program was $246.6 million for FY 1979 and beyond re- lated to the $4,454 million program presented at that time. The total program has been revised upward to $4,650 million. The requirements for FY 1979 and beyond were consequently increased to $424.9 million. The comparison between the Airlie Program and the present program is as follows: [In thousands of dollarsj Present Airlie approved program program Fiscal year: 1973 and prior 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 and beyond Total $1,460,800 470,300 410,300 585,000 645,000 645,000 246,600 $1,460,800 470,300 307,700 697,000 645,000 645,000 424,900 4,454,000 4,650,700 1 Round-off (actual amount was $4,453,700,000). The increase from the $4,454 million to the $4,650.7 million program-$196.7 million is reflected in major part in the present program line for FY 1979 and beyond. Under the $4,454 million program this line was $228.2 to which the $196.7 million is added to bring the line total to the $424.9 million level. Question 8. Please explain the dc-programming of $94 million from FY 1975 in the Metro capital budget summmary. Answer. In discussions with staff of 0MB, DOT, and UMTA, it was agreed that the Authority's internally generated funds comprised of interest generated from investment of non-Federal monies, are eligible for matching Federal grants. Through fiscal 1975, an amount in excess of $100.0 million in internally generated funds had been provided for the capital program but not as a match to any Fed- eral grants. An analysis of the program indicated items which had not been obligated totaling approximately $94.0 million could be deferred or eliminated altogether which would free up this amount in internally generated funds for matching purposes of direct Federal grants on a %_1/3 basis and UMTA grants on an 80%-20% basis. Accordingly, this was done to provide $34.0 million in matching funds on a %_1/3 basis for the $68.0 million Federal grant in fiscal 1976 and $60.0 million in snatching funds on an 80%-20% basis for UMTA grants made with the substituted interstate highway funds. Question 9. Please provide a reconciliation of the Metro Office of Budget Novem- ber 10, 1975 Revision 2 Capital Budget Summary and statements 15 of the September Comptroller's report. Answer. The Capital Budget Summary of the Office of Budget shows a pro- gram through 1975 of $2,238.8 billion while statement #15 of Comptroller's report shows a total of years programs prior to 1976 of $2,292.6. The difference represents funds for add-ons and facilities for handicapped authorized through 1975. Milliona Capital budget summary $2, 238. 8 Facilities for handicapped through fiscal year 1975 41. 3 Add-ons through fiscal year 1975 12. 5 Total Comptroller's report 2, 292. 6 PAGENO="0508" 1190 Question 10. Please explain why the Transition Quarter funding of $26.7 million was included in FY 1978 instead of FY 1977? Answer. The fiscal years indicated on the Metrorail Capital Summary are those of the Authority. In the Authority's fiscal 1977, Transition Quarter funding of $26.7 million and Federal fiscal year 1977 funding of $90.0 million will be avail- able. However, the Authority will obligate only $90.0 during its fiscal 1977 leaving $26.7 to be applied to its FY 1978 program. Since these Federal funds are avail- able until expended, it makes no difference which period the funds are designated from. Indicating the funding from the Transition Quarter was thought to be more readily identifiable. Question 11. To date, only $286.6 million of the $476.0 million in "highway fund transfer" have been transferred to the Authority. Provided l)reakdown of funds to be transferred and those already transferred. Answer. See table below: AVAILABLE FEDERAL HIGHWAY RESOURCES [In millions of dollarsj 1975 escalated 1972 cost through estimate June 31, 1975 District of Columbia interstates: 70S ~61.6 ~123.l 243.4 486.3 66 172. 6 344. 9 266 124.1 171.8 295 124.1 248.0 695 70.1 Subtotal 757.8 Virginia interstates: 66 84.7 140.1 1,514.2 135.6 266 10.8 17.3 Subtotal 95.5 152.9 Maryland interstates NA 90.0 Total 1,757.1 Funds transferred to date: Phase 1-70S and portion of -95 286.6 PAGENO="0509" 1191 November 2~+, 1975 Request Qustins on the Budget Question 10 TRANSITION QUARTER FUNDING The Authority's Fiscal 1977 program is planned at a $645 million level of which $90,059,000 in Federal funds will be obligated. During this period, the Federal Government goes on a new October I-September 30 fiscal year while the Transit Authority will remain on a July 1-June 30 fiscal year. Federal funds for the transition period (July 1, 1976 through September 30, 1976) in the amount of $26.7 million and for Federal fiscal year 1977 in the amount of $90,059,000 have already been appropriated in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1976. During its fiscal year 1977, the Authority will utilize the $26.7 million Federal appropriation made for the transI- tion period plus $63,359,000 of the $90,059,000 Federal grant appropriated for the Federal fiscal year 1977. Matched on a two-thirds Federal/one- third local cost-sharing basis, local grants of $45.0 million will provide funding of $135.0 for the 1977 program. An additional amount of $510 million is required from sources yet to be determined, Including funds available through transfer of interstate highway funds. The Fiscal 1978 Capital Construction Program is currently planned at a $645 million level which includes the $15,421,799 in Federal funds contained in this budget request as the Federal grant. Appropriation of this amount will complete the appropriation of the total Federal authorized grants for the rail rapid transit system of $1,147,044,000 enabled by the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969. This $15.4. million coupled with $26.7 million remaining from the Federal fiscal year 1977 appropriation will provide a total Federal grant of $42.1 million for the Authority's Fiscal 1978 construction program. With local match- ing grants of $20.9 million, total available funding for 1978 will amount to $63.0 million leaving that part of the program to be funded from sources yet to be determined In the amount of $582 million. A graphic display of the Federal appropriations f~r this periodand how they will be obligated by the Authority is as follows: FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS ~ftansition Period FY 1977 FY 1978 [Jul I - Sep 30, 1976 Oct 1, 1976-Sep 30, 1977 1, 1977-Sep 30, 1978 $26,700.0 $90,059.0 $15,421.8 WMATA OBLIGATIONS FY_~977 . FY 1978 ~ Jul 1, 1976-Jun 30, 1977 Jul 1, l~77-Jun 30, 1978 $26,700.0 $63,359.0 $26,700 $15,421.8 -0- The Authority's 1977 capital program includes provision for handicapped facilities which are separately funded from the Adopted Regional System. 2 PAGENO="0510" 1192 Additional Data November 2'4, 1975 Request Questions on the Budget Question 11. Submit an identical schedule of interstate highway funds transferred prior to escalation and escalated amounts for the balance of the $~76 mMlion. Route Unescalated Amount Escalated Amount Transferred to Date (In Nillions) 70S 61.6 $123.1 Portion of -95 81.8 163.5 Total Transferred $l~~3.~4 $286.6 To Be Transferred Portion of -95 $ 65.5 S130.9 1-66 345J Totals $~i~! $1476.0 PAGENO="0511" 1193 Question 11. To date, only $286.0 million of the $476.0 million in "highway fund transfers" have been transferred to the Authority. Provide breakdown of funds to be transferred and those already transferred. Answer. For the first increment of Interstate Highway Funds of $286.0 million, the source of Federal Highway Funds was from deletion of the I-70S and a por- tion of I-95 D.C. Highway Projects. Question 12. When and under what conditions does the Authority expect to receive the second phase of Interstate Highway transfer funds which the District of Columbia is withholding? Answer. It is hoped that the Authority will receive the second phase of inter- state highway funds before May 1976. Agreement is being worked upon presently as to the extent of participation by the jurisdictions of Maryland and Virginia with the District in making available substituted highway funds for Metro construction. PAGENO="0512" 1194 November 2~4, 1975 Request Local Jurisdictions Question_1: Please provide any studies done by the Authority on regional taxes. See attached. PAGENO="0513" 1195 3:30 p.m. January 30, 1976 Revised February L~, 1976 AIRLIE WORKSHOP XII Sununary Of Financial Impact On Jurisdictions-Five Year Program Problems Bearing On A Supplemental Financial Plan The proceedings of the last two days provides us with the facts to understand the causes and the magni- tude of the changes which have occurred in the financial posture of the Metro project since the initial plan for financing was adopted in 1969. That plan was designed to finance only rail construction and operations since it was the contemplated that the bus service would con- tinue to be provided by the private carriers. The capi- tal costs for acquisition of the private bus companies, the upgrading and expansion of the bus fleet and related facilities and the Metrobus operation have been super- imposed on the original financial plan. Moreover, the original plan has been eroded by unprecedented and un- PAGENO="0514" 1196 expected inflation which has been compounded by delays from a variety of causes. It was recognized from the outset of the transit project that as the development of the system progressed, supplemental financing arrangements would be required. This is an inevitable consequence of the fact that the project is to be constructed over a decade, that initial cost estimates necessarily are based on preliminary en- gineering data and that estimates of operating costs necessarily had to anticipate future conditions some years ahead. The Capital Contributions and Guaranty Agreement, which implements the Financial Plan and Pro- gram adopted November 1969, recognized `that definitive net project costs for the transit system will not be determined until the transit system is completed and that, accordingly, Capital Contributions provided for herein are based on estimates." In order to assure the availability of necessary funds the Capital Contributions Agreement provides for recomputation and re-allocation of costs among Political Subdivisions five years after the start of construction and from time to time thereafter at least at two-year intervals. The prescience which foresaw the need for rolling adjustments could not fore- -2- PAGENO="0515" 1197 tell the magnitude of those changes brought on by the unanticipated and dramatic changes in the general eco- nomic conditions. Costs To Be Financed Formulation of a supplemental financing plan must be undertaken in the context of the costs which are to be financed. These include capital costs for completion of the rail system, including facilities for the handi- capped, expenditures to pay for operations and debt ser- vice on $997 million of WMATA's revenue funds. For pur- poses of this discussion it is assumed that both capital and operating costs are to be shared on an 80-20 federal- local basis. Based on the data presented at this meet- ing, the local obligations for Capital Contributions during the five-year period 1976-1980, inclusive, aggre- gates $317.4 million, reflecting estimated net project costs of Metrorail at approximately $4.6 billion. The breakdown by jurisdiction of each element of the capital costs for the five-year period is shown as follows: -3- PAGENO="0516" 1198 ~ ~ ~i ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c1~ ~ J ~ TI !~il !~Iil !~1iI ~I1E~ !~HI ~ PAGENO="0517" 1199 Based on the data' which has been presented, the share of each jurisdiction for operating and debt ser- vice payments on WMP~TA revenue bonds for each year 1976- 1980, inclusive, on the alternative assumptions that 1) fares will remain constant or 2) fares will be increased for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980 to reflect cost of living adjustments, is presented in the following tables. The Metrobus operating payments are shown net of UMTA Section 5 funds. -5- PAGENO="0518" 1200 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~;i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:E ~ PAGENO="0519" SUMMARY OF LOCAL SUBSIDIES AND DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS BY FISCAL YEAR, 1976-1980, INCLUSIVE - ($0005) Transportation Commission Washingt District * Prince of Fairfax Fairfax Falls Sub- Montgomery George's Sub- Fare Increase Assumed Colombia Alexandria ~5$jJ35toJ1 s~ss~Cc~f .P2~$$~&. Church Total CountjL. Cognty Total F? 1976 Net Metrobus lubsidy Payments N/A N/A n/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A :- 3,235 4,916 129 4,400 3.841 3,662 7.503 39,202 316 3.713 39 316 40 4.424 948 948 1.896 15,800 ~ 12i ~fl Q~ 10 L~9! i~ii L~1 2,501 3,935 9,423 185 5,561 `7~ 6,1.23 5.777 11.900 62.322 ~3~O 1%~I~ 3,055 4.644 122 4,156 244 12.221 3,519 3.357 6,876 34.562 282 2.609 35 564 35 3,525 1,410 1,269 2,679 14,100 1L~21 3,586 3,887 8.391 182 5,930 293 18,683 6.841 6,305 13.141 59.154 2,799 4.255 112 3,006 224 11.196 3,234 2,975 6.209 30.913 426 1065 36 710 35 2,272 781 639 1,420 7,100 -~ LL~ 2~ ~ 2,114 1,850 3,964 3,833 6,578 1.75 5,855 274 16,715 6,129 5.464 11,593 49,613 F? 1977 Net Metrobus Iubsidy Paymnnts N/A Metrorail Operating Subsidy N/A Debt Service on WMJ1.TA Bonds N/A FY1978 ` Net Metrobus Subsidy Payments ~l7dd~I1 Metrorail Operating Subsidy 9,480 Debt Service on WMATA Bonds ~ Subtotal 3~1)OOg VT 1979 Net Metrobus Subsidy Payments 15,405 Metrorail Operating Subsidy 9,896 Debt Service on WMATA Bonds ~ Subtotal 27,330 FY 1990 Net Metrobus Subsidy Payments 13,508 Metrorail Operating Subsidy 3,408 Debt Service on WMATA Bonds $$~ Subtotal 21,305 Total N/A PAGENO="0520" 1202 It will be seen from these tables that the range of annual payments, depending on the assumption with res- pect to fares, is for: the District of Columbia $21.3 million to $38.4 million; NVTC $13.3 million to $28.3 million; and WSTC $5.7 million to $19.9 million. In order to determine the total annual burden on each jurisdiction, the annual cost for interest and cur- tail on the bonds issued to meet the capital grant obli- gations must be taken into account. No such figure, however, can be developed which would be accurate for each jurisdiction due to differences among the jurisdic- tions with respect to the term of bonds and repayment provisions. We can, however, establish rough area of magnitude figures by assuming a 20-year term at an ef- fective interest rate of 6% with a level annual curtail. These assumptions would produce an average annual expen- diture for curtail and interest of approximately $8,600 per million of bonds. Using this figure as a factor, the average annual repayment costs for the $317.4 million, representing the aggregate of the capital contributions to be made by all of the local jurisdictions under the 80-20 plan, would be approximately $27.2 million. As in- dicated in the first table, above, the total bonds to be -8- PAGENO="0521" 1203 issued for capital contributions is approximately $110 million for the District of Columbia1 $100 million for the NVTC jurisdictions and $106 million for the WSTC jurisdictions, resulting in average annual expenditures for debt for each of these jurisdictions in the range of $9-$lO million for years after 1980 when all the bonds are outstanding. Since these costs for capital contributions are for years after 1980 when all the bonds required to finance the capital contributions have been issued whereas the annual expenditures for operations and WMZ~TA debt ser- vice, as shown in the table first presented, above, are for years ending 1980, combining the two sets of figures results in an overstatement of the estimated annual pay- ments for the 1976-1980 period. Keeping this in mind, the combined figures produce the following range of annual costs, depending on the assumption made for fare levels: District of Columbia $31.3 million to $48.4 mil- lion; NVTC $23.3 million to $38.3 million; and WSTC $15.7 million to $29.9 million. Possible Revenue Sources In view of the general concern these days about in- creases in the level of taxes on real estate, this paper -9- PAGENO="0522" I 1204 focuses on non-property taxes as a source of revenues to fund the supplemental financing plan. This does not preclude the possibility that an equitable supplemental financing plan may reflect a mix of property and non- property taxes. Our purpose here, rather, is to explore in a general way the feasibility of utilizing non-pro- perty taxes to support the estimated additional costs of the transit project in whole or in part. There are a variety of non-property taxes which may be considered. Some are rather traditional excise taxes, such as sales, gasoline, auto titling, auto licenses, tobacco, alcohol, utility and amusement taxes. A piggy- back on State income taxes or a payroll tax may be de- vised. Possibilities in this category are a tax levied on the privilege of driving a car to work anywhere with- in the Transit Zone or a parking tax levied in each Political Subdivision. The selected tax, or combination of taxes, must not only have the necessary revenue potential but efficiency and economy in tax collection and administration strongly suggests that the existing tax infrastructure be utilized. Another possibility is to put designated public ser- vices on a profit-making basis and to use the profits to - 10 - PAGENO="0523" 1205 support the transit service which, as a matter of policy, is not to be operated on a self-sufficient basis. The Port of New York Authority is an example of this type of financing arrangement. That Authority operates toll tunnels, bridges, airports, docks, the World Trade Cen- ter and the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad which provides trans-Hudson service between Manhattan, Jersey City and Newark. Although such a wide range of facilities are not available here, the airports, sewer and water, and appropriate real estate development of Metro property may be considered. The fact must not be overlooked that tte rail tran- sit system may well have significant, if not dramatic, impact on the value of real estate, particularly in the vicinity of stations. Since these values are created by the transit project, it may be considered appropriate to tax the favorably affected properties so that the tran- sit project can share the windfall gains with the pro- perty owners. The tax could be deferred until sale or the rate of the annual tax on such properties could be increased. Either method could be implemented by creat- ing transit development districts. Last, but perhaps not the least, is a lottery for - 11 - PAGENO="0524" 1206 transit. I understand that all, or a portion, of the revenues from the Illinois lottery are earmarked for transit in Chicago. A lottery could be devised which would minimize the competitive aspects with the State- wide Maryland lottery and could be designed with a speci- fic orientation to the promotion of transit. It is beyond the scope of this paper to analyze in detail the various non-property taxes levied by each of the component governements in the Transit Zone and to determine the potential of each such tax to produce meaningful additional revenues. For background purposes, however, there is set forth below a table. showing tax rates on selected State and local taxes in-the Metropoli- tan area. - 12 - PAGENO="0525" SELECTFJ) STATE AND LOCAL ES ill Tilt ~ 1914 Salea and Dun C&nerai Kate Cro~i.i [cx ioteltu. !iot~1~ lndivids*l lacuna t:,e1ucat ion lacuna her (per band) SpiiILC (par g~lion) Wex (per geUc) Li11t tic 1v7 Cigretnea .~L/ (per pack) lilac Vehicle Excise t~asx1iiie (per gallon) AZ AZ 3. 02-7. 52 7' $2.19 $1.50 $1.50 $(.ibiiCti Cuparlanof Ua~orSate a cc a in SalccLt4 Wa hi~ ct r2p~l ~ Juri.idicLlo~/D.C. Departuont of Finance and ihivunui~ OCtOber 1914; page 13. Diatrict alicia a variable caine tax eretit on tie indIvidual incoax tin uputO 96 per orionptlon for gaailLoa oarnlng $6~000 ant lean. 1/Cl Virettea urn elan aub~ect to clue gincral nalcu tarn in all thean jurludlctlonx. Yaryl ant 1G~~ryPrlnceCcoiga' a County County Alexandria Arlington Fairfax ~airCnn City of l.ouduun Princd WilL(a City County City County tulle Church County Ccuraty 42 72 3.02-1.52 12 $2.19 Dixtrict of Culubi4 lx 221' 62 22-102 ax $2.25 $2.00 9 .15 $ .1) 9 .06 5' $ .Oa * AZ AZ AZ AZ 6Z 62 22-5.152 22-5.752 62 62 $6.00 $6.00 Al AZ AZ 42 62 61 -- AZ AZ 22-5.752 2Z-S.75Z 22-5.752 21-5.1SZ .62 62 62 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 AX 41 2Z-S.1~ 61 $6.06) 9.40 9.40 $.40 $.40 9.06 9.06 AZ AZ 9 .09 $ .119 Sold through State atorca. Tarn equal to 1AZ of retail price -- 9.35 9.35 9.35 9.35 9.35 9.10 9.10 $.io 9.10 9.10 9.095 $~015 9.075 9.075 9.015 21 22 22 22 22 9.119 9 .09 9 .09 9 .09 9 .09 5 .35 9 .15 .10 9 .10 5.025 5.025 22 22 5 .09 9.09 PAGENO="0526" 1208 From the available data it is possible to estimate the revenue potential from an increase in sales, gaso- line and individual income taxes. These data can serve only as rough guidelines because the Virginia data is for F~ 1975 whereas the Maryland and District of Colum- bia data are estimates for FY 1977 and the estimates are based on extrapolations. Montgomery and Prince The District George's Northern of Columbia Counties Virginia Sales Tax - ~a~o p~oc~z~e░ additional 1% $21,000,000 ~ SQ~=~0 Gasoline Tax - additional 1~ per gallon $3,000,000 $5,200,000 $4,500,000 Individual Income Tax - additional 1% $Q~,-G-~ $33,300,000 $27,000,000 - 14 - PAGENO="0527" 1209 Alternatives For Administration Of An Excise Tax For Transit In recent months cons iderable attention has been directed to the concept of a regional tax ear-marked for the transit project. There has not been, however, any clear delineation of how such tax would be administered. Several possible administrative arrangements are com- pounded within the concept of a regional tax. The tax could be regional in the sense that one or more specified types of excise taxes would be ear-marked for transit and would be separately levied by each of the component gov- erriments embraced within the Transit Zone, or by NVTC and WSTC, and the revenues generated by such tax or taxes would be available only for financing the activi- ties of WMATA, the regional transit agency. The other principal alternative is that the responsibility for administering the tax would be delegated to a regional agency, such as WMATA, or to a specially created regional agency. The centralization of the taxing powers in a regional agency, of course, would require cooperative action by Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Congress through the device of an interstate compact --either as an amendment to the existing Compact or the enactment of a separate compact. - 15 - PAGENO="0528" 1210 Consideration of the regional tax concept involves political, practical and legal problems. This paper, however, is limited to the practical and legal aspects, an understanding of which should facilitate cons idera- tion of the political problems inherent in the concept of a regional tax. A principal advantage of delegating the taxing power to the Political Subdivisions or to the sub- regional agencies is that an excise tax ear-marked for trans it would provide a separate source for funding transit operations and, thereby, preserve the traditional taxes for services historically supported by general re- venues. Lodging the power to levy the transit tax at the Local Government level would not, however, eliminate the complexities inherent in the present arrangement for cooperative funding of deficits by the Political Subdi- visions. The continuation of this arrangement would re- quire each Political Subdivision to enter into an agree- ment with WMATA for the annual purchase of services. Even though such agreements would be funded by the ear- marked transit tax, the obligations would be subject annually to the budget and appropriation processes of each participating Government and to the uncertainties - 16 - PAGENO="0529" 1211 arising from such procedures upon the development and implementation of long-range programs which are essen- tial to effective transit service. Moreover, such pay- ments would be considered debt, particularly under Vir- ginia law, unless the purchase was made on an annual basis, subject to cancellation by the Political Subdivi- sion at the end of any year. The grant to WMATA of the power to levy a transit tax on a regional basis would be equally effective in providing the necessary revenues to supplement the farebox and would avoid the unfavorable features inhe- rent in the local tax approach. Thus, this arrangement would eliminate the need for the execution of purchase of service agreements, would remove the transit obliga- tion from the budget and tax structures of each of the Political Subdivisions and, thereby, would avoid any fiscal impact on the Political Subdivisions arising from the transit project. The grant to WMATA of power to levy a regional tax would be consistent with the basic concept of the Com- pact to create an entity with power co-extensive within the Transit Zone to provide transit facilities and ser- vice and would achieve the essential centralization of - 17 - 62-418 0 - 76 - pt.2 - 34 PAGENO="0530" 1212 the responsibility for determining the service and fare levels with the capacity and ability to carry out policy decisions on these matters. This arrangement would es- tablish a self-sufficient regional framework for provid- ing transit service and would provide the most effective and efficient means of responding to and meeting transit needs of the public. The levy of such a tax by WMATA, however, presents novel legal and constitutional issues. A detailed dis- cussion of these issues is presented in the Appendix attached to this Memorandum. For our immediate purpose, a summary statem~nt of the situation will suffice. There are no constitutional inhibitions in any of the jurisdictions to the levy of an excise tax by the Political Subdivisions. In Virginia, however, authori- zation would be required by the General Assembly and in Maryland such authorization may be required for the levy by Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, depend- ing on the specific tax to be utilized. In Maryland, there appears to be no problems of substantive law prohibiting the delegation to WSTC of the power to levy non-property taxes. The situation with respect to NVTC is not a clear-cut. Although there - 18 - PAGENO="0531" 1213 are substantial grounds for concluding that NVTC is an eligible entity to levy a non-property tax, test litiga- tion would be necessary to resolve the uncertainties. The delegation to WMATA of the power to levy a non- property tax throughout the Transit Zone would require legislative authorization by each of the Signatories. It is to be recognized that delegation of a taxing power to an interstate compact agency would present a question of first impression. There does not appear to be any express prohibitions against the arrangement in either the Virgin▒a or Maryland Constitutions and the judicial evaluation likely would reflect the general attitude of the Courts on the appropriate limits of State power in dealing with urban problems in interstate areas. As set forth in the more extensive discussion in the Appendix, the revised Constitution of Virginia gives explicit re- cognition to the problem of financing interstate regional projects and empowers the General Assembly to authorize any unit of government to participate with any other unit of government within or without the Commonwealth in f i- nancing the exercise of any of its powers or functions (Article VII, Section 3). It is, therefore, not to be concluded that such an arrangement is constitutionally - 19 - PAGENO="0532" 1214 precluded but only that the novelty of the issue requires a judicial test to determine its legality. Legalisms aside, the principal objection to be overcome is the reluctance to delegate an unfettered taxing power to a non-elected body. This suggests the possibility of the creation of an interstate taxing dis- trict, governed by a board to be elected on a regional basis. There are devices which may be utilized to miti- gate this problem. One such device is a certification of debt arrangement. Under such an arrangement, WMATA would not levy the tax but would certify annually to each Political Subdivision the funds required and the tax would be levied by each Political Subdivision. Such an arrangement is provided for in Section 14 of the Washington Suburban Transit District Act. In Maryland, the power to certify debt is tantamount to the power to tax. Although debt certification apparently has not been judicially construed in Virginia, it is to be observed that this technique is utilized in the Virginia Area Development Act (Code of Virginia, Title 15.1, ž15.1- 1420). Conclus ion In view of the changes which have occurred since - 20 - PAGENO="0533" 1215 the transit project was initially authorized, it is clear that a larger revenue base than is presently available will be required to complete and operate the rail-bus system. The purpose of this paper is to direct attention to the utilization of an ear-marked excise itax as a supplemental base of revenue. If this approach is politically acceptable, then in-depth consideration promptly should be given to the tax to be utilized and to the legal and practical problems in determining the entity to levy the tax. - 21 - PAGENO="0534" 1216 APPENDIX Constitutional And Legal Aspects Of Transit Tax The legal issue involved in the utilization of a tax for transit will vary depending upon whether the power to levy the. tax is delegated to the Political Sub- divisions, NVTC and WSTC or WNATA. Each of the alterna- tives present somewhat different legal considerations in each of the Signatories. Each alternative, therefore, has been analyzed under the laws of each Signatory and a condensed summary of that analysis follows. The analysis has been directed primarily to the utilization of non-property rather than property taxes and this limitation reflects legal considerations, as well as the general concern over increasing assessments and levies on real estate. Property is subject to local taxation in each of the Signatories, but it is extremely doubtful that NVTC or WM~TA would be regarded as local governments under Virginia law eligible to levy a pro- perty tax. In this regard, it is to be noted that, un- der Article X, Section 4, of the Constitution of Vir- ginia, property taxes are segregated for local taxation. Section 1 of Article X of the revised Constitution desig- PAGENO="0535" 1217 nates counties, cities and towns as units of local gov- ernment and a new entity of government designated as `regional government," which is defined as "unit of gen- eral government." The Report of the Commission on Con- stitutional Revision explains that the term "denotes a unit of government organized with a sufficient range or nurn:ber of powers and basic functions so as to be con- sidered organized for `general purposes.' It is con- trasted with units organized for `special purposes,' such as authorities." Although there are some precedents to the contrary antedating the constitutional revisions, it would appear that for the future neither NVTC nor WMATA would be considered governmental entities eligible to levy any form of property taxes. Levy Of Non-Property Tax ~ Political Subdivisions - It appears that the levy of non-property taxes at the local government level presents no substantive problems in any jurisdiction, and the only legal question is whether the Political Subdivisions may unilaterally levy the tax or whether authorization to do so must be obtained \ N from the State Leg~islature. In Virginia, the Political Subdivisions would.require authorization by the General Assembly to levy such a tax. In Montgomery and Prince -2- PAGENO="0536" 1218 George'5~.c~flfl~tieS, the question will turn on the specific tax sought to be utilized. Under Home Rule, the District of Columbia has general taxation powers, except for taxes on the personal income of non-residents, subject to the right of Congress to override any legislative enactment by the Council. - Levy by WSTC and NVTC With respect to taxation by the State Transit Districts, in Maryland there appears to be no problems of substantive law prohibiting the delegation to WSTC of the power to levy non-property, or, for that matter, pro- perty taxes. In this connection, it is to be recalled that Section 14 of the WS.TD law authorizes the Corrmiission to certifyto Montgomery and Prince George's Counties the tax to be levied against all assessable prope▒ty in the Counties. Since the power to certify debt is considered in Maryland to be tantamount tothe power to tax, WSTC presently is exercising the power to tax property. This power could be expanded by the General Assembly to compre- hend non-property taxes, as well. The situation is not as clear-cut in Virginia. The problem turns on the general question of whether NVTC is the kind of governmental entity which may exercise a taxing power and reflects the uncertain status of special districts under Virginia law. (Makielski, "The Special -3- PAGENO="0537" 1219 District Problem in Virginia," 59 Va. L. Rev., 1182, 1192). The problem must be considered from the standpoint of several constitutional provisions. (a) Absence of Constitutional Prohibition Except for taxes on property which, as stated above, are segregated for local taxation by Article X, Section 4, of the Constitution, there is no express con- stitutional limitation on the type of government entity which may be the recipient of the power to levy a tax. Moreover, the Constitution affirmatively provides that the General Assembly may exercise all powers not denied to it under the Constitution (Article III, Section 14). (b) Representation asAffectin9. the Right Article I, Section 6, of the Bill of Rights, which prohibits taxation of the people "without their con- sent, or that of their representatives duly elected," must be considered in determining whether NVTC is a proper recipient of the power to tax. There are several relevant statutory precedents delegating the power to tax to agencies composed of non-elected persons. A service district created under the Virginia Area Development Act, which has the power to certify debt to its component governments, is governed by a Commission composed of a majority of elected - ___ ___ members and a minority of members of the governing bodies of the governmental subdivisions within the district (Code -4- PAGENO="0538" 1220 of Virginia, Title 15.1, ž 15.1-1427). Under the Water- shed Improvement Districts Act, the directors of the soil and water conservation district or districts in which the watershed improvement district is situated, constitute the governing body of thewatershed improvement district (Code of Virginia, Title 21, ž 21-112.9). The governing body of a soil and water conservation district, however, is composed of both elected and appointed officials (Code of Virginia, Title 21, ž 21-42 and 43). It is not to be concluded, however, that the governing body of a district which is empowered to levy a tax must be composed, at least in part, of members who are elected to the governing body. In upholding the validity of a drainage district whose non-elective officials exercised taxing powers, the Supreme Cou~t of Appeals rejected the contention that the arrangement was unconstitutional, pointing out that the district was authorized under the Act of the legislature, that in assessing and levying the tax, the district was acting as agent of the State, and that, therefore, consent of the representatives duly elected had been obtained (Strawberry Hill Land Corp. V. Starbuck, 124 Va. 71, 97 S.E. 362 (1918)). Although this doctrine is equally applicable to NVTC, the * validity of the delegation of the power to levy a tax need Řot rest solely on this rationale for, in the case of NVTC, -5- PAGENO="0539" 1221 a majority of the Commission is composed of elected members of the governing bodies encompassed within the District and members of the General Assembly. Cc) Uniformity of Taxation The laws of both Maryland and Virginia contain a uniformity of taxation requirement. The Maryland courts have held that this principle requires only that the tax be equal and uniform within the affected area. Under this rule, a tax may be levied in less than the entire geograph- ical area of the levying authority~ so long as it is uniform in the affected area. Article X, Section 1, of the Constitu- tion of Virginia imposes the requirement that all taxes "shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within! the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax." The supreme Court of Appeals held in a case arising under Section 168 of the Constitution, which is substantially similar to Article X, Section 1, of the new Constitution, that non-property taxes are excluded from the effect of Section 168. Thus, in Virginia, there may be a differential in assessments of non-property taxes under justifiable circumstances. It is to be recalled that in 1968, the Transporta- tion District Act of 1964 was amended to authorize NVTC to N issue bonds and tq pay the interest and principal thereon N by such taxes as shaii~be levied or authorized to be levied -6- PAGENO="0540" 1222 by the General Assembly. The legality of that provisionS was thoroughly studied at that time and it was concluded that there was no constitutional inhibition to the delegation by the General Assembly to NVTC of a* power to levy an excise- type tax. It was recommended at that time, however, that the validity of such a delegation should be established through test litigation. Nothing has occurred in the interval which suggests a change in that recommendation. Although the specific reference to a taxing power was eliminated in the 1972 revision of the provisions dealing with financing by Transit District (Article 4.1), that revision stemmed from considerations unrelated to the legality of the delegation of a taxing power to NVTC. Levy by WMATA WMATA, as a multi-jurisdictional district, is subject to the same principles as WSTC and NVTC in deter- mining its eligiblity to levy taxes. In addition, other principles applicable to its status as an interstate agency must be taken into account. At the outset, it is to be recognized that there is no reported decision, State or Federal, on the question of whether a State may delegate taxing power to an interstate body.. (a) Prohibition Against Separate Government In Virginia, Section 14 of the Bills of Rights of the Constitution (Article I) prohibits the establish- -7- PAGENO="0541" 1223 ment of a separate government but there is no similar provision in the Maryland Constitution. The Virginia pro- vision has not been judicially construed so that its mean- ing is enshrouded in uncertainty. It would not seem, however, that the provision condemns the delegation to an interstate agency of the power to levy a specified tax in Virginia, even though the agency is a body containing pre- dominantly non-Virginia representation. Although the power to tax is a critical element of sovereignty, that power alone, circumscribed by the limitations upon WM~TA as an agency of the Signatories, would not seem to elevate WM~TA to the status of a separate government. In searching for the meaning of the prohibition against separate government, it is pointed out that the new Constitution of Virginia states that the General Assembly may provide that any "County, City, Town or other unit of government may exercise any of its powers or perform any o,f its functions and may participate in the financing thereof jointly or in cooperation with the Commonwealth or any other unit of Government within or without the Commonwealth." (Article VII, Section 3). The express *reference to joint financing arrangements with units of government outside of the State is new to the Constitution. The significance of this provision is not to be minimized. In the Potomac River Fisheries Compact (Code -8- PAGENO="0542" 1224 of Virginia, Title 28.1, Secti~-2-8-.1-203; Annotated Code of Maryland, Title 6, Article 66(C), Section 261(A)), criminal jurisdiction for violations committed on the Potomac River, which lies wholly within Maryland, was con- ferred upon the Courts of Maryland and Virginia. Against a claim of improper delegation and abdication of legisla- tive power by Maryland, the Maryland Court of Appeals stated that `TThe use of a Compact for the execution of governmental functions is not an abdication, but an exercise of government." (Dutton v. Tawes, 225 Nd. 484, 500, cert. den., 368 U. S. 345 (1961)). Since WMATA is performing a function of government in cooperation with the Political Subdivisions, it is not unreasonable to consider that the* Virginia Court may construe Article VII, Section 3, of the new Constitution to support the delegation of a taxix~g power to WI4ATA as a means by which the Virginia Political Subdivisions may participate in the financing of the transit function in cooperation with the District of Columbia and the Maryland Counties. (b) Prohibition Against Delegation of Police Power Another frequently referred to constitutional doctrine is that a State may not delegate it~ police power to another State. This doctrine, however, has not been construed as a bar to participation by States in inter- -9- PAGENO="0543" 1225 state compacts, many of which, such as WM~TA, involve the joint exercise of police powers. Virginia, of course, is party to a number of compacts in addition to the transit compacts. West Virginia, which, together with Virginia. and six other states, is a party to the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact (54 Stat. 752, July 11, 1940), sought to be relieved of its commitment to appropriate for the expenses of the Compact Commission on the grounds that, among others, the Compact constituted an unlawful delegation of the police power of the State. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and held that the delegation of power to the interstate agency does not contravene the West Virginia constItution merely because the delegation is to a body outside the State. (West Virginia, ex. rel. ~ Sims, 341 U.S. 22 (1951)). It would not seem that the difference between the power .to compel an .appropria- tion, which was the issue involved in Y~E v. Sims, and thepowerto levy a tax would justify a contrary holding. It is also significant that the prohibition in the Constitution of Virginia against the delegation of police power is a rather limited one. Article IX, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, provides that "The police power of the Cornnionwealth to regulate the affairs of corporations, the same as individuals, shall never be abridged." Section 7 of Article IX expressly excludes - 10 - PAGENO="0544" 1226 "all mu~iicipal corporations, other political subdivisions, and political institutions owned or controlled by he Commonwealth" from the definition of "corporations" in Section 6. There is, therefore, no express limitation on the police power of the State to participate with sister States in the joint exercise of police power on.problems transcending the borders of each. (c) Uniformity of Taxation The principle of uniformity of taxation discussed above with reference to NVTC and WSTC ~5: also relevant to the levy of a tax by WMATA. As stated above, the Maryland Court has held that the rate of assessment must be uniform in the area in which the tax is levied but the tax need not be levied over the entire geographic area of the levying p~ auhority. In Virginia, there is judicial precedent to the effect that the rate of assessment f or non-property taxes need not be uniform in the area of assessment, but the tax must be levied over the entire area of the levying authority. The differences in the uniformity rule in Maryland and Virginia, however, would.not affect the power of WMATA to levy a tax but, as most, would require that *the rate of that tax be uniform. Since WMATA is an agency and instrumentality of each of the Signatories and would derive its taxing power from the General Assembly of each of the Signatories, it - 11 - PAGENO="0545" 1227 is also relevant to question whether in Virginia the tax must be levied statewide. The levy of taxes by special purpose districts, which, as a matter of general practice, are referred to as subdivisions Of the State, are limited to the area of the district. The practice with respect to taxation by special purpose districts provides a rather good indication that the answer should be in the negative. District of Columbia And The Taxing Power The status of the District of Columbia as a federal territory presents the novel question of whether that Government may participate through WMATA in the levy of a regional tax. Article 1, ž 8, Clause 1, of the Con- stitution of the United States provides that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Since Congress has exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia under Clause 17 of that Section, it is pertinent to consider whether legislation by or on behalf of the District of Columbia which provided for the levy of a tax on less than the entire United States would be valid. Although this precise question does not appear to have been previously considered, the trend of decisions would seem to support the validity of such an arrangement. In Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486 (1904), a license tax levied by Congress only in the Tern- - 12 - 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 35 PAGENO="0546" 1228 tory of Alaska was upheld on the ground that the tax was a local tax for the purpose of defraying the expense of the territorial government and not "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and welfare of the United Stites." The Court held that only taxes for the latter purpose are subject to uniformity requirements. The rationale of that case was that Congress was acting in its capacity as the local legislature for Alaska and, in such capacity, the Congress, like any state legislature unrestricted by constitutional provisions, has plenary power over the levy of taxes. Although the District of Columbia is N not a State, it has been judicially dete~ined that the District may enter into compacts with the States. Thus, it would. seem that, with respect to the delegation to ~iATA of a power to levy a regional tax, the District of Columbia presents no problem different from, or in addition to, those applicable to Maryland and Virginia. - 13 - PAGENO="0547" 1229 November 2~+, 1975 Request Submission #4 Local Jurisdictions Question 3b. Submit a legal opinion on whether the local jurisdictions are liable for operating deficits and capital costs if local funds have not been appropriated. The local jurisdictions' legal liability for METRO capital construction costs is presently limited to the amounts reflected in a Capital Receipts Schedule appended to a Capital Contributions Agreement executed among WMATA and all participating local jurisdictions in 1970. The amounts allocated therein to each jurisdiction were based upon the originally estimated cost of construction of the METRO system. However, section 3.3 of that Agreement recognized that the capital contributions provided for therein were based upon estimates and would be subject to subsequent adjustment. Each jurisdiction pledged in the contract to each other jurisdiction and to the Authority its faithful cooperation and best efforts to obtain all authorizations required by law to provide any subsequent increase in its allocation of capital contributions. The Agreement also requires the Authority to take all reasonable measures permitted by the Compact or otherwise by law to collect and enforce prompt payment to or for its account of all capital contributions to be made by each jurisdiction in accordance with the Agreement. With respect to operating subsidy allocations to the various local juris- dictions, the Authority annually budgets in advance the amounts required from each jurisdiction. A Transit Service Agreement, designed to commit each jurisdiction to its respective allocated share of the operating subsidy, has been executed by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission on behalf of the Northern Virginia jurisdictions. Similar Agreements are awaiting execution by the District of Columbia and the Maryland jurisdictions. Should any juris- diction elect not to accept its full allocated share of the operating subsidy, the alternatives would be an offsetting fare increase, reduction in service, or a combination of both within that jurisdiction. Further, it is the Authority's position that, to the extent service has been rendered to a particular juris- diction, the Authority has a valid legal claim on a quantum meruit theory for sums sufficient to pay the operating expenses related to providing such service, less revenues derived from the operation. PAGENO="0548" 1230 Q~apitat ntrthutton~ ~grz~mtnt PAGENO="0549" 1231 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTiONS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 13th day of March, 1969, by and be- tween the WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (herein- after referred to as "Authority"), a hody corporate and politic created by interstate compact between Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. the WASHINGTON SUBURBAN TRANSIT DISTRICT, a body corpo-. rate and politic created by law in Maryland, the DIsTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and Ani~cGTOx Co~~v and FAIRFAX COUNTY, Virginia, and the Cities of Ax~~IA, F~iLs Cntr~cn. and FAIRFAX, Virginia (such Counties and Cities, together with the WASHINGTON SUBURBAN TRANSIT DISTRICT and the DIs~icT o~ OQLU~IA, being hereinafter referred to,. collectively, as `Political Subdivisions" and, individually, as a "Political Subdivi- sion"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Authority has been created by . the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact as an in~trumenta1ity and agency of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia to pro- vide a re~ional transit system and service for the area described. in such Compact as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Zone ~,. WHERr~s, the Authority in accordance with the provisions of Arti- cle VI of said Compact on March 1, 1968 adopted a Regional Rapid Rail Transit Plan and Program known as "Adopted Regional System----- 196w', and on February 7, 1969 adopted certain revisions to and other- wise refined, the Adopted Regional System-1968, (hereinafter re- ferred to as "Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised)") which, among other things, specifies the facilities of such regional tranalt sys-. tern to be acquired and constructed; ~\HEnEAs, the Authority in accordance with Article VII of said Compact on February 7, 1969, adopted a plan for financing the con- struction and acquisition of such regional transit system and the operation thereof which proposes, among other things, that the pres- ently estimated costs of construction and acquisition of such regional transit system, including administration expenses and other costs of the Anthority related or incidental thereto, be financed by the issuance of ~S:E~.~I 00 transit revenue bonds of the Authority payable from revennes derived from such regional transit system and the payment of ~1.7~0.566.C~00 acgregate amount of capital contributions, approxi- PAGENO="0550" 1232 mately one-third or $~73,~22,000 of which is to he contributed by the Political Subdivisions in the amounts set forth in this Agreement and the remaining two-thirds or $1,147,044,000 is to be contributed ~y the Federal Government either by (i) capital contributions made during the construction period of such regional transit system. and applied directly to such costs of construction and acquisition of such regional transit system or (ii) periodic contributions made during a longer period in amounts sufficient to provide for the payment of debt service and incidental expenses with respect to bonds payable solely from such periodic contributions and issued by the Authority in such an aggre- gate principal amount so that the total of the proceeds thereof, together with any suc1~ capital contributions by the Federal Government applied directly to such costs of construction and acquisition of such regional transit system, shall equal said Federal share of $1,147,044,000; WHEREAS, concurrently herewith the parties are entering into a Transit S~rvice A~reement of even date with this Agreement providing for payments, under certain conditions, by the Political Subdivisions for service provided to the Political Subdivisions by such regional transit system (such Transit Service Agreement, together with any amendments or revisions thereof hereafter made being hereinafter re- ferred to as the "Transit Service Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the orderly development of such regional transit system requires that each of the Political Subdivisions shall agree to make its capital contributions as provided in this Agreement; Now. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obli- gations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto, intending to he legally bound Eereby, agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIoNs AND ~VARRANTIES SEcTIoN 1.1. The following terms shall for all purposes of this Agreement have the following meanings: Capital Co~itributions shall mean, with respect to any Political Subdivision or the Federal Government, the amounts paid and to he paid by such Political S ubdivision or the Federal Government as set forth in the Capital Receipts Schedule referred to in Section 3.2 as contributions to the capital required by the Authority for the construe- PAGENO="0551" 1233 3 tion and acquisition of the Transit System; provided that in the event of the issuance of Federal Share Bonds, Capital Contribati~ns by the Federal Government shall moan and include the proceeds (exclusive of accrued interest) received by the Authority from the saTe of Federal Share Bonds as well as any such contributions by the Federal Govern- ment as set forth in said Capital Receipts Schedule. Coin pact shall mean the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact entered into as an amendment to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Com~act between the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia and constituting Title III of said Washington Metropolitan Area Tran- sit Regulation Compact, together with all amendments and supplements to said Title Ill which may hereafter be entered into in accordance ~itb law. Excess Revenues shall mean, for any Fiscal Year, revenues ~or other receipts of the Authority (other than Service Payments under the Transit Service Agreement, proceeds of Transit Bonds or notes or other evidences of indebtedness issued by the Authorfty to finaneG temporarily any capital costs or operating expenses relating to the Transit System, proceeds of Federal Share Bonds or the contributions by the Federal Government with respect to such Bonds, or any Capital Contributions received by the Authority with respect to the Transit System) derived durin.g such ~iscal Year from or in connection with the ownership or operation of the Transit System remaining after there shall have been made all payments and deposits, including debt ser~-ice, operating and maintenance expenses and deposits in funds and reserves, required or permitted by the terms of any contract of the Authority with or for the benefit of holders of its Transit~Bonds or its notes or other evidences of indehtednths issued by the Authority to finance temporarily any capital costs or operating expenses relating to the Transit System, or otherwise determined by the Authority to he necessary or desirable for any purposes of the Transit System other than extensions thereof. Federal Share Bonds shall mean the bonds, notes or other evi- dences of indebtedness issued by the Authority to finance or refinance the Transit System and payable solely from periodic contributions to he made by the Federal Government under a contract with the Au- thority and any income from investment of the proceeds thereof. PAGENO="0552" 1234 4 Fiscal Year shall mean any twelve month period commencing July 1 and ending June 30 of the next calendar year. Transit Bonds shall mean bonds issued by the Authority, other than Federal Share Bonds, to finance or refinance the Transit System. Transit System shall mean the facilities, including all real and. personal property and all rights, interests, property and appurten- ances incidental thereto or used or useful in connection therewith, constructed or acquired by the Authority pursuant to Article II of this Agreement. SECTION 1.2. The Authority and the Political Subdivisions each hereby represents and warrants that it has full power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement. ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION OP TRANSIT SYs~M SECTION 2.1. The Authority shall proceed with all practical dis- patch to construct and acquire the Transit System substantially in accordance with Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised), as the same may hereafter from time to time be altered, revised or amended * in accordance with the Compact; provided, however, that the Authority shall not construct or be under any obligation to construct the facilities * specified in any such revision, alteration, or amendment of Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised) until and unless this Agreement is appropriately amended or other arrangements are made, which, in the opinion of the Authority, assure the availability of adequate funds to finance the Transit System substantially in accordance with Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised) as so revised, altered or amended. No such revision, alteration or amendment which would reduce the facilities to be constructed in accordance with the Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised) within any Political Subdivision (or in the case of the City of Fairfax and the City of Falls Church, reduce the facilities serving such Political Subdivision) shall be adopted without the consent of such Political Subdivision. PAGENO="0553" 1235 ARTICLE III CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS SECTION 3.1. Each Political Subdivision shall contribute to the capital required by the Authority for the construction and acquisition of the Transit System by making Capital Contributions to the Author- ity in the amounts and on or before the times specified for such Political Subdivision in the Capital Receipts Schedule provided for in Section 3.2, as the same may he revised from time to time in accordance with said Section 3.2. SEcTIoN 3.2. There is appended to this Agreement as Schedule A, a Capital Receipts Schedule showing the amounts and due dates ~f the Capital Contributions to be made by each Political Subdivision under this Agreement, including those portions of the Capital ContributiOns of the Washington Suburban Transit District guaranteed by Prince George `s County and Montgomery County, respectively, as provided in the Guaranty Agreement attached hereto, and the estimated amounts and estimated dates of receipt of Capital Contributions to the Transit System by the Federal Government. The Authority retains the right to revise the Capital Receipts Schedule from time to time as may be necessary in the ~udg~ent of the Authority to provide the timely flow of funds necessary for the acquisition and construction of the Transit System; provided that (i) no such revision shall increase the aggregate amount of all the Capital Contributions required from any Political Subdivision without its written consent, (ii) no revision shall be made ~vhich would increase by more than 20% the amount (as set forth in the initial Capital Receipts Schedule attached to this Agreement) o~ the Capital Contribution to be made during any Fiscal Year by any Political Subdivision without its written consent, and (iii) no such revision which increases the amount or advances the due date of a Capital Contribution to be made by a Political Subdivision shall be effective with respect to such Political Subdivision unless the same is submitted to such Political Subdivision at least nine calendar months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year of such Political Subdivision in which such increased Capital Contribution is payable or such advanced due date occurs. Each and every revision by the Authority of the Capital Receipts Schedule shall he promptly transmitted to each Political Subdivision and such revision shall become part of the Capital Receipts Schedule under this Agree- ment. PAGENO="0554" 1236 6 SECTION 3.3. (a) It is understood and agreed that defiuitjve net project costs far the Transit S stem will nat he determined until the Transit System is completed and that, accordingly. the Capital Con- tributions provhlecl for herein are based on estimates. In order to assure the availability of funds to finance project costs, it is hereby agreed that on a date five years after the start of construction of the Transit System, or July 1, 1974, whichever is the later date. the Capital Contributions required from each Political Subdivision will he recom- puted. Such recomputation shall be made by the Authority by comput- ing the local share (one-third) of the net project costs of the Transit System, as then estimated by the Authority, and applying thereto the forniulae attached hereto on Schedule B utilizing the then latest avail- able information for the formulae factors, as obtained by the Authority. (b) In the event that such recomputa.tion establishes that the com- mitment of a Political Subdivision (the Capital Contributions of such Political Subdivision paid or to become clue) pursuant to Section 3.1 exceeds its allocable share of said local share of net project costs result- ing from such recomputation, then no adjustment shall be made at that time to its commitment. (c) Inthe event that such recomputation establishes that a. Political Subdivision's allocable share of said local share of net project costs resulting from the recomputation exceeds its commitment made pur- suant to Section 3.1, then such excess shall be allocated to such Political Subdivision.. (d) The Authority shall make subsequent recomputations from time to tithe and at least every two years and it shall make each such recomputation by computing said local sha~e of net project costs as then estimated by it and by determining each Political Subdivision's allocable share thereof by applying the same percentage of said local share of net project costs as shall have resulted from the computation under the formulae made pursuant to paragraph (a) above. (e) In the event that any such further recoinputation establishes that said local share of net project costs is greater than the sum of the commitments made pursuant to Section 3.1 as the same may have been modified pursuant to said Section 3.1 or paragraph (h) of this Section 3.3, then any such excess shall be allocated in the same n~auner as pro- vided in paragraph (c) hereof. PAGENO="0555" 1237 (1) In the event that any such further recomputation establishes that said local share of net project costs is less than the sum of the commitments made pursuant to Section 3.1, as the same may have been modified pursuant to said Section 3.1 or paragraph (h) of this Section 3.3, no adjustment shall be made at that time of the commitment of any Political Subdivision under Section 3.1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement contained, no Political Subdivision shall be required to pay Capital Contributions pursuant to Section 3.1 in an amount in excess of its allocable share of said local share of net project costs as then recnmputed pursuant to this Section 3.3. (g) If, upon such a recomputation which shall be thade as provided in paragraph (d) above after definitive net project costs shall have been determined, such local share of net project costs is less than the aggre- gate amount of Capital Contributions paid by all the Political Subdi- visions pursuant to Section 3.1, then the amount of such excess payments shall be refunded to each such Political Subdivision in the ratio that the Capital Contributions paid by such Political Subdivision ~ursuant to Section 3.1 bears to the total Capital Contributions paid by all Political Subdivisions pursuant to Section 3.1. (h) In the case of the allocation of any excess pursuant to para- graph (c) or (e) above to one or more Political Subdivisions, each such Political Subdivision hereby pledges to each other Political Subdivision and to the Authority its faithful cooperation and best efforts to obt~in all authorizations required by law to provide the increase in itS Capitat Contributions resulting from such allocation. If and when such. Polit- ical Subdivision shall have obtained all such authorizations the amount of the Capital Contributions payable by each such Political Subdivision pursuant to Section 3.1 shall he increased by the amount so allo~Úated to such Political Subdivision and the Capital Receipts Schedule shall be revised by the Authority accordingly. (i) Each recomputation pursuant to this Section 3.3 and any re- sulting allocation of increases and refunds of Capital Contributions shall include and set forth the portions of any such increase or refund of the Capital Contributions of the Washington Suburban Transit District allocable to Prince George `s County and Montgomery County, respectively, as provided in the Guaranty Agreement attached hereto. Srciiox 3.4. As soon as practicable after the end of each Fiscal Year during the acquisition and construction of the Transit System. the PAGENO="0556" 1238 8 Authority shall furnish each Political Subdivision with a progress re- port showing the progress made during such Year in such acquisition and construction and the amounts expended therefor. SECTIoN 3.5. With the written consent of the Authority, any Politi- cal Subdivision may satisfy its obligation under this Agreement to make Capital Contributions, in whole or in part, by the transfer to the Authority of real property and such real property shall be valued at its market value as of the time of the transfer. In the event the con- tributing Political Subdivision and the Authority do not agree on the value to be assigned to the real property to be contributed, such value shall be determined by an independent valuation of the property made by an appraiser acceptable to both the contributing Political Subdivi- sion and the Authority. Such valuation shall be in accordance with terms and conditions agreeable to the contributing Political Subdivision and the Authority and shall be binding on them. The cost of such ap- praisal shall be borne equally by the Authority and the contributing Political Subdivision. SECTIoN 3.6. The Authority shall at all times take all reasonable measures permitted by the Compact or otherwise by law to collect and enforce prompt payment to or for its account of all Capital Contribu- tions to be made by each Political Subdivision in accordance with this Agreement. If any Capital Contribution or part thereof due to the Authority from any Political Subdivision shall remain unpaid after its due date, such Political Subdivision shall be charged with and shall payto the Authority interest on the amount unpaid from its due date until paid, at the rate of 6% per annum. SECTION 3.7. The liability of the Political Subdivisions to make Capital Contributions under this Agreement shall be several and not joint and shall be limited to the Capital Contributions to be made by each Political Subdivision pursuant to this Article. ARTICLE IV PAYMENT OF EXCESS REVENUES TO POLITICAL SUBDmSI0N5 AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SECTION 4.1. As soon as practicable after the end of each Fiscal Year, beginning with the Fiscal Year in which the Transit System (ex- PAGENO="0557" 1239 9 clusive of any extension thereof authorized by amendment, revision or modification of Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised)) is flrs~ put into substantially full revenue service as shall he determined by the Board of Directors of the Authority, any Excess Revenues for such Fiscal Year shall be allocated among the Federal Government and the Political Subdivisions by paying to the Federal Government and each Political Subdivision that portion of such Excess Revenues which bears the same ratio to the total of such Excess Revenues as ithb `ag1g~gate amount of the Capital Contribu~ions made by such PRhtical Subdi~isn~& or the Federal Government, as the case may be, beds to the~ßggregate ;~\ amount of all Capital Contributions made by the ~Federal.aovernthent ~ and the Political Subthvi~ion~ Such payment shall be acoomp imeci by an appropriate accounting by the Authority sh~vi~g the~niputa~ tion of such Excess Re~ enue~ and the allocation thereof ui ad~c&idance with this Section ARTICLE V MIscELLANEoUS SECTION 5.1. It is expressly understood and agreed that ~1I~ ~b1i gations of the parties undei ihi~ Agreement are conditioned upon and subject to the enactment into law during the 91st Congress of Fe~ie~aI' legislation authorizing the District of Columbia to enter intd this 4gr~e_ ment and the Tiansit Service Agreement and authorizing fh~ appropri- ations for (or appropriating) all the Capital Contributioiis~ to be made by the District of Columbia as set forth in this Agreement atid. Federal 1egi~dation which either (i) auiLoiize~ the appropriations 1~sr (or ap- propriates) all the Capital Contuibutuons to be made by the Fedeiyul Goveinirent as set forth in th~ Capit'il Recernts Schedale, i~r (ii) au- thorizes, as a contractual obligation of the Federal Gov~rmtient, the~ ! / payment by the Federal Government. of periodic contributithu~t~ ~ upon the order of the Authority in amounts sufficient to provid~ f~r th~ phy~ ment of debt service and incidental expenses with respe~t ~p I~.edera1 Share Bonds. . ~ SEcTIoN 5.2. This Agreement shall be in full force and e~e~t;and~ `~ be legally binding upon the Authority and upon all of the Political Sub- divisions upon its execution and delivery by the Authority and each Political Subdivision and the execution ~und delivery of the Guaranty Agreement attached hereto. PAGENO="0558" 1240 10 SEcTIoN 5.3. This Agreement shall be executed in twelve counter- parts, and all such counterparts executed and delivered, each as an original, shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Ix WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agree- ment and affixed their seals hereto as of the date first above written. \rASHINGTON METROPOLITAN ~AREA TR~sIT ALTUORITY By [SEALJL~ / ,, 1/ / ~ ~ ~`./ *),~~i) 1~ ,\:~ ~ /7 5., \ `/, /~` `\\ I [SEAi~h ~ FArEFAX ~ ~ ARLINGTON CouNTY ~ [SEAL] ~tt~j / -, PAGENO="0559" 1241 U CITY OP ALEXANDRIA By. [s~i] Attest: 0 CITY OP FALLS OHUROR S S~ ,/ ~zi ~ ~ [s~~i5] / Attest: S~ ~ c,LJ~~1 / -~ I or F~utrAx ~,i- S ,f// ~~// [SEAL] - S Attest: / ~ / / /2 ~ Dismic~r OP COLUMBIA By [sEAL] Attest: PAGENO="0560" 1242 12 GUARANTY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 13th day of March, 1969 Oy aIiC~ ~e- tweeii MONTGOMERY CouNTY, Maryland and PrINcE GEORGE 5 COuNTY. Maryland (sometimes hereinafter referred to, collectively, as the "Guarantors" and, individually, as "Guarantor") and WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (hereinafter referred to as "Authority"), a body corporate and politic created by interstate com- pact between Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia; WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Washington Suburban Transit District (hereinafter referred to as "District") is authorized by the Washington Suburban Transit District Law, constituting Chapter 72 of the Montgomery Oo~inty CocTe: of 1965 (being Article 16 of the Code of Public Laws of Maryland), as amended, and Chapter S3A of the Code of Public Laws of Prince George's County (1963 Edition, being Article 17 of the Code of Puhli~ Laws of Maryland), as amended, to enter into the foregoing Oapital Contributions Agreement of even date herewith (hereinafter referred to as the "Capital Contributions Agreement"); `~` WHEREAS, pursuant to said Washington Suburban Transit District La~ the obligations imposed upon the District by the Capital Contribu- tions~:. Agreement shall be guaranteed by Montgomery County and Prince George `s County in the proportions herein stated; and WHEREAS, the Guarantors are desirous that the Authority enter into the Capital Contributions Agic ment with the Di-.tiici, tmoi g others, and are willing to enter into this Agreement as an inducement to the Authority to enter into the Capital Contributions Agreement; Now, THEREFORE, jfl consideration of the premises and as an induce- ment to the execution and delivery by the Authority of the Capital Contributions Agreement, the Guarantors do each hereby agree with the Authority as follows: SECTION 1. The Guarantors hereby absolutely and unconditionally in accordance with Section 3 of this Agreement guarantee to the Au- thority the full and prompt payment by the District as and when the same shall become due and payable under the terms and provisions of the Capital Contributions Agreement, of the Capital Contributions *to be made from time to time by the District under the Carital Con- trihutions Agreement, and any interest payable by the District on over- dueCapital Contributions pursuant to the Capital Coi~tributions Agree- PAGENO="0561" 1243 13 ment. In the event of ally failure l)y the District to pay such Capital Contributions or any part thereof, as and when the same shall become due and payable, or any interest on overdue Capital Contributions, the Guarantors shall pay in accordance with Section 3 the amounts thereof which are due and payable under the terms and conditions of the Capital Contributions Agreement. Each Guarantor assents to the terms, covenants and conditions of the Capital Contributions Agree- ment. SEcTIoN 2. The guaranty of the Guarantors under this Agreement shall be an absolute, unconditional and continuing guaranty in accord- ance with Section 3 of this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect until the District shall have fully and satisfactorily discharged all its obligations under the Capital Contributions Agreement,, and shall not be subject to any setoff, counterclaim, reduction or diminution of an obligation, or' any defense of any kind or nature which either or both of the Guarantors has or may have against the Authority or against each other. SECTION 3. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstandin~ ~th1e1. obligations of the Guarantors under this Agreement shall be sev~Ó1 and' not joint, and the liability of Montgomery County and Princ~ Ge~e~s'~ County, respectively, shall be limited to that percentage of ~ac~ bapital' Contribution payable by the District under the Capital Contrihutio~ Agreement determined in accordance with the formulae attac~ied the~eto in Schedule B and the applicable provisions of Section 3 3 of Agreement. The respective amounts of such liability shall be ~ef Thrth in the Capital Receipts Schedule, including revisions thereof, ref~i~i~ to in Section 3:2 of the Capital Contributions Agreement~ and the Authority shall promptly furnish each Guarantor with a copy of each revision of ~nch Capital Receipts Schedule. Any interest payable by the District on overdue Capital Contributions pursuant to the Capital Contributions Agreemeiit shall be the obligation of each Guarantor t.~' the extent that such Guarantor shall not have made payment in ac~or~- I ance with its guaranty under this Agreement. No notice with respect.~ to Capital Contributions to be made by the District under the C~pitaL~ Contributions Agreement or the failure of the District to make the same shall he required, other than that provided b~ said ~~Capital Receipts Schedule. Srciiox 4. No amendment, change, modification or alteration of the Ca ital Contributions Agreement shail be made which would in any way increase the Guarantors' obligations or the obligation of either 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 36 PAGENO="0562" 1244 14 Guarantor under this Agreement without obtaining the prior written consent of each of the Guarautors. SEcTIoN 5. The obligations of each of the Guarantors under this Agreement shall arise when the Capital Contributions Agreement shall have been executed and delivered by all the parties thereto. SECTIoN 6. The Authority in its sole discretion shall have the right to enforce this Agreement by proceeding first and directly against either one or both of the Guarantors under this Agreement without proceed- ing agai~stor exhausting its remedies against the District or the other Guarantor. SECTION 7. This Agreement shall be executed in twelve counter- parts, and all such counterparts executed and delivered each as an origi- nal, shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Ix WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Guarantors have ex~outed this Agreement and affixed their seals hereto as of the date first above written. `: A~tast: [SE U' Attest:.' :~.. / Accepted thi~' day of . , 1969, WASEINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTNORITY By [SEAL] Attest: PAGENO="0563" SCHEDULE A CAPITAL 11ECI6IPTS SCIIEDU LE (Thousands of Dollars) District WaalliIi8toiiSUlThtban Transit l3ietrict Pier, Fe (roil of Prince ArliliRtoll l"ai lax Fairfax Falls Ca~ `` il Ye 1 Go ertuoctif Ciliiinbla Total Montgomery Georges Alexandria County City County Cltitreli Cuit rilmitoti 1,96') $ 28,100 *. - .-- ..... $ .18,101) 1971) .9,12 221*1)) 23.258 12,10))) 10,468 3,1107 5,917 288 6,809 07 `.1,056 10.9 1110,88 34,300 31,386 173120 13,56o 1,681 9,062 436 10,358 16 91)31.1 1972 199,1(1 35,308 33,33) 18,679 14,655 5,180 9,137 442 10,472 132 013)05 1973 171,321 32,738 30,007 17,319 13,588 4,802 8,472 41() 9,710 122 87,161 ~i 1971 1.11,181 24,636 23,258 13,033 10,225 3,614 6,375 308 7,307 92 653190 1975 90,360 16,970 16,1)21 8,977 7,044 2,489 4,392 212 5,033 63 15,180 1976 68,024 12,775 12,060 6,758 5,302 1,874 3,306 160 3,789 48 31,012 1977 92,059 693 25,178 14,112 11,066 3,910 6,903 333 7,910 102 45,029 1978 41,488 - 1,598 902 696 240 436 ii 512 26 20,7.15(b) Total $11170-Il $208,700 $197,000 $110,400 $86,600 $30,600 $54,000 $2,600 ` $61,900 $800 $573,522)") (`1 1.,, ii Cap6al (6t,l Ci) ui otis shall be nude in ci~iia1 hisht)tuciits on J uly I and January 1 in ~iclt Fiscal Yvar. 1 teludru 517,922,01)0 u) presently coiniuitted or a) Orated, Such ,tlu,'atioii shall be made iii a~,~*ird;iimce wi Ii Section 3.3. PAGENO="0564" 1246 16 SCHEDULE B FORMULA The formula for allocations among the District of Columbia, Mary- land and Virginia, signatories to the Compact, of the local share of the net project costs of the Transit System shall be as follows: Weight Given to - Factor After Factor Computadon (1) Proportion that the estimated construction cost computed on a 1967 base within each signalory's area bears to the total estimated construction costk 40% (2) Proportion that service provided, as meas- ured by estimated 1990 train miles and num- ber of stations within each signatory's area, bears to the total service provided* 30% (3) Proportion that the estimated 1990 ridership originated in each signatory's area bears to the total estimated system ridership for 1990 15% (4) Proportion that the estimated population of each signatory's area in 1990 bears to the total estimated population of the Transit Zone for 1990 15% ~ For the purpose of computing the ratios in Factors (1) aud (2), costs attributable to the central employment area or Modified Sector Zero portion of the system, defined as follows, are to he excluded: Modified Sector Zero, the central employment area, is bounded on the north by L Street, N.W. and N.E.; on the east by First Street, N.E. and S.E.; on the south by the Southwest Freeway to the vicinity of Sixth Street. S.W., thence southwesterly across the Potomac River to the D. C.-Virginia Boun- dary, thence westerly to and including the Pentagon; on the west by a line from the Pentagon to the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Fort Myer Drive; thence easterly across the Potomac River to Rock Creek, thence north- erly along Rock Creek to I, Street, X.W. PAGENO="0565" 1247 17 SU3ALLOCATION FORMULAE The suballocation formulae for distribution of the Maryland and Virginia shares of local net project costs, shall be the formulae adopted by the Washington Suburban Transit Commission and the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, respectively, as follows: A. The Washington Suburban Transit Commission adopted the formula set forth above, including the weight given to each factor, for allocation of the Maryland share of local net project costs between Montgomery and prince Geo~rge~s Counties. B. The Northern Virginia Transportation Commission also adopted the formula set forth above for allocation of the Vn~ima shaie ot local net pio~ect costs among Arlington and Fairfax Counties, and the Cities of Fairfax,~ A1exandri~ and Falls Church. However, the weight given to each factor comprising the formula was established by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission for purposes of the Virginia suhallocation at 23% for each factor. PAGENO="0566" 1248 I ~~pitaI ~ntr~ibuttirn~ ~I~r~cinent anb ~uar~n~' retm~nt PAGENO="0567" 1249 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 9th day of January, 1970, by and between the WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (hereinafter referred to as "Authority"), a body corporate and politic created by interstate compact between Maryland, Virginia and the Dis- trict of Columbia, the WASHINGTON SUBURBAN TRANSIT DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic created by law in Maryland, the DISTRICT OF Co- LUMBIA, and ARLINGTON COUNTY and FAIRFAX COUNTY, Virginia, and the Cities of ALEXANDRIA, FALLS CHURCH and FAIRFAX, Virginia (such Counties and Cities, together with the WASHINGTON SUBURBAN TRANSIT DISTRICT and the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, being hereinafter referred to, collectively, as "Political Subdivisions" and, individually, as a "Politi- cal Subdivision"). Vv I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Authority has been created by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact as an instrumentality and agency of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia to pro- vide a regional transit system and service for the area described in such Compact as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Zone; WHEREAS, the Authority in accordance with the provisions of Arti- cle VI of said Compact on March 1, 1968 adopted a Regional Rapid Rail Transit Plan and Program known as "Adopted Regional System- 1968", and on February 7, 1969 adopted certain revisions to and other- wise refined the Adopted Regional System-1968, (hereinafter re- ferred to as "Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised) ") which, among other things, specifies the facilities of such regional transit sys- tem to be acquired and constructed; WHEREAS, the Authority in accordance with Article VII of said Compact on November 20, 1969 adopted a plan for financing the con- struction and acquisition of such regional transit system and the operation thereof which was substituted for a financing plan adopted February 7, 1969 in order to conform to Virginia law; WHEREAS, said financing plan adopted November 20, 1969 proposes, among other things, that the presently estimated costs of construction and acquisition of such regional transit system, including administra- tion expenses and other costs of the Authority related or incidental thereto, be financed by the issuance of $880,000,000 transit revenue PAGENO="0568" 1250 2 bonds of the Authority payable from revenues derived from such re- gional transit system and the payment of $1,720,566,000 aggregate amount of capital contributions, approximately one-third or $573,522,- 000 of which is to be contributed by the Political Subdivisions in the amounts set forth in this Agreement and the remaining two-thirds or $1,147,044,000 is to be contributed by the Federal Government by capital contributions made during the construction period of such re- gional transit system; and WHEREAS, the orderly development of such regional transit system requires that each of the Political Subdivisions shall agree to make its capital contributions as provided in this Agreement; Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obli- gations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND WARE &NTIE5 SECTION 1.1. The following terms shall for all purposes of this Agreement have the following meanings: Capital Contributions shall mean, with respect to any Political Subdivision or the Federal Government, the amounts paid and to he paid by such Political Subdivision or the Federal Government as set forth in the Capital Receipts Schedule referred to in Section 3.2 as contributions to the capital required by the Authority for the construc- tion and acquisition of the Transit System. Compact shall mean the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact entered into as an amendment to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact between the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia and constituting Title III of said Washington Metropolitan Area Tran- sit Regulation Compact, together with all amendments and supplements to said Title III which may hereafter be entered into in accordance with law. Excess Revenues shall mean, for any Fiscal Year, revenues or other receipts of the Authority (other than the proceeds of Transit Bonds or notes or other evidences of indebtedness issued by the Au- thority to finance temporarily any capital costs or operating expenses PAGENO="0569" 1251 3 relating to the Transit System, or any Capital Contributions received by the Authority with respect to the Transit System) derived during such Fiscal Year from or in connection with the ownership or operation of the Transit System remaining after there shall have been made all payments and deposits, including debt service, operating and main- tenance expenses and deposits in funds and reserves, required or per- mitted by the terms of any contract of the Authority with or for the benefit of holders of its Transit Bonds or its notes or other evidences of indebtedness issued by the Authority to finance temporarily any capital costs or operating expenses relating to the Transit System, or otherwise determined by the Authority to be necessary or desirable for any purposes of the Transit System other than extensions thereof. Fiscal Year shall mean any twelve month period commencing July 1 and ending June 30 of the next calendar year. Initial Operation Date shall mean the first date on which the Transit System (exclusive of any extensions thereof authorized by amend- ment, revision or modification of the Regional Rapid Rail Transit Plan and Program of the Authority adopted March 1, 1968, as revised February 7, 1969) is to be substantially in full revenue service, as shall be determined by the Board of Directors of the Authority. Transit Bonds shall mean bonds issued by the Authority to finance or refinance the Transit System. Transit System shall mean the facilities, including all real and personal property and all rights, interests, property and appurten- ances incidental thereto or used or useful in connection therewith, constructed or acquired by the Authority pursuant to Article II of this Agreement. SECTION 1.2. The Authority and the Political Subdivisions each hereby represents and warrants that it has full power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement. ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION OF TRANSIT SYSTEM SECTION 2.1. The Authority shall proceed with all practical dis- patch to construct and acquire the regional transit system substantially in accordance with Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised), as the PAGENO="0570" 1252 4 same may hereafter from time to time be altered, revised or amended in accordance with the Compact; provided, however, that the Authority shall not construct or be under any obligation to construct the facilities specified in any such revision, alteration, or amendment of Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised) until and unless this Agreement is appropriately amended or other arrangements are made, which~ in the opinion of the Authority, assure the availability of adequate funds to fiuiance the Transit System substantially in accordance with Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised) as so revised, altered or amended. No such revision, alteration or amendment which would reduce the facilities to be constructed in accordance with the Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised) within any Political Subdivision (or in the case of the City of Fairfax and the City of Falls Church, reduce the facilities serving such Political Subdivision) shall be adopted without the consent of such Political Subdivision. ARTICLE Ill CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY PoLITICAL SuBDrvIsIoNs SECTION 3.1. Each Political Subdivision shall contribute to the capital required by the Authority for the construction and acquisition of the Transit System by making Capital Contributions to the Author- ity in the amounts and on or before the times specified for such Political Subdivision in the Capital Receipts Schedule provided for in Section 3.2, as the same may be revised from time to time in accordance with said Section 3.2. SECTION 3.2. There is appended to this Agreement as Schedule A, a Capital Receipts Schedule showing the amounts and due dates of the Capital Contributions to be made by each Political Subdivision under this Agreement, including those portions of the Capital Contributions of the Washington Suburban Transit District guaranteed by Prince George's County and Montgomery County, respectively, as provided in the Guaranty Agreement attached hereto, and the estimated amounts and estimated dates of receipt of Capital Contributions to the Transit System by the Federal Government. The Authority retains the right to revise the Capital Receipts Schedule from time to time as may be necessary in the judgment of the Authority to provide the timely flow of funds necessary for the acquisition and construction of the Transit System; provided that (i) no such revision shall increase the aggregate PAGENO="0571" 1253 5 amount of all the Capital Contributions required from any Political Subdivision without its written consent, (ii) no revision shall be made which would increase by more than 20% the amount (as set forth in the initial Capital Receipts Schedule attached to this Agreement) of the Capital Contribution to be made during any Fiscal Year by any Political Subdivision without its written consent, and (iii) no such revision which increases the amount or advances the due date of a Capital Contribution to be made by a Political Subdivision shall be effective with respect to such Political Subdivision unless the same is submitted to such Political Subdivision at least nine calendar months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year of such Political Subdivision in which such increased Capital Contribution is payable or such advanced due date occurs. Each and every revision by the Authority of the Capital Receipts Schedule shall be promptly transmitted to each Political Subdivision and such revision shall become part of the Capital Receipts Schedule under this Agree- ment. SECTION 3.3. (a) It is understood and agreed that definitive net project costs for the Transit System will not be determined until the Transit System is completed and that, accordingly, the Capital Con- tributions provided for herein are based on estimates. In order to assure the availability of funds to finance project costs, it is hereby agreed that on a date five years after the start of construction of the Transit System, or July 1, 1974, whichever is the later date, the Capital Contributions required from each Political Subdivision will be recom- puted. Such recomputation shall be made by the Authority by comput- ing the local share (one-third) of the net project costs of the Transit System, as then estimated by the Authority, and applying thereto the formulae attached hereto on Schedule B utilizing the then latest avail- able information for the formulae factors, as obtained by the Authority. (b) In the event that such recomputation establishes that the com- mitment of a Political Subdivision (the Capital Contributions of such Political Subdivision paid or to become due) pursuant to Section 3.1 exceeds its allocable share of said local share of net project costs result- ing from such recomputation, then no adjustment shall be made at that time to its commitment. (c) In the event that such recomputation establishes that a Political Subdivision's allocable share of said local share of net project costs resulting from the recomputation exceeds its commitment made pur- PAGENO="0572" 1254 6 uant to Section 3.1, then such excess shall be allocated to such Political subdivision. (d) The Authority shall make subsequent recomputations from ime to time and at least every two years and it shall make each such ~ecomputation by computing said local share of net project costs as hen estimated by it and by determining each Political Subdivision's tllocable share thereof by applying the same percentage of said local ;hare of net project costs as shall have resulted from the computation inder the formulae made pursuant to paragraph (a) above. (e) In the event that any such further recomputation establishes ;hat said local share of net project costs is greater than the sum of the 3ommitments made pursuant to Section 3.1 as the same may have been nodified pursuant to said Section 3.1 or paragraph (h) of this Section 3.3, then any such excess shall be allocated in the same manner as pro- vided in paragraph (c) hereof. (f) In the event that any such further recomputation establishes that said local share of net project costs is less than the sum of the commitments made pursuant to Section 3.1, as the same may have been modified pursuant to said Section 3.1 or paragraph (h) of this Section 3.3, no adjustment shall be made at that time of the commitment of any Political Subdivision under Section 3.1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement contained, no Political Subdivision shall be required to pay Capital Contributions pursuant to Section 3.1 in an amount in excess of its allocable share of said local share of net project costs as then recomputed pursuant to this Section 3.3. (g) If, upon such a recomputation which shall be made as provided in paragraph (d) above after definitive net project costs shall have been determined, such local share of net project costs is less than the aggre- gate amount of Capital Contributions paid by all the Political Subdi- visions pursuant to Section 3.1, then the amount of such excess payments shall be refunded tÓ each such Political Subdivision in the ratio that the Capital Contributions paid by such Political Subdivision pursuant to Section 3.1 bears to the total Capital Contributions paid by all Political Subdivisions pursuant to Section 3.1. (h) In the case of the allocation of any excess pursuant to para- graph (c) or (e) above to one or more Political Subdivisions, each such Political Subdivision hereby pledges to each other Political Subdivision and to the Authority its faithful cooperation and best efforts to obtain PAGENO="0573" 1255 7 - all authorizations required by law to provide the increase in its Capitai Contributions resulting from such allocation. If and when such Polit- ical Subdivision shall have obtained all such authorizations the amount of the Capital Contributions payable by each such Political Subdivision pursuant to Section 3.1 shall be increased by the amount so allocated to such Political Subdivision and the Capital Receipts Schedule shall be revised by the Authority accordingly. (i) Each recomputation pursuant to this Section 3.3 and any re- sulting allocation of increases and refunds of Capital Contributions shall include and set forth the portions of any such increase or refund of the Capital Contributions of the Washington Suburban Transit District allocable to Prince George `s County and Montgomery County, respectively, as provided in the Guaranty Agreement attached hereto. SECTION 3.4. As soon as practicable after the end of each Fiscal Year during the acquisition and construction of the Transit System, the Authority shall furnish each Political Subdivision with a progress re- port showing the progress made during such Year in such acquisition and construction and the amounts expended therefor. SECTION 3.5. With the written consent of the Authority, any Politi- cal Subdivision may satisfy its obligation under this Agreement to make Capital Contributions, in whole or in part, by the transfer to the Authority of real property and such real property shall be valued at its market value as of the time of the transfer. In the event the con- tributing Political Subdivision and the Authority do not agree on the value to be assigned to the real property to be contributed, such value shall be determined by an independent valuation of the property made by an appraiser acceptable to both the contributing Political Subdivi- sion and the Authority. Such valuation shall be in accordance with terms and conditions agreeable to the contributing Political Subdivision and the Authority and shall be binding on them. The cost of such ap- praisal shall be borne equally by the Authority and the contributing Political Subdivision. SECTION 3.6. The Authority shall at all times take all reasonable measures permitted by the Compact or otherwise by law to collect and enforce prompt payment to or for its account of all Capital Contribu- tions to be made by each Political Subdivision in accordance with this Agreement. If any Capital Contribution or part thereof due to the PAGENO="0574" 1256 8 Authority from any Political Subdivision shall remain unpaid after its due date, such Political Subdivision shall be charged with and shall pay to the Authority interest on the amount unpaid from its due date until paid, at the rate of 6% per annum. SECTION 3.7. The liability of the Political Subdivisions to make Capital Contributions under this Agreement shall be several and not joint and shall be limited to the Capital Contributions to be made by each Political Subdivision pursuant to this Article. ARTICLE IV REPAYMENT OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS SECTION 4.1. As soon as practicable after the end of each Fiscal Year, beginning with the Fiscal Year next succeeding the Fiscal Year in which the Initial Operation. Date shall occur, any Excess Revenues for such Fiscal Year shall be allocated among the Political Subdivi- sions, as a repayment of their Capital Contributions, by paying to each Political Subdivision that portion of such Excess Revenues which bears the same ratio to the total of such Excess Revenues as the aggregate amount of the Capital Contributions made by such Political Subdivision bears to the aggregate amount of all Capital Contributions made by the Political Subdivisions; provided however, that there shall be de- ducted from such Excess Revenues and paid over to the Federal Government, as a repayment of its Capital Contributions, that amount required to be so paid therefrom by Federal law in force and effect upon the effective date of this Agreement. Such payment shall he accompanied by an appropriate accounting by the Authority showing the computation of such Excess Revenues and the allocation thereof in accordance with this Section, including the allocation of any such payment made to the Washington Suburban Tra.nsit District between Montgomery County and P.rince George's County as provided in Section 4 of the Guaranty Agreement attached hereto. ARTICLE V MISCELLANEOUS SECTION 5.1. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect and be legally binding upon the Authority and upon all of the Political Sub- divisions upon its execution and delivery by the Authority and each PAGENO="0575" 1257 9 Political Subdivision and the execution and delivery of the Guaranty Agreement attached hereto. SECTION 5.2. This Agreement shall be executed in twelve counter- parts, and all such counterparts executed and delivered, each as an original, shall constitute but one and the same instrument. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY By [sE~] Attest: WASHINGTON SUBURBAN TRANSIT DISTRICT By Attest: PAGENO="0576" 1258 10 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA By [SE~U~] Attest: ARLINGTON CouNTY By [SEMi] Attest: FAIRFAX COUNTY By [SEAL] Attest: CITY OF ALEXANDRIA By [sEMi] Attest: PAGENO="0577" 1259 11 CITY OF F~ur~s CHURCH By {sE~] Attest: Crr~ o~' FAIRFAX By [sE~] Attest: 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 37 PAGENO="0578" SCHEDULE A CAPITAL RECEIPTS SCHEDULE (Thousands of Dollars) Total District Washington Suburban Transit District Local Fiscal Federal of Prince Arlington Fairfax Fairfax Falls Capital Years(a) Government Columbia Total Montgomery George's Alexandria County City County Church Contribution Prior to 1970 $ 56,800 $ 28,400 - - - - - - - - $ 28,400 1970 126,112 22,880 23,258 12,800 10,458 3,807 5,917 288 6,809 97 63,056 1971 180,688 34,300 31,386 17,820 13,566 4,684 9,062 436 10,358 118 90,344 1972 188,011 35,308 33,334 18,679 14,655 5,180 9,137 442 10,472 132 94,005 1973 174,321 32,738 30,907 17,319 13,588 4,802 8,472 410 9,710 122 87,161 1974 131,181 24,636 23,258 13,033 10,225 3,614 6,375 308 7,307 92 65,590 1975 90,360 16,970 16,021 8,977 7,044 2,489 4,392 212 5,033 63 45,180 1976 68,024 12,775 12,060 6,758 5,302 1,874 3,306 160 3,789 48 34,012 1977 90,059 693 25,178 14,112 11,066 3,910 6,903 333 7.910 102 45,029 1978 41,488 - 1,598 902 696 240 436 11 512 26 20,745(b) Total $1,147,044 $208,700 $197,000 $110,400 $86,600 $30,600 $54,000 $2,600 $61,900 $800 $5735220') (~) Local Capital Coiitrilnitioas shall be made in equal installments on July 1 and January 1 in each lCiscal Year, IISCI1S(ICS $17,922,000 iot preseotly committed or allocated. Such allocation shall be made in accordance with Section 3.3. PAGENO="0579" 1261 13 SCHEDULE B FORMULA The formula for allocations among the District of Columbia, Mary- land and Virginia, signatories to the Compact, of the local share of the net project costs of the Transit System shall be as follows: Weight Given to Factor After Factor Computation (1) Proportion that the estimated construction cost computed on a 1967 base within each signatory's area bears to the total estimated construction cost* 40% (2) Proportion that service provided, as meas- ured by estimated 1990 train miles and num- ber of stations within each signatory's area, bears to the total service provided* 30% (3) Proportion that the estimated 1990 ridership originated in each signatory's area bears to the total estimated system ridership for 1990 15% (4) Proportion that the estimated population of each signatory's area in 1990 bears to the total estimated population of the Transit Zone for 1990 15% * For the purpose of computing the ratios in Factors (1) and (2), costs attributable to the central employment area or Modified Sector Zero portion of the system, defined as follows, are to be excluded: Modified Sector Zero, the central employment area, is bounded on the north by L Street, N.W. and N.E.; on the east by First Street, N.E. and SE.; on the south by the Southwest Freeway to the vicinity of Sixth Street, SW., thence southwesterly across the Potomac River to the D. 0.-Virginia Boun- dary, thence westerly to and including the Pentagon; on the west by a line from the Pentagon to the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Fort Myer Drive; thence easterly across the Potomac River to Rock Creek, thence north- erly along Rock Creek to L Street, NW. PAGENO="0580" 1262 14 SUBALLOCATION FORMULAE The suballocation formulae for distribution of the Maryland and Virginia shares of local net project costs, shall be the formulae adopted by the Washington Suburban Transit Commission and the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, respectively, as follows: A. The Washington Suburban Transit Commission adopted the formula set forth above, including the weight given to each factor, for allocation of the Maryland share of local net project costs between Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. B. The Northern Virginia Transportation Commission also adopted the formula set forth above for allocation of the Virginia share of local net project costs among Arlington and Fairfax Counties, and the ~Cities of Fairfax, Alexandria and Falls Church. However, the weight given to each factor comprising the formula was established by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission for, purposes of the Virginia suballocation at 25% for each factor. PAGENO="0581" 1263 15 GUARANTY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 9th day of January, 1970 by and between the COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland (hereinafter referred to as "Prince George's County") and MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland, (sometimes hereinafter referred to, collectively, as the "Guarantors" and, individually, as "Guarantor") and WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (hereinafter referred to as "Authority"), a body corporate and politic created by interstate compact between Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia; W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, the Washington Suburban Transit District (hereinafter referred to as "District") is authorizedby the Washington Suburban Transit District Law, constituting Chapter 72 of the Montgomery County Code of 1965 (being Article 16 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Maryland), as amended, and Chapter 83A of the Code of Public Local Laws of Prince George's County (1963 Edition, being Article 17 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Maryland), as amended, to enter into the foregoing Capital Contributions Agreement of even date herewith (hereinafter referred to as the "Capital Contributions Agreement"); WHEREAS, pursuant to said Washington Suburban Transit District Law the obligations imposed upon the District by the Capital Contribu- tions Agreement shall be guaranteed by Montgomery County and Prince George `s County in the proportions herein provided; and WHEREAS, the Guarantors are desirous that the Authority enter into the Capital Contributions Agreement with the District, among others, and are willing to enter into this Agreement as an inducement to the Authority to enter into the Capital Contributions Agreement; Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and as an induce- ment to the execution and delivery by the Authority of the Capital Contributions Agreement, the Guarantors do each hereby agree wifli the Authority as follows: SECTION 1. The Guarantors hereby absolutely and unconditionally in accordance with Section 3 of this Agreement guarantee to the Au- thority the full and prompt payment by the District as and when the same shall become due and payable under the terms and provisions PAGENO="0582" 1264 16 of the Capital Contributions Agreement, of the Capital Contributions to be made from time to time by the District under the Capital Con- tributions Agreement, and any interest payable by the District on over- due Capital Contributions pursuant to the Capital Contributions Agree- ment.. In the event of any failure by the District to pay such Capital Contributions or any part thereof, as and when the same shall become due and payable, or any interest on overdue Capital Contributions, the Guarantors shall pay in accordance with Section 3 the amounts thereof which are due and payable under the terms and conditions of the Capital Contributions Agreement. Each Guarantor assents to the terms, covenants and conditions of the Capital Contributions Agree- ment. SECTION 2. The guaranty of the Guarantors under this Agreement shall be an absolute, unconditional and continuing guaranty in accord- ance with Section 3 of this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect until the District shall have fully and satisfactorily discharged all its obligations under the Capital Contributions Agreement, and shall not be subject to any setoff, counterclaim, reduction or diminution of an obligation, or any defense of any kind or nature which either or both of the Guarantors has or may have against the Authority or against each other. SECTION 3. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the obligations of the Guarantors under this Agreement shall be several and not joint, and the liability of Montgomery County and Prince George's County, respectively, shall be limited to that percentage of each Capita' Contribution payable by the District under the Capital Contributions Agreement determined in accordance with the formulae attached thereto in Schedule B and the applicable provisions of Section 3.3 of said Agreement. The respective amounts of such liability shall be set forth in the Capital Receipts Schedule, including revisions thereof, referred to in Section 3.2 of the Capital Contributions Agreement, and the Authority shall promptly furnish each Guarantor with a copy of each revision of such Capital Receipts Schedule. Any interest payable by the District on overdue Capital Contributions pursuant to the Capital Contributions Agreement shall be the obligation of each Guarantor to the extent that such Guarantor shall not have made payment in accord- ance with its guaranty under this Agreement. No notice with respect to Capital Contributions to be made by the District under the Capital PAGENO="0583" 1265 17 Contributions Agreement or the failure of the District to make the same shall be required, other than that provided by said Capital Receipts Schedule. SECTION 4. Any repayments to the District of its Capital Contri- butions pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Capital Contributions Agreement shall be allocated between the Guarantors in the same proportion as their several guarantees as provided in Section 3 of the Agreement. SECTION 5. No amendment, change, modification or alteration of the Capital Contributions Agreement shall be made which would in any way increase the Guarantors' obligations or the obligation of either Guarantor under this Agreement or reduce the repayment to the District of Capital Contributions without obtaining the prior written consent of each of the Guarantors. SECTION 6. The obligations of each of the Guarantors under this Agreement shall arise when the Capital Contributions Agreement shall have been executed and delivered by all the parties thereto. SECTION 7. The Authority in its sole discretion shall have the right to enforce this Agreement by proceeding first and directly against either one or both of the Guarantors under this Agreement without proceed- ing against or exhausting its remedies against the District or the other Guarantor. SECTION 8. This Agreement shall be executed in twelve counter- parts, and all such counterparts executed and delivered each as an origi- nal, shall constitute but one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Guarantors has executed this Agreement and affixed its seal hereto as of the date first above written. MONTGOMERY COUNTY By [SEAL] Attest: PAGENO="0584" 1266 18 COUNTY Co~rIssIoNERs FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY By [SE~u~] Attest: Accepted this day of , 1970, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY By [SEAL] Attest: PAGENO="0585" 1267 November 21+, 1975 Request Local Jurisdictions Question 2:Please provide any studies done by the Authority on driving disincentives, e.g., parking spaces, gasoline taxes, automobile excise taxes, etc. The Authority has not undertaken specific studies on driving disincentives. It has, however, promulgated programs and policies which will provide a viable alternative to depending upon the automobile. In addition, NVTC has developed a paper on parking policies and the Authority is coordinating with a District of Columbia study of staggered working hours. The Authority believes that driving disincentives should be initiated -- after a viable alternative is available. Consequently, the Authority feels that driving disincentives must be closely correlated with the completion of Metrorail. PAGENO="0586" 1268 November 2k, 1975 Request Submission #4 Local Jurisdictions Question 14: Land around a proposed Vienna subway stop was rezoned to increase its value as a means of cutting Fairfax County's financial obligation to Metro. What action has the Authority taken to assure this does not happen in the future? Please include a description of the process Metro uses in acquiring land. Re: Rezoning Actions by Fairfax County: On August 25, 1975, in a new preliminary plan, Fairfax County recommended 4-5 units per acre for the Bowman (Lot 94) and Clifton, Heinzman, et al (Parcel 90) properties (as identified on the attached portion of Fairfax County Tax Map 48). On the De Luca Tract (Parcel 2, Block 1), the County granted RM2O zoning, with the provision that the WHATA and VDH requirements would be dedicated to the County. All of the development potential of the entire site has been reserved to the remainder, after VDH and WMATA requirements are deducted. Fairfax County has suggested a substantial credit to their capital contributions for the land area proposed to be dedicated to the County by the owner for transit purposes. Wfrt4TA"is proceeding with a direct taking from the owner at a nominal value based upon its approved appraisal since credit to Fairfax County is not considered justified. On the American LH.M. Province, Inc. (Parcel 89), the County granted townhouse zoning for 8 units per acre (on January 12, 1976) with the owners dedicating to the State all right-of-way for Metro access roads. All the property required for the north side of the Vienna Station has now been zoned. Re: Land Acquisition Procedures: Negotiations with property owners as well as all other acquisition actions are conducted in strict compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Act of 1970, P. L. 91-646. (continued) PAGENO="0587" 1269 November 2~i, 1975 Request Submission #~i Question 1+ continued Local Jurisdictions The quantum of the estate acquired for stations, station entrances, permanent parking facilities and locations where substantial permanent improvements and other transit facilities are conducted takes into consideration planning, architectural and operational factors necessary to exercise control over the immediate environment as well as purely physical requirements. Generally, where possible, fee estates are acquired. Action to acquire an interest in real property (whether a fee or a lesser interest) is initiated when the Director of Engineering certifies to the Director of Real Estate that the interest is necessary to lay-out, construct, operate or maintain the rapid transit system. After a property interest is certified, appraisals by an independent contract appraiser and by a staff appraiser are obtained and acquisition ne- gotiations are started. To the extent possible, all property interests are acquired by voluntary conveyance through negotiations based on fair market value as estimated by the appraisals. If acquisitions by eminent domain proceedings are necessary, the Department of Justice acts for WMATA, filing the condemnation assembly and handling the case in the same manner as for Federal agencies. PAGENO="0588" (~) PAGENO="0589" 1271 November 219, 1975 Request ~1i~ Question 1: Please supply the average operating speed, the average headways, average expected trip lengths, average vehicle occupancy, fleet utilization, fares as seen for the rail system in 1972 and 1975. This question posed under "DOT Policy" can not be answered by staff. As part of the 19719 NIA Study for the year 1990, the following responses are g i yen: a. Headways differ by time of day by segment of system. The attached table presents this data. b. Average operating speed - From Table VI I-Il of the NIA draft final report, Annual Revenue Miles/Car 82,100 Annualization Factor 289.3 Yields 283.78 miles/l6 hours yield 17.719 mph. c. Average expected trip length (per passenger?) From Table VI-Il, average fare is 55.19 (Fare System I) 25~ boarding charge +5~ A mile equals 3 miles + 6.08 = 9.08 miles. d. Average vehicle occupancy - From Table Vu-Il, Annual Revenue Passengers 314,1908,100 Number of Cars 630 Annualization 289.3 Yields 1,725 pass /day/car PAGENO="0590" 1272 2 e. Fleet UtHization Loading Standard of 175 passengers/car during peak hours and a seated load of 81 passengers/car during base + an 8.5?~ spare allowance. f0 Fares studied under the NIA are presented in Table IV~1 (attached)0 PAGENO="0591" 1273 TABLE Vu-I PLANNED ARS l9~O HEADWAYS Rockville - Glenmont Grosvenor - Silver Spring Vienna - New Carroliton Hunt)ngton - Addison Road Greenbelt Road - Branch Avenue Chillum - Springfield Chillum - Franconia Headw~' (Minutes) Peak Base Early/Late `4 6 10 `4 -- -- `4 6 10 It 6 10 `4 6 10 8 20 8 12 20 NOTES: Peak: 7 a.m. - 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. weekdays only Base: 9:30 a.m. - 4L30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. 9 p.m. weekdays; 7 a.m. - 9 p.m. Saturdays Early/Late: 5 a.m. - 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. - I a.m. weekdays and Saturdays; 5 a.m. - 1 a.m. Sunday WMATA-TaUc. fl ~ a~d Op&,ati~g Co~ts1975 PAGENO="0592" 1274 TABLE VII- II 1990 RAIL SYSTEM OPERATIMG STATISTICS WMATA-T~~U~. A ~d Op~~g C~~t~-1975 Fare System Passengers Train Hours Car Miles Revenu~ Revenue Revenue Annual Annual Annual Fleet Size Route Miles Service Track Miles Fare System Fare System Ii Ill - 299,696,300 521,000 49,506,800 314,408,100 521,000 51,698,400 630 574 296,944,500 521,000 49,200,000 574 98 Annual Revenue Miles Per Car Annual Car Passes Per Service Track Mile 98 . 98 196 86,200 252,600 196 82,100 `-~ 263, 8oo 196 85,714 251,000 PAGENO="0593" 1275 Separate Fares ~ Low Fare 1* Moderate Fare ~ Base Fare on Boarding 25~ 25~ Added Bus Zones (3 +- Miles) l5~ 2O~ Added Rail Charge (Each Mile 5c~ 5~ After 3) TRANSFERS~ Rail-Rail o 0 0 Bus-Rail, Bus-Bus 25~. 0 0 WMA~A-T~tw. ~ ,d Opt,~p C~~~4975 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 38 PAGENO="0594" 1276 November 24, 1975 Request DOT Policy Question 2: Summary of inputs of WMATA for implementing plan for improvirig efficiency of transit services of the National Mass Transpor- tation Act of 1974. Assuming this request refers to Section 5(d)(2) of the National Transportation Act of 19714 the following information is submitted. On September 17, 1975 the Secretary of Transportation promulgated rules and regulations for the Transportation Imporvement Program (Federal Register, Vol 40 No. 181 p. 4297642984) effective October 17, 1975. These regulations among other things made the Metropolitan planning Organization in cooperation with the State and with publicly owned operators of Mass Transportation services responsible for carrying out the Urban Transportation Planning process. Therefore the Washington Council of Governments is developing the Transit Improvement Program (TIP) including the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) element. These regulations also established a target date of March 30, 1976 for the development of the TSM element and the programming for its implementation. Accordingly WMATA is developing information and plans for those categories of items under the direct control of the transit authority. Suggestions for actions to ensure the efficient use of existing road space and actions to reduce vehicle use in congested areas are being submitted to the appropriate govermental agencies. WMATA pians to submit during January the componets for the TSM e 1 emen ts. These will include: A. Actions to increase Internal Transit Management efficiency 1. A description of the Metrobus radio equipment and Vehicle Locating Facility. PAGENO="0595" 1277 (2) Beginning early in 1976 two-way radios will be installed on all operating equipment. With this installation, service to the public will be vastly improved. Through two-way communication, ability--in the areas of schedule adherence, service dependability and public safety--can be maintained. WMATA also proposes to install a vehicle locating facility which will provide continuous monitoring capability for the entire bus fleet without the need of voice transmission. Installation of this system will require funding through the UMTA Capital Grant Program. As of this date, UMTA is not providing funds for the system. 2. Bus Route Map *WMATA has developed a large scale transit map showtng bus routes and fare zones for use of Infcrrmation Personnel , Bus Drivers Orientation and route planning purposes. 3. Revised Bus Condition Report In an effort to more completely and effectively report mechanical defects observed by operating personnel, a revised bus condition report and a new reporting procedure was implemented on September 28, 1975. L4~ Issuance of Operators Guide In September 1975, a revised operation Guide was distributed to all operating personnel. The guide includes an outline of the peak/offpeak fares, fare zone maps, hours of peak/off peak fares, off peak senior citizen and handicapped fares, rules and regulation concerning ticket sales, scrips, fare transportation, issuance and acceptance of transfers and others. In addition the guide include.~a listing of all Metrobus routes and the fare zone boundaries on each route. PAGENO="0596" 1278 (3) 5. Standard Block Number Systems A standard block number system is being developed consisting of a leading letter and three numerals. Such block numbers are to be displayed on permanently affixed roll type signs on the bus. This program will be an improvement over the present system in that it will assure the presence of a block number on the bus at all times, thus facilitating positive identification. This ~,ill improve the efficiency of the traffic checking function and supervisory control. It will also serve as the base for identification of buses in radio communication upon installation of two-way radios. 6. Metrobus Courtesy Program The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has initiated a systemwide campaign to bring meaningful recognition to all Metrobus operators they find to be especially courteous in their duties. This program is geared to improve and stress courtesy, attitude and morale which in turn will improve the efficiency of transit services. 7. Metrobus - Standard Operating Procedure~ Goals of the program are to improve the operating safety record, operating fuel consumption, relations with other users of the street and to facilitate and standardize the training of bus operators. The method for achieving the stated goals are to issue the procedures in a convenient package to each operator and supervisor for ready reference and to use the procedures as a base for the training of new operators. "Standard Operating Procedures" create a common base of communications between operaters~ and supervisors that can eliminate misunderstandings when supervisors4o~bS~rve improper operations requiring correctjvp !n~rI!c~'~r~. PAGENO="0597" 1279 (14) 8 System Sa et~Pr~ ram `4MATA is developing a system safety vrogram wnicn will include the following: 1. Development and distribution of a written system safety master plan 2. Establishment and maintenance of a data base 3. AccIdent/incident investigation 4. Assessment of training needs, development of safety training resources and programs and the conduct and evaluation of safety training programs. 5. Development and review of written safety procedures 6. Development and review of safety standards 7. Conduct safety inspections of system installations and work practices. 8. Conduct hazard analysis and evaluation 9. Documentation of safety engineering data, hazard data catalog, safety analysis reports and data, risk assessment reports, accident/i ncident safety performance comparative data 9. Revised Maintenance Program On January15, 1976, WMATA instituted revised maintenance procedures which will assure faster turnaround maintenance and bus repairs, thereby improving the efficiency of the system. - B. Actions 1o Improve Transit Service Throygh: 1. Simplified Fare Collection Systems and Policies On September 1, 1975, the Authority implemented a new unified fare/zone structure throughout the Metropolitan area. PAGENO="0598" 1280 (5) Prior to the time. t ~uLhori ty hed been oper~t leg under the fare/zone structures with minor exceptions implemented by the private bus companies. The fare zone structure approved by the WMATA Board, eliminated many of the inequities which existed under the old fare/zone structures. In addition, the Authority established a peak/off-peak fare which provides for a low off-peak fare to encourage off-peak patronage when ridership is low and to divert peak period riders to the off-peak hours. A reduced senior citizen and handicapped off-peak fare was also established which provides for a flat 20 cent fare when traveling within any one jurisdiction (D.C.,Md., and Va.) plus an additional 10 cents when crossing a state boundary. 2. Bus Shelter Program WHATA has underway a program to install 200 bus shelters a year. As of October 1975, 454 site plans had been prepared with 209 approved and 171 shelters installedor under contract. It should also be noted that 109 of the proposed sites have been rejected for a variety of reasons. 3. Bus Priorities To achieve a reduction in vehicular emissions within the next few years to meet air quality standards as required by EPA, the Authority staff has identified specific areas and streets where bus priority treatment appears justified to expedite the movement of traffic and to speed the flow of buses through congested areas. PAGENO="0599" 1281 (6) Seventeen specific corridors were identified for bus priority treatment. These corridors are located in the downtown Central Business District where approximately 75░~ of all Metrobus trips are oriented. The bus priorities include a variety of new treatments designed to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and public transit vehicles. Major emphasis is directed toward the inauguration of a one-way Street system with contra-flow bus lanes. Other priorities include center lane designation for express bus operation, unbalanced traffic lanes with contra-flow buses operating on the opposite side of the median, additional standard curb lanes and strict enforce- ment of all bus priority measures. Bus Stop Signs To make it easier for prospective riders to use bus transportation, standardized bus stop signs have been designed and are presently being installed throughout the metropolitan area, replacing the bus signs of the private companies. The signs are readily noticeable, painted red, white and blue, and show a listing of all bus routes which serve each particular stop. In total, approximately 12,000 bus stop signs will be installed of which approximately 1,200 have been installed through December 30, 1975. PAGENO="0600" 1282 (7) C. Prg rams to Improve Ridership The 1976 objectives of WMATA'S Office of Marketing program i nd ude: 1. Mobile Sales Office To expand the number, broaden the geographic distribution and increase the use of sales/information facilities while avoiding high permanent construction costs and to provide an important convenience incentive to customers and expanded visibility for Metrobus. 2. Promotional Fares To provide monetary and convenience incentives for attracting new riders without increasing operating costs and to enhance the image and expand the visibility of Met robus. 3. Pentagon Sales Office Remodeling To expand and modernize this facility in keeping with the design and decor of surrounding facilities in the Pentagon in order to serve adequately the 35,000 employees in the area while enhancing the image and visibility of METRO. Timing is especially important because of the impending interface of METROBUS and METRORAIL at the Pentagon location. L~. New National Visitors Center Sales Office To provide a permanent sales and information facility for the convenience of visitors to the National Capital Area, for rail commuters entering Washington through adjacent Union Station and for resident commuters using Phase of Metrorail. PAGENO="0601" 1283 November 2b, 1975 Request Rohr Question 1: On May 23, the Transit Authority approved an advance to Rohr of $22.5 million to help assure timely delivery of the cars. Please detail the current status of the advance payment and pro- vide the Committee with a reconciliation of the original delivery schedule with the currently anticipated schedule, and show the effect that the currently anticipated schedule will have on the liquidation of the advance. The attached schedules outl me the current status of the $22.5 million advance made to Rohr Industries on May 29, 1975. PAGENO="0602" 1284 NOTES 1. "Milestone I" refers to contract Milestone I I - underfloor equipment in place, $14,121 per car curtailed at this point. 2. `Milestone III' refers to contract milestone III - doors hung and operating. $89,400 per car curtailed at this point. 3. "Milestone IV" refers to contract Milestone IV - shipment $119,200 per car curtailed at this point. 4. Exhibits A & A-l are the acceptance schedules as set forth in contract 2ZOO6l. 5. Exhibit B is a hypothetical curtailment schedule prepared prior to the advance using the best available data provided by ROHR and Louis T. Klauder Associates. 6. Exhibit B-l is Rohrs actual performance. 7. Exhibit B-2 is a summary of shipping dates taken from Rohrs production schedule revision 12 date November 19, 1975. 8. Chart 1 comparesthe hypothetical curtailment in Exhibit B ~tith Rohr Estimate (Exhibit B-2) and Rohrs performance to date (Exhibit B-l). PAGENO="0603" 1285 EXHIBIT A DELI VERY SCHEDULE A. Delivery Cars shall be delivered F.O.B. on track No. 5 of the Authority's major repair yard at 5th and T Streets, N.E., Washington, D.C. Such parts that must be removed to per- mit shipment by rail shall be securely boxed and shipped in the car to which they belong. Any special temporary fittings such as drawbars, air brake equipment, grab handles, straps, etc., required for shipment of the cars shall be furnished by the Contractor. Removal of temporary fittings and re- placement of parts that have been removed to facilitate shipment shall be at the contractor's expense. Spare parts shall be delivered F.O.B. receiving platform at the Authority's major repair yard at 5th and T Streets, N.E., Washington, D.C. User education programs, drawings, reports, material samples and other items not included above shall be delivered in Washington, D.C. as directed by the Contracting Officer. B. Delivery Schedule Program I First two cars and spare parts -- January 10, 19714 58 cars to be delivered and formally accepted at a rate no greater than four per week by June 1, 19714. 2. Program II 50 cars and spare parts to be delivered and formally accepted at a rate no greater than four per week by October 15, 19714. 3. Program III 50 cars and spare parts to be delivered and formally accepted at a rate no greater than four per week by March 1, 1975. 14. Program IV 1140 cars and spare parts to be delivered and formally accepted at a rate no greater than four per week by March 1, 1976. PAGENO="0604" 1286 EXHIBIT A-i DELIVERY AND ACCEPTAUCE SCHEDULE PER CONTRACT 2Z0061 i/iO/7~4 2 6/i/7~4 58 60 10/15/75 50 110 3/1/75 50 160 8/1/75 20 180 1/31/76 10~4 2814 3/1/76 16 300 PAGENO="0605" 00110 AOVAI!I.6 1 (5,1! 001101 56(11 (0((~ ST IT/T[ AD 01 8/1/75 1/I'll (`06 RIl8000IIE III STONE IV ((Al 0061 77,000,0(10 55, (,A(~ I 6 56,0/Il 53, `00 6 5/I, 51,7jT, 71507 56,'/I~i 53,1,31, 91:15 .n~s 56, 53!, ~7iOi St 1 56, 000 178,0(11) li/ADO 71:8155,3718 56,001, 70,880 /0,800 56. `8' 78,000 178,/Do 91758.955 56, 00'. 178.801) 70008 717i~5:A~i/. 551,5!, 178,800 (73,800 73111,00 738,000 1911585751 56,8) Il/Boo (78.000 730.000 735 00(1 1875 78,300 /8,80) 2311,0/A 235,0/p (9, I1,o 020 56, 00', 7000/ 170,11011 230,000 233,000 65,71591 700 70,803 /0,000 730,000 738,000 177705,756 .6,1(30 1/0,01111 70,000 238,000 738,1,03 1,788,600 1,7/570TI60 187171077 CARS ((ATE o(IrcTl(l1r II 00000CC 8/I/7~ CI- 6~, IA/lI//c 56,081, Cc- 60 Ill//ic 06,00', 69- 72 Il/Ill//c 56,00'. 73- 76 11/71/75 56,08', 77- 88 (/70/75 56001, Al- 01, 2/5/75 50.1,00 3~- 80 12/17/75 56,000 09- 92 12/10/75 56,011'. 9) 96 (2/76/75 00(81 65- 60 3/-100 (/7/76 56,000 6~- /2 (01-100 1/9/76 56,1,31, 13- 76 (05-lA) 1/161/6 06,00l. 77- 110 61- 60 189-112 1/23/76 58,1,81, 8)- 00 65- 60 1(3-116 1/30/76 c0,',O'. 0~- 80 6~- 72 (7-1?) 7/6/76 56,1,01, 00- 97 73- /6 I/I-I/O 2/13/76 56,01111 93- % 77- 80 125-178 2/70/76 56,11811 97- 100 81- 80 5791778 018 110100 CR6010 0110008 0/ 13 065 562,51(0 I OK 1,3,161 1,3 007 1,7 958 ID .035 "7776 1,2 6)7 1,7, 503 07,856 01 601, `.0,699 39,703 30,877 37, 766 36,(0'~ i/ ,7/37 PAGENO="0606" 1288 PAGENO="0607" 11,1, I I I IV (~,,,,, `(I I (`)0, `2)) , 00(1 1, 52') (101 I? II), VVli 07 01 - 1130 5/77/76 `;6, l,7(~ - 5(1 1/17,7)6) 1/ - /1)) (301,07 1 ~-"``?_ 23, (05 - (03 6// /1 56. ),)3I~ ` 1670 I', / 160 70,Ooo 70,5/) 6) - )),I, 2(0,600 13/1,611) 77,6/30 ~,Ri6.'i 3 - II) 6/1/76 `5(7) I - I/3,80l) 1 /5,15)7 05 - 60 238,808 233,/)/)) 21,5)/3 113 - 110 (/18/76 c6,671, - 67 1/8707 i~2,3oo "1 IV? 230,60)) 737,)i07 20,6.5 - /00 6/75/70 56,57), If' 77,)oR /0,018 I) 730,61)7 73)1)6)1) 11 180 I' /1/ 7/16 7/7/76 ~6I~7I, 66,03) (/3 - 16 3/7,01)7 1/)3,088 57 - 11)0 238,600 238,000 3,83/ 9,37)3/6 765 ` 50/) 7/1/71) 56,~,)) 56,0/I) I)) I//I) /0,880 (/3,000 6) - 16/, /37,'~77 238,500 (7,976 TJs 7,733 `1') - 7)7 7/36//6 56,00', 56,50), 19; III, 3/0,700 370,800 /61, 167 730,000 238,600 (7,0)5 `8,37~3, 860 0/3 7') (/73//S 56,60', 50,100 /1/'. - /00 3/8,800 (78,/00 ;1,'j - /2 7331,600 238,600 (6,30', 1(7 - /10 7/30/16 3,6,070 53, 6) - 17 170,000 (/3,060 (7) 1" 7)8,800 733,110)) 35,33) 7,5 137 25) ` 770 8/6/16 56,1,7), 57,686 (0) 390 3/0,000 1/0,000 /7 - 730,700 238,000 6,777 `1377,155 185 - 170 0/33/18 `,6~01', 66,680 (`17 - 700 (70,800 372,0)10 7)0,800 2337600 3,37) 7171','? 729 - 737 7/20/76 51, 1,8), ~6, 20) - 771, 378,380 3/8,000 IRS - 88 -- ~*_, -` , - 2313 00 238,000 33,768 1,77371332 7,1,37,,3~7 "``76373~71637~'6'o337i33 `837,5/0 PAGENO="0608" 1290 I- PAGENO="0609" EXHIBIT B-i 0 ROHR ADVANCE LIQUIDATION SCHEDULE ACTUAL AS OF 1/31/76 MILESTONE PROGRAM CREDIT IV PAID ACCRUAL ADVANCE 8/1/75 8/31/75 9/30/75 22,500,000.00 1811,931.51 1814,931.50 61,62 63,614 10/6/75 10/31/75 11/214/75 117,6142.00 22,382,358.00 117,6~12.OO 28,2142.00 28,242.00 89,400.00 89,1400.00 14,282.62 7,5113.86 369,863.01 36,986.30 406,8149.31 153,303.82 147,171.67 61,62 63,64 11/30/75 12/8/75 12/31/75 22,2614,716.00 119,200.00 22,1/46,516.00 119,200.00 56,1484.00 56,4814.00 178,800.00 178,800.00 119,200.00 119,200.00 11,826.48 2,057.42 13,883.90 1,208.3/4 707,3214.80 36,599.53 148,799.38 792,723.71 139,553.39 22,026,316.00 56,484.00 178,800.00 238,400.00 15,092.24 932,277.10 PAGENO="0610" 1292 EXii~3iT R-2 ROHR SdI?Pl~G SC~2ULE RE/ S SN 2 AS SF / PER ROhS PRODUCT CONTROL - P. 2. Si~J Rovember 1975 2R 26 ~ ~ December 975 January 1976 21 27 30 ~6 ~ ~T7o February 1976 9 13 19 25 71,72 73,7~ ~ ~ March 1976 2 8 12 18 Y~T~ ~ ~ March (CONT) 2R 30 ~ April 1976 5 8 13 91,92 ~` 95,96 Asril (CONT) 22 27 30 ~7TOO 101,102 103,1014 May 1976 5 7 11 13 05,106 107,108 i09,H0 May (CONT) 17 19 21 25 H3,H14 15,116 1i~iJ0 15,120 May (CONT) 27 121,122 June 1976 1 3 7 9 23,1214 125,126 127,128 29,130 June (CaNT) 11 15 17 21 131,132 133,13 135,136 T~7,13c June (CaNT) 23 25 29 139,1140 1141,1142 July 1976 I 6 8 12 l~5,146 1147,1148 149J50 151,152 July (CaNT) 114 16 20 22 153,1514 155,156 57,158 159,163 July (CaNT) 26 28 30 161,162 163,1614 65,166 Revision *f12 does not cover cars to be shicoeJ be~onc :~e of July. At preserlt there is no scheduie aiaMabie. PAGENO="0611" CII~RT STIt%A1tD ~uirP;~&c, OAT( PER I~x~IIRET B RcRIP. SHIPPING SCIIEIIHGE REVISION 2 IHIIIRIT RE 2 RH ~ HI OH REIN 0 II OFORREARICE Bin H T - I / / V V 1/31/S 10/31/5 11/30/5 1/11/5 /31/A 2/79/4 3/3116 N/JO/A 5/31/6 6/jAm 1/31/6 8/31/i 3/jO/A 10/31/6 11/5)14 PAGENO="0612" 1294 Question 2. Will Rohr's current litigation with the BART system in any way affect the delivery schedule? Answer. We do not believe that the BART litigation will affect our delivery schedule. LOCAL JURISDICTIONs Question Sa. Submit a complete schedule of local payments, noting those that will require a bond issue or additional local legislation. Answer. The current financial plan in support of the $2977 billion estimate of system cost provides for the payment of $720 million by the local jurisdictions. The Maryland jurisdictions have paid $175.2 million from a total obligation of $248.9 million. The remaining $73.7 million has been authorized by the state but not appropriated. The District of Columbia has a total obligation of $266.7 million of which $211.7 million has been paid and $55.0 million is authorized but not appropriated. The Virginia jurisdictions have a total obligation of 8204.9 million of which $135.1 million has been paid. The remaining $69.8 million due to the Authority is in various stages of availability. Alexandria has a balance of $12.3 million and available funds of $2.6 million. The remaining $9.7 million requires City Council action. Arlington has a balance of $27.1 million and available funds of $4.6 million. The remaining $22.6 million will require a bond referendum. Fairfax County has a balance of $29.2 million and available funds of $9.2 million. The remaining $20.0 million will require a bond referendum. Fairfax City and Falls Church have sufficient funds available to meet their obligation of $1.2 million. MARKETING AND THE MARKET PLAN Question 1. Describe how the fare structure fits into the marketing plan. Answer. The new Metrobus fare structure was fashioned by the Office of Plan- ning with substantial participation by representatives of the local jurisdictions. Although the general effect of the new structure was an increase in revenues from fare boxes, the manner and method of implementation was such that the customary attendant drop in ridersl1ip was avoided. In fact, the unique nature of the fare adjustment permitted a completely candid marketing effort with emphasis on the positive aspects of the new- fares. As a result, Metrobus has experienced the phenomenon of an increase in ridership at the time of a fare increase which is extremely rare if not wholly unprecedented in the industry. The most obvious and fundamental "fit" between the fare structure and the marketing plan is its emphasis on and encouragement of ridership during the non-rush hours. In effect, what might have been viewed as a penalty charge for riding during the rush has received fairly general acceptance as a reduced or incentive charge for not riding during the rush. This perception on the part of customers and potential customers is vital to the long-standing key marketing ob- jective of expanding non-rush ridership. A sub-benefit for the marketing effort arising from the fare structure is its positive effect on what had been an almost unexplainable structure inherited from the four private companies. Rush-hour fares are still not simple to understand but they are essentially logical and explainable. Non-rush fares have been materially simplified, a fact which is being exploited in the ongoing marketing program pitched at stimulating rides during the so-called base day. Question 2. Describe how special and charter services and services to special events and distant areas fit into the marketing plan. Answer. The non-fare box revenue producing function of the Office of Market- ing w-hich embraces charter and special services is tailored toward the traditional approach of profit-and-loss centers in private enterprise. Recognizing that all "profits" derived from charter and special services serve directly to defray the subsidy requirements of regular route service, every effort is made to expand business which produces significant net return to the Authority. Among other things, this means that sales emphasis is directed tow-ard service during the non- rush hours when manpower and equipment is available and when the cost of providing the service is minimal. This requires finely tuned selling techniques which have been modestly successful in a highly competitive marketplace. In spite of WMATA's general inability to write charter orders for business which intrudes into the rush periods, the Authority remains one of the largest charter- PAGENO="0613" 1295 ing bus entities in the country with sales of charter and contract service ex- ceeding $5 million annually. To assure that this activity remains both profitable and competitive, the tariff (at Attachment A) is updated periodically and sales personnel are not permitted to deviate even slightly from the approved quotations in the tariff. The latest tariff was approved by the Board of Directors in Decem- ber 18, 1975, and went into effect on January 1, 1976. Services to special events are best exemplified by the Redskins Specials and charters, racetrack service-and as a example of service for a one-time event- the Folklife Festival of 1975, service for which was operated under contract for the National Park Service for ten days in late June and early July, 1975. The Folklife Festival service, a shuttle service from fringe parking at the Pentagon to the Lincoln Memorial, grossed approximately $10,000 from operating 88 buses during the contract. During the recent football season the Authority again op- erated special Metrobus service to Redskins games from various established pick-up points in the transit zone as well as regular charter service for groups attending the games. The Redskins Special service grossed $125,000, carrying over 40,000 passengers during the seven season games and exhibitions. Revenue from group charters for Redskins games accounted for another $91,450 during the same period. It is assumed that the term "distant areas" refers to WMATA's so-called com- munity-type service. Regular route service is, of course, restricted to the speci- fied Transit Zone and charter service is confirmed within a 250-mile radius of the District of Columbia. Community-type service, currently being offered to three Virginia communities, departs from the general "profit-and-loss center" prin- ciple of the office because it is administered on a cost-equals-price basis. The pro- gram is of questionable value and the majority of this service is currently being phased out. (The above response also applies to Question #4 which is related to this question.) Question 3. Describe how promotions and promotional fares and material fit in to the marketing plan. Staff recommendations on promotional fares are outlined in considerable detail in the report titled "A Program of Promotional Fares" (at Attachment B) which is submitted herewith for the record. The report was delivered to the Board Committee on Revenue and Operations in August and was, in turn, circulated to all local and sub-regional jurisdictions for reaction and comment. Suburban reactions have generally favored the concept. The District of Columbia has not yet responded. It should .be noted that the incentive elements of the proposed approach lean heavily on the convenience and status factors and only slightly on bargain pric- ing. This approach is consistent with the Authority posture of treading lightly in areas where subsidy requirements could be affected negatively. The entire promotional fare approach is keyed to the new fare structure with its somewhat complicated zone fares-as related in the first section of this response. Several aspects of the promotional fare program lend themselves to promoting ridership in general, specifically the unlimited usage of the passes during their valid periods. It is intended that once adopted the promotional fare program would be used as the primary theme for promoting the various benefits of public transit. A promotional scheme has been developed along with the promotional fare program, a brief description of which is incorporated in the attached document. The underlying philosophy of the promotional program has been to provide consumers with hard information about public transit on the theory that the more people know about using the system the easier it is for them to use it. Most of the promotional activity for Metrobus has been both informational and motiva- tional. Make it easy to use the system and give people reasons for using it. The promotional fares program is a large step in the attempt to provide that ease, while making possible the multiple sale of rides by selling a full month's worth at one time. Because the program itself is unique to this area, it lends itself to a number of attention-getting approaches for promotional programs and at the same time provides a method for focusing attention on how each individual can use the system to his or her best advantage. The program is predicated on selling both value and convenience to the con- sumer. Value in this instance is not simply price, but all of the benefits a pass holder can derive from his purchase of a pass for unlimited usage on Metrobus PAGENO="0614" 1296 throughout the region-tailored to the individual's hours and needs. By associ- ating the benefits attendant to public transit with the pass, those benefits can be defined for the consumer through planned informational and motivational promo- tions. The promotional fares program as developed is not a gimmick, but is a well-structured program aimed at providing real value to the consumer and at the same time providing an opportunity for the Authority to increase its overall revenue sales by levelling off downward fluctuations on day-to-day sales and by increasing utilization of the off-peak hour capacity. This kind of effort is fertile ground for promoting transit because it helps develop the "transit habit" in people by encouraging them to commit themselves (their money) to a certain number of rides over a period of time. Once committed and once they have used the system for any length of time, the easier it is for them to make the de- cision to buy again. The basic approach is to reduce the buying decision for a decision to buy again. The basic approach is to reduce the buying decision for a great number of people down to twelve decisions a year as opposed to any number of potential yes or no decisions that a consumer could make for each potential trip. The individual decision of the passholder whether to ride the bus or use some alternative mode becomes moot in terms of revenue to the Authority, yet the benefit of the pass resides with the consumer throughout the month for the full validated zone and time period. Thus focusing promotional attention on the sale of the pass, the benefits of transit can be expressed in an even more appealing package of values to the consumer. It might be added, that reduction in price is not a sufficient incentive for people to use transit if they perceive it as a valueless item. Current pricing, which is already substantially discounted, seems to have little or no effect on consumption of the service. If pricing were a significant factor, ridership should have decreased after the recent increase in some passenger fares. The actual results w-ere to the contrary, thus giving support to the premise that metropolitan area consumers are being attracted to Metrobus by other perceived values. Therefore, the promo- tional fares program relies on motivating consumers to use Metrobus by creating and reinforcing other benefits of public transit. Various promotions (information and motivation) and the promotional fares program are geared to the element of the marketing plan which is directed to increasing revenues from and usage of public transit in the metropolitan area without increasing operating costs or subsidy requirements. Most successful retailers consider promotional expenditures of this type to be an investment from w-hich a return can he anticipated, as opposed to being an ex- pense item. The entire promotional effort of the marketing plan is predicated on this same philosophy. The revenue and ridership increases speak for them- selves. Question 4. Describe how services to distant areas, special events and popula- tion centers fit into the marketing plan. (See Question 2.) Questien 5. Submit a comparison of marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures before and after submission to the Director of Budget, Comp- troller/General Manager, and Board. Answer. The budget for the Office of Marketing is prepared at the section level within the office by expensing the projected work plan for each individual section prior to submission to the Director. The various section and branch work pro- grams and budgets are then reviewed and consolidated at the Director's level. Once the work plan is approved by the Director, it is expensed and submitted as the budget request to the General Manager/Comptroller where it is reviewed before submission to the Board Budget Committee. For FY `77, the office requested $1,418,000 for operating expenses exclusive of salaries or less than 1% of total Metrobus operating expenses of $131 million. After review of the office request by the General Manager/Comptroller and Office of Budget, certain planned programs and personnel requests were elim- inated from the work plan and the total operating request reduced by some 20% to $1,068,000. The Budget Review Committee of the Board of Directors further reduced the overall budget (both personnel and nonpersonnel items) by 12~%. for an operating total of $990,000, or less than 1% of the total operating budget which was also reduced by an overall 6%. These reductions in operating budget for the office have been reflected in the reduction in staffing of the office as well as the reduction in certain work plan elements. PAGENO="0615" 1297 Of this total operating budget for the office some $161,000 are expense items ~hicb are reimbursed by charter clients. This includes bridge, highway and tunnel tolls for charter trips; certain commissions which are provided for in the tariff which are paid to travel agencies who place charter orders with the Au- thority; and other attendant charter costs which are reimbursed by the charter- ing parties. These items are not really operating expenses for the office, but are listed in the office budget for accounting purposes. Actually, the higher the amount of these particular expenses, the greater the revenue to the Authority from charter sales since these reimbursable expenses are proportional to total charter sales. During this current fiscal year the office has instituted a strict budgetary con- trol system on all units by placing the accountability for fiscal control on the section level within the office. The office also engages in an ongoing and expanding program to defray costs wherever possible through cooperative promotion or the sale of advertising on certain publications and timetables. In FY `77 it is estimated the office will gen- erate some $6.8 million in non-f areboa~ revenues from concessions, charter and contract sales and advertising sales. This is over 600% of the total marketing operating budget and 5% of the total operating expenses for Metrobus. Question 6. Provide a comparison of some of the larger transit systems (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles) marketing expenditures and revenues and explain any material differences in marketing department structure. Answer. Data on the expenditures for marketing by other transit properties is not readily available. However, the Office of Marketing has undertaken a survey (at Attachment C) of major properties to develop this data. When the information is collected and assembled it will be available to the Committee. It should be noted that transit properties have not organized their marketing efforts along parallel lines, thus making comparisons difficult. Many of the func- tions found in WMATA's Office of Marketing, such as charter and contract sales, telephone information service, consumer activities, consumer sales, market re- search and other functions either do not exist at other properties or are not necessarily found within the market organization. Many properties do not even have a formal marketing department and expenditures for various marketing activities are difficult to distinguish from other activities. WMATA is one of few transit properties that house most marketing activities within a single office. Questio~n 7. Describe how media is selected for various promotions. Answer. Media selection for effective advertising requires extension current market and media research data. Media recommendations for Metrobus adver- tising are generally presented to the Office of Marketing by the Authority's advertising consultant for review and analysis. However, prior to any selection, extensive research of the target market segment is conducted to determine specific demographic characteristics of the audience to be reached, i.e., potential buyers of transit service. The market is then segmented by various characteristics such as age, education, geography, ethnic background, income levels, etc. The market is continually researched to determine where and among which market segments the greatest opportunities lie for selling transit services. The segments are then given priority and again analyzed to determine what characteristics of the service offering would appeal most to each particular segment. The creative strategy is then tailored for those specific market segments, such as teens, house- wives, businessmen, students, secretaries, etc. Against this research and creative strategy the virious media are researched to determine where advertising should be placed to reach the greatest number of people within a particular market segment at the lowest cost. Because advertis- ing effectiveness relies heavily on the cumulative effect of the advertising mes- sage on a potential buyer, a mix of media, each reinforcing the other, is often employed against a single market segment. For example, a combination, Of print media (such as newspaper or magazine) and broadcast (such as radio and television) may prove to be the most effective combination of media for reaching the desired market segment. Therefore, in addition to analysis of various audiences of specific media, consideration is also given to where the greatest reinforcement and cumulative effect of the message can be obtained in a combination of media at the lowest dollar cost. Media are selected on this basis after careful research of the media available in the market. Certain research tools which are available to media analysts are employed to determine the most efficient media buys. These include, but are not PAGENO="0616" 1298 limited to, use of data provided by Arbitron, Pulse and Nielson which rate various broadcast media and breakdown their various audience characteristics by age, income level, sex, etc., and give the audience figures for each time seg- ment during the broadcast day. In print media various tools are also available from Standard Rate and Data Service, the Audit Bureau of Circulation which provide the same type of research as the broadcast research firms. By employ- ing these tools and obtaining other market and media data, an objective evalu- ation of the media can be made to base the selection of specific media for pur- chase on purely an efficiency basis. The amount of advertising dollars invested in advertising to any particular market segment is directly proportional to the amount of potential that segment represents for selling transit services. The posture of the Director of the office has been to make such media selections strictly on the basis of effectiveness and not for the purpose of creating good public relations with the owners or opera- tors of various media or other persons interested in advertising placement. Question 8. Describe how specific marketing inputs such as survey data, rider- ship studies, idea generation, and implementing and reviewing plans fit into the overall management structure. Answer. A distinction is draw-n on the management level between the program for the Office of Marketing and the Authority's marketing program. On the one side of the coin is the Authority's overall objective to provide the consumer with the finest transit service feasible within the various fiscal and operational con- straints. This is a consumer-oriented attitude on the part of every level of the Authority's organizational structure that is concerned with bringing services to the marketplace which fill the needs of consumers as perceived by all the various indicators of those needs. That is the Authority's marketing program. The pro- gram for the Office of Marketing is concerned with implementing some of the aspects of the overall marketing program, principally those direct actions which determine the character of the market and attempt to create a selling environ- ment in which consumer acceptance of the product is more readily manifest. Thus, all the actions of the management of the Authority which are concerned with the service offering and the consumers' needs are an integral part of the Authority's marketing program. Since the Office of Marketing sits on equal footing at the top management level with the operating and planning departments, integration and coordination of objectives of the various activities takes place in the development and formula- tion of Authority policies relating to providing a good product which can be sold in the marketplace. Research and market identification takes place both from the pure marketing viewpoint in the Office of Marketing as well as from the plan- ning function w-hich is concerned with, to a large degree, service development and pricing. Service improvement, whether through cleaner buses, better driver re- sponses, better routes and schedules, fare adjustments, better information-are all aspects of the service offering which generate ideas for marketing the product to the broadest possible market. The work plan for the Office of Marketing. Pro- ject 76 (copy attached at Exhibit D) is a reflection of the entire Authority mar- keting effort and represents, to a large degree, the inputs from the various com- ponents within the management structure. Question 9. Describe how market and market potential are identified and how specific segments have been identified and penetrated in the past. Answer. The Office of Marketing identifies its market and potential markets through ongoing consumer and marketing research. This research is conducted in various ways, but the ultimate goal is to develop as much knowledge about consumer habits and market potential as possible and to acquire as much knowl- edge of our product position against the marketplace. Consumer research is con- ducted to identify areas where the Authority can make improvements in the prod- net in accordance with customer needs and preferences. Marketing research is conducted to identify markets and potential customers for various transit serv- ices and to identify the best methods and channels for communicating with them. Research to date has been conducted both by outside market research firms and * by in-house staff. These have consisted of various attitude and market studies some of which are compiled in Exhibit E, entitled "Resident and Rider Attitudes Towards Metrobus," (July, 1975). This report summarizes the research findings through the first half of 1975. These findings and the additional research which the Marketing office conducts have been translated into purposeful actions aimed at penetrating the market PAGENO="0617" 1299 within the scope of the objectives of the Office. The task of the Office of Marketing has been guided by these findings. The objectives of the marketing plan have been established as outlined below in order of priority. 1. To provide meaningful and responsive action to the needs of transportation consumers in the National Capital Region; 2. To make it possible for consumers in our existing service area to use Metro- bus to the fullest possible extent; 3. To attract and persuade them to do so; 4. To measure and report the extent to which this happens; 5. To develop plans and programs which make for even greater growth in serv- ice and patronage; 6. To provide a mechanism whereby all functions within the Authority may co- operate to improve Metrobus services; 7. To provide WMATA with whatever revenue is attainable without damaging or distracting the Authority's primary community service objective. In each area, WMATA has made significant strides since the acquisition of the four bus companies some three years ago and since the inception of the Office of Marketing at that same point in time. Overall, the most telling achievement is contained in ridership increases which have occurred. Prior to the acquisition of the former bus companies, ridership had long been declining at an alarming rate. Since acquisition, and by conscious effort by the Authority, ridership was sta- bilized and began to grow at an increasing rate each year to the point where it is now 4 per cent over last year. Additional revenue has steadily increased. Patronage trend lines indicate continued growth in ridership. Even though the operating fleet of the Metrobus system since September of this year is less than it was previously, revenue and patronage continue to climb upwards. Annual patronage is now at a record 122 million rides. Part of this success can be attributed to meeting the first objective of the marketing effort: providing responsive action to the needs of consumers. One of the most dramatic improvements on the consumer side has been in the area of telephone transit information. At acquisition, the number of calls for transit in- formation was running about 20,000 per week, up to 100,000 per month. Twenty- * seven information clerks and supervisors were then answering under 60% of the total incoming calls. For example, during a typical week in January, 1973, there were 15,000 incoming calls and only 8,000 were answered. Since that time, the office has doubled the number of operators, implemented a training and retrain- ing program, improved the informational materials with which the clerks work and developed an incentive program for the employees. Calls have since in- creased to about 35,000 a week (sometimes approaching 45,000) and the answer rate has increased to well over 90%, at times reaching as much as 98%. What has happened is that twice the staff has been handling four times the amount of work and the quality of information has improved substantially. This has made it easier for patrons to get informaton on routes and schedules, therefore, making it easier for them to ride Metrobus. (Operators Training Manual at Exhibit "F"). Additional materials have been prepared to assist consumers on how to ride the bus in metropolitan Washington. Personalized timetables give specific in- formation to any consumer on request. Couponed advertising allows a con- venient method for consumers to obtain tailored information about riding the bus. Most of the advertising budget is directed to bringing good hard informa- tion into the hands of consumers to help them use the Metrobus system. Some examples include the direct promotion of new lines and service changes through direct mail, special flyers, posters, radio broadcasts, special timetable distribu- tion. Additionally, timetables are widely distributed in schools, offices, employ- ment centers, information outlets, hotels and libraries throughout the region. Advertising has provided a strong impetus to ridership, through motivational and education messages which provide information on riding as well as point out the attractive features of the transit alternative. The improvement of the appearance of the fleet and improved routing and scheduling have also served to attract riders. Promotion of these improvements makes it known to the consumer that transit services in our region are improving drastically to provide them with better and better service. Introduction of a new fare system has helped equalize fares throughout the transit zone and substantial information support went into making it easier for patrons to accommodate to the change. PAGENO="0618" 1300 During the period of March-April, 1975, ridership dropped slightly. Coincident with this decline was a reduction in the amount of advertising and promotion being conducted as a result of a budget squeeze. While evidence that the decline was related to the reduction in the promotional effort is not obtainable, it has been accepted that information support and promotion are closely associated with increasing ridership trends. The premise that information in the hands of the consumer and reinforcing promotion will motivate people to ride the bus has been part of the fundamental objectives of the marketing plan. Consumer research has been conducted on an ongoing basis to determine the needs of consumers and to define marketing opportunities for selling bus service. As experience accumulates within the office and knowledge of the market and its opportunities continues to expand, more plans and programs are developed or others expanded to meet consumer demand and thereby increase revenue and ridership. An aggressive sales promotion program in line with the objective to attract riders and hold their patronage has been implemented and refined over the past few years. Additional programs are constantly being developed to motivate con- sumers to use the system and to use it more often. An annual work plan for the office has been developed and shared with other Authority elements in an effort to guide the consumer-oriented actions of the office toward greater achievement in the area of patron services. The organization of the office was established and is constantly refined to achieve the consumer-related objectives of the office. Consumer Representatives, Transit Information, Consumer Research, Promotion and Information, Mer- Űhandising Sales, Charter Sales, Consumer Sales and Contract Sales are all devoted to bringing better service in a fully responsive w-ay to area reskients. Other consumer services have been initiated such as the "Where and When" program which brings sales and information staff into major activity and em- ployment centers to promote ridership and provide personalized, up-to-date sys- teni information to residents. An example of this approach is the college informa- tion program through which a booth is set up by information staff at college registrations to distribute transit information and sell tickets and tokens to students at particular schools. The office produces timetables for each college in the area with the specific routes and schedules to and from the campus. Each one carries the name and seal of the particular school. The Authority's "Omnibus" is operated by Consumer Representatives who travel to various locations throughout the transit zone to hear consumer com- plaints, suggestions and to help them with particular transit needs. Personalized timetables are offered to riders through couponed advertising and other promotion. The customer simply fills out a simple coupon telling w-here he or she wants to go. A timetable is then prepared clearly marking the routes and transfer points and the fare zones for that particular customers needs. To date, over 9,000 requests for personalized timetables have been filled and sent to customers. In addition, 247 ticket and taken outlets have been established throughout the transit zone for consumer convenience. Sales of fares from these outlets are running about 810 million per year. With the exception of the six manned in- formation and fare sales outlets, there is no direct cost associated with these sales operations. The Consumer Representative program offers consumers an opportunity for direct input into the service operation by providing them a voice within the structure of the Authority. These Consumer Representatives, who serve as om- budsmen for the patron, handle as many as 5,000 calls monthly, many of which are translated into direct action for service improvements. Additionally, the office has constantly improved the non-farebox revenue oppor- tunities for the Authority. Advertising and concessions operations brought in nearly $250,000 to the Authority in net revenue last fiscal year, as opposed to less than $140,000 brought in by the four former companies in the final year prior to takeover. This function has been handled by one Authority staff person who devotes less than a third of his time to the management of these programs. Additional programs are also being developed to increase that total revenue. The revenue producing activities of the office are operated on a profit and loss center basis in order to maximize efficiency and the returns to the Authority. The charter and contract sales section now account for better than $5 million in annual sales. In the first year after acquisition of the private companies, these PAGENO="0619" 1301 sections did 37% more business than the combined total of the four previous com- panies. This increase was achieved with 40% less staff than the combined four companies. In fiscal year 1974, the office did $5.2 million in sales against $4.4 million for the combined total of the previous owners. Of that $4.4 million, approximately $500,000 was from individual sightseeing ticket sales-an activity from which WMATA is legislatively barred. This increase in sales was achieved with a charter and contract sales staff that had been reduced by WMATA from 28 persons to 10, or a 42% reduction. The professional staff was reduced from 20 persons to 11. The net effect was a substantial personnel cost savings as well as an increase in the level of sales activity and profitability. Question 10. Please submit documentation of the correlation between ridership changes and marketing efforts. Answer. Prior to the Authority's acquisition of the four major bus operations in the metropolitan area in 1973, ridership had been consistently slipping down- ward. Since WMATA takeover the trend has been reversed and is now increas- ing at an annual rate of 7 percent. This is perhaps the most telling evidence of the success of the Authority's marketing program-since the Authority believes that better service, more reliable schedules, better routes, cleaner and more attractive buses, new bus shelters and stop signs, more courteous drivers, good promotion and better information distribution are all part of the marketing effort. Certainly each of these improvements have contributed to some degree in the successful attraction of riders to Metrobus. The means that the Authority has to compute ridership is such that it does not allow for a finite analysis of transit ridership, by either geography or market segments. Thus, it is difficult to make precise correlations between specific mar- keting programs and ridership. This is also compounded by the fact that there are so many intervening variables which impact ridership (i.e. holidays, weather, strikes, fare changes, etc.). WMATA is showing a system-wide increase in revenue and ridership in spite of a recent increase in fares. To conclude exact relationships with any specific promotional program and these general ridership increases would be at best circumstantial. We can on specific routes illustrate how a marketing effort has helped to achieve maximum ridership levels earlier than could normally be expected. Examples of this are: 20E- ( Former Trailways Service from Fairfax to Washington) Promotion of this service, which consisted of manning the Trailways buses prior to transfer to Metrobus with information personnel armed with promotional handout mate- rial and support posters, and notices in the buses, was so successful that since initiation of the service in April, 1975, three new buses have been added to this line to relieve the critical overcrowding. M-3-(Union Station-S. W. Mall Rush House Service Shuttle) The inauguration of this service was accompanied by a test promotional cam- paign to determine the effectiveness of various promotional techniques. This campaign employed direct mail along the rail commuter corridor; seat promo- tions on all trains coming into the city; distribution of information materials through citizen community groups along the corridor; use of print media- especially newspaper, production of a special pop-up map/timetal)le which was partially paid for by the sales of advertising space to AMTRAK; and special displays in Union Station. Ridership grew rapidly on this line to the point that within 3 months 80% of operating costs were being covered. On most of these buses standing loads are the normal case. This was a case of highly specialized target promotion which supported the premise that proper information is the best tool for selling transit. T-11- (New all-day and rush-hour service from P. G. County) Again, placement of good information on service in the hands of the right market segment increased ridership. Direct mail to an eight-block corridor (four blocks on each side of the line), posters, on-board information materials and some amount of localized radio commercial advertising helped to achieve maxi- mum standing loads on this line within 3 months of implementation. There are numerous other examples where individual lines, or combinations of lines have been promoted through direct mail, print advertising, handouts, broadcast media that reinforce the basic premise that if the population becomes educated through easy access to information about transit, and if they are moti- vated through promotion, they will use transit. PAGENO="0620" 1302 The measurement of the effectiveness of marketing efforts can be made dnly by looking at the sum total of the Authority~s efforts to gain acceptance for tran- sit in the marketplace. Question 11. How does the impact of national energy and transit policy figure as an input into the future marketing plans? Answer. The relatively recent developments in the energy field, particularly as they related to shortages and increased fuel costa,~fiave spurred marketing ef- forts in the transit industry to create a great level of awareness and acceptance of the transit alternative. As input into transit marketing programs, however, it is difficult to relate to national policy on both counts. Transit policy is at best erratic and multidirectional. National policy on energy is even less consistent and even more difficult to incorporate into long-term programming. The best that can be achieved in planning marketing programs in the long term is to hope to minimize the effect of national policy. MATERIALS ON FILE WITh THE COMMITTEE Exhibit "A": Tariff of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA tariff No. 3). Exhibit "D": Project 76: A step-by-step program for marketing transit in metropolitan Washington, D.C. for fiscal year 1976 (July 1975). Exhibit "E": Resident and metrobus rider attitudes toward metrobus (July, 1975). Exhibit "F": Reaching out for riders: Through courteous service and reliable information. PAGENO="0621" 1303 EXHIBIT B AUGUST, 1975 PROPOSED PROMOTIONAL FARE PROGRAMS Office of Marketing Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority PAGENO="0622" Boa,dofDi,ectots JOSEPH ALEXANDER Vi~gut:a ChaHu~ a STERLING TUCKER D~steUt of Cotu~ob~u V:ce Cha~oao FRANCIS W WHITE Ma~yIaod Secood Vco Chauuuao EVERARD MUIISEY VHgio~a WALTER E. WASHINGTON Disto ct of C ole o~ bia CLEATUS E BARNETT Masylaod AItRtRete Di~octo~s RUFUS PHILLIPS CHARLES E. BEATLEY, JR Visgatia JAMES E. COATES JERRY A. MOORE. JR Disltict of Colutobia CARLTON R SICKLES NORMAN L. CHRISTELLER Masylaed Offico,s JACKSON GRAHAM GeueralMaoa get WARREN OUENSTEDT Deputy Geoe,aI Macage, SCHUYLER LOWE EXCCXIiI'e Ott,cee cud Co'eptwllee DELMER SON Sect etacy-Teeatc,e JOHN R. KENNEDY GeoeeatCcuotel ROY T. DODGE Chief of Det~gu cod Coot ttuEf `00 RALPH L WOOD Chief efOpestt~ooo cod Ma,ofooauue metro MEIIORANDUM TO: Chairman, Revenue and Operations Comrnittee SUBJECT: Proposed Promotional Fare Programs The promotional or incentive fare is an important tool for marketing public transit. Perhaps more than any other single marketing element, a properly conceived bargain fare can stimulate trial rides by current non-users of public transit. Good performance by the property can then convert them into steady, loyal customers. Bargain pricing during heavily promoted special "sales is the traditional device used by private retailers to cCax new customers into their estahl ishments. lore merchendise is moved at lesser profit per item. The objective cenerally is to induce the new customers, through quality in both product and service, into making return visits end engaging in acdi- tional transactions. The principle is fairly similar with regard to selling transit rides. The one huge difference is that there is no profit to be reduced--only a massive deficit to be considered. Therefore, a simple price incentive, while sufficient for the private retailer, does not appear to be sufficient in itself for the transit operator. Too modest a bargain would have no meaningful impact on ridersnip. Too big a price cut I:ould create an unacceptable increase in the operating aeficit. The transit operator needs to be more inventive in packaging his bargains. He must couple modest monetary incen- tives with something else to create a thing of value in the perception of customers and potential customers. And the perceived value, although tangible and even quantifiable from the vantage of the customer, must not provoke material reduction of gross revenues or significant expansion of oper- ating expenses. 1304 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 Fiflh Slreot, NW.. Woshinšjton. D. C. 20031 (202) 637-1234 August 28, 1975 PAGENO="0623" 1305 This, then, is the challenge which this paper attempts to address. The recommendations contained hereafter suggest that WMATA put forward a thing of value as perceived by the customer, but the value is pegged only partially to price. The convenience factor, very important in the determination of value, should be a minimal cost item to the Authority. The big bargain for the customer is something WMATA can afford to relinquish: seats currently unoccupied during non-rush periods. Mindful that WMATA's dual objectives of increased rider- ship and controlled deficits are inherently conflicting wi~en applied to rush hour patronage, it is believed that the focus on non-rush use provides an important balance between service and cost. To the extent practicable, attempts have been made to quantify elements of anticipated cost based on some rather arbitrary assumptions. Efforts have also been made to identify forseeable problems, including those for which there appear to be no ready solutions. It is recommended that the promotional fare programs out- lined in this document be adopted by the Board of Directors on an experimental basis to permit practical evaluation over at least a six-month period leading to recommended modifications or improvements for inclusion in a permanent arrangement. It is further recommended that implementation commence January 1, 1976, allowing a four-month familiarization period for the general fare changes before introduction of another price-related program. Finally, it is recommended that an evaluation report be presented to the Board not later than June 15, 1976, to permit action on a permanent program by July 1, 1976. / J hn E. Warrington ( /~rector of Marke~y~'~ cc: Mr. Munsey Mr. Beatley Mr. White Mr. Tucker Mr. Coates PAGENO="0624" 1306 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROPOSED PROMOTIONAL FARE PROGRAMS BACKGROUND: The June 25, 1975, report of the Board Fare Committee directed staff to study possible promotional fare programs and to submit a report to the Revenue and Operations Committee. The Chairman of the Board issued a public challenge to the Office of Marketing to develop one or more promotional fare programs. The Office of Marketing moved immediately to update its famil- iarity with promotional fare programs being offered, or which had been offered, by other transit properties throughout the nation. Some of these programs will be reviewed later in this report. It was evident that a major restructuring of the Netrobus fare system was imminent and tnat any such restructuring would have substantial impact on any proposed promotional fare program. Nonetheless, the office moved ahead with its promotional fare program evaluation and into specific program development, withholding recommendations until the fare restruc- turing was complete and adopted by the Board. The recommendations in this report take into account the revisions in the fare structure which go into effect September 1, 1975. The Office of Marketing conducted a series of workshops comprised of personnel from its Research, Consumer Sales, and Promotion and Advertising Sections, plus representatives of the Authority's advertising consultant. This group sifted through many promotional fare possibilities, most of which were dropped from consideration because of financial or operationai difficul ties. PAGENO="0625" 1307 -2- PROGRAMS OF OTHER TRANSIT AUTHORITIES The workshop group reviewed some twenty programs presently being offered by transit authorities. Although the names and some of the details differ, these programs generally can be categorized into four basic groups: Systemwide Flat Fares; Weekend Fares; Shopper Fares; and Weekly, Monthly, and Annual Passes. Some existing programs were analyzed quite thoroughly in the devel~oment of this report's recommendations. BOSTON offers an "Annual Pass," although it is merchandised on a monthly basis and only through a payroll deduction plan with major employers. Approximately 55 employers are now participating in the program with gross monthly sales exceeding 12,000 passes. A prime objective of the program is to increase the volume of up-front revenue collected at the beginning of each month. Boston has just received a DOT grant to study the feasibility of offering over-the-counter sales of the passes. This program has many features which appear to be adaptable and desirable for WMATA. PITTSBURGH offers a "Monthly Pass," which is merchandised through 56 outlets selling over-the-counter on a one per cent commission basis. Monthly sales total approximately 18,000 passes. Pittsburgh is just beginning to merchandise the pass through the payroll deduc- tion plan and currently has fourteen employers participating. This pass program requires use of cash in addition to the pass which has complicated the marketing effort and created problems with 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 40 PAGENO="0626" 1308 -3- transportation personnel collecting the additional fare. The Pittsburgh experience provides m number of program facets that are helpful. It also sounds a warning about the operational problems of unnecessarily complicating the fare process. BALTIMORE provides a "Super Sunday Pass." This pass is sold by bus operators for 50 cents and is good for unlimited rides on a Sunday `iithin the base zone, with additional fare required for additional zones. The base Sunday fare is 30 cents. Since the inception of this program, Sunday revenues have held steady. The elimination of zone charges for non-rush rides under WMATA's new fare structure makes special Sunday treatment worthy of cons iderat ion. CHICAGO has offered the "Super Sunday Transfer" since June, 1974. This pass is sold on the bus for 70 cents and is good for unlimited rides throughout the system from 3:00 AM Sunday to 3:00 AM Monday. The Chicago Transit Authority reports rides are up 50 per cent, with a decline in revenue of approximately 10 per cent. Chicago tabulates rides and not pass sales, thus creating some distortion in the figures. The situation is compounded by the multicodal nature of Chicago transit. Chicago's prime objective was to increase rides, with revenue a secondary consideration. At WMATA, ridership and revenue would seem to require equal billing. OTHER PROGRAMS considered include Flat Fares, Dime Time, Free Fare Zones, Stop-Over Transfers, Weekly Passes and Half Fares. These programs were eliminated from consideration for a variety PAGENO="0627" 1309 -`4- of reasons, principally because they were either inequitable ma multi-jurisdictional operation or unrealistic in terms of the financial or operational impl icat ions. PROGRAM CONSTRA I NTS In sifting through numerous approaches for developing promotional fare programs for the Authority, a three-part general test was applied to all schemes in the early stages of consideration. Appr3aches that fell outside the guidelines of the test were dropped. The three principal constraints were: 1. The program must be reasonably equitable for all jurisdictions. 2. The program must be realistic in terms of future ridership distribution and impact on operating costs and revenues. 3. The program must be beneficial to the Authority as well as to the consumer. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES While the constraints exercised a vital negative influence over program selection, the positive influence was provided by three fundamental objectives established at the outset by the workshop groups. These objec- tives were: 1. Increase the perceived customer convenience and value. 2. Stimulate ridership, with emphasis on non-rush service. 3. Increase Authority revenue and hold program costs to a manageable minimum. PAGENO="0628" 1310 -5- PROPOSED PROMOTIONAL FARE PROGRAMS Many hours of spirited workshop sessions resulted in the combining of the best features of several programs into two basic approaches. They are new and they are tailored specifically to the Authority's operation. Since they are new, there is no true yardstick of prior or current exper- ience with which to gauge their potential. However, based on recorded experiences of properties util izing programs with similar elements, the two-part proposal appears to be fully implementable and financially responsible. These programs should be classified "experimental" and operated on at least a six-month trial basis to provide an opportunity to evaluate overall impact on ridership and revenue, immediate end long term. It is especially important to consider the long term impact since new riders acquired through the program may well become regular riders if they find the product to be satisfactory. The programs are presented and described separately. It is recommended, however, that they be considered as a package for offering to the public later this year and for implementation on January 1, 1976. *Although the principal bargain element of both programs is pitched at non-rush ridership and although both are built around a monthly pass concept, they are aimed at distinctly different markets--the rush hour commuter and the so-called base day customer. The names proposed for the passes were selected because they already have publ ic identity (song title and movie title) and acceptance, because they have descriptive and promotional value, and because they are easy to say and easy to remember. PAGENO="0629" 1311 -6- THE DAY TRIPPER (BASE-DAY PASS) This is a monthly pass valid to the bearer for unlimited rides within the entire transit zone during weekday non-rush hours and all day Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. NON-RUSH is defined as the hours from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM and 6:00 PM to 6:30 AM, Monday thru Friday, and all operating hours on weekends and holidays. The DAY TRIPPER pass would be color-coded and boldly imprinted with the MONTH and YEAR for which it is valid. The color selection would change each month but would always be visibly different from the colors chosen for the COMMUTER/BASE-DAY PASSES described in the next sect ion. A monthly charge of $16.00 is recommended for the DAY TRIPPER. This charge is calculated on two base zone (L~O~) rides per day times 20 days. Regulations printed on the pass would clearly state that it has no refund or replacement value. The pass would be available for purchase beginning on the first day of the preceding month through the tenth day of the val id month. It would be on sale over-the-counter at all Metro Sales Offices, Metro Division Offices, and by direct mail by means of a check or money order to the Secretary-Treasurer with receipt in that office no later than the 15th day of th~ preceding month (this time frame was established arbitrarily and may be adjusted). Once the worth of the program has been established, the Office of Marketing will initiate a follow-up effort to expand the merchandising of the pass through the more than 250 off-site ticket sales offices. PAGENO="0630" 1312 -7-- This effort could begin before completion of the evaluation period if early acceptance of the DAY TRIPPER clearly warrants. THE EASY RIDER (COMMUTER/BASE-DAY PAY) This is a monthly pass val id to the bearer for uni imited ridership during rush hour service within the number of fare zones purchased, and for unlimited ridership throughout the transit system during non-rush hour service. In addition, the pass would be valid for Family Sunday Rides (up to four persons). "RUSH HOUR" is defined as servl~e operated from b:jO AM to 9:00 AM and 3:30 PM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. The charge for the EASY RIDER would be based on rides between the base zone and the furthermost zone for which the pass was purchased. Six color-coded passes would be required, one color for each zone (including B zone). The EASY RIDER eould be boldly imprinted ~:ith tOe MOMTH, YEAR and ZOtIE for easy identification. Charges would be computed on the basis of two peak fares daily times 20 days for each zone for which the pass would be valid (the Office of Marketing recognizes the break in the charge formula for the base D. C. zone which is recommended to provide a value/price separation from the DAY TRIPPER). Base Zone $lb.00 O Zone $2A.00 1st Zone 530.00 2nd Zone $36.00 3rd Zone $~2.00 Ath Zone $~8.oo The pass regLilations should clearly state that it has no refund or replacement value. Passes would he available for purchase beginning the first day of the preceding month through the tenth day of the valid month. PAGENO="0631" 1313 -8- They would be on sale over-the-counter at all Metro Sales Offices, Metro Division Offices, and by direct mail by means of a check or money order to the Secretary-Treasurer with receipt in that office no later than the 15th day of the preceding month (this time frame was established aroitrarily and may be adjusted). The follow-on promotion of the EASY RIDER would include a program for expanding the merchandising of the pass through the payroll deduction plan with government agencies and other major employers. This shoula not go beyond the exploratory stage until the program has permanent status. In pursuing tnis follow-on effort, the Office of Marketing would format a program for presentation, outlining the benefits for both the employer and the employee. develop an informational brochure containing the details of the plan, again for both the employer and the employee. supply the necessary subscription forms for implementing the program. a. Employee application cards b. Pass consignment sneets, for orders and accounting of revenue from pass sales c. Computer read-out sheets for monthly transactions An alternate plan would also be made available in the event the employers do not have computer capability. This would entail the direct sale of passes to the employees, with sales handled by a department in the firm or agency, such as the Credit Union, Personnel Office, or Administrative Services Office. The employees' appl icat ion cards and pass consignment sheets would be used with the alternate plan. PAGENO="0632" 1314 -9- BENEFITS TO THE AUTHORITY Some of the foreseeable benefits accruing to the Authority from these monthly pass programs are listed. 1. Will appreciably affect cash flow by providing up-front monies to the Authority thereby reducing the need somewhat for short-term borrowing. The net effect is savings to the Authority in interest payments. Some experience has been gained with generating front conies from the off-site ticket and token sales; however, the amount and duration of the prepayments are not as substantial as they could be from a onthly pass program. Revenue received from pass sales through the sales offices would accrue to the Authority on a monthly average of 20 to 25 days in advance of the ride. In fact, mail purchases ~ould start to provide revenue to the Authority as much as an additional 15 days before the pass is even val id. The full measure of the impact on cash flow and savings in interest payments will, of course, depend on the level of pass sales. 2. Will speed up passenger loadings which could impact oper- ations by providing better utilization of equipment and a consequent savings through operational efficiency. 3. Will reduce the present abuse of transfers by el imiratina the need for transfers for passholders thereby reducing the total number in circulation. i~. Will probably have some leveling effect on ridership in the rush hour by diverting some riders from peak load periods to non-rush ridership. This would create more comfort in rush hour periods and/or provide additional space to accommodate new riders. The hoped-for effect would be to increase total ridership with the major thrust during the base day. 5. Will guarantee the Authority revenue from a minimum of ~i0 rides a month from each passtiolder. This reduces the lost revenue from riders who occasionally drive, who are sick, or for whatever other reason they would not ride the full 20-22 working days each month. It will serve to flatten out the critical revenue dips which always accompany inclement weather. The marginal effects from this benefit could be substantial over the long run. PAGENO="0633" 1315 -10- 6. Will guarantee a certain amount of revenue each month from base-day operations which is now not predictable. The $16 a month base day pass guarantees the Authority revenue from ~O rides a month regardless of weather conditions or personal transportation choices by the consumer. 7. Will help attract new riders and increase the number of rides by present customers during other times of the day. 8. Will help expand the visibil ity and exposure of the transit service and help create a more positive public portrait of the Authority. 9. Will help reduce the amount of scrip issued. 10. Will assist bus operators in determining proper fare and reduce the amount of checking of the fare box for payment of correct fare. 11. Will provide broad promotional opportunities for increas- ing awareness of the transit alternate and a valuable tool for altering attitudes and behavior. 12. Will reduce the volume of cash in the fare box, facili- tate the accounting process and lessen the exposure of cash to theft or fraud. BENEFITS TO THE CONSUMER 1. Convenience and value, both of which should be readily apparent to the consumer. 2. Elimination of the exact fare problem for each ride. 3. Ejimination of frequent trips to outlets to purchase tokens and tickets. li. El iminat ion of the need for and bother of either transfers or scrip. 5. Ease of purchase by mail. 6. Ability to budget exact monthly transportation expenses with cancelled checks for accurate record-keeping. PAGENO="0634" 1316 7. A psychological prestige, as there is a certain degree of status indicated by purchasing the pass in advance that is not readily associated with the change fumbler. The passholder shows his pass end takes his seat, while other passengers pause at the farebox, wait for transfers, and possibly time-consuming scrip. 8. Substantial savings with frequent rides. The cost of the pass is based on 20 round trips per month, and the average number of working days per month is 22, over the period of a year. Therefore, the commuter saves at least two round trips per month, plus all added rides and weekeri service. 9. Opportunity for no-cost family transportation (or very low cost for large families) on Sundays for recreational, educational or cultural excursions anywhere within the service area. These are only partial listings and, of course, do not allude to the community benefits of lessened traffic congestion, pollution abatement and energy conservation associated with increased usage of public transpor tation generally. IDENTIFIABLE PROGRAM COSTS Some aspects of this proposal lend themselves to cost analysis. Others are not as clearly definable. But an attempt has been made to quantify the major areas of cost. Production - Several avenues are available for handling the production of the passes. A card can be printed by an involved silkscreening process which inhibits fraud but would require close examination by operators. The cost of this card would be 3.5 cents. A laminated plastic card can be obtained for 10 cents. The difficulty of printing on plastic requires a process which will make counterfeiting extraordinarily difficult, thus lessening the burden of inspection by the bus operator. Total production cost for 50,000 plastic cards would be $5,000 not including desigi costs. PAGENO="0635" 1317 -12- Distribution - Distribution would be made primarily through the Metro Sales Outlets and Metrobus Division Offices. The current staffing level is sufficient to absorb the anticipated pass sales. The over-the- counter sales may be augmented by direct mail distribution. A bonded fulfillment house would be the recommended approach for this portion of the total distribution. The costs involved would be: first class postage - 13 cents, registration of mail - 15 cents, and handling - $1,500 per month, plus an estimated $20 per 1,000 passes. At various levels of pass sales, the costs would approximate: Mail Costs: 1. l3f for First Class Mail 2. l5c~ for registering mail 3. Handling $1,500 plus $20/M Percentage of Passes Postage Handl ing Total Cost per Pass Average Price~~ 5M $l,tiOO $1,600 $3,000 60f 2.5~ lOM $2,800 $1,700 $Li,500 L15f l.9~t l5M $1~,2OO $1,800 $6,000 ~ l.7~ 20M $5,600 $1,900 $7,500 37.5~ l.6~ 30M $8,~O0 $2,100 10,500 35~ l.5~/~ ~4OM $11,200 $2,300 13,500 33.7Sf ~ 5011 $11i,000 $2,500 16,500 33 (~factored on an assumed average pass purchase price of $2$.00) Promotion - The pass program would significantly impact and bolster Metrobus promotion activities. No additional funds would be required for the program promotion. Administration - The sales outlets are currently being serviced weekly. Staff and internal audits occur monthly. The pass sales would fit this schedule and would require no additional personnel. PAGENO="0636" 1318 -13- Training of Personnel - The passes will be so identifiable and easy to use that bus operators would require no specialized trainina. No special capability would be required beyond that needed for normal fare collection supervision, except an awareness that the Authority is selling and honoring monthly passes. Actually, passes would simplify the operator's job. Opportunity Costs - Certainly the most difficult costs to quantify are opportunity costs. Passes allow for unlimited rides during the month. Tne purchase price of the commuter pass is equivalent to 11Q trips from a Maryland or Virginia zone to the District. The price of the base day pass is equivalent to 14Q intrastate or 27 interstate trips. For those persons who currently pay fares in excess of these amounts, their pass purchase would result in a personal savings end a consequent revenue reduction. No revenue would be lost through the forr~er non-riCer's excess use Of the service on a pass. New patrons attracted to Metrobus, and former irregular riders who increase their use of Metrobus because of the pass program generate compensating revenue to offset the excess use revenue reduction. The number of riders who would begin to use Metrobus as a result of the program is unknown. Similarly, it has not been determined how many current riders would increase their frequency of Metrobus use with a pass. However, research would be undertaken during the trial period to help determine the market impact of the monthly pass program. Although both the revenue reduction and the increased ridership are unknown, the relationship between them can be shown. It is important to emphasize that the new rider does not contribute an incremental cost because PAGENO="0637" 1319 no added service is anticipated. The purchase of a pass by a newly attracted patron compensates for the excess use revenue reduction by the number of inter or intrastate rides indicated in the table. For commuter passes, "pass zone" indicates the number of zones for which the pass would be valid. The "interstate" and "intrastate" columns show the number of rides for which compensation is made by the value of the pass. COMPENSATION FOR Pass Intrastate Interstate Zone Trips Trips Base 145 30 0 60 140 75 50 2 90 60 3 105 70 14 120 80 This means that for every person attracted to Metrobus by the pass program and who buys a zone 14 commuter pass, 120 people can exceed the 140 intrastate base day rides and ride 141 times at no cost to the Authority. If the pass purchaser previously rode half the time, the impact would be only half as great, compensating for 60 rides instead of 120 as in the example above. Carrying the relationship still further, the commuter from zone 14 who had been riding only half the time during rush hour but was paying for 60 rides during the base day, could buy a zone 14 pass with no revenue reduction to the Authority. Incidental Cost Avoidance - Ticket and transfer printing costs would be reduced. There would be reduction in scrip handl ing costs. Improper fare and unpaid fare costs would be reduced, along with a decrease in farebox revenue available to handling fraud. PAGENO="0638" 1320 -`5-- POTENTIAL PROBLEMS There are problems associated with any promotional fare program. Many potential problems have been pin-pointed and considered in developing these programs, although it is not practical to cover all of them in this report. Some, it will be noted, lend themselves to solutions. 1. It will be necessary to develop a formula for allocation of pass revenues to the jurisdictions, since it is not possible at this time to predict which of the jurisdictions will provide the greatest number of passholders. The Office of Marketing developed an allocation formula basea on the deficit allocation formula adopted by the Board, July 2~i, 1975. It is outlined in the ensuing paragraphs. The formula distinguishes between dedicated and non-dedicated revenue. These distinctions are significant to the pass revenue allocation. Dedicated revenue is allocated between the District of Columbia and either Maryland or Virginia. Allocating between Maryland and the District, Maryland receives the zone charges and the District receives the base fare. (Base-cay operation under the new fare system will result in tne District receiving ~ and Maryland 20f from each 60f fare.) iAllocating Virginia-District non-dedicated revenue will be on the basis of the ratio of passenger miles for the two jurisdictIons. (This ratio is currentlyunknown but is being calcu- lated using the May passenger survey data.) When passes are sold the jurisdiction of residence can be recorded. The DAY TRIPPER or base day pass is valid during the peri~d when the vast majority of trips generate non-dedicated revenue. For tnis reason, the purchase price ($16) of the base day pass purchased by a Maryland resident will be viewed as non-dedicated revenue applying to the Maryland-District of Columbia allocation ratio. This allocation formula for base-day is 2:1, District to Maryland. Revenue received when a Virginia resident purchases a DAY TRIPPER pass will be apportioned through the agreed to passenger mile ratio. PAGENO="0639" 1321 -16- The EASY RIDER or commuter pass contains the same riding privileges as the base-day pass plus rush hour and Sunday family features. The value of the commuter pass is then $16 for the base pass (viewed as non-dedicated revenue) and a rush hour balance which should be dedicated revenue for Maryland and Virginia purchasers. This is due to the preponderance of dedicated service operating during the rush hours. District of Columbia residents purchasing a conimuter pass will have systemwide privileges during the base day. For this reason, District pass revenue should be allocated on the basis of District resident travel patterns. The proportion of travel by District residents inside the District compared to rides in other jurisdictions will be available through the May passenger survey. Because the District and Virginia allocations are based on the survey data which is not yet tabulated, only Maryland allocation figures can be cited by way of example. ALLOCATION 1:2 Zone 1 ~~iyjand District District Pass Price $30.00 Base Day 16.00 5.33 10.67 Dedicated 1~4.O0 l~i.OO Total Revenue $19.33 $10.67 36$ Zone 2 Pass Price $36.00 Base Day 16.00 5.33 10.67 Dedicated 20.00 20.00 Total Revenue $25.33 $10.67 3O░i~ Zone 3 Pass Price $~2.00 Base Day 16.00 5.33 10.67 Dedicated 26.00 26.00 Total Revenue $31.33 $TO~7 25~ź= Zone ~ Pass Price $148.00 Base Day 16.00 5.33 10.67 Dedicated 32.00 32.00 Total Revenue $37.33 $10.67 22~ PAGENO="0640" 1322 -17- The example shows that the District allocation of the pass revenue is unchanged by the zone of purchase. This reflects the agreement that the District of Columbia would receive the base fare with the zone charges going to Maryland. The example also shows that as the distance of the trip in Maryland becomes longer, the percentage of revenue going to the District decreases. This same juris- dictional equity will exist with the Virginia and District allocations when the passenger mile ratios become available. 2. It is possible that the Authority could experience a loss of revenue with the programs, but there are no solid indi- cators at the present time that can be used as a basis for evaluation. However, as the programs are classified "experimental," if the revenue diversion from the cash customer to the passnolder is determined excessive, an adjustment in the price of the pass is possible. It can be assumed that most passengers mill not ride all 22 days per month, and with the initial investment of the pass received up-front, this added revenue may offset possible loss of revenue due to diversion. 3. It is recognized that there will be pass abuse with those programs. This potential problem is not likely to come from school-age children, particularly with the special school fares. The only students that could benefit from the programs are those living in the suburbs and attendine school in the District. Acults could share the passes with others. However, although another person uses the pass, revenue has already been receivea and the seat paid for. The most serious misuse would involve an out-the-windo.-: loan, conceivably permitting multiple use of the sane pass on the same bus. It is felt that the amount of investment required fora pass will, in itself, deter indiscriminate changing of hands at bus stops. )4~ There could be some ir,itial problems with the operators in determining the color codes of the passes for the ~orrect fare zones. This potential problem could be overcome by providing an operator training course prior to the start-up of the programs, using the color-coded passes and charts as training materials. Fare zone colors would remain constant, however, and operator recognition would soon be automatic. There are several potential problems relevant to internal procedures and operations: PAGENO="0641" 1323 -18- a. Security on the printing contractor of passes to guarantee there is no overprint of passes. This was discussed with Secretary-Treasurer's Office. It was reported they never experi- enced a problem with printing contractors in the past or with the commuter ticket books. b. Proper storing and hand 1 ing of the passes. This problem would be lessened with the num- bering of the passes which would provide accountability and a control ledger. c. Check should be made to determine that all personnel involved in handling and disbursing the passes are bonded by the Authority. 6. Due to the Sunday family privileges with the EASY RIDER commuter pass, there could be soee distortion of passenger ridership/revenue figures. However, this is the same problem that is created by the use of the new Keane Automatic Fare Collection System. The pass program would require just one more assumption. 7. There are problems with fraud and loss associated with the sale of passes through the mails. Therefore tight constraints will be required to administer the program with minimal loss to the Authority. Two alternatives exist for the handling of the sale of passes through the mail. The first, handl ing it in-house, presents a number of drawbacks from the standpoint of internal costs of man- power and equipment. Some of the other problem areas are identified below without.attendant solutions. a. Problem of receiving the pass request and check from the customer after the 15th day of the preceding month. If the request is processed and the pass mailed out to the customer and it is not received by the first day that it is effective, dissatisfaction will result. This could be a severe problem if it occurs on any sizeable scale. b. A customer sends in his request and check for a pass. The pass is mailed back to the customer and check deposited. Then the customer contacts the office and states that he did not receive his pass. 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 41 PAGENO="0642" 1324 -19- c. There is the potential problem of delay in processing the request and possible misnandi ing of the mail in-house, which would result in the pass being received after the effective date. d. Mailing the passes by registered mail, return receipt requested, would deter mail fraud; however, this is logistically and economically infeasible. e. In researching the mail fraud potential, the Postal Inspectors Office was quite unenthusi- astic about merchandising the passes by mail, as loss is very high for this type of program. In view of these potential problems and costs it is proposed the mail fulfillment aspects of the program be handled by an experienced, bonded mail fulfillment contractor. This would not only eliminate the need for additional personnel and reduce money handling and accounting, it would allow the Authority flexibility in determining whether or not to continue with this aspect of the pass program, after an evaluation period, without having to risk investment in personnel and equipment. In the long run, it also appears a fulfillment house would be more economical than establishing an in-house operation since their costs are spread over a number of clients, therefore, making the cost per thousand for handling less to the Authority. A cost estimate for the program is provided earlier in this report. This approach seems to be a potentially effective way of offering the advantages of mail sales to the consumers and avoiding some of the more heady problems involved. PAGENO="0643" 1325 -20- MERCHANDISING THE PROGRAMS Promotional opportunities for these programs are abundant. It is neither practical nor is it especially helpful for the Office of Marketing to spell out a detailed merchandising plan until all details of the pass programs are determined. But any promotional fare program with consumer benefits as those outlined in this report lends itself to widespread publicity potential as well as advertising in all major media. The Office of Marketing proposes to suggest identification symbols for the two pass programs which would lend themselves to interesting graphic treatment in all promotion efforts. Present thinking of the participants of the workshops leans toward a somewhat humorous theme in order to make the program more people-oriented and memorable. The goal is to get people to talk about the programs and if they have fun talking about them, all the better. INTERFACE OF PROGRAMS WITH METRORAIL Staff recognizes that this report does not discuss the interface of the programs with Metrorail. With the various intangibles of the Metrorail operation, it is not practical to pursue the potential problems and resulting impact of the extension of the programs at the present time. There is no doubt that the interface of the programs ~:ith Metrorail would greatly increase the promotional benefits. Therefore, when the Metrorail operation is firm and the fare system resolved, a study will be made to evaluate the feasibility of providing this interface and the resulting impact of this action on ridership and revenue. PAGENO="0644" 1326 -21- As the programs are classified experimental,' corrective action is possible in order to compensate for any existing inadequacies in the programs, as determined from study and experience. SUMMARY The Office of Marketing believes the promotional fare programs out- lined in this report are sound, incorporate the best features of programs in other cities, offer a real advantage to the consumer, and offer the Authority an opportunity to increase both r~dership and revenues. There are potential problems, to be sure, but it is felt that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Some of the problems have been resolved, with other problems to be resolved, and there are some that may never be fully resolved. Close coordination of the offices directly involved and full commitment of those offices to the ultimate success of the promotional fare endeavor will go a long way toward mini- mizing the impact of any lingering difficulties. This report covers a promotional fares package that should exert very positive impact in the marketplace. It demonstrates to the citizens of the region that ~/MATA cares about them, wants their business, and will do something new and bold to attract and hold them as customers. It is an offering of value for the consumer with a commensurate benefit to the Authority. PAGENO="0645" V,p,~ ~ FRANCIS W. WHITE EVERARD MUNSEY WALTER E. WASHINGTON DUtEEI ~t CRIt~tt~bA CLEATUS E. BARNETT RUFUS PHILLIPS CHARLES E. REATLEY, JR. JAMES E. COATES JERRY A MOORE, JR OistHct Ut ColUtttbia CARLTON R. SICKLES NORMAN L. CHRISTELLER JACKSON GRAHAM WARREN OUENSTEDT WILLIAM A. BOLEYN DELMER ISON ROYT DODGE RALPH L. WOOD Ch!UfUtOpU~ttitt~,t M metro At a meeting earlier this month of the APTA Marketing Division Executive and Advisory Committee, exchange of reliable marketing data was singled out as the most pressing need of the properties represented. As a relatively new discipline within the industry, we need to be able to evaluate our perfor- mance and progress against some comparative industry standards. As yet, there is only sketchy information and we seem often to be chasing scattered bits and pieces via the telephone. It is for this.reason that we have put together the attached survey. It will take a fair amount of time to complete the survey but we hope you will make the effort. Responses will be tabu- lated and a report developed and the results will be made avail- able to all of the properties which participate. If you have questions regarding the intent of any specific questions, please contact Mike Noonchester or Tom Brinton of our office (202-637- 1326). Also, we hope you will make additional notations or comments in the spaces provided. Such comments can be an important element of the overall survey. -. As soon as results are assembled, they will be sent to you as our way of saying thanks for participating. Sincerely, John E. Warrington D i rector Office of Marketing 1327 EXHIBIT "C" WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20001 (202) 637-1234 Attachment a/s PAGENO="0646" 1328 TRANSIT MARKETING SURVEY Please return to: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Marketing Consumer Research Section 600 Fifth Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20001 PAGENO="0647" 1329 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page General Organization . . Advertising 2 Promotions and Programs 1+ Concess ions 6 Customer Services 8 Charter Bus Service 10 Research 11 PAGENO="0648" 1330 GENERAL ORGANIZATION Do you have a separate marketing office (person)? Yes ______ No ______ Comment _______________ Are your marketing and planning functions administered under the same office (person)? Yes No - Comment _______________________________ Are your marketing and public relations functions administered under the same office (person)? Yes No Comment ______________________________ If available, please include a general organization chart for your property and an organization chart for your marketing office. Please indicate the appropriate person to contact regarding the responses indicated on this survey; Name _____________________ Title __________________ Telephone number _______ Name of transit property PAGENO="0649" 1331 ADVERTIS ING What is the approximate population of your transit zone? _____________________ How many miles of revenue line service are operated on an average week day? ________ miles. What is the total value of your promotional budget during a calendar year? $_______ Comment _____________________________________________________________ Do you contract with an advertising agency to conduct your general advertising campa ign? Yes No Comment ________________________________________________ If yes, what is the dollar value of your advertising contract for this year? What percentage of your advertising budget is allocated to production of advertising (art, photos, layout, mechanicals, film preparation)? _________ 2~ $ (this year) What percentage of your advertising budget is allocated to media purchase (TV and radio time, newspaper and magazine space)? ________ ?~ $ (this year) What is your overall annual transit system operating budget? $___________ What percentage of your annual transit system operating budget is spent on advertising (media purchase and production costs)? -2- PAGENO="0650" 1332 ADVERTISING - cont'd. What percentage of your annual transit system operating budget is spent on marketing in general? _________ ?~ $__________ Comment _____________________________________ Indicate the number of personnel assigned to your marketing function (including clerical and informational employees)? _____________ Comment Hgw much do you spend annually for the printing of timetables? $___________ Comment How much do you spend annually for printing other promotional and informational materials (excluding timetables)? $__________ Please Specify ____________________________________________ Indicate the trend in your system ridership during the past three years: 1973 __________ 197k __________ 1975 __________ Did you have advertising programs during those years? yes No Comment Did you have marketing programs during those years? Yes No Comment PAGENO="0651" 1333 PROMOTIONS & PROGRAMS Do you offer the public any prepaid fare options (tokens, tickets, passes)? Yes ______ No ______ Comment _________________________________________ What is the total dollar volume per month of these sales? Tickets $_________ Tokens $_________ Passes $_________ Others (specify) $________ What percentage of your system's total fare-box revenue do these sales constitute? Do you offer any other incentive fare programs? Yes No Commen t If yes, please specify; Do you operate any ticket sales and information kiosks? Yes No Comment If yes, how many such facilities do you operate? How many employees are used to staff these facilities? * Do you have any other locations that handle your prepaid (i.e. banks, credit unions, drug stores, book stores)? fare options Yes No Comment PAGENO="0652" 1334 PROMOTIONS & PROGRAMS - contd. Do you offer compensation (comissions, fees) to such organizations for handling your prepaid fare options? Yes No Comment If yes, what compensation is made? Comment ______________________________ * Do you offer special fares to the handicapped? Yes No Comment Do you offer special bus service for the handicapped? Yes No Comment Do you offer special fares for senior citizens? Yes No Comment PAGENO="0653" 1335 CONCESS ONS Do you sell interior advertising on buses? Yes No Do you sell exterior advertising on buses? Yes No Is your advertising sold through an agency? Yes No Comment If your advertising is sold through an agency, what percentage commission is received by you on sales? _________ Commen t What is the gross annual dollar value of sales of interior bus advertising? What is the gross annual dollar value of sales of exterior bus advertising? Does your interior advertising require back-l ighting? Yes No Commen t Do you operate any other concessions (newspapers, telephones, canteen)? Yes No If yes, please specify. __________________________ How much revenue is generated annually from these concessions? $___________ How many public timetables do you produce during a year? _________________ -6- PAGENO="0654" 1336 CONCESSiONS - cont'd. Are your timetables printed in more than one color? Yes No ______ Do you sell advertising on public timetables? Yes No If yes, what is the annual dollar value of revenue from these sales? S________ Do you sell advertising on any other transit publications? Yes No - Comment If yes, what is the annual dollar value of revenue from these sales? S_________ Indicate the various ways your timetables are distributed: -7- PAGENO="0655" 1337 CUSTOMER SERVICES Do you have a telephone information service? Yes No Comment ________________________ If yes, how many people do you have working full time to provide transit information? _______________ Comment What is the approximate annual salary range for information operators? S___________ to $___________ Do you use former bus operators in your transit information service? Yes No If yes, what percentage of your total staff do they constitute? ________ Indicate the number of transit information requests you receive during an average month? ___________________ Indicate the number or percentage of calls you are able to answer during an average month? ___________________ How many hours a day is this service available to the public? ______hrs. ________ days per week Comment _____________________________________ Has there been an increase in the number of transit information requests received during the last two years? Yes No Comment ______ -8- PAGENO="0656" 1338 CUSTOMER SERVICES - cont'd. Do you have a consumer representative/ombud~man function available to the public (complaints, suggestions, etc.)? Yes No Comment If yes, under what office (Transportation, Schedules, Marketing, etc.) is this function administered? _________________________________________ What is the approximate annual salary of these consumer representatives! ombudsmen? $___________ Indicate some of the responsibilities of these employees: Approximately how many customer inquiries are handled by this service during an average month? ____________________ -9- PAGENO="0657" 1339 CHARTER BUS SERVICE What is the size of your operating bus fleet? _________________________ Do you offer non-regular route charter services? Yes No Comment S If yes, what is the approximate gross revenue generated by these services during a calendar year? $ S Under which office (i.e. Transportation, Schedules, Marketing, etc.) is this function managed? ________________________________________________ What is the number of professional staff involved in the sale of charter bus service? _____________________________ What is the number of clerical staff involved in the sale of charter bus service? _________________________________ What percentage of your bus fleet is reserved as spares (buses not assigned to line work during peak hours)? __________ Commen t How many buses are reserved for charter work during peak (rush) hours? What percentage of gross charter revenue is considered to be profit? -10- 62-418 0- 76 - Pt.2 - 42 PAGENO="0658" 1340 RESEARCH Do you conduct consumer and marketing oriented research in order to determine consumer attitudes and needs and marketing opportunities? Yes Comments ___________________________________ Is such research data actively used in formulating marketing and advertising programs and creative strategies? Yes No Comments Is such research data actively used in planning transit service and bus line routing? Yes No Comments In your organization, is consumer and marketing research primarily a planning function or a marketing function? Planning _______________ Marketing _______________________ Comments * Indicate the titles and types of consumer and marketing oriented research you have conducted. (A bibliography will be compiled from these responses.) 2. 3. 14. -I 1- PAGENO="0659" 1341 RESEARCH - contd. 5. ____________________________________ 0. __________________________________ Is your consumer and marketing research generally conducted by in-house staff or by outside consultants? In-house staff ______________ Consultants ________________________ Comments Indicate your average annual consumer and marketing research budget. $__________ Comments __________________________________________ -12- PAGENO="0660" 1342 Additional Data - November 2'4, 1975 Request Marketing Question 6a. When might the survey data be available? When was survey initiated? The Transit Marketing Survey that was initiated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to determine comparative informa- tion about the marketing operations of transit properties throughout the nation was distributed in early December, 1975. To date, 30 of the 72 surveys distributed have been returned completed. A follow-up letter will be mailed to the transit properties that have not returned the survey. It is anticipated that a sufficient number of surveys will be returned by the end of February to begin analysis. A full report should be available by mid-March. PAGENO="0661" 1343 November 24, 1975 Request Ridership Estimation Questions 1-16: The attachments cover the Committee's questions (#1) and the answers to the 16 questions (#2). PAGENO="0662" 1344 Ridership_ Estimation 1. Please submit the results of the ridershf~n count conducted during the week of November 15th and the actual percentage of increase over the same periof last year. Note: For the following, please exolufe charter and special ridership and provide all figures f:r the ~a:iod since public takeover, except where otherwise inficatad. 2. Please submit a total ridership curve, year. with total number of buses in the fleet indicated for each year. 3. Please submit a total ridership curve.. by year, with yearly fare box revenues indicated. 4 Please submit a base-day ridershi~, curve, by year, with number of buses indicated for each year. 5. Please submit a base-day ridershir curve, by year, with yearly fare box revenues indicated. 6. Please submit a total fare box revenue curve, by year, with number of buses indicated for each :ear. 7. Please submit a base-day ridership as a nercentage of total ridership curve, by year, excluding charter ridership. 8. Please submit a Larebox revenues from bese-day ridership as a percentage of total fare box revenues curve, by veer. 9. Please submit a total ridership curve for the five years prior to takeover. 10. Please submit a base-day ridershin curve for the five years prior to takeover. 11. Please submit a base-day ridership curve as a percentage of total ridership for the five veers rrior to takeover. 12. Please submit a curve indicating rercert increase in base-day ridership, by year, since l9SB. 13. Please submit a curve indicating rercent increase in total ridership, by year, since 19~9. PAGENO="0663" 1345 -2- 14. Please show the effect of the revised fare system both on total revenues and on total ridershio. Show by week for the three month period from the beginning of the program. 15. Please indicate ridership trends in areas where fare increased, by month and week since the orogram began. 16. Please indicate ridership trends in areas where fares decreased, by month and week since the program began. PAGENO="0664" 1346 #2 DIOGS COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION 1. Total Ridership 1l/1521/75 2,536,525 Total Ridership 11/16-22/74 2,406,663 Increase 129,862 Percentage Increase 5i~0~ 2. Ridership 7/1/73 - 6130174 116,808,677 Ridership 7/1/74 - 6/30/75 122,841 ,746 Bus Fleet at 7/1/73 1,779 Added 100 Buses on 4/29/74 100 Bus Fleet at 6/30/74 1 ,879 Added 151 Buses on 9/1/74 151 Bus Fleet at 6/30/75 2,030 Revenues Ridership 3. Period 7/1/73 - 6/30/74 $53,650,739 116,808,677 Period 7/1/74 - 6/30/75 56,639,577 122,841 ,746 PAGENO="0665" 1347 Additional Data November 2Li, 1975 Request Ridershi~p Estimation Question Li: Is it legitimate to assume that this distribution has remained relatively constant over time? Is another survey contemplated? YES - It can be assumed that the present ridership distribution is the same as the ridership distribution experienced in 1972. A change in fares was recently implemented by the Authority which may have changed the ridership distribution. This change affected the periods at which time the peak/off-peak fares change. Since a peak/off- peak fare differential was implamented on September 1, 1975, riders able to take advantage of the off-peak may have changed their times in order to pay the lower off-peak fare. In addition, since work hours for most people are not flexible, it is unlikely that the ridership distribution has changed significantly. A study, to determine ridership distributions by hours of the day, would be very costly and require a substantial number of manhours. Due to this, another survey of this type is not contemplated in the near future. PAGENO="0666" 1348 Page 2 14* These data are not maintained on a regular basis by public or private transit systems. Study conducted by Wilbur Smith & Associates, for the Authority, in the fall of 1972, includes ridership by half-hour periods for a normal weekday. Results of this study are as follows: Midnight - 12:30 a.m. 724 12 Noon - 12:30 p.m. 6,048 12:30 - 1:00 a.m. 366 12:30 - 1:00 p.m. 6,764 1:00 - 1:30 a.m. 226 1:00 - 1:30 p.m. 6,387 1:30 - 2:00 a.m. 8 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. 5,583 2:00 - 2:30 a.m. 78 2:00 - 2:30 p.m. 7,521 2:30 - 3:00 a.m. 62 2:30 - 3:00 p.m. 8,689 3:00 -- 3:30 a.m. 0 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. 11,727 3:30 - 4:00 a.m. 0 3:30 - 4:00 p.m. 17,758 4:00 - 4:30 a.m. 0 4:00 - 4:30 p.m. 24,781 4:30 - 5:00 a.m. 476 4:30 - 5:00 p.m. 26,575 5:00 - 5:30 a.m. 1,452 5:00 - 5:30 p.m. 24,447 5:30 - 6:00 a.m. 5,611 5:30 - 6:00 p.m. 13,130 6:00 - 6:30 a.m. 9,676 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. 9,227 6:30 - 7:00 a.m. 20,949 6:30 - 7:00 p.m. 5,127 7:00 - 7:30 a.m. 28,827 7:00 - 7:30 p.m. 4,178 7:30 - 8:00 a.m. 31,624 7:30 - 8:00 p.m. 2,929 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. 22,924 8:00 - 8:30 p.m. 2,465 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. 16,455 8:30 - 9:00 p.m. 2,077 9:00 - 9:30 a.m. 8,694 9:00 - 9:30 p.m. 1,647 9~30 - 10:00 a.m. 7,515 9:30 - 10:00 p.m. 2,316 10:00 - 10:30 a.m. 7,053 10:00 - 10:30 p.m. 1,369 10:30 - 11:00 a.m. 7,102 10:30 - 11:00 p.m. 1,310 11:00 - 11:30 a.m. 6,857 11:00 - 11:30 p.m. 728 1l~30 - 12 Noon 6,307 13:30 - Midnight 550 Total 376,319 5. Base day ridership count not available, except as shown above in Item 4. Revenues Bus Fleet 6. Period 7/1/73 - 4/30/74 $145,278,193 1,779 5/1/74 - 6/30/74 8,372,546 1 ,879 Total F'! 714 $53,650,739 Period 7/1/74 - 8/31/74 $ 9,654,456 1,879 9/1/74 - 6/30/75 46,985,121 2,030 Total FY 75 $56,639,577 PAGENO="0667" 1349 Page 3 7. Base day ridership count is not available, except as shown above in Item ~. 8. Base day revenues from base day riders are not available. 1/ Under private ownership, riders could not transfer free from one company bus to another company bus. Instead, an interline ticket was sold to the riders for 35 cents, which resulted in a 5-cent ~dis~ount when boarding the second bus. In computing ridership, shown above, these interline riders were counted by all companies, resulting in a double counting of riders. 10. Base day ridership counts were not conducted by private companies, therefore, are not available, except as shown in Item 1i above. 11. Not available. Percent Increase (Decrease) Over Ridership Previous Year 1/ Includes double counting of interline riders by private companies, therefore, not comparable to the Authority's ridership estimates for FY 71~ and 75. Upon takeover of the four private transit com- panies in early 1973, free transfers were provided all Metrobus riders. 9. Calendar year ridership - 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 156,679,000~' 147,213,00011 136,805 ,ooo.!-1 128,840 ,ooo~!_ 124 ,O69 ,000]- 12. Not available. 13. Ridership Calendar Year 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 156,679,0001!' 1147,213,0001/ 136,805,0001/ 128,840,000.11 124,069,0001/ (7.44~) (6.04~) (7.ofl) (5.82~) (3.7o9~) Fiscal Year Ended 6/30174 116,809,000 (5.85~) Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/75 122,842,000 5.16~ ~OTE: 1967 ridership amounted to 169,220,000 PAGENO="0668" September 1-7 September 8-14 September 15-21 September 22-28 September 29-October 5 October 6-12 October 13-19 October 20-26 October 27-November 2 November 3-9 November 10-16 November 17-23 ~~"November 24-30 1/ Labor Day 2/ Columbus Day 3/ Veterans Day 4/ Thanksgiving $ 1,203,713 1,188,967 1,113,443 1,235,610 1,214,258 1 ,O59,87O~1 1,196,893 1 ,O32,495~' 1,231 ,846 1,161 ,949 1,193,705 911 ,456- Total $14,753,888 1350 14. Revenues and Ridership - 1975 Revenues Page 4 Ridership 2,165,102 2,579,645 2,552,163 2,394,787 2,656,659 2,608,830 2,310,938 2,570,619 2,246,742 2,645,694 2,496 ,071 2,563,588 1,969,767 31,760,605 9/1/75 10/1 3/75 10/27/75 Day 11/27/75 15. Not available. 16. Not available. PAGENO="0669" 1351 Additional Data November 24, 1975 Request Ridership Estimation Questions 9 & 13: Is it possible to estimate or infer the number of interline transfers to present some substantiation of the Authority's long-term growth claims? The AutHority acquired the four private transit companies in early 1973 (January and February). For calendar year 1972, ridership of 124,069,000 and revenue of $55,971,617 as reported by the private companies, represents the last full year of operation. During the first 12 complete months of operation by the Authority, (3/1/73 - 2/28/74) , passenger revenues amounted to $54,099,932 compared to $55,971,617 received by the private companies, a difference of $1 ,87l ,685. The reduction in revenue was caused by actions taken by the WMATA Board to unify fares. These actions included: 1. Elimination of interline transfer charge 2. Extension of senior citizen reduced fare to all jurisdictions. Previously only in effect in areas served by the former D.C. Transit System, Inc. 3. Reduction of the District fare in areas served by former WMA Transit Co. to fare charged by former D.C. Transit System, Inc. (WMA fare in the District was reduced by the Authority to 4D~). 4. Equalizing fares charged in areas served by the former WV&M Coach Co. (Arlington and North Fairfax County) to fares charged by the former AB&W Transit Company Alexandria and South Fairfax County). This equalizing of fares in Virginia resulted in a net annual loss of PAGENO="0670" $600,000 in passenger revenues fares were effective 6/1/73. Adjusting the first 12 complete months of revenue received by the Authority for revenue losses due to changes in the Authority fare structure, resulted in the following: Total 1972 Revenues Difference Percentage Difference A A comparison of ridership reported for 1972 and the Authority for the operation show the following: Ridership 1972 (Private Companies) Ridership 3/1/73 - 2/28/714 (WMATA) Difference Percen tage 1352 to the Authority. New Authority Revenue 3/1/73 - 2/28/714 Add: Estimated Loss due to elimination of interline transfer Estimated Revenue loss due to extension of Senior Citizen reduced fare to all jurisdictions Estimated Revenue loss due to reducing District fare from 145~ to 14o~ in areas formerly served by WMA Transit Co. Estimated Revenue loss due to Equalizing Virginia fares ($600,000 X 8/12) $514,099 ,932 118,712 57, 1487 1400,000 $514,676,131 55,971 ,6l7 1,295,1486 2. 3~ by the private companies first 12 months of 1214,069,000 116,809,000 7,260,000 PAGENO="0671" 1353 Paqe 3 The difference in revenues collected by the private companies in 1972 and the Authority's 1973 revenues, adjusted for changes in fares, amounts to $1 ,295,1486. The interl me fare provided for a discount of 5 cents when transferring from one company bus to another, therefore, based on the minimum fare in effect (~~O cents), an interline rider would have to pay at least 35 cents when boarding the second bus. When dividing the 35 cents into the revenue difference of $l,295,1486, the interline ridership amounts to 3,701,389. The difference in ridership as shown above amounts to 7,260,000; therefore, it must be assumed that in estimating annual ridership the private companies, aside from double counting interline riders, overstated ridership by 3,559,000 riders. Ridership counts were taken very infrequently by the private companies, therefore, average fares used by the companies to determine ridership could at anytime become distorted, resulting in an overstate- ment of ridership. The Authority, since takeover, has conducted ridership counts in l97L~ and 1975. These counts included the counting of all riders board- ing and paying a full fare. Transfer riders were not counted. Counts were conducted on six different weekdays, three Saturdays and Sundays. It is therefore the opinion of the Authority that ridership reported by the private companies was overstated by at least 5.85% (l2L~,069,000 vs. 116,809,000). This percentage does not consider any growth by the Authority from the date of takeover to the end of the first 12 months of operation. During this period time, however, the Authority did have a ridership growth, which can be substantiated by the increase in revenues collected in FY 75 over FY 7/4 as shown below: PAGENO="0672" Ridership Calendar Year 1968 Ridership Calendar Year 1969 Ridership Calendar Year 1970 Ridership Calendar Year 1971 Ridership Calendar Year 1972 Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/74 Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/75 Ridersh ip 147,513,000 138,601 ,000 128,802,000 121,303,000 116,811 ,000 116,809,000 122,842,000 Percent Increase (Decrease Over Previous Year) -0- (6.o4~) (7. O75~) (5. 82~) (3.7o~ź=) -0- 5. 1 6~ Page 4 1354 FY 74 (7/1/73 - 6/30/74) FY 75 (7/1/74 - 6/30/75) $53 ,650,739 $56,639,577 Based on the above, ridership for years 1968 - 1972 as shown beloi has been revised to eliminate the interline ridership and overstatement of ridership by the private companies PAGENO="0673" 1355 Additional Data November 21k, 1975 Request Ridersh ~p~s~mat ion Questions 15 g16: This data is crucial in any effort to calculate the price elasticity of demand, a calculation which is critical in long-term assumptions about fare level ridership assumptions. Is there any way to reasonably estimate or infer these values? In reply to questions 15 and 16, a study entitled "Bus Fare Subsidy Study" is submitted for your review. This report discusses the effects of fare increases and decreases and shows the effects of fare changes in other cities. (See Committee files for Bus Fare Subsidy Study, Memoran- dum Report No. 16, prepared for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, By William Smith and Associates) 62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 43 PAGENO="0674" 1356 November Vt, 1975 Request l97Lt Net Income Analysis Question 2: Please submit a list of the total amount of the established parking spaces available for each year since 1969, broken down by station. The report on Parking at Metro Stations is attached. PAGENO="0675" 1357 19714 Net Income Analysis flu A complete revised 19714 Met Income Analysis. The final report for this study consists of three basic documents: 1. A compendium of the `~three fare system" study oriented to non-technical and management staffs. 2. A volume consisting of technical papers each detailing particular models and procedures used in the study. 3. Transit patronage computer listings oriented to one particular fare system. The computer listings are completed the technical papers, with one exception,. are completed; and a draft of the compendium is attached. This draft must be reviewed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of (overnments, UMTA, and the various area jurisdictions. At this time, the 19714 Net Income Analysis Study is complete and the documentation is, in the main, in draft form. 13 Please quantify the effects It is not possible to perform an analysis to quantify the effects of deletinq certain elements of the hicihway system assumed in the study without repeating the complete Axisting analysis. All of the procedures and computer programs are oriented to producing system wide results F rem system wide inputs. After the computation of various phases of the processing flow, it is possible to examine details of the system - such as station level data - but such detail is part of a complete system solution. S f5 Please detail the chanpe ... concerning land use This item is presented in Chapter II, Future Land Use and Highway System, of the draft final report enclosed under item #1. PAGENO="0676" 1358 November 214, 1975 Request 19714 Net Income Analysis Question 14: Please comment on the changes in the demand for bus and rail transit and the ridership effects of long-term land use patterns these deletions might cause. The long-term effect on transit due to the deletion of a proposed highway segment is a two-edged sword. The projected land use development may be decreased if a proposed major traffic facility is deleted and thus the total number of person trips in the corridor may decrease. However, the deletion of the highway link will also directly lead to a higher proportion of the remaining trips being on transit. In most cases, the sum of the effects leads to a net increase in transit ridership (especially in areas where there is a developed land use plan which is somewhat independent of traffic facilities provided). PAGENO="0677" 1359 November 2L~, 1975 Request ]97i~ Net Income Analysis Question 6:The Congressional Budget Office (1976 Bud~qt: Alternatives and Analyses, April 15, 1975) suggested that Metro's ridership estimate may be l5~ too high. Please submit your comment on the CBO analysis in general and this point in particular. The Congressional Budget Office report provides an analyses of alternative fiscal futures under various sets of alternatives. Their base case in most comparisons was published WMATA data. While one may disagree with some.of the assumptions, the report provides a range of possible fiscal impacts. With regard to the specific question on the suggestion that Metro ridership may be 15 percent too high, we agree with the CBO statement that .Metro ridership is sensitive to residential and employment densities.. In each of our studies, WMATA has gone to great lengths to use the latest adopted land use for the Washington area (as provided by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). If actual land use at some future date differs considerably from what was projected, Metro ridership forecasts will vary -- up or down -- depending upon the revised land use forecasts. PAGENO="0678" 1360 November 2~4, 1975 Request 19714 Net Income Analysis Question 7: How much of the seven percent ridership increase would you attribute to the 600 new buses, and the increased size of the fleet? The Authority has now operated Metrobus service for two full fiscal years. During the first fiscal year ended 6/30/714, ridership totaled ll6,8//,c~o. In the second fiscal year ended 6/30/75, ridership totaled l22,814~,~u~ for a 5.l6~ increase over the previous year. Based on current ridership, the Authority estimates that fiscal year 1976 ridership will total 127,500,000. This amounts to a 3.795~ increase over FY 75 ridership and a 9.l5~ increase over FY 714 ridership. Prior to takeover of the private companies by the Authority, transit ridership in the Washington Metropolitan Area had been declining each year. Since takeover, the Authority has stopped the steady decline in ridership and has increased ridership significantly through new service and good, efficient and convenient service. In 19714, the Authority purchased and placed into service 620 AM General Buses. One hundred of these buses were placed into service to eliminate overcrowded conditions which existed on certain routes. One hundred fifty-one (151) buses were placed into service providing new service in areas where ridership potential existed and appeared sufficient to justify the new service. The remaining 369 AM General Buses were used as replacements for older buses thus providing greater operating efficiency and more attractive and dependable service. Since ridership, prior to takeover by the Authority, had been steadily declining, the increase in ridership in FY 75 over FY 74 of 5.l6~ can be attributed mainly to the new service implemented by the Authority in April (100 buses) and September (151 buses), 1975. However, more reliable service, more courteous drivers, cleaner buses and.other such service improvements have also been effective. PAGENO="0679" 1361 November 21+, 1975 Request Net Income Analysis The attached report covers questions 1, 3 and 5. PAGENO="0680" 1362 REPORT IN BRIEF SUMMARY The objective of this report is to update two prior forecasts of the financial implications of rapid rail transit implementation in the Washington, D. C. area. The 1969 and 1971 reports indicated that the bus and rail sys- tems could be expected to earn sufficient net revenues from operations to pay for a portion of the METRO construction costs. The results in the prior studies were based on the premise that fares would be increased at the same rate as operating costs. However, in this update, the assumed fare levels have not been increased by the amount nec- essary to match rapidly rising energy and manpower costs. Of the three fare systems analyzed in this study, only one can be expected to show a positive net revenue from operations. One system would never showan op- erating surplus, and another might generate modest profits after the year 2013. In no case would revenues exceed operating costs during the early years of rail operations. In 1990, the design year for the rail system, the annual bus and rail ridership is estimated to be between A57 million and 1i8~i million riders,.an increase of approximately one-third over the 1971 estimates. The gross revenues would be $223 million for the lowest fare alternative and $308 million for the highest fare system. The range of estimated operating costs (bus plus rail) is $287 million to $297 million. The first two fare systems would show operating deficits of $A.3 million and $73.0 million; the third would show a profit of $20.2 million. The projections for the full period from 1977 to 2020 are based on new land use forecasts prepared by the Council of Governments, and a rail implementation schedule leading to full system operations by July 15, 1982. REGIONAL GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS Continuing growth in the Washington area is assumed, but at a rate some- what less than that used in the prior update. The compact area population assumed for this study is 3.93 million compared to A.95 million in the 1971 study. Overall the number of households in the study area is projected to increase by 5l~ between 1972 and 1990, and employment- by 5O~ź= to a 1990 - employment level of 2.1 million. TRANSIT AND HIGHWAY SYSTEMS - Transit patronage is heavily dependent on the relative levels of highway and transit service. This study has assumed that between now and 1990 sev- eral new freeway segements would be built including 1-66 inside the Beltway, a major portion of the Outer Beltway, and further additions to the Potomac and Inner Loop Freeways in the District of Columbia. PAGENO="0681" 1363 The heart of the transit system will be the 98-mile Authorized Regional System adopted in 1968 and subjected to some minor modifications Since that time.!! An extensive bus system consisting of 236 lines operating 240,000 vehicle-miles daily in 1990 was assumed to feed and complement METRO. The first stage of the Fort Lincoln people mover was also assumed. At 32 of the METRO stations, parking lots able to accommodate a total of 25,000 cars have been assumed. Parking charges for park/ride trips were set at 50 cents to one dollar. Also, 21 fringe parking lots remote from the rail system were assumed, as a necessary supplement to handle the anticipated overload at METRO station lots. Commuter'rail lines feeding METRO in 5 cor- ridors with further parking facilities were also included in the 1990 transit system developed for the analysis. ALTERNATIVE FARE SYSTEMS The impacts of three alternative fare systems were studied and summarized for the complete financial planning horizon. The first fare system charges separate fares on bus and rail. The base fare on bus is 25 cents, with 15 cent charges at approximate 3-mile zone intervals. The rail base fare of 25 cents covers the first three "composite miles"!! and additional miles cost 5 cents. The second fare system uses the same basic rates, but allows free transfers between all vehicles. The third fare system is similar to the second, but assumes higher basic rates of 40, 20 and 7 cents, respectively. The above fare values have been expressed in 1976 constant dollars, the unit for all dollar values.in this report. It should be noted that the fares for none of~these assumed systems have increased over the prior studies to the same extent that basic transit unit operating costs have increased. The bus fares are assumed to be collected with modern conventional fare boxes; automated equipment is assumed for the rail system. At the time, these es- timates were prepared, the machinery permitting joint bus-rail rides had not yet been fully considered. REGIONAL TRAVEL FORECASTS The Council of Governments had the responsibility in this study for pre- paring 1992 forecasts of transit usage. These estimates were then altered to 1990 levels and adjusted to be commensurate with prior work. The daily and annual ridership generated by the three fare systems is presented in Table S-I along with the average system fares. In these estimates the proportion *of On December 30, 1975, the WMATA Board of Directors approved the first major extension to the ARS since adoption in 1968, a 2-to-3 mile extension from Rockville to the proposed Shady Grove Station. This extension has not been included in this study. An average of the airline and over-the-rail distances. PAGENO="0682" TABLE S-i WEEKDAY AND ANNUAL RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES-~1 Fare System Fare System I Fare System I (Separate Fares) (Free Transfer-Low Fare).. (Free Transfer-Moderate Fare.) Weekday Rdership (Millions) 1.613 1.673 1.580 Annual Ridership (Millions) L~L~6.9 48~.l ~~57.2 CAD Average Fare 55,14~ ~ 6l.5~ Excludes trips by tourists and non-residents. PAGENO="0683" 1365 non-work riding is estimated to increase to 385~ from its 1968 value of 335~. Correspondingly, the percentage of trips in the peak hour is forecast to de- cline from l8.ti?ź= in 1968 to l7.l9~. The ridership estimates were projected from 1976 to 2020 following re- gional growth patterns and the implementation schedule for rail operations. A 2020 population of 5.9 million was assumed, based on a conservative trend analysis of jurisdictional growth forecasts. Table S-2 indicates the annual ridership trends for the three fare systems. A set of separate computations of travel by tourists, commuters living outside the study area, and travel to and from intercity rail, bus and airline terminals indicate an additional 17.8 to 19.5 million trips in 1990. This ridership estimate has also been pro- jected over the financial planning period and included in the revenue fore- 1990 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS This study has assumed that bus and rail systems would be completely coordinated under WMATA operation. Separate estimates of bus and rail op- era