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 Comń~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\Ųv
NO. DESCRIPTION
- _______
l.~~2t Bejnoēe selectivē 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
~ŲI 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 ńued)
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
~Ų1 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~aóe~ ~/~e~7' iAi
~L~7p ~~4,c4 `i~t'~ ~ ń'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.~Ų2° 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.ē42tZ 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
ŲY 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.~ē2~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"~ oō~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~/čV2 ~
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 llmlē competition. .~tr. -
~ p~'/.'/S~'Q' 4V~/ ~"~- -&~ ,,
fcv~-:c$6v~ p~ ~/-~qt~ ~4r ~` 7~c~e,- 7'//,~
,/~,7z. a~n~' ~ ~
Wojld minImize 1or~g rims of pipIng. ~ o'/~. -
/149~7~ēz ~~Uo~//d af~ ~1~~°z'~' /s 74~i,'~ ~`6j~/'i'~f
PermIts use of only one pair of condenser M
lInes Instead of two or three pairs (for
two or three chillers).
PAGENO="0066"
November 25, 1975
METRORAIL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS
TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL ISSUES
11. Standardize cut-and-cover box desi~n~yn
dct~il~ fo~ aerial
~ ~7~~'r ca~b~ /7i ~Oń~/ z"~/ L/eJt~J i~eo
12. Reduce rcquircd, j~nim structural wall thickncss.
f-Ioi~ tec~/12,ne
13. R'duce nunber and
1~~,j.~~$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~ ,¾ `~,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 ~Tiö768 114,811,053 142,875,688 ~ W38T T6~814ēO9O 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.
~ftuü
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~oń
. ~ . 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) ē2,6l2,659)
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 -
¼~
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
*.déns~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
©
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, Bellévue 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-ų - 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-ų
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 tōdivert 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
egén
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 thrēugh 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 Mileaē
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
¼-6
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. ~ē~gomery County Dedicated Service
Phases I and II of Metrorail operations will have minimal
impačt 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
Trąnsfers~
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.
Oróutes 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~óperate 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. Shlrlingtón-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~Ų-)~-) 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
ē 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~ö $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 acēuires in-house computer
capability. To perform the internal audit function of testing the contents
of computer files, considerable design and programring rime will be reēuired
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 reēuired 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. Preēuently, 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~ ēI~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
£vir~\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,
anēl 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 £(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-~ £~ 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~ £5 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 §upn~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)
§upos~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~hē 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±céshlp.
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
- ~.; ~ ~ -
- - -
~ ē~ 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
~öMPANY 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
ē~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
~ėderal 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~ ē~ c 17~-~i of ~`, - - I
/ ( coi~crP~c~T,c~ ~!~1\«=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 ¶.1i I ;C~ ~ CDCLC. ~pjiI ~ (~ tIf,~. (~`~ ,~iV(t
PAGENO="0353"
1O3~
j7/~6 ,vc,'i4~~ O6-/'J~ ~
1 (A PLOT O~ Ci~«=,-/ 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 woül~ 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 mąeting. This 7.
would be verified after Mr. Caine talked wi th Mr. Robertie. Meeting was
set up fór 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. Wątters. 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 ēuastions 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 įf 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 Cērnmissions will accept it. Finally,
a provision should be added stating that if the terms
ańdconditions 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 provisiąn
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 ,q7«=- 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,Iiķ' ~
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 ēMA-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 ¶975
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'-ouē~.
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 ē~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~«=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 ē~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 ~ ~
¶~ ~ . .L... .~`
Cs (J-C:_
PAGENO="0479"
1161
-~ ~
7~//~ AJOM~4~~- 06-/veT ~c~'g . -*
(ft P'-07 0- Ci~«=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'ē _-~__-__--
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 Eisén
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 PEPēO'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?
£ 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
Opxraiinē 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
ö~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
£~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, §15.1-
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, § 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, § 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, § 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
üot 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, § 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~éated
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~įggregate ;~\
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~ą1 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 tą 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-
ėhandising 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.. Woshinējton. 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~«=
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~«=)
-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~«= 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?«= 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-
erating costs were prepared for each fare system for each fiscal year from
1977 to 2020. A slight deviation from the prior studies was to identify
separately those expense items which could not be allocated to either bus
or rail, but which will be part of WMATA's operation. Several offices such
as the general manager and general counsel have been included in this category
along with other functions related to marketing, personnel, and public re-
lations. The expenses in this category were estimated to be $3.1i
million in 1990.
It is assumed that the rail service will operate 20 hours daily from
5 a.m. to 1 a.m. Peak period trunk line headways will be at 2 minutes,
Z} minutes on certain branches. In the midday trains would operate at 3 and
6 minute intervals. Buses have been scheduled to meet the estimated demands
on a line-by-line basis, with minimum service levels set as a policy for
light volume lines.
The 81-passenger rail cars will be scheduled to eliminate standees during
the off-peak, but to allow for maximum loadings of 175 persons par car in the
rush hours. The buses have been assumed to contain an average of 50 seats,
with maximum loading of l20~ of seats in the peak hours. Spare vehicle.
requirements were set at 8.5'~ for rail and l0~ for bus.
The labor rates used are those estimated to be in effect during mid-1976.
Material costs have also been escalated from their l97~ values so that all
expenses would be in terms of 1976 constant dollars. The rail costs and
administrative and general costs were estimated in detail for 1990 by func-
tional area. To allocate bus operating costs more representatively to in-
dividual routes, a four factor unit-cost model was developed from bus expense
summaries for fiscal 19714, the first full year of unified METROBUS operations.
The model parameters were also escalated to 1976 levels.
PAGENO="0684"
TABLE S-2
SUMMARY OF TRENDS IN ANNUAL RIDERSHIP1'
Annual Transit Trips in Millions
Fare System I Fare System I Fare System I I
(Separate Fares) (Free Transfer-Low Fare) (Free Transfer-Moderate Fare)
1977 (Phase 2) 167.7 171.5 162.0
1982 (Full Operations) 393.5 1iO8.6 396.0
1990 (Design Year) ~66.8 * 18~~.l 1457.2
2020 5814.5 606.2 557.2
1/ Based on patronage forecasts provided by the. Council of Governments, Tourist and non-resident travel
Is excluded.
PAGENO="0685"
1367
Table S-3 summarizes the 1990 net revenue estimates for each of the
three fare systems. The basic patronage forecast includes the trip estimates
prepared by COG, along with the adjustments made to allow comparisons with
the previous studies. The supplemental category includes tourist travel,
non-resident commuter travel, travel to and from intercity transportation
terminals, charter and contract revenues, and parking at METRO stations.
The trend in net revenues by fare system for the financial planning per-
iod is summarized in Table S-u. Fare system would produce a net deficit
from operations until 2001. After 2013 a net surplus could be assumed. The
second fare system, because of the low fare charges and free transfer privi-
leges, would never generate an operating surplus. In the long run, each
additional rider would cost more to serve than could be recovered from the
farebox. The third fare system would begin to show an operating surplus
beginning in FY 1983.
There are criteria other than financial which must be used to develop
a suitable fare structure. These include maintaining equity amongst the
users, service to the transit dependent population, the reduction of auto-
mobile travel, and improving the quality of the environment amongst others.
The results in this report have indicated the financial and patronage im-
pacts for three distinct fare alternatives.
PAGENO="0686"
TABLE S-3
1990 SYSTEM ANNUAL NET REVENUE
In 1976 Constant Dollars (Millions)
Revenue from,Basic Patronage
Forecast1
Supplemental Revenue
Gross Revenue
Rail Operating Costs $126.8
Bus Operating Costs'-
Scheduled Service 149.1
Contract and Charter 5.7
Administrative and General 3.4
Expenses
Total Operating Costs
Net Revenue $20.2
Based on patronage estimates provided by the Council of Governments.
Fare System I
(Separate Fares)
$257.6
24.1
$281.7
Fare System II
(Free Transfer-Low
$197.9
24.2
$222. 1
Fare System III
Fare) (Free Transfer-Moderate Fare)
$278.6
26.6
$305.2
$127.5 $130.5
149.3 155.1
5.8 6.1
3.4 ` 3.4
c,3
$286.0
($4.3)
$295.1
~ 0)
PAGENO="0687"
TABLE S~
TREND IN ANNUAL NET REVENUES
In 1976. Constant Dollars (Mill ions)
Fare System I Fare System I Fare System I I
FTscal Year (Separate Fares) (Free Transfer-Low Fare) (Free Transfer-Moderate Fare)
1977 ($58.6) ($75.5) ($33.7)
1982 ( 29.1~) ( 89.7) ( 1.2)
1990 ( l~.3) (73.0) 20.2
2000 ( 0.8) 29.2
2020 5.6 ( 80.7)
PAGENO="0688"
TABLE 5-5
1. Population (1990)
2. Employment (1990)
3. Home-Based
Person Trips Weekday
4. 1990 Annual Transit
Tn ps~J
5. 1990 Annual Rail Only
Trips
Based on forecasts provided by the Council of Governments.
Includes supplemental estimates.
1968 constant dollars.
1970 constant dollars.
1976 constant dollars.
COMPARISONS WITH PRIOR STUDIES
Original Study First Update -
1969 1971
1975 Update"1
4,227,000.
1,940,000
6,577,000
(1990)
348, 800 ,000
4,952 ,000
2,090,000
7,404,000
(1990)
352 ,000 ,000
80,400,000 78,100,000
6. 1990 Annual Bus Only Trips
7. 1990 Annual Combined Trips
8. 24-Hour Work
Modal Split
9. 1990 Total Gross Revenue
10. Gross Operating Expenses
11. Net System Revenue
12. Average Fare
FARE SYSTEM
I ___.________i._I Ii
3,927,000 3,927,000 3,927,000
2,081,000 2,081,000 2,081,000
7,824,000 7,824,000. 7,824,000
(1992) (1992) (1992)
486,100,000 ~
133,000 ,000 130,900,000 123 ,300,000
169,700,000 172,200,000 162,700,000
182,500,000: 200,200,000 189,000,000
32.9?~ 33.8?~
(1992) (1992)
$281 ,70O,O0O~! $222, 1O0,OO0~1 $3O5,2OO,Ooo~."
$286,ooO,ooo~/ $295,1oo,oOo~J $285,Oo0,Ooo~'
($4,3oo,ooo)~/ ($73,ooo,ooo)~J$ 20,20O,O00~'
55.4~' 4l,o~' 6l.5~!
56,200,000
212,200,000
28.2~
(1990)
$l55,300,0O0~/
$ 85,7oo,O0o~/
$ 69,6O0,OOO~/
4z.5~-~
78,300,000
195,600,000
27.3?~
(1990)
$203 ,8oo,ooo~/
$lO7,ZOO,0001"
$ 96,600,oooY
55,54"
PAGENO="0689"
AUTHORIZED REGIONAL SYSTEM
TRAFFIC, REVENUE, AND OPERATING_CQSTS[.y1
W M AT A REVISED 1975 - - ALANM VOORHECS&ASSOCIATES NC LOUIST KLAUDER&ASSOC~ATES
PAGENO="0690"
1372
Chapter II
llntroduct~on
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This report is the~econd update to a series of financial projections - -
for the development of a rapid rail transit system for the Washington, 0. C.
metropolitan area. To meet this objective, the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority engaged Alan M. Voorhees & Associates (AMy).
in 1955, the U.S. Congress authorized studies which led to the formation
of the National Capital Transportation Agency (MCTA) a temporary federal
agency formed to plan and develop the rail system.
As a result of the studies conducted by NCTA, the decision was made to
proceed with implementation of the regional rail transit system. Congres-
sional legislation and the compact among the -various local jurisdictions,
establish-cl in 1966, the Washington lletropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA) charged with the task of planning and constructing the METRO rail
system. This charge included both physical and financia.l planning for the
system. -
One of the first efforts conducted by WMATA was a 1968 analysis of
Traffic, Revenue and Operating Costs for the proposed system. The purpose
of that study was to determine how many patrons would use the system in each
year of operation through 2020, how much revenue would be generated, the re-
lationship of revenues to operating costs, the amount of revenue which would
be available to repay bonds issued for system construction, the amount of
capital costs which would not be recovered from operating revenues, the al-
location of these costs among the various jurisdictions and the impact of
the METRO rail system on the then privately-owned bus companies.
The major finding of that study was that fare-box revenues, if fares
were increased at the same rate of operating costs, would be sufficient not
only to pay for system operation, but also ~o cover a substantial portion of
system capital costs.
In 1971, a second analysis of system traffic, revenue and operating
costs was conducted. This study was initiated because. planning efforts by
other agencies had indicated shifts from the projections utilized in the 1968
analysis in projected population and employment levels for the 1990 design
PAGENO="0691"
1373
year. Further, it had become apparent thdt both system construction and
operating costs would be higher than anticipated in 1968. The projected fare
level and ridership, however, were also significantly higher than in the
1968 study, yielding a favorable financial forecast.
The timing of the stidy presented in this report was determined by the
compact establishing WHATA which called for a review of system costs, and
the allocation among jurisdictions, prior to five years after initiation of
construction (December 9, 1974). Several other factors also suggested the
need for *a new study. By 1973, WMATA had been authorized to operate the
transit systems in the Metropolitan area and had completed purchase and
consolidation of the previously privately-owned bus systems. Operating costs
had continued to rise, but there had been no increase in fares. The Council
of Governments had not only prepared new estimates of design year population
and employment, but had also developed a new procedure for forecasting transit
patronage. .
Each of these items suggested the need for a complete re-analysis of
both METRO rail and full transit system traffic, revenue and operating costs V
over the design period.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
In 197475 analysis of WMATA projected patronage and net revenue began
with a complete review of anticipated regional land use and travel patterns
and new projections of transit travel for the year 1992. These activities
were carried out by the Council of Governments (COG). In this projection
of transit use, COG took account of the adopted regional highway plan, as
well as the planned METRO rail and bus services. Review of prior forecasts
and design of a feeder bus system to complement rail operations preceded the
forecasting of transit patronage. Three separate transit patronage fore-
casts were made - one for each of three assumed METRO fare systems composed
of different levels of fares and strictures for assessing charges.
The COG transit patronage forecasts for 1992 were then adjusted back
to 1990 so that they might be comparable with the prior WMATA analysis. For
each fare structure revenues, were computed based on the number of riders and
the fare system. In addition, rail and bus operations required to serve the
projected patronage were determined, and operating costs were estimated based
on current WMATA experience for bus services and on anticipated requirements
for the rail services.
The patronage, revenue, and operating cost estimates for 1990 were then
used as a basis for financial analysis fromopening of the system in 1975
through to the year 2020. This required analysis of areas served as each
construction phase was completed, shifts between bus and rail travel and V
the potential for growth beyond 1990.
PAGENO="0692"
1374
For the cost analysis, a projection was made of cost escalation from
the 197~# study year through 1976. Beyond 1976, however, all cost and re-
venue analyses were carried out in terms of 1976 constant dollars with no
differential between fire and operating cost escalation. The results of the
financial analysis were presented at the WHATA-sponsored Airlie House Con-
ference in November, l97L~. During 1975, supplemental analysis and docun~en-
tation took place.
In addition to the overall system analysis, the study also developed
data for the various elements contained in the system cost allocation formula
specified in the WMATA compact. The final purpose of the study was to up-
date data for the planning and design of stations and routes based on the
revised land use forecasts prepared by COG.
The following chapters in this report summarize the resultsof each
major stage of the analysis in the sequence in which they were carried out.
A series of nine working papers prepared for this project describe the
methodology and results in more detail. The land use and travel demand fore-
casts are described in documents prepared by or for COG. A complete list of
these sources is contained in Appendix B. . -
PAGENO="0693"
1375
NOTE: Chapter II, which follows, is in draft form. A completed
final version has been promised by COG for inclusion in the
final report.
PAGENO="0694"
1376
CHAPTER II - FUTUI~E LAND USE ZiND HIGHWAY SYSTE~1
A. -FUTURE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG)
was responsible for preparing regional land use activity forecasts
for 1990. During 1972 COG had prepared a series of incremental
land use forecasts using a mathematical computer-based model known
as EMPIRIC.1 The modal assumed an economic forecast of total
regional growth in terms of land activity, and predicted by small
area, the change in shares of growth for households and jobs
during that growth period, the allocation of activity growth was
influenced by various assumed policies affecting growth among which
was the projected long range highway and transit system.
The forecasts used in this study are focussed on an Empiric
run known as Alternative 6.2. Transportation facilities were
assumed to be tbo~ ~n~odied in the adnptnc~ Long Range Transaortation
Plan for the National Capial Region2 Ge~ierally, the plan assumed
construction of the Adopt~d Regional Transit System (98miles)
plUs extensions then planned by %`ThIATA. The highway system was
projected to comprise several additional major freeways such as the
Outer Beltway and the completion of Interstate 66. This major
increase in the quality of the transportation system resulted in
substantial increases in forecasted suburban growth. This particular
forecast was the latest in a series of EMPIRIC model runs,
and the results were extensively reviewed by COG and its member
1 `Empiric" Activity Allocation Model Application to the Washington
Metropolitan Region. Peat Marwick, Nitchel & Co. December 1972.
2 A Long Range Transportation Plan for the National Capitol Reginn.
June 20, 1973. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments!
National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board.
PAGENO="0695"
1377
governnents. As ~ result of these reviews, a joint resolutioh was
passed3 by COG's Land Use Policy Committee and the Transportation
Planning Board. In effect this resolution authorized the use of
Alternative 6.2 modified results except where local governments
provided their own forecasts. The projections used in this study
incorporated those local modifications ahd the resultant set of
numbers is known as 6.2 modified. These projections were then
reduced slightly to reflect anticipated 1990 conditions. Table 1
summarized the set of forecasts used in the Net Income Analysis
Study. Significant increases in population and employment were
forecasted for the WMATA transit zone. Table 2 summarizes the
projected growth in activity betweei~ 1972 and 1990.
Since the technical analyses for the NIA Study was initiated
in early 1974, the Alternative 6.2 modified forecasts have bean
re-evaluated in the light of markedly decreased growth rates.
A revised set of forecasts is again being developed at COG as
part of the Cooperative Forecasting Process.4 Early indications
are that the revised forecasts for 1990 will be substantially lower
than those previously developed for planning purposes idantified
as Alternative 6.2 modified.
3
4
PAGENO="0696"
1378
TABLE 1 -LAND USE ACTIVITY FORECAST (6.2 NOD) FOR 1990
LAND USE ACTIVITY FORECAST * 1
jurisdiction households Population
Virginia . .
Alexandria 57633 . 150993 52600
Arlington 85886 225089 169172
Fairfax City 10949 31384 23209
Fairfax County 275578 818607 292183
Falls Church 3763 10450 4664
Total 433809. 1236523 541828
Maryland
Montgomery
County 313715 . 856433 286593
Prince George's
County 343865 1025072 .365909
- ~37580 i~8l5U5 652502
District of Columbia
Central Area
(Ring 0) 9308 34974 327525
Remainder of
D.C. 290095 . 773639 559090
Total 299403. 808613 886615
TOTAL FOR WRATA
TRANSIT ZONE . 1390792
3926641
2080945
PAGENO="0697"
1379
TABLE 2 - PERCENT INCREASE IN LAND USE ACTIVITY 1972-1990
Source: EMPIRIC Alternative 6.2 Modified
Preliminary COG figures for 1972.
Major Jurisdiction
District Of Columbia
Maryland
Virginia
WMATA Transit Zone
Percent Change
Households . Employment
+12 +44
+73 +59
+59 .. +50
+51
+50
PAGENO="0698"
1380
B. FUTURE HIGH~1AY SYSTEM ASSUMPTIONS . .
In order to predict the future choice between the automobile
and transit it is necessary to have an estimate of the characteristics
of travel by the two modes. The Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments had responsibility for preparing a computerized network
which represented an estimate of average travel times in 1990 on
major facilities.
As part of its mandate for regional transportation planning,
the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board adopted
a Long Range Plan in June 1973. A report5, fully documents all of
th~ highway and transit elements whcih comprise the plan. The plan
represents a substantial investment both -in met~orail and in major
highways. Figures 1 and 2 depict the new highway facilities which
are assumed operational in 1990. The computerized network was
developed to represent an estimate of peak period travel conditions
which would occur on the system as planned.
In suranary, the NIA highway network assumed the implementation
of all of the highway elements of the Long Range Plan as it existed
in mid-1974. It should be noted that since that time the T?B has
taken action to emend the plan by deleting Interstate 66 as a -
major Freeway inside the Capital Beltway. Furthermore the District
of Co.urnbia is considering the possible withdrawal of additional - -
Interstate freeway elements as shown in the Plan.
5 A Long Range Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region,
June 20, 1973. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governmsnts/
Transportation Planning Board. -
PAGENO="0699"
1381
FIGURE (t2-1
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN FOR INS tATI3NAL CAPITAL
REGION
HIGHWAY ELEMENT OUTSIDE
THE BELTWAY
PAGENO="0700"
1382
FIGURE i~-2
NATfO~'LAL CJ~PJTJ~L REGON
LO~4O RARGE TRANS~RTAT~ON PLAN FOR THE
r.
ASSUMED OPERATIONAL
1974- 1980
1980- 12-92
1qqo
COI-V~ATA-
PAGENO="0701"
1383
Chapter ifi
1990 Transit System
The level of transit service offered has direct impact on both system
revenues and system operating costs. Higher levels of service - more route
coverage, greater frequency - is attractive to the public resulting in more
riders and higher fare box revenues. Provision of higher service levels,
however, results in higher operating costs. Thus, the transit service, rail
and bus, assumed for patronage, revenue and operating cost analysis must be
realistic in terms both of providing service to attract riders and of re-
presenting a cost commensurate with the ridership gen~rated.
AUTHORIZED REGIONAL SYSTEM (ARS)
In 1968, VIMATA adopted a 98-mile regional rail transit system
which, with minor liodifications, is now under construction. This system
is officially designated as. the Authorized Regional System (ARS). The
basic service patterns to be offered have been analyzed in detail by WMATA,
resulting in the following assumed operation, illustrated in Figure 111-1:
* Rockville-Glenmont Line--would operate from Rockville, Maryland,
to Glenmont, Maryland, via Bethesda, to the downtown Washington
central businesd district, Union Station, and Silver Spring.
o Vienna-New Carrollton Line--would operate from Nutley Road in
Fairfax County, Virginia, to New Carroilton, Maryland, via Rosslyn,
the northerly river crossing, and the downtown central business
district.
o Huntington-Addison Road Line--would operate from Huntington in
Northern Virginia to Addison Road in Prince Georges County,
Maryland, via the Pentagon, Rosslyn, the northerly river crossing,
and the downtown central business district. The portion of line
from Rosslyn to the Anacostia River is jointly used with the Vienna-
New Carro-lton line.
o Greenbelt Road-Branch Avenue, Franconia, and SDrincfield
Line--would operate from Greenbelt Road in Maryland, south via
Gallery Place and L'Enfant Plaza in the central businesd dis-
tract. At L'Enfani Plaza the line branches, one branch ex-
tending to Branch Avenue in Maryland and the other via the
PAGENO="0702"
1384
REGIONAL RAPID RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM
Ad~pt&d ~ 1068. 8o~iood Fot6~y 1069 J~oo 1970. A~,lho~07d b~ C01919oo 0~oo~bo1 1060.
[E~~TU]
metro
~ SCAlE IN ElLEN
PAGENO="0703"
1385
southerly river crossing and the Pentagon to both Springfield
and Franconia in Virginia.
A more detailed description of the METRO routes will be found in
Chapter VH, System Operating Costs. In addition, Figure VlI-l in that
chapter depicts the rapid-rail service frequencies assumed. A train every
2 to Ii minutes will service most stations in the peak hours. Off-peak
service to most stations varies from every 3 to 6 minutes in the midday to
every 5 to 10 minutes in the early morning and late evening.
ARS Operation Schedule
For purposes of this net revenue analysis, it was assumed that the ARS
would be constructed and put into operation in eight phases, the first
beginning June 30, 1975 and the last on July 15, 1981. Table Ill-I in-
dicates the extent and duration of each phase. ~
ot the sun ..~cho~J~icic gJ~.n Jr `Thaptcr Vi
Parking Facilities
The private automobile used for both park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride
tripswill be the access mode for many trips made on the METRO rail system.
in recognition of this fact, design of the system has included the provision
of patron parking lots at 32 locations providing 25,000 spaces. Table Ill-Il
below, presents the parking spaces planned for each station and the parking
cost assumed in the study for purposes of estimating use of parking facilities
and the revenue generated.
ASSUMED BUS SERVICES
Bus operations not only will serve as the rail access mode for 6o~
of all rail trips, but it will also serve those transit trips which do not
make use of the METRO rail system. As such, the bus network is an integral
part of the total regional transportation network.
Obj ec t ives
The primary objectives in the development of the 1990 bus-routing net-
work were to:
o Link the residential areas with the rapid-rail system
o Link outlying shopping and business centers with the
surrounding residential area
~ Provide continuation of certain radial routes within D.C.
to serve riders not having direct METRO service, including
areas between rapid-rail stat ions
o Link high employment areas not served directly by the
rapid-rail system with the nearest stations
PAGENO="0704"
TABLE HI-I
ASSUMED ARS INITIATION SCHEDULE
Phase
Date
.
New Segments Opened to Riders.
Approximate Route-
Miles in Service
of Stations
6/30/75 e Farragut North to Rhode Island Avenue 4.5 6
2 5/ 1/76 o Farragut North to Dupont Circle 15.0 25
o National Airport to Stadium-Armory via Rosslyn
2A 7/15/77 o Rhode Island Avenue to Silver Spring 21.0 29
3 11/30/77 o Stadium-Armory to New CarroUton . 30.0 34
14 7/15/78 o Dupont Circle to Van Ness - WTI 39.0 146
o Gallery Place to Pentagon and Navy Yard via
L'Enfant Plaza
o Rosslyn to Glebe Road
5 3/ 1/79 o Glebe Road to Vienna . . 56.0 57
o Stadium-Armory to Addison Road
o National Airport to Huntington
6 1/15/79 * Van Ness - WTI to Grosvenor 68.0 66
* Gallery Place to U Street
* King Street to Van Dorn .*
7 7/15/81 * Grosvenor to Rockville 98.0 86
o Silver Spring to Glenmont
* U Street to Greenbelt Road
* Navy Yard to Branch Avenue
o Van Darn to Springfield and Franconia
SOURCE: DcLet;w, Cather & Company, "Design and Construction Schedule," July, 1974.
WMATA-Tr.W,c. ~ ~ ~ Co~t,1975
PAGENO="0705"
1387
TABLE III- II
METRO STATION PARKING FEES AND SPACES
STATION PARKING CHARGES (Cents) ASSUMED SPACES
Rockville 50 500
Twinbrook 50 1,000
Nicholson Lane 50 1,000
Grosvenor 50 500
Glenmont 50 1,800
Wheaton 50 250
Forest Glen 75 500
Takorna 100 100
Fort Totten 100 300
Rhode Island Avenue 100 300
Greenbelt Road 50 1,000
College Park 75 500
Chillum 75 500
New Carrollton 50 1,000
Landover 50 1,000
Cheverly 75 500
Deanwood 100 220
Minnesota Avenue 1OQ 327
Addison Road 75 500
Capitol Heights * 75 250
Branch Avenue 50 1,000
Suitland 50 1,000
Naylor Road 75 500
Alabama Avenue 100 500
Huntington 50 1,500
Franconia 50 1,000
Springfield 50 2,000
Van Dorn Street 50 1,000
Vienna 50 2,000
Dunn Loring 50 1,000
W. Falls Church 50 1,000
E. Falls Church 75 300
TOTAL 2~,8~i7
SOURCE: Information supplied by WHATA, September, 19Th.
- WMATA-T',ffi~. fl ~d Op~i~g Cst~-1975
62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 45
PAGENO="0706"
1388
o Feeder routes to METRO stations
o Medium haul arterial serviee (i.e., Wisconsin Avenue,
Columbia Pike, 16th Street)
o Downtown express service (i.e., South Capitol Street,
George Washington Parkway, Shirley Highway)
o Suburban priority service (i.e., New Hampshire Avenue,
Central Avenue)
n Crosstown (i.e., East-West Highway)
-------o-- Beltway Express (3 lines)
o Express Shuttle (fringe parking to METRO Station).
These classifications are not mutually exclusive with many lines performing
multiple roles.
The assumed bus operations comprise of~~routes providing~9~~~US
miles of daily service. Assumed bus average operating speeds were based on
current schedules in various portions of the region. Table 111111 presents
the speeds used.
TABLE Ill-Ill
BUS LINK SPEED ASSUMPTIONS
Miles Per Hour
Servi~e Type ~ Off-Peak
Local Bus
Heart of CEO
6 8
Rest of CBD 8 10
Intermediate Ring (D.C., Arlington) 10 12
Intermediate Ring (Fairfax Co.; Md.) 12 15
Outer/Rural 15 18
Alexandria CBD 8 10
Alexandria (Remainder) 10 12
Falls Church (Rte. 7, Lee Highway) 8 10
Falls Chuich (Remainder) 10 12
Busy Suburban (ie. Friendship 10 12
Heights, Tyson Co., 7 Corners)
WMATA-T~~!w. ~ .~d Op~ti~g C,su-1975
PAGENO="0707"
1389
o Improve crosstown and cross-country service
o Provide connections between park-and-ride lots and the
METRO rail system, for lots not associated with METRO
stations.
In developing the bus networks, several sources were used. These in-
cluded:
o Analysis of transit travel patterns and bus route utilization
conducted as part of the 1968 and 1971 studies of METRO
patronage
o 1980 transit system analysis conducted as part of the
WMATA Transit Technical Studies
o Current proposal for express and bus priority service
o 1992 COG land use plans.
Preliminary bus service representations were prepared using these
criteria. The final system reflects comments from the WMATA planning
staff and the WMATA Transit.Technical Committee.
Eight types of bus service are included in the assumed network:
o Local community service (i .e., Si lvźr Spring)
PAGENO="0708"
1390
TABLE H-Ill (Continued)
Express Bus
Shirley Busway 145
Shirley Highway 140 145
Other Freeway, Rte. 50 (Md.) 140 140
Bus Lanes (New Hampshire Ave., Capitoi 20 20
Str., Central Ave. Nd.)
Key Bridge - N Street, Bus Priority 10 12
Other Non-Stop Express 2 - 3 mph above
local speed
-. WMATA-Taffic. R~.a~dOpe~ti~gCosrs.1975
Additional initial assumptions were required related to the headway
for various bus services. Policy headways were established based~on loading~
standards, prior patronage forecasts and WMATA policies. Table Ill-IV
presents the initial policy headways assumed. After detailed patronage
forecasts were prepared the headway on each line was revised to reflect the
actual anticipated loading. These revised loadings were used in bus op-
erating cost analysis.
TABLE IlI-IV
ASSUMED METROBUS HEADWAYS
o Projected Bus Demand
12O~«= of seats in peak hours
l00?~ of seats. in base hours
o Policy Maximum Headways -
Peak/Base
Major Radial 15/20
Inner Suburbs 30/60
Outer Suburbs 60/60
o Crosstown/Cross-country
Higher for viability
WMATA-T,~1f~. R ~ ~d Op1~g Costs-1975
PAGENO="0709"
1391
Fringe Parking
Prior METRO patronage analysis had indicated that the demand for parking
spaces for rail patrons exceeded the number of spaces which could reasonably
be provided at METRO stations. To assist in accommodating this demand, 21
additional fringe parking lots were assumed, based on locations suggested
in the Transit Technical Studies.
Most of the 21 lots were located beyond the limits of METRO service,
however, a number such as Carter Barron and South Capitol Street are closer
in. These locations were connected with express bus service which runs to
nearby METRO stations or all the way downtown. Figure Il-V lists these
fringe lots and the points served with express buses. The White Oak and
-----Randolph Road lots are adjacent to the Mew Hampshire Avenue lines for which
bus lanes have been assumed. Kings Park in Virginia is the only lot located
next to a line using the Shirley Busway.
TABLE UI-V
FRINGE LOTS AND BUS SERVICE
White Oak
Randolph Road
Montgomery Mall
River Road
Carter Barron
Soldiers Home
Route 50 (Nd.)
Central Avenue
South Capitol Street
Indian Head
Fort Fotten Station
Fort Totten Station
Grosvenor Station
11th & Pennsylvania, N.W.
Georgia Avenue Station
11th & Pennsylvania, N.W.
Georgia Avenue Station
New Carrol ton Station
Addison Road Station
Stadium-Armory Station
L'Enfant Plaza Station
Down town
Branch Avenue Station
L'Enfant Plaza Station
L'Enfant Plaza Statipn
Suitland Station -
Branch Avenue Station
West Falls Church Station
West Falls Church Station
West Falls Church Station
West Falls Church Station
Rosslyn Station
Vienna -
Pentagon Station (via 1-95)
Springfield Station
Franconia Station
Palmer Road
Andrews AFB
Clinton
Herndon
Reston (L. Anne)
Reston (Hunter Wds)
Tysons Corner
CIA
Centrevi lIe
King's Park.
Newi ngton
WMATA-TU~ffi~. R#~'~. ~d Op ~t~pj C~t~-1975
PAGENO="0710"
1392
ASSUMED OPERATIUG PERIODS
Transit system operations vary by the time of day with the following
four basic service periods; on a typical weekday.
o Peak - Peak period services will be in effect from 7:00-
9:00 a.m. and 4:30-6:30 p.m.
o Day Base - Base services will be in effect from 9:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. and 6:30-830 p.m.
- ~: oo
a Early-Late - Early-late services will be in effect from
5:00-7:00 a.m. and ~3& p.m.-l:OO a.m.
a Owl Services - Owl services are bus only and will be in
effect from 1:00 a.m.-5:O0 a.m. -
Saturday services have no peak `component with base services from 7:00 a.m.
to&r30 p. m. with early-late and owl services as on weekdays.
Sunday services consist of early-late, operated from 5:00- a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
and owl service.
PAGENO="0711"
I 1393
Chapter IIV
Fare Systems Descr~pt~on
Several factors must be taken into account in setting fares for transit
_~!y~.c~e. Obviously, it is necessary that there be a reasonable relationship
between the amount of service used and the fare charged to the rider. Fur-
ther, there must be a relationship between the costs of providing service
and the fares charged.
The Authority, under terms of the compact establishing WMATA, operates
under a mandate to recover from system revenues a maximum amount of the capi-
tal cost of building the system. This charge, however, must be balanced
against the role which transit plays as a public service and the fact that
transit must b~e competitive with the perceived costs of other travel modes.
In addition, the fare structure must strive for equity among the several
classes of users, must be simple enough to be understood by the users, and
must be structured in such a way that fares may be collected without undue
equipment or collection costs.
The original 1969 analysis had assumed afare system based only on the
points of entrance to and egress from the transit system without consideration
of the specific ways in which charges would be assessed and fares collected.
The 1971 study concentrated on the fare system in more detail considering
separate charges for rail and bus travel. The study also introduced the
concept of rail fares based on "composite rail miles", defined as the average
of the over-the-rail and airline distances between any two stations.
For this current 1974-75 study, rather than assume a single fare struc-
ture, three different systems were considered incorporating.both differing
levels of charges as well as differing methods for assessing and collecting
fares.
The fares charged to a user of the transit system may be thought of as
composed of several elements:
e Base Fare - An initial charge paid by all users of the system.
This charge covers some basic trip distance. For each of the
systems considered, the base charge covers bus travel within
any fare zone or a rail trip of up to three composite miles.
PAGENO="0712"
1394
o Bus Zone Charge - The charge assessed when crossing the boundary
between fare zones. A common bus fare zone structure was used for
each of the three fare systems.
fare zones are approximately three miles in diameter.
o Rail Mileage Charge - The charge assessed for rail trips longer
than three composite miles. This charge is on a per composite
mile basis.
o Transfer Charge - The charge assessed for transfer between transit
vehicles. This charge covers the same distance on the second
vehicle as would the base fare (i.e., one bus fare zone or three
composite rail miles for a bus rail transfer). In all systems
-----------~------tr~ansfer between rail lines is free and chargeable mileage con-
tinues to accumulate through the transfer station.
Table V-i summarizes the three systems tested. Fare System No. I
(Separate Fares) is structured with a low initial charge (25~) to encourage
short trips and provide community service. In practice, there would be no
transfer privilege with each trip on a different vehicle being charged inde-
pendently with the exception of rail-to-rail transfers.
Fare System No. 2 (Combined Fare) also features the low 25~ base fare,
but also provides for free transfer between vehicles (i.e., a new base fare
is not assessed). .
Fare System No. 3 (Combined Fare) features a higher base fare (14O~), but
also provides for free transfers.
TABLE IV-l
ALTERNATIVE FARE STRUCTURES
Separate Fares
I
Low Fare
I I
Moderate Fare
I II
FREE TRANSFER
(Combined Fare)
Base Fare on Boarding
25~
Added Bus Zones (3 4-Miles)
Added Rail Charge (Each Mile
After 3)
25~
TRANSFERS:
1 5~
5~
1Io~
l5~
5~
Rai I-Rail
Bus-Rail, Bus-Bus
2O~
7~
0
25~
0
0
0
0
PAGENO="0713"
1395
Table V-Il, below, illustrates rail fares between selected stations
- assumed for the three fare systems.
TABLE 1V-I
SELECTED STATION-TO-STATION 1990 RAIL FARES
(In Cents, 1976 Constant Dollars)
Fare Systems
Fare System
FROM
TO
and II
III
Metro Center
Rockville
85
124
Metro Center
Glenmont
75
110
Metro Center
Greenbelt Road
65
96
Metro Center
New Carroilton
55
82
Metro Center
Addison Road
55
82
Metro Center
Branch Avenue
50
75
Metro Center
Huntington
55
82
Metro Center
Springfield
80
.
117
Metro Center
Vienna .
85
l2~i
Rockville
Bethesda
50
75
Rockville
Union Station
90
131
Rockville
Pentagon
100
145
Rockville
Springfield
140
201
Greenbelt Road
L'Enfant Plaza
65
96
Greenbelt Road
Vienna
105
152
Benning Road
Dupont Circle
50
.
75
Benning Road
Rosslyn
55
82
Benning Road
National Airport
55
82
King Street
Stadium-Armory
55
82
King Street
East Falls Church
65
96
King Street
Fort Totten
75
*
110
WMATA--T~&fi~. ~
PAGENO="0714"
1396
Patronage forecasts for the first two fare systems were based on COG
forecasts prepared with the computer and using the respective fare structures.
For the third fare system, a manual estimate of patronage was made by extra-
polating the differential results of the first two fare systems at the
jurisdiction level. For all three fare systems, the computer was used to
assist in computing revenues. For operating costs, only the first system
results were computed in detail; the results for the other two fare systems
were derived from the first one.
PAGENO="0715"
1397
NOTE: The first part of Chapter V, which follows, is a draft
version prepared by COG. A complete and final version
has been promised for final printing.
PAGENO="0716"
1398
CHAPTER V - TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING
A. TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments was
responsible for the simulation of regional travel patterns in
1992, which were then factored to represent 1990 conditions for
subsequent ridership and revenue estimates. The purpose of this
section is to outline the technical procedures which were used in
this analysis. Details of the transportation demand models will
be found in the referenced reports.
Overview
The Transportation Planning Board is responsible for regional
transportation planning. As part of this responsibility, a series
of methenatical models have been developed which predict the demand
for transportation in future years. Figure 1 represents the
general procedures. The process sidulates all travel within the
region, categorized by different- purposes:
home to work travel 2,727,000
* home to non-work tr~vel 5,299,000
* other trips not related 2,2714,000
to the home
The different trip purposes are maintained throughout the
forecasting process because they exhibit different travel
characteristics and in particular the liklihood of transit travel
is quite different.
Trip Generation
Trip Generation is the first procedure in the modeling sequence.
Land Use activity induces travel, thus the 6.2 modified land use
PAGENO="0717"
1399
forecasts were input, directly. Total trips produced and attracted
in each small area (zones) ~as calculated based upon trip making
rates datermined from earlier surveys1. Total pprson trips were
calculated without regard to the choice of mode. Results are
summarized below:
Table 1 - Internal Person Trips for 1992
Work Non-Work Non-Home Based
Total Trips 2727000 5,299,000 2274000
Trips Attracted
to D.C. Core 669000 360,000 241000
TriD Distribution
This model allocates the productions and attractions in
each zone to an interzonal matrix of travel. The allocation
or distribution of trips is has~d upoc the relative sv~ilobility
of jobs and the relative travel time between zones. The exact
relationships were derived2 from earlier travel surveys, in the
metropolitan region.
1 Analysis of Zone Level Trip Generation. Relationships,
Technical Report No. 10 (draft). MWCOG, July 1974.
2. Forecasting for WHATA Transit Technical Studies
Develop Travel Forecasting Hodel TechniQueS
Technical Report eo. 3, COMSiS CorporatiOn, July £974.
PAGENO="0718"
1400
MODAL CHOICE
During the trip generation and distribution phases of the
transportation planning process, demand is quantified in terms of
person travel. The modal choice procedure3 allocates transportation
demand into three modes of travel; transit, auto driver and auto
passenger, based upon the relative attributes of the projected
transit and highway systems and demographic forecasts for the rogion. -
The model structure considers both the time and cost of travel.
by the separate modes.
Because. the NIA Study was particularly concerned with transit
ridership and revenue, it was important to predict not only the
total transit ridership but also the mode of arrival at metro
sbat~,as ~aikiug, bus or automobile. mra~TA has aeveloped a
"mode of access model"4 which predict~ the mode of arrival at
metro stations in a manner which is analogous ~o the modal choice
model - the relative cost and time of alternate arrival modes
is investigated. The sub-model was fully integrated into the
regional modal choice model described eaplier.
3 Development and Calibration of the Washington Node Choice
Models. Tech Report No. 8, NWCOG 1973
4 ~7MATA Transit Technical Studies Report No. 15, Mode of Access
Model, Wilbur Smith Associates
PAGENO="0719"
~, 4o4~j
~ 1C)?~CJ
H
.~ Ctr~
PAGENO="0720"
1402
TRANSIT USAGE ESTIMATES (1992)
The 1992 transit forecasts prepared by the Council of Governments (COG)
formed the starting point for the patronage forecasts. Three trip purposes
were forecast with the mode choice models outlined in the previous section.
Additionally, tables with high school student transit trips were prepared
using a growth factor technique to update 1968 estimates. These forecasts
were prepared for only that transit travel within the area defined by the
COG 1968 survey cordon line. Patronage and revenue from the six omitted
districts in Maryland are described along with other special estimates in
Chapter VI.
COG prepared computer forecasts for the first two fare systems as sum-
marized in Table V-I. The impact of allowing the transfer privileges (fare
system II) was to increase home-based work transit trips by 2.9~ and home-
based non-work transit trips by 5.O?~, for an overall increase of 3.6t~. The
free transfer privileges also encouraged more patrons to access the rail
system by bus. As can be seen, there are lower park/ride estimates for home-
based work and for home-based non-work to downtown Washington.
The park/ride and kiss/ride classifications include trips accessing points
on the bus and commuter rail ~ystem as well as METRO rail stations. In the
peak hour, the distribution of 1990 park/ride boarding modes is estimated to
be as follows:
METRO Rail 7O~
Commuter Rail 3~«= /
Bus 27~-
As described in Chapter III, these estimates assume extensive fringe parking
and commuter rail service in five corridars.
The completion of the 1992 transit forecasts for two fare systems marked
the end of the direct technical involvement of the Council of Governments.
The remainder of the analyses were conducted by AMV with assistance frcm
LTKA in the area of rail operating costS.
TRANSIT USAGE ESTIMATES (1990)
Adjustments f om 1992 to 1990 Levels
ulations,theremad~0f yCt~5~~
-1tSource: Working Paper No. 5, Exhibit 2.
PAGENO="0721"
TABLE V-I
1992 2k-HOUR WEEKDAY MODE CHOICE RESULTS!'
Home-Based Work
Total Person Trips
* Total Transit Trips
Park/Ride Trips
Kiss/Ride Trips
Percent Transit
Home-Based Non-Work
Total Person Trips
Total Transit Trips
Park/Ride Trips
Kiss/Ride Trips
Percent Transit
Non-Home Based
Total Person Trips ~
Total Transit Trips-
Percent Transit
Sub-Totals
Person Trips
Transit Trips
Percent Transit
2,727,33k 669,2k3
B95,k36 378,6kB
252,k33 1B5,7k7
-. 67,961 29,7B6
32.9 56.5
2,27k,090 2k0,5kB
138,365 31,67k
6.1 13.2
2,727,33k 669,2k3
921,6kB * 305,226
251,727 102,651
66,02k 28,160
33.8 57.6
2,27k,590 2k0,5kB
1k2,719 32,073
6.3 13.3
10,300,528 1,269,3k2
1,657,660 55k,99k
161 k3.7.
0
Pare Systnn I
(~p~rate Pares)
~j9n Core-On'
Fare Systen II
(Free Transfer-Low)
Region Core-0riented~'
5,299,10k
565,052
106,527
k2,06k
10,7
359,551
133,01k
22,k90 *
10,729
37.0
5,299,10k
593,301 *
110,679
k3,669
11.2
359,551
137,695
22,299
10,570
38,k
High School Student
Transit Trips~-'
Total Transit Trips
10,300,528 1,269,3k2
1,598,875 5k3,336
15.5 - k2.B
50,680 15,366
l,6k9,533 598,702
50,680 15,366
l,708,3k0 970,360
These data are from the basic forecasts prepared by the Metropolitao Washington Council of Governments (too)
sod include travel lying totally wIthin the 1568 home-Interview cordon line, Special estImates arc excluded.
lvcludss Dlogn 0 cod 1 occorIleg to the COO eeoc system.
PAGENO="0722"
1404
year for the rail system. It was assumed, that over a short range of time,
-the transit trips produced in a given area would change in proportion to
population chan~es. From the COG land use forecasts, zonal population es-
timates for 1992 and 1990 were used to adjust all transit trips at the pro-
duction (residential) end.
As the design criteria for a transit system, and the operating costs as
well, are highly influenced by peak hour ridership levels, it was, therefore,
necessary to study ridership variations throughout the day. Accordingly, an
analysis was undertaken using the results of the COG 1968 travel surveys.
was assumed that the diurnal ridership patterns for each purpose would
remain constant over time. However, because of the significant increase in
the relative level of non-work riding, the overall peak factor is expected
to drop from its 1968 value of l8.4~ to l7.l~ in 1990. The assumed peak and
midday hour factors by purpose are given in Table V-Il, and the 1990 patronage
estimates (prior to adjustment) are given in Table V-Ill.
Manual Adjustments to 1990 Transit Forecasts
The forecasts prepared by the Council of Governments and the analyses
described above were accomplished with a series of computer programs de-
signed for preparing long-range regional transit travel forecasts. Addition-
ally, the geographic area encompassed by the COG forecasts does not coincide
precisely with the boundaries of the WMATA compact area. Hence, before
arriving at the final 1990 patronage estimates, it was necessary to perform
a number, of manual adjustments to realistically represent anticipated con-
ditions in 1990. -
Adjustrrent for Parking Saturation at METRO StationsV
The forecasting models uihich produced the 1992 travel estimates assume
that adequate parking facilities would be supplied at all METRO stations to
accommodate all patrons who wished to drive and park their car to ride the
rail system. The current WMATA designs indicate a total of approximately
25,000 spaces situated at 32 of the 82 station sites. The regional uncon-
strained parking demand for a typical weekday based on the COG forecasts is 2/
estimated to be 102,607 and 103,243 for fare systems I and II, respectively.-
However, assuming a reasonable distribution of vehicle arrivals at the
stations, and a logical turnover pattern, the number of vehicles which could
1" This analysis is more completely described in Working Paper No. 5,
"Analysis of 1980 Mode of Arrival at METRO Stations," prepared by Alan H.
Voorhees and Associates.
The 24-hour park/ride estimates contain trips traveling in both directions
between home and station. Such 24-hour estimates must, therefore, be
divided by 2 to derive travel from home to station. A further division
by the assumed occupancy factor of 1.2 yields vehicle arrivals. Note
further that the park/ride trips show in Table V-lll do not all go to
METRO stations. --
PAGENO="0723"
Proportion of 21i-hour trips
occurring in:
Purpose Peak Hour Typical Midday Hour
Based on an analysis of 1968 Washington area transit travel characteristics.
1405
TABLE V-Il
DIURNAL VARIATIONS OF WEEKDAY TRANSIT TRAVEL!"
Home-Based Work
0.223
0.012
Home-Based Non-Work
0.122
*
0.063
Non-Home. Based
0.033
0.065
School
0.250
*
0.033
WMATA-T~ft~. R ~d Op~ti~g C~s~s-197S
PAGENO="0724"
1406
be accommodated f'or each of the two fare systems on a regional basis is ap-
proximately 37,000 trips. Thus, a significant number of trips would real-
istically have to make their journies in some other fashion.
If a patron cannot find parking in a METRO lot, it was assumed he would
do one of three things: comm by kiss/ride, take a.bus or walk to the station,
or not travel by transit at all, either driving all the way or postponing
his trip(s). From a regional level analysis, the following distribution of
these diverted trips was arrived at:
Percent Diverted To Fare System I Fare System I
Kiss/Ride 23.5 23.3
__-__--_Bus-(Walk) Access 52.0 52.8
Not Take Transit 21i.5 23.9
100.0 100.0
For financial planning purposes, the regional 1990 forecasts were modified
as shown in Table V-IV.
Commuter Rail Trips
The assumed regional transit system for 1990 contains commuter rail
service in five corHdors. As the COG models consider the complete transit
system, some of the forecast, transit trips use only commuter rail lines.
The number of trips which, therefore, must be removed to arrive at actual
WMATA ridership is Ii,468 for fare system I and 14,~95 for fare system II.
Non-School Intrazonal Trips
The nature of the COG forecasting models dictates that their prime focus
is on regional travel analysis. Because of the vagaries of the short intra-
zonal transit trip, they are generally omitted from regional forecasts.
However, in 1968 just under one percent of all transit trips started and
ended within the same traffic zone. Assuming that the same proportion would
hold in 1990 the transit trip totals for the two fare systems were increased
by 1~i,366 and l1,899, respectively.
WMATA Compact Area Extrapolation
The region defined by COG for their forecasting models contains the 1314
traffic districts (1065 zones) defined as being inside thetordon line of
their 1968 comprehensive travel surveys. However, there are five such
districts in Maryland which lie between the cordon and compact area boundaries.
It was assumed that these areas would generate travel, predominantly of a
park/ride nature, on the \JI4ATA system. Analysis of transit generation rates
from adjacent fringe areas yielded estimates of 14,1400 and 14,556 additional
trips for the two fare systems.
PAGENO="0725"
1407
TABLE V-Ill
1990 UNADJUSTED WEEKDAY TRANSIT TRiP ESTIMATES~!_"
Fare System I Fare System I 1
(Separate Fares) (Free Transfer-Low)
214-Hour Period
Total Transit Trips I,638,05D l,696,L~l3
Park/Ride Trips 3~8,395 351,562
Kiss/Ride Trips l07,~432 . 107,105
A.lI. Peak Hour~'
Total Transit Trips 280,690 289,9~i2
Park/Ride Trips 67,239 67,533
Kiss/RideTrips 19,808 19,578
Typical Midday Hour~'
Total Transit Trips 57,355 . 59,730
Park/Ride Trips 9,1~55 9,705
Kiss/Ride Trips 3,388 3,14I~9
These data are based on the Council of Governments transit forecasts
for 1992 and assume adequate facilities at all METRO stations for auto
access.
7:30 - 8:30 a.m.
An average of travel over the period 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
WMATA-T,~!ui~. R ~d Op~~ti~g C~s~~-1975
PAGENO="0726"
1408
TABLE V-IV
1990 REGIONAL DIVERSION OF TRIPS DUE TO
PARKING CONSTRAINTS
24-Hour Trips
Fare System I Fare System II
(Separate Fares) (Free Transfer-Low)
Park/Ride Person Trip Demand 246,257 247,784
at METRO Stations1!
Unconstrained Vehicle Parking 102,607 103,243
Demand
Trips Diverted to:
Kiss/Ride 37,036 37,007
Bus or Walk Access 81,954 83,862
Not Take Transit 38,613 37,960
157,603 158,829
Source: Working Paper #5, "Analysis of 1990 Mode of Arrival at
METRO Stations."
Based on forecasts prepared by the Council of Governments.
WMATA-T~athc. R e~cnue. ~nd Op~at~.~g Costs-1975
PAGENO="0727"
1409
It must be noted that there are six COG traffic districts in Virginia
which lie outside the compact area, but within the cordon. The patronage
and revenue generated therein as well as the costs to serve the riders of
course accrue to WIIATA. Excluding the com~nuter rail only trips, these
areas should produce 12,035 and l3,~123 1990 weekday trips, which have been
included as part of the basic forecasts for the two fare systems.
Summary of 1990 Adjustments
Table V-V summarizes the four adjustments made to the regional patronage
estimates. The impact in revenue estimation has also been considered and is
outlined as part of Chapter VI. Where applicable, the operating cost es-
tis have also taken account of these adjustments. Table V-V also con-
tains the adjustment values for the third fare system which is discussed in
the following section. These statistics represent the final 1990 patronage
forecasts used for the financial analyses. For planning and design purposes,
the mode of arrival estimates were later re-analyzed at a much finer level,
as described in Appendix A.
Patronage Estimates for Third Fare System
Unlike the first two fare systems, the estimates for the third fare
system were not developed with the Council of Government's computeriz~d
model framework. Rather, the forecasts were prepared manually at the ju-
risdiction level using the ridership sensitivitjes to fare changes exhibited
between the first two fare systems.
The third fare system is identical to the second in structure, except
that the fare component values are higher (see Chapter IV). Hence, it was
assumed that the distribution of trips produced in each jurisdiction would
be quite similar, although the third al~ternative would yield lower rider-
ship levels. Fare tables for the third system were constructed by computer
and the average fares by jurisdiction for each of the three systems were
calculated. The loss in ridership as the fare levels moved from the second
system (which had the lowest average fare in each jurisdiction) to the first
system were then extrapolated to the computed values for the third system
(which had the higest average fare in each jurisdiction). The resulting
jurisdictional estimates were then totaled for the region and adjusted as
shown in Table V-V. A parallel analysis was used to estimate the number
of trips using the rail system. The trip estimates by their submode clas-
sifications for a typical 21~-hour w~ekday in 1990 and for calendar year
1990 are presented in Table V-Vl.
Annualization of 1990 Transit Trips
The previous two net income analyses noted that annualization factors
forpublic transit have stabilized since the mid-1960's after a drop-off
promulgated by the five-day work week and the advent of home television.
This analysis, therefore, employs the same generalized relationship which*
was based on the experience of Washington area bus companies and the ex-
perience of rail rapid transit in other cities.
PAGENO="0728"
TABLE V-V
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENTS TO 1990 WEEKDAY TRANSIT FORECASTS
Fare System
(Separate Fares)
Fare System II
(Free Transfer-Low)
Fare System III
(Free Transfer-Moderate)
Adjustment for Parking Saturation
Commuter Rail Trips
Non-School Intrazonal Trips 2/
Additional Maryland Territory-
Net Adjustment
1,638,050
(38,613)
(14,1468)
114,366
/4,1+00
(214,315)
1,613,735
1,696,1413
(37,960)
(14,1495)
114,899
14,556
(23,000)
1,673,1413
Excludes commuter rail trips which do not use WMATA facilities.
V Includes three traffic districts in Montgomery County and two in Price Georges County.
Excludes supplemental estimates outlined in Chapter VI.
Unadjusted 1990 Weekday Patronage
Adjusted 1990 Patronage Used for
Financial Planning~!
1,597,914311
(35, 852)
114,000
14,302
(1 7, 550)
1,580,393
WMPTA-Tr~ffic, fl ~venu e. and Opcrnt~ng Costs.1975
PAGENO="0729"
TABLE V-V I
Notes:
1990 ADJUSTED WEEKDAY ANDANNUAL PATRONAGE BY TRIP TYPE1'
Fare System - Separate Fares
Fare System I - Free Transfer - Low
Fare System - Free Transfer - Moderate
Based on patronage fdrecasts provided by the Council of Governments. Supplemental estimates
are excluded.
Annu~1ization factor = 289.3
I
1990 Weekday
Calendar
1990 Annua1~'
Fare System
Fare System
II
II
I
II
III
Total Trips
1,613,735
1,673,1413
1,580,393
466,853,536
484,118,381
457,207,695
Bus Only
577,799
586,6214
553,969
167,157,251
169,710,323
160,263,232
Rail Only
1407,698
397,615
375,533
117,9147,031
115,030,020
108,641,6~7
Combined
628,238
689,1714
650,891
181,749,253
199,378,038
188,302,766
Total Bus
*
1,206,037
1,275,798
1,2014,860
3148,906,5014
369,088,361
3148,565,998
Total Rail
1,035,936
1,086,789
1,026,4214
299,696,285
314,1408,058
296,9414,1463
I.
WMATA-T,affic. R enenun. and Opn~aung Cosns.1975
PAGENO="0730"
1412
The annualization technique for patronage and revenue requires that a
factor be developed for multiplication by any weekday estimate which is to
* be annualized. Althotgh the prior studies had developed factors for separate
areas and for two trip types (rail and non-rail), the analysis conducted
herein did not allow an allocation of the 1990 adjustments from which a
consistent analysis base could be maintained. Hence, the unadjusted 1990
trip estimates (as in Table V-I) were annualized by jurisdiction and the
resultant total annual trips used to compute a single system wide factor.
The annualization factor for a given trip class and geographic area is
based on the peak 2-hour ratio. To convert the peak 1-hour estimates to
2-hour estimates, a factor of 1.63 was computed using the 1968 survey data.
Annualization factors could then be read from Figure V-I, which was developed
in the prior studies. An analysis revealed that the rail and non-rail
regional factors were virtually identical and, hence, the value of 289.3
was used for all subsequent computations. The annualized adjusted trip
estimates are given in Table V-Vl by trip type.
PAGENO="0731"
1413
AUTHORIZED REGIONAL SYSTEM H CURE V-i
TRAFFIC. REVENUE. AND OPERATING COSTS ANNUALIZATION FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS
W.M.A.T.A. REVISED 1975
ALAN M. V0055EES & ASSOCIATES INC.. LOUIST. K1.AUDEA & ASSOCIATES
PAGENO="0732"
1414
Chapter VII
Transit Revenue AnaIIysis
The next major step in the analysis was the computation of system re-
~~venuesorr a-daily and than an annual basis based on the patronage forecast
presented in Chapter V. It was then necessary to develop supplemental es-
timates for fare box and non-fare box sources not included in those estimates
in order to project WIIATAs full revenue-making potential.
1990 DAILY REVENUES
The basic 1990 patronage estimates are contained in zone-to-zone trip
tables which indicate the number of trips traveling between all pairs of
the 1065 zones within the Council of Governments cordon. Similarly, fare
oatrices were developed which contain the fares between each pair of zones.!
Separate trip and fare tables exist for persons walking to the transit
system and those coming by auto (park/ride and kiss/ride) to account for
the different boarding points utilized. Revenues for.these trips were com-
puted by multiplying corresponding elements in the respective trip and fare
tables, and summing the results.Y Weekday revenues for the adjustments
described in the previous section were then estimated manually.
The 1990 basic weekday forecast for Fare System I contains 1,638,050
trips of which ~,~468 use only the commuter rail system. The revenue from
these trips is $881~,887 daily. The four adjustments discussed in Chapter V
then involve a net addition of $16,850 to this amount. The park/ride ad-
justment has been broken into two revenue charge components: those trips
which will not use transit, and those trips which divert to bus access.
Note that for fare system I, the revenue gain from the latter, more than
balances the revenue reduction of the non-transit persons.. Finally, there
is a net technical correction of $7,900 due to anomilies in the forecasting
process. In Table Vl-I the basic weekday revenue sources and adjustments
are summarized for all three fare systems.
Charges for commuter rail rides were not included in the tables used for
revenue estimation. -
Fare System III revenues were computed at the jurisdiction levels using
- average fares and the patronage estimates discussed -in Chapter V.
PAGENO="0733"
TABLE VI-1
1990 WEEKDAY REVENUE SOURCES AND ADJUSTMENTS!!
Revenue in 1976 Constant Dollars
Fare System I Fare System I Fare System
(Separate Fares) (Free Transfer - Low) (Free Transfer - Moderate)
Basic Forecasts' $884,887 $685,400 $972,416.
Park/Ride Trips Diverted from Transit (23,013) (18,676) (26,387)
Park/Ride Trips Diverted to Bus or 32,782 12,579 15,841
Walk Access
Non-School Intra-zonal Trips 3,592 3,725 5,600 I,
V
Additional Maryland Territory- 3,490 2,801 3,479
Technical Correction~ (7,900) 1,054 1,444
Adjusted Weekday Revenue~' $893,838 $686,883 $972,393
Based on patronage forecasts provided by the Council of Governments.
Excludes revenue attributed to commuter rail operations.
Includes three traffic districts in Montgomery County and two in Prince Georges County.
Source: Working Paper #8, "Patronage and Revenue Estimates.'
Excludes supplemental estimates.
WMATA-T~.ffic. R ,`,,~,,,. e~d Op,~~tfrg C~.t~-1975
PAGENO="0734"
1416
1990 ANNUAL REVENUES
As described in Chapter V a regional annualization factor of 289.3 was
selected for financial planning use with the patronage ond revenue forecasts
for calendar year 1990. As part of the financial analysis, the revenues
were allocated to the bus and rail systems. It was possible using various
summary capabilities to identify the transit mode(s) used by each rider and
to break down their fare into the basic components. For Fare System I, no
assumptions were needed to allocate the revenues, as the separate fares paid
to each mode were readily identifiable. For the second and third systems
with a combined structure, however, it was necessary to make an assumption
concerning the base fare or boarding charge. When a trip used only bus or
only rail, this charge was, of course, allocated to the appropriate mode.
However, for combined trips, this component was allocated on a 50-50 basis.
Any bus zone charges were allocated to the bus revenues and the rail mileage
charges for trips over three miles were allocated to the rail system. In
this manner, the allocation was proportional to the amount of service used
on each mode. The allocation was applied to the manually adjusted patronage
as well as the basic forecasts to yield the final calendar 1990 estimates.
As can be seen in Table VI-tI, fare system III would produce the highest
revenues in 1990, despite ge~nerating slightly lower patronage. The bus
revenue is just slightly more than for fare system 1 however, the rail system
generates 18 percent more revenues. The difference in revenues between the
first two fare systems can be attributed.to transfer charges. Each time a
rider transfers in fare system I, an additional 25f in revenue is collected.
The 628,238 daily combined--mode trips, therefore, generate an immediate
$157,000 for their mode change; an estimated $72,000 from further bus-bus,
rail-bus, or bus-rail transfers is also produced. The total amounts to
approximately $66 million of the $258.6 million estimated annual revenue for
fare systesi I. Because of its higher component fare levels, the third fare
system is able to more than make up this amount.
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE ESTIMATES
Tourists and Visitors
Tourists and visitors in a metropolitan area are not part of the re-
sident population which is normally included in the development of regional
travel models. Many of these persons are expected to use the transit system,
particularly as the METRO serves as a tourist attraction in itself. The
previous study estimated that 6,300,000 tourists and `~isitors would use the
system at an average fare (1971 dollars) of 38f. The base fare in 1976 is
5~ more and, hence, an average fare of l~3f was assumed for fare systemt
and II, and 65~ for fare system III. The previous study ridership estimate
was used for the first two fare systems, but the fare system III estimate
was reduced to reflect the same relative levels of fare systems II and III.
These estimates are summarized in Table Vt-Itt.
PAGENO="0735"
TABLE Vt-fl
1990 WEEKDAY AND ANNUAL.ADJUSTED REVENUES BY MODE1"
Revenue in ~976 Constant Dollars
1990 Weekday Calendar 1990 Annuals-" (Millions of $)
Fare System- Fare System
_______________ II .._!`!__._ I II III
Revenue Allocated to Bus $489,369 $348,137. $493,976 $141.6 $100.7 $142.9
Revenue Allocated to Rail 404,469 338,746 478,416 117.0 98.0 138.4
Total Revenuer $893,838 $686,883 $972,392 $258.6 $198.7 $281.3
Average Fare 55.4~ 4l.0~ 6l.5~
NOTES: Fare System I - Separate Fares
Fare System II - Free Transfer - Low
Fare System Ill - Free Transfer - Moderate
Based on patronage fdrecasts provided by the Council of Governments.
V Annualization factor 289.3
Excludes supplemental estimates.
WMATA-I~~f lie. R eceece. ced Ope~ating Co,t,-1975
PAGENO="0736"
1418
Intercity Terminals
Another group of riders not included in the basic forecast arc those
intercity travelers gaining access to the airports, rail stations, and bus
depots of the Washington area. The estimate of 8,600,000 trips for this
category was also taken from the previous study. The average fare was in-
creased from 36~ to tIlf to reflect the higher base fare in this study. The
fare system Ill ridership was estimated to he 8,120,000 trips at an average
fare of 62f. The results are summarized in Table Vt-Ill.
External Commuters
Because of the anticipated problems of driving to work in Washington
and the attractiveness of the regional transit system as a reasonable al-
ternative, it is anticipated that the METRO system will attract commuters
from beyond the study area boundaries. The COG cordon includes a portion
of Loudoun and Price William Counties, which have been included as part of
the basic forecasts. The transit generation rate in the remainder of these
two counties was assumed to be at the same level as the area within the
cordon accounting for an additional 2.17 million annual riders at an assumed
average fare of 85.11.~ from Loudoun County and 89.5~ from Prince William.!'
The surrounding Maryland region, although larger, contains competitive.
destinations in Baltimore and Annapolis. Hence, an equivalent number of
Maryland commuters were assumed at an average of 70.5f. The ~stimates for
all three fare systems are indicated in Table Vt-Ill.
METRO Station Parking
The 1990 parking charges at METRO stations are assumed to range from
5Of to $1.00 in 1976 constant dollars. As indicated in Chapter V, these lots
would be full most of the day with immediate turnover at midday and early
afternoon as spaces become available. Turnover rates of 1.116, 1.119 and 1.113
were computed for the three fare systems, respectively, yielding annual re-
venues of approximately $6 million as summarized in Table Vt-Ill.
Advertising
Based upon the WMATA budget for FY 1976, advertising revenue per bus
in the total fleet was computed at $126. This figure was applied to the 1990
bus fleet. Advertising on rail carswill be assumed to raise an amount re-
lative to the exposure to ridership. Total advertising revenues were, there-
fore, expected to be approximately $500,000 for each fare system. It is
assumed that WMATA policies will not allow advertising or concessions in
stations.
11 Values for fare system I only have been included in the discussion. A
more detailed discussion for all fare systems is contained in Working
Paper #8, "Patronage and Revenue Estimates."
PAGENO="0737"
0
TABLE VI-Ill
CALENDAR 1990 TOTAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL PATRONAGE AND REVEN~JE1'
SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCES
Fa rebox
Tourist and Visitor
Intercity Terminals
External Commuters
Total Farebox
Patronage (Thousands)
Fare System
I II Ill
6,300 6,300 5,950
8,600 8,600 8,120
4,330 4,5145 3,723
19,230 19,4145 17,793
Revenue (Thousands)~
Fare System
___________ II III
$2,709 $2,709
3,526 3,526
3,431~ 3,110
$9,669 $9,345
Non-Fe rebox
METRO Parking
Advertising
Charter
Contract
Total Non-Farebox
Total Sup~lementa1 19,230 19,4145 17,793
BASIC FORECAST 466,854 484,118 457,207
SYSTEM TOTAL ANNUAL 486,084 503,563 475,000
$3,867
5,034
3,632
$12,533
$5, 880
512
4,633
3,296
$14,321
$26 854
$281 313
$308,167
$6,010
518
4,725
3,360
$14,613
$24,282
$258,587
$282,869
$6,130
529
4,905
3,490
$15,054
$24,399
$198,715
$223,114
Based on patronage forecasts provided by the Council of Governments.
21
- In 1976 constant dollars.
WMATA-T~~cf~. ~ ~ ~
PAGENO="0738"
1420
Charter
Charter revenues are dependent upon the availability of equipment and,
hence, should grow at the same rate as the bus fleet. The 19714 ~1MATA charter
revenues of $2.5 million are projected to increase to $5.0 million for 1976,
the year of the Bicentennial and to fall off slightly, being at a level of
$4.5 million in 1981. A 5?~ overall growth rate is assumed between 1981 and
1990 yielding projected revenues of $14.7 million for fare system I. Revenue
for the other two fare systems were adjusted relative to their respective
bus fleet sizes.
Contract Service
Contract service was assumed to grow at a similar rate to charter ser-
vice, however, it was assumed that one major account, the Reston comniuter
service, would be eliminated. These commuters will be assumed to use the
Dulles Access Road regularly scheduled express buses which will feed into the
METRO rail system. Projected 1990 revenues for contract service are shown in
Table Vt-Ill.
TOTAL 1990 ANNUAL REVENUES
The estimated revenues for the regional transit services-offered by
WHATA forcalendar ~`ear 1990 are summarized *in Table Vt-Ill for each of the
three fare system alternatives analyzed. There is some divergence in the
three projections showing the strong influence of the fare structure on re-
venue potential. The patronage estimates do not show as much variance, showing
the relative insensitivity of ridership to fare changes over a reasonable
range. Behind these estimates, a set of very critical assumptions must be
understood. First, the estimates are in terms of 1976 constant dollars. It
is assumed that the fare levels will be adjusted to keep pace with operating
costs. Second, Washington area population will grow as forecast by the
Council of Governments to a 1990 population of just under 4 million. The
revenue forecasts are, of course, heavily dependent on the accuracy of the
COG land use forecasts. Finally, highway and transit construction schedules -
will proceed as planned to provide the assumed levels of transportation ser-
vice to the region in 1990.
REVENUE PROJECTIONS (1977-2020) -
The full financial implications of the net income analysis require that
net income be estimated from the present up to the year 2020. These pro-
jections are based. on the METRO rail phase-in schedule assumed at the start
of this project which assumes system completion by July 15, 1981. The pro-
jections were done in threestages: the phase-in period up to fiscal year
1982, 1982 to 1990, and 1990 to 2020.
PAGENO="0739"
1421
Early Year Estimates (1977-1982)
During the initial years of METRO rail operations, the opening of each
new segment will bring new transit ridership and will divert some present
bus travelers to the rail system. From the Council of Governments, a 1980
full system forecast was available which showed 700,1361. weekday home-based
work trips, compared with 895,4132 in 1992, or 302,000 in 1968...!! When ex-
panded to all-purpose trips, and shifted to the anticipated system completion
year, 1982, a weekday patronage forecast of 1,356,970 was computed.
In the early years, particular attention was focused on that portion of
the system completed to date and on other important ridership characteristics.
Amongst the important assumptions are the following:
o The rail phase-in schedule is as shown Table Ill-I.
o The bus sytem would be altered at the beginning of each
METRO rail phase to feed and complement the new segments.
o The 1982 bus system would resemble the 1990 system, but
with slightly less outer suburban service.
o Park/ride capacity will not inhibit METRO ridership as in
1990.
o The peak hour factor will fall from .1813 to .170 by 1982 and
remain at that level thereafter.
o Mon-work trips which account for roughly 33?~ of.all transit
trips in 1975 will account for approximately 38?~ by 1982.
o Some of the riders projected to ultimately board METRO at
outer stations, would begin to use the system early as closer
in-stations were opened.
o Typical trip lengths will decrease on bus and increase on rail
as later phases are opened.
o Regional population growth will follow the COG projections used
in this study.
o An annualization factor of 290 approximating the current value
was chosen.
The computation of early patronage and revenues were accomplished by
phase on an annualized basis. Estimates for each fiscal year were then
Values presented are from fare system I
PAGENO="0740"
1422
computed considering the proportion of the year each phase would be in op-
eration. The fare system II ridership and revenue as allocated to
bus and rail are given for each phase in Table Vl-lV. Although bus rider-
ship will continue to grow during the early years of rail operations, the
shorter trip lengths will result in lower average bus Fares. Fare system
Ill with the same fare structure shows a similar pattern, but at a higher
level. Fare system I shows revenue growth for both bus and rail during this
period. The forecasts of total patronage and revenues by phase for all three
fare systems are shown in Table VI-V.
Mid-Year Estimates (1983-1990)
Patronage and revenue estimates for the fiscal years from 1983 to 1990
were obtained by linear interpolation between the phase seven estimates and
the 1990 estimates presented earlier in detail. Allowance was made for the
shift between fiscal years and calendar years.
Later Year Estimates (1991-2020)
The extrapolation of ridership trends beyond 1990 required that certain
assumptions be made concerning regional growth. The land use forecasts
used for the basic projections extend only to 1992.!! These population
forecasts were extrapolated on a jurisdictional basis for the area within
the 1065-zone cordon with consideration given to ultimate- holding capacities.
The assumed 2020 population was 5,898,000 as compared to a 1990 population
of `~,l87,000 for the same area. Patronage and revenue estimates for calendar
year 2020 were then prepared for each fare system. The fare system II al-
locations, to bus and rail are indicated in Table VI-IV with a summary for
all three fare 5ystems included in Table Vl-V.' Linear interpolation was
used for the intervening years.
Supplementary Estimates -
Each of the items identified as a source of supplementary revenue was
analyzed separately and assumed to follow the regional patterns in some
growth characteristics such as population or transit ridership. Separate
consideration was given to the expected-surge in charter work during the
Bicentennial celebrations and the replacement of some contract operations
by regularly- scheduled service. Linear interpolation was used as necessary
between time points for which detailed estimates were prepared.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board, Zonal Land Use Allocations for Regional
Travel Demand Forecasts, Altern~ .2 as t-lodified.
PAGENO="0741"
TABLE Vl-IV
ANNUALIZED PATRONAGE AND REVENUE FORECASTS FOR
BUS AND RAIL BY PHASE - FARE SYSTEM III"
Annualized Patronage (Millions) Annualized Revenue (Millions)Y
Rail~' Bus~' Net Rail Bus Total
Phase 2 40.6 154.7 171.5 $ 7.7 $ 72.5 $ 80.2
Phase 2A 59.7 161.5 186.3 13.2 72.4 85.6
Phase 3 73.7 171.8 202.3 18.2 71.6 89.8
Phase 4 106.2 187.2 231.3 25.9 70.2 96.1
Phase 5 l~4O.O 211.4 269.5 40.8 70.5 111.3
Phase 6 179.4 237.4 311.8 52.9 70.6 123.5
Phase 7 284.7 290.5 408.6 92.1 65.7 157.8
Calendar 1990 314.4 369.1 484.1 98.0 100.7 198.7
Calendar 2020 398.8 460.2 606.2 124:3 126.1 250.4
Based on patronage forecasts supplied by the Council of Governments. Supplemental
estimates are excluded.
In 1976 constant dollars.
Includes combined mode trips.
L~
WMATA-ThffT~. ~ ~d Op~~ti~~g Co~-~975
PAGENO="0742"
TABLE Vl-V
ANNUALIZED PATRONAGE AND REVENUE FORECASTS BY PHASE
THREE FARE SYSTEMS!'
Annualized Patronaqe (Millions)
Fare System
Annualized Revenue (Millsions)~~'
Fare System
L
LL
J±L
I I I I I
Phase 2
167.7 *
171.5 *
162.0 $
95.5 $ 80.2 $111.9
Phase 2A
181.7
186.3
176.0
103.2 85.6 120.0
Phase 3
Phase ~
*
197.0
22~4.5
202.3
231.3 *
191.1
2l8.'~
108.3 89.8 126.1
117.8 96.1 136.0
Phase5
261.1
269.5
25J~.5
138.7 111.3 158.2
Phase 6
301.5
311.8
29~i.5
157.~4 123.5 176.6
Phase 7
393.5
1408.6
386.0
2114.2 157.8 238.1
Calendar 1990
`
1466.8
14814.1
1457.2
258.6 198.7 281.3
Calendar 2020
,
5814.5
606.2
557.2
321.1 250.14 3145.6
i/ Based on patronage
are excluded.
forecasts
supplied by the Council
,
of Governments.
Supplemental estimates
In 1976 constant dollars.
.
WMATA-T~3ffic, ~ ~ Op ~th~g Co~t~1975
PAGENO="0743"
1425
GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
There are certain job classifications within a multi-mode transit op-
erating agency for which mode-specific responsibilities are difficult to
assign. These positions are not directly related to transportation and
support the operation of the agency as an agency, per se. Included, amongst
others, are the offices of general manager, general counsellor, treasurer,
and controller and directors of personnel, purchasing, planning, public
relations, and data processing. Also, functions related to marketing, inter-
governmental relations and real estate.
A detailed analysis of the staff requirements for these functions was
~undertaken for 1990. The total personnel requirements was estimated to be
178 with a salary budget of $3,0I~2,L~3Lf in 1976 constant dollars. Support
costs were estimated at $365,092 (12~ of salaries as in current budgets).
For other years, the general and administrative expenses were assumed to
be proportional to the number of riders on the system. Equivalent values
were used for the three fare systems.
PAGENO="0744"
1426
Chapter Vll~
System Oper~thig Costs
The year 1990, which was the design year utilized for patronage fore-
--~---casting,was also used to prepare estimates of full system operating costs.
In addition, detailed estimates were also prepared for the various operating
phases as the system is implemented and for each fourth year beyond 1990.
Regional transit services for all years were assumed to be a single,
unified publicly operated system composed of rail operations of the tIETRO
Authorized Regional System (ARS) and the complementary bus services described
inChapter III. This chapter presents the operating, maintenance and ad-
ministrative expenses estimated for 1990 regional METRO transit operations.
Three sets of operating cost estimates are gi\'en; one for each of the fare
systems considered. The cost differences arise due to the variations in pa-
tronage associated with each fare system. Separate estimates are presented
for rail operations, bus operations and general system administration.
RAIL OPERATING COSTS
Description of the System -
For purposes of this analysis the METRO rail services were assumed to
be implemented in eight operating phases with the full 98 mile system in op-
eration on July 15, 1981. The rail services offered were assumed to be com-
posed of four major lines.
Rockvillm - Glenmont Line
This line would operate from Rockville to Glenmont via the downtown
central business district with major transfer stations at Metro Center and
Gallery Place. An additional transfer station is located at Fort Totten.
Vienna - Mew Carrollton Line
This line operates fromMutley Road in Vienna to Mew Carrollton via
Rosslyn and the upper river crossing into the downtown central business
district and then east to the New Carrollton terminal adjacent to the Beltway
High Speed Rail Station. Major transfer stations are Metro Center and
L'Enfant Plaza. Also, transfers to other lines may be made at Rosslyn and
Stadium-Armory Station.
PAGENO="0745"
1427
Huntington -Addison Road Line
This line would operate from Huntington in Northern Virginia via
Rosslyn and the upper river crossing into the downtown central business dis-
trict and then east to Addison Road. The portion of line from Rosslyn to
the Anacostia River is used jointly with the Vienna - New Carrollton Line.
Major transfer points are Metro Center and LEnfant Plaza. Also, transfers
may be made at Pentagon, Rosslyn and Stadium-Armory.
Greenbelt Road - Branch Avenue, Franconia, and Springfield Line
This line would operate from Greenbelt Road in liaryland into the down-
"~towncentral--business district via Gallery Place and L'Enfant Plaza. South
of L'Enfant Plaza, one branch of the line extends to Branch Avenue and the
other south via the lower river crossing to the Pentagon and then to Spring-
field (Backlick Road) and Franconia. Major transfer points are Gallery Place
and L'Enfant Plaza. Other transfer stations are Fort Totten, Pentagon, King
Street, and Van Dorn.
Six interconnected routes will be in operation with trains moving be-
tween the following terminal points:
~. Rockville and Gelnmont
2. Vienna and New Carrollton
3. Huntington Avenue and Addison Road
14* Branch Avenue and Greenbelt
5. Springfield and Chillum
6. Franconia Road and Chillum.
Turnback facilities to allow frequent service will exist at Grosvenor,
Silver Spring and Chillum.
The railsystem will include 86 stations, 8 of which.will be paired
within common structural envelopes to provide easy transfers between lines.
Fare collection and gating will be handled by automated equipment in stations.
A shop for major repairs and periodic maintenance will exist at T Street.
Addtional service and inspection shops and storage yards will be located at
West Falls Church, Duke Street (near King Street station), Greenbelt Road,
New Carrol Iton, Glenmont, and Rockvi 1 la
Service Patterns -
The system would provide a total of 20 hours daily from 5:00 am, until
1:00 a.m. Table Vll-l and Figure Vll-l present the planned headways. Running
times and distances used in the analysis are shown in Figure VII- Il.
PAGENO="0746"
1428
S Hunt I ng ton
LEGEND
+ Terminal Or Turnback
Early/Late
~ Ira ir~ Head~zay in Minutes
Base Day
Peak Hours
AUTHORIZED REGIONAL SYSTEM
TRAFFIC. REVENUE. AND OPERATING COSTS
FIGURE VII-l
ASSUMED HEADWAYS
Carrol Iton
Pen I
Jison Road
Springfiel
Avenue
ing Street
Francon I ai
W.M.A.T.A.
REVISED 1975
ALAN M. VOOR1tEES & ASSOCtATES.L'JC.. LOWST. StAUDERA ASSOCiATES
PAGENO="0747"
~, q~* Q.
p
0 - -
h
p
C C -~ C C ~ 0
o ~=o- -~~)
ricu~z VII-2
PAGENO="0748"
1430
Estimated Car Requirements
The system car requirements were based upon 1990 traffic estimates. A
loading standard of 175 passengers per car during peak hours and a seated load
of 81 passengers per car during other times was used for the determination of
car requirements. An 8.5 percent spare allowance was used in developing car
requirements.
Using t/MATA policy headways, approximate schedules were developed to
establish train consists based on estimated diurnal patterns of riding. The
schedules take account tEam performance, running time, station dwell time
and car loading standards.
Based upon these assumptions, the estimated system car requirements in
1990 are 5714 cars for fare system I, 630 cars for fare system II, and 5714
cars for fare system III.
System Train and Car Miles
Table VI I-Il presents th~ estimated train-miles and car-miles for the
system, based upon 1990 traffic estimates and assumed headweys.
Direct Labor Expenses
Estimated labor costs have been based on wage levels from the present
WMATA labor agreement for bus operation and main~enance, and salary scales
currently authorized by the WMATA Board.
The established WMATA operation and maintenance policy standards have
been used where available and supplemented as necessary by application of
*experience elsewhere in the rapid transit industry.
Manpower requirements have been established on the basis of the es-
timated operating statistics and reflect the current \ThATA labor agreements
where applicable. lndustry standards have been used ~.here \0~ATA experience
or policy has not yet been established. A total rail staff of approximately
2,900 people will be needed to serve theestimated 1990 passenger volume.
Special attention has been given to the particular characteristics of
the WMATA system and service objectiveS in several critical areas. These
include:
1. Maintenance of the automatic train control equipment on
cars and along the wayside. -
2. Maintenance of escalators and elevators in stations.
3. Maintenance and servicing of automated fare collection
equipment.
~ Manning of kiosks in stations.
PAGENO="0749"
1431
TABLE Vu-I
PLANNED ARS 1990 HEADWAYS
Rockville - Glenmont
Grosvenor - Silver Spring
Vienna - New Carrollton
Huntington - Addison Road
Greenbelt Road - Branch Avenue
Chillum - Springfield
Chillum - Franconia
NOTES: Peak: 7 a.m. - 9 a.m. and 1t:30
Base: 9:30 a.m. - LiL30 p.m. and
7 a.m. - 9 p.m. Saturdays
Early/Late: 5 a.m. - 7 a.m. and
Saturdays; 5 a.m. -
Headwa~' (Minutes)
Peak Base Early/Late
Ii 6 10
Li -- --
Li 6 10
Li 6 10
Li 6 10
8 12 20
8 12 20
p.m. - 6:30 p.m. weekdays only
6:30 p.m. 9 p.m. weekdays;
9 p.m. - 1 am. weekdays and
1 a.m. Sunday
WMATA-Thffk~. R ~d Op~t~g C~t~.1975
PAGENO="0750"
1432
5. Station cleaning.
6. System security.
7. Maintenance of the automatic train control computer system.
An allowance has been provided for small amounts of overtime, where such
arrangements appear to be more economical than additional staffing. The
overtime allowance has ranged between 2 and 5 percent of estimated direct
labor costs, depending upon the functional area. These amounts reflect ex-
perience with modern transit systems elsewhere in North America.
Labor Fringes
Estimated costs include an allowance for labor fringes, based on current
WMATA policy.
The elements making up the fringe allowance by type of staff are as
follows:
Operating. Non-Operating Salaried
Vacation 5.1~O~ 3.2OS~ 8.o0~
Holiday . 3.85 3.85 3.'~7
Sick Leave 3.6~3 11.33 2.99
Pension 12.00 12.00 7.88
Health and Welfare 7.05 7.05 2.814
F.I.C.A. * 5.85 5.85 5.85
D.C. U. OJO ~. .2~J9
Total 37.89~ 141 .38~ 31.l32«=
Material Costs
Estimated expenses for material have been included as appropriate in
each functional area. Special attention has been directed toward energy
consumption and liability insurance costs.
Estimated expenses for purchase of electrical energy have been based on
a detailed analysis of energy needs. The estimate includes energy for
traction power; auxiliary services in stations, tunnels, yards, shops arid
parking areas; air conditioning in stations; and tunnel ventilation. Dis-
tribution losses have also been included.
Estimated expenses for liability coverage include an average allowance
representing 2.5~ of total estimated direct payroll to cover workman's com-
pensation, and approximately 2f per passenger for public liability. Both
provisions reflect general experience in the rapid transit. industry.
PAGENO="0751"
1433
TABLE VII- II
1990 RAIL SYSTEM OPERATING STATISTICS
Fare System Fare System Fare System
____ II .111
Annual Revenu~ Passengers 299,696,300 3114,1408,100 296,91411,500
Annual Revenue Train Hours 521,000 521,000 521,000
Annual Revenue Car Miles 1i9,506,800 51,698,1400 119,200,000
Fleet Size . 5711 630 5711
Route Miles .98 . 98 98
Service Track Miles 196 196 196
Annual Revenue Miles Per Car 86,200 82,100 85,7111
Annual Car Passes Per Service 252,600 263,800 251,000
Track Mile
WMATA-T~&fi~. R ~ ~"d Op,~~ti~g C~,~~.1975
PAGENO="0752"
1434
Stations
Costs for station operations were developed based on an analysis of two
typical stations - Judiciary Square, representing underground conditions,
and Landover, representing above ground conditions. Those were selected using
criteria related to size of mezzanine, structural characteristics and type of
installed equipment.
Cost Escalation
The aggregate l97~ estimates have been escalated to allo~-. for inflation
between now and 1976. The escalation includes expected wage inflation at an
annual rate of 9S~ during the two-year period, end materiel costs at an average
~~aniiualrate of 7.5~.
1990 Rail Operating Cost Summaries
The calendar 1990 rail operating costs as developed for five major func-
tional areas are given in Table VIl-lll. A more detailed breakde~:n is avail-
able in Working Paper No. 7, "Rail Operating Costs." The differences between
the two fare systems can be attributed to the higher patronage estimates for
fare system II. The rail cost estimate for the third fare system is $127
million.
Since the physical characteristics in most l-Il1ATA stations are not alike,
a typical staticn does not necessarily represent the average station. There-
fore, cost estimates for fictitious average above-ground and under-ground
stations have been prepared for comparison purposes.
The average station cost estimate has been established by first aggre-
gating the physical and operating characteristics for all above-ground and
under-ground stations in the system. Then, these totals have been divided by
the number of above-ground and under-ground stations. Cost estimates for
average stations have been developed using the estimating procedure discussed
for the typical stations. These estimates are in Table Vll-IV.
The cost estimate for the typical above-ground station sho-.-:s a decrease
of 4~i~ from the average above-ground station while the typical under-ground
station shows an increase of 7~ from the average under-ground station.
Projected Rail Expenses (1977-2020)
For these estimates, it was assumed that rail operations would commence
June 30, 1975, with full system operation on July 15, 1961. Estimated rider-
ship and operating requirements were used to determine operating costs year
by year during the phasing-in for fare system I. Operating requirements
were then estimated and costs computed for every fourth year for fare system
I from 1982 to 2020. Costs for intervening years were interpolated.
PAGENO="0753"
1435
TABLE VI I-HI
1990 SYSTEM OPERATING COSTS
(1976 Unit Cost Levels)
Fare System Fare System II
Maintenance of Way $ 15,576,000 $ 16,223,100
Maintenance of Equipment 17,202,900 17,789,900
Transportation (Includes Electrical 76,733,700 77,983,200
Energy)
Injuries and Damages 8,~i9O,1OO 8,89~4,l00
General Administration 9,869,1100 9,975,1100
Total $127,872,100 $130,865,700
NOTE: Fare System III data not com~utcd in detail.
WMATA-T,~fh~. P e~'~e. a~d Opeati~g Cost~1975
62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 48
PAGENO="0754"
1436
TABLE VII-IV
SUMMARY OF STATION OPERATING COSTS~!_"
(1974 Cost Levels) =
Annual Operating Cost
Above-Ground Station
Typical $L1OI,900
Average 429,000
Underground Station
Typical $683,100
Average 6514,800
Source: Working Paper Number 7, "Rail Operating Costs."
Based on 1990 fare system I patronage.
WMATA-TraTf~c. Revenue. end Operati~ Costs-1975
PAGENO="0755"
1437
A detailed analysis for fare system II was made for 1990 and a 1990
total cost estimate for fare system I I was extrapolated from these two.
Although fare system II would require more rail cars in 1990 than fare
system I, it was assumed that fare system III would require the same fleet
size. Operating costs for the remaining years were derived from the detailed
early year and fourth year estimates prepared for fare system I. Rail op-
erating costs for selected years for the three fare systems are given in
Table Vu-V.
BUS OPERATING COSTS
As 1~ the two previous net income analyses, a detailed examination of
bus expenses was carried out using the computer-projected 1990 bus route
traffic volumes. In this study, however, it was possible to utilize the
20-months experience of WMATA as the operator of a unified regional bus
system to estimate unit operating costs.
Bus Operating Requirements
As described in Chapter III, an extensive bus system to feed and com-
plement the METRO system was assumed for 1990. This system is indicative in
terms of level of service and operating costs of what will exist in 1990.
to serve the regional growth foreéasts assumed for this project. This ser-
vice will satisfy the various trip types anticipated, with schedules tailored
to meet ridership deliiands or policy considerations. Where volumes are heaviest
service will be scheduled so that ridership never exceeds l2O~ of seats in the
peak, or l00~ of seats in the offpeak. Recent screenline counts have in-
dicated that in the peak, ridership does not exceed 9l4~ of this capacity and
in the of fpeak, approximately 50~. These considerations, therefore, were
incorporated into the estimates of service requirements. It was further
assumed that the average bus in the fleet would contain 50 seats.
A number of other important assumptions based on WMATA or industry ex-
perience were required. Operating costs are most heavily dependent on peak
period requirements. Hence, the 1990 assigned volumes were used to deter-
mine service requirements and cutback points along the length of the 236
assumed bus lines. A similar analysis was carried out for the typical mid-
day hour to estimate base period service requirements. The evening period
demand was assumed to be one-half base levels and service requirements were
again developed on a line-by-line basis. In no case was service scheduled
less than hourly where reasonable demands for service appeared to exist.
It was assumed that 50 vehicles would be required to operate owl service.
Service was assumed to operate at four basic levels during the typical
weekday. In this manner, the buildup and breakdown of peak period service
would be considered. The hours of operation assumed at each level were
then:
Peak 6 hours
Base 6 hours
Might 5 hours
Owl 7* hours
211 hours.
PAGENO="0756"
1438
TABLE VH-V
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RAIL OPERATING COST ESTIMATES-i'
(In 1976 Constant Dollars)
Annual Operating Cotts (Millions)
FARE SYSTEM
Fiscal Year I II Ill
1977 $28.7 $28.8 $28.6
1978 33.3 33.4 33.2
1979 59.6 60.2 59.14
1980 78.0 78.8 77.8
1~8l 87.8 88.8 87.4
1982 123.5 124.6 122.4
1986 125.5 127.6 125.0
1990 127.5 130.5 126.8
1994 131.5 134.0 128.0
1998 133.2 136.5 132.0
2002 135.1 142.0 133.6
2006 139.0 146.2 135.0
2010 145.0 148.0 137.9
2014 147.1 149.6 142.0
2020 149.1 153.5 146.7
1, Early year data assumes the phase-in schedule presented in Chapter III
~iith full operations by July, 1982.
WMATA-T~ff~. S ~d O~t~g C~s'~-1975
PAGENO="0757"
1439
These assumptions includp deadhead and interline running, but neglect layover
time which was estimated at l4.6~.
As described in Chapter V, over 80,000 daily trips will use bus access
because of parking limitations at METRO stations. The bus operating require-
ments were accordingly increased by 3 to 14~ to account for this phenomenon.
The assumed number of buses on the raod in each period for fare system I is
then:
Peak 2,116
Base 8145
Night 1467
Owl 50
The peak vehicle estimate for fare system II is 2,198. The daily operating
requirements for fare systems I and II are given in Table VI -VI
Annual Requirements
In consideration of the number of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays during
the year, a factor of 321 equivalent weekdays was used to determine annual
vehicle-miles and vehicle hours. The annual operating requirements are pre-
sented in Table VIl-Vil. For fare system Ill, the peak vehicle requirement
is estimated at 2,115 with a total fleet size of 2,327 in 1990.
Bus Operating Cost Model"~
A study was made of the detailed operating expenses of the METRO system,
leading to a classification of each operating expense item into one of four
major elements which have been used to allocate particular expense items.
These four elements are: vehicle-hours, vehi cle-mi lee- peak hour vehicles,
and revenue passengers.
This "four factor" formula has been developed to simplify the allocation
of operating costs to individual routes or sectors of the transit network.
Vehicle Hours
The wages of drivers and administrative personnel represents the largest
single element of the cost of the METRO system, having accounted for 66~ of
the total cost per mile in the first seven months of fiscal year 1973-74.
Employees engaged in operating vehicles are paid on an hourly basis; allocation
of this expense would be most properly made on the basis of hours of service.
This is best estimated by the aggegrate vehjcle-hours operated in the system
and this is the basis which has been used to allocate the wages of transit
A more detailed explanation of this analysis is contained in Working
Paper Number 6, "Bus Operating Costs.'
PAGENO="0758"
1440
TABLE VI I-Vt
1990 BUS OPERATING STATIST1CS~!~/
WEEKDAY Fare System Fare System It
Vehicle-Miles 237,250 2I46,41~6
Vehicle-Hours 20,342 21,130
Peak Vehicles 2,116 2,198
Revenue Passengers 1,206,037 1,275,798
76.2
6.53
2,116
348.9
2,328
ANNUAL
Vehicle-Miles (Millions)~-'
Vehicle-Hours (Millions)Y * -
Peak Vehicles 3/
Revenue Passengers (Millions)-
Fleet Size-"
79.
6.78
2,198
369.1
2,418
Excludes requirements for supplemental sources.
2/ . .
- Annualization factor of 321 -
Annualization factor of 289.3
Includes an estimate of l0~ for spares.
WMATA-T~~Ti~. R ~ ~d ~ Cosis-1975
PAGENO="0759"
1441
personnel. Welfare expense of the employees is another classification that
has been allocated on a vehicle-hour basic. Since operating personnel is the
largest group of employees with the bulk of the amount assigned directly to
them, these non-payroll labor costs have been allocated in the sarile manner
as the direct wages.
Vehicle-Miles
Garage expenses such as fuel, lubricants, maintenance and servicing of
revenue equipment, tires, tubes, and other related costs are directly related
to the miles of operation. Engineering expenses has also been assigned to
vehicle-mi les.
-----Revenue-Passengers
Operating costs resulting from personal injuries and property damage
have been assigned to total revenue passengers for the system. Since ac-
cident costs are directly related to the amount of exposure, revenue pas-
sengers is the more appropriate method for allocating these costs.
Peak Flour Vehicles
Expenses resulting from the provision of operating facilities and .storage
is a function of the total number of vehicles required to.operate the system
during peak hours. Maintenance of buildings, grounds, service vehicles, shop
expenses, and miscellaneous operating expenses. are allocated to peak hour
vehicles.
The cost model development used data from Metrobus operations statements
for 1973-74, with appropriate adjustments for a labor dispute which reduced
operations in May, 1974. The unit costs developed were escalated by lO~ to
`reach 1975 levels and by 9~ (compounded.) toreach the 1976 constant dollar
fi~ures used throughout this report. The unit costs in 1976 constant dol-
lars are as follows:!!
Annual Vehicle-Miles $ .4980
Annual Vehicle-Hours~ 15.03
Peak Period Vehicles 4,295.00
Revenue Passengers .0114.
Metrobus financial summaries include an expense under Administrative and
General of costs allocated from METRO Executive Management and Project
Management. Those costs have not been allocated in estimating the model
parameter unit costs. Rather, a separate category of Administrative
Expenses has been developed.
PAGENO="0760"
1442
The 1990 annual operating costs were computed by multiplying each cost ele-
rent by its respective unit cost and summing. A contingency factor of l.5~
was then added in to yield the estimated expenses for scheduled operations
(see Table Vll-VII). WfIATA does not account for depreciation, and it is
assumed that WMATA will pay no taxes for providing the services covered by
this analysis. Supplemental expenses for charter work were assumed to be
at 67~ of revenue and at 8o~ for contract services.
Bus Operating Costs (1977-2020)
Bus operating costs were projected from 1977 to 2020 in much the same
renner as revenues. Separate estimates were made for each phase of early
year operations and a special estimate prepared for 2020. Interpolation was
~then~used from 1982 to 1990 and from 1990 to 2020. The early phase estimates
and the 2020 estimates considered average trip lengths by bus, the proportion
of combined mode trips, and the typical fares generated under these assumptions.
Between 1977 and 1982, the length of the average trip on bus was estimated to
fall from 4.01/ miles to 2.5 miles. For 1990 and 2020 these values are ex-
pected to rise slightly to 2.7 miles as growth continues in the extremities
of the service territory. For each phase and for 2020, the operating cost
estimates were computed using the cost model and estimates of the four model
parameters. Table Vll-VlIl contains some typical projected operating require-
rents for fare system II. Table VIl-IX summarizes the bus operating costs by
phase for all three fare systems.
Although bus ridership increases in t~he early years, much travel is to
and from the METRO system. These shorter trips do not require as much in
terms of vehicles and man-power. After 1982, bus operating requirements will
continue to grow as population grows and overall ridership increases.
The mean 1975 trip length is assumed to be 4.5 miles.
PAGENO="0761"
1443
TABLE Vll-VH
1990 BUS OPERATING COST SUMMARY-~1
(Thousands)
Regular Schedule Expenses
Contingency 0 l.5~
Subtotal
Charter & Contract Expenses
Total Bus Expenses
FARE SYSTEM
- I II
$1148,261 $1514,083
2,2214 2,311
$150,1485 $156 ,3914
5,838 6,062
$156,323 $162,1456
Ill
$1148, 173
2 ,222
$150,395
5,726
$156, 121
1976 constant dollars. No depreciation or taxes are considered.
WMATA-T~ffe. S ~ ~d Op~t~g C~~tsi975
PAGENO="0762"
TABLE VII- VIII
ANNUALIZED BUS OPERATING REQUIREMENTS BY PHASE
FARE SYSTEM I ii.!
2/.
Revenue-
Annual Vehicle - Annual Vehicle - Passengers
Miles (Millions) Hour (Millions) Peak Vehicles (Millions)
Phase 2 60.8 5.21 1,689 1514.7
Phase 2A 60.14 5.18 1,678 161.5
Phase 3 61.0 5.23 1,697 171.8
Phase 14 61.1 5.214 1,698 187.2
Phase 5 63.0 5.140 1,750 211.14
Phase 6 614.7 5.514 1,798 237.14
Phase 7 65.8 5.6l4 . 1,828 290.5
Calendar 1990 79.1 6.78 2,198 369.1
Calendar 2020 88.2 7.56 2,1451 1460.2
Excluding supplemental estimates.
Based on forecasts provided by the Council of Governments.
WMATA-T,afflc. ~ `~d Op~ti~ Co~t,.1975
PAGENO="0763"
TABLE Vil-IX
ANNUALIZED BUS OPERATING COSTS BY PHASE1'
1976 Constant Dollars
ANNUALIZED COSTS (Mi lions)
FARE SYSTEM
_ _ IlL
Phase 2 $123.14 $1214.7 $119.9
Phase 2A 122.14 124.1 119.3
Phas~ 3 1214.0 125.1 120.3
Phase 4 123.9 125.5 120.7
Phase 5 127.4 128.5 123.6
Phase 6 129.4 131.5 126.5
Phase 7 13O.4 1314.2 129.1
Calendar 1990 150.5 156.4 150.4
calendar 2020 168.4 172.2 165.0
Excluding supplemental service, depreciation and taxes.
WMATA-Tr3ffic. Revenue. and Opecating Costs-1975
PAGENO="0764"
1446
ChapterVW
System Net Reveni~e Ana~ys~s
1977-2020
This chapter presents net revenue forecasts by fiscal year for three fare
-~~systems.---Th~se results have been compiled from data developed in previous
chapters.
ASSUMPTIONS
The projections in this report are heavily dependent on several sets of
underlyinq assumptions. The most important of these is that regional gror:th
will occur at the rates assumed by the Council of Governments. The early year
forecasts are based on Phase 2 being open by July 1, 1976, and the final
* phase opening on July 15, 1981. If implementation of the rail system is
* further delayed, orif regionalgro~,th proceeds faster or slo~:er then an-
ticipated, then the trend in net revenues must be accelerated or decelerated
accordingly.
The cost and revenue projections are in terms of 1976 constant dollars.
It is assumed that f~res will be raised to keep pace with real wage increases
and with increases in the general cost of living.
The patronage and land use forecasts developed by the Council of Gover-
rents for 1992 and by AMV for 1990 and 2020 are assumed to be on a calendar year
basis. Appropriate adjustments have been made to represent these results on
a fiscal year basis. The early year results (1976-1982) were prepared by
phase on an annualized basis, and appropriate proportions alloceted to the
respective fiscal years.
The WMATA compact requires that peak period ridership be forecast by
juri~diction as part of the cost allocation formula. These data, presented
in Appendix A, Table , are based on the fare system II forecasts which
* were subject to detailed adjustments related to mode of arrival. The pro-
cedures for performing these adjustments are outlined in Working Paper
Number 5, `Mode of Arrival Estimates."
The patronage estimates ore heavily dependent on the relative levels of
highway and transit service assumed for 1990. key elements in the assuoed
highway plan include 1-66 inside the Belttay, the North Leg of the Inner
Loop Freeway, the Potomac Free~ay, and a major portion of the Outer Belt~;ay
(Figures lI-I and 11-2). It is basic to the viability of the METRO system
that coordinated bus service feed and complement the Adopted Regional System.
PAGENO="0765"
1447
NET REVENUE FORECASTS
This sectIon summarizes the net revenue results for three fare systems
for fiscal years 1977 to 2020. Detailed results are shown in Table VI H-I
for fare system II , the system selected by WMATA for further detai led
analysis.
The projected net revenues for all three fare systems over the financial
planning horizon are given in Table VlIl-ll. Because of the free transfer
and low base fares, fare system II will never, be able to generate enough
revenue to overcome the high operating costs estimated. Early year operating
deficits would run as high as $90 million and would never fell below $73
cillion (in 1976 constant dollars). For fare system I, revenues would exceed
operating costs by FY 2013. Fare system Ill, with the highest average fares,
``~73uid `shdw ~ositive net revenues from FY 1983 onward.. Net revenues would
then rise steadily to $l43.~ million for FY 2020.
SUMMARY
It has been transit policy in the Washington area that there he a reason-
able relationship between the amount of service used by a rider and the fare
charged. Additionally, the fare structure must be related to the costs of
providing service. There are many other criteria which a fare structure
must meet to ensure equity amongst transit users and to foster other civic
objectives.
In the last few years, Washing.ton area residents have realized the vital
role transit plays and have been willing to subsidize `a portion of bus op-
erating costs. The extent to which residents will continue such support
must be considered by local authorities in setting future fare policy. This
project has developed an estimate of the financial future for transit in
the nation's capitol, and has given the WMATA Board of Directors three dis-
tinct fare alternative to examine.
PAGENO="0766"
Route Station Name
A. `` Van Ness-Nil
Tenley Circle
Medical Center
Grosvenor
Nicholson Lane
Twi nbrook
Rockville
Shady Grove
~ (ounty
e~
PARKING AT METRO STATIONS
ARS-68 NIA-69'
May 71
Resolution
350.
`500
500
1000
1000
500
350
500
500
1000
1000
500
350 350
350
3~___7O~_
500 500
500 500
1000 1000
1000 1000
500 500
1000
1000
500
NIA-71 NIA-71i As Revised
_______ To_Date
0
0
_________~0~~
0
500
1500
1000
500
3000
3500 3000 ____________
500 300 300
500 0
850 300 300
450 0 (100 off-
peek use
2300 6oo 600 only)
500 500 500
250 250 250
1800 1800 1800
2550 2550 2550
2500 2500 , 2500 (1500
- ________- initIal)
2500 2500 2S00
000
Rhode Island Avenue
Brookland
Fort Totten
Takoma
500
500
1000
450
500
500
500
400
DC -
2450
1900
Forest Glen
Wheaton
Glenmont
500
250
1800
*
500
250
1800
Montgomery County
2550
2550
HuntIngton
2000
2000
FaIrfax County
2000
2000
Oklahoma Avenue ,
Minnesota Avenue
Deanwood
Deane Avenue
1000
500
1000
500
DC
1500
500
3500
1150
500
850
1150
2250
500
250
1800
2550
2000
2000
1000
0
327 327
220 220
500
~ 1500 1000 5117 5117
PAGENO="0767"
As Revised
To Date
500
1000
1500
3000
500
500
1000 (Alternate
___Al ignment
1000 _could add
2000 at
terminal)
Route
E
F
G
H
J
Station Name
ARS68
NIA-69
May 71
Resolution
NIA-7l
NIA-71
Cheverly
Landover
New Carrollton
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Prince George's
Co.
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
Chillum
College Park
Greenbelt
500
500
1000
500
500
1000
500
500
1000
500
500
1000
500
500
1000
Prince George's
Co.
2000
2000
2000
Alabama Avenue
500
500~
500
500
2000
500
500
DC
500
500
500
Naylor Road
Suitland
Branch Avenue
500
1000
1000
500
1000
1000
500
1000
1000
500
500
1000
1000
500
500
1000
1000
500
500
1000
1000
Prince George's
Co.
2500
2500
2500
CapItol Heights
Addison Road
250
500
250
500
250
500
2500
250
500
2500
250
500
2500
350
500
DC
Prince George's
Co.
125
625
125
625
125
625
125
625
125
625
0
850
Franconia
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Fairfax County
1000
1000
1000
Telegraph Road
Van Dorn Street
Springfield
`
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
2000
Fairfax County
Alexandria'C[ty
2500
1500
2500
1500
2000
2000
*
2000
2000
2000
PAGENO="0768"
NIA-7l NIA-74 As Revised
To Date
500 300 300
500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000
2000 2000 2000
3500 4000 4000
WMATA
Office of Planning
November 1, 1975
ARS-68 NIA-69 May 71
Route
-K
TOTAL
Station lame
East Falls Church
ArH ngton County
West Falls Church
Dunn LOring
Vienna
Fairfax Uountv
500
500
500
i~
500
1000
2000
-
500
1000
2000
5~9P
500
1000
2000
D.C.
4925
4725
4725
4275
1772
1647
Montgomery County
6050
6050
6050
6050
5550
9050
Prince George's Co.
8125
8125
8125
8125
8125
8350
Arlington County
500
500
500
500
300
300
Fairfax County
Alexandria City
9000
1500
9000
1500
8500
2000
9000
1000
9500
1000
9500
1000
I.
CJ'
Q
PAGENO="0769"
1451
November 21~, 1975 Request Submission #2
GAO Hearing
Question #2 Submit for the record the articles and memoranda submitted
to the Board regarding the organizational position of the
internal auditor.
See the attached items
62-418 0 - 76 - Ft.2 - 49
PAGENO="0770"
1452
GAO Hearing
Question #2
The following is the recommendation of the Study of Bus Management and
operations prepared by Cresap, McCormick and Paget, Inc.
The Office_of Audit Should Report Directly to the General Manager
The Office of Audit is responsible for performing internal auditing
of WMATA's operations, in addition to its major role of auditing WMATA
contractors for the construction program. The internal audit function
entails a review of various financial activities. As a result, the
Office of Audit serves as a "check and balance" through its involve-
ment in analyzing WMATA's processing procedures and methods, as
well as assessing the accuracy of the financial records.
However, to ensure the integrity of the internal audit function, it
is necessary that the Office of Audit does not report organizationally to
any offices that it audits. Under the present structure, in which the
Office of Audit reports to the Office of the Controller, a potential conflict
exists, since the Controller's Office is an area in which a significatft
amount of internal auditing should be routinely performed. Accordingly,
to guarantee full independence, the Office of Audit should report directly
to the General Manager; in addition to ensuring internal effectiveness,
this change will not, in any way, inhibit the Office's external auditing
duties.
PAGENO="0771"
1453
GAO Hearing
Question #2
The following is the staff response to the Cresap, McCormick & Paget
recommendation contained in their management report.
The Office of Audit should report directly to the General Manager (111-15)
In other comments, WMATA has opposed the recommendation that calls for the
positions and functions of Comptroller and Treasurer to be combined. The primary
basis for opposing this recommendation are the Compact provisions which prohibit
the consolidation of the Office of Comptroller with any other office, and the
principle of separation of those functions and activities dealing with the
collection and handling of funds exercised by the Treasurer from the accounting
and audit responsibilities of the Comptroller.
While it is presumed that provision of the Compact will be complied with
and the Comptroller office remain intact and independent rendering moot the
proposal to move the audit function and have it report directly to the General
Manager, it is nevertheless desirable to set out the reasons why the audit
function should remain as a part of the Comptroller's responsibility.
Among the Comptroller functions is a principal responsibility of "watchdog."
The Comptroller exercises a substantial degree of independence in carrying out
responsibilities dealing with accounting, the auditing of funds, both internally
and those of contractors, and in the process of analyzing program effectiveness.
In providing for an independent Comptroller, and in requiring that position not
be combined with any other, the Compact placed in one of the officer positions
of the Authority the broad responsibility for assuring efficiency and integrity
in fund accounting and responsibility both within the Authority and outside with
those with whom the Authority enters into contract arrangements. Following this
concept, the Board of Directors and the General Manager should expect to hold
responsible a major officer of the Authority for assuring a thorough, effective,
independent audit of all financial activities and involvement of WMATA.
It is indeed questionable whether the audit function's directly reporting
to the General Manager might weaken instead of strengthen the process. Under
current operating arrangements, the Board and the General Manager hold the
Comptroller responsible for an effective audit activity. It was realized,
however, in 1969 shortly after construction of the rapid rail system began that
to enhance completely the integrity of the audit operation, it would be necessary
to permit the Director of the Office of Audit to report independently to the
General Manager or to the Board of Directors in those instances and on those
occasions where his judgment indicated this to be desirable. It is also provided,
further to assure integrity, that the Director of Audit submit copies of his
reports to the Treasurer and to the General Manager for their information.
The organization of the internal audit operation and the method by which
the Director of Audit reports was noted and agreed with by Ernst & Ernst in its
audit report of WMATA dated April 30, 1969.
In the light of the above reasoning, it is believed that the organizational
location of the audit function in the Office of the Comptroller best serves the
General Manager, the Board of Directors and the constituent jurisdictions of
the Authority.
PAGENO="0772"
1454
November 2L~, 1975 Request Submission #2
GAO Hearing
Question #3. Submit for the record the Ernst & Ernst management letter
(in lieu of audit report) regarding the organization and
operation of the internal audit function.
See the attached enclosure
PAGENO="0773"
1455
ERNST & ERNST
225 CONNECTICUTAVE.N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
April 30, 1969
Mr. Jackson Graham
General Manager
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
950 So'uth L'Enfant Plaza
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Graham:
Our examination of the financial statements of the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for the year ended June 30, 1968 included
a review of the system of internal control and the accounting procedures of
the Authority. This letter presents our comments and recommendations for
strengthening controls and procedures already in effect.
~y~ems and Procedures
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact, Title
III, Article III, `Officers," states that
The treasurer shall be the custodian of the funds of
the Authority, shall keep an account of all receipts
*and disbursements, and shall make paynients only upon
warrants duly and regularly signed by the Chairman or
Vice-Chairman of the Board, or other person authorized
by the Board to do so, and by the secretary or general
manager; provided, however, that the Board may provide
that warrants not exceeding such amounts or for such
purposes as may from time to tine be specified by the
Board may be signed by the general manager or by
persons designated by him.
In keeping with the Compact, the Office of Secretary-Treasurer has
been the custodian of the Authority's funds, has maintained cash receipts and
cash disbursements records, has prepared bank reconciliations and has made
payments only upon receipt of signed warrants. The Office of Comptroller
prepares all warrints, based on appropriate documenEation, which in-
cludea signed purchase requisitions, signed receiving reports, approved
PAGENO="0774"
1456
invoices and/or statements from ~0ntracting offices, all as applicable. The
Comptroller has been given final authority to sagn Warrants up to $100,000,
and his office prepares checks for all signed warrants. These checks and
duplicate copies of the warrants then are forc7arded to the Treasurer who
examines the warrant copies and signs the checks. The Comptroller's office
also has maintained cash receipts and cash disbursements records. Periodi-
cally these records are compared to assure that they agree. The Comptroller's
office obtains a copy of the monthly bank reconciliation and checks it in
detail. -
There are several areas pertaining to the foregoing about which
we would like to coranent:
(1) The Compact does not define `¼arrants duly and
regularly signed.' Legal counsel should be asked
to study the section of the Compact referred to
above and render his opinion on the meaning of
"warrants duly and regularly signed." When the
warrants are submitted to the Treasurer for
signature, is it sufficient to submit just the
warrant signed by the Comptroller (or other duly
authorized person or persons) or should other
documentation be submitted, including approvals
by persons responsible for seeing to it that the
goods or services actually have been received?
(2) If it is deemed sufficien~to have only the
warrant, indicating approval by the Comptroller,
(or other duly authorized person or persons)
submitted to the Treasurer, some provision should
be made to assure that the Comptroller is re-
quiring proper documentation before his approval.
This can be accomplished by having the internal
auditor make tests, as deemed appropriate by him,
of the documentation (warrants, purchase orders,
invoices, etc.) to ascertain that all necessary
approvals are present.
(3) The Comptroller's office and the Treasurer's
office both have been maintaining detailed cash
receipts and disbursements records. The Comp-
troller's office should continue to maintain
such records as part of the general records of.
the Authority. While the Compact indicates that
the "treasurer .... shall keep an account of all
receipts and disbursements," this requirement
would seem to indicate that it is for the purpose
of maintaining a proper cash balance, rather
than a record-keeping function. It would be de-
sirable to request a legal opinion on this point
t.o. If the Treasurer's office does not inde-
pendently maintain such records, it will, of
course, be necessary for the Comptroller's office
PAGENO="0775"
1457
t'o furnish on a daily basis the information
necessary to enable the Treasurer to administer
his office.
Further, the Treasurer's office has been
reconciling the bank accounts, and the Comp-
troller's has been checking them in detail.
This function should ideally be performed by
the Internal Auditor, but as an alternative,
could be performed by the Comptroller's office,
with periodic independent reconciliations by
- the Internal Auditor. It should then be the
duty of the Internal Auditor or Comptroller
to notify the Treasurer of any adjustments
found to be necessary as a result of the
reconciliation.
Internal Auditor
We understand that the Internal Auditor has been performing both
external and internal auditing functions, i.e., he has audited the records of
outside contractors as they pertain to the Authority and has performed audits
of certain areas within the Authority. At the present time he reports
primarily to the Comptroller and may, if he deems it necessary, report
directly to the General Manager. We feel that ideally the Internal Auditor
should report directly to the Board of Directors. However, as an alterna-
tive, the present organizational set-up ~f having the Internal Auditor report
to the Comptroller can be adequate providing it is always understood that
the Internal Auditor may report directly to the Board at his discretion. We
also, recommend that inasmuch as the Internal Auditor already reports to the
Comptroller on most matters, he should also submit copies of his reports to
the Treasurer and General Manager for information.
Other
(1) At the present time, we understand that the Authority's
accounting manual is in the process of being revised. This is to be commen-
ded, as this manual will aid immensely, and should be updated on a current
basis,
(2) At the time of our audit, a separate payroll bank account had
~~not been established. Currently a separate account is being used. However,
* amounts transferred to the account to cover the payroll are approximations
anddo not equal the amount of the payroll. We recommend that such an
account be utilized on an imprest basis, with deposits being made in the
exact amount of the payroll.
(3) A valuable tool to management is a monthly cash flow analysis,
setting forth the cash requirements and the approximate dates required. This
analysis should ha prepared by the Treasurer and should provide a guideline
for determining cash available for investment and fey forecasting when large
amounts of cash are needed (through sale of investments or otherwise) to
meet payroll, contract payments, etc.
PAGENO="0776"
1458
The foregoing coirrents are subnitted as constructive suggestions
to assist you in strengthening controls and procedures. We appreciate the
opportunity to present these cotirnents and recoarrendations for your considera-
tion, and are prepared to discuss them further at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
PAGENO="0777"
1459
November 214, 1975
GAO HearinN
Question 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.
The cost of a separate bus and rail organization is dependent on
specific organizational arrangement contemplated by the Metro Board of
Directors. The organization can vary from complete separation, with
the bus and rail organizations maintaining a completely separate organ
izational structure to separating the activities to bus and rail, but
maintaining integrated common services such as plant maintenance and
communication maintenance. The detailed costing must thus wait until
the Board's direction has been clearly expressed.
PAGENO="0778"
1460
November ~ 1975 Request (continued)
Page
GAO Hearin~
Question 10. On November 18, 1975 General Graham stated that: "There is not
a single case in established transit property where these functions
(bus and rail management) have been separately organizationally."
Please reconcile for the records the General Manager's state-
ment with the Cresap Report, Appendiz A with regard to the Toronto,
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia properties.
"The three properties cited (Toronto, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia)
confirm the General Manager's testimony that bus and rail transit
~perations are not organizationally separated. The three properties
do separate ~perat ions from development or construction, as does
WMATA. (In SEPTA, the railroad operations refer to commuter rail-
roads, properly separated from rail transit.)"
PAGENO="0779"
1461
November 2~, 1975 Request
GAO Hearing
Question~: 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
Senator Byrd.
See attached.
PAGENO="0780"
1462
~Ao (L~.'~
~tstributlor. D~cc~~bor 9, T~)75
~tro's So~i1'ar~jel r~rort
~ri a l~tter to Con~rsssmao Tho~cas Roos. GA~ reco~endad
o chariqe in for-ot to O~TA's ~terc~oi report inn eystc~. The
recommendation included basic guidalIn~s which the Authority will
~ts rid ~~ort.
Program Control has the rnspoosftility for pre7arlno this
Semi-onnual Re,ort and is requesting the following Off Ices to
~ ~r~atlon tri!z~r1 t~c-~ -~ j~-- .
cf -~or i~o'-~ f~r
oT'< ~nnt! fcllo~ii~o Je'u~ry 1. i°7~
CO~1S, PLNG, MI;'~D, ARCH, EQ~T, OPMT.
b Percentaee of contracts held by
~T~orlty flr'-'c -
:-u~i~c .~d:-;.:
handicapped end add-ons) -
d. Performance indicators for Equl~ent
Contracts - EQMT. (Sub2nlt roles withIn 10 days)
Thu wIll.be conta~ted shortly.to dIscuss your input prior t~
suhrsttlnq the formalized data requested. Hr. Tom Sligh will be the
coordinator for Program Control te~c.-i2dl).
DONALD R. O'HE~RN
111 rcccor, ?ROG
Attachment
Distri but ion
ENOG - (eyes Budq - Sacker
- Waddel I :~T -
PLNG - Pl:tt ARCH - Mevorah
- Dowdy OPMT - Wood
cc: DECO, Reading (3), PROD x
151 iqh/hre/PROG/Dec 9 75
PAGENO="0781"
1463
.2 ~
/) C)000 ~ (D
000000o000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0)
0
PAGENO="0782"
C) ~
C-~)-~ ~
-~oo `-~
0
C~ 0
~ U
o ~
o o
zo
00
00
0
1464
0000000000000000000000000000 0 0000000000000000
~ 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PAGENO="0783"
1465
00
c
0 0
~- 00000000000000000 0 ~
~
PAGENO="0784"
1466
000O00000000000000000000000000000 0 00000000000
PAGENO="0785"
1467
w
ouw ~ 0 00 ~ oowu ~o
,~ 000c0000000000 000000000000000 0 000000000000000
62-418 0 - 76 - Ft.2 - 50
PAGENO="0786"
1468
~ N ~
c~c~o
PAGENO="0787"
1469
< U ~ 0000 0 00000000(000 0 00000000
-00 ~
O 0 00 (0 `0 (0(0 0) 0) 0 (ON
-
0(0 0000 0 00000000000 0 0000000000000 0 00000000
~ 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0
o~ 0) 000c0)NO 0 00 0 0(00 N 00 0
00: ~(0 0 ~c -
o 0
0 0 0
0 - 0 0
0
PAGENO="0809"
1491
o o
0
~ 0 N O~ `-ID 0
0~ flN 0 C~ 0 0 0~S~ 0
0o~..Qo00000ooo.00ooooooo OO0O~00O000000OOoo0O00
0z ooc~0oQo~oo~oooooo00oo 0 000000000N000000000000
PAGENO="0810"
1492
-~00 ~ . .
PAGENO="0811"
1493
PAGENO="0812"
1494
-~o~
~`> ~
U
o 0-
0000000
0 Cl Cl C,
0 000000000(100000000000
0 000000000000
PAGENO="0813"
1495
z ~)IflOOO~OOOOOOOOOOO c~ coOwOoc1-00000wr-.00000000 (0
U ~ 0000000000000000000oOo 0
-~0o (-(0
0< 00000000000000000 0 0000000000000000000000 0 0
0
a))- (0 c~) (0 (0 N 0 0
PAGENO="0814"
1496
U ~ 0 (1
q~-~ 0000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 00 0 00
0~~-UU 0
PAGENO="0815"
OFFiCE OF PAJGRAM
COMPARATIVE DATA REPORT
CONTROL
BY PROJECT UNIT
PAGE NO 35
AS OF: OECEMSEP 12. 1975
CONTRACT
NUMBER
1E3041
1E5041
1E5042
3EG041
6E504O
1970 C:)ST
ESTIMATE
3.969.000 00
1,055.900.00
105260.00
1.794.000.00
0.00
1974 COST
ESTIMATE
6.477.000.00
0.00
0.00
2.860.000.00
232,000.00
ACCUMULATED
BUDGET
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.962,000.00
0.00
TOTAL
COMMITMENTS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
OBLIGATIONS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
CONTINGENCY
AMOUNT
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0.00
TOTAL
42.856.080.00
76.628.000.00
OEOO5O
OEOO9O
IECO5I
1E0091
TE3GSI
1E5051
IESGS2
TESG9I
3E0051
3EG091
6ESG5O
4,175.000.00
56,000.00
11,849.000.00
0.00
1718,000.00
332,000.00
45,600.00
0.00
610,000.00
0.00
3 00
2.86G.C30.0O
52,000.00
36.4O4,000.OG
0.00
3.084.000.00
0.CO
0.00
0.00
699,000.00
0.00
163,000.00
8.352.000.00
0.00
0.00
GaO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.002,000.00
129,003.00
3.00
6.463,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CO
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
CO
.00
.00
0.00
TOTAL
18.785.600.00
43,262.000.00
0E0060
IEGGSI
1E3G61
105061
1E5G62
3EGOST
3E5G61
6E5060
6E9G61
4,151.000.00
30,464.000.00
2,126.000.00
610,160.00
51,000.00
1,114.920.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
2.016.000.00
38,623.000.00
3.032.003.00
0.00
0.00
1,791.000.00
0.00
143.00(1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
268.40
GOD
0.00
268.40
GO
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0.00
TOTAL
38.717,080.00
OEOO7O
TEGO7I
1E3071
1E5071
1E5072
300071
685070
3,449.000.00
10,258.000.00
3,101.000.00
258.480,00
69,760.00
456,000.00
0.00
140,000.00
19.012.000.00
5,979,000.00
0.00
0.00
503,000.00
155,000.00
25.789.000.00
0.00
0.00
. 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DOG
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0.GO
TOTAL
17,592,240.00
PAGENO="0816"
1498
U) 0 ~N ` fl- U)
I
o*~ 00000 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000
PAGENO="0817"
1499
0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000 0 OQ000000
0000000000000000000000000000000 0
0000000000000000000000000000000
0o000oo0000000000~0oooo0o00o0oo
0 0 o~ 0 (D
-00 ~
0
4 0 00
04 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000
~ 0 0 00000 0 0
() 0 ~
0 (~) 0 0000 4 ~4 0
62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 52
PAGENO="0818"
WASHINOTON METROP3LITAN AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY
REPORT NO
20
OFFICE OF
HR)GRAM
CONTROL
PAGE NO
38
COMPARATIVE DATA
REPORT
BY PRO~JECT UNIT
AS OF: DECEMBER 12, 1875
CONTRACT
1870 COST
1974 COST
ACCUMULATED
TOTAL
TOTAL
COLT NGENCY
NUMBER
ESTIMATE.
ESTIMATE
BUDGET
COMMITMENTS
OBLIGATIONS
AMOUNT
032
0 DO
0.00
0.00
0.00
1500.00
.00
,3030
0.00
504,000.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
.00
6F9O31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13,140.00-
.00
610032
0.00
0.00
DOD
0.00
0.00
.00
TOTAL
39,334,040.00
61,537,000.00
36.970,003.00
0.00
2.775.178.73
0.00
010040
0.00
0.00
54,000.00
0.00
0.00
.00
1F0041
9,242,000.00
14,351.C30.OO
9,242,000.00
0.00
0.30
.00
1F5041
259,200.00
0.00
342,003.00
ooo
0.03
.00
3F0041
366090.00
506,000.00
380,000.00
0.00
0.03
.00
6F5040
0,00
27,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
TOTAL
9,967,280.00
14,984,000.00
10.026,003.00
0.00
0.00
000
OFOO5O
3,123.000.00
2,472,000.00
5.362,003.00
0.00
0.00
.00
110051
17.171,000.00
31,197.000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
1F3051
2,339,00') 00
4,246,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
1F5051
480.800,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
115052
62,320.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
310051
610,720.00
1,331,000.00
1.409,703.00
0.00
0.00
.00
SF2001
0.00
0.00
92,003.00
0.00
91,S0o,00
.00
6FS050
0,00
169,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
orsosi
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
80.352.00-
.00
TOTAL
23,796,040.00
39,444,000.00
6,063,700.00
0.00
3,146.00
0.00
010060
666,000,00
2,134,000.00
1,634,000.00
14.70
3,976.20
.00
110061
26,730.000,00
44,446.000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
113061
2,405,000.00
5,302,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
1F5061
B0'I,000.00
0.OL
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
1F5002
62,6.10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.Ou
310061
1,179,300.00
1.061,000.00
2,470,400.00
0.00
0.00
.00
SF5060
0.00
145,000.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
.00
TOTAL
33,915,000.00
53,9013,000.00
4.112,400.00
14,70
3,976.20
0.00
010070
2,359,000,1)0
960,000.00
4,433,000.00
0,00
325,906.50
.00
110071
12,657,OT)0.00
16,407,000.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
.00
113071
1,105,000.00
3,274,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
115071
30-1,400.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
1F5072
30,240,1)0
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
.00
310071
523,320.00
712,000.00
032,303.00
0.00
0.00
.00
615070
0.00
162,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
PAGENO="0819"
OFFICE OF PRAGRAM
COMPARATIVE DATA REPORT
CONTROL
BY PROJECT UNIT
PAGE NO 39
AS OF: DECEMEER 2.
CONTRACT
NUMBER
1970 COST
ESTIMATE
1974 COST
ESTIMATE
ACCUMULATED
BUDGET
TOTAL
COMMITMENTS
0.00
TOTCL
OBLIGATIONS
63.O~1.OO-
CaNT IN3ENCY
AMOUNT
.00
SF9071
3.00
0.00
0.00
262925.50
0.00
TOTAL
17.111.960.00
21.595.000.00
5.365.300.00
OFOORO
TFOOSI
TF3ORT
1F3O82
IF5ORT
IFSOR2
310061
SF5080
3.795.000.00
17,205.000.00
2914.000.00
0.00
481,600.00
73440.00
756,400.00
0.00
3755,000.00
29.487.000.00
6.264.000.00
4. T84.000.OO
0.00
0.00
1,T88.000.TO
143.00000
5.139,003.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1561.400.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
.00
CO
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0.00
TOTAL
25.265.440.00
45,021.000.00
6.700.400.00
010080
OFOTOO
110091
310081
615080
0.00
0.00
0 00
0.00
0.00
22T.000.TO
419,000.00
8.075.000.00
244,000.00
:84.000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
.00
.00
.00
CO
.00
0.00
TOTAL
0.00
R,T43,000.OO
0.00
0000TO
100011
TG3OTT
105011
1G50T2
3GOOTI
307011
600011
602011
604011
60S0T0
689,000.00
21.706.000.00
2.401.000.00
560,240.00
57,T2O.OO
1,085.000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.786.000.00
41,344.000.00
4,473.000.00
0.00
0.00
1.233.000 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
T0O.000.OO
2.403,003.00
. 21.706,003.00
3.00
802,003.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
750.00
54.000.030.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 .
1,362,60578
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.308.316 00
32.227.75
5000.00
2000.00
225,000.00
0.00
2.945.109.53
.00
.00
.00
.00
.oo
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0.00
TOTAL
26.498,360.00
49.136.000.00
24.511.003.00
54.000.780.00
000020
100021
103021
105021
105022
300021
307021
1.267.000.00
33,141,000.00
2,782.000,00
835.200,00
66,640.00
1.253,800.00
0.00
1,335.000.00
39,548,000.00
5,433.000.00
0.00
0.00
550,000.00
. 0.00
1.345.003.00
33.141,000.00
3.00
1225.000.00
3.00
0.00 ,
0.00
1 .200.00
53,000.030.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
1.084,761.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
957,751.00
31,807.37
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
PAGENO="0820"
1502
a 0 0
* -*
(DOd d ~cc~dd c
PAGENO="0821"
1503
000000000000000000O 0
C~O~~t flO
0 000 0
0
I
0000000000000000000 0
PAGENO="0822"
1504
PAGENO="0823"
1505
8g~gggg~8ggg~gg8gggggggggggg~ggg g
dodddddoooooooooooooodooddoddcddd
(0
PAGENO="0824"
1506
0 00 000000 000 000 00 00 0 000 00 0
z ~0O00OOO~0O~0O~ooO cc ,-0000.-000ccclccc000000woooccccoo
~.oo -.
000 00 ooocccc 0 0 ~ 000 Qc-cccc 0 0
0 cDc~~-c~ c N ~ mcnc) ~-q~.- cc cc
o a- ,-
0< 000000000000000000 0 0000O000000O0000oooooooooc~
N <00)
PAGENO="0825"
1507
~I)~X'X *~ W
PAGENO="0826"
1508
Dm 0
zo
00
u~ OOO(~)~-0~DOOOOOC)OOO
~ U 0 ~
PAGENO="0827"
1509
0 0 C')OOO
~O4 L)
00 0000000000000 0000000000000000000000000
PAGENO="0828"
1510
~Z U fl~ 0000 fl
~-Q. 0
0 0
O~ 0000 0
~ 00 0
000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000OO0OC~O0OO00000000O0000000O
0
000
0 U U U OUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 0 U U U
PAGENO="0829"
1511
o~ ooooogg~ggggoo~~ggggoo g o~gg~ggooooooooooooo
00000000000000000000000 0 00000000000000000000o
2 ~
PAGENO="0830"
1512 ~
I ~ 000000000 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000
U *~ 000009000 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000
000 00 00 ~ ~000 O.-0 0
PAGENO="0831"
1513
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
o~ 0 0 000 0 000 00 000000 0 000
PAGENO="0832"
1514
000 t-O0 C~lO0O C~ ~00O
~ u P.
0
I
u~ 0000 0 0000000000000000000000000000000 0
0 0 0 0
PAGENO="0833"
1515
(I) ~
-00 `-~
62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 53
PAGENO="0834"
1516
0 -
L)
u~ 00000000000000000000000000 0 000000000000000000
C) C) CC N
PAGENO="0835"
1517
-~oo
o~ 000000 000000
PAGENO="0836"
1518
-00 ~
PAGENO="0837"
1519
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
PAGENO="0838"
1520
o~
v~ NN000 0 O000U~00~t(~400OOOO0C~U) 0 0 0~10C~00O fl
-00 -~ * * . .
Cl W Cl Cl 0 0
0< 00000 0 00000000000000000000 0 0 0 0000000 0
CCC- 10000 0 00000000000000000000 0
o~ -
PAGENO="0839"
1521
00000000 0 0O(000000000000L0 0 000000000000000
000 000
or),-
`-`OO `-~
00000000 0 00000000000000000 0
PAGENO="0840"
1522
PAGENO="0841"
1523
gg~gg~gggg~gg g ggg g ggggg g ggg~gggg~gggggg
0 000000000000000
~ o00000000 0 000 0 00000 0 000000O0~000000
PAGENO="0842"
0 0000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 00000 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00 C 0
N
N C~-~0~c~.- -
~W 0~.0I~
0z
1524
0000000000 0 C'0000000000000000o00 ~00000000o000o
fl 0000000000 0 C 0 0 000 0 00 0 000 0 0 0 00000 0 0000000 0 0 0 00
_:uj 0-0000000
0~ 0000000000
0000000000000
PAGENO="0843"
1525
Z 00000000 0
U
fl N 0 ND fl
PAGENO="0844"
1526
0
PAGENO="0845"
WASHINGTON \ETROP7LITP.TI AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
OfFICE 01 VR,)CFTAM CONTROL
COMPARATIVE DATA REPORT BY PROJECT UNIT
REPORT NO 20
PAGE NO £5
AS OF: OCCEMEES 12. 1075
NUMBER
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
BUDGET
0.00
COMMITMENTS
0.00
OBLIGATiONS
1.00
AMOUNT
.00
524271
5Z5271
5Z627A
5Z6271
5Z7271
5Z827A
528275
5ZE27C
5Z827D
526271
5Z8272
52927C
5Z9270
5Z927E
5ZT127F
5Z927G
5Z927H
5Z9271
0 CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.002.000.00
1.802.000.OT
O.OT
497,000.00
2.049.000.OT
0.OT
0.00
0.00
0.00
117.0)0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,061.000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0_DO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
393.25
1000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
871.16265
1.00
148.00000
1.00
1.00
2.20000
12.55429
11676.41
13000.00
1.00
0.00
225,000.00
130000.00
90,000.00
4,728.60
90,000.00
90000.00
1.00
14.975.130.21
.00
CO
co
.00
.00
.00
CO
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
TOTAL
000
36.219.000.00
9Z928A
9Z928B
9Z929C
9Z9200
9Z928E
9Z928F
9Z928G
9Z926H
9Z928J
9Z9286
9Z928L
9Z928M
3,9R2.A0O.CO
5,965.500.00
7,343.600.00
7,857,600.00
8,372.200.00
8.614.900.00
8,564.900.00
8,447,T0O.00
7.233,000.00
6.358.800,00
0.00
0.00
2.900,000.T0
4,600.000.00
5,665.000.T0
7,857.000.T0
9,372.000.00
8.614,000.00
9,564.000.00
9,447.000.T0
7,233.000.00
6.358.000.00
5,i31,000.T0
2.575.000.00
3.930.000.00
4,800.000.00
6.997.300.00
7.857.600.00
8.372.200.00
0.00
11.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
470,573.00
499.704,00
55.82900
126,615.00
8.510.548.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.663.349.00
4099.520.00
5.337.227.00
6.968.016.00
8078.171.00
9,475.154.00
2.309.972 00
0.00
0.00
0 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.267.970.00
.00
.00
.00
co
.00
Co
CO
.00
.00
.00
.00
0.00
TOTAL
72.740.200.00
76.516.000.00
31.957.100.00
.00
6Z929A
6Z9291
0.00
0 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
0.00
TOTAL
0.00
0.00
1Z5301
4Z0301
4Z0302
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
700,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20,999.734.00
0.00
0.00
7.091,542.20
8,624,00
7,500.00
.00
.00
.00
0.00
PAGENO="0846"
1528
~ o C~C~ N ~
PAGENO="0847"
1529
PAGENO="0848"
1530
November 21k, 1975 Request (continued)
Page 11
GAO Hearing
Question 5. Please reconcile for the record, data for internally generated
funds in your November 10, 1975 Revision No. 2 with the data
presented' in the GAO's statement on November 18, 1975.
On page 5 of the GAO statement, it is indicated through
June 30, 1975, the Transit Authority has earned $160.6 million. Of
this amount $100.0 million has been applied to the construction program
and $5.1~ million has been used to pay Executive Management costs. How-
ever, it indicates also that through FY 1975 $5.9 million has been
applied to the capital construction program. This represents the net
amount applied after the deprogramming or decommitment of $9L~.O of the
capital program through FY 1975 enabled by application of internally
generated funds as explained in the answer to question #8 under the
caption "Questions on the Qudget".
PAGENO="0849"
1531
November 2~-, 1975 Request (continued)
Page 12
GAO Hearing
Question 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,
1975.
The Bechtel test plan for Phase I dated October 27, 1975 with
annotated updates to the progress of testing is attached.
62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 54
PAGENO="0850"
1532
Bechtel Associates
Professional Corporation
TEST.~ SL~RT-UP OFFICE
401 New York Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
December 16, 1975
Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority
.600 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 2001
Attention: B. Waddell
WMATA Construction
Subject: Phase I Test Status
Gentlemen:
As requested this morning, the test plan copy attached has been
marked (in the "GCC Number" column) indicating the testing com-
pleted as of this date. The percentages indicated apply to equip-
ment required for Phase I service and not to all equipment included
in the construction contracTs.
Reporting is by tests with allowances made for uncorrected discrep-
ancies. The numbers are intended to represent test time ratios and
are not weighted for criticality of the test.
A completion status has been assigned to tests conducted by WI~L~TA
Start-Up based upon our understanding of the status and not upon
reports or data files since these are not distributed to this test
group.
In special cases an explan~(tory note has been added to explain the
meaning of the number given. Two tests have been added (written
in) which were not firm at the issue date of the Test Plan.
Ve~~y~ours,
R. A. jones
Test E~ Start-Up Manager
RAJ : vmn
cc: W. Alldredge WMATA
B. Wilhoyt Bechtel
PAGENO="0851"
1533
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY
TRANSIT SYSTEM TEST PLAN
PHASE I
Prepared and Submitted by Bechtel
Associates Professional Corporation
October 27, 1975
PAGENO="0852"
1534
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The objective of the Test Plan is to identify and coordinate
the various tests required by contract specifications and
any further non-contractual tests required to verify the
integration of interdependent subsystems for the fulfillment
of overall system performance objectives.
Included in the plan are two catagories of testing:
1. Contract Acceptance testing.
2. Interface and System testing.
Specifically not included are contract acceptance tests for
transit vehicles and any tests or procedures that may be
required for actual operation and maintenance of the Tran-
sit System. In addition, the OCCB and Brentwood Yard
installations are not included since they were occupied by
WMATA at an early date, except for certain Systemwide con-
tract items,
2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES
Under the requirements of Article 2, C-(ll) and (12) of the
"Scope of Services ~Y 3~975" the General Construction Con-
sultant will make recommendations for written Lest procedures
for implementation by the Authority in the System Test Plan,
coordinate and administer the test plan through the Autho-
rity's Start-Up Manager. -
Administrative procedures for the two catagories of tests are
detailed in the following sections 3.0 and 4.0 and the current
status of approved and pendinq tests and procedures are
covered in Appendices A and B attached.
3.0 CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE TESTING
Contract acceptance test requirements are reviewed to establish
that;
a. Performance and functional requirements of the contract
are being verified.
b. Interface and system requirements of the Transit System
are supported, irrespective of contract requirements.
Recommendations for additional test requirements are processed
into the contracts through normal Authority approved contract
change channels. -. -
PAGENO="0853"
1535
A listing of contract acceptance tests is given
(for Phase I construction ) in Appendix A, Contract Tests,
Phase 1. GCC Activities in the contract test area included;
1. Scheduling of facilities, not under the prine
contractors control, for use during contract tests,
2. Coordinating and providing of inspection and test
services, to witness all tests,
3. Identification of problems affecting final systen
operation for clarification of intent or redesign
(through the GCC Engineering Department) to the
appropriate engineering consultant and the Authority
for action.
4. Assembly of test discrepancies for correction by the
contractor (through the appropriate Resident Engineer)
or waiver by the Authority prior to granting Sub-
stantial Completion.
5. Docunentation of all tests and discrepancies en-
countered.
6. Review, coordination with other appropriate con-
sultants, and appro~al/disapproval of contract
required test procedures for the purposes C a and
b) cited above, when procedures are required by
the contract;
OR
Preparation of test and inspection check lists to
satisfy the purposes when the contract calls only
for equipment demonstration to the satisfaction
of the Engineer.
4.0 INTERFACE AND SYSTEM TESTING
Interf ace and system testing requirements are deduced from
the Transit System design criteria, contract requirements
and performance observations.
A listing of interface and system tests is give in Appendix
B, Interf ace and System Tests, All Phases. These are
organized according to the administrative procedures
necessary for implementation, into cmtegories:
0
PAGENO="0854"
1536
1. DTS Functional Tests.
2. Interface Tests (Prime Contract Interface)
Miscellaneous interfaces between prime
contractor equipments.
3. Special Tests.
Actions required for this group include;
1. Identification of test requirements and requests
to the Authority, for approval to test.
2. GCC Preparation of test procedures or review and
approval of contractor prepared procedures.
3. Activities 1 .through 5 of Section 3.0.
PAGENO="0855"
1537
APPENDIX A
CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
SECTION
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5.
A6
A7
A8
A9 C SUB)
A9 C SURF)
Traction Power (SSE-l)
Traction Power (551-1)
Train Control
Conununications
Escalators, Phase I
Elevators, I
Kiosk
Fire Lines
Subway' Station Finish
C0m/,o5t~'e
Al-l /00 ~
A2-l
A3-l
A4-l,2 60
A5-l
A6-l
A7-l
A8-l
A9-l(SUB) 6O~ ~
H
r~i~i~5 /t~ paii-s S t-&ve~'e C-a~r5,
~ 5~t~ay. ~c1a/,o~7 vaIuej Ihch~It~ ~c~e (s) Si~a/~c,#,S~
3c4k-~»=c&/21CrIe/ c'a/~~e; fj'hSe Zri'c-p,J ?~`e
CONTRACT
lZlO3l
lZlO4l
lZ2Oll
lZ2O2l
lZ4O5l
lZ4l4l
1Z3091
lZOl9l
Various
Various
AlO 2Z007A
* Surface/Aerial Station Finish A9-l(SURF)
Fare Collection AlO-l
PAGENO="0856"
j~, 9-2-,75~
PAGE Al-i
By PEPCO; incoming cable, mc bus
& main breaker hi-pot. Ac relay
& relay circuit and metering chec
prior to energization.
Mochanical & electrical check and
adjustment of units, ac & dc.
Uigh-Pot of high voltage cable and
bus (15 KV & 750V dc) to ground
and to insulated enclosures,
enclosures to ground, negative
bus, switchgear, transformer &
`rectifier to ground.
Transformer oil checks
Tprns ratio and tap setting
verification, gauge and alarm
sensor checks
Hose test of exterior bus duct
Wiring accuracy checks and centre,
and a 1 nra c1~t.~U I t opuro tion, in-
cluding annunciator panel.
Calibration and setting of relays
Functional checks of UPS.
Functioning & calibration of mote
Full capacity short circuit of
station DC bus.
DC switchgear coordination check"
for `near' and `far' shorts and
heavy train loads.
APPENDIX A - CONTRACT' TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: 1Z1031, Traction Power (SSE-i)
GCC Number Contractor Re~~ ~ T~t1e ` Brief Description/Remarks
PEPCO Feeder
10-1-7 Breaker physical inspection
10-1-7 High Potential Tests *`
A/I /O~
lO_l.i.7
lO_1L.7
Insulating Oil Dielectric
Transformer
0
SE 72975-SG
lO-1-7t Exterior Bus Duct Water-
tightness
10-1-/ Wiriny and Control Circuits
CA~
10-1-7
10-1-7
5-7-74
7-31-.~
Relay Calibration
Inverter & Battery Charger
Telemogawattmeter
DC Bus Short' Circuit *`
S Rail Feeder Coordindtidn'.
Test
PAGENO="0857"
A2-l APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: 1Z1041, Traction Power (ssi-1)*
GCC Number
Contractor
Number
I
Rev.
Issue
Date
Title
.
--
Brief Description/Remarks
A/I /0eZ
7
-1-74
~-1- 74
10-16-
All field installed wiring.
Tiansformer primary cables only
Functional check of trip switch
and breaker operation
Cable continuity and
Insulation Resistance
15 KV Cable Hi Pot
4 Emergency Trip Switches
PAGENO="0858"
WMATA Power racks, Energy
Distribution system and
failure alarm circuits
Breakdown test, procedure-.
vital circuitry portion
of the WMATA train operat-
ing and protection system
Wiring verification pro-
cedure, non-vital circuitry
portion of the WMATA train
operating and protection
system.
RTTJ local ci~eckout
Location checkout of ATP
Track Module.
Location checkout of ATP
slave module.
5 Location checkout of .TWC
Reciever,
S LocuLion chuckout of TWC
Transmitter,
Location checkout of TWC
Fly-by reciever
Location loop checkout
B Location checkout of W~
bonds
S Wiring verification for
lamp circuits of the type
AW signals.
Wiring verification, power dis-
tribution, & ground checks.
All wiring and relay contact
checks for vital circuits.
Wiring and relay contact check,
~non-vital circuits.
Performance check of installed.
Remote Terminal Unit.
Checkout train, track frequencies
1- ~-` I~D.
PAGE A3-l APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: lZ2Oll - Train Control
CCC Number
Co~~or
Rev.
T~.tle
Brief Description/Remarks
I OOZ,
WTP 1.1
WTP 1.2
WTP 1.3
0
WTP 1.4
WTP :1.5
WTP 1.6
WTP 1.7
WTP 1.8
WTP 1.9
WTP:.l.lO
WTP 1.11
WTP 1.12
H
C
C
B
D
B
B
C
A
A
C
C
5/5/75
8/27/7
8/27/7
4/2/75
10/1/
lO/7/
6/15/
6/14/
8/8/7
9/16/
6/15/
6/15/
PAGENO="0859"
Issue
Date
C 10/21/ 4 Wiring and adjustments of
model 55E Switch machines.
B 8/27/75 Inspection and test of ca
installation
B 8/28/75 Inspection and testing of
I I equipment ground
B 9/8/75 Checkout of wiring and ad-
justments of Model 55E
machines when~used to
operate a Hayes "HBP
derail
A 9/16/7 Line circuit test between
train control rooms.
B 9/30/7 Location checkout of Track
Circuit Bridging Receiver
A 9/161-7 Location checkout of way-
side push button boxes.
C 6/l9I~5 Location checkout of the
snow melter panels and
controls
B 8/4/75 Tests and inspection of
power bonds
B 8/23/7 Location checkout of
Maintenance Telephone
System
B 6/11/7 Verification of Speed
Command logic
B 6/11/7 Location checkout of the
Route Decoder, 31038-80,
Gr 35 and Gr 61
ISSUE 2, 10-1-75
PAGE A3-2 APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: 1Z2011 Train Control
GCC Number
Contractor
Number
Rev.
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
/00 To
WTP 1.13
WTP 1.14
WTP 1.15
WTP 1.16
WTP 1.17
WTP 1.18
WTP 1.19
WTP 1.20
WTP 1.21
WTP 1.22
WTP 1.23
WTP 1.24
Room to Room cable checkout
Not applicable to Brentwood
Yard, see WTP 1.28
Train control, voice powered
phone wiring,,
PAGENO="0860"
ISSUE ~ 10-1-75
PAGE A3-3
APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PEASE I
CONTRACT: "~2011-Train Control.
GCC Number
Co~~or
Rev.
ISsue Title
Brief Description/Remarks
/c'o %
WTP 1.25
WTP 1.26
WTP 1.27
WTP 1.28
WTP 1.29
WTP 1.30
WTP 1.31
WTP 2.1
WTP 2.2
WTP 2.3
WTP 2.4
WTP 2.5
WTP 2.6
WTP 2.7
A
11-3-7
Location checkout of
*
Destination
Storage
`Registers, 31038-80, -.
Cr 29 & 30.
Location checkout of
Destination Storage `
Register, 31038-80 Gr. 44
B
6-11-7
~
B,
6-10-7
Location checkout of the
equipment case located in
the yard.
B
6-11-75
Location checkout of the
snow melte; panels and
their controls (in yard).
B
6-27-75
Test operai~ion of the Mode
10 Switch Lock, Applied to
certain hand thrown
switches and derails.
,
A
`
8-22-
` `
5 Checkout of the WCS
Transmitter
A
8-25-
5 Checkout of the WCS Receivi-
C
`.
5-5-7
`
Alignment& adjustment of:
ATP.track circuits and cab
signal levels
B
6-12-
5 Test of door ;and dwell
control module.
C
6-12-
`
5 Test of destination decode:
, & sign interf ace rnodule~
B
11-8-
4 Program stop module.
B
11-14
74 Platform edgelight' contro~
A
9-0-7
WCS Receiver & Transmitter.
1)
1.1-7-7'
Grade Markers.
PAGENO="0861"
fra~ ~ S
PAGE A3-4 APPENDIX A CONTRACT TESTS PHASE I
CONTRACT 1Z2011 - Train Control
GCC Number
Coor
Rev.
Title
. Brief Description/Remarks
B
A
B
A
C
C
A
B
/c'V70
~75-~r~
/00 ~
7.
0
-12- 7E
2-10-
-14-7
-22-7
-17-7
-28-7
-10-7
-17-7
WTP 2.8
WTP 2.9
* WTP 2,10
WTP 2.11
WTP 2.12
D
WTP 2.13
* WTP 2.14
WTP 2.15
WrPz,16
WNATA Train Dispatching
Control *
4 TWC Receiver 3l0~8-50,
Gr 1 & 2 and TWC Trans-
mitter and associated inpu
output signals. *
Testing of interlocking
plant vital circuits.
Verification of the AC 1
Scanning System. *
Verification of Interlocki g
Loop operatiēn and
adjustments.
Test of locally coni~rolled
NX' interlocking as part
of the train operating and
protection system. * * * .
Procedure for thruput *
testing of the ;RTU interf a e,
Checkout of Traffic Lockin .
* *
PAGENO="0862"
C 9/8/75 Performance testing of
type AW Signal.
B 2-19- 5 Tact procedure for way-
side car performance
* tests.
C 5-14- 5.. Test procedure for
station control tests.
C 5-14- 5 Wayside train detection
* and protection tests.
D.9/5/75 Safe braking tests.
C 9/15/75 Testing of the Daily
Safety Test module 31039-
901 Cr 59, its associated
ATP transmitter module
70850-656 Gr 12 and
interconnecting cables
* and controls.
C 8-4-7 Tenting of the single
rail 60 cycle.Ac track
circuits as adopted for
use on WMATA which uses
D.C. for electtical pro-fl.
pulsion.
A 11-20- 4 Test Procedure for cable
transmission system.
4,, LU-I- 15
PACE A3-5 APPENDIX A CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRAcT: lZ2Oll Train control
CCC Number Contractor Tit~
/02~,
-:7
6~O~o
/OO7~
WTP 2.17
WTP 2.18
WTP 2.19
WTP 2.20
WTP 2.21
WTP 2.23
WTP 2.24
WTP 3,1 -
3.5
Brief Description/Remarks
The type AWsignals are part of
the train operating and protectio
system.
Speed command & marker reception
TWC at stations.
Daily Safety Loops.
PAGENO="0863"
ISSUE 2, 10-1-75
PAGE A3-6
C 5/31/ 5 Test procedure for ATO
test of WMATA rapid
transit cars.
Test procedure for daily
safety testing of WMATA
rapid transit cars~
5 Test procedure for runnin
tests of WMATA rapid tran
sit cars.
Test procedure for centra
control office checkout.
5 Manual software subsystem
acceptance demonstration
test procedure
5 Test procedure for point
by point interface testini
between control computer
and train control rooms.
computer Automatic Schedu
Control Test Procedure
System Te~st
ATC system operational
test - individual station
interlocking locations.
ATC system operational
testing - Phase I line
a Not available. To be replaced
by 9.1 & 9.2 for Phase I.
Not available. To be replaced
by 9.2 for Phase I.
CONTRACT: lZ2Oll- Train Control
APP~NDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
GCC Number
Contractor
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
B
l/6/7~
/1%~
ba~eJ ~qo~v
j(~ C*r
Ioo~'~
C
5/14/
4/7/7
6/10/
B
B
WTP 4.1
WTP 4.2
WTP 4.3 -
4.7
WTP 5.0
WTP 5.11
WTP 6.0
WTP 7.0
WTP 8.0
WTP 9.1
2/21/
UPS equipment/Test procedure
not acceptable.
01
01
B 8/3/75
B 9/18/75
- 6/27/~5 Single thread test
o `~ WTP 9.2
/00% WTP 10.0
One time test at Judiciary Sq
only. Computer in~erf~ce pre-
installation verification.
are
A
PAGENO="0864"
4B1010
0%
4131020
/00%
4132010
4B2020
75%
5 Fire and Intrusidn Alarm
System. Breatwood Major
Repair Shop.
n Verifies operation of the
Standard time signals, clock
* and audio clocks at OCCB
Verifies operation of the per-
foraance monitoring system for
PABX, teletypes, and Cable
Transmission System for Phase I
* Measures level of radiation in
tunnel and wayside from Farragu
North to Rhoda Island
*Verifies operation of the tele-
*printer at Brentwood, Rhode
Island, Farragut North and
OCCB (for Phase I)
Verifies percentage of time
each system at each station is
* fully operational
Verifies operation of the Fire
and Intrusion System at each
station including ancillary
* buildings.
~~5UA~ ~, ~jfl-L~75..
PAGE A4-l APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I *
CONTRACT: lZ202l - Communications ______,
GCC Number
Contractor
Number
Issue
Date
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
7-25-7 *Standard Time Distributi
System
3-5-75
8-14-
2-7-75
Not
issuec
as of
10-1-7
9-11-7
7-10-7
Technical Control Facili
System
*Mobile Radio System
Teleprinter System
Availability
5 Fire and Intrusion Alarm
System, Passenger Statio
4132030
0%
4C30l0
75%
4C30ll
qo~
CJ~
Verifies operation of the F~.re
and Intrusion System at
* Brentwood including tic breaker
and substation.
*])ocument Revisions to bo
submitted by Contractor.
PAGENO="0865"
4C3020
5570
4C3021
7C 04
4C3030
4C3040
80%
4C3050
o C7
4C3060
4C4010
0%
4D4020
/00%
5a~pfe~- /esf
0
ISSUE 2 10-1-75
PAGE A4-2 APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS CHASE I
CONTRACT: 1Z2021 - Communication .
GCC Number
Contractor
Number
Rev.
Issue
Date
*
Title
.
Brief Description/Remarks
-26-7
-17-7
-13-7
-16-7
7-10-7
-10-7~
-10-75
-19-7
Public Address System
Public Address System for
Brentwood Major Repair Shop
Closed Circuit Television
(ccTv) Surveillance System
*Escalator D~sp1ay and
Control Panel
*Kiosk Passenger/Attendant
Intercom.
Program Stop Panel
*PABX System, Wayside
Telephone System
Insulation Test *
* Document revisions to be
submitted by Contractor.
Verifies operation of Public
Address System at each station
and from OCCB for system.
Verifies operation of tne Public
Address and paging system in the
Brentwood Major Repair Shop.
Verifies operation of TV system
at each station.
Verifies operation of the panel
in each kiosk.
Verifies operation of the inter-
com installed in each kiosk.
Verifies operation of the panel
in each kiosk of each station
Verifies operation of mach way-
side and kiosk telephone, and
OCCB console for Phase I.
Verifies insulation resistance
of conductors and cables for
the communications system.
PAGENO="0866"
Test Spec~ification,
Initial and Acceptance
Testing, WMATA Escalators.
Escalator open inspection
Escalator acceptance and
* 20 hour test.
Load Test, WMATA Modular
Design Escalators
Motor Overload Protection
Device.
Open inspection of safety, per-
formance and operational
characteristics.
GCC data sheet for `open' pertio
of test.
GCC data sheet for final test,
including operation.
Inital contractor submission
Review comments not yet in-
corporated. Cede requirement.
Type test procedure and test
report.
ISSUE 2, 10-1-75
PAGE AS-i APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: lZ4O5l - Escalators Phase I
GCC Number
Contractor
Number
Rev.
Issue
Date
Title
Brief DescriPtion/Remarks 1
1
2
1
0
7-10-7
8-6-75
7-25-7
4-1-75
9-11-7
635131
~ 635110
6CSl4l
PAGENO="0867"
655210
`1
ISSUE L_1 9- 2-75.
PAGE A6-l
CONTRACT:
APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
1Z4141 - Elevators I
0
GCC Number
Cont1~CtOr ~
Issue
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
Elevator acceptance test
In preparation. Complete test-
ing of hydraulic elevator
PAGENO="0868"
PAGE A7-l APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: 1Z3091 - Kiosk
GCC Number
Rev.
Title -~
Brief Description/Remarks
6C7100 0 -.19-7 Kiosk HVAC & Electrical tinder review. Verififcat ion of
Test. wiring, lighting, air condition-
17L570 ing (exclusive of installed
equipment).
cJ'
c-I'
PAGENO="0869"
1, 9- 2-75.
PAGE A8-l APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: lZOl9l Fire Lines
jGCC Number Contractor I55~ - Title Brief Description/Remarks
6B3303 6-27- 5 Fire Protection, Stand- GCC data list for fire line
/ ~, piping final test and acceptance.
/ V Pressure, flow, bond test and
physical inspection.
PAGENO="0870"
..oow .~, 1O-27-75_
PAGE A9 - 1(SUB)
APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: Subway Station Finish,~t5ieritri `~al Power)
1301
1302
1304
1202
1203
1204
Switchgeur, Pre-energized
Incoming Section (PEPCO)
Transformer Section (PEPCO)
Outgoing SecSon
Feeder CubiclE
Operational Test (Controls)
Battery Bank
Grounding System
Switchg~dr, Energized
Operational Test (Energize
Essential Power Operation
Branch Circuits
Circuit Verification
Transfer Switch (Pumps,
Fans, etc,)
Lighting and Small Power
Lighting Fixtures
Circuit yerification
Flasher arid Control
Emergency Supply
Battery Charger
Trnnsf or Switch & Contactor
Inverter
Cold checks of switchgear (ac)
including control power source
(battery), relays & control
functions, (ready for Utility Co.
tests prior to feeder activation)
Operational checks after energi-.
zation of ac service lineup.
(Available to provide temporary
power)
Major circuit validation, branch
panels, voltage, phase, etc.
Low power circuit & panel vali-
datien (ready for service).
Functioning of supply; charger,
inverter & associated equipment.
GCC Number
Contractor
Number
Rev.
Issue
Date
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1201
1108
1106
1107
1302
1305
6C1O31
90%
6ClO2l
6ClOll
70'70
6C1O12
70%
6C1O13
5-8-75
5-O-7~
5-8-7E
5-8-75
5-0-75
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
PAGENO="0871"
2102
2107
2203
2204
2205
2206
2505
2101
2104
2105
2203
* 2204
2107
* 2410
2501
2503
2505
2506
2507 -
2508
2107
* 2301
Station HVAC and Ancillary
Space Ventilation.
Vent Fan, Exhaust Fan, MIU
Motor Starter
Air Filter (Moving Media)
Electric Heating Coil or
Duct Heater .
Piping and Fittings (HVAC)
Automatic Flow B~.ancing
Valve
Pump
Ancillary Space Heating &
Cooling'
Self-Contained HVAC Unit
Electric or Elect, Cabinet
Unit Heater
Electric Convector
Air Filter (Moving Media)
Electric Heating Coil or
Duct Heater
Chiller Plant
Motor Gtarter
Air Compressor
Centrifugal Water chiller.:
Cooling ToWer.
Pump
Refrigerant Piping
Expansion Tank
Instrumantation
Tunnel Ventilation~.~.
Motor Starter
Primary System (Fan Shaft)
Qualitative' check of AHU, ACU,
ancillary space (AC ~ervice &
Battery rooms, etc.) fans, pumps,
filters, dampers, ducts, heaters
and controls.
Operational check of room AC
and controls, electric heating,
and unit heaters,
Operation of plant; pumps,
chillers, cooling tower & pneu-
matic controlair supply. (Not
applicable to Gallery Place or
Judiciary Square)
Operational check, thermostatic
control, & noise measurements
of tunnel fans, dampers and
local controls.
L1 .iu-2/-75 -
PAGE A9 - 2(SUB) * . APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: Subway Station Finish, (HVAC)
GCC Number
Contractor
Issue
`Titla
Brief Description/Remarks
6C2031
75~%
6C2033
63%
6C2034
eo1~ &e?d .j,
P'ase .1
6C2O32
A
A
A
A
-8-75
5-8-75
5-8-75
5-8-75
cJ'
PAGENO="0872"
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2409
2411
2412
2413
2415
2417
Air & Water Balance
Balance & Testing; Vent,
Exhaust & Air Handler
Balance & Testing; Air and
Water
Temperature Control and
Surveillance
Self-Contained (Mt~ltip1e)
Units
Electric Unit Heater
Heating & Vent Unit, Room
Vent Unit, SAC' Substation
Vent Unit, Traction Sub-
station
Exhaust Fan, General
E::haust Fan, Battery Room
Valve or Damper Operator
Automatic Damper
Thermostat, Space or Duct
Control Pa9ol, AIIU
Remete Indication Interface
UVAC System (Subway Station)
Calibration and operation of the
entire station and tunnel system
including the remote reporting
interface.
PAGE A9 - 3(SUB) APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE 1
CONTRACT: Subway Station Finish, (HVAC)
6C2021
50%
6C20ll
CCC Number
Contractor
Number
Rev.
Date
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
.
2108
2207
5-8-75
5-8-75
Air and water quantitative
performance data.
A
PAGENO="0873"
ISSUE 2, 10-27-7.5
PAGE A9-4(SUB) APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: Subway Station Finish. (Plumbinq)
Water supply & distribution
system, storm & sanitary drains.
y)
Piping and controls, standpipes,
sprinkler systems and portable
extinguishers, (Station & Tunnel).
Storm water pumpsand controls
with remote reporling equipment,
(Union Station & Metro Center
only)
GCC Number
Contractor
Number
Rev.
Issue
~.
vats
Title
.
Brief Description/Remarks
5-8-75
5-8-75
5-8-75
5-8-75
A
3101
3102
3401
3301
3302
3401
3402
3403
2410
3104
6C3Oll
0%
6C3014
/00%
6C30l2
7o7~
6C30l3
Pipework Systems
Valves and Piping
Water Heater
Structure Drains (Non-sanita
Fire Protection Systems
Standpiping System (Wet)
Portable Fire Extinguisher
Pumping Stations J
Structure Drains (non-sanit.
Drainage Pumping Station
(Prepack~aged)
Sump Alarm Sensor
Sewage Ejector Station
Air Compressor
Sewage Ejector (Pneumatic)
Ejector, air
controls and
interface.
supply, piping,
surveillance
c-I,
PAGENO="0874"
1202
1203
1204
1401
Switchgear, Pre-Energized
Incoming Section (PEPCO)
Transformer Section (PEPCO)
Outgoing Sectibn
Feeder Cubicle
Operational Tests (Control)
Battery Bank
Grounding System
Switchgear, Energfzed
Operational Tost (energized)
Essential Power Operation
Branch Circuits
Circuit Verification
Lighting & Smell Power~
Lighting Fixtures
Circuit Verification
Flanker and Control
Emergency Supply
T3attcry Charger
Tranofor Switch & Contac tor
Inverter
Cold.checks of switchgear (ac)
including control power source
(battery), relays& control
functions, (ready for Utility Co.
tests prior to feeder activation)
Operational checks after energi-
zation of mc service lineup~
(Available to provide temporary
power)
Major circuit validation, branch
panels, voltage, phone, etc.
Low power circuit & panel vali-
dation (ready forne~vicc).
Functioning of eupp.I ~` chorcjer
invorter & aenocia ted equipment.
ISSUE .2_i 1O-27-7~_..
PAGE A9-1(SURF)
CONTRACT: Surface/Aerial Station Finish, (~lectrical Power)
APPENDIX A - CONTRACT fESTS, PHASE I
GCC ~
Contractor ~
Title Brief Description/Remarks
C
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1201
1108
1106
1107
1302
1301
1302
1304
6ClO3l
/00 ~
6ClO2l
6ClOll
GClOl2
6ClOl3
/f70 ~
6ClOl4
/ OO7~
5-8-75
5-8-75
5-8-75
3-8-75
5-0-75
A.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C.)'
C~
5-0-75 Snow Melting
Electrical VO~ification
Verification of all components
from the distribution panel
through the molting pads.
(Rhoda Island Avo~ only)
PAGENO="0875"
2102
2106
2107
2203
2204
2505
2101
2104
2105
2203~
2204
2108
2401
2402
2403
* 2404
2405
2406
2407
* 2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2416
Issue
Date
5-8-- 75
A
5-8-75 Ancillary Space Heating &
cooling
- Self-Contained HVAC Unit
Electric or Elect, Cabinet
Unit Heater
- Electric Convector
A. Air Filter (Moving Media)
- *, Electric Heating Coil or
Duct Heater
5-8-75 Air Balance
Balance & Testing; Vent,
Exhaust & Air Handler
5-8-75 Temperature Control
Self-Contained (Multiple)
Units
Electric Unit Heater
Heating & Vent Unit, Room
Vent Unit, AC Substation
Vent Unit, Traction Substati
Exhaust Fan, General
Exhaust Fan, Battery Room
Infrared Heater
Damper Operator
Air Compressor
Automatic Damper
Thermostat, Space or Duct
Control Panel, AHU
- HVAC ~ ~
Qualitative check of AHU, ACU,
ancillavy space (ac service &
battery rooms, etc.) fans, pumps,
filters, dampers, ducts, heaters.
and controls.
ISSUE 2, 10-27-75,. ..: . .
PAGE `A9-2(SURF) . ,`* APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TE~TS,
CONTRACT: `Surface/Aerial Station Finish~,,(HVAC)
GCC Number
Contractor
Number
Rev.
PHASE I
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
Station HVAC and Ancillary
Space Ventilation
Vent Fan, Exhaust Fan, AHU
Infrared Heater
Motor Starter
Air Filter (Moving Media)
Electric Heating Coil or
Duct Heater
Pump
6C203l
/~2O'7~
6C2033
/0O7~
6C202l
/0070
6C2Oll
I0o7o
A
Operational chock of room AC
and controls, electric hooting,
end unit hoators
Air balance quantitative
performance data.
Calibration B operation of the
entire station vent system.
(Rhode Island Ave only)
n .
PAGENO="0876"
.i.~sw 2, 10-27-7,5
PAGE `A9-3(SURF) APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: Surface/Aerial Station Finish, (Plumbing)
GCC Number
Contractor
Number
.
Issue
Date
Title -~
Brief Description/Remarkd
6C3Oll 5-8-75 Pipework Systems Water supply & distribution
100% 3101 *` Valves and Piping system, storm & sanitary drains.
3102 Water Heater
3103 Water Mains (outside bldg)
3401 Structure Drains (non-sanit)
6C3014 * 5-8-75 Fire Protection Systems Piping and controls, standpipes,
o T0 : 3301 Standpiping System (`Wet) sprinkler systems and portable
3302 Portable Fire Ext~.nguishor extingu~hers, (Station).
(.j'
PAGENO="0877"
ISSUE j~, lO-~1-75
PAGE AlO-l APPENDIX A -. CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: 2Z007A - Fare Collection
GCC Number
Contractor
Number
Rev.
Issue
Dath
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
Test deU itio not c apleted this date
PAGENO="0878"
1560
APPENDIX B
INTERFACE AND SYSTEM TESTS - ALL PHASES
CATEGORY TITLE PAGE
1 DTS Functional Tests Bi-l
2 Interface Tests (Prime Contract Interf ace) B2-l,2
3 Special Tests (design proof, etö.) B3-l,2
LEGEND: -
* STATUS/DATE
Al --- Test reccornmendation under review/date of submittal
B/ --- WNATA approval to procede/date of approval
Cl --- WNATA disapproval/date of disapproval
Procedure issued/date of issue
E/ --- Test active/active procedure issue date
PAGENO="0879"
0A2001
/0070
0A2002
0A2003
60'4
0A2004
0A2005
0A2006
0A2007
50~,
0A2008
1. Wiring safety verification, field
status and clara reporting to
Central Control and remote control
from central of the installation
indicated in the test title.
The physical DTS interface is
established during the test at
the field location and all centril
control functions are verified
for operation.
2. Priority placed on Traction Power,
AC Service, Drainage Pumps and
pneumatic control air supply
portion of the Chiller Plant test.
ISSUE 3, 10-27-75
PAGE Bl-J. APPENDIX B - INTERFACE AND SYSTEM TESTS - All Phases
CATEGORY 1 : DTS Functional Tests
LinE
~2-
GCCE~us/
Numbe~ Date
Title
Notes
-~-
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
E/8-5-75
E/8-5-75
E/9-l5-75
B/6-l8-75
B/6-l8-75
8/6-18-75
B/6-18- 75
B/6-l8-75
E & S Element, Traction Power
Substation.
E & S Element, Traction Power
* Tiebreaker Station,
B & S Element, AC Service Room.
E & S Element, Chiller Plant.
E & S Element, Fan Shaft,
E & S Element, Vent Shaft.
B & S Element, Drainage Pump,
B & S Element, Building, Misc.
PAGENO="0880"
Interface between train control
system and edge lights. (Procede
as P.CO's are incorporated)
Interface between central syątea and
station equipment; train control
(high.priority), fare collection
* (low priority), and computer
clock automatic update.
Kiosk supervision of escalators and
fire detection system and passen-
ger gate control of operation.
* NOTE: Elevator - see App. A6.
Rail electrification and communicatio
to 0CC. No test procedure require
* Tests by WMATA Start-Up.
No test procedure required.. Tests by
WMATA Start-Up.
Not essential. Consider after rev-
enue service is established.
No procedure required. Tests by
WMATA Start-U)~.
Deferred to post revenue observation,
non-essential.
Continuing during WMATA Start-Up
program. Any requirement will be
verified by J. Greenway, WMATA.
Fqll lead test. Deferred to post
revenue observation & monitoring.
ISSUE 3, 10-27-75 .. .. *
PAGE B2-l . APPENDIX B - INTERFACE AND SYSTEM TESTS - All Phases
CATEGORY 2 : Interface Tests (Prime Contract Tn~-f~~
ILL(
Jjg,
GCC
Numbe~.
Date
Title
~
-;~;~
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
B/6-18-75
5/6-18-75
A/6-18-75
E/ None
E/ None
A/6-l8-75
E/ None
A/S-lU- 75
A/6-l8-75
A/6-lO-75
0%
EIect~iJic'f1
~M
/0070
IOO7~
O7~
.3+
5/al SLS
Platform Edge Lights.
Standard Time Distribution.
Escalator Indication & Control.
Traction Power Emergency Trip
Stations.
Traction. Power Distribution . . .
to Rails.
Tractien Power Cable Current **
Sharing. * . * . *
Trackwork Cleärance~ * * *
Kiosk Programmed Stop dperatione.
Vehicle Systemwide Communication
Capability. .
Station AC Power Performance.
PAGENO="0881"
Station Fan - Fire Detector
Interlock.
Station Air & Water Balance,
(Under Load).
system.
Fan disable by duct Lire sensor.
Final balancing & verification of
station air conditioning and vent-
ilation under load, (requirements
under review by Engineeriflg)~
0
ISSUE 3, 10-27-75
PAGE B2-2 APPENDIX B - INTERFACE AND SYSTEM TESTS - All Phases
CATEGORY 2: InterLace_Tests (Prime Contract Interfaces)
11.
12.
13.
St
Numbe~ ~
Title
-
-;~;;s
-~
0%
0
~/l0-27-7 Teleprinter - Computer Interface. Ability of teleprinter tape device to
read inputs into the computer
A/l0-27-7
A/6-l8-75
c-i,
PAGENO="0882"
Station and traction power UPS yen-
fication under actual loads. (Pre-
revenue requirement).
Data collection activity for corrosio.
control Engineering evaluation.
Heavyload conditions. Train control
test conducted Aug. 75.
ISSUE ~_, j0-27-7$,
PAGE B3-l APPENDIX D - INTERFACE AND SYSTEM TESTS - All Phases
CATEGORY 3 : Special Test ____________
i~;
No.
G
Numbe~
i~t~W
Date
Title
.
Notes
1
2
3
OA2OlO
/00%
60 ~
o~,o
B/lO-22- 7
E/6-27-75
E/8-15-75
/L)e~' 7~9s~' d,kede'I Oec it; `75
Emergency Power System Perform-
ance,
Rail-to-Earth resistance Tests.
Propulsion Harmonic Effect on
Track Circuits ,
~ S u~'~
AVM47/J aak~s; ~,
PAGENO="0883"
1565
Submission No. 2
November 21k, 1975 Request
Page
GAO Hearing
Question 7. Please submit for the record an analysis of possible increases
in cost or further delays in the delivery of cars from Rohr
Industries.
Rohr is approximately six cars behind in delivery according
to the schedule submitted to us on August 30, 1975. We do not
anticipate serious further slippage in this delivery rate.
Actually, after the delivery of the necessary cars for Phase I
operations, the need for cars is not critical. In fact, they
will present a storage problem.
With regard to costs, Rohr will have certain claims against
us and we will have to direct Rohr to make certain changes, all
of which could increase car costs. However, in our opinion, these
increases will be more than covered by our claims against Rohr and
liquidated damages.
PAGENO="0884"
1566
Submission No. 2
November 24, 1975 Request (continued)
Page
GAO Hearing
Question 8. On November 5, 1975, Metro testified that specifications for the
cars must be met before shipment and on November 18, 1975, the GAO
testified that Metro allowed shipments with known defects. Please
reconcile these statements.
The Authority's position is that cars will not be accepted
unless they meet specifications. However, sometimes it is in the
Authority's interest to make exceptions, particularly when the
exception is a missing part which can be installed by Rohr in
Washington and will not seriously affect the preliminary prepara-
tions prior to testing. For example, when cars are required for
ATC testing, it does not seem appropriate to delay that testing
because the car air-conditioning does not meet specifications.
PAGENO="0885"
1567
November 2!,, 1975 Request
GAO He~jj~
Question 9: Please submit for the record a detailed schedule
of safety related tests of the subway system and
its components.
Safety related tests on the transit cars have
been forwarded previously. Details of safety
related tests on other system components are included
in the attached.
PAGENO="0886"
1568
WASHIEGTO»=T I~1ETROPCLITAN AREA
TRAESIT AUTEORIIY.*
TRANSIT SYSTEM TEST PLAN
PHASE I
Prepared and Submitted by Bechtel
Associates Professional Coroora~ion
October 27, 1973
PAGENO="0887"
1569
1 0 INTRODUCTION
The objective of the Test Plan is to identify and coordinate
the various tests required by contract specifications and
any further non-contractual tests required to verify the
integration of interdependerr s~bsvstems for the fulfillment
of overall system performance objectives.
Included in the plan are two categories of testing:
1. Contract Acceptance testing.
2. Interface and System testing.
Specifically not included are contract acceptance tests for
transit vehicles and any tests or procedures that may be
required for actual operation arid maintenance of the Tran-
sit System. In addition, the OCCB and Brentuood Yard -
installttionS are not included since they were occupied by
WNATA at an early date, except for certain Systenwide con-
tract items.
2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES
Under the requirements of Article 2, C-(ll) and (12) of the
"Scope ~f Services CY 1975 the General Construction Con-
sultant will make recommendations for written test procedures
for irnplememtatiofl by the Authority in the Svstera Test Plan,
coordinate and administer the test plan through the Autho-
ritys Start-Up Manager.
Administrative procedures for the two cataqories of tests are
detailed in the following sections 3.0 and 4.0 and the current
status of approved aqd~pendinq testsand procedures are
covered in AppendicmmA_and B attached. -
3.0 CONTR-RCT ACCEPTANCE TESTING
Contract acceptance test requirements are reviewed to establish
that;
a. Performance and functional requirements of the contract
are being verified. .1:
b. Interface and system requirements of ri-ia Transit System -
are supported, irrespective of .coritract requirements.
Recommendations for additional test requirements are processed -
into the contracts through normal Authority approved contract
change channels.
PAGENO="0888"
1570
A listing of contract acceptance tests is given
(for Phase I construction ) in Appendix A, Contract Tests,
Phase 1. GCC Activities in the contract test area included;
1. Scheduling of facilities, not under the prime
contractors control, for use during contract tests,
2. Coordinating and providing of inspection and test
services, to witness all test~,
3. Identification of problems affecting final system
operation for clarification of intent or redesign
(through the GCC Engineering Department) `to the
appropriate engineering consultant and the Authority
for action.. .. . - -
4. Assembly. of test discrepancies for correction by the
contractor (through the appropriate Resident Engineer)
or waiver by the Authority prior to granting Sub-
stantial Completion~ - . .. .~.. . ,.
5. Documentation of all tests and discrepancies en-
countered... . .
6. Review, coordination with other appropriate con-S
sultants, -and approval/disapproval~of contract
required test procedures for the purposes ( a~:-and
b) cited above, when procefures are required by
the contract; ` . . . . .
OR ..
Preparation of test and inspection check lists to~~
satisfy the purposes when the contract calls only
for equipment demonstration to the satisfaction
- . of the Engineer". - . . .~ . . -V. -. -.
4~O INTERFACE AND SYSTEN TESTING - ~- - .. -.
Interface and system testing requirements are deduced from
the Transit System design criteria, contract requirements
aria perforria'ce obser~atioris
A listing of interface and system tests is givé~in Amnendix
B, Interface and System Tests, All Phases. These are
organized according to the administeative procedures - -.
necessary for implementation, into categories: -. . - --
PAGENO="0889"
1571
1. DTS Functional Tests.
2. Interf ace Tests (Prine Contract Interf ace)
Miscellaneous interfaces between prime
contractor equipnents.
3. Special Tests.
Actions required for this group include;
1. Identification of test requirements and requests
to the Authority for approval to test.
2. GCC Preparation of test procedures or review and
approval of contractor prepared procedures.
3. Activities l..through 5 of Section 3.0.
PAGENO="0890"
1572
APPENDIX A
CJNTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
SECTTON CONTRACT RAGE
Al 1Z1031 Traction Power (SSE-l) Ai-l
A2 1Z1041 Traction Power (551-i) A2-l
A3 1Z2011 Train Control A3-I
A4 1Z2021 Communications A4-l,2
A5 lZ4O5l Escalators, Phase I A5-l : -
A6 1Z4141 Elevators, I A6-l
A7 lZ3O9l Kios} A7-l
A8 1Z0191 Fire Lines AS-i
A9(SUB) Various Subway *Station Finish A9-l(StJB)
A9(STJRF) Various Surface/Aerial Station Finish A9-1(SURF)
A1O 2Z007A Fare Collection A1O-l
PAGENO="0891"
Dy PEPCO; incoming cable, oc bus
& main breaker hi-pot. Ac relay
~ relay circuit and metering chad
prior to energizetion.
Mechanical & electrical chock and
adjustment of units, ac & dc.
IS~g1~Pot of high voltage cable and
bus (15 MV & 750V dc) to ground
and to insulated enclosures,
enclosures to ground, negative
bus, switchgear, transformer &
rectifier te ground.
Transforaeg oil checks
Turns ratio and top setting
verification, goode and alarm
sensor chocks
Hose test of exterior bus duct
ShaG , 0-2-75
PAGE Al-l `AP~1~NDIX A CONTRACT' TESTS, PHASE .1
CONTR~ECT: 1Z1O3L Traction Fewer (SSE-l)
R~V
rT~~
10-1-7
10-1-7
lO-l~7
1 O~lL 7
10-1-7
10-1-7
PEPCO Feeder
Breaker physical inspectior
High Potential Teats
Insulating Oil Dielectric
Transformer
Exterior Bus Duct Water-
tightness
Wiring and Control Circuits
c~11
SM 72075-SO
10-1-74 Relay Calibration
10-1-74 Invertur & flattery Charger
-` Tolcmegawattmo~er
5-7-74 DC Bus Short Circuit
7-~3l~5Rdil Feeder Coordination
* Test
Wiring accuracy checks and centre
and alarm circuit operation, in-
cluding annuncsato.r penal.
Calibration and setting of relays
Functional checks of UPS.
Functioning & calibration of mete
Full capacity short circuit of
station DC bus.
*DC switchgear: coordination check
fo~ `near' end `far' shorts and
heavy train loads.
PAGENO="0892"
All field installed wiring.
Transformar primary cahios only
Functional chock of trip switch
and breaker operation
PAGE A2--l APPI~NDIX A - COFTR~CT TESTS, PHASE I
COIS.1'RACT: 1'2JO4l~Tract~ionPowor `(S5I-l)
Conb:aci~or{R~Issuo ~~jTT~
-1-74
10-16-
Cable continuity and
Insulation Resistance
15 Ky Cable Hi Pot
4 Emergency Trip Switches
PAGENO="0893"
WMATA Power racks, Energy
Distribution system and
failure alarm circuits
I3robkdown test,~procedure-
vital circuitry * portion
of the WNRTA train operat-
ing and protection system
Wiring verification pro-
cedure, non-vital circOitry
portion of the WMATA train
operating and protection
system.
RTIJ local checkout
4 Location checkout of ATP
Track Module.
4 Location checkout of ATP
slave module.
5 Location checkout of TWC
Reciever.'
5 Location checkout of TWC
Transmitter.
Location checkout of TWC
Ply-by reciever
4 Location loop chackdut
5 LocationcheckOut of WE
bonds
5 Wiring verification for
lamp circuits of the type
AW signals.
Wiring verification, power die-
ttihution, & ground chocks.
All wiring and relay contact
checks for vital circuits.
Wiring and relay contact check,
non-vital circuits.
Performance check of installed.
Remote Terminal Unit.
Checkout train, track frequencies
1 o- 2- /5.
PACE A3-l ` i\PPi~NDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: 1/2011 - Train Control.__________
CCC Number
ContracLor
Numbs::'
Rev.
Ic~ue
l)u cc
T~itlo
Dricf Descriptie:i/Rcmsrks
WTP 1.1
WTP 1.2
WTP 1.3
MTP 1.4
WTP 1.5
WTP 1.6
WTP 1.7
NT)? 1.8
WTP 1.9
WTP l. 10
WTP 1.11
WTP 1.12
H
C
C
B
0
H
H
C
A.
A
0
C.
5/5/75
8/27/7
8/27/7
4/2/75
10/1/~
10/7/~
6/1 5[
6/ Ld/
0/8/7i
9/16/
6/15/
6/15/
PAGENO="0894"
is sue
Date
C 10/21/14 Wiring and adjustments of
model 550 Switch machines,
13 B/27/75. Inspection and test of ca
installation:.
B , /_7,S_Inspoction and testing of
equipment ground
P 9/0/74 Checkout of wiring and ad-
justments of Model 55E
machines whan~~used to
operate a Hayes HOP'
derail
A 0/16/7 Line circuit test between
train control rooms.
13 0/~0/73 Location checkout of Track
Circuit Bridging Receiver
A 9/16/7 Location checkout of way-
side puch button boxes.
C 0/191/s Locationi checkout of the
enow melter panels and
controls.
9 3/ /75 Tents and inspection of
power bonds
.13 3/23/7 Location chedk~ut of
Mnintonanco Telephone
Sye3om ,
13 6/1l/7~ `Vorificatioh of Speed
* . Command logic
13 6/11/73 Location checkout of the
Route Docoicor,' 31038-00,
Cr 35 and Gr 61
* No~: applicable *3~ J3rcntwood
* Yard, sea WTP 1.28
Train control, voice powered
phone wiring,,
2, LU-. .1--Ii
PAGE : A3--2 * .,. APPENDIX A CONTRACT TESTS.,' PHASE I
CONTRACT: 1Z2011' -- Train CaLrol'
.
(,~L 210133u.E
Cantructor
Hoister
Rev.
T~L tb
Brief Dancription/Rornarke
L&,
Room to Room cable `checkout
WTI' 1.13
`HIP 1.14
WTP 1.15
WTP 1.16
WTP 1.17
HIP 1 . 18
WTP 1.19
WTP 1.20
HIP 1.23.
3/TO 1.22.
WTP 1.23
WTP 1.24
PAGENO="0895"
Rev,
Issue
Data
WTP 1.25 A :L1-3-7~ Locat:Lon checkou~t of
Destination Storage
* Registers, 31038-80,.-:
Gr 28 & 30.
WTP 1.26 13 6-11-7~ Location che~kout of
Destination Storage
Register, 31038-80 Gr. 44
WTP 1.27 `13. 6-10-75 Location checkout of the
equipment case located in
the yard.
TSP 1.20 8 6-11-75 Location checkout of the
anew melter panols and
their controls (in yard).
WTP 1.20 B 6-27-75 Test operation of the Mode,
10 Owl Lc:h Lock, Applied to
certain hand thrown
switches and derailt.
TSP 1.30 A 6-22-75 Choc1zout of the WCS
Transmitter
WT]? 1.31 A 8-25-~5 Checkout of the WCS `Recoiv
WIT 2. 1 C -5-71 Alignment A adjustment of'
AT]' brash circuits and cab
signal level, a
TSP 2.2 0 6-12- 5 Teat of door ;and dwoll
control module. *
NT]? 2.3 * C 6-12-'5 Test of destination decode
& sign interface module.:.
WTP 2.4 * ` ii ll-8-4 Program stop modulo. `
WTI? 2.5 , ~ 11-14 74 Platform odgolight'contro
WTP 2.6 A 9-8-7~ WCS Receiver & Transmitter.
WTP 2,7 * *~ 8 11-7-7' Credo Markors. , ,
*
6CC Number
Contractor
,,
a umber
i!! Uj~ 2 .L 0-- i.-!! . * ` * . *
bITS' 3-3 APJ?L16DIX A - C0NTR~!C2 TO TS PFA5E I
nONT] AC S .LZ'011- Sr sin Conttol
Title *
Brief Description/Remarks
PAGENO="0896"
WMATA Train Dispatching
Control
TWC Receiver 31038-50,
Gr 1 & 2' and TWC Trans-
mitter and associated inpu
output signals.
Testing of interlocking'
plant vital circuits.
Verification of the AC 1
Scanning System,
Verification of, Interlockii
Loop operation and
adjustments.
Test of locelly controlled
`NX" interlocking no part
of the train operating and
pro tection aye tam,
Procedure for thruput
`testing of the ;RTU interf a
Checkoui~ of Traffic Lockin
..LuUi~ 2
PAGN A3-4.
CONTRACT:
0-i */~ `
A] PFNDIX A - CONTRACT TF TS PHASO 1
`152011 -, Train Control ` ``, `
CCC Number
Contractor
Rev.
Issue
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
STI' 2.0
WTP 2.8
WTP 2.10
WTP 2.11
WTP 2.12
NTP 2.13
WTP 2.14
WTP 2.15
13
S
A
C
A
B
-12-75
2-10-
_l4_7r
-22-7
-17-7
-20-7.
L-lO-7~
)-l7-7.
C.
PAGENO="0897"
C 0/0/75 Performance testing of
type AW Signal.
B 2-19- 5 Test procedure for way-
side car performance
tests.
C 5~14- 5.. Test procedure for
station control tests.
C 5-14- 5 Wayside train detection
and protection tests.
D 9/5,75 Sofa braking tests.
C 0/15/75 _.Teating of the Daily
Safety Test module 31039-
901 Cr 59, its associated
ATO transmitter module
-/0050-656 Cr 12 and
interconnecting cables
and controls.
C 3-'1-7 Tontinq of the single
rail GO cycle AC track
cLrcui. Lc as adopted for
ua~.: on WJSATA which uses
1),C, Ear olectOLcal ore-
puls:Len.
A 11-20- 4 . Tact Procedure for cablt
transmission system.
0
2.:; U; 2,.. 1 0.- 1-7 ~,
PAGE A3-5 API'EETDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT lZ2Oll Train Control
~ umb~ ~ r~j TiUe -
The type AN signals are part of
the train operating end protoctio
system.
Speed command & marker reception
TWC at stations.
Daily~ Safety Loops.
)~
WTP 2.17
WTP 2.10
WTP 2.19
WTP 2.20
WTP 2.21
NT)? 2.23
NT)' 2 .
WTI' 3,1
3.5
PAGENO="0898"
5 Test procedure for ATO
test of EMATA rapid
transit cars.
Test procedure for daily
safety testing of WMATA
rapid transit cars;
S Test procedure for ~unnin
tests of SMATA rapid tran
sit cars.
Test procedure for contra]
control office checkout.
Manual software subsystem
acceptance demonstration
teat ~~rocuc1ure
Teat procedure for point
by point interface testinL
between control computer
and train control rooms.
Computer Automatic Echedu
Control Test Procedure
System Toot
UPS equipment/Teat procedure
not acceptable.
e Net available. To he replaced
by 9.1 4 9.2 for Phase I.
0- 5 5 S
P/~GE A3-~G : APP~~NDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: 152011- Trdln Coril:i.ol
4CC Number
Contractor
Rev.
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
5/3l/~
!/6/7E
5/14/
4/7/75
C
13
C
B
13
C
NT)? 4.1
WTP 4.2
WTP 4.3 -
4.7
NT)? 5.0
NT)? 5.11
NT)? 4.0
WTP 7.0
4/10/ 5
2/21/75
NT)? 0.0 Not available. To be replaced
by 9.2 for Phase I.
NT)? 9.1 13 0/3/75 ATC system operational S
S teal: - individual station
S intetlocking locations. , S
WTP 9.2 `13 ~/10/75 ATC ~syctem operational
S testing - Phase I line , S
NT)? 10 0 A 6/)7/ ~ ~ingle thre~d teA. ~
insLallation veriiicotion
PAGENO="0899"
n Verifi~s operation of the
Standard time signals, clock
and audio clocks at OCCS
y Verifies operation of tOo per-
formance monitoring system for
PABX, teletypes, and Cable
Transmission Syatoe for Phase I
Measures level of radiation in
tunnel and wayside from Farragu
North to Rhode bland
`Verifies operation of the tale-
"printer at Brcntwood, Rhoda
Island, Farregut North and
OCCB (for Phase I)
Verifies percentage of time
each system at e~ich station ic
fully opmration~i1
Verifies operation of the Fire
* , and Intrusion Syrtem at mach
station includinq ancillary
`bu~1dinga.
* Verifies operation of the Fire
`and Intrusion System at
Brentwood including tie breaker
and substation., ,
2 _._UL;..LaJ~L_ ``
PACO M-l ` APPENDIX A CONTRACT TESTS, PRASE I
CONTRACT 152021 - Communications . - `
LonLr~tor
Number
RLV
sue1~~~
Date
401010
401020
4132010
402020
402030
403010
4 C3 011
7-25--- 7
3-5-75
8-14-7
2-7-75
Not
is suat
as of
10-1-7
0-11-7
7-10-7
3 S ~andard Time Distributi
System
Technical Control Facili
Syu tern
3 AS1Obfle Radio System
* Teloprintor System
Availability
S Fire and I~itrucien Alarm
.Syr~em, Passengur Stabio
3 Fire and Intrusion Alarm
- System. Brentwood Major
* Repair Shop. *
*Decdrncnt Revisions to be
submitted by Contractor.
PAGENO="0900"
k Document revisions tc be
submitted by Contrac'(:or.
Verifies operation of Public
Address. System at each station
and'from OCCB for ;cy~tem.
Verifies operation of tao Public
Address and paging system in the
Brentwood Major Repair Shop.
Verifies operation of TV system
at each station.
Verifies operation of the panel
in each kiosk.
Verifies operation of the inter-
com instalLed in c:;ch kiosk.
Verifies oparaincun oC Lhc panel
in each kiosk of each station
Verifies oporation of each way-
side nec) kiosk tcc3.cphone, and
OCCI3 console for Jh~se I.
Vor:i.f to;.; .Lnnu La ccc sea is icance
oic cuncU;c Icon;; ;.nni nt) I cc; (on
LOs; costuun_(.cn t.Lc;n:; nyc.; Ices.
2 , i.i)-.l.-~7I;
lAtE 11-7 ~PPLNDD( A - CON2Dt~CT TESTS PHASE 1
CONTRACT 1Z20 21 - Cosmun:i.oalclon ________ .
CCC Number
Contraclor
Rev.
Issue
Title
Brief Description/Remarks
* 4C3020
4C3O2l
4C3030
`icc :i 01 o
iC 30 50
`l(:3o(;o
`iC') 010
`11)1030
1- 26-7~
)_17_7t
7_l3_7r
1-16-71
7~l0-71
/rI.0~,75
1
Public Address Sy~Lem
PuBlic Add:eosd System `for
Oroatwood Major Repair Shop
Closed `Circuit Television
(ccTV) Surveillance System
5Eccnlator Display and
Control Panel
*Kiosk Passenger/Attendant
Intercom. ,
Program Stop Panel
*PABX System, Wayside
Telephone; ilyst,em *
I;n;;1;; ti_on Tao I
PAGENO="0901"
lACE AS-I
Teat Spectification,
Initial end Acceptance
Testing, WMATA Escalators.
Escalator open inspection
Escalator acceptance and
20 hour test.
Load Test, WMATA Modular
Design Escalators
MoLor Overload Protection
Device.
Open inspection of safety, pcr~
formance and operotional
characteristics.
GCC data sheet for open' portioi
of test.
GCC data sheet for final test,
including operation.
Inital contractor submission
Review comments not yet in-
corporated. Code vequirement.
Type tect".procecluic and teaL
~eporL. -
ADPELfDIX A - C0NTRT~CT TESTS, or-IASE I
CONTRACT: iM4OSl - Escalator:; Phase I .
C LnC ~
~
Cc 1: uLac
riumbar
I uc
Date
S~tlc 1 l3rief Do cr~ L en/Roes: k~
,
1
2
1
0
005131
6B5110
0C5141
7-10-75
9-6-75
7-25-7
4-1-75
9-11-7
PAGENO="0902"
PAGN ~ APPENDIX A CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
GCNTIG\CT: -- 12411 E1ov~i~or~I
* -. Contrdc tox * I ;~uo
LL~~ ~:u:~th~r heV. Titlo Brief Deocription/Remarks
005210 Elevator acceptance test In.preparatien. Complete test-
* ing of hydraulic elevator
ci~
PAGENO="0903"
tinder review. Vorifif cat ion of
wiring, lighting, air condition-
ing (exclusive of installed
equipment).
.[SSUC 1 , 9- 2- 75
PAGE ~ APPEN))IX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
1Z3091 Kiouk
CCC Number
Co~0r
Rev,
I~5ue
Title
Pried Description/Reinerks
0
6C7100
3-19-7 Kiosk HVAC &Electricml
Test.
PAGENO="0904"
Rev.
D~to
GCC data list for fire line
final test and acceptance,
Pressure, flow, bond test and
physical inspect~on.
.t~nou~ 1 5._ 2- /5,
PAGE' AO-l
CONTRACT: 120151 Fi~o Line:;
APPENDIX A -. CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CCC Number Contractor
Number
`603303 -
Title
6-27-'
5 Fire Protection, Stand-
piping
Brief Dcscript;Lon/Rornarks
PAGENO="0905"
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1201
1108
1106
1107
1302
1305
1301
1302
1304
1202
1203
1204
Switchgear, Pro-energized
Incoming Section (PEPCO)
Transformer Section (PEPCO)
Outgoing Seci~ion
Feeder Cubicle
Operational Test (Controls)
Battery Bank
Grounding System
Switchgoar, Energized
Operational Test (Energize
Essential Power Operation
5-8-75 Branch Circuits
Circuit Verification
Tranofer Switch (Pumps,
Fans, etc.)
Lighting and Small Power
Lighting Fixturco
Circuit verification
Flasher and Control
5-0-75 Emergency Supply
Battery Charger
Tranef er Swich & Contactor
Inverter
Cold checks of swifchgaar (ac):
including control power eource
(battery), relays A control
functions, (ready for Utility Co.
tests prior to facher activation)
Oper~tional checke after anergi-
)zation of ac service lineup.
(Available to provide temporary
power)
Major circuit validation, branch
panels, voltage, phase, etc.
Low power circuit panel vali-
dation (ready for rervicc).
Functioning of. supply; charger,
invarter & associated equipment.
Pi~GN A0 - l(SU8)
CONTRACT ~ Power)
API'ENUIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PI-JASh :c
*~;:~;
7.
~°
*-i~: --*--
5-8-75
5-8-75
GClO3l
6ClO2l
OClOll
601012
GC1O13
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
c-fl
PAGENO="0906"
Station JIVAC and Ancillary
Space Ventilation
Vent Fan, Exhaust Fan, AHU
Motor Starter
Air Filter (Moving Media)
Electric Denting Coil or
Duct Floater
Piping and Fittings (FIVAC)
Autoiuati c Flow Ekilancing
Valve
Pump
5-8-75 Ancillary Space Heating &
Cooling
2101 - . Self-Contained UVAC Unit
2l0'i - . Eiectr:Lc or Elect. Cabinet
Uni 1: floater
2100 - Electric Convoc For
2203 A . Air Filter (Moving Fledii~)
2201 - ., Electric loaFing Coil. or
Duct Floater .
5-8-75 Chiller kant . .
2107 . - , Motor Starter
2410 ` - Air Coitpraneor
25(1 L - Con tril.uqal Water Chiller.
2503 . . -~. `, ., . Cooling Tower. ,
2500 - . Puap . , .
2505 - ., l('ofrigereni: Piping
2507 . `- `,.`. Expanu.Lon Tank . . .. . *,
?iOO A In Lrumc ntiti.on
5-8-75 Tunr~el Vontil~jt:1oń,.:.
2107 :.. - . Motor Start~r `.
230.1. ,`, A ` Primary System (Fan Shaft)
Operation of plant; pumps,
chillers, ceol.inr; tower A pneu-
matic control ` ait supply. (Net
applicable to Gel `(cry Place or
Judiciary Square)
Op~ratienal chock, thermostatic
control, A noise measurements
of tunnel fans, dumpers and
local controls.
.1 k 21/3
PAGE A0 -~2 (5013) .`.. .; APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I .
C0NTI(ACT~ `Subway Station P:I.ni. ah,~j[lVAC) `
unb CunL] CtOi
eumbor
itv
1~uc Ii(1C -~
Date
A
2102
2107
2203
2204
2205
2206
~,`505
O C 2031
6C2033
O C2 034
GC2O32
Qualitative check of AND, ACU,
ancillary space (Ac~orvice A
Da'ttery rooms, etc.) f ens, pumps,
filters, dampers) ducts, heaters
and controls.
Operational chock of room AC
and controls, elc:ctric hosting,
and unit heaters.
I.
PAGENO="0907"
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2400
2411
2412
~`1. 13
2415
2417
5-8-- 75 Air & Water Balance
I3aiancc & Testing; Vent,
Exhaust &Air Handler
Balance & Testing; Air and
Water
Temperature Control and
Surveillance
Self-Contained (M~1tiple)
Units -
Electric Unit Heater
Heating & Vent Unit, Room
Vent Unit, AC Substation
Vent Unit, Traction Sub-
station
Exhaust Fan, General
Erhaust Fan, Battery Room
Valve or Damper Operator
Automatic Damper
Thermostat, Spaco or Duct
Control Pegol, Al-lU
Remote indicqtion Interface
1IVAC Syatca (Subway Station)
Calibration and operation of the
entire station and tunnel system
including the remote reporting
interface.
2 10-27-75 .
SAGE AD - 3(EUa) : APPENDIX A -CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: Subway Station E.inish, (I-1VAC) ______________________________
OC 202.1
6C2011
CCC Number
Contractor
Number
Rev.
Issue Titlo Brief Description/Remarks
1)ate
2100
2207
5-0-75
Air and water quantitative
performance data.
A
01
c-c
PAGENO="0908"
Water supply A distribution
system, storm A sanitary drains.
y)
Piping and controls, standpipos,
sprinkler systems and portable
extinguishers, (Station A Tunnel).
Storm water pumps and controls
with remote ropor~:Lng equipment,
(Union Station A MaC_re Center
only).
Ejector, air aupply, piping;
controls and nurvni.llanco
in terfaco.
-21-/a
PAGE A9~ 4 (Eli/I) APPENDIX A CONTRACT TESTS, PHASE I
(014 1 ILl Sub//ay S La Lionl~ nil~(Plumbmnq) ___________ _______
CCC Number
Contractor
Number
Rev.
.
*L~.)~)Cle
Date
TitJ.e
. 1-irie:E Descript.i.on/Rcmarks
GC3Oll
6C3 014
GC30l2
003013
S-8*-75
5~8-75
5-0-75
A
3101
* 3102
3401
3301
* 3302
3401
3402
3403.
2410
:1:1.04
Pipework Systems
Valves and Piping.
Water Heater
Structure Drains (Non-sanite
Fire Protection Systems
Standpiping System (Wot)
Portable Fire Extinguisher
Pumping Stations
Structure Drains (non-sanit~
Drainage Pumping Station
(Prepackaged)
Sump Alarm Sensor
Sewage Ejector Station
Ai.r Cumprossor
Sewage Nj actor (Pneumatic)
PAGENO="0909"
(I~1UO `OAV PU~1SI ~pOt9~)
`~ptd 9u~u o~; iiooi~
10W2C1 uo~:;nq~~sēp ~t~; woc~
s~u~)uodwo~ 1t~ ;o u0ē;12~~ē~GA
~uourcITubo D.T000~ `9 ~0)AUT
`;zo0~-too~:~ IcICIC(flS ~o butuoC~Dun9
:zoj 1cp2'9~) UOT~0p
-T1~~A 1OU~~'d `9 ;TflDtTD toMod Mol
3;o `O~121~([ `Uf)l~1OA `ETOUQcI
~uu~q ~uoT;UpEUA ;TrtD:tTD OOC12N
(tOMOCI
~cd~uo; ~PTAO~d 0 oTq~1T~v)
~dnOUTT ~~TA~DS Dl) jco u01eZ
DO~0l) [DOU,D 1EUOP~~dO
(UOTDI\T~DD D09000 o; DOTOCI s;~o~
.03 Ayr~ē;~ D0j Apl)l)Z) `suoclDunO
IoD;uoD S/1310D `(AJa~'9q)
ODDOOS' ,IDMOCI E0~)U0D S~U'CPflTDUT
(Dl)) D00b3)t.Ml) jo ~ 9103
U0~3~~D9~ IUDT~DD12
9UT;10W MOUS
Do;DDMUI
30~U03 `9 ~tD~1TE~S Dor.oueD~
* 10151U43 ~)~C9
Aiddrt~ 1~uoboolll3
TC)~)U03 ptll2 0D145U.f J
UOT4T)DTOTDOA ~Tfl)) TO
ooX)9x1,1 £)uTRtby-I
* DOMO9 11~UtS 9
U0T~UTTTt0/~ ;T~~T3
s;TDDDT3 lIDUI);tct
UOTtIIOCIQ tDMO9 10TlU0SS~t
(pOZ'CfSXOUO) ~S~I louoT;~t0dO
poz9D0U~ `cl)o)D;TM9
uio;sA~ buTpunOo'9
(10tU0D) s;so~j~ IUUOT)UD0d0
StDTqfl3 009009
U0T009 ~UT0b;fl0
(0399d) U0T009 00U5D095U120J,
* (03d3d) U0't009 J5UTUIODUI
poztou~-ot~ `:tb~ē~
1091
9001
0001
0001
1001
9 001
1001
0001
0011
9011
0011
1001
9011
0011
£011
0011
1011
9L90
00
S L -~`9
`9
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V.
V
V
V
V
`910100
£10109
£101) 0
110139
100139
100100
-- u~~0j ~ ~
-- ~
0~1~ )fl ~
010)100
- ~ J0V190003
* .. I OIS'VHiI `$10011 IDVItINOD `9 XICftIOcTdV (fttflO)1'-GV oovt
* . .;i*-t~-oT `
PAGENO="0910"
2102
2103
2107
2203
2204
2505
2101
2104
2105
220 3~
2204
2100 -
3-3-75
2401 -
2402 -
2(03 -.
2404 -
2405, -
2406 -
2107 A
2400 -
2409 -
211.0 -
2411 :.`
2432 *` -
2413 -
Station I'IVAC and Ancillary:
Space Ventilation
Vent Fan, Exhaust Fan, AHU
In:Erared Floater
Motor Starter
Air Filter (Moving Media)
Electric Heating Coil or
Duct I-looter
Pump
Ancillary Space Heating C
Cooling
Self-Contained EVAC Unit
Electric or Elect. Cabinet.
Unit Heater
Electric Convector
Air Filter (Moving Media)
Electric looting Coil or
1)uc t Floater
Air l3nlanco
l3alance A To,~ting; Vent,
Exhaust & Air Handler
Tespcraturo Control
Sold-Contained (Multiple)
Unite
Electric Unii~ Heater
Hooting & Vent Unit, Room
Vent Unit, AC Substatian- `1'
Vent Unit, Traction Substtti
Exhaust -Fan, General,'
Exhaust Fan, Eattery Room
Infrared 1-leatar
1)amper Operator
Air Compressor ,, `
Automatic l)amper ` -
Thermostat; Space or Duct
Dried Descriptioo/Remarks
Qualitative chock of AMP, ACU,
ancillary space (cc service' C
battery rooms, etc.) fans, pumps,
filters, dampers, ducts, heaters
and controls.
Calibration 4 operation of the
entire station vent system.
(Rhode Island Ave. only)
CCC Number
.1 ()_.`J'/.'/5
PACE `A9-2(SUhF) ., `* APPENDIX A - CONTRACT TESTS, PlIASEl ` `-`f
COFTT2ACT: Surfaco/Aori~1Statjo aF:inish1(HVAC) `
Contr~tctor , Ie~uo ~ -
£(CV. Title
Date
5-0-75
3-8-75
6C2O3l
0C2033
6C2021
CC2Oll
Operational check of room AC
and controls, eluctric heating,
and unit heaters.- -
Air balonce qutnl'.itotive
per foreanco data. -
PAGENO="0911"
3101
3102
3103
3401
3301
3302
Pipework Systems
Valves and Piping
Water Heater. *.
Water. Mains (outside bldg)
Structure Drains (non-sanit)
Firs Protection Systems
Standpiping System (Wet)
Portable Fire Ext~.nguisher
,L~SU~ 2 J.U-2/--75
PAGE A9-3(SURF) . APPENDIX A - C0~TRACT TESTS, PHASE I
CONTRACT: Suririco/Aerl al Station Fini Sb, (P luinbing)
6C3011
6 C30 14
CC1umbcr~°~~°~ ~ Diicr~
5-0-75
5-8-75
Water supply A cl.Lstrihutien
system, storm A uanitrnry drains.
Piping and controls, standpipos,
sprinkler systemu and portable
extinguighers, (Station).
CA~
PAGENO="0912"
.L~SUE :L
LACL AJO-1 AP3?FN1)I" A CONJ~R~CT TLSTS PIIASF I
CONTRACT: 2Z007A - F~iro Co1lcc~ion
~~or
Roy.
Title
Oriof Doscript:~on/Rcearks
Test do1~i itio~t not c rnpleted this date
PAGENO="0913"
1595
APPENDIX B
INTERFACE AND SYSTEM TESTS ALL PHASES
CATEGORY TITLE PAGE
1 DTS Functional Tests :.B1~l
2 Interface Tests (Prime Contract Interface) B2-12
3 Special Tests (design proof, etc.) B3-l,2
LEGEND:
STATUS/DATE
A,! -- Test reccoramendation under review/date of submittal
WHAT?. approval to procede/date of approval
C/ -~ WNATA disapproval/date of disapproval
D/. -~- Procedure issued/date of issue
Test active/active procedure issue date
62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 58
PAGENO="0914"
E/8-5-75 S `& S ]Slcment, Traction Power
Substation.
S & S Eleniont, Traction Powor
Ticnbreaker Station.
1. Wiring safety verification, field
status and alarm reporting to
Central Control and remote control
from central of the installation
indicated in the test title.
The physical DTS interface is
established during the teat at
the field location and all centril
control functions are verified
for operation.
2. Priority placed on Traction Power,
AC Service, Droinage Pumps and
* pneumatic control a1L~ supply
1)OrtiOn of the Chili or Plant test.
IGsUE 3, 10-27-75
PAGE 131-1 APPENDIX B - INTERFACE AND SYSTEM TESTS - All Phases
CATEGORY 1 DTS Functionul Tests ______________
U11 CCL
No. huinl)or
SL~tu /
Dato
fiLlo - -~ -
.
~-----~ - --
.
1.
2
3
4
6
7
[3
OA200l
0A2002
0A2003
0A2004
0A2005
0A2006
0A2007
0A2008
E/8-5-75
E/9-l5-7~
B/6-18-7i
I3/6-l8-7~
13/6-18- 71~
B/6-l8-7~
13/6-18- ~
E & S Element,
E & S Element,
E & S Element,
E & S Element,
S & S Element,
E & S Elemant,
AC Service Room.
Chiller Plant.
Fan Shaft. *
Vent Shaft.
Drainage Pump.
13uildin~, Misc.
PAGENO="0915"
Interface between train control
system and edge lights. (Procedo
as PCO's are incorporated)
Interface between central system and
station equipment; train control
(high.priority), fare collcction
(low priority), and computer
clock automatic updaio.
Kiosk supervision of escalators and
fire detection sysiEr and passen-
ger gate control of opcrat~en.
NOTE: Elevator - ccc App. AG.
Rail electrification sal coeounicatior
to 0CC. No test prccCurc rcquire
Tests by EMATA Stan-Up.
No test procedure requG.red. Taste by
UMATA S tart-Up.
Not essential. Consider after rev-
enue service is caLeblisheLl.
No procedure required. Tests by
WMATA S tort-Up.
Deferred to post revenue obeorvabion,
non- ussontial.
Continuing during WNATA Start-Up
program. Any requirement will be
verifioci by J. Greonway, I7MATA.
Full load test. Deferrod to post
revenue observation C monitoring.
1~CUE 1, 10-2 1-
PAGE L~2-l APPEUDIX 0 - INTERFACE AND SYSTEM TESTS - All Phases
CATEGORY 2 : Interface Tears (Prima Contract Interfaces)____________
CCC SLatuu/ Tii:~c
~ Nuabar
Notes
1..
2.
a
4.
0.
7
P.
10.
hl3/G~lO~75
13/6-10-75
A/G-lD- 75
E/ Nono
E/ Mane
A/G-lO-75
12/ None
A,/G--1C--75
A/G-lO-75
A/C-lG- 75
Pla22orm Edge Lights.
StanOard Time Distribution.
Escalator Indjcation & control.
Trnc Lion Power Emergency Trip
a Lions.
Tree Lion. Power Distribution
3.() h~il~.
Traction Power Cable Cu~,rent
Sb~rincj.
Tnuc,work Clearance.
K:i.orb Pvo(;rn!mccd Stop Operations.
Vcliiclc Systcmwido Communication
Copebility.
Statics AC Power Performance.
PAGENO="0916"
I.
i :~sus 3 .10-27.- ~
pAGE 52-2 .. APPENDIX 33 - INTERFACE. AND SYSTEM TESTS - All Phases
CATEGORy 2: Intorfoce Tests (Prime Contract Interfaces)
11.
12.
13.
No.
Number'
~~7"
Date
.
Ability of teleprinter tape device to
* reed inputs into thu computer
system.
Fan disable by duct fire sensor.
Final'baiancing C veriiication of
station air conditioning and vent-
ilation under load, (requirements
under review by Engineering).
5/10-27-71 Teleprinter,- Computer Interf ace.
A/lO-27--7 Station Fan - Fire Detector
Interlock.
A/6-lB-75 Station Air & Water Balance,
(Under Load)
PAGENO="0917"
UL L. Ulz27cL~
UcF ~ kL-PLNDTY B INIERPACE AIJD SYSTEM TESTS - All Ph~sc~
CATEGORY 3 Coocial Test _______
1
bin
No -
GEE
Number
Stntus/
Date
Title
.
Notes.
.
0/10-22-7 Emergency Power Systom Pa~form-'
enco~
Rail-to-Earth resistance Tests.
Propulsion HarmonicS Effect on
Track Circuits
0A2010 E/6-27-75
E/8l575
Station and tracblon ~ UPS veri-
fication under actual loads. (Pro-
revenue requirement).
Data collection activity for corrosio
control Engineering evaluation.
Heavyload conclitione. Train control
test conducted Aug. `I5~
PAGENO="0918"
1600
November 2~+, 1975 Request (continued)
Page 13
GAO Hearing
Question 9. Please submit for the record a detailed schedule of safety related
tests of the subway system and its components.
A schedule of test requirements for Rohr Industries cars is
attached. Test requirements for additional systems and components
will follow.
PAGENO="0919"
1601
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: Sl.OS A#~-a-ehm- e*t..~ `~`
(`a) General -
The following tests shall be performed by the Contractor, at his expense:
Frequency
Once
All Cars *t~-'~
AllCars-'
All Cars `
* FirstCar
AllCars~'
AllCars~
AliCars *
First Car
All Cars
.FirstCar
All Cars `` ..:
First Car
First pairof cars - *-
* - All Cars -`, -.- -*
AllCars~ *.
OneCar
AllCars~"
First Truck * *
One pair of cars
All Cart / ~--
All Cars-
.Onecar
* EightCars-
AllCars ~" *
All Cars `/ .. *~.:
* First set of equioment
One pair of cars -
One pairof cars
First Car
First Car
One pair of cars
All Motors
Test
Propulsion Prototype Test
Car Electrical Tests
Traction Motor Controller Test
Friction Brake Test
Hand Brake Specification Test
Hand Brake Functional Test
Performance Tests .
Car Body Watertiglitness Test.
Air Conditioning Climate Lab Test
Air Conditioning Functional Test
* Heating Climate Lab Test
~-kating Functional Test
Body Compression and Vertical
LoariTest
Miscellaneous Tests*** . . .
* . Truck and Coupler Clearance
Third railshoe
Auxiliary Circuits
* Lighting Intensity
* *. Door Operation
Truck Test
Ride Quality Test
Trairiline Test
Weighing-complete Car
* Weighing-trucks
* ,Drift Test
* . Communication System Tests
A.T.C. Tests
* Noise and Vibration Tests
* Equipment Noise, Prior to Installation
on Car
Equipment Noise, After Installation on
* onCar
Car Interior Noise Levels
Door Operation Noise
Car Body Sound Transmission Loss
Equipment Vibration Levels
Traction Motor Vibration
In the event of failure to meet Specification requirements in any heat, repairs or changes shall be
made, and gn additional i~st performed at the Contractor's expense, -
Addendum No. 5
PAGENO="0920"
1602
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: SI.08 (Cont'd)
(b) Documentation
Detailed test procedures are to be prepared for all tests described herein and for any other tests
deemed necessary by the Contractor in connection with his quality assurance program. All test
procedures are to be submitted to the Contracting~ Officer for review and approval not less than 30
days prior to scheduled tests on first articles.
Written reports of all tests performed on the cars and their components shall be submitted to the
Contracting Officer. Tests which are performed on all cars or all components shall be included in
the car history book described in Sl.03(h)4. In all cases, the report shall include a descrirtion of the
test, all raw data collected in the test, and a summary of the results in a form that can be directly
compared with the Specification without furthencalcuLations.
(cL TesrRequfre~enir and Faciliti~
1. Performance tests shall be conducted on the Authority's tracks. The Authority will make
available to the Contractor a Main Line track of adequate length and alignment to permit the
acceleration, deceleration and other operating tests specified herein. The Authority will also provide -
indoor pits sufficient for two two-car units;a crane or jacks able to lift a car for exchange of trucks;
p" sonnel to op rate the cars and any equip'~ w'iich is the prop'rt~, of he Au ho rty sto-age
* tracks for four two-car uni~; as much office and storage space as construction and operatiorif will*
- permit, hat. not less than 1,000 square feet; and 700 volt D.C., 110 volt A.C., and 460 volt 3 phase
A.C. ~ower at the pits assigned to the Contractor; for no more than 16 hours a day.and 5 days a
week, unless special arrangements are made with the Contracting Officer. - - - - -.
2. The Authority reserves the right to make, at its own e*pense, additional operating tests of each
pair of cars separately, or in traina of up to and including eight cars, to verify conformance to the
specification, prior to acceptance of the cars. The Contractor shall participate in; and furnish -
technical assistance for, such te~ts. Any defects disclosed by such tests, in apparatus, material or
* workmanship, shall be corrected at the Contractor's expense. -;
3. If .the nature of the defects in a car requires that it be returned to the Contractor's plant for
correction, all costs incurred in the removal of the car from,and its return to, the designated
delivery point shall be borne by the Contractor. *--
(d) Propulsion Fratory~e Tears
A Iaborato?y ("Flywheel") test shall be conducted on prototype equloment for the propulsion
apparatus and its control circuits. This test is for the purpose of proving that this subsystem
functions satisfactorily and meets the performancerequirements.
: (a) Car Electrical Test.r
Each component that is separately assembled, housed, and wired into a package unit prior to
installation in the car shall be tested at this point.of manufacture and a certified test re~orr
furnished to the Contracting Officer. Tests shall be in accordance with I.E.E.E. Standards No. 11
(for rotating machinery) and 16 (for control apparatus).
When all car wiring is complete, the Contractor shall: -
- "Ring out" all circuits to verify continuity, proper poInrity, and connections.
Addendum No. 5
1-17
PAGENO="0921"
1603
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: Si .08 (e) Cont'd
2. Make a Direct Current ground insulation test on each car by measuring, separately, current
flow to ground of each side of the battery circuit and of the 700-volt circuih
3. Make a high-potential ground insulation testin accordance with I.E.E.E. Standard No. 16.
Certain components liable to be damaged by this test:ng may, with permission of the Contracting
Officer, be disconnected from other car body wiring. -
(`f,) Traction Motor Gontrolier Test : *- .
ThefoUowing controller test shall be performed by the ContractOr on each Oar: -
Without traction power, test the traction motor controller for correct sequence of Operation in both
power and braking by. operating the master controller and observing the functioning of the various.
pieces of apparatus involved. Rectify any failure to function in proper sequepce before proceeding
with the rerrainmg test
(g).~rakeTesrs - - *.-:- -.
The aollowir'g ora~e tests snau be performed b} th Co-irractor
1. - FRICTION BRAKE TEST: These shall include prototype tests using a dyBamometer to
confirm specified deceleration characteristics, maximum wheni-oi'- disc temperature, and
* friction material characteristics and life; functional tests on each car before shipment; and the
* performance tests described in S1.08(h). -.
2. HAND BRAKE TEST: The hand brake on each car shall be tested. On the first car, a test of
the adequacy of the design shall be made (using first new, and then fully worn, brake shoes) by
measu4ng, with a scale, the force needed to move the car with the handbrake applied. On the
* remaining cars a functional test shall be performed with new shoes. *: -
(Ii) Cl, Perforrnni'ce Te ta
To prove compliance with the performance standards sp~ciuied in S 10.01 (b), the Contractor shall
make the n~cessary tests on each two-car unit, and also on a train composed of 3 two-car units, -
on the Authority's tracks. -~ *1
For each test the following micc~ shall be rccordcd simu!taneausI~, on a niultiple-chaunel recording
oscs-ingrap~ ~ ~r-
Acceleration (positive and negative)
- Traction motor current. , * . -
Traction-moter--voltage-
Brake cylinder pressure - . , .- .-.
i--iS
Addendum No.5
PAGENO="0922"
1604
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: S1.08 (Con~
-Li-un voltage
~ Line current , . .. .- -
Speed
Propulsion and braking trainline signals v-~ -: -* - .. ., ;* -
Time interials
Distance intervals - .. .
V V .;. .
The first two-car test, and the six-car test, shall be run with-loades} cars,~ A-fm rsy-~:.
* developed and used to evaluate the performance of all other two-car units, whicir ma~ bC teat
* without load. V .~- .~ -~-...: - - -
,4~e''~ ~ ~ . *V V V V * V
V AlLhar&airal .~fo~p~~reflce. and shall be forwarded to and income the property
the Authority. Records of current settin~ for acceleration and deceleration shall be furnished
each car. (Copies of all test charts may be made by the Contractor for his own use.) V
If the car or any equipment fails to satisfy-the :~..d, th~ car, with the necessafy adjustraco
~ be retested at the Contractor's expense. See further requiremints in the event of inabiLity
V meet Specification performance, in SI 0.01 (d). VV S * V * V *. - V
V VV V V V V V* ** VV (j) CarBodyWerterrighznssr T
* All areas of the car sides, ends, and roof, including doors and windows; shall be given ~a cornpi~
test for watertightness. The V test shall be made before installation of sound deadening rnateria
thermal insulation, and interior finish. Water shall besprayed from nozzles `vhich are spaced r
more than three feet from, and aimed directly at, the surface being fested Not ices than 0.62
* V gallons per mimite shall be delivered to each square foot of surface being tested, and the nozzi
V velocity of the water shall be not less than 150 ft.per second. V V *~ V
V It is not required that the watertightness test be deferred until the car body is complete)~
assornbled. individual tests may bC used to demonstrate the watertightness of large component
V such as sides, roof, ends; with testing of the assembled carbody restricted to connections hetwees
tested components and areas not previously testecL V V V V *V V * -: V - -
All spray applications shall run for ten minutes before the inspection for leaks begins and shall s-or
continefously during the inspection. V - V
Addendum No. 2
1-19-
PAGENO="0923"
1605
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: SI .08(i) (Cont'd)
Underfloor boxes which, because of the nature of the equipment they contain, are required to be
watertight shall receive a pressure water test sirrdlar to the watertightness test of the car body, as
shall fresh air intakes in the car roof, which shall be tested with ventilating fans running at full
speed, and the "clamshell" traction motor lead connectors specified in S10.02(k).
The air conditioning system in the first cafshall be tested in an approved climate laboratory
capable of being heated to and maintaining a temperature of 100 degrees F and of maintaining
any. level of humidity between 25% and 90%. Temperature in the climate laboratory shall be -
* unifQrm throughout; a maximum of 5 degrees variation will be permitted from the rail to 2
feet above . the roof and from end to end of the car. Fans may be used to circulate air.
Passenger load shall be simulated by means of heaters inside the car; solar and equipment loads**
shall be simulated by means of heaters inside or outside the cars. Humidity shall be introciucad
into the car.
* The testing shall begin by "soaking" the car at 100 degrees F for at least 16 hours; arid the~
length of time required to stabilize temperatures, after air conditioning equipment is energized,
shall be measured. Testing shall include a functional check of all apparatus including
thermostats and controls, an air balance test, a pressurization test, and a temperature and
relative humidity check to show compliance with the specified cooling requirements; The
proportion of fresh and recircuiated air and the total volume of air delivered by the circulating
- fans shall be measured and recorded. Measurements shall `cc taken with the apparatus running
*.. at nominal voltage and at minimum voltage. The current drawn by the equipment, its speed,.
and the line voltage chair he continuously recorded for each of the test condjtions Aft~r
temperatures have leveled off (for each test condition) the temperatures at `twelve
representative locations, including the operating compartment, shall be recorded even minute
for' 30 consecutve minutes in order to determine temperature variation as the cooljn~
apparatus cycles. Tests shall be run at ambient temnaratures of 65 c!egre~ D.lJ. - 60 degrees
W.B.; 80 degrees W.B. - 75 degrees W.B.; and 95 degrees DJI. 78 de rues W.B For each of
the above temperature conditions, tests shall he run with full passenger load and full solar load
simulated and also with neither of these i~~ds. In both cases, equipment load shall he
simulatbd. -
2. The thermostatic operation of the air conditioning equipment in all cars shall also be
demonstrated by test. Controls and dampers shall be checked and adjusted for even
distribution and proper circulation of air in Cii cars.
3. The compliance of the diffusers with the efficiency suecified in S7.03(b) shall be tested,
t'f)Air conditioning Test
The following Air Conditioning tests shall he performed:
1-20
Addendum No. 7
PAGENO="0924"
1606
TESTS AND ADJUST'riENTS~ Sl.03
(k) sryTesr
The following Heating tests shall be performed:
I. The heating system in the first car, including operating compartment heating, shall be tested in
an approved climate laboratory capable of being cooled to and maintaining a temperature of 0
degrees F. Temperature in the climate laboratory shall be uniform throughout; a main~um of
5 degrees F variation will be permitted fr~m the rail to 2 feet above the roof and fr~ end to
end of the car. Fans may be used to circulate air. - ~- I -
* The testing shall begin by "soaking" the car at 0 degrees F for at idast 16 houra and the length
of-time required to stabilize temperatures, after heating ~quiprnent is energized, shall be
* measured. Testing shall include functional check of all apparatus including therrrostzts and
controls, and a temperature check to show compliance with the specified heating
requirements, including Layover heat. * - -~ -
Tests shall be made at outside temperatures just above and just below the operating
tempefatures of the fresh air thermostats in addition to a test at 0 degrees F. Heating tests shall
be run at nominal voltage and at minimum voltage for each outside temperature conditioo_
After temperatures have leveled off (for each test condition) the temperature at the same
* - twelve locations as in Sl.08(j) shall be recorded every minute for 30 consecutiie minutes in
- order to determine temperature variation as the healing apparatus cycles. Line voltage, and
currant and power drawn by the heating elements shall be continuously necurfed. Heat -
trans~e' tinough he car bodj shall in. c ~ ~a o `~ rift~ con'oianc~ \~, La S3 1 2(e
2. In isil carf the heating system shall ha functionally tested. The ciperation of tha tEerrncsta~ie
control system shall be demonstrated by test. Controls shall be checked and adjusted ,for even
di tribution and proper volume of h at
Neither the Air Conditioning nor the heating tests described in Sl.08(j) and (k) shall relieve -
the Contractor of the responsibility for making further adjustments found necessary as a result
of service experience. - - - - - -_ : -- - -:
- - (1) Body compression end Verrfcnl Load Tesrs
1. Tne first car body structure shall be tested to prove compliance of the structure wi~ the
Specification. The car body s'nail be structurally complete. It shalt consist of a structural shell only,
and shall exclude such items as exterior and interior trim, windows, doors, seats, lights, insulation,
interior lining, etc. Underfloor apparatus, however, may have been installed. - - - z -
2. During the compression test the car body shall ha supported on trucks or a simulation thereof
to allow longitudinal movement. The car body shall be loaded with sufficient dead wejaht to bring
the total body weight up to its finished wright. This loading shalt be distributed in proporrion to
the distribution of weight in the finished car. The pressure of the testing machine shell be ~p~ii~d -
by hydraulIc power and the force measured by a means independent of those producing sha farce,
to eliminate errors due to friction. Sufficiently recant calibration of the measuring device shell be
available to assure accuracy to within plus or mirui.s Ifi. - -~ - -
1-21*
PAGENO="0925"
1607
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: SI .08 (1) Cont'd.)
The test load of 200,000 lbs. shall be appiled to the anticiim'oer, at its center, by means of a ram
not over 24 inches in width. The load shall be applied in these steps; 50,000 lbs., 100,000 lbs.,
150,000 lbs., 175,000 lbs., and 200,003 lbs. The load shall be reduced to not more than 4,000 lbs.
after each steu. Strain gauge readings shall he taken a: eath load increment and at each relaxation of
load. The ram shall `cc supported `out shall remain free to move longitudinally with respect to the
car end. Cushioning means, such as lead sheets, shall be arovided to assure uniform bearing on the
antidimber. In a similar manner a test load of 135,330 lbs. shall be applied to the coupler anchor;
For the purpose of this Specification, a member shall be considered as having developed permanent
deformation if the yield point or yield str~agth in the appropriate direction-tension of
compression--as published or otherwise issued by the material manufacturer is reached or
exceeded. For materials for which the manufacturer publishes a yield point, strain gage readings
taken as directly proportional to the claimed yield point stress shall be used to determine whether.
or not the point has been reached. For materials for which the manufacturer publishe~ a yield
strength, strain gage readings corresponding to a clir-ertly cooportional reading for the yield strength
* plus 0.002 inches per inch shall be used to determine whether yield has occurred. For calculation of
strain at the published yield point or yield strength values, the modulus of elasticity shall be taken
* as the Manufacturer's published value. -
If a reading indicating attainment of the yield point or yield strength is found on any strain gage,
the Contractor may request a retest prior to redesl~; and the Contracting Officer may ~ant this
request.with the provision that up to four additional strain gages in the same general area will be
* required to determine the effects on surrounding mate±i of the plastic deformation that has
presumably occurred, and to determine whether stress values as gaeat as the published yield point or
yield strength are reached in the fetest. If the high reading has been accompanied by visible evidence
of distress in the member, a design correction v-ill be required regardless of strain gage values
mdicat d in any r~test.
The zero point for strain gage readings may be the readings founu after relaxation of total buff
loads up to 175,000 pounds provided that no reading encountered at intermediate load levels shall
have iri~icated attainment of the yield point or yield strengttu If such a reading has occurred at a
lower level, the additional strain gages required in tire pararraph immediately preceding may be.
required prior to imposition of the 200,000 pound bach .. .. . .
Vertical deUections shall be measured in the region of the side sill by means of a wire stretched
between the~ car corner posts. This wire shall be fasoened at one end and kept tight at the other end
by means of a weight, with the wire passing over a ~au1iey. Defiections shall be measured to the
nearest 0.01 inch, using scales with mirrors located at abe body corner posts, at bolsters, and at the
center of the car. Equivalent methods for measuring deflection, equally accurate, may be
substituted for the foregoing. Defiections shall be considered as the average of the readings taken on
both sides. The deflection measured at any ~re1hairury load application may be disregarded to
eliminate the influence of whatever friction may be preseols Deflection between bolsters and center
of car shall be determined by plotting the data determined above. .
3. The same car body structure shall also be subjected to a vertical load test. In it the car body
shall be loaded, in at least flve equal increments, with additional weight equal to the weight of the
finished car body, less trucks, plus a crush uassenger load. The loading may be apDlied by means of
weights or by jacks, and shall be distributed in praportiort to the distribution of weight in the
finished car. Strain gauge readings shall be taken at each load urceemoent.
1-22
Addendum No. 2
PAGENO="0926"
1608
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: SI .08(1) (Cuot~
Tl~e car will be considered to have met the specification with respect to vertical load If:
A. Plotted vertical deflections (measured on both sides
of the car midway between bolsters and taken as the
average thereof) did not deviate a-~any load increment
from a straight line, drawn from the origin to the
deflection at the crush passenger load, by more than
5% 0f the deflection at the crush cast-anger load;
* B. Maximum recorded stresses in principal structural - - -
elements did.not exceed the corresponding allowable - -
* - stress values which have been selected by the -
Contractor and approved by the Contracting Officer~. - -
C. The vertical deflection between bolsters (in the
vertical load test) did not exceed the value which - -
corresponds to a carbody natural bending frequency *: - --
whichi consistent with tl'~ r..L~i_~d -`&- quisty
1) Recorded resadu~ `~er~ical d~f~c on b tw ~n boIs~ers
following removal of the n~x.imuri ~e"ical loading
do s not exceed 0 03 mch ~-id
E Indies ed residual s r~in at scam ag on p-inc'pal
: structural elements, following removal of the maximum - *.*~ - - -:
vertical loading, does not exceed 5% of that at m8ximum *-- : -
loading
* 4. With the same strain gages as in SI .08(1)3 in pLace, the car, loaded to equal its finished weight
shall belifted at diagonally-opposite corners until clear of all other support except at one other
corner, to determine compliance with the torsional strength requirements of S3.03(a). Twist shall
be mecisiired; and thur existence of permanent deformation shall be determined as described in
Si 08(1)2
5. The following quantities of strain gauges shall be agrilied, at points agreed upon irs advance with
* theContractingOfficer: * - ~ -
Compression Test 7a to I CO as~
Coup j-rAn norTest 20 o33g..~-~a
Vertical Load Test 75 o 100 s
(i-n) ~l1iscellaneonr Body Tests and Adjustments
The following tests and adjustments shall alto be made by the Contractor, propr to shipment from
hisplant: - -~ - -
Truck clearances, lengths and locations of brake air hoses and electrical jurncers, and coupler
and drawbar clearances and operation shall be checked by moving a train comansed of two
two-car units over a curve and a crossover duplicating or exceeding the roost restricting
trackwork specified in S2.Ol.
AddendumNo7 1-23
PAGENO="0927"
1609
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: Sl.OS(m) (Cont'd)
2. Each third rail contact shoe shall be set at the proper free height arid functionally tested,-
3. The headlights on each car shall be aimed and adjusted to meet the specified beam
characteristics.
4. All auxiliary circuits and equipment shall be checked for proper operation. *
5. The intensity of the lighting shall be measured in the first car, and verified against the specified
leveL - . . . - - -*
6. The doors and their operating equipment shai! be checked and adjusted on all cars to assure
smooth functioning, attainment of the specifted speed of operation and proper functioning of
controls, signals and interlocks. - - -
(n) Truck Tests
The first truck shall be subjected to tests 1, 2 and 3 below. Tests I and 2 shall be witnessed by the
Contracting Officer. (The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer three business clays in
advance that each test is going to be performed.) The Contracting Officer shall witness the dye
penetrant inspection required under test 3 and may inspect the test at any point irs its prtwj~s. . - -
The first car or pair of cars shall be used in pci-ic a-ice of tests 4, 5, and 6. They shall be witnessed
by th.~ ContracLag Officer
Not less than eight strain gages ~hall be applied to the truck for tests I arid 3 at maximum stress
* points as agreed to by the Contractor and the Conraacting Officer, the latter having the power of
decision in case of disagreement. -Irt addition, all erases members shall be coated with hrictl~ Lacquer:
fir-tee 3
* I. The Purpose of this test is to verify the acnrsey of the maximum stress estimates requbed to~*
be Submitted in 514.04, Design Criteria-Strsu di. It is a static load test, repeated twice wills
complete release between applications. The trank shall be tested either by i~ndividual, load
bearing components or as an assembly, as the Contractor elects. Forces shall enter tise parts or
truck at the normal application points, and shall b-a so combined in each case as to produce the
- - maximum unit stresses at the- critical points for which the stress estirnustes were furnished. Th&
stress rs~edinga for the three applications shall be averaged for comparison with the estimated -
stresses. The vertical load component shall be 55% cf the empty cur bodyweight olus 20,000
pounds, the latter rapresenting 55% of the absolute maximum load. The lateral component
shall be 10% of the vertical components. The Ongtudinal component shall be 14% of the
vertical component. Accessory loads, brake unit and traction motor, shall represent maximum
- steady state conditions; for example, maxinurn motor torque and brake unit weight, or
maximum brake unit reaction and motcr weight. if'the anticipated harmonic dynamic reaction -
(as at the motor nose suspension point) exceed; this steady state value, the greater reaction
shall be applied. At no point shall the averaged erases exceed the allowable stress. it it does, the
Contracting Officer shall have the right to require that the desi-tn be corrected to bring the test
* stresses within the allowable stress-as, the truck retested, and all trucks installed in the cars shall
be in accordance with the corrected desien. - - -
1-24 * AddenthrraNo.5 -- - * - -
PAGENO="0928"
1610
TESTS AND ADJUSThIENTS: Sl.08 (n) Cont'd.}
2. To demonstrate that the truck has adequate strength to sustain a maximum load in the
presence of a combination of minor manufacturing defects, it shall be overloaded statirally
once as follows: the vertical component shall be equal to the total empty car body weight ~ius
50,000 pounds; the lateral component shall be equal to 10% of the vertical component; the
longitudinal component shall equal 14% of the -vertiinl component; and accessory loads ~liai1
be applied equal to twice their estimated maximum loads (except for gear unit support
reaction, which shall be taken at the fiashover value). Dimensional measurements shall be
taken before and after the test between representative points on the truck as agreed to
between the Contractor and the Contracting Officer, the latter having the power of decision in
the event of disagreement. There shait'~be no permanent deformation which would interfere
with the safe operation of the truck. If such deformation appears, the design shall be čorrected
to bring the stress under the test condition within the elastic limit of the material involved, the
track retested, at the expense of the Contractor, and all trucks insalledin the cars shall be in
accordance with the corrected design.. -: - -* - -
3. To demonstrate that the truck has adequate fatique strength under dynamic loading, it shall `o~
subjected to two million cycles of combined loading within the limits scecified' below. The
truck shall be tested as a unit and may contain its internal elastomeric cushioning and springa.
if any, or an approved substitute therefor, but not hydraulic dampening devices. Tire vertical
component shall vary between 50% of the empty car body weight pius 5,000 pounds arid 85%
of the empty car body weight plus 10,000 pounds. The lateral component shall vary with the
vertical component and shall be 10% of it. The longitudinal component shall vary with the
vertical component and be~l4% of it. Accessory loads shall vary between +100% and -~400% of
their maximum steady stath or harmonic dynamic conditions: motor under full motor current
and brake unit under full cylinder pressure with 14% adhesion. Loads applied to the truck
bolster shall include those resulting from the transfer vertically of the applied lateral force
from the height of loaded carbody center of gravity to the lateral bumper height. The ~hesing
of loads shall be such as to result in maximum combined stresses at the critical~iocations as
may be agreed upon by the Contractor and the Contracting Officer, the latter having the
`power of d~cision in case of disagreement. The frequency of the load cycling shall be
aoproxrmnat ly eqial LO the naturai ve'~al r q~ nay of the ~ ass..-~io1y
At the conclusion of the test, any remaining brittle lacquer shall be removed from the
maximum stress points and a dye penetrant ir.spection made for cracks in the presence ct the
Cobrtracting Officer. If any crack is found, the design shall be corrected, the truck retested at
the expense of the Contractor, and all trucks installed in the cars shall be in accordance with
th~ co'r cted design
4. To verify the equalization provided by the truckdesign, the first car, with air springs inflated,
shall have one wheel or one journal box jacked up 2W'. Contact between the other three wheel
treads and the rails shall be verified. Alternately, one wheel may be run up on a wedge to
obtain 2W' of elevation, the ocher wheels remainin~ on level track. Also, one wheel or one
journal box shall be jacked up 2" without resulting in a change of more than 25% itt the weisht
on any wheel, in the event that suitable equalization is not attained as indicated by the tests,
the truck design shall be altered, the truck retested, at the expense of the Contractor, and all
trucks installed in the cars shall be in accordance with the corrected design. - -
~-1-25
PAGENO="0929"
1611
TESTS AND ADJUSThIENTS: SI.08(n) (Cont'd)
5. To verify the car stability provided by the truck design, the first car with simulated foil load
shall be run up on a rail or blocking on one side to simulate six inches of superelevation.
Lateral displacement and roIl angle of the car body shall be measured. In the event that the
degree of motion restriction required by Si 4.05(a) is not attained as indicated by the test, the
truck design shall be altered, the truck retested, at the expense of the Contractor, and all
trucks installed in the cars shall be in accordaima with the corrected design.
6. To verify conformance to the ride quality require=ents of S 14.05(b), Ride Quality, the first
pair of cars shall, subject to approval by the DeLaware River Port Authority arid the Port
Authority Transit Corporation, be subjected to road tests on PATCO's line between
Philadelphia, Pa., and Lindenwold, NJ. -
Tests shall consist of operating the cars at sē~eds of 25, 50, and 75 mph over track selected by*
the Contracting Officer, in two conditions: empty and with simuiated full load.
Instrumentation capable of measuring arid charting the magnitude and frequency of the shocks
expected, up to 0.5 g and 15 Hz, shall be provided and operated by the Contractor. Sensing
* units shall be located on the car floor above the intersection of the car longitudinal center line
and one truck transverse center line, and also at the center of tha car. They shall be applied
directly to the plymetal floor (not on carpet or carpet padding) and shall sense verticil, lateral, -
arid longitudinal shocks (vibrations). ~.
* After each run, or group of runs, the instrumentation shall be relocated to a PATCO ~
chosen by the Contracting Officer and a series of runs at the same speeds, at the same loads,
and on the same track shall be made for comparison. The comparison runs shall be completed
within eight hours after the start of tests of the Metro cars, or within such other time lin~t as
may be established by the Contracting Officer to elirnb ate the effect of weather conditions
and t-~ack usage upon track quality
* Acceptability of the ride quality will be made by a comparison of the charts, for each speed
anti load condition, of the Metro car and the PATCO car. The comparison will be made by
counting the total rntmber of excursions beyond each of three threshold leynis to be
* established by the Contracting Officer, in all three directions, and at all three spee~1s, and.
* . adding these inumbers. If this total for the Metro car does not exceed the total for the PATCO
* * car, the Metro car will be judged to have complied with the ride quality specification.
The Contractor shall be responsible for shipment of the cars to PATCO and then to the final
deliierg point DATCO charrs for testing ~-Ji c~ bor-'e oy tn~ Autno'-'tj
In he event that the d~-iamic bensvior o~ t~e car ~s n~nor in any reso c~ to he Sp~ciSicatson
requirements, the Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer, withIn sixty calendar
* days, a program containing a. mathematical analysis of the problem and a course of action for
its correction. If the Contracting Officer approves the analysis and corrective rneasur~, the -
latter shall be made effective on the test car within 90 calendar days at the expense of the
Contractor, the car shall be retested, and, if the measures are successful, they shall be applied
to all the cars. If not, the analysis and correctizlni steps shall be repeated, resubmitted, and
retested until success is attained, except that, after unsuccessful tests of two sets of
correctional measures, the Contracting Officer may, in accordance withe Inspection Clause of
the General Provisions, require delivery of the cars at a reduction in price which is equitable
under the circumstances. . * . * . . .. .
1-26 *. * AddenduniaNo.7 -* -
62-418 0 . 76 - Pt. 2 - 59
PAGENO="0930"
1612
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: Si .08 (Cont'd)
(o) Trninlicc Tesr
The Contractor shell verify the accuracy of the car's trainline connections by the use of a test panel
which is connected to the coupler's electric head and indicates, by the illumination of lights, or
other appropriate means, that the proper trainline wi:es are energized when the various car controls
(master controller, door controller, P.A. systems, etc) are operated. This test shall be made on each
two-car unit, at both ends. . - -
(p) Tlezgr..rg
The Contractor shell weigh each complete car ~t shipment. In addition, both truclcs of at least one
car shall be weighed separately. Weight tickets shall be strbmitted to the Contracting Officer and
copies thereof included in the Car History Book. - :-~- -- -~ -: .-: -
The scale used in weighing cart shall be.maintained within the tolerances set forth in Chapter 14;
ParS 5 Section C of th~ A.R.E.A Manual
(q) Qrf Test
To verify the coefficients used in performance calculations, the Contractor shall perform drift tests
of trains of one, two and four two-car unitsSniuicient tests shall be made to secure dependable
data; coefficients shall be calculated from these data by the Contractor and the data and
calculations shall be submitted to and become the property of the Authority. -_
(r)Com~ r~ arSyse~T~sr-
Concr-iumcatson Sjst~.m Test shall iC pe ~or-' d o i - Co iractor s d cr1: ci sri S13 (39
(S)ii TC Tess
The installation and installation- testing of the carborneATC systems shall be performed by the
Contractor in accordance with the directions furnished by the A.T.C Contractor. The A.T.C. -
Contractor will be responsible for compliance with the specifications and for the aroper operation
01 the equipment and systems furnished by him. The A.T.C. Controctor will make available, at the
Contractor's factorj, the full-time service of one qualified field servirnengineer to provide guidance,
direction alid assistance to the Contractor, as required, during the installation and installation
- testing of the cafcorne equipment~ The installation tests will he designed to verify the proper -
installation of the equipment in accordance with the drawings and instructions provided by the
A.LC. Contractor. The tests will include sufficient operational tests to detect any equipment*
damage incurred irs shipment, handling, or installation. One test fixture will be provided for -
conducting the tests. The test fixture wili be delivered to the Contractor with the delivery of the
first set of carbonic ATC equipment. The Contractor shall deliver the test fixture to the Authority
wztn d'lii'ryo t'i~ last paIr or cars
AddendcrriNo.7 - -. . - -- 1-27 -
PAGENO="0931"
1613
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: SI .08 (Cont'd)
(t) Noise Tests
1. Test Conditions: Conformance with the specifications is to be based on measurements taken
in essentially a free-field environment such as outdoors, away from any reflecting sthf aces
other than the ground on which the car is resting, except for transmission loss measurements
All measurements shall be made at locations where reflected sound, such as reflections from
nearby walls, floor or other equipment, will not influence the directly radiated sound from the
equipment measured by more than 2 dB. All measurements shall be made with an ambient
* sound level in the vicinity of the test measurement 10 caticas of not less than 10 dB below the noise
groduced by the equipment being measured, when evaluated using the mme weighting Or odave band.
* - Where auxiliary methods of driving or loading equipment such as motors or dynamometers, are -
* required, these devices shall be temporarily enclosed or baffled to eliminate their effeer on the
- - equipment noise being measured. For equipment noise measurements withthe car stationary
. or on jacks, the car shall be located outdoors on a ballast-and-tie, at-grade trackbed in an area - -
free of barriers, third rail coverboards, or other sources of interference. Car body section
transmission loss measurements may be preformed outdoors or indoors. Car interior and:
exterior noise level tests with the car moving shalt be done at a section of clean, smooth rail on -
a ballast-and-tie at-grade track with no sound barriers or third rail coverboard on the
m asinement sid~
2. Equipment Noise Test Procedures: Using sound level meter and analysis equipment as
specified in 81.6.01, the Contractor shall measure the Sound Level produced by equipment in
-.: the operating mode at the distances and directions specified and using the scales and frequency
ran~essp cifieci in Sl6 02
- 3. In-Vehicle Noise Test Procedures: Using sound level meter and analysis equipment as
specified in S 16.01, the Contractor shall measure the Sound levels inside the vehicle with all
equipment ener~zed and all components operating except the~ propulsion motors, shall -
measure the noise levels inside the vehicle with each individual equipment system ene~~zed, -.
* . and.shall measure the sound levels inside with the vehicle moving at speeds up to 70 mph on
ballast-and-tie at-grade track. The sound readings shall be obtained at sufficient locations in the -~
car to determine that the noise level limits are not exceeded at any point in the passenger
space. . . .. -.
4 Tests o Firs A-Car a-id B-Car S t o Equ a'- rt Noise l'-v-l r' asa,ere-it3 s ~ii b
performed on the first car sets of equipment before arid after installation on the car to verify .- -
* that the noise generated is within the limits indicated in S16.02. The tests shell include
* measurements to determine the noise levels produced by the traction motors and propulsion -:
system gearing for one car and the noise levels produced by the compressor, motors, blowers
- and other noise generating components of the first two cars. . --..- - ~**
5. Tests of First Completed A-Car and B-Car: Noise level and transmission loss tests shall be
performed on the first completed car to verify performance within the limits indicated in
S 16.02 (e), (f), and (g). Noise level tests shall be performed on the first completed A-car and
B-car to verify performance within the limits indicated in S 16.02 (b), (c), (d), and (h). These
tests shall include measurements to determine the exterior noise levels from the vehicle
equipment and the complete vehicle both stopped arid moving, the car interior noise 1eve~s
from the vehicle equipment and with the car moving, and the transmission loss of the vehicle
body sections. - - * * :
1-23 * AcldendurriNo.7 - . . .
PAGENO="0932"
1614
TESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS: SI .08 (Cont'c~
6. Vehicle Body Transmission Loss: The supplier shall, using the procedures outlined in AST~
E336-67T, Tentative Recommended Practice for Measurement of Airborne Sound Insulatiol
in Buildings, perform tests to detetrnine the sound transmission loss of the vehicle hod
sections. Evaluation of the sound transmission loss of each characteristic Section of th
completed car body shall be done using one or a combination of the following procedures:
1. With the car located outdoors on ballast-and-tie, at-grade trackbed or indoors in a spad
where reflected sound from nearby walls or floors will not influence the sound radiatel
from the car body by more than 2dB, the Contractor shall, using aortable loudspeakers in
manner approved by the engineer, ereate a random noise of constant level, for th~
* - frequency range encompassing the ~50 Hz to 2000 Hz center frequency octave bands, witi
sufficient Sound pressure Level inside the car that the noise transmitted through the ~
body is a least 10 dB higher than the outside ambient SPL in each octave band and witi
sufficient diffusion or distribution that the sound level in the car is uniform within 3 dB a
.. 12 inches or more from any body surface. (Achieving a uniform sound field over the ca
floor will require removal of the seats.) Using this procedure the car body section soi~n
* insulation cnn be evaluated by using a sound level meter and octave band analyzer t
* measure the space average SPL inside the car in the 250, 500, 1000 and 2000 Hz cen~e
* frequency octave bands and by also measuring the exterior SPL for each of these octa~
* bands at a distance of 12 inches from all carsurfacas at a sufficient number of locations t
* determine the average noise reduction for each characteristic body section, such as th
* floor, walls, roof and doors. Tire measurements must include the influence of any souni
leakage such as at ducts, seals or openings and the influence of flanking sound transrriissio
paths at locations such as the floor/wall juncture. The difference between the interior spac
* average Sound Pressure Level and the average exterior Sound Pressure Level at each sectio~
is the Noise Reduction provided by the car body sections. Noise Reduction measured i:
this mannet is 6 dB greater than the transmission loss. The measurements must be correcte~
to transmission loss in accordance with procedures given inASTM 336-67T in order t~
* determine compliance with the specified minimum inund insulation of each car bad1
section. - - - - -. - -. - - -~r-~T-~z~
1: 2.. With the car. located- near highly reflective surfaces, such as over a maintenance an
inspection pit, the transmission loss may be measured in accordance with the two~roo
reverberant sound field methods indicated in ASTM 336-67T. To create a satisfacto -
* reverberant condition outside the car, and to define the boundaries of the space, ternporar
baffles or barriers approved by the engineer shall be placed between the car body exteric
and the reflecting surfaces, such as between the car body exterior walls at the floor Icy
and the edges of a maintenance pit, to define a closed space beneath the car for testing th
car floor transmission loss. The temporary baffles both define the space exterior to the ca
and prevent flanking paths outside the car from influencing the measurements, for examole
by preventing sound transmitted through the car walls or doors from bypassing the floa
duru-g a st of the floor
AddendthrnNo.7 * * **~ *.: 1-29
PAGENO="0933"
1615
`November 2k, 1975 Request GAO HEARING &ubmi-s~ion #2
QUESTION 11
In the May 8th report to Senator Byrd the GAO identified possible
increases and decreases on various route realignment possibilities.
Please provide a description of the current status of these rcutes and
your latest estimates of the possible cost consequences cf the variou~
locations possibilities now under consideration.
GAO's May 8th report to Senator Byrd addressed possible adjustments
to the Authority's November 1974 capital cost estimate of $4,453.7 million
due to probable realignments of six routes (B, E, F, H, J and K). At this
time, the alignments for Routes B, E and F are still questionable. Routes
J and H were the subject of a resolution adopted by the Authority's Board
of Directors on December 4, 1975. The location of the K Route in the
median of a highway along the -66 corridor is still a possibility. The
current status of the six routes discussed in the GAO report is detailed
below:
B ROUT,E
The ARS Glenmont Route between the Silver Spring and the Glenrront
Stations was planned to be constructed in earth tunnel. However, the
accrued geologic data indicated that the quality of soil was not suitable
for tunneling. A number of alternatives were developed of which two were
considered to be feasible. One was Scheme A-I which varied from the ARS
plan in two respects. The running lines were placed lower in rock suit-
able for tunneling and the stations were placed higher to permit cut-and-
cover construction. The second alternative, Scheme B was similar to the
ASS in that both lire end stations were to be tunneled but the profile was
lowered to avoid the weathered and fractured rock characteristic of the
ARS profile. Coordination with tine local government and the public has
PAGENO="0934"
1616
-2-
QUESTIOH 11 (Continued)
revealed their interest in a combination of alternatives, i.e., deep tunnel
construction for all the line and the Foresrt Glen Station; the liheaton
Station
Station and Glennont,~-:ould be constructed by cut-end-cover method.
The Glcrn'.ont Storage Yard has also been~a greet coroern to the residents
in the proximity of the yard site. Their concern has mean reccnciled through
en extensive degree of community and local government coordination. A
number of revisicns are being considered for the purpose mitigating the
impact of the yard on the community. The revisions include enclosing
the lesd tracks, e !Hneting the loop tracks and contouring the earth
to attenuate yard noises.
If a combinaton of the A-i and 3 alternatives is chosen by Montgomery
County end adopted by the Authority's Board of Directors, the increase in
cost may be cons idmred en add-on funded by the County, as determined by the
Board.
E ROUTE
Several different alignments have been considered for the E Route within
the District of Colu-~ia. Between Columbia Heights end Fort Tct~en Stations
the Alternative C alignment has been widely regarded as the most desirable
alignment. Outbound of Columbia Heights the Alternative C alignment separates
the running lines, the outbound on Park Road, the inbound on Monroe Street.
The lines merge inbo~nd of Georgia Avenue and follow New Hampshire Avenue
to Rock Creek Cemetery. The alignment crossos under Rock Creek Cemetery
and continues to the Fcrt Totten Station. The running lines are planned
to be constructed in earth tunnels while the stations will be constructed
by cut-and-cover, except for Fort Totten Station which is in retained cut.
Outbound of the Fort Totten Station some 2000 feet of the line is on
the surface and aerial structure. Thereafter, it is subsurface in a twin
PAGENO="0935"
1617
QUESTION 11 (Continued)
cell box to be cor-~structed by cut-and-cover.
There is coo.-ilunity opposition to the line in Maw l-{aopshire Avenue and
to the surface/aerial line in Fort Totten Park. Also Rock Creek Cemetery
officials oppose the proposed tunnel across their property and have vowed
to litigate. If this alignment is chosen for th~ District of Columbia,
there will be an increase of $12.0 million over the cost of the ARS align-
cent which may be considered an add-on funded by the District as determined
by the Board.
The portion of the Greenbelt Route in Prince Georges County recommended
by the Authority's staff, after crossing the District line at grade, proceeds
in subway in an easterly direction south of Carroll Manor and under Avondale
Road. The alignment then turns to the northeast to the aerial Chillum Station
near the Queens Chapel Drive in Theatre. lt then proceeds in earth tunnel
under Queens Chapel Road to the intersection of Oliver Road and Queens Chapel
Road before turning north to the at grade Prince Georges Plaza Station. The
alignment continues in earth tunnel under Adeiphi Road before turning into the
median of University Boulevard to the retained cut University Boulevard Station
located at Stadium Drive. The E Route then crosses over Stadium Drive and the
southbound lane of University Boulevard before continuing in subway under the
golf course. It than continues in subway under Matzerott Road before swinging
to the west of the PEPCO right-of-way end proceeding to the terminal station in
the 1-95 and I-~s95 interchange. The service and insoection yard is located north
of l-A95 between the north and south bomod lanes of -95.
This alignc~ant if approved by Prince Georges County and adopted by the
Authority's Board of Directors would exceed the programmed cost for the Prince
Georges County segment of the Greenbelt Route by $117 million. Any cost over
the $228 million programmed amountwill be considered an add-on totally funded
by the County.
PAGENO="0936"
1618
F ROUTE-
The impact of alignments referenced in the GAO report has been reviewed
by the Authority and mitigating recommendations are in order.
The impact of "B" alternative would be/the downtc~;n Anacostia and
at the Portland Station. The Anacostia Station and its related facilities
would be, for the most part, on the grounds of a furniture company that
has gone out of business. The alignment, however, upon leaving the station
runs southwest along Martin Luther King Avenue and in that area does impact-
several residences. The Portland Avenue Station and its facilities would
require a full block of well-kept residences and several viable businesses.
South of Alobam:a Avenue, prior to entering the right of way of ~hee1er Road,
it would pass under a stable single family detached community in earth tunnel.
-The Office of Planning has reviewed the basic service area and new
requirements - -
alignment possibilities under the various service / are definitely
limited. The following alignments are proposed: (See attached reap for all
the following alignments proposed for study).
Alignment I: Serve "3" corridor in both D.C. and Maryland. -
Alignment: Use "B" Alignmgnt to Suitland Parkway. Then through St.
Elizabeths Hospit~l grounds and under Alabama Avenue. South of Alabama
Avenue proceed under private property and the abandoned portion of a public
housing project, then over Mississippi Avenue and Oxon Run, under Southern
Avenue on the north side of Southeastern Hospi tel and south on surface to
rejoin the "B" alignment in Prince George's County.
Alignment 2: Serve ARS corridor in both D.C. and Maryland.
Alignment: The ASS involves serous major ipoco Cli thrcv;h- the. D.C.
portion. In Maryland there minor impact end the route is aconc-micel in
cost. One variation in D.C. could be to follow "B" alignment to the
Suitlend Park:-:ay end then follo:-i Suitlend Pork-icy to join the ARS in
Maryland. The variation would be much more desirable if the Suitiend Park-
way scare transferred to the local jurisdiction. Impact wou~d probably be
PAGENO="0937"
1619
-5-
F ROUTE (Continued)
minor (again except for basic impact co~non to any "B" alignment in downtown
Anacostia) and could be economical depend~ng on how much work would be
necessary on the Parkway and crossings.
Alignment 3: Serve "3" corridor in D.C. but ARS corridor in Maryland.
Alignment: Only one alignment satisfies this essumotion. This would
be to use "B" ccrridcr to Suitland Parkway, then through St. Elizabeth's
Hospital grcinds and under Alabama Avenue and the abandoned housing project
as in 1 above. Rather than continuing south, however, the line would
then turn northeast to a surface station alongside Southern Avenue at Mississippi
Aver.ue. It would then continue north east under Southern Avenue to Suitland
Parkway where it would portal to surface and rejoin the ARS alignment.
It is recorm-ended that the Environmental impact study for Branch (F)
Route be amended to include a review and analysis of alternatives I, Ii and
Ill as described above and shown on the attached map. The cost of any adopted
alignment over and above the ARS may have to be absorbed by the local juris-
dictions if. so determined by the Authority's Board of Directors.
PAGENO="0938"
~! ~
CD
-l
0 1:
(1) H
C,,
C1 r~
23
PAGENO="0939"
1621
-7-
J AND H ROUTES
The Authority's Board of Directors adopted a resolution on December 1i,
1975, deleting that portion of the Sprin~fie1d (J) Route west of the junction
with the Franconia (H) Route but with provisions for a possible future
extension to.;srds l!mst Springfield. The resolution provides for the exten-
sion of the H Route along the west side of the RF&P Railroad to the point
where the northwest fork of Long Branch passes under the railroad. The
Springfield Station :1 il be relocated to the west of the railroad immediately
south of 1-495 and t~a Franconia Station will be relocated on the sane side
of the railroad between the northwest fork of Long Branch and Springfield
Forest Subdivision. Special charter and commuter bus facilities will be
provided at the relocated Springfield Station in place of approximately
375 park and ride spaces. These changes to J end H Routes will result in
a cost increase of approximately $14.3 million.
K ROUTE
The portion of the K Route from immediately east of Harrison Street in
Arlington County to 1-495 in Fairfax County was to be constructed in the
median of 1-66. The ~epartment of Transportation (DOT) made a decision
not to construct this portion of -66. However at this time DOT is proposing
that a commuter road be constructed with the K Route in its median. The
construction of this ccnmuter road is proposed to be accooplished concurrently
with the K Route. If this proposal is adopted, there will be little difference
in the Authority's projoct now and what was previously planned. IF the
commuter rood is not built the Authority may be required to construct bridges
and sone surface work at its cost which would have been partially funded by
VDH&T. -
PAGENO="0940"
1622
GAO HEARING
QUESTION 12
The GAO has noted that the Authority's schedule for beginning of service
on the various system phases doss not allow for "any tine for delays due to
lawsuits, strikes, and adverse weather". Please describe how this has been
changed in the Authority's current startup estimates.
The Authority has consistently been of the opinion that provision
for unforeseen delays is counter-productive. It is to the corn~unities'
best interest that all involved in the Metro construction feel the urgency
of completing the program as soon as possible. Deliberately stre
out the program will cause costs to increase due to escalation -- a force
over which the Authority has no control. Provision for 18 months delay
has been recognized in the $14,650 million estimate for the E, F end K
Routes. Also, the 15 percent or $467 million unfunded contingency should
be adequate to provide for increased cost from any source.
PAGENO="0941"
1623
QUESTiON 13 -- GAO HEARINGS
In the May ~th Report to Senetc: :~e GAO disc~sse~ (cn pa;a 20 to 21)
several specific ccntract cost overruns. %ere these reflected in the $139.5
million increase noted in the August 1375 Office of Prc.~-a:i Co~trcl Report.
Yes, these ite~ns were included in ~ugust Report. A 5~~~~zcut of
thc specific items follows:-
DESCRIPTION
K Route Daley Costs Due to 1-66
Project Unit A-9 - Increase Due
to Re-Bid of Contract lAOO9l
Project Unit F-3 - Increase Due to
Rodesign (Current Section Desgner
Estimate Reported which incorporates
latest updated information)
Project Unit L-l - Sunken Tube
across lashington Channel. Delay
due to problems in finding suitable
dumping area for material dredged
from the channel. Latest eStimate
reported which reflects cost
increase. Addieicnaliy, an alter-
nate constru ic- cz:~n
allows the bidder to use coffer-dans
has been incor-pcrazed into the
specifications. This option nay
offset the delay costs.
A~CL~T REPORTED
IN EYRD REPORT
$3.9 Million
?ossible Increase
$2.1 Million
S2.2 Million
A~-~C~NT REPORTED IN
ALGUST PROGRAM
CONTROL REPORT
$17.5 Millicn Reported
$2.l Million
$~.3 Million
$i .1 liii lion
$2.0 Million
PAGENO="0942"
1624
GAO HEARING
QUESTION IQ
Are there now any delays or cost o~erruns which the staff foresees
but which have not be~n publicly reported? If so, pleese submit a
description of these for the record.
The Authoritys staff anticipates that the cost of ccnstruct~on
inspection may exceed the amount programmed for this task, however there
is no basis for quantifying this increase until a definite trend is firmly
established. The staff also foresees an increase in the cost of insurance
and possibly in the amounts of contract modifications. These potential
cost increases will be closely monitored and the Congress will be advised
of their impact when they can be quantified.
PAGENO="0943"
1625
~ G~
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
me~ ~3 ~ MEMORANDUM ~
TO: Chairman and Board of Directors DATE: NOV 20 1975
SUBJECT: Current Hearings before House D.C. Subcornittees
The attached Table I to House D.C. Subcomittee Staff Analysis of
GAO Report was passed by House staff to the press during the testimony
of Mr. Gutmann of GAO before House Committee members-on November 18.
The table shows a total Metro cost estimate of $6.125 billion. Meanwhile
Mr. Gutrr.snn in his testimony was supportIng a cost estimate of $4.8
billion, about 3 percent over the Authority estimate of $4.65 billion.
Following oUr testimony, Mr. Gutmann and I were asked by press
for comment on the $6.125 billion estimate, which of course we had
not previously seen. Mr. Gutmann's qualified reply to "Well, could
the cost go to $6.1 billion?" permitted the Post writer to associate
GAO with the House figure.
Herewith are brief comments on the main components of the House
staff figures: -.
$4.453 - WMATA November 1974 estimate.
.414 - The GAO May 8, 1975 report to Senator Byrd projected
a cost increase ofbetween $46 million and $414 million
for construction coiifTii~ency. Staff used upper limit.
.273 - The GAO-Byrd report stated "route alignments currently
being considered could increase costs hy as much as
$273 million." Maryland DOT has earmarked at least
$62 million from interstate highway funds for this
route.
.489 - The GAO-Byrd report concluded that WMATh escalation
"was estimated using reasonable procedures, data and
judgment," but that, "different judgments could be
substituted." They forecast cost due to escalation
could decrease $169 million or Increase 5489 million.
Again, staff used upper limit.
.184 - Source of this figure is unknown to WH.~TA. The GAO-
Byrd report states projected cost overruns on current
contracts ~ exceed allotted amounts by $19.6 million.
PAGENO="0944"
1626
Current Hearings before House D.C. Subcommittees
.312 - This figure is from the July 7, 1975 GAO reort ~;hich
had a different purpose than the 3yrd re:-ort. The
staff included $149 million of "~ouble-ccunting" from
the $4,453 million above, as well as betterments,
add-ons and handicapped facilities separately funded.
it also includes some estimates -ihich G~ recently
agreed were excessive. The staff has th~s overstated
this line item by 75-80 percent.
The GAO-Byrd report recognized that recipients of t~~e report ~uid
likely edd all of the high projections and therefore cautiomed:
`We believe it is reasonable to assume that sore of
the contingencies that will adversely affect rosts
will occur. ft is also reasonable to expect that
not all will occur and, for this reason, the indi-
vidual items of potential cost growth should not
all be added to the current estimate to arrive at
a completion cost."
Attachment
as
-2-
PAGENO="0945"
1627
COiU~ECTIC7 *`~~
(Staff Analysis of GAO Report, Total a~o~int of S5.125 billion
not contained in GAO Report)
Table 1
Sunrnarv of Cost Chanqes from
GAO Renort to Senator
(in billions)
- Subtotal *- . -.. -
In July 7, 1375, Rerort~1
*TOTALCCST--(thisisnot the
maximum rossi»=le cost.)
- B-Route - - $ 20
-. E-ROuta~ ÷ ~ 227
P-Route-~ ÷ -$ 69.5
-. J & M-Route - S 3.5
-: K~Rout~** ?
- $ 273.0
*~fldeterTrtined further increases for Ti it-of-way and bridge
costs since 1-95 is cancelled in Maryleod.
**~pderte~5~~ed increase due to uncertainty over 1-56 land
rights and construction. (Minimum daily inflation delay
is $37,5OO/dey~)
3/ Based on GAO comrarisicn of ~ATA rates with otharestinates
~/ Contracts ie~ ar more than esoimates - -
2/ Obtained oy rising design estimates for ~f ~76 orograma.
`HANDOUT ?.SOV1EO at 5TFF OF HOUSE s~3ēG~HITTEE ON FISCAL AFFAIRS AND
COMMERCE, HCUSHG A~J m?AN5?O?.1A1~ON TO THE PRESS 13 HcVEHBER 1975.
$4 .453
Li.
.273
.489
.184
$5 .813
IT .3l2~~'
$6.l25**~
Metro Estimate
Contingency A11o~ance 2/ -
Route Realignments 2/
Revised Inflation Estimate 2/
- Cost Overrnrs Under Contract 2/
.1/ This was developed by the GAO by studying nest contracts
and determining and applying appropriate contingency factors
by type of contract. .
2/ The reToort motes costs from RouteRealignment as follows:
million
million
million
million
62-418 0 - 76 - Pt.2 - 60
PAGENO="0946"
1628
[Subsequently, the following material was received for insertion
for the record:]
RE-BAR CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.,
Washington, D.C., December 16, 1975.
Mr. JACKSON GRAHAM,
General Manager, Board of Directors, Washington Metropolitan. Area Transit
Authority, 600 Fifth Street NW., Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn GRAHAM: As a member of the Board of Directors of W.M.A.T.A., I
believe you will be pleased to receive our company brochure.
W.M.A.T.A.'s Office of Minority Development and especially the efforts of Mr.
Pete Brown have made Re-Bar Construction a part of Washington's subway
building team. Norair Engineering, Swindell.-Dressler, Healy-Kruse, and Fruin-
Colnon have subcontracted to our company, and in the future we hope to include
other general contractors.
It has been said that minority-owned businesses do not perform to expectations,
but in the pages of this brochure you will see that Re-Bar Construction not only
did well but is also recognized as a solid subcontractor in the area. Community
involvement has also increased according to our resources, yet none of this
would have been possible if W.M.A.T.A.'s policy did not include a ten per cent
minority participation in the award of all contracts.
We acknowledge tl1e opportunities made available to us through this policy
and thank WT.M.A.T.A. for their enlightened directives.
Yours truly,
ISHMEAL HARPS,
President.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Washington, D.C., December 29, 1975.
Hon. ROMANO L. MAZz0LI,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs,
and
Hon. W. S. STUCKEY,
Chairman, Submninzittee on Housing and Transportation, Committee oa the
District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
GENTLEMEN: In the belief that the correspondence is highly germane to the
hearing conducted by your Subcommittees on December 16, 1975, into the expe-
rience of minority contractors in connection with Metro construction and the
practices of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, I ani enclos-
ing a copy of a letter and a brochure which we have received from Mr. Ishmeal
Harps, President, Re-Bar Construction Company, Inc., dated December 16, 1975.
In the letter, Mr. Harps comments on the experience of his organization as a
sub-contractor in Metro construction.
We believe that these materials should be of assistance to the Committee in
its deliberations concerning the subject and, therefore, respectfully request that
they be made a part of the record.
Sincerely,
JACKSON GRAHAM.
Enclosures.
[From the New York Times, Jan. 9, 1976]
WASHINGTON TRANSIT PROJECT BOON TO MINORITY BUILDERS
(By Ralph Blumenthal)
WASHINGTON.-"The color of the game is green," says Charles W. Dowdy,
director of minority development for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority.
More than any other construction effort in recent times, the building of the $5
billion capital area rapid rail system by the authority is providing black and
other minority contractors with an extraordinary opportunity to break into the
traditionally white-dominated construction field.
With minority concerns here now capturing about 5 percent of the contract
awards, some $60 million will flow into the coffers of minority builders from
work already assigned. At the same rate, minority concerns would capture about
$250 million of the total expenditure.
PAGENO="0947"
1629
That alone is more than one-sixth of the amount estimated to have been earned
by all minority concerns last year in all construction projects across the nation,
public and private.
On a lesser scale, the same trend toward a significant minority share In public
construction is also evident in Atlanta and Baltimore, two other cities building
large mass transit projects.
"Minority firms missed out on the two biggest construction booms of our time-
housing and aerospace," said Mr. Dowdy. Transportation, he added, is the boom
of the future-and one the minority concerns, black, Hispanic, and Oriental, will
not be permitted to miss.
Minority concerns have been trying to break into the field for years and have
failed. What is making the difference now is a combination of carrot-large
public construction project (transit) -and stick-affirmative action progress for
minority participation that have to be applied to such projects under equal
opportunity legislation.
In addition, says Carl Jones, co-owner of Jones & Artis, the first minority firm
to win a substantial contract with W.M.A.T.A. in the capital.. "Metro brought on
so much work [thatj the smaller jobs went begging, and we came underneath and
took them."
Public construction is all the more significant for firms like Jones & Artis be-
cause of the dearth of nongovernment work for minority concerns.
"Private? Forget it !" said Mr. Jones. "There's almost none of it. We don't even
look for it."
REQUEST ON CONTRACTS
Since last November W.M.A.T.A. has been requesting that 10 percent of the
high-value heavy construction prime contracts and 20 percent of the lighter work
be directed to minority concerns. The distinction between the two types of con-
tracts is a reflection of the relative scarcity of minority concerns at this point
prepared to handle the largest contracts.
Atlanta, where a $2.1 billion rapid rail system is under construction does not
have similar fixed percentage. But the equal opportunity office of the Metropoli-
tan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority insists that minority concerns be "meaning-
fully" involved in each stage. Thus, a line segment being built through Fulton
and T)eKalb Counties with a 29 percent black population is supposed to reflect
minority participation roughly to that extent.
So far, of construction contracts totaling about $11.5 million, minority concerns
in Atlanta have won $2.7 million in subcontracts. In addition, of $8.3 million
worth of design contracts for seven subway stations, minority concerns will reap
$2.3 million in subcontracts.
Baltimore's project is still in too germinal a stage to reflect any fixed percent-
age of minority involvement. But of the first three contracts awarded, totaling
$31,000, a minoriy concern got one, a demolition job, worth $10,600.
LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION
The contrast between these levels of participation and those heretofore is
striking.
For example, the Minority Contractors Resources Center here, a publicly
funded agency credited with helping achieve the breakthrough, discovered re-
cently after a survey that of $2 billion in Department of Defense construction
contracts let last year, only $7 million went to minority concerns.
"We were so surprised we called the Pentagon to verify the figure," said Frank
Kent, director of the center, at 1750 K Street NW.
Nationally, the center estimates minority participation at even less-under 1
percent of the $169 billion spent across the country on pul)lic and private con-
struction in 1974.
EVASION DETECTED
The center and WMATA have been working hand in hand to steer minority
contractors to the available jobs. For example, when the authority awards a
major contract to a low-bidder-usually one of the larger white-owned con-
cerns-Mr. Kent's office is informed. The center then sends a letter congratu-
lating the contractor and inviting him in to meet potential minority subcon-
tractors.
"We parade a bunch past him, and he picks the ones he wants," Mr. Kent said.
PAGENO="0948"
1630
On one decision, he said they caught a major contractor in an evasion. After
rejcting a number of minority contractors referred by the center, the builder
announced that he had found one of his own.
However, after looking into it, Mr. Kent's office discovered the man had set up
a supposedly black-owned dummy concern under his foreman. Mr. Kent told the
builder they knew what he was up to and gave him a week to come up with an
acceptable legitimate minority concern-which he then did.
Had he refused, W.M.A.T.A. would have been in a dilemma. "We recognize
we're not necessarily on the strongest legal ground," said Mr. Dowdy. A low-
bidder denied a contract because of his refusal to hire a specified number of
minority subcontractors might well sue and win, he indicated. Thus, the center
and W.M.A.T.A. try to persuade rather than order.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The center has been operating on a $450,000 budget this year, provided by
W.M.A.T.A. ($100,000), the Department of Commerce's Office of Minority Busi-
ness Enterprise ($100,000) and the Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare ($250,000).
One happy benefactor of the affirmative action effort is Mr. Jones of Jones &
Artis.
Mr. Jones, a civil and structural engineering graduate of Howard University,
set up the firm with James Artis three years ago.
In the beginning, he recalled, it was a struggle. Private construction contracts
did not come their way. They were inexperienced. Banks were reluctant to make
them loans.
"I don't want to hit them with a rap of not lending to blacks, but banks only
lend you money if you don't need it." said Mr. Jones, leaning back on a chair in
his paneled office in a residential building at 1111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.
"Banks only lend with a strong financial picture, and there aren't many firms
like that."
The minority contractors center came to their aid with advice on how to set
up a computerized cost-control system for running the business.
"It brought everything into an established pattern," said Mr. Jones. "It gave
us stringent rules to live by. It gave us accountability over all facets of our
business."
Before winter curbed the construction season, Jones & Artis were employing
up to 107 workmen. The annual volume is up to $4 million. The firm has won
five contracts with W.M.A.T.A., including one as a prime contractor, rebuilding
I Street for $1 million. It also won a significant contract $2.9 million contract
from the Federal Aviation Administration for work on the Ford-Lincoln Tunnel.
Perhaps even more important than the current contracts going to the minority
concerns, Mr. Dowdy and Mr. Kent believe, is the experience the companies are
garnering to prepare them for more lucrative contracts.
"There's no point getting someone an invitation to a dance if he doesn't know
how to dance and doesn't have a tux," said Mr. Dowdy. "This will give them
experience for other jobs. Now for the first time, minority firms are being able
to say, `Yes, I have the experience.'"
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PBOTEGTION AGENCY,
REGION III,
Pltiladelpliia, Pa., February 27. 1976.
Subject: Air Quality Consistency Determination Between the Section 134 Trans-
portation Plan and the State Implementation Plan-Washington, D.C.
Urbanized Area.
Mr. W. H. WHITE,
Regional Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, UJS~. Department of
Transportation, Baltimore, Md.
DEAR Mn. WHITE: In response to your letter of October 16, 1975 and in accord-
ance with FHWA Air Quality Guidelines, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reviewed the determination of consistency between the transporta-
tion plan and program and the air quality implementation plan for the Washing-
ton, D.C. Urbanized Area. We apologize for the delay in submitting our
comments.
PAGENO="0949"
1 t~9
I UtJ
We have concluded that the transit portion pf the transportation plan is
consistent with air quality goals but the highway portion is inconsistent with
air quality goals. We have found the highway portion to contain significant
deficiencies.
Based on our determination of inconsistency of the highway portion of the
transportation plan, we strongly recommend that certification of the Transpor-
tation Planning Board be immediately withdrawn. We recommend that funding
for transit projects and all planning funds be continued. Certification can be
reinstated only when the plan provides for expeditious attainment and mainte-
nance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
We recognize that this represents a serious step, but air quality is a serious
problem. We do not consider decertification a solution to the problem, but view
it as a means to force a solution because the planning process is not responsive
to environmental quality. We must emphasize that clean air is not an optional
goal, but rather a requirement of the Clean Air Act. The planning process and the
resulting plan therefore cannot choose to ignore it.
The existing air quality in the Washington, D.C. region as published in the
District Bureau of Air Quality Reports necessitated a thorough review of the
submittal. We find that the submittal ignores our previous comments and the
plan has not been substantially changed since last year. Evidence of necessary
elements to assure attainment of the NAAQS is not present in the plan. In addi-
tion, a major concern expressed in our comments last year was the further prob-
lem of maintaining NAAQS once they have been attained. The plan does not
provide for this maintenance of standards. We expect the results of the studies
being done in the District area will be used to revise the long-range transporta-
tion and land use plans so the questions of attainment and maintenance will be
addressed. However, the initiation of studies is not grounds for a consistent plan
unless the necessary revisions to the plans and the "3C" planning process are
made.
An inadequate Transportation Control Plan does not relieve the MPO from
their responsibility to develop transportation policies and plans which allow for
the timely attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS as required by the Clean
Air Act. It must again be emphasized that clean air is a statutory requirement
and not an optional goal.
The air quality analysis performed for the long-range plan indicates that
NAAQS will not be attained even in 1992. We have carefully reviewed the air
quality modelling procedures and conclude that the models represent the state-
of-the-art and have been properly applied. However, we conclude that the 1992
air quality estimates are conservative because of the assumption of full control
of CO and HC automobile emissions after 1977 and large reductions of CO and
HC from heavy duty vehicles in 1980. Therefore, air quality in 1992 may be
worse than predicted by the models.
The land use growth pattern assumed in the long-range plan (6.2 modified)
resembles a sprawl-type pattern. Implicit in this growth pattern is the assump-
tion that highways will be built, such that growth will occur. These projections
are thus self-fulfilling. The transportation codes assumed result in patterns and
demands indicating more highways need to be built. The land use plan, as a
result, is not an independent policy but rather a reflection of the desired trans-
portation policies. In addition, this process does not allow for environmental
assessment at the proper stage of the planning process.
Land use projections require as input policy for water and sewer, transit,
highway and open space. Environmental constraints must be considered during
development of policy, as well as during later stages of the modelling process.
Until the environmental concerns are addressed in the land use planning, main-
tenance of the NAAQS cannot be assured by the long-range plan.
The short-range transportation improvement program (SRTIP) is inconsistent
because it does not provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The SRTIP does
provide for increased transit funding due to the metro construction. However,
a firm commitment toward continued increased transit funding is lacking. Fur-
thermore, the SRTIP does not directly provide a funding level such that timely
implementation of the TCP measures will occur. The implementation dates have
not been met and although the MPO gives assurance of accelerated implementa-
tion, the SRTIP does not clearly include funding for the efforts required to
implement the measures.
PAGENO="0950"
1632
I would like to meet with you in person immediately to discuss your instruc-
tions to the MPO. Transportation Systems Management planning is an excellent
mechanism for insuring attainment of the NAAQS. Year 2000 planning, 208 plan-
ning and air quality maintenance studies now underway can provide a sound basis
for insuring maintenance of the standards.
We appreciate the opportunity to review- your determination of consistency
and look forward to-hearing from you.
Sincerely,
DANIEL J. SNYDER III,
Regional -Adinini~trator.
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON GROUP,
THE SIERRA CLUB,
March 4, 1976.
STATEMENT OF RIIEA L. COHEN
Chairman Mathias and meml)ers of the committee : Of the many urban prol)-
lems with which - Washington area residents and their elected representatives
must deal daily, the funding of the Metro rapid rail system has been made the
most urgent by the recent release of the Faucett report by the Subcommittee on
Fiscal Affairs of the House Committee on the District of Columbia.
On November 7, 1965, Subcommittee Chairman Romano L. Mazzoli requested
the Library of Congress to undertake a study of the proposed Metro rail system,
that it be a "preliminary assessment . . . of the desirability of a shift to some
short-term funding approach for Metro to allow time for a thorough re-study
before proceeding with the longer-term completion of the system." The report
w-as to contain three elements in particular:
1. A concise cost-benefit appraisal of one or more possible alternatives to
the presently planned 98-mile system, supported by as much detailed data
analysis as is feasible: -
2. Documentation of changes in metropolitan area economy, structure and
function w-hich may render invalid some original planning assumptions and
forecasts supporting the 98-mile adopted regional plan for the rail transit
system, and
3. Some assessment of the costs and impacts of the alternatives consid-
ered on present system financing agreements betw-een Federal, state and
local governments."
The Library of Congress engaged Jack Faucett Associates, Inc.. of Chevy
Chase, Maryland, on a contract for a study lasting six weeks and costing $4000.
Released by the Subcommittee in early February. the study calls for a halt in
Metro construction for six to nine months until after a "thorough alternatives
analysis" has been conducted. The alternative which the consultants apparently
prefer is truncating the Metro to a 68-mile system. -
The Faucett report shows a stunning disdain for all of those human and en-
vironmental values relating to transportation alternatives which defy easy
quantification in terms of dollars and cents, such as air quality, convenience
and comfort, access to new' job markets and access to public facilities and serv-
ices. With regard to air quality, truncation of Metro rail service would lead to
pressure for more highway construction to accommodate those commuters who
would otherwise have become rail patrons. Even with the Metro rail system in
the region's transportation plan as a basic element, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency this week has declared the highway portion of that plan incon-
sistent with air quality standards.
In a letter to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. EPA
Region III Administrator Daniel J. Snyder pointed out, "We must emphasize that
clean air is not an optional goal, but rather a requirement of the Clean Air Act."
According to the attached Washington Post new-spaper article. Snyder has rec-
ommended that the Federal Highway Administrator withhold highway construc-
tion funds "until air pollution control measures are strengthened." Clearly, cut-
ting back on mass transit for the region would exacerbate air pollution.
Two erroneous assumptions are central to the Faucett report: 1) that Metro's
operating costs must be met by the farebox, and 2) that only population growth
can greatly increase ridership. Then, pointing to the recent downward adjust-
ments in population forecasts for the region, the report concludes that it is
PAGENO="0951"
1633
infeasible to complete the entire system. It dismisses as insignificant the result-
ing increases in auto use and air pollution, and appears to spread out the auto
gain over a 24-hour period rather than to show it at rush hours. It excludes from
transportation comparisons the monetary and energy costs of operating those
additional private auto~nobiles and of constructing and maintaining those added
highway lanes which would follow a rail service cut. It is silent on the labor
intensive, energy efficient and air quality improving features of rapid rail. It
omits consideration of more economical alternatives to the proposed feeder bus
system, and it disregards the efficacy of transit incentives combined with auto
disincentives to increase ridership. It downplays the likelihood of transfer of
federal interstate highway funds to finance Metro construction, and it ignores
other sOurces of construction and operating capital, such as federal assistance
and a regional transit tax.
As described in the following statement which I delivered before the House
Committee on the District of Columbia Fiscal Affairs Subcommittee on March 2,
the Faucett report is a slight and superficial exercise, a subservient bow to the
almighty automobile.
We urge your Committee to consider the Fauceft report as a desperate and
poorly disguised attempt to intercept the imminent transfer of District of Colum-
bia and other local interstate highway funds to Metro. We hope you will thwart
this and other last minute efforts to keep superhighway plans alive and to derail
Metro just as its first operating line is about to go into service. Your Committee's
help is very much needed to assist the region's local governments in developing
the package of regional taxes, federal assistance, and the transit incentives plus
auto disincentives necessary for the Metro system to serve the present and
future residents and visitors of this National Capital area. We thank you for
providing the opportunity for us to bring this matter to your Committee's atten-
tion, and we appreciate your continuing interest in the prol)lemS of the Metro-
politan Washington Region.
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 4, 1976]
AREA ROAD POLLUTION CONTROL HELD WEAK
(By Stephen Kinidinan)
The Environmental Protection Agency has found that the air quality stand-
ards in the highway portion of the Washington area's regional transportation
plan are inadequate and has recommended that the Highway Administration
withhold funds until air pollution control measures are strengthened.
The EPA finding, which was disclosed yesterday at a meeting of the Wash-
ington Metropolitan Council of Governments, must now be reviewed by the
Federal Highway Administration, which has the authority to decertify the
transportation board and discontinue financing for the highway portion of the
plan.
The multil)ihlion dollar highway development plan includes the possible con-
struction of an additional beltway outside the existing one, the construction of
new four-lane arterial roads an(l the widening of existing roads.
EPAs findings and recommendations were made in a letter from Daniel
Snyder, regional administrator of the environmental watchdog agency, to W. H.
White, regional administrator of the highway agency.
EPA found the "transit portion" of the plan, which includes Metro, "is con-
sistent with air quality goals," but that "the highway portion is inconsistent."
According to Dennis Bates, director of health and environmental protection for
COG, the kinds of things that would have to be revised would be numbers of car
Pools buses, downtown parking spaces and anything else in the plan that affects
air quality.
Snyder made it clear in his letter that the goal was not to scrap the plan hut
to make sure that pollution would be held to an acceptable level.
"We must emphasize," lie wrote, "that clean air is not an optional goal, but
rather a requirement of the Clean Air Act."
Snyder's letter noted also that "the air quality analysis performed for the
long-range plan indicates that (acceptable standards) will not be attained even
in 1992."
Air quality, said Snyder, "is a serious probleni. We do not consider decertifi-
cation (discontinuation of funding) a solution to the problem, but view it as a
PAGENO="0952"
1634
means to force a solution because the planning process is not responsive to
environmental quality."
GREATER WASHINGTON CENTRAL LABOR COuNCIL, AFL-CIO,
Washington, D.C., March 31, 1976.
Hon. ROMANO L. MAzzoLI,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN MAZZOLI: The Greater Washington Central Labor Council
is well aware of the recent debates concerning the Washington Area Metro Rail
System. We believe that the present problem highlighted in the report, "Wash-
ington Area Metro Rail System; Perspectives and Alternatives", should be given
careful consideration. We wholeheartedly agree with the idea of improving the
present system. The Labor Council does not agree, however, with the study's
proposals and this letter will hopefully explain our opposition.
It is our belief that the finance and time constraints associated with this study
have prevented a complete analysis of all aspects of this issue. Working with
these limited resources, the study was forced to make certain assumptions that
were not adequately supported by the data.
In the discussion of rising fuel prices, the report suggested that gasoline short-
ages and rising prices may increase the demand for mass transportation, but dis-
missed any study of this increased demand as problematical. Increasing gasoline
costs is an extremely relevant problem and the associated higher costs of car
operation certainly merits extensive consideration.
The report's discussion of alternative to the proposed 98 mile system is severely
hindered by the admitted informational constraint. "It is difficult to estimate
how many potential patrons would adjust their travel patterns in a fashion
which is consistent with the original WMATA forecast without recourse to com-
puter models which were not available within the resources of this study."
(p. 39)
The Commission would like to stop all Metro construction for approximately
six to nine months. During that time period a detailed investigation of the costs
and benefits of the proposed system would be undertaken. Though a detailed
report concerning the merits of the present Metro system would be beneficial, to
halt the construction until such a report could be presented would have serious
consequences.
What would happen to all the workers presently employed? With clearly high
unemployment rates, this effect could only increase the unemployment problem
rather than providing some help towards solving it as current Metro construc-
tion does. There would be cost incurred from a temporary halt in terms of rehir-
ing and training employees to take places of those who had found employment
elsewhere during the layoff period. There would also be additional costs due to
inflation and because of the increased period of time needed to complete con-
struction as a result of the delay.
Certainly a drastic halt of the Metro, with all of its attendant repercussions
must be based on more conclusive evidence than has been represented in this
limited study. Congress should make use of the best methodology and allocate
sufficient funds to conduct a comprehensive study because the policies Congress
advocates set precedents for all the lesser legislatures. The meager S4.000.O0
study concerning the Metro Rail System establishes a bad precedent. For the
U.S. to discontinue or even alter a program on the basis of this type study is
totally incomprehensible.
In comparison to Europe, our present transportation system is extremely out-
dated. Let's not halt construction and further delay a badly needed. efficient.
mode of transportation. The costs of a temporary halt of construction would
most likely be greater than any benefits that could be the result of such action.
Congress approved Metro construction previously and it should continue its
support.
The Greater Washington Central Labor Council thanks you for consideration
of this viewpoint, and urges you to support the continuation of Metro because
we desperately need it.
Sincerely,
ROBERT E. PurEnsoN, President.
PAGENO="0953"
1635
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., April 26, 1976.
B-141529
Hon. ROMANO L. MAzzoLI,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs of the Committee on the District of
Columbia, House of Representatives.
DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of December 2, 1975,
presenting several questions concerning activities of the Washington Metropoli-
tan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). As requested by your staff, we are
responding to your request for our opinion on the legal nature of the metrorail
capital contribution and operating subsidy agreements in advance of our reply to
the other questions.
Enclosed is a copy of the legal analysis our staff prepared regarding the
agreements between the local governments and WMATA for financing the metro-
rail system. We trust that it may be of some assistance, notwithstanding that
we perceive no clear or even reasonably reliable legal answer to whether locali-
ties would be bound to contribute funds in accordance with revised estimates or
construction costs or whether capital contributions must be refunded if the sys-
tem is not completed.
Sincerely yours,
PAUL G. DEMBLING,
(For the Comptroller General
of the United States).
Enclosure.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Question. Submit for the record an opinion from your legal staff on the binding
or non-binding nature of the agreements local governments have entered to make
capital contributions and payments for operating subsidies. Also include com-
ments on any obligations for refunding capital contributions if the entire adopted
regional system is not completed.
Answer. The only formal agreement providing for payment by the various
localities to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
for rapid rail transit is the Capital Contributions Agreement (CCA). It was
signed by the City of Falls Church on March 29, 1969, and subsequently signed
by the other Virginia jurisdictions, the District of Columbia, the Washington
Suburban Transit District for Montgomery County and Prince George's County,
and WMATA. A guaranty by the Maryland counties of the obligations of the
Washington Suburban Transit District, which had no independent revenues, was
attached. (The Transit District's outstanding capital obligations have been
assumed by the State of Maryland. See, Md. Code Ann. art. 94A. § hA (Supp.
1975).)
At the time the CCA was signed, WMATA and the localities also entered into
a Transit Service Agreement providing for metrorail operating subsidies to be
paid in accordance with a prescribed formula. We understand that this agree-
ment was intended to provide necessary support for WMATA to issue gross
revenue bonds. The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in effect held the Service
Agreement in violation of sections of the Virginia Constitution designed to con-
trol indebtedness. Board of Supervisors of Fairfa~r County v. Massey, 210 Va. 253,
169 S.E.2d 556 (1969). A revised agreement was held to be constitutional, and
if it had been signed by all parties it presumably would have been legally bind-
ing. Board of Supervisors of Fairfa~v County v. Massey, 210 Va. 680, 173 S.E.
2d 869 (1970). However, at that time the Service Agreement was no longer
thought to be important for bond issue purposes, and there was some concern
that the allocation formula was unrealistic. (The governing bodies of each
locality have adopted resolutions in various forms agreeing to operating sub-
sidies and efforts in general to assure the viability of the financial plan in order
for WMATA to obtain Federal bond guarantees.) On Tanuary 8, 1976, the
WMATA Committee on Development of Metrorail Deficit Allocation Formula
recommended an allocation formula for Phases I and II (17.6 miles in operation,
primarily within the District of Columbia), which is presently under considera-
tion by the localities.
The CCA requires WMATA to construct and acquire the regional transit sys-
tem substantially in accordance with the Adopted Regional System-1968 (Re-
vised) as it may be amended. (Sec. 2.1) There is no obligation to construct
PAGENO="0954"
1636
facilities specified in an amendment until WMATA is sufficiently assured of the
availability of adequate funds. Also, no amendment of the plan which will reduce
facilities within or serving any local jurisdiction can be adopted without consent
of the jurisdiction. (Sec. 2.1) By requiring consent of the local jurisdiction con-
cerned, WMATA has limited the authority contained in the Washington Area
Transit Authority Compact, Pub. L. No. 89-774, 80 Stat. 1324, allowing amend-
ment of the mass transit plan by unanimous vote of the directors representing
any two signatories.
By its terms the CCA binds the localities to contribute allocated shares of the
original esimated costs of construction and acquisition of the metrorail system
in accordance with a periodic receipts schedule. In response to requests of
WMATA, all localities except the City of Fairfax have accelerated payments
under the schedules so that only a small portion of their obligations based on
the original cost estimates remains.
:WMATA is required to recompute the necessary capital contributions based
on revised cost estimates and a specified allocation formula within 5 years of
the start of construction (December 9, 1969) or July 1, 1974, whichever is later,
and every two years thereafter. (Sec. 3.3(d)) The allocation formula involves
four factors: estimated 1990 ridership, population, train miles and stations, and
estimated construction costs Section 3.3(h) provides in part as follows:
In the case of the allocation of any excess * * * to one or more Political
Subdivisions, each such Political Subdivision hereby pledges to each other
Poltical Subdivision and to the Authority its faithful cooperation and best
efforts to obtain all authorizations required by law to provide the increase in
its Capital Contributions resulting from such allocation.
Representatives of the localities with whom we discussed the CCA contend
that the "best effort" requirement of section 3.3(h) is essentially a political or
practical requirement and not a legal one. For example, with the exception of
Alexandria, the Virginia juridictions are required to obtain referendum approval
for proposed bond issues. Some officials have maintained tl1at one city or county
council cannot legally bind subsequent council members to recommend a bond
referendum, and thus there is some question whether the "best effort" provision
legally requires passage of council resolutions authorizing bond referendums.
(To the extent a bond issue referendum authorization is a "governmental"
rather than a "business" function, this contention may be meritorious. ~ec 56
Am. Jr. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Etc., §154 (1971). We are not aware of any
consideration of this issue by Virginia courts.) It is also contended that state
constitutional separation of powers provisions might prevent a court from order-
ing a bond referendum to be held. Assuming that a bond issue proposal is pre-
sented to the voters, passage may require a considerable effort in tl1e current
fiscally conservative atmosphere. Assessing whether a council made its "best
efforts" in such a context would be exceedingly difficult. Also, since Virginia
cities may not constitutionally exceed certain debt limits, Alexandria's city
council may not be legally bound to approve additional bond issues even though
no referendum would be required there. ~cc Board of ~vpervisors, supra; But-
ton v. Day, 139 S.E.2d 91, 205 Va. 629 (1964) Scofield Engineering Company v.
City of Danville. 35 F. Supp. 668 (W.D.Va. 1940), aff'd, 126 F. 2d 942 (1942).
Voter approval is not required for District of Columbia bond issues. However,
Congress has ultimate authority over the District's bond issue authority, making
the District's "best effort" commitment of little strictly legal effect. District of
Columbia Self-Government and Governmenal Reorganizaion Act, Pub. L. No.
93-198, title VI, 87 Stat. 813.
Another reservation cited by local representatives is WMATA's present breach
of the CCA. The failure to recompute capital contributions as required by section
3.3(d) is said to suspend the localities' obligations under the contract, including
on the original estimates. Some localities feel that this breach could excuse their
performance altogether, requiring a new contract. A similar argument is based
on WMATA's failure to provide the financial plan required by section 17(a),
title III, of the Washington Area Transit Authority Compact, Pub. L. No. 89-774,
80 Stat. 1324. Some localities believe that they are sufficiently unsure of
WMATA's ability to complete the system that they could legally suspend pay-
ments until given reasonable assurances that WMATA's obligation will be met.
Should the "best effort" provision require judicial construction, the court
will be faced with a myriad of considerations and arguments requiring close
scrutiny of the laws applicable to each jurisdiction. Any attempt abstractly to
PAGENO="0955"
1637
Predict the outcome at present would be more speculation than legal analysis.
Moreover, we believe that political and l)raCtiCal considerations, as well as the
moral duty to deal fairly with the other localities by acting in accordance with
promises made, may be more important to the binding nature of section 3.3(h)
than legal considerations.
If a recomputation of necessary capital contributions establishes that a
locality has paid more than its share, no adjustment of its commitment will be
made, and the locality will not be required to pay in excess of its recomputed
allOcal)le share. (Sec. 3.3(f)). However, there are no provisions specifying that
upon comnpietioll of the system excess contributions will be refunded to the
locality concerned. (WMATA has recently proposed a revision of tIme CCA to
require such refunds.) An overpayment would mean that another locality had
not fully paid its share or that a surplus existed. In either case there would
not appear to be significant problems in refunding the overpayment.
The City of Fairfax has expressed considerable concern over the absence of
an express requirement for overpayment refunds since by some projections it has
already paid more than its share even under the latest $4.8 billion estimate.
Before accelerating any of its payments, the City required WMATA to contract
to repay the accelerated amounts with interest unless the recomnputation required
l)y December 9, 1974 was completed on or before June 30, 1975. WMATA failed
to complete the recomputation and refunded the payments.
A more serious problem would be presented should the regional system not be
substantially completed as planned. No cutbacks can be made without approval
of the jurisdiction to be affected by the cutback. We presume that a jurisdiction
would be reluctant to approve a substantial cutback of services to its citizens
without repayment of that portion of the jurisdiction's contribution allocable to
the incompleted section. (A jurisdiction's response will of course depend on the
reasons for amending the regional system plan.) Absent approval by the affected
jurisdiction. WMATA could be held in breach of the contract and the locality
could presumably claim its over~)aymeflt.
The CCA was not drafted in contemplation of such arm eventuality, and~ pre-
sents no answer. The only realistic source of funds for repayment might be
the other parties to the agreement. However, any major reallocation based on
a reduced system might be objected to on grounds that consideration for any
localitys agreement was the other signatories' agreement to contribute capital
for a system "substantially in accordance with the Adopted Regional System-
1908 (Revised)." This would appear to be a realistic contention in view of the
disproportionately increased burden a reduced systemn could impose on some
localities.
The respective rights and liabilities of WMATAand the localities and possible
judicial remedies for a reduced regional system will depend on the particular
factual context of the litigation. As with the question of whether localities are
legally bound to contribute funds in accordance with revised construction cost
estimates, there is presently no clear or even reasonably reliable legal answer to
whether capital contributions must be refumided if the system is not completed.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Washington, D.C., April 23, 1976.
Mr. T. MICHAEL NEVENS,
Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, 506
House Office Building Annece 1, Old Congressional Building, TVashington,
D.C.
DEAR MR. NEVENS: Enclosed is response to question 11 of your November 18,
1975 request. This will complete all questions that you have requested.
Sincerely,
ECKHARD BENNEWITZ,
Director, Office of Budget.
Enclosure as stated.
QUESTION ii: PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FY 1775 RAIL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
GOALS AND YOUR PROGRESS AGAINST THESE
The Fiscal Year 1975 Rail Capital Program of the Authority as originally sub-
mitted in its funding request in Fiscal 1973 was based on the design and con-
PAGENO="0956"
1638
struction schedule developed in November 1972 shortly after approval of the
revised estimate of system cost which had been developed in November 1970.
The goals of that design and construction schedule called for extension of design
activities from Metro Center Station in the District of Columbia as follows:
1. Along the "A" route to the Rockville Station in Montgomery County,
Md.
2. Along the "B" route to the yard at Glenmont in Montgomery County.
3. Along the entire length of the "C" route to Huntington, Va.
4. Along the entire length of the "D" route to New Carroliton in Prince
George's County.
5. Along the "E" route to the station in Greenbelt, Md.
6. Along the entire length of the Branch route (F), Addison route (G),
Vienna route (K), and L'Enfant Plaza/Pentagon route (L).
7. Along the Springfield route to the junction with the Franconia route.
Construction was scheduled to extend from Metro Center in the District as
follows:
1. Along the Rockville route (A) to the station in Rock'c-ille.
2. Along the Glenmont route (B) to the Silver Spring Station.
3. Along the Huntington route (C) to Huntington, Va.
4. Along the "D" route to New Carroilton.
5. Along the "E" route to just past the Georgia Avenue Station.
6. Along the "F" route (Branch) to just beyond the Anacostia River.
7. Along the "G" route to the Addison Station.
8. Along the entire length of the "K" route (Vienna).
9. Along the entire length of the "L" route (L'Enfant Plaza/Pentagon).
Even as the scheduled program was being proposed in 1973 and during the
interim period between then and Fiscal Year 1975. factors and events were taking
place that made this program virtually impossible to achieve. A court decision
which enabled the requirement for environmental impact studies and accom-
panying public hearings seriously delayed the award of contracts on project
units not yet under construction ("E"-Greenbelt route). Changes in alignment,
problems iii approving alignment, and delays in decisions affecting the design
and construction of project units seriously impacted the progress on many routes
such as the Vienna (K), Greenbelt (E), Glenmont (B), Addison (G), and Branch
(F) routes. Other delays caused by strikes and floods impeded progress yet more.
And while this was going on, the hungry jaw-s of inflation and cost escalation
were ravaging the funds appropriated for this period so that even if the delay
factors had not been present, not all of tl1e contracts programmed for this period
could have been let.
Accordingly, by the end of Fiscal Year 1975, the following extensions of final
design effort had been achieved:
1. "A"-Rockville route-to the Grosvenor Station in Montgomery County.
2. "B"-Glenmont route-to the Silver Spring Station in Montgomery
County.
3. "C"--Huntington route-the entire length of the route to Huntington,
Va.
4. "D"-New Carrollton route-the entire route to New- Carroilton
Station.
5. "E"-Greenbelt route-to a point just before the Columbia Heights
Station.
6. "F"--Branch route-to just beyond the Navy Yard Station to the
Anacostia River.
7. "G"-Addison route-to the end of the line at Addison Road.
8. "J"-Springfleld route-to just beyond the Storage and Inspection
Yard.
9. "K"-Vienna-to the end of the entire route of Vienna.
10. "L"-L'Enfant Plaza/Pentagon Line-the entire length of the route.
However, construction progress seriously lagged and by the end of Fiscal Year
1975, construction activities had been extended as follows:
1. "A"-Rockville route-to just before the Bethesda Station in Mont-
gomerv County.
2. "B"-Glenmont route-to just beyond the Silver Spring Station in
Montgomery County.
3. "C"-Huntington route-to just beyond the National Airport.
4. "D"-New Carroliton route-to the end of the line at New Carroilton.
5. "F"-Branch route-to the Waterfront Station.
PAGENO="0957"
1639
6. "K-Vienna route-to just beyond the Glebe Road Station.
7. "L"-L'Enfant Plaza/Pentagon route-from the junction with the "C"
route at the Pentagon to a portal structure adjacent to the freeway ramp
in Potomac Park.
The scheduled construction program called for about two-thirds of the system
to be under construction by the close Of Fiscal Year 1975. Actually, only ap-
proximately 39 percent of total miles of line and 45 percent of the total number
of stations were underway.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Washington, D.C., March 30, 1976.
Mr. T. MICHAEL NEVENS,
Cornnvittec on the District of Columbia, UJL House of Representatives, 506 Ho~use
Office Building Annex 1, Old Congressional Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. NEVENS: Forwarded herewith is additional data relative to Ques-
tion 1 of 1974 Net Income Analysis section submitted on November 24, 1975.
Sincerely,
ECKHARD BENNEwITz,
Director, Office of Budget.
Enclosure as stated.
1974 NET INCOME ANALYSIS
Question 1. The volume of "technical papers" and the "computer data on one
particular fare system" need to be forwarded. If the latter item is too volu-
ininous, an appropriate summary would be acceptable.
The computer data consist of at least 25 tabulations and require three 14-
inch storage boxes. No summary exists since the data are in themselves sum-
maries of such things like volumes, made of access/egress volumes, etc. The
appropriate (and the only) summary of this data is the supplied Final Report
of which a draft copy has been supplied.
The "volume" of technical reports is, in reality, eight separate, independnt
papers dealing with different technical aspects of the study. At one time, a
particular paper existed as a series of letters, agreements, sections of progress
reports, and computer models. These have been assembled into individual re-
ports-some of which remain to be completed. We inteiTd to reproduce all of
these reports, when completed, into one voluminous "volume" and reproduce
copies for technical oriented personnel. In the interim, we will meet with you
and your staff to answer any technical type questions.
0
PAGENO="0958"