Appendix A - MARC Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report

APPENDIXA

MARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport

MARC Maintenance Facility
SITE SELECTION REPORT
February 2012
FINAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ i
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 RAILROAD FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 1
2.2 RAILROAD SYSTEMS CRITERIA............................................................................................ 2
2.3 AMTRAK CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS........................................................................... 3
3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 4
4.0 SITE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 7
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
PERRYVILLE B (SOUTH OF AMTRAK) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND .................... 8

4.1.1 Railroad Suitability ............................................................................................................ 9
4.1.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) .................................................... 13
4.1.3 Natural Resources .............................................................................................................. 14
4.1.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 16
4.1.5 Potential Noise Impacts ..................................................................................................... 17
4.1.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ......................................................... 17
4.1.7 Stormwater Management ................................................................................................... 18
4.1.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).......................................................................................... 18
4.1.9 Site Pros and Cons ............................................................................................................. 18
PERRYVILLE A (FARM) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND............................................... 19
OPUS SITE, PERRYMAN, MARYLAND .................................................................................. 28
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (APG) EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND ................................ 37

Site Selection Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.5

PROLOGIS SITE, EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND........................................................................ 46
5.0 CAPITAL COSTS EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 55

5.1 COST ELEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 55
5.1.1 Preliminary Elements ........................................................................................................ 55
5.1.2 Site Work Elements ........................................................................................................... 55
5.1.3 Track Elements .................................................................................................................. 56
5.1.4 New Facilities .................................................................................................................... 57
5.1.5 Amtrak Connection............................................................................................................ 58
5.1.6 Bridge Construction ........................................................................................................... 58
5.1.7 Contingencies and Escalation ............................................................................................ 58
5.1.8 Professional Services ......................................................................................................... 58
5.2 CAPITAL COST RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 58
6.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 59
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Site Location Map ............................................................................................................. 8a
FIGURE 2 Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site-Environmental Constraints Map ............................. 9a
FIGURE 3 Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site-Yard and Shop Layout ............................................ 9b
FIGURE 4 Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map .......................... 9c
FIGURE 5 Perryville A (Farm) Site-Environmental Constraints Map................................................ 19a
FIGURE 6 Perryville A (Farm) Site- Yard and Shop Layout ............................................................. 19b
FIGURE 7 Perryville A (Farm) Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ............................................ 19c
FIGURE 8 Opus Site-Environmental Constraints Map ....................................................................... 28a
FIGURE 9 Opus Site-Yard and Shop Layout ...................................................................................... 28b
FIGURE 10 Opus Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ................................................................. 28c
FIGURE 11 APG Edgewood Site-Environmental Constraints Map ................................................... 37a
FIGURE 12 APG Edgewood Site-Yard and Shop Layout .................................................................. 37b
FIGURE 13 APG Edgewood Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ............................................... 37c
FIGURE 14 Prologis Site-Environmental Constraints Map ................................................................ 47a
FIGURE 15 Prologis Site-Yard and Shop Layout ............................................................................... 47b
FIGURE 16 Prologis Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ............................................................ 47c
TABLES
TABLE 1 MARC Alternatives Analysis-Site Selection Matrix .......................................................... 4a
TABLE 2 MARC Alternatives Analysis-Major Costs ........................................................................ 4b
TABLE 3 MARC Maintenance Facility-Site Selection Decision Factors ........................................... 4c
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A Systems Evaluation Drawings

APPENDIX B Correspondence
APPENDIX C Detailed Cost Estimates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to construct a MARC locomotive and
passenger car maintenance facility and train storage yard connected to Amtraks Northeast
Corridor (NEC). A new MARC Maintenance Facility is required to support existing MARC
operations, accommodate ridership growth and system expansion, and relocate primary
equipment maintenance functions to an MTA-controlled facility. The proposed MARC
Maintenance Facility would significantly reduce MARCs dependence on Amtrak for inspection,
maintenance and repair work on its locomotives and passenger cars, and would eliminate its
current situation of storing and servicing trainsets at Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore which
offers limited track capacity and work spaces exposed to the weather.
The proposed MARC Maintenance Facility would initially be capable of supporting the existing
eight trainsets currently operating on the Penn Line and would be expandable to ultimately
support a Year 2035 MARC Penn Line operating fleet of 25 electric locomotives, 181 multilevel coaches, and one diesel switcher locomotive. Additionally, the facility will also include
capacity to support performance of a limited amount of unscheduled minor repair activities on
coaches that are to be operated on the Brunswick and Camden Lines, primarily during mid-day
layovers. Separate tracks will be provided for trainset storage, trainset inspection, repaired car
storage, bad order car storage, train washing and protect power.
Based on input from MARC, certain criteria necessary to accommodate the proposed MARC
Maintenance Facility at any site were developed. Criteria included site requirements such as a
minimum area of 30 acres; storage yard requirements including minimum storage capacity to
accommodate current Penn Line trains; shop facility requirements including inspection pit,
sanding facility and train washer; and Amtrak connection requirements including minimum
length for lead tracks and two points of connection.
The following five sites are evaluated in this report: Perryville B (South of Amtrak), Perryville A
(Farm), Opus, APG Edgewood and Prologis. The sites are presented in geographic order starting
with Perryville B (South of Amtrak) in Perryville, Maryland to the southwest to Prologis, in
Edgewood, Maryland. Each site has significant costs and/or obstacles associated with the
development of the site. The most significant costs/obstacles for each site are included below:
Perryville B Site Relocation of the Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) Base
Perryville A Site Private farm onsite is likely cultural resource that may prevent
development during Section 4(f) NEPA process
Opus Site Property located in an area that is designated the Perryman Wellfield
Protection District which may create zoning/development issues; coordination issues with
Amtraks NEC Master Plan II for location of interlockings in high speed territory
APG Site Property would be developed as an EUL; Federal land under military use
with known hazardous waste contamination on the property will likely make
development difficult with additional liability concerns; significant quantity of imported
fill material required
Prologis Site Requires several full/partial commercial acquisitions, eight partial
residential acquisitions and the relocation of an existing stormwater management facility
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to construct a MARC locomotive and
passenger car maintenance facility and train storage yard (herein referenced as MARC
Maintenance Facility) connected to Amtraks Northeast Corridor (NEC). The MARC
Maintenance Facility is required to support existing MARC operations, accommodate ridership
growth and system expansion, and relocate primary equipment maintenance functions to an
MTA-controlled facility. The MARC Maintenance Facility would significantly reduce MARCs
dependence on Amtrak and CSXT for inspection, maintenance and repair work on its
locomotives and passenger cars, and would eliminate its current situation of storing and servicing
trainsets at Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore which offers limited track capacity and work
spaces exposed to the weather.
The MARC Maintenance Facility would accommodate the existing eight trainsets currently
operating on the Penn Line and would be expandable to support a Year 2035 MARC Penn Line
operating fleet of 25 electric locomotives, 181 multi-level coaches, and one diesel switcher
locomotive. Additionally, the facility will include capacity to support performance of a limited
amount of unscheduled minor repair activities on coaches that are to be operated on the
Brunswick and Camden Lines, primarily during mid-day layovers. Separate tracks will be
provided for trainset storage, trainset inspection, repaired car storage, bad order car storage, train
washing and protect power.
2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Based on input from MARC, certain criteria necessary to accommodate the proposed MARC
Maintenance Facility at any site were developed. These site requirements and criteria include
overall space and systems requirements for the railroad facilities, Amtrak connection
requirements, environmental requirements, and zoning requirements.
RAILROAD FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
The railroad site, storage yard, and shop facility requirements for any candidate site
include:
2.1
General Site
Site must be a minimum of 30 acres to accommodate the necessary yard and shops
in such a way that they can be positioned on the site to provide efficient exchange of
vehicles between the two. Location of the site immediately adjacent to Amtraks
Northeast Corridor is preferred.
Access to roads that will accommodate truck traffic
Parking lot space for employees and visitors expandable to accommodate future
personnel
Space for an electrical substation for 60 Hz power
Space for a traction power substation for 25 Hz power
Space for stormwater management facilities
1
Sufficient space for a passenger car repair shop and locomotive shop that could be
expanded to accommodate growing fleet size
Storage Yard
Minimum train storage capacity must accommodate current Penn Line trains: two 6car trainsets, three 7-car trainsets, two 8-car trainsets, and one 9-car trainset;
preferred that each track accommodate a 10-car trainset to avoid future track
lengthening
Must be expandable for up to a total of 17 trainsets of ten cars each plus a
locomotive
Doubled-ended facility preferred
20-foot track centers with paving between; with 30-foot track centers every fourth
track, maximum, to allow for placement of catenary poles
All turnouts to be No. 8, minimum, except larger at Amtrak connection
Train crew, dispatcher and car cleaner facilities for approximately 40 people at 100
ft2 per person overall size; needs to be expandable to accommodate future personnel
Shop Facility
A minimum of one inspection pit track with a minimum 1,000-foot pit length
One locomotive inspection pit with a pantograph inspection platform required where
each electric locomotive can be inspected every day
Locomotive sanding facility
Diesel locomotive fueling facility with 70,000-gallon storage tank capacity
Train washer
Shop building must have sufficient space to handle the normal maintenance and
inspection cycles for the anticipated locomotive and car fleets, space for unscheduled
repairs, plus space for offices and locker rooms
Wheel truing machine (in separate building preferred)
Storeroom building
Maintenance, Operations, and Administrative Offices and Support Spaces; ultimate
square footage and staffing levels TBD
Parking for staff, crews, and visitors, with road access for delivery trucks, etc.
2.2
RAILROAD SYSTEMS CRITERIA

The proposed facility is for the storage and maintenance of electric locomotives and
electric (and diesel) locomotive powered passenger trains, and it must interface with Amtraks
electrified and signaled Northeast Corridor. To be fully integrated into this corridor the proposed
facility must be capable of being equipped with NEC-compatible systems including Catenary,
Electric Traction Substations and Railroad Communications and Signals. Except for the electric
traction substations, these systems requirements have little impact on the space requirements of
each site, but the costs of the systems components required to make each site interface properly
with the NEC are a major component in the site evaluation process. The criteria used to apply
the various systems disciplines to each site include:

2
Catenary System
All catenary related work is assumed to follow Amtrak ET Standard requirements of
AED-1 and AED-2, as well as require review/approval by Amtrak. These Amtrak
Standards, as well as the design teams previous experience working with Amtrak ET
have been considered in developing the evaluation of the five proposed sites.
Electric Traction Substations
All electric traction facility improvements are assumed to follow Amtrak ET Standard
requirements per CE 500, CE 501, and CE 502 specifications, and will also require
review/approval by the Electric Traction Design Group of Amtrak. These Amtrak
Standards, as well as the design teams previous experience working with Amtrak ET
have been considered in developing the evaluation of the five proposed sites. With any
significant modification to Amtraks power system, a power study would be required to
evaluate the loading at any of the proposed yard locations.
Railroad Communications and Signals (C&S)
All Communications & Signals (C&S) facility improvements and/or modifications to
Amtraks mainline tracks will be guided and reviewed by the C&S Design Group of
Amtrak. Each site will require a method to remote control and power the yard switches,
switch heaters, and blue flag indicators for the train storage tracks and shop facilities.
Maintenance Facility Yard Control System
Install power operated, remote controlled switch machines, with rail heaters throughout
maintenance facility yard. Install and program Yard Control Center located within yards
Operations Center. Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) will be installed
throughout the yard. Conventional track circuit or wheel counter technology shall be
utilized to insure switch locking integrity. The following are part of the Maintenance
Facility Yard Control System:
Power Operated Switch Machines - Control of switch machines will be either relay
controlled or radio based and power derails with blue flag protection shall be
provided as required.
Operations Center - A Yard Control Center with CCTV monitors will be located
within Operations Center. The Yard Control Center will be capable of controlling
and indicating all elements of yard operations.
Closed Circuit Television Cameras - CCTV cameras with the ability to remotely
zoom and pan will be installed on light towers and buildings to maximize coverage of
the entire yard.
Power - 480VAC, 25Hz power will be distributed throughout yard for switch heaters.
Switch heaters will be controlled from switch heater cases via SCADA network from
the Yard Control Center.
2.3
AMTRAK CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS

The following are required for Amtrak connections:

3
Two points of connection to Amtraks Northeast Corridor

Turnouts for connection to Amtrak tracks must be No. 15, minimum
Lead tracks connecting Amtrak Northeast Corridor with yard must, at a minimum, be
long enough to hold a 10-car trainset and locomotive without fouling Amtrak or other
MARC tracks
3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Several tables were produced to aid in the site selection process. Table 1 titled MARC
Alternatives Analysis-Site Selection Matrix presents the comparative results of the evaluation
process. Each site was summarized with regards to site characteristics (e.g., area requirements,
acquisitions, zoning, land use, etc.), property impacts (i.e., full and partial residential and
business/commercial acquisitions), natural resources (e.g., potential forest impacts, floodplains,
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, etc.), hazardous materials, cultural resources (i.e., onsite and
offsite historic sites), and potential permanent noise impacts to residential and historic properties.
Table 2 titled MARC Alternatives Analysis-Major Costs presents the comparative costs related to
each site with regards to the railroad construction for the yard and shop, site work, connection to
Amtrak, and total construction costs. Table 3 titled MARC Maintenance Facility-Site Selection
Decision Factors presents the decision making criteria including the concerns and the positive
aspects of each site that will likely drive the decision to choose the best site on which to develop
the MARC Maintenance Facility.
With regards to hazardous wastes, Whitman, Requardt and Associates, LLP (WR&A) reviewed
preliminary map reports for each of the sites from Environmental Data Resources (EDR) that
depict Federal and State regulatory agency databases for the site and surrounding vicinity. EDR
searched the following databases at the noted search distances:
FEDERAL DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDR
DATABASE
NPL
Proposed NPL
Delisted NPL
NPL LIENS
CERCLIS
CERC-NFRAP
DESCRIPTION
National Priorities List (Superfund). Hazardous waste sites targeted for
possible long-term remedial action under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS).
Proposed National Priority List Sites.
National Priority List Deletions. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establish the criteria that EPA uses to
delete sites from the NPL.
SEARCH
DISTANCE
1 mile
1 mile
1 mile
Target
Property
Federal Superfund Liens.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS). Sites that are proposed for or on the NPL, or
in the screening or assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Archived CERCLIS sites with a status of No Further Remedial Action Planned
(NFRAP), denoting sites where, following an initial investigation, either no
contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without
need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not
serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration.
The NFRAP status does not necessarily indicate that no environmental

4
mile
mile
Table 1. MARC Alternatives Analysis - Site Selection Matrix

Perryville B
Perryville A
Opus
54.04
56.90
APG
74.05
Prologis
76.61*
Full Property Acquisitions (acres)

Partial Property Acquisitions (acres)
15.28
45.58
113.95
6.77
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
63.88
3.69
Area to be Leased For Project (acres)

Temporary Construction Easements on Amtrak Right-of-Way (acres)
Track Lease on Amtrak Right-of-Way (Track-Feet)
0.0
15.75
20,420
0.0
0
220
48.0*
8.89
11,519
58.92*
1.94
3,308
0.0
5.25*
7,667
Total Site Area (acres)
76.61
120.72
56.90
74.05
72.82
(Town of Perryville-76.6
total acres) L2-Industrial
(Cecil Co.-116.6 total acres)

RM-High Density Residential
& EMU-Employment Mixed
Use; (Town of Perryville-3.24
total acres) L2-Industrial
(Harford Co.-56.1 total

acres) LI-Light Industrial
py
Military
GI (Harford Co.-72.8 total

acres)-General Industrial;
R2-Urban Residential
None
Project does not comply

with zoning on residential
parcels
Site Characteristics
Program Area Requirements (acres)*
Zoning
Zoning Restrictions
Current Land Use

Adjacent Land Use Issues
NOTES: *does not include areas required for wetland and forest mitigation
Property Impacts
Residential-Full Acquisitions (acres)
Residential-Partial Aquistions (acres)

Other Business/Commercial - Full Acquisitions (acres)
Other Business/Commercial - Partial Aquistions (acres)

NOTES:
Natural Resources
Potential Stream Crossings or Impacts (No.)
Potential Wetland Impacts (Acres)
Mitigation
zoning; however, letter

dated 8/30/11 from Harfod
County Executive, David
Craig indicatesthat County
Project does not comply with will work with developers
zoning on residential and
and MTA in development
employment mixed use
process to protect
None
parcels
wellheads
CoudonAgricultural/Residential;
MOW Base-Industrial; Ikea- White Land Co.-Industrial;
Agricultural
Agricultural
Neff-Commercial
Residential and Historic
Cecil Land Trust to East
None
District to South
*44-MTA improvements,
27.5-Relocation of Amtrak
MOW base; Amtrak costs
are 11.2% of the total
project cost
Perryville B
0
*Pearce, Elizabeth; et al
property to be leased
Perryville A
Opus
Coudon (113.95)
Estimated Reforestation/Afforestation Requirements (acres)

Mitigation
NOTES:
None
*Area available for
development under
Enhanced Use Lease (EUL)
with APG for this site is
237.7; 74.05 acres includeMARC Facility=58.92
Relocated BGE
Easement=15.13
Commercial ParcelsAg/Forest/Industrial;
Residential
Residential 300' to east;
APG to south
* 0.06 acres is TCE from

Deutsche Bank Trust
Co./BGE Co.
APG
0
Prologis
0
Merritt (0.65), Delcostello

(1.17), Myers (0.40), Bon
(0.08), Orellana (0.09),
Meadows (0.05), Sills (0.08),
McDougall (0.11)
National RR Passenger Co.

(Amtrak) (15.28)
Prologis Exchange (63.88)
Oldcastle Precast (1.06)
Prologis
(Unimproved) IKEA
Property, Inc. (45.58)
Community Fire Company of

Perryman (2.1), French Land
Co. (1.18), IKEA (0.83),
Howard J. & Beverlee C. Neff
(2.66)
Coudon (113.95)-Potential
Historic Farmstead-Potential
4(f) Evaluation
Perryville B
Perryville A
Opus
APG
None
None
None
3.3*
4.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
NOTES:
Potential Forest Impacts (Acres)
Federal
55.67
Offsite*
pOffsite**
pp
3.3 acres of wetlands (not
field delineated) **ECP
Report states, "...it is
unlikely that the
reestablishment of wetlands *Forested wetlands can not
be enhanced. Offsite
and
wetland mitigation
forests can be done on other
required.
APG property."
2.3
12.2
3.4
25.1
8.2
13.6
29.9
12.0
25.4
16.5
Offsite*
Onsite*
Onsite*
Offsite*
Onsite and offsite*
*Additional acreage could

possibly be aquired from
the Ikea parcel
*Parcel is mostly
undeveloped, so there is
abundant space to plant
*Parcel is mostly
undeveloped, so there is
abundant space to plant
unlikely that the

reestablishment of wetlands
and
forests can be done on other
APG property." and "No
*Site will only
monetary payment for
loss of forested areas will be accommodate 11.8 acres of
planting, remaining must be
allowed or accepted by
offsite or fee-in-lieu
APG."
FEMA 100-year floodplain (Acres)
None
2.0*
None
1.8*
4.45*
Potential Forest Interior Dwelling Species Habitat (Acres)
None
None
None
13.4
None
1.7
2-Ikea property-potential
0.4
None
None
None
1-Ikea property to southpotential soil contamination
None
APG is a SUPERFUND Site
None-Upgradient from APG
soil contamination
potential soil contamination;

MOW Base potential soil
contamination from
historical land use
APG-SUPERFUND Site
adjacently southeast
APG is a SUPERFUND Site
APG-SUPERFUND Site
adjacently south
1.0
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
MDNR Sensitive Species Project Review Areas (Acres)
Potential Hazardous Material On-Site Impacts
soil contamination; MOW

Base potential soil
contamination from
historical land use
1-Ikea property to south-
1-Ikea property-potential
Potential Hazardous Material Off-Site Impacts
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (Acres)
Parkland (State/County/Local)
NOTES:
Cultural Resources
Historic Sites - onsite (No.)
Historic Sites - offsite (No.)
NOTES:
Potential Permanent Noise Impacts
Residential Properties (No.)
Historic Properties (No.)
NOTES:
Asterisk (*) = Note
*Impacts to Floodplain will require engineering analysis and permitting from MDE and County Planning/Zoning
Perryville B
Perryville A
Opus
APG
Prologis
0
1*
unknown*
Meeting House" 1,000 feet

south (HA-357); 11-MIHP:
"Building E5695", warehouse
(HA-1851), "U.S. Army
Assembly Plant" (HA-2049),
"Edgewood Arsenal
Industrial Survey" (HA-2069),
"Rollins House" (HA-1612),
"Magnolia Store and Post
1-National Register of
Office" (HA-188), 32 Fort
Historic Places (NRHP)
Hoyle Road (HA-1684), 30
2-Circa 1850 farm
"Woodlands" located
Fort Hoyle (HA-1683),
approximately 1,000 feet
property approximately
"Brown-Fletcher House (HAnorth of parcel (CE-145) ; 2200' north*; Maryland
1570), 25 Fort Hoyle (HAMIHP within 1,000 feet of 2 -MIHP: SHA Bridge 12058 1684), "Magnolia Methodist
Inventory of Historic
(HA-1978) and "Mitchell
site: "Mill Creek/Coudon
Properties (MIHP) potential
Church" (HA-187), and 23
Farm Complex", ruins (HAHouse" (CE-1471) and
archeaological resource
Fort Hoyle (HA-1681).
1588). *Closest is 400'
"Lindenwood" (CE-700).
"Shipley Point Farm" (CE*Closest site (HA-1684) is
northeast.
Closest is 400' to southwest.
538) 200' to south
400' southwest.
13-MIHP: "Rollins House"

(HA-1612), "Magnolia Store
and Post Office" (HA-188),
32 Fort Hoyle Road (HA1684), 30 Fort Hoyle (HA1683), "Brown-Fletcher
House (HA-1570), 25 Fort
Hoyle (HA-1684), "Magnolia
Methodist Church" (HA187), 23 Fort Hoyle (HA1681), 10 Fort Hoyle (HA1680), 8 Fort Hoyle (HA1679), 7 Fort Hoyle (HA1678), 4 Fort Hoyle (HA1677), and "Arthur Powell
House" (HA-186). *Closest
site is 100' to southwest.
*ECP Report states that

approximately 40 acres of
the total EUL is classified as
High Potential for
Archaeologic
Resources. Approximately
50% of the project area falls
within this classification.
*Will require Section 4(f)

for Constructive Use if
determined eligible for
listing on NRHP
*Currently not evaluated and

Circa 1850 farm - If
determined Eligible for
listing in the NRHP Section
4(f) evaluation required
Perryville B
Perryville A
Opus
APG
Prologis
17
14
1-Farm property
approximately 200' north
All potential noise impacts will need further investigation to determine whether an actual impact exists. Feasiblity of mitigation would be
evaluated by cost/benefit analysis.
Table 2. MARC Alternatives Analysis - Major Costs

Railroad Construction For Yard & Shop (Major Items)
Remove Track (Ft.)
Total Cost
Perryville B
Perryville A
Opus
APG Edgewood
Prologis
21,920
1,300
$0
$0
$25,400
$0
MARC = $428,000
Amtrak = $0
Remove Turnouts (No.)

Total Cost
19
MARC = $163,000
$0
$0
$34,200
$0
Amtrak = $0
Construct Ballasted Track (Ft.)
Total Cost
66,000
MARC = $8.3 M
44,000
43,000
42,400
44,500
$8.4 M
$8.1 M
$8.1
$8.5 M
40
40
44
40
$5.0 M
$5.0 M
$5.5 M
$5.0 M
$26.5 M
Amtrak = $4.2 M
Construct Yard Turnouts (No.)
Total Cost
53
MARC = $4.4 M
Amtrak = $2.3 M
Systems Work (All MARC):

Catenary*
$26.3 M
$26.8 M
$26.5 M
$26.8 M
Communications and Signals
$5.9 M
$5.9 M
$5.9 M
$5.9 M
$5.9 M
Traction Power Substation*
$2.5 M
$2.5 M
$3.9 M
$11.5 M
$11.5 M
Perryville B
Perryville A
Opus
APG Edgewood
Prologis
77
54
57
74
56
$8.1 M
$8.6 M
$14.8 M
$14.0 M
440,000
270,000
1,121,000
280,000
$9.1 M
$6.0 M
$24.5 M
$8.2 M
* These costs are removed if MARC decides to

eliminate electric locomotives
Site Work (Major Items)
Drainage (Ac.)
Total Cost
MARC = $7.2 M
Amtrak = $4.4 M
Site Grading for Tracks (Total CY)

Total Cost
665,000
MARC = $10.7 M
Amtrak = $3.3 M
89,400
Paving (SY)
Total Cost
MARC = $2.6 M
64,000
75,000
75,900
55,000
$3.2 M
$3.8
$3.6M
$2.7 M
$550,000
$0
$350,000
$0
$86.5
$86.5
$86.5
$86.5
Amtrak = $1.9 M
Building Demolition
$409,000
New Buildings
Total Cost
MARC = $86.5 M
Amtrak = $4.8 M
Overhead Highway Bridge Reconstruction
$500,000
$1.6 M
$0
$80,000
$380,000
Relocate Existing Utilities

Connection to Amtrak NEC
$0
Perryville B
$0
Perryville A
$0
Opus
$2.0 M
APG Edgewood
$0
Prologis
Overall Cost
Total Construction Costs
$6.8 M
Perryville B
$6.8 M
Perryville A
$8.6 M
Opus
$6.8 M
APG Edgewood
$7.2 M
Prologis
$328.0 M
$325.6
$386.0
$352.8 M
$449.6 M
$446.1
$528.9
$483.3 M
Neat Construction
MARC = $330.3 M
Amtrak = $57.2 M
Total Project Cost
MARC = $452.5 M
Amtrak = $78.3 M

Site Selection Decision Factors
February 2012
Perryville A
Amtrak Position/Conflicts
o Amtrak is supportive of this location
Natural Resource/Hazmat Impacts and NEPA Considerations
o Located on potential Section 4(f) property (Coudon farm site)
o Proximity to residential development
Property Acquisition
o Requires acquisition/relocation of residence of active farm
o Owners willingness to sell unknown, Cecil County Planning suggests this would be a lesser
concern
Total Estimated Cost: $449.6 Million
Perryville B
o Relocation of Amtrak MOW Base Coordination and Schedule Delays
o Potential conflicts with Amtrak high speed intercity trains
o Potential conflicts with proposed new Susquehanna River crossing and approaches
o Amtrak is not supportive of this location
o Possible Section 4(f) (viewshed)
o Possible unwilling seller (Amtrak)
Requires complete relocation of Amtrak MOW facility prior to constructing MARC facility
o Additional expense ($58.1 Million)
o Schedule impacts
OPUS (Mitchell Property)
o Potential Impacts to Amtrak high speed intercity trains. Amtrak may require construction of
new station tracks at Aberdeen to avoid operations conflicts.
o Requires construction of two new NEC interlocking where none exist today. MTA would be
solely responsible for cost of maintenance.
o Amtrak is not supportive of this location
o Likely fewest impacts to on-site natural resources
o Located within Perryman Wellfield Protection Zone, source of about 25% of Harford
County municipal water supply
o Earlier (summer 2010) coordination with Harford County Planning & Zoning and
Department of Public Works indicates that Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility is not
compatible with wellfield zoning restrictions
o Site available through lease, as proposed in Clark Constructions unsolicited proposal

Site Selection Decision Factors
February 2012
o Payments would be considered a capital lease

Total Estimated Cost: $446.1 Million*
* assumes traditional MTA Design-Bid-Build approach, exclusive of ROW costs
APG Edgewood
o Amtrak is supportive of this location
o Superfund Site
o Impacts to wetlands, streams, and forests (no on-site mitigation for wetlands and/or forests)
o Proximity to residential development
o Project would be developed in coordination with APG and the Army Corps of Engineers as
an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL).
o Payments would be considered a capital lease
As tenant to EUL developer on a Superfund site, MTA would be considered an operator under
CERCLA and therefore potentially subject to liability concerns
Liability concerns regarding right of entry and site access will affect MTAs ability to
perform site work related to Planning, NEPA Documentation, and Development of
Construction Specs
o Schedule Impacts
o Could affect MTA control of design specifications and construction
Total Estimated Cost: $528.9 Million*
* assumes traditional MTA Design-Bid-Build approach, exclusive of ROW costs
ProLogis
o Amtrak supportive of this location
Natural Resource
o Impacts to wetlands, floodplain, and forests
o ProLogis expressed interest in MTA proposal during prior assessment of site
o Requires partial acquisition of undeveloped portion of commercial property
o Possible impacts to adjacent residential properties (partial acquisition or construction
easement)

DATABASE
LIENS 2
CORRACTS
RCRA-TSDF
RCRA-LQG
RCRA-SQG
RCRA-CESQG
RCRA-NonGen
ERNS
HMIRS
US ENG
CONTROLS
US INST
CONTROL
DOD
FUDS
US
BROWNFIELDS
CONSENT
ROD
UMTRA
DEBRIS REGION
9
ODI
TRIS
DESCRIPTION
concerns are present.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Lien information. A Federal CERCLA (Superfund) lien can exist
by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent
Superfund monies.
Hazardous waste handlers with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) corrective action activity.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS),
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities. Hazardous waste handlers.
RCRIS sites that are large-quantity generators (LQG) of hazardous waste.
LQGs generate over 1,000 kg of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely
hazardous waste per month.
RCRIS sites that are small-quantity generators (SQG) of hazardous waste.
SQGs generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per
month.
RCRA-Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators. CESQGs generate
less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous
waste per month.
RCRA-Non Generators. Non-Generators do not presently generate
hazardous waste.
Emergency Response Notification System. Releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Hazardous Materials Information System Database. A list of release incident
information reported to the Department of Transportation by carriers of
hazardous materials.
Engineering Controls Sites List. A list of sites with engineering controls in
place including various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and
treatment methods.
Sites with Institutional Controls. A listing of sites with institutional controls in
place, including administrative measures, such as groundwater use
restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post
remediation care requirements.
Department of Defense Sites. Data set of federally owned or administered
lands having area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the US, Puerto Rico,
and the US Virgin Islands.
Formerly used Defense properties where USACE will take necessary cleanup
actions.
A listing of Brownfield sites.
SEARCH
DISTANCE
Target
Property
1 mile
mile
0.25 mile
0.25 mile
0.25 mile
0.25 mile
Target
Property
Target
Property
mile
mile
1 mile
1 mile
mile
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees. Major legal settlements that

establish responsibility and standard for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites.
Records of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent cleanup at
an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid
in the cleanup.
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites. (Mined by private companies for federal
government use in national defense programs.)
Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations. A listing of illegal
dump sites located on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in
eastern Riverside and northern Imperial County, California.
Open Dump Inventory: Disposal facility that does not comply with one or
more of CFR Part 257 or Part 258 Subtitle D Criteria.
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities, which
release toxic chemicals into the air, water, and land in reportable
quantities.

5
1 mile
1 mile
mile
mile
mile
Target
Property

DATABASE
TSCA
FTTS
HIST FTTS
SSTS
ICIS
US CDL
LUCIS
RADINFO
DOT OPS
PADS
MLTS
MINES
FINDS
RAATS
SCRD
DRYCLEANERS
DATABASE
INDIAN
RESERV
INDIAN LUST
INDIAN UST
INDIAN VCP
DATABASE
Manufactured
Gas Plants
EDR Historical
Auto Stations
DESCRIPTION
Toxic Substance Control Act. An inventory, which includes locations and
chemical production of more than 700 processors and manufacturers of
chemicals.
National Compliance Database tracking administrative cases and
pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA, and EPCRA.
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing. Information was
obtained from the National Compliance Database. May include data not
in newer FTTS database.
Section 7 Tracking Systems of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act.
Integrated Compliance Information System supports information needs of
the national enforcement and compliance program as well as the unique
needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.
Clandestine Drug Labs Database. Locations listed by the U.S. Department
of Justice.
Land Use Control Information System. Contains records of land use control
information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure
properties.
Radiation Information Database. EPA regulated facilities for radiation and
radioactivity.
Incident and Accident Data from the Department of Transportation, Office
of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data.
PCB Activity Database System. The PADS database stores information
about facilities that handle polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Material License Tracking System. MLTS contains information on sites
licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive materials.
Mines Master Index File containing all mine identification numbers issued for
mines active or opened since 1971.
Facility Index System. An inventory of all facilities that are regulated or
tracked by EPA.
RCRA Administrative Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on
enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violations and
includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA LOCAL
(VIRGINIA)
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners listing
TRIBAL DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDR

DESCRIPTION
Indian administered lands of the US having area equal to or greater than 640
acres.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land.
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land.
Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
DESCRIPTION
Database including records of coal gas plants used in the US from the 1800s
to 1950s.
Database from business directories of potential gas stations/service stations.

6
SEARCH
DISTANCE
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
mile
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
0.25 mile
Target
Property
Target
Property
mile
DATABASE
1 mile
mile
0.25 mile
mile
DATABASE
1 mile
0.25 mile
EDR Historical
Cleaners
Database from business directories of potential dry cleaning establishments.
0.25 mile
LOCAL (MARYLAND) DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDR

DATABASE
SHWS
SWF/LF
SWRCY
OCPCASES
HIST LUST
UST
Historical UST
AST
INST CONTROL
VCP
DRYCLEANERS
BROWNFIELDS
AIRS
LEAD
NPDES
DESCRIPTION
Notice of Potential Hazardous Waste Sites
Permitted Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Recycling Directory
Oil Control Program Cases
Recovery Sites
Registered Underground Storage Tank List
Historical UST Registered Database
Permitted Aboveground Storage Tanks
Voluntary Cleanup Program Applicants/Participants
Voluntary Cleanup Program Applicants/Participants
Registered Drycleaning Facilities
Eligible Brownfields Properties
Permit and Facility Information Listing
Lead Inspection Database
Wastewater Permit Listing
SEARCH
DISTANCE
1 mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
0.25 mile
0.25 mile
0.25 mile
mile
mile
0.25 mile
mile
Target Property
Target Property
Target Property
4.0 SITE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

WR&A produced a document titled MARC Maintenance Layover Facility, Site Alternatives
Evaluation for MTA and dated October 2008 that evaluated six sites including Norfolk Southern
Railways Chrysler Facility Support Yard in Newark, Delaware; Perryville A (Farm) Site in
Perryville, Maryland; Aberdeen Yard (A&B) Sites, Maryland; Perryman A (Cannery) Site in
Perryman, Maryland; Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) in Edgewood, Maryland; and Biddle
Street Site in the City of Baltimore, Maryland. It was subsequently determined that the Norfolk
Southern Chrysler Facility Support Yard and the Aberdeen Yard (A&B) Sites were not practical
for development. The other four sites and three additional sites (Prologis Site in Aberdeen,
Maryland; Opus Site in Perryman, Maryland; and Perryville B [South of Amtrak] Site in
Perryville, Maryland) were subsequently evaluated in subsequent Site Alternatives Evaluation
documents. The following five sites are evaluated in this report: Perryville B (South of Amtrak),
Perryville A (Farm), Opus, APG Edgewood and Prologis. The sites are presented in geographic
order starting with Perryville B (South of Amtrak) in Perryville, Maryland, and proceeding
southwest to Prologis, in Edgewood, Maryland. The remaining two sites were dropped from the
evaluation process for the following reasons:
The Biddle Street Site is 23 acres in area and was eliminated from the site evaluation
process because it did not meet the site requirement of 30 acres and because it could not
be configured with two connection points to Amtraks NEC per the MARC Maintenance
and Train Storage Facility Site Assessment Criteria.
Perryman A (Cannery) Site was eliminated from the site evaluation process due to its
relatively small size (37 acres), potential impacts to cultural resources, possible noise
impacts to nearby residences, and the major work that would be required to provide two
connection points to Amtraks NEC.

7
The locations of the five sites are included in Figure 1 - Site Location Map.
4.1
PERRYVILLE B (SOUTH OF AMTRAK) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND

The Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is located on the south side of the NEC,
northeast of Mill Creek, and northwest of Furnace Bay in Perryville, Maryland. The proposed
project site is approximately 6,500 feet long, and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along
the railroad tracks to 1,400 feet wide. Adjacently south of the railroad tracks on the proposed
site is the existing Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) Base. The Amtrak MOW Base is a
facility operated by Amtrak for the purpose of providing a strategically located base of
operations for the personnel and equipment that maintain the NEC from Wilmington to
Baltimore. This base of operations includes space for stockpiles of materials as well as
supervisory offices, equipment maintenance facilities, training facilities, and locker room
facilities for the crews. The Perryville MOW Base is responsible for maintenance of the track,
structures, catenary, signals, communications and emergency response to infrastructure damage
on the NEC from Wilmington to Baltimore. The storage tracks provide a staging area away from
the high-speed mainline tracks for the work trains and track-mounted machines and vehicles that
provide the normal maintenance on the line. These include trains of materials such as crossties
and ballast, and specialized production maintenance units such as tie units, surfacing units,
switch exchangers, welded rail units, and wire trains. At least two of the tracks need to be at
least 2,000 feet long to provide storage for welded rail trains.
The program area requirements for this project are approximately 76.6 acres, which
includes 15.75 acres of temporary construction easements, 45.58 acres of partial acquisitions of
the Ikea property, and 15.28 acres of full property acquisition of the MOW Base owned by the
National Railroad Passenger Corp. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs
improvements would be approximately 44 acres. The area occupied by the improvements
associated with the relocated MOW Base would be approximately 27.5 acres. The site would
provide adequate acreage for current and future train storage and equipment maintenance
requirements.
According
to
the
Town
of
Perryville
website
(http://www.perryvillemd.org/planning_zoning.html), the Ikea property is zoned L2 by the Town
of Perryville which is the light industrial district. According to the Town of Perryville Zoning
Ordinance, the purpose of the light industrial district is to provide for a wide variety of light
manufacturing, fabricating, processing, wholesale distributing and warehousing uses
appropriately located for access by major thoroughfares or railroads. New residential
development is excluded. According to Ms. Mary Ann Skilling, Town of Perryville Planning
and Zoning, the entire Ikea parcel is located within the Town of Perryville and is zoned L2.
There is no heavy industrial zoning designation within the Town of Perryville Zoning
Ordinance. According to Mr. Cliff Houston, Zoning Administrator with Cecil County Planning
and Zoning, the Amtrak property which houses the MOW Base was previously zoned in Cecil
County, but has recently been annexed into the Town of Perryville. The Amtrak property would
therefore also be zoned as L2 by the Town of Perryville. According to Mr. Houston, the Cecil
County Zoning Ordinance was recently changed effective May 1, 2011. Adjacently north of the
site, there is the NEC and the Perryville A (Farm) Site which consists of two parcels zoned RMhigh density residential district. Land use at the Perryville B Site is designated as Agricultural
on the undeveloped Ikea property and Industrial on the Amtrak MOW Base property. There is a
8
APG Edgewood & Prologis

Site
Opus Site
Amtrak Northeast Corridor
SCALE:
N.T.S.
February 2012
DATE:
Site Location Map
FIGURE:
MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Perryville A & B
Site
golf course to the northeast and agricultural land followed by Furnace Bay and Mill Creek
located to the south. The Ikea distribution warehouse is located adjacently west of the site and
residential properties are located to the northwest of the site. Figure 2 presents the
environmental constraints associated with the site. Figure 3 presents the proposed yard and shop
layout. Figure 4 presents the property impacts and zoning associated with the site.
4.1.1 Railroad Suitability
Site The Perryville B Site is suitable for a double-end yard, but to achieve a workable
site layout would require the relocation of the existing Amtrak MOW Base. However, the site is
bounded on the west by the large Ikea warehouse and on the east by a private golf course, both of
which limit the length of the site. Space for a relocated Amtrak MOW Base appears to be
available immediately south of its existing location in what is currently a farm field owned by
Ikea. It is relatively level and at an elevation similar to that of the Amtrak MOW Base tracks.
Amtrak Connection There are two existing lead tracks connecting the Amtrak MOW
Base to the NEC on the north and south ends of the site. The existing north lead track is longer
and is connected to NEC Track 2 at PRINCE Interlocking. This connection appears to require
no modification to serve as the north lead track for the proposed MARC facility and, with the
installation of one additional turnout in the lead track, it could serve as the north lead track and
NEC connection for the relocated Amtrak MOW Base. The south lead track is shorter and is
connected to NEC Track 1. It would be necessary to construct a longer lead track on the south
end with a new turnout off Track 1 in order to get sufficient holding length for a 10-car MARC
trainset. Lengthening of the existing south lead track may require demolition of all or part of an
abandoned overhead road bridge (Coudons Road South). The installation of one additional
turnout in this longer lead track would allow it to serve as the south lead track and NEC
connection for the relocated Amtrak MOW Base. At PERRY Interlocking south of the site, three
additional crossovers will need to be installed to permit southbound train movements from the
yard to reach the Perryville MARC Station on NEC Track 4. As an alternative NEC Track 1
could be shortened so that its connection to Track 2 would be moved north, and the new lead
track turnout would be connected directly to Track 2, thereby eliminating the cost and need for a
third crossover.
Track Relocation of the Amtrak MOW Base would require the removal and
reconstruction of approximately 22,000 feet of existing track and at least 19 turnouts. The
MARC facilities, including the yard and shop and lead tracks, would require the construction of
approximately 48,600feet of track and 35 turnouts.
Catenary System At the present time the existing MOW Base yard facility is not
wired for electric train storage. The nearest Amtrak traction power substation is Perryville
(Substation 16), and is located approximately one mile from the proposed yard. At this site, it is
envisioned that insulated overlaps with disconnect switches would be installed in the yard lead
catenary, with approximately 61,000 feet of two-wire catenary required for this new yard facility.
Three preliminary layout drawings have been developed to help plan the Catenary and ET
concepts for this location (See Drawings ET-4, ET-5 and ET-6 in Appendix A).
Advantages from a Catenary Perspective:
9
&(

)HHW
(QGRI6WDWH
0DLQWHQDQFH
8(

&(
$'
52
(1
$9
&(
\U)ORRGSODLQ
\U)ORRGSODLQ
'151:,:HWODQGV
&KHVDSHDNH%D\&ULWLFDO$UHD
6HQVLWLYH6SHFLHV3URMHFW5HYLHZ$UHDV
+LVWRULF3URSHUWLHV
0DU\ODQG(QYLURQPHQWDO7UXVW
&HFLO/DQG7UXVW
7
6
&2
8
9HWHUDQV$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ0HGLFDO&HQWHU0,+3&(
+LVWRULF3ODFHV
),5(6
72 1(
5
'
58%9
&(
)RUHVW,QWHULRU'ZHOOLQJ6SHFLHV),'6$UHD
$,.(1$9(
&(
3(0(K
3URJUDP$UHD5HTXLUHPHQWV
/HJHQG
&(&,/$9(
% /9
0$5</$1'$9
1
&
,1
&(
$0
'57
38%)E

,.
(861
((03
$<
($:
UH
HN
&
0
LO O
&RXGRQ
V5RDG1RUWK
%ULGJH2YHU5DLOURDG
5
,' 2
55
2
&
6 7
$JULFXOWXUDO
&(
5HVLGHQWLDO
+ ($
57
12
.
75$
3RWHQWLDO
&XOWXUDO
5HVRXUFH
'
5
&RXGRQ
V5RDG6RXWK
%ULGJH2YHU5DLOURDG
1RW,Q6HUYLFH
)8
2
$
51
0L[HG&RPPHUFLDO,QGXVWULDO
35
,
,3
$JULFXOWXUDO
&(
&(
5HVLGHQWLDO
&(
(8%/
(861
(8%/
((03
38%+
3)26
3HUU\YLOOH%6LWH
38%)[
38%)[
38%)E
3666
3666
)LJXUH
((03
(861
((03
3666 3)26
3(0&
0$5&0DLQWHQDQFH)DFLOLW\
(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQVWUDLQWV0DS

)HEUXDU\
)XUQDFH
%D\
(861
3666
(8%/
(861
(663
366(0(
2
'
57
&5
//
0,
'
.5
(
(
&+
$
5
'
3(
//
6$
5'
,( :
5
+$
(
&+
9
.(
*
1. Two new 12kV feeders and supporting hardware can be installed on existing
catenary structures from the existing Amtrak Perryville Substation to the proposed
Perryville facility.
2. Space appears to be available to accommodate 12kV feeder breakers and an
associated gantry structure with bus and motor operated disconnect switches to
sectionalize catenary power within the yard. Drawing ET-5 in Appendix A
indicates possible locations to place ET equipment for this purpose.
Disadvantages from a Catenary Perspective:
1. The existing 12 kV phase breaks are located in all four main track catenaries
about 1200 feet south of the existing south lead track of the proposed yard
facility. This will require a more complex control and protection scheme to
integrate the yard into the existing power supply configuration.
2. The proposed 1,500 foot south yard lead would join Main Track 4 within the
12kV phase break overlaps. Assuming that at least 1,500 feet is desired for the
south lead, the proposed lead track must be extended several hundred feet to clear
the phase break overlaps. A phase break indicator rosette should be installed on
the overhead bridge (assumed to be 58.34) above the south lead track, and phase
break indicators should be installed where the north lead track meets the NEC.
Phase break status could also be integrated in to the C&S modifications to control
operations on the south yard lead.
3. The placement of the new MARC layover facility and new Amtrak MOW Base
immediately adjacent will prove operationally challenging under normal
conditions. Under certain emergency conditions, such as with open 12 kV phase
breaks, severe impacts on both Amtrak and MARC traffic could occur.
4. Structural analysis would be required for all of the structures supporting the new
12kV feeders, which may lead to additional cost to replace or guy overloaded
structures.
If standby power for equipment is to be available separate from the locomotive, an
independent utility 60 HZ supply will be required. The utility supply for the various other yard
facilities should include this capability.
Electric Traction Substations The nearest Amtrak traction power substation is
Perryville (Substation 16), and is located approximately one mile south of the proposed yard.
Advantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. Amtraks Substation 16 has more than ample capacity to supply all required
12kV, 25Hz envisioned load at this yard location, including track switch heaters.
(The existing substation capacity is 22.5MVA.)

10
2. Substation 16 has recently undergone extensive renovations, such as replacement

of all five 4.5MVA traction power transformers, breakers, power cables and
SCADA RTU.
3. Substation 16 has ample space within its confines to allow easy expansion for
new circuit breaker bays to provide 12kV feeders to the proposed yard.
4. Existing catenary structures can be modified to support new 12kV feeders to the
yard facility.
5. A 12 kV switching structure is envisioned to receive the incoming feeders from
Perryville Substation. As noted in the Catenary section, space appears available at
both the east and west ends of the yard for this equipment as shown on Drawing
ET-2. Two breakers will be required, as well as several motor operated
disconnect switches for yard sectionalizing.
6. Amtrak maintenance employees are headquartered at Substation 16.
Disadvantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. The presence of the 12kV phase breaks near this yard location must be
considered so a proper protection scheme is developed to allow for transfer trip.
2. The only alternate source of 25Hz catenary power to feed this location, in the
event the feeder system is lost, would be via taps from the trolley network.
Communications and Signals The Perryville B site would be located at MP 58.7 in
Perryville, Maryland. The required lead track lengths shown on the drawings are from clearance
point of the last yard switch to the Interlocking signal governing the entrance to the mainline.
For discussion purposes we will assume that the northern yard lead switch will be in the existing
limits of PRINCE and the southern yard lead switch will be within the existing limits of PERRY.
PRINCE Interlocking Signal Changes:
1. New 91 Switch (northern yard lead) and new Signal 9N.
2. Relocate existing Signal 1N southward to accommodate 91 Switch.
3. Additional interlocking track circuits for detector locking and parallel movements
with Switch 02 (Amtrak MOW Base).
4. Replace all-relay controlled interlocking with microprocessor(s) due to major
signal modifications.
5. Positive Train Control (PTC) and CETC modifications.

11
PERRY Interlocking Signal Changes:

1. New 19 Switch (southern yard lead) and new Signal 9S.
2. Relocate existing Signal 1S and 21 Switch northward.
3. Add new 32 Switch to allow access from the proposed maintenance facility to all
tracks.
4. Additional interlocking track circuits for detector locking.
5. Replace all-relay controlled interlocking with microprocessors due to major signal
modifications.
6. PTC and CETC modifications.
Railroad-Related Issues Issues at this site include high cost, delayed completion of the
MARC facility and a significant amount of coordination with Amtrak. Since the existing
Amtrak MOW Base would have to be relocated, MTA would likely have to bear the cost of
constructing two storage yards. Construction of the new Amtrak facility and acceptance by
Amtrak would be required prior to MTA receiving construction access for demolition of the
existing MOW Base. This process would represent a delay of approximately two years to MTA
being able to have its MARC facility placed in service. Coordination with Amtrak would also be
significant for this site during both design and construction. Amtraks design review process
could slow design time by several months, and coordination of construction activities with the
existing MOW base, and later with its relocated MOW base are likely to have an undetermined
impact on the construction schedule of the MARC facility. It will also be necessary to
coordinate with Amtrak to be sure that the new MARC facility does not interfere with Amtraks
proposed future tracks. While consideration has been given on the conceptual track plan to
where these tracks could be located, no final determination of their alignment or configuration
was available from Amtrak to use as a basis for the conceptual layout. In comments dated
September 20, 2010, Amtrak indicated its concerns about this site:
The Amtrak MOW base is likely to become busier in the future, and the MARC
facility would restrict future expansion
Possible competition for main line and lead track space between Amtrak work trains
and MARC trains
Longer deadhead times for MARC trains in the crowded NEC
Amtrak is not prepared to accept the curved track layout necessary to fit the relocated
MOW Base into the available space
A planned relocation of the existing MOW Base would make interim capital
investments by Amtrak hard to justify
Complicated construction staging issues
Loss of ground storage capacity for Amtrak materials
Impacts to future track realignments to Perry and Prince Interlockings
Complications to potential Susquehanna Bridge replacement
Complications for potential third track between Elkton and Perryville.
12
4.1.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS)

WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the Perryville B (South of
Amtrak) Site and surrounding vicinity. The EDR report did not identify the project site as a site
of known environmental concern or regulation. There were three sites of regulatory concern in
the surrounding vicinity. The site location in relation to the project site, its regulatory status, and
other applicable information are listed in the table below.
EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION
DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
DATABASE INFORMATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
Ikea Industrial Park Property
Route 7 and Woodland Farm
Lane
Perryville, Maryland
VCP
INST CONTROL
+ 100 feet west
OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 04-0704CE
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 10/15/2003
Date Closed: 7/28/2004
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Yes
Facility Code: Not Reported
Coastal Unilube Inc.
950 Principio Furnace Road
Perryville, Md 21903

Date Open: 12/10/1993
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
+ 400 feet northwest
FINDS
Firestone Perryville Plant

Firestone Road/Route 7
SHWS
+ 1,200 feet northwest
As shown in the table above, the Ikea Industrial Park property located adjacently west of
the project site is a potential site of regulatory concern or regulation within approximately 100
feet of the project site. According to information available from the MDE website
(http://websrvr.mde.md.gov/assets/document/brownfields/Ikea.pdf), the Ikea Industrial Park
property was entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) in 2001 due to elevated levels
of metals (thallium and mercury) found during subsurface investigations of the site. Previous
land use at the site was agricultural. No groundwater contaminants were identified.
Groundwater beneath the site reportedly flows towards the southwest, generally away from the
Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. Although no obvious sources of hazardous materials appear
to be located within approximately 400 feet of the project site, it is possible that metals such as
thallium and mercury may have been introduced into the area possibly from historical
13
agricultural land use practices on the property. In addition, industrial land use at the MOW Base
has the potential to affect the onsite soils from possible spills/leaks from vehicles and storage of
materials onsite. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) may be recommended prior
to selection of the site in order to adequately determine whether subsurface contamination may
be reasonably expected to be encountered during construction activities.
4.1.3 Natural Resources
Wetlands The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Maryland Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) maps were examined for wetlands in the vicinity of the Perryville B
(South of Amtrak) Site. Wetlands are generally associated with the forested areas adjacent to
Mill Creek to the southwest of the project site and along Furnace Bay to the south and east of the
project site. Aerial photography provided by GoogleMaps and www.bing.com/maps was
examined in the vicinity of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. Mill Creek is observed
flowing to the south-southeast under the NEC approximately 2,000 feet west of the western
portion of the project site and discharges into Furnace Bay to the south. No wetlands or streams
appear to be located on the Perryville B site.
Prior to development of the site, a formal wetland delineation will be required. Waters of
the U.S., including wetlands, on and around the site will be delineated, flagged in the field, and
surveyed in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), November 2010.
Plans showing the areas of impact to the streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland buffers will be
included in a Joint Permit Application (JPA) submitted to the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that details the avoidance,
minimization and mitigation required as a result of impacts on the project site. If mitigation is
determined to be required, it may be accounted for by purchase of wetland credits at a wetland
bank within the watershed, payment to the Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund, on-site
mitigation, or off-site mitigation.
Floodplains The 100-year floodplain is located roughly in the same location as the
wetlands depicted by NWI and DNR mapping, as mentioned in the previous Wetlands section.
The Perryville B site is not located within the 100-year or 500-year floodplains. The closest
floodplains to the site are associated with Furnace Bay, located approximately 500 feet southeast
of the northeastern portion of the project site, and Mill Creek located approximately 1,400 feet to
the southwest of the site.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) According to the Cecil County GIS
(www.ccgov.org) and the Maryland Environmental Resource & Land Information Network
(MERLIN) database (www.mdmerlin.net), the northeastern portion of the Perryville B (South of
Amtrak) Site along the railroad tracks is located within the Critical Area designated as Resource
Conservation Area. According to the DNR website, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the
Chesapeake Bay Protection Act in 1984 to reverse the deterioration of the Bay. The Act required
that the 16 counties, Baltimore City, and 44 municipalities surrounding the Chesapeake and
Atlantic Coastal Bays implement land use and resource management programs designed to
mitigate the damaging effects of water pollution and loss of natural habitat. The Act designated
all lands within 1,000 feet of tidal waters or adjacent tidal wetlands as Critical Areas.
14
Development proposals within the Critical Area would be submitted for review and approval by
the Critical Area Commission.
Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) The purpose of the MFCA (Natural
Resources Article Sections 5-1601 through 5-1613) was to minimize the loss of Marylands
forest resources during land developmental activities by requiring that forests and other sensitive
areas be part of the site planning process. Any activity with land disturbance of 40,000 square
feet (nearly one acre) or greater is subject to the MFCA and will require a Forest Stand
Delineation (FSD) of the site and a Forest Conservation Plan (FCP). The FSD identifies the
existing forest cover and the environmental features of the project site. The FCP describes the
limits of disturbance of the proposed project and how the existing forest and sensitive areas will
be protected during and after development. Existing forested areas affected as part of the site
development may require reforestation (planting of trees to replace forests that have been
cleared) or afforestation (planting of trees where forests have not recently been located). The
Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is comprised of agricultural fields, tree rows, and a forested
area in the eastern portion of the project site. Development of the site will result in impacts to
forest communities. In accordance with the MFCA, an FSD and FCP will be required. If
reforestation/afforestation cannot be accomplished onsite, offsite areas may be identified, credits
may be purchased from a reforestation bank, or lastly MTA may pay into the Forest
Compensation Fund. Fee-in-lieu payment into the Forest Compensation Fund is only accepted
by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) if it can be proven that onsite or
offsite planting is not feasible.
Preliminary calculations for existing forest coverage and reforestation requirements were
determined by studying aerial photographs of the site. Any area with tree cover was counted as
forest. Field verification required for the FSD will further define the actual boundaries of the
forest. It is possible that areas that appear as forest on aerial photographs may not meet the
definition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The Perryville B site
contains approximately 2.3 acres of forest cover. Based on the State Forest Conservation manual
worksheet calculations, approximately 13.6 acres of reforestation will be required for this site.
Very limited space is available to plant onsite, and therefore offsite may be the best option.
Additional undeveloped acreage could possibly be acquired from the adjacent IKEA property for
the plantings.
Threatened & Endangered Species Areas potentially containing threatened &
endangered species are designated in MERLIN as Sensitive Species Project Review Areas.
These areas primarily contain habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species and rare
natural community types and it generally includes, but does not specifically delineate, such
regulated areas as Natural Heritage Areas, Wetlands of Special State Concern, Colonial
Waterbird Colonies, and Habitat Protection Areas. According to the MERLIN database, there is
a Sensitive Species Project Review Area depicted in the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site in
the easternmost portion of the project site. If the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is proposed
to be developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
confirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and Federal species,
respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the site, DNR/U.S. Fish and

15
Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of year construction
restrictions, and/or avoidance of particular areas on the site.
Forest Interior Dwelling Species According to DNR, animals referred to as Forest
Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) require habitat in the interior of large forests for optimal
reproduction and survival. The most researched and best known FIDS are a group of birds that
include the scarlet tanager (Piranga rubra), American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), hooded
warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and barred owl (Strix varia), among others. FIDS Habitat is provided
protection under the Critical Areas Law in Maryland. It has been defined as a forest tract that
meets either of the following conditions:
a. Greater than 50 acres in size and containing at least ten acres of forest interior habitat
(forest greater than 300 feet from the nearest forest edge); or
b. Riparian forests that are, on average, at least 300 feet in total width and greater than 50
acres in total forest area. The stream within the riparian forest must be perennial, as indicated on
the most recent U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic maps or as determined by a site
visit.
The DNR GIS data for FIDS habitat areas was reviewed for the Perryville B (South of
Amtrak) Site. The GIS data product contains only the results of a model depicting where
potential FIDS habitat might occur based on certain defined criteria. These polygons have not
been field tested or field verified for actual FIDS presence. FIDS habitat is located adjacent to
the far northeast portion of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. Conservation of FIDS
habitat is strongly encouraged by DNR. DNR provides guidelines to help minimize project
impacts on FIDS and other native forest plants and wildlife.
4.1.4 Cultural Resources
The MERLIN database was searched for the existence of cultural resources in the vicinity
of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. The MERLIN database presents information
regarding Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, Maryland Historic Trust Easements, and
properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). There is one historic
property listed on the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties listed as Shipley Point Farm
(CE-538) located approximately 300 feet south of the eastern portion of the site. According to
Mr. Tim Tamburrino, Preservation Officer for the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), the
Maryland State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), he observed aerial photos of the Shipley
Point Farm on the www.bing.com/maps website and it appears as though the structures
associated with the Shipley Point Farm are gone. Therefore, there are no architectural cultural
resources located there. However, it is possible that there are still archaeological resources still
there.
In addition, a farmstead is located approximately 150 feet north of the NEC to the north
of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site and located on the Perryville A (Farm) Site.
According to Mr. Tamburrino, the property located on the Perryville A (Farm) Site is not
included in the MHT GIS database and the farm at this location has not been evaluated. Mr.
Tamburrino observed aerial photos of the farm on the www.bing.com/maps website and stated
that it appears as though the property is a potential cultural resource judging from the age and
condition of the structures on the site. The farm has a mansion and several outbuildings that
16
appear to be over 50 years old. According to the Maryland Department of Assessments and
Taxation, the property is identified as Map 34, Grid, 11, Parcel 43 and the primary structure on
the property is listed as being built in 1850. Prior to development of the site, correspondence
with MHT would be required to determine whether there would be effects of the project on the
existing historical properties, as well as the potential cultural resource on the Perryville A (Farm)
Site.
If it is determined that this farm is eligible to be listed on the NRHP, a Section 4(f)
evaluation would be required for the Perryville B site. A Section 4(f) evaluation must be
conducted for Federally funded (in part or all) projects in concurrence with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Section 4(f) stipulates that the use of a historic site
as part of a project must be avoided unless no feasible and prudent alterative exists.
Development of the Perryville B site may be considered a constructive use of the historic
resource. Constructive use occurs when the transportation projects proximity impacts are so
severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection
under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired or diminished. A constructive use occurs when the
projected noise level increase attributable to the project substantially interferes with the use and
enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a resource protected by Section 4(f), such as enjoyment
of a historic site where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or attribute of the sites
significance. Constructive use determination is rare and impacts can often be mitigated.
4.1.5 Potential Noise Impacts
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTAVA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site to
identify potential noise impacts. As previously mentioned in the Cultural Resources section,
there is a historic property listed on the Maryland Historic Property Site listed as Shipley Point
Farm (CE-538) which is located approximately 300 feet south of the site. Because the structures
of this historic resource have been removed and only below-ground archaeological resources
may remain, this site is not considered noise sensitive. The farm located adjacently north on the
Perryville A site, however, is located within the screening distance and is considered noise
sensitive. In the event that Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is selected for development, a
general noise analysis, in accordance with FTA guidelines, may be required to determine noise
impacts to this farm and explore mitigation options if impacts occur.
4.1.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the neighborhoods adjacent to this site correspond to
the census tract 312.02. The total population was 4,628 people with 2,367 males and 2,261
females. 79% of the population above 25 years of age had a high school diploma, whereas
approximately 11% had at least a bachelors degree. The median income was relatively higher at
$44,531 with a low rate of unemployment at 2.0%. Less than 6% of families were reported to be
below the poverty level. The community was dominated by whites who constituted
approximately 90% of the population, with less than 7% African-Americans. Hispanics (of any
race) accounted for approximately 2% of the entire population in the tract. Census tract data
from the 2010 U.S. Census was not available at the time this report was written.

17
4.1.7 Stormwater Management

Located on terrain similar to the Perryville A site, the existing land uses within the
proposed project limits include an Amtrak facility in addition to agricultural use. Relocation of
the existing Amtrak MOW Base may result in a net decrease of impervious area after
construction of the proposed MARC project. The underlying soil composition is HSG Type D
on the northern half and HSG Type B on the southern half of the site. Runoff from this site
discharges directly to a tributary to Mill Creek, which directly discharges to the Chesapeake Bay.
The Perryville B site is located outside of the 100-yr floodplain, but the northeast portion along
the NEC is located within the Critical Area boundary. In addition, the existing Amtrak site
would have to be relocated adjacent to the proposed MARC facility as part of this work.
It is envisioned that stormwater management at this site would be comprised of
Environmental Site Design (ESD) elements where applicable, such as grass swales, green roofs
and micro-bioretention facilities. Use of pervious pavement on the southern half of the facility
may be an option with regards to soil type, although proximity of groundwater may restrict its
use. Tests to confirm groundwater levels and infiltration rates should be made in the future.
Despite efforts to achieve ESD, the significant increase in impervious area is expected to require
construction of a stormwater management pond in order to meet the latest MDE requirements for
quality and quantity treatment. This proposed pond would likely be located just down-slope of
the proposed track facilities and would fulfill treatment requirements for the MARC and Amtrak
facilities. Property in addition to the Right of Way required for the track and buildings will be
required for this pond.
4.1.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition)
In addition to the full property acquisition of the 15.28-acre Amtrak MOW Base site, the
undeveloped property to the south of the MOW Base would have to be acquired for the
relocation of the Amtrak MOW Base. According to the Maryland Department of Assessments
and Taxation, the property is identified as Map 34, Parcel 0081, is 267.5 acres in area and is
owned by Ikea Property, Inc., which includes the large Ikea warehouse. Development of this
property would require purchase and subdivision of approximately 45.58 acres of the property in
consent with the Ikea Corporation. The program area requirements for this project are
approximately 76.6 acres, which also includes 15.75 acres of temporary construction easements
along the Amtrak Right-of-Way.
A conservation easement approximately 156 acres in size listed as the Cecil Land Trust
and owned by the Maryland Environmental Trust (MET) is located adjacently east and south of
the proposed Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site, according to Mr. Adam Block, Central Region
Planner and Legislative Liaison for MET. MET easements would restrict the development of a
layover facility on the easement. Prior to development or expansion, the borders of the proposed
site and the location of the Cecil Land Trust easement should be surveyed to ensure there is no
encroachment onto the easement.
4.1.9 Site Pros and Cons
Pros:
Second only to the Perryville A site for shortest deadhead time to Perryville
No major grading should be required
18
Almost no clearing required except for lead track construction

Cons:
Would require construction of two new crossovers in Perry Interlocking
Deadhead time to Penn Station is greater than all studied sites and equal to
Perryville A
Relocation of existing MOW Base presents coordination issues and potential
schedule delays
Potential issues regarding existing cultural resources, HAZMAT, and Critical
Area
Considered by Amtrak to be the least favorable site
Possible interference with proposed future Amtrak capacity improvement work
(additional tracks and new Susquehanna River Bridge)
Major Cost Factors Include:
o Construction of a new Amtrak MOW Base
o Construction of two crossovers and a relocated turnout at Perry
Interlocking
o Possible demolition of an abandoned road bridge spanning the NEC.
4.2
PERRYVILLE A (FARM) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND

The Perryville A (Farm) Site is located on the north side of the Amtrak NEC, south of
Route 7-Principio Furnace Road, and south and east of the intersection of Route 7 with Broad
Street. The proposed project site is approximately 8,000 feet long and ranges from 30 feet wide
along the railroad tracks to 1,500 feet wide where the access road is proposed and the total site
area is approximately 121 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs
improvements (i.e., program area requirements) would be approximately 54 acres. The site
would provide adequate acreage for current and future train storage and equipment maintenance
requirements.
According to the Cecil County Department of Planning and Zoning
(http://www.ccgov.org/dept_planning/index.cfm), the Perryville A Site farm property consists of
a parcel zoned RM-high density residential district. Current land use on the Site is designated as
Agricultural/Residential. Development of the site will require a zoning change. According to
Ms. Skilling with the Town of Perryville Planning and Zoning, if Perryville A site is chosen for
development, the site would likely have to be annexed into the Town of Perryville to account for
utilities services (e.g., water and sewer) to be supplied by the Town. The Town of Perryville
currently provides utilities to the MOW Base for Amtrak on the south side of the tracks.
Adjacent zoning consists of EMU-employment mixed use district on the golf course parcel to the
east. EMU is a zoning designation that allows for certain commercial, residential and light
industrial uses. Adjacent zoning to the west and south is designated at L2-light industrial by the
Town of Perryville. Figure 5 presents the environmental constraints associated with the site.
Figure 6 presents the proposed yard and shop layout. Figure 7 presents the property impacts
and zoning associated with the site.
Site The Perryville A Site meets the requirements for construction of a double-ended
facility and would provide easy access for trains originating and terminating at Perryville.

19
7
6
%/9

)HHW
'
2$
5
%
1
),5( 6
72 1(
'

&(
&2
'
2
&(
\U)ORRGSODLQ
\U)ORRGSODLQ
'151:,:HWODQGV
&KHVDSHDNH%D\&ULWLFDO$UHD
6HQVLWLYH6SHFLHV3URMHFW5HYLHZ$UHDV
+LVWRULF3URSHUWLHV
)
5' 5
7

:$<
,. ($
67
+ ($
$JULFXOWXUDO
&(
25
5 ,'
5
& 2
5HVLGHQWLDO
7
25
.1
$
75
$0
3RWHQWLDO
&XOWXUDO
5HVRXUFH
'
&RXGRQ
V5RDG6RXWK
%ULGJH2YHU5DLOURDG
1RW,Q6HUYLFH
,2
3
&,
5
&(
1$
5
8
$JULFXOWXUDO
0L[HG&RPPHUFLDO,QGXVWULDO
,1
35
&(
&(
5HVLGHQWLDO
//
0, 5 '
.
((
&5
&(
0DU\ODQG(QYLURQPHQWDO7UXVW
&HFLO/DQG7UXVW
9HWHUDQV$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ0HGLFDO&HQWHU0,+3&(
+LVWRULF3ODFHV

3(0(K
3URJUDP$UHD5HTXLUHPHQWV
/HJHQG
&(
&(&,/$9(
6$
)HEUXDU\
&(
&RXGRQ
V5RDG1RUWK
%ULGJH2YHU5DLOURDG
5'
0$ 5</$ 1'$9(
(
&+

,(:
9

.(
($
3HUU\YLOOH$6LWH
)XUQDFH
)LJXUH
%D\
(8%/
(861
(861
3666
(8%/
(861
(663
Heavy grading will be required for the two lead tracks since the existing ground is higher than
the elevation of the NEC. Construction of the south lead track may require the reconstruction of
the north end of the existing Firestone Road (MD Route 327) bridge over the NEC and possible
adjustment of the vertical and/or horizontal location of a commercial overhead electric power
line. Construction of the north lead track will likely require the reconstruction of the north end
of a private overhead road bridge belonging to the adjacent golf course. Right-of-way
requirements for construction of the north lead track may also impact the golf course.
Demolition will include two out-of-service road bridges over Amtraks NEC Coudons Road
South and Coudons Road North.
Amtrak Connection Construction of two new lead tracks, one each on the north and
south ends of the site, would provide connections to the existing Amtrak PRINCE and PERRY
Interlockings, respectively. No additional crossovers would be required in either interlocking,
and the proposed lead tracks would require only one turnout each to connect to NEC Track 4 in
the respective interlockings.
Track The MARC facilities, including the yard and shop and lead tracks, would require
the construction of approximately 49,000 feet of track and 40 turnouts.
Catenary System The nearest Amtrak traction power substation is Perryville
envisioned that insulated overlaps with disconnect switches would be installed in the yard lead
catenary, with approximately 61,000 feet of two-wire catenary required for the new yard facility.
Three preliminary layout drawings have been developed to help plan the Catenary and ET
concepts for this location (See Drawings ET-1, ET-2 and ET-3 in Appendix A).
1. Two new 12kV feeders and supporting hardware will be installed on existing
catenary structures from the existing Amtrak Perryville Substation to the proposed
Perryville A facility.
2. The existing 12 kV phase breaks are located in all four main track catenaries
about 1200 feet south of the existing south lead track of the existing Amtrak
MOW Base. The proposed extended south lead track of the proposed yard clears
the phase break overlaps.
1. Space does not appear to be adequate to accommodate 12kV feeder breakers and
an associated gantry structure with bus and motor operated disconnect switches to
sectionalize catenary power within the yard. Drawings ET-2 and ET-3 in
Appendix A indicate possible locations to place ET equipment for this purpose.
2. Additional phase break indicator rosettes should be installed in the vicinity of
the south lead and north lead tracks. Phase break status could also be integrated
20
into the C&S modifications to control operations on the north yard lead to prevent
bridging of out-of-phase circuits when phase breaks are open.
structures.
Electric Traction Substations The nearest traction power substation is Perryville
(Substation 16), and is located approximately one mile from the proposed yard.
1. Amtraks Substation 16 has more than ample capacity to supply all required
12kV, 25Hz envisioned load at this yard location, including track switch heaters.
(The existing substation capacity is 22.5MVA, located approximately 1 mile
away)
2. Substation 16 has recently undergone extensive renovations, such as replacement
of all five, 4.5MVA traction power transformers, breakers, power cables and
SCADA RTU.
3. Substation 16 has ample space within its confines to allow easy expansion for
new circuit breaker bays to provide 12kV feeders to the proposed yard.
yard facility.
Perryville Substation. As noted in the Catenary section, space appears available at
both the east and west ends of the yard for this equipment as shown on Drawing
ET-2 in Appendix A. Two breakers will be required, as well as several motor
operated disconnect switches for yard sectionalizing.
6. Amtrak maintenance employees are headquartered at Substation 16.
1. The presence of the 12kV phase breaks near this yard location must be
considered so a proper protection scheme is developed to allow for transfer trip.
21
Communications and Signals The proposed Perryville A site would be located at MP

58.7 in Perryville, Maryland, across the Amtrak NEC from the proposed Perryville A site. The
required lead track lengths shown on the drawings are from clearance point of the last yard
switch to the Interlocking signal governing the entrance to the mainline. For discussion purposes
we will assume that the northern yard lead switch will be in the existing limits of PRINCE and
the southern yard lead switch will be within the existing limits of PERRY.
Railroad Related Issues As far as can be determined from available information, both
of the proposed lead tracks could be impacted by Amtraks plans for future track capacity
improvements. The preliminary plans indicate that significant changes could take place at
PERRY Interlocking, and that PRINCE Interlocking would be eliminated altogether. These
changes could affect MARC operations during their construction but would not permanently
leave MARC without either connection. Coordination with Amtrak during design of this facility
will be necessary to ensure that the new MARC facility does not interfere with Amtraks
proposed future tracks. While Amtrak has not performed an engineering review of the
conceptual plans for this site, it took no exception to the plans as presented at a meeting held at
MTA.
WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the Perryville A (Farm) Site
and surrounding vicinity. The EDR report did not identify the project site as a site of known
environmental concern or regulation. There were several sites of regulatory concern in the
surrounding vicinity. The site location in relation to the project site, its regulatory status, and
DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
Ikea Industrial Park Property
Route 7 and Woodland Farm
Lane
Perryville, Maryland
Coastal Unilube Inc.

950 Principio Furnace Road
VCP
INST CONTROL
+ 300 feet south
OCPCASES
Date Open: 10/15/2003
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Yes
Date Open: 12/10/1993
FINDS

22
+ 350 feet north

DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
Firestone Perryville Plant

Firestone Road/Route 7
Perryville Elementary SchoolStorm Drain

Maryland Ave./Maywood
SHWS
+ 500 feet north
OCPCASES
Date Open: 1/4/1996
Release: Yes
Facility Code: Ground Seep
Investigation/Cleanup
+ 1,600 feet west
As shown in the table above, the Ikea Industrial Park property located adjacently south of
the project site is a potential site of regulatory concern or regulation within approximately 300
feet of the project site. According to information available from the MDE website
(http://websrvr.mde.md.gov/assets/document/brownfields/Ikea.pdf), the Ikea Industrial Park
property was entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) in 2001 due to elevated levels
of metals (thallium and mercury) found during subsurface investigations of the site. Previous
land use at the site was agricultural. No groundwater contaminants were identified.
Groundwater beneath the site reportedly flows towards the southwest, generally away from the
Perryville A (Farm) Site. It is possible that metals such as thallium and mercury may have been
introduced into the area possibly from historical agricultural land use practices on the property.
A Phase I ESA may be recommended prior to selection of the site in order to adequately
determine whether subsurface contamination may be reasonably expected to be encountered
during construction activities.
Wetlands NWI and DNR maps were examined for wetlands in the vicinity of the
Perryville A (Farm) Site and none were found. Aerial photography provided by GoogleMaps
and www.bing.com/maps was examined in the vicinity of the Perryville A (Farm) Site and no
obvious wetlands were observed. However, waters of the U.S. associated with Mill Creek were
observed crossing beneath the tracks in the southwestern portion of the site. It also appears as
though a small tributary or drainageway runs parallel to the NEC railroad tracks on the southern
border of the site and discharges into Mill Creek in the southwestern portion of the site. Mill
Creek flows south toward the confluence of Mill Creek with Furnace Bay to the southeast of the
site and discharges into the Chesapeake Bay.
the U.S., including wetlands, on and around the site will be delineated, flagged in the field, and
surveyed in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), November 2010.
23
Plans showing the areas of impact to streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland buffers will be
included in a JPA submitted to MDE and USACE that details the avoidance, minimization and
mitigation required as a result of the impacts on the project site. If mitigation is determined to be
required, it may be accounted for by purchase of wetland credits at a wetland bank within the
watershed, payment to the Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund, on-site mitigation, or offsite mitigation.
Floodplains According to the MERLIN database, Cecil County GIS and the DNR
website, there are 100- and 500-year floodplain areas associated with Mill Creek along the NEC
railroad tracks in the southwestern portion of the project site. According to Joe Johnson,
floodplain administrator with the Cecil County Department of Planning and Zoning, placement
of fill in the floodplain requires a variance through the Planning and Zoning office. The variance
request will solicit comments from the National Flood Insurance Program office and go to the
County Board of Appeals. According to Mr. Johnson, Cecil County rarely requires an
engineering analysis or reviews elevations; however they will not issue a variance until an MDE
Waterway Construction Permit is obtained.
In addition to complying with County requirements for floodplain development, a JPA
must be submitted to MDE to receive a Waterway Construction Permit for any temporary or
permanent impacts within a non-tidal floodplain. To be properly permitted, floodplain impacts
may not increase flooding or create a dangerous situation during flooding, especially on nearby
properties. Also, the project must maintain fish habitat and migration, and protect the waterway
from erosion. An engineering analysis will most likely be required to model the pre- and postdevelopment floodplain. It is likely that development of the Perryville A site will exceed the
minor project threshold of 100 CY of net fill and 5,000 square feet of disturbance, placing it into
the major project category. Major projects require public notice, adjacent property owner
notification, and often an engineering analysis. Permit review can take up to twelve months for a
major project vs. ten months for a minor project.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) The Perryville A (Farm) Site is located just
outside of the CBCA. According to the Cecil County GIS (www.ccgov.org) and the MERLIN
database, the closest Critical Area designated as a Resource Conservation Area is approximately
300 feet to the east, and is associated with Furnace Bay. There is also Critical Area designated
as Corporate Limit (Critical Area within the Town of Perryville) approximately 1,100 feet south
of the project site associated with Mill Creek. There will be no affect on CBCA if the Perryville
A (Farm) Site is developed.
Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) The site is comprised primarily of
agricultural fields and tree rows. Development of the site will result in minor impacts to forest
communities. In accordance with the MFCA, an FSD and FCP will be required. If
Compensation Fund.
24
definition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The entire Perryville A
site to be acquired contains approximately 10.37 acres of forest cover; 9.72 acres within the
program area requirements and 0.65 acres outside of the program area requirements. Based on
the State manual worksheet, approximately 26.3 acres of reforestation will be required for this
site. The Perryville A parcel is mostly cleared and therefore provides abundant space to plant
onsite.
Threatened & Endangered Species According to the MERLIN database, there is a
Sensitive Species Project Review Area depicted within the northeast portion of the Perryville A
(Farm) Site and is associated with an area in the vicinity of Furnace Bay. If the Perryville A
(Farm) Site is proposed to be developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to confirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and
Federal species, respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the project
site, DNR/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of
year construction restrictions, and/or avoidance of particular areas on the project site.
Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) The DNR GIS data for FIDS habitat areas
was reviewed for the Perryville A (Farm) Site. No FIDS habitat areas are located on the
Perryville A (Farm) Site. The closest FIDS habitat is located adjacently south of the
southwestern portion of the site and approximately 800 feet east of the eastern portion of the
Perryville A (Farm) Site.
of the Perryville A (Farm) Site. There is one historic property listed in the NRHP located
approximately 800 feet north of the project site along the north side of Principio Furnace Road
(Route 7) and known as Woodlands (NR-568; Maryland Historic Property Site, CE-145). The
NRHP describes Woodlands as an estate of the Coudon family, an important family in Cecil
County, especially in the field of religion since the 18th Century. The Reverend Joseph Coudon,
father of the first Coudon to own Woodlands, served as rector to St. Mary Annes Church in
nearby North East, Maryland, from 1787 to 1792. The building was built circa 1810-1820 and
has a large number of original outbuildings still intact and continuing to perform as part of a
working farm. A property listed on the Maryland Historic Property Site is also located
approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the site and is listed as Lindenwood (CE-700).
A farmstead is located in the southern portion of the property. The farm has a mansion
and several outbuildings that appear to be over 50 years old. According to Mr. Tim Tamburrino,
Preservation Officer for MHT, the property located on the Perryville A (Farm) Site is not
included in the MHT GIS database and the farm at this location has not been evaluated. Mr.
Tamburrino observed aerial photos of the farm on the www.bing.com/maps website and stated
that it appears as though the property is a potential cultural resource judging from the age and
condition of the structures on the site. According to the Maryland Department of Assessments
and Taxation, the property is identified as Map 34, Grid, 11, Parcel 43 and the primary structure
on the property is listed as being built in 1850. Prior to development of the site, correspondence
25
existing historical properties, as well as the potential cultural resource on the Perryville A (Farm)
Site. If it is determined that this farm is eligible to be listed on the NRHP, a Section 4(f)
evaluation would be required for the Perryville A site. A Section 4(f) evaluation must be
conducted for Federally funded (in part or all) projects in concurrence with the NEPA process.
Section 4(f) stipulates that the use of a historic site as part of a project must be avoided unless no
feasible and prudent alterative exists. Because alternative sites may be suitable for development
for the MARC Maintenance Facility, it is likely that the Perryville A site will be eliminated from
consideration during the Section 4(f) evaluation.
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTAVA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the Perryville A (Farm) Site to identify
potential noise impacts. A total of seven residences are located within the screening distance and
could potentially be impacted by noise from the proposed Perryville A (Farm) Site. The
residences are located to the northwest of the site boundary near Woodlands Farm Lane with the
closest residence approximately 500 feet from the site boundary. In the event that Perryville A
(Farm) Site is selected for development, a general noise analysis, in accordance with FTA
guidelines, may be required to determine noise impacts to these residences and explore
mitigation options if impacts occur.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the neighborhoods adjacent to this site correspond to
the census tract 312.02. The total population was 4,628 people with 2,367 males and 2,261
females. 79% of the population above 25 years of age had a high school diploma, whereas
approximately 11% had at least a bachelors degree. The median income was relatively higher at
$44,531 with a low rate of unemployment at 2.0%. Less than 6% of families were reported to be
below the poverty level. The community was dominated by Whites who constituted
approximately 90% of the population, with less than 7% African-Americans. Hispanics (of any
race) accounted for approximately 2% of the entire population in the tract. Census tract data
from the 2010 U.S. Census was not available at the time this report was written.
Situated on gently rolling terrain comprised entirely of agricultural land use, this site has
virtually no existing impervious area that would require removal. Located near the mouth of the
Susquehanna River, the underlying soil composition is HSG Type C on the western half and
HSG Type B on the eastern half of the site. Runoff from this site discharges directly to a
tributary to Mill Creek, which directly discharges to the Chesapeake Bay. Despite its proximity
to the Bay, the Perryville A site is located outside of the 1,000-ft Critical Area. The far
southwestern portion of the Perryville A site is located within the 100-yr floodplain.
It is envisioned that stormwater management at this site would be comprised of ESD
elements where applicable, such as grass swales, green roofs and micro-bioretention facilities.
Additionally, pervious pavement may be compatible at this location due to the lack of HSG Type
D soils and anticipated depth of the seasonal high groundwater table. However, the significant
increase in impervious area is expected to require construction of a stormwater management
26
pond in order to meet the latest MDE requirements for quality and quantity treatment. This
proposed pond would likely be located within the perimeter of the proposed facility due to
existing grading conditions. This may require reconfiguration of the track layout as proposed.
According to the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation, the large central
farm property is identified as Map 34, Grid, 11, Parcel 43, and is approximately 114 acres in area
and is owned by Woodlands-Coudon Inc. & Coudon Wilson L & et al. The site is a private farm
and is residential/agricultural in use and would require a full property acquisition. Partial
acquisitions of four additional properties totaling 6.77 acres would be required adjacent to the
NEC. Approximately 2.66 acres would be acquired to the east and is owned by Howard J. &
Beverlee C. Neff which is the location of the Furnace Bay Golf Course. The three partial
acquisitions to the west would be required from the properties owned by Ikea Property, Inc (0.83
acres), Frenchman Land Company, Inc. (1.18 acres), and Community Fire Company of
Perryman, MD (2.10 acres). Land acquisition may be a constraint and will add to the cost of
development.
Pros:
Least deadhead time to Perryville
No additional crossovers required in Perry and Prince Interlockings
Site can be double-ended
Easy access to site for trains originating and terminating in Perryville
Mostly open space should require minimal clearing and grubbing
No anticipated effects to Critical Area
Cons:
Heavy grading may be required to make site level
Deadhead time to Penn Station is greater than of all studied sites and equal to
Perryville B
No existing connection to NEC
Zoning change from residential to industrial
Potential full acquisition of historic resource (farmstead) located on site may
eliminate the site from consideration during the Section 4(f) evaluation, several
partial acquisitions also required
Possible 100-year floodplain impacts
o Grading
o Two turnouts connecting to main line Track 4
o Demolition of two old road bridges over NEC (Coudons Road North and
South)
o Purchase of ROW along edge of golf course for lead track on north end
o Reconstruction of Firestone Road bridge over NEC to accommodate lead
track on south end

27
4.3
OPUS SITE, PERRYMAN, MARYLAND

The Opus Site is located on the east side of the NEC, south of Maryland Boulevard (MD
Route 715) and north of East Michaelsville Road in Perryman, Maryland. It is bounded on the
east side by the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) property. The proposed project site is
approximately 9,700 feet long and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along the railroad
tracks to approximately 900 feet wide and the total site area (i.e., program area requirements) is
approximately 56.9 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs
improvements would be approximately 48 acres including an access road that will connect with
public highways at the north end. Temporary construction easements along the railroad tracks
totaling approximately 8.9 acres would also be required. The site would provide adequate
acreage for current and future train storage and equipment maintenance requirements.
According
to
the
Harford
County
website
(http://www.harfordcountymd.gov/PlanningZoning/index.cfm), the property is zoned LI-Light
Industrial. The APG property located to the east is federal land currently under military use.
Located on APG property is Ruggles Golf Course, located adjacently east of the northern portion
of the site and Philips Army Airfield, located approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the central
portion of the site. A mix of properties designated as Industrial District and Residential District
are located to the southwest, and properties listed as Industrial District are located to the west.
Current land use on the site is agricultural. Figure 8 presents the environmental constraints
associated with the site. Figure 9 presents the proposed yard and shop layout. Figure 10
presents the property impacts and zoning associated with the site.
Site The Opus Site meets the requirements for construction of a double-ended facility.
The site is currently a working farm field and is relatively level and is at an elevation similar to
the Amtrak main tracks. Sections of the site are groundwater recharge areas for the Harford
County water supply in the Perryman Wellfield Protection District.
Amtrak Connection Since there are no existing interlockings located nearby on the
NEC, two new interlockings will have to be constructed. A curve in the NEC main tracks
located just north of the MD Rt. 715 overhead highway bridge would force the location of the
new interlocking on the north end to be just south of the overhead bridge approximately at the
site of a proposed future interlocking identified in the MARC Growth and Investment Plan as
BOOTH Interlocking. The location of MARCs proposed crossovers would have to be
coordinated with those of Amtraks proposed POPLAR Interlocking (as identified on the
Northeast Corridor Master Plan II), and the end result would dictate the location of the beginning
of the north lead track. This, in turn, would dictate the location of the north ladders for the
MARC facility, placing it roughly in the middle of the Opus Site. The south lead track and the
crossovers required for the interlocking at the south end of the site would place the new south
interlocking just north of the Chelsea Road overhead highway bridge at the south end of the site,
approximately at the site of a proposed future interlocking identified in the MARC Growth and
Investment Plan as CHELSEA Interlocking. Amtraks track capacity expansion plans indicate
that, ultimately, Amtrak would have 4 main tracks and one freight siding in this area where there
are currently only 3 tracks. The ultimate addition of the fourth track in this area will need to be
coordinated with Amtrak to ensure sufficient clearance between the MARC yard tracks and the
future track.
28
3URJUDP$UHD5HTXLUHPHQW
3)2&
3)2&
3)2&
3)2&
3)2&
3)2&
3HUU\PDQ+LVWRULF'LVWULFW
3)2$
3)2$
3)2$
6HQVLWLYH6SHFLHV3URMHFW5HYLHZ$UHD
38%+[
3I
3)2$
&1$:HWODQG'HOLQHDWLRQ
3)2&
3)2$
3)2& 3)2&
3)2&
'151:,:HWODQGV
3)2$
3)2&
3)2$ 3)2&
3)2$
3)2$
\U)ORRGSODLQ
3)2& 3)2&
3)2$
3)2& 3)2$
38%)[
3(0)K
38%+K
3(0&
38%+K
3(0$K
+$
5
'
$
+, /
6 3
38%+[ 3)2$
+$
9'
%/
, $
3+
/
'(
5'
0$
1
5<
3)2&
3(
5
3(0$
3)2&
3)2&
3)2$
38%+[
3)2$
3)2$
386&[
366$
3)2& 3)2(
+$
3(0&
386&[
&
UR
YL
$E
386&[
7$
*(
$
9(
3
UIR
UG
+D
HU
G
38%+[
3)2$
38%+
$0
75
$.
1
25
7+
($
67
&
25
5,
'2
5
386&[
3)2&
HH
Q
38%)[
+$
RX
QW
\
QJ
*
UR
XQ
G
&U
DQ
E
HU
U\
5
X
3)2&
3)2$
57
/1
38%+K
3)2$
$'
9$
1
6+
2
3(0$[
3)2&
3)2&
3)2$ 366&
57
/1
3)2(
3(0)[
3)2$
6+
2
Q
HH
UG
\
QW
EH
RX
I$
&
R
W\
UG
&L
IR
DU
+
3)2& 3)2&
+$
3)2&
3)2& 3)2$ 3)2$
3)2$
3)2$
38%)K
81
5
5<
(5
3(0&K
3)2(K
1%
6 3
3)2&
+$
$
&5
(/
$'
+, /
3+
'
2/
3(0&
9' +$
%/
, $
3+
$'
,/
5'
,$
3+
(/
'
$
+,/
+$
'
3(0&K
3(0)K
3)2&
5'
$
+,
/3
'3
2/
5
/
,/
+
5'
1
3)2&
38%+[
9'
%/
, $
3+
$5
3/
< 6+2
57
+:
/1
.,
6
/$
38
3)2&
32
3)2$
3)2&
(/
$'
+, /
6 3
3I
366&
3)2&
\U)ORRGSODLQ
3)2&
3)2$
3(0(
72
:
1(
+,&.2
5<'5
3)2$
3)2&
38%)K
7
5'
3)2&
$9
(
.6
'
5
32
6
3)2$
:
$/
.(
5
67
3)2&
3(0&
3HUU\PDQ6XSSO\:HOOV
-$
0(
6
9(
$
2/
+LVWRULF3ODFHV
0(
(
5
&$
3)2$
67
7
6
%%
1'
:(
8
0
5
('
'
21
$9
9(
($
9(
'*
$
,

5
5'
0%
)2
&$
2;
(
$9
$1
/
5
+$
&,5
(/
/ ,
&7
/HJHQG
3)2$
/$
:
67
3)2$
3)2$
:
5'
/ '
),(
36
,
/
/
3+,
3(0& 386&
3(0&
5
3(
386&[
3)2(0&
:
5<
386&[
1
0$
%<
386&
+$

+$

+$

+

+$ $

+$

+$

386&
3(066&
386& 386&
386&
3)2&
+$
386&
:
:
386&
+$
:
386&
+$
:
+$

366(0(
386&
386&

38%)[
)HHW
3(0&
3)266&
8 386&
7(
67
+:
<
+$
+$
+$
+$
3(0(
2SXV6LWH
3)266&
3(0(
38%+K
3(0$
3)2$
3)2&
)HEUXDU\
3(0&
3(0&
366$
)LJXUH
Catenary System The nearest Amtrak traction power substation is Perryman
envisioned that insulated overlaps with disconnect switches will be installed in the yard lead
catenary, with approximately 64,000 feet of two-wire catenary required for this new yard facility.
Five preliminary layout drawings have been developed to help plan the Catenary and ET
concepts for this location (See Drawings ET-18, ET-19, ET-20, ET-21 and ET-22 in Appendix
A).
1. Two new 12kV feeders and supporting hardware will be installed on existing
catenary structures from the existing Amtrak Perryman Substation to the proposed
Opus facility.
1. Space does not appear to be adequate to accommodate 12kV feeder breakers and
an associated gantry structure with bus and motor operated disconnect switches to
sectionalize catenary power within the yard. Drawings ET-19 and ET-20 in
Appendix A indicate possible locations to place ET equipment for this purpose.
structures.
3. Additional catenary work would be necessary due to two new interlockings that
will be required to service this yard.
Electric Traction Substations The proposed Opus location in the Perryman Maryland
vicinity has some major advantages for a direct connection to the 12kV distribution network that
is supplied from Sub 17 Perryman at MP 67.4. At the present time Sub 17 is a two traction power
transformer substation. With the additional loading that will arrive with a yard complex, power
system upgrades will be necessary to support both NEC traffic and a yard complex.
1. Amtraks existing Perryman Substation 17 is approximately two miles away and
can support direct connection at 12kV, 25Hz envisioned load at this yard location,
including track switch heaters.

29
2. Substation 17 has at least one available transformer bay to accommodate an

upgrade, with a possibility to incorporate another bay for a total of four
(4.5MVA) transformer units.
yard facility.
Perryville Substation. As noted in the Catenary System write-up, space appears
available at both the east and west ends of the yard for this equipment as shown
on Drawings ET-19 and ET-20 in Appendix A. Two breakers will be required, as
well as several motor operated disconnect switches for yard sectionalizing.
2. The new envisioned 12 kV switching structure would require an approximate land
parcel 50Ft X 100Ft in size, requiring additional land acquisition.
Communications and Signals The proposed Opus facility would be located at MP 68
between BUSH and OAK Interlockings. Two new interlockings would be required in order to
service the yard facility. CHELSEA (MP ~69.0) would be located at the south end and POPLAR
(MP ~67.3) to the north. These interlockings would consist of two #20 crossovers and one
turnout. New signal bridges would be required at both interlockings. ABS signal circuit
revisions would be required to accommodate the new interlockings.
Railroad-Related Issues Issues with this site include high cost and a significant
amount of coordination with Amtrak. Amtraks comments about this site dated September 20,
2010, stated the following:
New interlockings bracketing the facility would be required, which would be a
significant maintenance burden on Amtrak and present significant financial requirements for
MTA. Maintenance for this new infrastructure would be solely for MTAs benefit and would
have to be at MTAs sole expense. Potential new station tracks serving Aberdeen may be
required in order to avoid operational conflicts in very high speed territory.
These statements seem to conflict with the future track improvements identified in the
Northeast Corridor Master Plan II and MARC Growth and Investment Plan, which show the
aforementioned POPLAR and CHELSEA interlockings and a future fourth track. Therefore, it is
unclear as to exactly what, if any, future improvements Amtrak may be planning for this location
and how they might impact the MARC facility at the Opus Site. Correspondence from Amtrak is
included in Appendix B.
WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the Opus Site and surrounding
vicinity. The EDR report did not identify the project site as a site of known environmental
concern or regulation. There were several sites of regulatory concern in the surrounding vicinity.
30
The site location in relation to the project site, its regulatory status, and other applicable
information are listed in the table below.
DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
DOD
Aberdeen Proving Ground
NPL
(Edgewood Area)
CERCLIS
+ 200 feet east
US ENG CONTROLS
Off Route 40
US INST CONTROLS
Edgewood, Md 21010
ROD
(Listed 6 times)
Pier I Imports
913 Old Philadelphia Road
Aberdeen, Md 21001
Randall and Susan Strock

1615 Perryman Road
Aberdeen, Md 21001
OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 95-2517HA
Date Open: 5/17/1995
OCPCASES
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Yes
Facility Code: Tank Closure-Motor/Lube oil
+ 500 feet northwest
+ 1,700 feet west
Historical LUST
UST
Historical UST
RCRA-NonGen
Fowler Distributing Company

Aberdeen, Md 21001
R. L. Strock Building
1621 Perryman Road
Aberdeen, Md 21001
OCPCASES
+ 1,700 feet north
Date Open: 3/8/1991
OCPCASES

31
+ 1,900 feet west

DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
Perryman Grocery
1551 Perryman Road
Aberdeen, Md 21001
OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 93-0503BC3
Date Open: 9/4/1992
Historical LUST
Ark Rigging & Transfer

Aberdeen, Md 21001
OCPCASES
The Opus Site is not identified as a site of environmental concern or regulation. APG
Edgewood, located east of the Opus Site, is associated with confirmed releases of a variety of
hazardous materials into the soil and groundwater in a variety of places on the APG property. As
a result, the APG property is listed on the National Priority List (NPL) database, which identifies
sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund program, and the CERCLIS database, and has a
variety of engineering controls in place to prevent contact with known contaminants in the soils,
sediments, groundwater, and structures on the APG property. It is therefore possible that the
subsurface of the project site may contain hazardous materials from migration of hazardous
materials from the APG property. A Phase I ESA and a Phase II ESA with environmental
sampling may be recommended prior to selection of the site in order to adequately determine
whether subsurface contamination may be reasonably expected to be encountered during
construction activities.
A document titled Phase I ESA, Mitchell Property, Aberdeen, Maryland dated May 2005
prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc. for Opus East, LLC was provided to WR&A from MTA.
The Phase I ESA concluded that there was one recognized environmental condition (REC)
associated with the property. Groundwater beneath the site may be contaminated with
chlorinated solvents. According to groundwater sampling information from the Harford County
Water Operations Department, several water wells along the eastern border of the project site
have detected trichloroethelene levels at concentrations that exceed MDE cleanup levels.
Weston Solutions, Inc. stated that if groundwater was used in the future, additional sampling and
research regarding the chlorinated solvent levels in the groundwater should be considered.

32
According to the Harford County Water Source Protection District Map, located on the
Harford County Government, Department of Planning and Zoning website
(www.harfordcountymd.gov/PlanningZoning), the entire Opus Site is located within the
Perryman Wellfield Protection District. Regulations were adopted in the Harford County Zoning
Code, effective December 22, 2008, and Amended thru May 31, 2011, which would prohibit
development with proposed uses within the district that could pose a threat to groundwater.
According to a phone interview with Ms. Jacqueline Ludwig, Chief of the Water and Sewer
Engineering & Administration Division of the Harford County Department of Public Works, the
wells in the Perryman Wellfield Protection District produce approximately 5,000,000 gallons of
water per day or 25% of the drinking water for Harford County. The area is a very important
source of drinking water for the County.
Initial correspondence with the Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning
revealed that County approval for a proposed train maintenance and layover facility within the
Perryman Wellfield Protection District would likely be denied. However, there appeared to be
nothing in the County Code that specifically prohibited a train maintenance and layover facility.
Attorneys (Stark and Keenan) for the owners of the Opus property (Frederick O. Mitchell and
Elizabeth Pierce) further inquired as to whether the proposed maintenance and layover facility
could be approved by the Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning. In a letter to Mr.
Robert Lynch, Esquire, Stark and Keenan, dated April 15, 2011, Mr. C. Pete Gutwald, Director
of the Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning, wrote, ...after review of your letter
regarding the above referenced property and the specific activities proposed to occur thereon
identified in your letter, I have determined that the materially similar use identified in the
Harford County Zoning Code would be a Train Station. A Train Station is a principle permitted
use in the LI zoning district on the property identified as Tax Map 58, Parcel 503.
Support by Harford County for the Opus Site as a potential MARC Maintenance Facility
location was stated in a letter dated August 30, 2011, from Mr. David R. Craig, Harford County
Executive to Hon. Beverly Swaim-Staley, Secretary of Transportation for the Maryland
Department of Transportation. Mr. Craig stated, I along with members of our DPW and
Planning & Zoning teams have met with the proposed developers for this site and feel that their
plan is both workable and takes into account measures to protect the environment and our
wellhead areas. Should this site prove to be a favorable location for the MTA, we will continue
to work with the developers and MTA to ensure a smooth development process.
Correspondence is included in Appendix B.
Hydrogeologist, Steve Mogilnicki with Whitman, Requardt & Associates, was consulted
for information regarding the Perryman water supply wells. Information for the Perryman wells
can be found in the 1997 report, MGS Report of Investigations No. 63, by the Maryland
Geological Survey. The wells in closest proximity to the proposed maintenance facility, Wells
#8 and #9, draw from a confined aquifer designated Aquifer 2 in the region. Wells #8 and #9
are located several hundred feet from the proposed facility. Groundwater flow modeling by the
MGS indicated that the contributing area for the wells is partly beneath the proposed
maintenance facility. The contributing area is a theoretical mappable area in which recharge
(possibly including leaks or spills of contaminants) can reach the water well. From a
groundwater protection standpoint, the Opus site for the facility is a poor site. Theoretically,
33
there may be some protection of the wells given that the water supply aquifer is confined, but
contaminants could still move through confining layers. If further analysis of this site is to be
conducted, a site-specific groundwater study, including records review, a site visit, and
additional groundwater analysis including new modeling is recommended. In addition, the
extent and hydrogeologic properties of the confining layers would need additional
characterization.
Wetlands NWI and DNR maps were examined for wetlands in the vicinity of the Opus
Site and none were depicted on the project site. However, there were several Palustrine Forested
(PFO) and Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetlands within approximately 500 feet of the project site
along the eastern border of the project site and approximately 250 feet west of the central portion
of the project site. Aerial photography provided by www.bing.com/maps was examined in the
vicinity of the Opus Site and no obvious wetlands or waters of the U.S. were observed on the
site.
A report was provided to WR&A by MTA entitled Wetlands Delineation, Mitchell
Property dated April 17, 2006 for Opus East L.L.C. by CNA Engineers. The wetland delineation
stated that there were approximately 0.94 total acres of wetlands on the Mitchell property
consisting of several non-tidal PFO wetlands associated with the forested area on the eastern
portion of the Mitchell property and a relatively small PFO non-tidal wetland located in the
northern corner of the property located approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of Short
Lane with the NEC. The PFO wetlands located on the eastern portion of the Mitchell property
are located approximately 600 feet east of the site boundary. The small PFO wetland in the
northern corner of the Mitchell property appears to be located approximately 100 feet from the
proposed northern access road that will connect with Short Lane. There were no stream channels
identified during the wetland delineation. The wetland delineation was not verified by MDE or
USACE.
the U.S., including wetlands, will be delineated, flagged in the field, and surveyed in accordance
with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), November 2010. Plans showing the areas of
impact to streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland buffers will be included in a JPA submitted to
MDE and USACE that details the avoidance, minimization and mitigation required as a result of
the impacts on the project site. If mitigation is determined to be required, it may be accounted
for by purchase of wetland credits at a wetland bank within the watershed, payment to the
Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund, on-site mitigation, or off-site mitigation.
Floodplains The Opus Site is located outside of the 100- and 500-year floodplains.
The closest floodplain is approximately 2,000 feet to the northwest and is associated with
Cranberry Run which discharges into Church Creek. There will be no affect on floodplains if the
Opus Site is developed.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) The Opus Site is located outside of the
CBCA. The closest Critical Areas are associated with Church Creek, located approximately one
34
mile to the northwest. The land along these waterways 1,000 feet inland are designated as
Resource Conservation Areas, according to the MERLIN database. Since the closest edge of the
Critical Area is approximately 4,000 feet away, there will be no affects to Critical Areas if this
site is selected.
Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) The site is comprised primarily of
agricultural fields and tree rows. In accordance with the MFCA, an FSD and FCP will be
required. Although there are few forested areas on the project site, afforestation will be required
to plant the site to the minimum afforestation threshold (15%) and reforestation will be required
for any forest removed. If reforestation/afforestation cannot be accomplished onsite, offsite
areas may be identified, credits may be purchased from a reforestation bank, or lastly MTA may
pay into the Forest Compensation Fund.
definition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The Opus site to be
impacted contains approximately 3.41 acres of forest cover. Based on the State manual
worksheet, approximately 11.95 acres of reforestation will be required for this leased site. The
Opus parcel is mostly cleared and therefore provides abundant space to plant on the parcel.
Threatened & Endangered Species According to the MERLIN database, there were
no Sensitive Species Project Review Areas depicted in the vicinity of the Opus Site. The closest
Sensitive Species Project Review Area depicted in the MERLIN database is approximately 3,000
feet to the northwest of the project site and is associated with Church Creek. If the Opus Site is
proposed to be developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to confirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and Federal species,
respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the project site, DNR/U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of year
construction restrictions, and/or avoidance of particular areas on the project site.
was reviewed for the Opus Site. No FIDS habitat areas are located on the Opus Site. There are
FIDS habitat areas surrounding the site located approximately 1,000 feet to the west, 700 feet to
the northeast and 1,000 feet to the east.
of the Opus Site. The southern portion of the project site is located approximately 750 feet north
of the Perryman Historic District (HA-1722) in the Maryland Historic Property Site database.
There is one historical property (Mitchell Farm Complex ruins; HA-1588) and one bridge (SHA
12058, HA-1978) listed in the Maryland Historic Property Site database located within 1,000
feet of the northern portion of the project site. Multiple historic properties are located greater
than 1,000 feet from the site to the southwest. None of the properties have documentation
available on the MERLIN database, except for the F.O. Mitchell & Brothers, or Mitchells Office
35
Building (HA-1659) located approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the site, and the U.S. Post
Office (HA-1658) also located approximately 1,800 feet southwest of the site. Prior to
development of the site, correspondence with MHT would be required to determine whether
there would be effects of the project on the historical properties.
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTAVA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the Opus Site to identify potential noise
impacts. There are no historical or residential properties that fall within the screening distance of
the project site. Industrial areas are generally located west of the site, but would not be
considered noise sensitive.
The neighborhoods adjacent to this site correspond to the census tract 3024 and according
to the 2000 U.S. Census, the total population was 2,745 people with 1,363 males and 1,382
females. Approximately three-fourths of the population above 25 years of age had a high school
diploma, whereas approximately 15% had at least a bachelors degree. The median income was
$35,951 with a 3.5% rate of unemployment. A large percentage of families (15.3%) were
reported to be below the poverty level. The racial composition of the community included
Whites at approximately 74%, with 22.5% African-Americans. Hispanics (of any race)
accounted for less than 3% of the entire population in the tract. Census tract data from the 2010
U.S. Census was not available at the time this report was written.
Located on existing farmland, the OPUS site has no existing impervious area apart from
the existing railway ballast. Underlying soils at this site are primarily HSG Type B, with some
Type C and a minimal amount of Type D present as well. Runoff from this site discharges
to an unnamed tributary of Romney Creek, which discharges directly into the Chesapeake Bay.
This site is located entirely outside of the Critical Area, as well as the 100-yr flood plain (FIRM
No. 24025C2081D).
It is anticipated that stormwater management will be accomplished at this site using ESD
to the maximum extent practicable supplemented with a traditional stormwater Best
Management Practice (pond). ESD elements that may be applicable to this site include pervious
pavement for parking and light-duty areas, micro-bioretention, bio-swales and other similar
elements. The groundwater elevation at this site is presently unknown, and may preclude use of
some devices if its elevation is close to the surface. Topography on this site suggests that the
pond would be located to the south east of the proposed facility in additional adjacent open
space. No major changes to existing drainage patterns would be anticipated under this plan.
The program area requirements for this site total 56.90 acres. Approximately 8.89 acres
would consist of temporary construction easements along the NEC and the rest of the property
(48.01 acres) would be leased. According to the Maryland Department of Assessments and
Taxation, the parcel to be leased is defined as Tax Map 58 Parcel 503 and is owned by Elizabeth
M. Pearce et al.
36

Pros:
Deadhead time to Perryville is less than from Penn Station
No major grading should be required
Almost no clearing required except for lead track construction
Highway access available at the north end of site
No anticipated effects to T&E species, wetlands, 100-year floodplain, and Critical
Area
Cons:
Requires construction of two new interlockings in Amtrak NEC
Second longest deadhead time from Penn Station of all sites studied
Site located in the Perryman Wellfield Protection District presenting zoning issues
Major cost factors include construction of two interlockings with at least two
crossovers, each
4.4
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (APG) EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND

The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) Edgewood Site is located on the south side of the
NEC, north of Magnolia Road (MD Route 152) and south of Emmorton Road (MD Route 24).
The proposed project site is approximately 6,800 feet long and ranges from approximately 30
feet wide on the railroad tracks to approximately 800 feet wide and has a total site area (i.e., the
program area requirements) of approximately 74.1 acres. The portion of the site that would be
occupied by MTAs improvements would be approximately 58.9 acres. An additional 15.1 acres
will be required for relocation of the existing BGE aerial power transmission line which is
currently in a right-of-way approximately 130 feet wide. The site is located wholly within APG
which is federal land currently under military use. The site would provide adequate acreage for
current and future train storage and equipment maintenance requirements. Figure 11 presents
the environmental constraints associated with the site. Figure 12 presents the proposed yard and
shop layout. Figure 13 presents the property impacts and zoning associated with the site.
Site The APG Edgewood Site meets the requirements for construction of a doubleended facility and would provide easy MARC train access to both Baltimore and Perryville. A
BGE aerial power transmission line currently occupies the length of the site and would have to
be relocated further south during site development. Construction of the south lead track may
require reconstruction of the south end of the Magnolia Road overhead highway bridge, but more
information is required to adequately assess the actual situation. There are several small
structures or bunkers on the site currently in use by APG that would have to be demolished and
their functions relocated to other parts of the base. Development of this site could require fills of
up to 20 feet in depth and totaling as much as 1,000,000 CY of material.
Amtrak Connection Two existing Amtrak interlockings, WOOD and MAGNOLIA
Interlockings, are located at the north and south ends of the site, respectively, and provide most
of the track crossovers necessary to access this site. The site has an existing lead track
37
1,000
PFO1C PEM1C
HA-1612
HA-188
HA-1683
S
WE
PFO1E
HA-1682
HA-1570 HA-1684
2,000
Feet
RD
OD
WO
PFO1A
PUBHx
ST
AU
IN
RD
PUBFx
PUBFx
PUBHx
HA-1851
PUBHx
un
ro
PUBHx
PUBHx
T
37TH S
ty
un g G
Co ovin
d
r
r
rfo n P
Ha d e e
er
Ab
PUSCx
RD
500
HA-1680
PFO1A
PUBHh
S
STO KE
E2EM1P6
O
YL
HA-1678
HA-1677
HA-1679
HA-1681
HA-187
HA-186
PUBHh
LN
HT S
Forest Interior
Dwelling
Species (FIDS) Area
KN IG
500-yr Floodplain
100-yr Floodplain
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
RO Wetlands
DNR/NWI
PK
LN
Potential Wetlands
delineated by Geotechnical Assoc. Inc., dated April 1989
A
ST
E2EM1P6
PFO1R
PEM1C
HA-357
CO
PEM1C
PEM1C
HA-1852
PEM1C
T
NU
L
TA
KS
TN
PFO1E
PFO1E
OR
RI D
PEM1C
PFO1E
ST
EA
34TH ST
PFO1C
PFO1C
H
RT
PUBHh
NO
ek
re
C
al
an
C
PEM1C
J ST
IG
O
LO
K
RA
T
AM
PFO1A
PFO1C
PFO1E
PARKER RD
HA-2034
February 2012HA-1963
BAPG
LA
CK
MAGNOLIA RD
PFO1A
K RD
PFO1E
STAR
HA
WK
Site
RD

Environmental Constraints Map
PFO1A
HA-2009
PFO1C
E
AV
RD
FO
R
PUBH
Edgewood Arsenal Industrial Survey- MIHP HA 2069
US Army Assembly Plant - MIHP HA 2049
Historic Places
DR
TH
EG
AP
Program Area Requirements
LE R D
Inl
et
HA-1606
TRIMB
11TH ST
Legend
Re
a
MAGNOLIA RD
rdo
n
E
L AV
U TTA
LAGOON RD
N
OLD
SIEB
ER T
RD
E
AV
ALLEY RD
EY
ST
RD
DL
HOA
32N
D
N
TO
OR
CT
CE
M
M
EM
R
IDE
RE
R
ST
TE
RY
AL
TT
NU
ST
EMM ORTON RD
B
CO
JA
D
ES
WA E
HL I
R
N
AN
C
MC
VE
EA
RD
PUBHx
Figure 11
HA-1962
WISE
R
PL
MA
EN
OW
N
HA NLO
RD
T
38TH S
ATKISSON RD
42N D ST
connecting it to the NEC at WOOD Interlocking. Track 1 would need to be extended at the
south end to provide a long enough lead track to hold a ten-car MARC trainset, and this would
require moving the turnout to Track 1 from Track 2 further south in MAGNOLIA Interlocking.
Additionally, one crossover will need to be added at MAGNOLIA Interlocking to provide full
access to the MARC facility to and from the south.
Catenary System At this site, it is envisioned that insulated overlaps with disconnect
switches will be installed in the yard lead catenary, with approximately 58,000 feet of two-wire
catenary required for this new yard facility. Four preliminary layout drawings have been
developed to help plan the Catenary and ET concepts for this location (See Drawings ET-12, ET13, ET-14 and ET-23 in Appendix A).
1. The construction for the APG Edgewood site has the benefits of being constructed
in new territory not affected by working around an existing active location such
as the case with the Perryville B site.
2. The APG Edgewood site would require a new substation in the vicinity, identified
as Magnolia Substation, and conceptually shown on enclosed Drawing ET-13 in
Appendix A. With such a facility, the level of redundancy can be accommodated
with reduced 12kV feeder lengths from those described at either Perryville
facility. Structural analysis for the new feeder installation would be limited to
only two structures.
3. Overlaps can be installed in all mainline tracks to accept new feeders from the
proposed substation, with no concern regarding phase break positioning and
resultant protection schemes. Crossarms, switches, and feeder assemblies will be
installed on existing catenary poles to connect to the catenary overlaps.
1. Work is required on the 138kV Transmission Network. The east and west
Amtrak 138kV, 25HZ transmission lines will be dead-ended north and south, then
directed into the new 138/12 kV substation to be built on the west side of the
Amtrak ROW, opposite the proposed yard site.
2. The two pairs of 138kV transmission take-off poles would require reinforcing
with a crossbeam or truss.
3. A new pole would need to be set on the east side of the ROW to receive the two
yard 12kV yard feeders from the 12kV substation bus structure.

38

Electric Traction Substations The proposed APG Edgewood site is located at
approximately MP 76.5 in Edgewood and not near any existing Amtrak Substation facility.
1. Land parcels appear to be available to accommodate new traction power
substation/equipment for a yard facility at this location, but appear to be outside
Amtraks right-of-way. See Drawings ET-13 in Appendix A for a conceptual
substation location.
2. With a new traction power substation envisioned at this facility, the level of
redundancy and power reliability is significantly greater than the Perryville
location. See Drawing ET-23 in Appendix A for a conceptual single line diagram.
3. With a new traction power substation envisioned at this facility, Amtrak will
mandate that they assume all maintenance responsibilities for the new substation.
1. Modifications to the existing 138kV system and an entirely new substation would
be required at this facility. Such an installation would mandate interconnection
with the mainline and additional breakers for the yard, thereby being much more
expensive to implement than the Perryville location.
2. The new envisioned traction power substation would require an approximate land
parcel 250Ft X 200Ft in size, requiring additional land acquisition.
Communications and Signals The APG Edgewood site would be located at MP 76.5
in Edgewood, MD. The required lead track lengths shown on the drawings are from clearance
point of the last yard switch to the Interlocking signal governing the entrance to the mainline.
For discussion purposes we will assume that the northern yard lead switch will be the existing
76.8 Electric Lock switch (Arsenal Ind.) just south of the limits of WOOD and the southern yard
lead switch will be moved south of the existing Track 2 limits of MAGNOLIA.
WOOD Interlocking Signal Changes:
1. New 91 Switch (northern yard lead) and new Signal 9N.
2. Relocate existing Signal 1N southward to accommodate 91 Switch.
3. Additional interlocking track circuits for detector locking.

39
4. Replace all-relay controlled interlocking with microprocessor(s) due to major

signal modifications.
MAGNOLIA Interlocking Signal Changes:
1. New 19 Switch (southern yard lead) and new Signal 9S.
2. New 21 Switch and new 2N & 2S Signal.
3. New 32 Switch and new 3N Signal.
4. Retire existing 21 Switch and 3N, 2N, 2S & 1S Signals.
5. Replace all-relay controlled interlocking with microprocessors due to major signal
modifications.
Signal Aspect modifications at Signals 784 and GUNPOW Interlocking to accommodate
reconfigured MAGNOLIA Interlocking.
Railroad-Related Issues In comments dated September 20, 2010, Amtrak indicated its
preference for this site as compared with the Perryville B and Opus Sites. The existing lead track
on the north end of the site would need to be rebuilt with new rail, crossties, fasteners and
ballast.
WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the APG Edgewood Site and
surrounding vicinity. The EDR report identified the project site as a site of known
environmental concern or regulation. There were also several sites of regulatory concern in the
DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
DOD
NPL
(Edgewood Area)
CERCLIS
Project Site
US ENG CONTROLS
Off Route 40
US INST CONTROLS
Edgewood, Md 21010
ROD
(Listed 6 times)
Harford County Waste to
Energy
1 Magnolia Road
Joppa, Md 21085
OCPCASES

40
+ 100 feet west

southwest

DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
(Listed 4 times)
SWF/LF
NPDES
AIRS
Heinsohn Property
2009 Nuttal Avenue
Edgewood, Md 21040
Birchfield Property
8 Railroad Avenue
Edgewood, Md 21040
Dennis Rembold
116 Magnolia Road
Edgewood, Md 21040
OCPCASES
Facility Status: Open
Date Closed: Not Reported
Release: Yes
Facility Code: Aboveground Tank-Residential
Heating Oil
OCPCASES
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Yes
Facility Code: Aboveground Tank Leak
OCPCASES
+ 700 feet northeast
+ 1,100 feet northeast
+ 1,800 feet west

northwest
The APG Edgewood site is associated with confirmed releases of a variety of hazardous
materials into the soil and groundwater in a variety of places on the APG property. As a result,
the APG property is listed on the NPL database, which identifies sites for priority cleanup under
the Superfund program, and the CERCLIS database, and has a variety of engineering controls in
place to prevent contact with known contaminants in the soils, sediments, groundwater, and
structures on the APG property. It is therefore possible that the subsurface of the project site
may contain hazardous materials from migration of hazardous materials from the APG property.
A Phase I ESA and a Phase II ESA with environmental sampling is recommended prior to
selection of the site in order to adequately determine whether subsurface contamination may be
reasonably expected to be encountered during construction activities. It may also be likely that
institutional and engineering controls may be required as part of site development.

41
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced an Environmental Condition of Property

(ECP) report dated November 2011 for the approximate 200-acre area of land proposed for
development for the MARC Maintenance Facility. The ECP summarized the nature and status
of environmental contamination or hazards regarding the site that may affect development. Ten
previous or present environmental investigations were found at the following sites:
G-Street Salvage Yard (Land Use Controls [LUCs] and CERCLA Five Year
Reviews required)
Gas Mask Pit Investigation Near Gate 24 (investigation closed)
Route 24 Gate Expansion Investigation (investigation closed)
G-Street Radiation Site (Draft Remedial Investigation [RI] phase)
WWII Railroad Yard (LUCs and CERCLA Five Year Reviews required)
Building 99 Experimental Filling Plant (LUCs and CERCLA Five Year Reviews
required)
West Canal Creek Aquifer (Draft Final RI phase)
Building E5770/Magnolia Road Radiological Test Site (LUCs and CERCLA Five
Year Reviews required)
Westwood Cluster 14 Northeastern Surficial Aquifer (CERCLA Five Year
Reviews required)
Twelve Munition Response Sites Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP)
for Edgwood Area (Draft RI phase)
The ECP report stated that all of the above sites have statistical risks. It was concluded that, It
is viable for them to lease the site if the construction excavation is handled with regard to
unexploded ordnance and munitions debris.
Wetlands According to NWI, DNR and Base wetland maps, there are several PFO and
Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (PUB) wetlands located throughout the project site. Upon
inspection of aerial photography provided by GoogleMaps, the PUB wetland located within the
project site adjacently south of the NEC and west of Siebert Road appears to be a pond
approximately 325 feet long and 100 feet wide. Canal Creek appears to begin at this pond and
eventually discharges approximately one mile to the southwest into the Gunpowder River. A
100-year floodplain, wetlands, and Critical Area are associated with Canal Creek adjacently
south of the project site as it flows toward and crosses under Magnolia Road.
According to the ECP report, there were approximately 3.3 acres of visible water in the
proposed project site. According to the APG Wetland Program Manager, Jodi Knowles, there is
a potential for more areas within the project area to be delineated as wetlands prior to
development.
the U.S., including wetlands, will be delineated, flagged in the field, and surveyed in accordance
with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), November 2010. Plans showing the areas of
impact to streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland buffers will be included in a JPA submitted to
MDE and USACE that details the avoidance, minimization and mitigation required as a result of
42
the impacts on the project site. If mitigation is determined to be required, it may be accounted
for by purchase of wetland credits at a wetland bank within the watershed, payment to the
Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund, on-site mitigation, or off-site mitigation. MDE prefers
that mitigation occur on-site and in-kind rather than using a wetland bank which can conflict
with recent Federal (USACE) mitigation guidance which favors wetland banks before on-site
wetland creation. However, for sites with potential for onsite wetland creation, generally it is the
most practical and feasible option for a particular site that is approved by the agencies. Certain
conditions (hydric soils, suitable topography, and wetland hydrology) must be present on site for
a wetland to survive. The most practical and preferred alternative is expanding existing wetlands
and re-creating wetlands into unwooded areas (fields or arms). In some situations it is possible
to enhance an existing wetland or stream, however impacting upland forest to create wetlands is
not an acceptable method. For the APG Edgewood site, it is possible that mitigation could be
accomplished elsewhere on the APG property with their cooperation. However, the ECP report
states, MTA needs to be cognizant of the fact that it is unlikely that the reestablishment of
wetlands and forests can be done on other APG property.
Floodplains According to the MERLIN database, Harford County GIS and the DNR
website, there are 100- and 500-year floodplain areas along the NEC railroad tracks in the
southwestern portion of the project site. In addition, there is a 100-year floodplain associated
with Canal Creek to the north of Magnolia Road adjacently south of the project site. The 100year floodplain is located approximately 1,100 feet south of the NEC railroad tracks. According
to Ms. Betsy Weisengoff, employee for Harford County Public Works-Water Resources, Harford
County discourages development within a floodplain. However, an engineering analysis
showing that additional areas will not be flooded or affected by the rise in elevation of the
project site, and construction plans depicting impacts in a floodplain, may be submitted for
approval by the County. Harford County does not regulate floodplain development on APG
property. The majority of the floodplain impacts for the APG site are located within the Amtrak
right of way in Harford County with just a small portion on the APG property. The APG portion
may have to been coordinated directly with APG.
In addition to complying with Harford County and APG floodplain requirements, a JPA
from erosion. An engineering analysis will most likely be required to model the post
development floodplain. It is anticipated that development of the APG site will exceed the minor
project threshold of 100 CY of net fill and 5,000 square feet of disturbance, placing it into the
major project category. Major projects require public notice, adjacent property owner
notification, and often an engineering analysis.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) According to the MERLIN database and
Harford County GIS, there is Critical Area located adjacently south of the central portion of the
project site approximately 800 feet south of the NEC railroad tracks. As there is no apparent
development within the Critical Area, there is no review or approval required by the Critical
Area Commission.
43
Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) The APG Site is heavily forested and
comprised primarily of mixed hardwood communities. Development of the site will require an
FSD and an FCP. The FSD identifies the existing forest cover and the environmental features of
the project site. The FCP describes the limits of disturbance of the proposed project and how the
existing forest and sensitive areas will be protected during and after development. Existing
forested areas affected as part of the site development may require reforestation (planting of trees
to replace forests that have been cleared) or afforestation (planting of trees where forests have
not recently been located). If reforestation/afforestation cannot be accomplished onsite, offsite
areas may be identified, credits may be purchased from a reforestation bank, or lastly MTA may
pay into the Forest Compensation Fund.
definition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The APG site to be leased
contains approximately 25.1 acres of forest cover. Based on the State manual worksheet,
approximately 25.4 acres of reforestation will be required. It is possible that APG may have area
available elsewhere on the APG property for reforestation or forest conservation. However, the
ECP report states, MTA needs to be cognizant of the fact that it is unlikely that the
reestablishment of wetlands and forests can be done on other APG property.
Threatened & Endangered Species According to the MERLIN database, there were
no Sensitive Species Project Review Areas depicted in the vicinity of the APG Site. If the APG
Site is proposed to be developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to confirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and Federal
species, respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the project site,
DNR/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of year
According to the ECP report, the Edgewood Area is a designated habitat for the bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The report states that there are no known active nests on the
proposed project site. There were no other threatened or endangered species listed in the report
as being known to occur on the proposed project site.
was reviewed for the APG Site. FIDS habitat area associated with Canal Creek is located in the
southeastern portion of the APG Site. Another small FIDS habitat area appears to be located in
the northeastern portion of the site adjacent to Siebert Road. A total of approximately 13.4 acres
of FIDS habitat is located within the proposed project site.
of the APG Edgewood Site. There is one historic property listed in the NRHP (HA-357) located
approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site. There are eight MIHP identified historic
44
properties located with 1,000 feet of the project site to the southwest and three located south of
the project site adjacent to Magnolia Road. Prior to development of the site, correspondence
historical properties.
According to the ECP report, APG has located and catalogued 1,282 historic structures
and 75 archeological sites within the boundaries of the entire installation. An area listed as
having a High Potential for Archaeologic Resources is located adjacent to the south-central
portion of the proposed project site near Canal Creek.
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTAVA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the APG Edgewood Site to identify
potential noise impacts. There are no historical properties that fall within the screening distance
of the site. Residential neighborhoods are located on the west side of the track, northwest of the
proposed site, with approximately 17 houses that may fall with the screening distance. An
evaluation of Noise Impact would be required.
This site corresponds to the census tract 3015 and according to the 2000 U.S. Census, it
had a population of 961 people with 435 males and 526 females. 2000 U.S. Census data
indicates that the median age was 19 years and no one was over 55 years of age. Over 94% of
the population over 25 years of age had a high school diploma whereas approximately 31% had
at least a bachelors degree. The median household income was high at $45,341, the rate of
unemployment was 0% and only 3.3% families were below the poverty level. The racial
composition of the tract included 58% whites, approximately 31% African-Americans and just
over 8% were Hispanics (of any race). Census tract data from the 2010 U.S. Census was not
available at the time this report was written.
Located on an existing military installation within the boundaries of the Aberdeen
Proving Grounds, this site has a moderate amount of existing impervious area that may be
removed as part of construction of a new facility. The underlying soil composition includes
HSG Type D, B and C relatively evenly distributed throughout the site. Runoff from this
site discharges to a tributary to Canal Creek, which directly discharges to the Chesapeake Bay.
The APG site is located outside of the 1,000-ft Critical Area, but partially within the 100-yr
floodplain for the southwestern portion of the site.
It is anticipated that stormwater management will be accomplished at this site using a
combination of ESD elements and a traditional stormwater pond. ESD devices may be used as
applicable, such as grass swales, green roofs and micro-bioretention facilities. Use of pervious
pavement portions of the facility may see limited use due to restrictive onsite soil types. The
proposed pond would likely be located within the limits of the proposed track facilities, and
would discharge to the nearby Canal Creek.

45

The site is located on property currently owned by APG which is a U.S. Army Garrison
facility with several security related functions and at least one other tenant. If APG is chosen by
MTA for development, the site will be acquired from APG via an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL).
As mentioned previously, the portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs
improvements (i.e., program area requirements) would be approximately 58.9 acres. An
additional 15.1 acres will be required for relocation of the existing BGE aerial power
transmission line for a total site area of approximately 74.1 acres. An additional 1.94 acres of
temporary construction easements would be required along the Amtrak Right-of-Way.
Development at this site will require coordination, a formal agreement and security clearance
from the APG authorities. According to Mr. Charles Faller with the Enhanced Use Lease Team
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the EUL property may be moved outside of the secured
area to eliminate potential emergency lockdown issues related with homeland security events.
Pros:
No new interlocking required in NEC
Configuration of existing lead track turnout and existing crossovers in WOOD
Interlocking will allow MARC trains access to and from facility from either track
in Edgewood Station thereby allowing trains to go into and out of service at
Edgewood if desired by MARC
Deadhead time to Perryville is less than from Penn Station
No anticipated effects to Critical Area
Considered by Amtrak to be the most preferred site
Cons:
May require construction of one new crossover and one new turnout in
MAGNOLIA Interlocking
Time to construction is unknown since proposal will have to be considered and
acquired from APG via an EUL
Shortest deadhead time to Penn Station of all sites studied, and equal to Prologis
Site
Site may require as much as 1,000,000 CY of fill material
Potential HAZMAT issues associated with APG, potential issues regarding 100year floodplain and wetlands
o Addition of at least one crossover at MAGNOLIA Interlocking
o Relocation of the existing BG&E aerial electric transmission lines
o Relocation of existing APG functions
4.5
PROLOGIS SITE, EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND

The Prologis Site is located on the north side of Amtraks NEC and approximately 1,800
feet south of Trimble Road in the City of Edgewood, Maryland. The proposed project site is
approximately 8,200 feet long and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along the railroad
tracks to 1,300 feet wide and a total site area of approximately 72.8 acres. The portion of the site

46
that would be occupied by MTAs improvements (i.e., program area requirements) would be
approximately 55.7 acres. The site is partially forested and partially agricultural in use. The
property would require a full acquisition of the properties owned by Prologis Exchange MD,
LLC which total 63.88 acres and are zoned by Harford County as General Industrial District.
Partial acquisitions totaling 3.69 acres would be required of properties that are zoned Urban
Residential to the east and west of the project site. APG and the APG Edgewood Site are located
south of the site on the opposite side of the NEC. Figure 14 presents the environmental
constraints associated with the site. Figure 15 presents the proposed yard and shop layout.
Figure 16 presents the property impacts and zoning associated with the site.
Site The Prologis Site meets the requirements for construction of a double-ended
facility. Construction of the south lead track will likely require reconstruction of the north end of
the Magnolia Road overhead highway bridge, and construction of the north lead track will likely
require reconstruction of the north end of the Emmorton Road overhead highway bridge, but
more information is required to adequately determine the extent of any necessary reconstruction.
There is an existing stormwater management pond located near the center of the site.
Amtrak Connection Two existing Amtrak interlockings, WOOD and MAGNOLIA
Interlockings, are located at the north and south ends of the site, respectively, and provide most
of the track crossovers necessary to access this site. A new turnout off existing Track 4 at
WOOD Interlocking would provide access for the lead track at the north end. At the south end
Track 4 would need to be extended to provide a space where the south lead track could be
connected, and this would require moving the turnout to Track 4 from Track 3 further south in
MAGNOLIA Interlocking. This situation is made necessary by the location of the Magnolia
Road overhead highway bridge. As an alternative the lead track could be extended, without
extending existing Track 4, and its turnout could be connected to Track 3 instead. Either
extension would move the south end of MAGNOLIA Interlocking further south. Additionally,
one crossover would need to be added at MAGNOLIA Interlocking to provide full access to the
MARC facility to and from the south from Track 2.
Catenary System Similarly to that of the other sites, it is envisioned that insulated
overlaps with disconnect switches will be installed in the yard lead catenary, with approximately
58,000 feet of two-wire catenary required for this new yard facility. Four preliminary layout
drawings have been developed to help plan the Catenary and ET concepts for this location (See
Drawings ET-15, ET-16, ET-17 and ET-23 in Appendix A).
1. The construction for the Prologis site has the benefits of being constructed in
new territory not affected by working around an existing active location as is
the case with the Perryville B site.

47
YL
E
HA-188
400
800
1,600
Feet WE
D
DR
OO
W
ST
2
15
HA-1683
HA-1684
HA-1570
PFO1A
/M
RD
HA-1681
HA-1680
HA-1679
HA-1677
HA-1678
PFO1A
NO
AG
M
A
LI
RT
HA-1682
HA-186
MAGNOLIA RD
PUBHx
Ab
PUBFx
PUBFx
ty
un
nd
Co
ou
Gr
rd
g
o
rf
in
a
v
H
ro
nP
ee
e rd
LAG
NR
OO
DR
D
PUBHx
HA-1851
NO
H
RT
PUBHx
PUBHx
K
RA
MT
PUBHx
ST
EA
I
RR
CO
PFO1R
PEM1C
OO
IGL
PEM1C
J ST
R
DO
an
al
ST
HA-357
e
re
PFO1C
PFO1C
PUBHh
VE
AL A
UTT
PUBHh
PUSCx
PFO1A
AL
TT
NU
PFO1E
PFO1E
E
AV
PFO1C
PFO1E
11TH ST
PARKER RD
February 2012
T
NS
AN
MAGNOLIA RD Figure 14
Prologis Site

PFO1A
Environmental Constraints
Map
PEM1C
PEM1C
PFO1E
E
AV
HA-187
KNIG
LN
500-yr Floodplain
HTS
100-yr Floodplain
DNR Wetlands
Potential Wetland delineated by Geotechnical Assoc. Inc., dated April 1989
PUBHh
PFO1C
R
Edgewood
Arsenal Industrial Survey- MIHP HA 2069
OP
L
US Army AAssembly
Plant - MIHP HA 2049
Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Area
PUBH
N
OLD
RD
FO
R
E RD
TRIMBL
Program Area Requirement
Historic Places
Legend
E
T
R
ON
RT
LE RD
LU
C
CT
FORT H
OY
AL
TT
NU
MO
EM
ER
LEY
rd o
nI
n le
ID
RE
D
HOA
Re
a
TH
EG
AP
SK
ST
ALLEY RD
B
CO
JA
SI EB
ERT
RD
C
MC
2. The Prologis site will require a new substation in the vicinity, identified as
Magnolia Substation, and conceptually shown on enclosed Drawing ET-16. With
such a facility, the level of redundancy can be accommodated with reduced 12kV
feeder lengths from those described at either Perryville facility. Structural
analysis for the new feeder installation would be limited to only two structures.
3. Overlaps can be installed in all mainline tracks to accept new feeders from the
proposed substation, with no concern regarding phase break positioning and
resultant protection schemes. Crossarms, switches, and feeder assemblies will be
installed on existing catenary poles to connect to the catenary overlaps.
1. A new pole would need to be set on the east side of the ROW to receive the two
yard 12kV yard feeders from the 12kV substation bus structure.
Electric Traction Substations The proposed Prologis site is located at approximately
MP 76.5 in Edgewood and not near any existing Amtrak Substation facility.
1. Land parcels appear to be available to accommodate new traction power
substation/equipment for a yard facility at this location, but appear to be outside
Amtraks right-of-way. See Drawing ET-16 in Appendix A for a conceptual
substation location.
2. With a new traction power substation envisioned at this facility, the level of
redundancy and power reliability is significantly greater than either of the Perryville
locations. See Drawing ET-23 in Appendix A for a conceptual single line diagram.
3. With a new traction power substation envisioned at this facility, Amtrak will mandate
that they assume all maintenance responsibilities for the new substation.
1. Modifications to the existing 138kV system and an entirely new substation would be
required at this facility. Such an installation would mandate interconnection with the
mainline and additional breakers for the yard, thereby being much more expensive to
implement than the Perryville A, Perryville B, or the Opus locations.
2. The new envisioned traction power substation would require an approximate land
parcel 250ft X 200ft in size, requiring additional land acquisition.
48
Communications and Signals The proposed Prologis site would be located at MP 76.5
in Edgewood, MD, across Amtraks NEC from the proposed APG Edgewood site. For
discussion purposes we will assume that the northern yard lead switch will be in the
existing limits of WOOD interlocking and the southern yard lead switch will be moved
south of the existing Track #3 limits of MAGNOLIA.
Railroad-Related Issues The overhead highway bridges for Magnolia Road/MD Rt.
152 at the south end of the site, and Nuttal Avenue/MD Rt. 24 at the north end of the site appear
to provide sufficient vertical clearance for the lead tracks, but may require the addition of
retaining walls to support the abutments and permit the earthwork required to install the lead
tracks and possible lengthening of the bridges on the north ends. The existing stormwater
management pond located in the central portion of the site will have to be filled and its function
assumed by a new stormwater management design, as mentioned above. The south lead track
may impact the 100-year floodplain.
WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the Prologis Site and
surrounding vicinity. The EDR report did not identify the project site as a site of known
environmental concern or regulation. There were several sites of regulatory concern in the
DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
DOD
NPL
(Edgewood Area)
CERCLIS
+ 200 feet south
US ENG CONTROLS
Off Route 40
US INST CONTROLS
Edgewood, Md 21010
ROD
(Listed 6 times)
Harford County Waste to

Energy
1 Magnolia Road
Joppa, Md 21085
(Listed 4 times)
OCPCASES
+ 500 feet southwest
SWF/LF
NPDES
AIRS
Heinsohn Property
2009 Nuttal Avenue
Edgewood, Md 21040
OCPCASES
Facility Status: Open
Date Closed: Not Reported
Release: Yes

49
+ 500 feet northeast

DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
Facility Code: Aboveground Tank-Residential
Heating Oil
Birchfield Property
8 Railroad Avenue
Edgewood, Md 21040
Dennis Rembold
116 Magnolia Road
Edgewood, Md 21040
OCPCASES
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Yes
Facility Code: Aboveground Tank Leak
OCPCASES
+ 1,000 feet northeast
+ 1,800 feet west
The Prologis Site is not identified by EDR as a site of environmental concern or

regulation. APG Edgewood, located approximately 200 feet south of the Prologis Site, is
associated with confirmed releases of a variety of hazardous materials into the soil and
groundwater in a variety of places on the APG property. As a result, the APG property is listed
on the NPL database, which identifies sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund program,
and the CERCLIS database, and has a variety of engineering controls in place to prevent contact
with known contaminants in the soils, sediments, groundwater, and structures on the APG
property. It is therefore possible that the subsurface of the project site may contain hazardous
materials from migration of hazardous materials from the APG property. A Phase I ESA and a
Phase II ESA with environmental sampling may be recommended prior to selection of the site in
order to adequately determine whether subsurface contamination may be reasonably expected to
be encountered during construction activities.
A document titled Phase I Environmental Assessment of The Gap Inc., Atlantic
Distribution Center, Greater Harford Industrial Park, 1701-1709 Trimble Road, Edgewood,
Harford County, Maryland 21040, produced by Property Solutions, Inc. for ProLogis and dated
October 25, 2005 was provided to WR&A by MTA. A REC was identified regarding a floor
drain in the building to the north of the Prologis Site. No other RECs were identified in the
study. It was noted in the Phase I document that several groundwater wells are located on and
around the Prologis Site and the neighboring APG site to the south. According to General
Physics Corporation (APGs environmental consultant) the Prologis Site is hydrogeologically
upgradient of APG according to groundwater modeling performed with measured groundwater
levels in the groundwater monitoring wells. Therefore, contaminated groundwater that may be
present under APG is unlikely to migrate to groundwater under the Prologis Site.

50

Wetlands According to the NWI and DNR maps, there are several wetlands adjacent to
the Prologis Site and one large PUB wetland located in the central portion of the site. However
aerial photography provided by GoogleMaps, indicates that this wetland is likely a stormwater
management pond. MDE does not generally consider maintained stormwater management ponds
to be jurisdictional waters of the U.S.; however, concurrence in this matter is advised. There is a
large PFO wetland indicated adjacently northeast of the site and west of Old Nuttal Avenue;
three smaller PEM wetlands and two PUB wetlands are indicated adjacently northwest of the site
along The Gap Drive; and one PFO wetland is indicated adjacently northwest of the
southwestern portion of the site where the proposed tracks intersect with Magnolia Road. The
October 25, 2005 Phase I document produced by Property Solutions, Inc., referenced above,
includes a document titled ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey dated March 31, 2005 of the project
site area which indicates non-tidal wetlands located to the east of the site near Old Nuttal Avenue
and in the central portion of the site from The Gap Drive south to the railroad tracks. Notes on
the survey indicate that the wetland locations were taken from a study by Geo-Technology
Associates, Inc. dated April 1989. The Geo-Technology Associates, Inc. study was not included
in the Phase I document from Property Solutions, Inc. Prior to development of the site, a formal
wetland delineation will be required. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, will be delineated,
flagged in the field, and surveyed in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0),
November 2010. Plans showing the areas of impact to streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland
buffers will be included in a JPA submitted to MDE and USACE that details the avoidance,
minimization and mitigation required as a result of the impacts on the project site.
If mitigation is determined to be required, it may be accounted for by purchase of wetland
credits at a wetland bank within the watershed, payment to the Maryland Wetlands
Compensation Fund, on-site mitigation, or off-site mitigation. MDE prefers that mitigation occur
on-site and in-kind rather than using a wetland bank which is in direct conflict with recent
Federal (USACE) mitigation guidance which favors wetland banks before on-site wetland
creation. However, generally it is the most practical and feasible option for a particular site that
is approved by the agencies. Certain conditions (hydric soils, suitable topography, and wetland
hydrology) must be present on site for a wetland to function adequately. In some situations it is
possible to enhance an existing wetland or stream, however if a wetland is forested, MDE will
not allow removal of trees to construct wetlands. Most of the existing wetlands on the Prologis
site that will not be disturbed are forested, and therefore cannot be enhanced or expanded.
Offsite mitigation, purchase of wetland credits at a wetland bank within the watershed, or
payment to the Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund might be the best option for this site.
Another possibility may be to purchase the adjacent property that includes Reardon Inlet and
propose to enhance the riparian buffer of Reardon Inlet as out-of-kind mitigation. Such
mitigation is typically only accepted as part of other wetland creation and is usually less credited
at 10:1. It appears as though there is a non-forested area adjacent to the east side of Reardon
Inlet that could benefit from vegetation plantings.
Floodplains According to mapping provided by Harford County, a portion the Prologis
Site is located inside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. The proposed tracks located on
the southwestern portion of the site lie within the floodplain. According to Ms. Betsy
51
Weisengoff, employee for Harford County Public Works-Water Resources, Harford County
discourages development within a floodplain. However, an engineering analysis showing that
additional areas will not be flooded or affected by the rise in elevation of the project site, and
construction plans depicting impacts in a floodplain, may be submitted for approval by the
County.
In addition to complying with County requirements for floodplain development, a JPA
from erosion. An engineering analysis will most likely be required to model the pre- and postdevelopment floodplain. It is anticipated that development of the Prologis site will well exceed
the minor project threshold of 100 CY of net fill and 5,000 square feet of disturbance, placing it
into the major project category. Major projects require public notice, adjacent property owner
notification, and often an engineering analysis.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) According to mapping provided by Harford
County, the Prologis Site is located outside of the CBCA.
Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) There are many forested areas within
the Prologis Site. In accordance with the MFCA, an FSD and FCP will be required. If
Compensation Fund.
definition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The entire Prologis site to
be acquired contains approximately 13.21 acres of forest cover; 8.24 acres within the program
area and 4.97 outside the program area. Based on the State manual worksheet, approximately
16.48 acres of reforestation will be required. The Prologis site will accommodate only 11.8 acres
of planting; the rest (4.68) would have to be offsite.
Threatened & Endangered Species According to the MERLIN database, there are no
Sensitive Species Project Review Areas on the project site. If the Prologis Site is proposed to be
developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
confirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and Federal species,
respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the project site, DNR/U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of year
Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) DNR GIS data for FIDS habitat areas was
reviewed for the Prologis Site. No FIDS habitat areas are located on the Prologis Site. The
52
closest FIDS habitat areas are located adjacently northwest of the southwestern portion of the site
to the east of where the proposed tracks intersect with Magnolia Road and south of the NEC
approximately 250 feet southeast of the central portion of the site.
of the Prologis Site. There are twelve cultural resources associated with the Maryland Inventory
of Historic Properties located within 1,000 feet of the southwestern portion of the project site to
the northwest along Fort Hoyle Road and the U.S. Army Assembly Plant (HA-2049) located to
the south of the southwestern portion of the project site.
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTAVA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the Prologis Site to identify potential noise
impacts. No cultural resources are depicted within the screening distances of the project site by
the MERLIN database. A commercial/industrial structure is located north of the site, but would
not be considered noise sensitive. Single family residential properties are located to the west,
east, and northeast of the project site. Approximately fourteen residences fall within the
screening distances and could potentially be impacted by noise from the proposed Prologis Site.
In the event the Prologis Site is selected, a general noise analysis, in accordance with FTA
guidelines, may be required to determine noise impacts to these residences and explore
mitigation options if impacts occur.
Single family residential properties are located to the west, east, and northeast of the
project site. This site corresponds to the census tract 3015 and according to the 2000 U.S.
Census, it had a population of 961 people with 435 males and 526 females. 2000 U.S. Census
data indicates that the median age was 19 years and no one was over 55 years of age. Over 94%
of the population over 25 years of age had a high school diploma whereas approximately 31%
had at least a bachelors degree. The median household income was high at $45,341, the rate of
unemployment was 0% and only 3.3% families were below the poverty level. The racial
composition of the tract included 58% whites, approximately 31% African-Americans and just
over 8% were Hispanics (of any race). Census tract data from the 2010 U.S. Census was not
available at the time this report was written.
Observed in the aerial photography were several stormwater management ponds on and
around the Prologis Site that appear to be associated with the large mixed commercial/industrial
structure that is located adjacently west of the site. It is likely that the stormwater management
pond(s) was built to account for the development of the commercial/industrial structure. If the
Prologis Site is developed, the stormwater management pond(s) and/or drainage structures will
have to be relocated. In addition, stormwater will have to be accounted for as a result of
development of the project site. Prior to development of the site and/or relocation of the
stormwater management pond(s) or drainage structures, permission must be granted by the
owner, an appropriate alternative location must be identified that provides sufficient area so that
sufficient stormwater quality and quantity treatment is provided for existing areas as well as
53
newly developed areas that make sense with the given topography and future runoff from the
site. Site plans regarding stormwater management will be submitted to Harford County for
approval if this site is chosen for development.
It is anticipated that stormwater management will be accomplished at this site using a
combination of ESD elements and a traditional stormwater pond. ESD devices may be used as
applicable, such as grass swales, green roofs and micro-bioretention facilities. Use of pervious
pavement may see moderate use with hydrologic soil groups onsite being primarily HSG Type
B and C. The proposed pond would likely be located within the limits of the proposed track
facilities with track reconfiguration likely required to accommodate the pond area. This
proposed pond would discharge to nearby Reardon Inlet.
As mentioned previously, full property acquisitions totaling 63.88 acres will be required
for the properties owned by Prologis Exchange MD, LLC. Partial acquisitions totaling 3.69
acres would be required from seven residential properties to the east of the project site and one
industrial and two residential properties to the west of the project site. Approximately 5.25 acres
of temporary construction easements will also be necessary to develop this project site. The total
site acreage to be impacted would therefore be approximately 72.8 acres.
Pros:
No new interlocking required in NEC
No anticipated effects to T&E species, cultural resources and Critical Area
Cons:
May require construction of one new crossover and one new turnout in
MAGNOLIA Interlocking
Several homes abut the Amtrak right-of-way at the north end near WOOD
Interlocking, and additional train movements may produce noise impacts
Relocation of existing stormwater management pond(s) and potential impacts to
100-year floodplain and wetlands
Requires industrial property full acquisition and several residential property
partial acquisitions
o Extension of Track 4 and addition of at least one crossover at Magnolia
Interlocking
o Modifications to the MD Rt. 152 and MD Rt. 24 overhead highway
bridges if it is found that retaining walls required to permit the installation
of the lead tracks would be insufficient to support the abutments
o Relocation of existing stormwater management facility
o Full/partial acquisition of three industrial and several residential properties

54
5.0 CAPITAL COSTS EVALUATION

Order of magnitude capital cost estimates were developed for each of the candidate sites to
provide a planning level cost comparison among the sites which would serve as another
evaluation criterion. Elements of the capital cost estimates included preconstruction costs such
as mobilization and stakeout, clearing and grubbing and erosion and sediment control; site work
costs such as demolition, grading, drainage, utility connections, site lighting, sub-ballast and
paving; track costs including the various types of track included in the proposed buildings, track
removal, electrification, turnouts, switch heaters, and signals and controls; facilities costs such as
various types of buildings and train servicing equipment and structures; the cost of connecting
the proposed facility to the Amtrak Northeast Corridor; and the costs of modifying existing
infrastructure such as bridges and utility lines to accommodate the proposed facility. A summary
of the capital costs evaluation is also presented in Table 2- MARC Alternatives Analysis-Major
Costs.
5.1
COST ELEMENTS
5.1.1 Preliminary Elements

Preconstruction This item includes mobilization and stakeout, both expressed as
percentages of the sum of all estimated work items. Mobilization is 4% while stakeout is 2%.
Clearing And Grubbing This item is expressed as a cost per developed/disturbed acre
and includes removal of trees, brush and root mat to a depth of one foot.
Erosion and Sediment Control This item is expressed as a percentage of the estimated
cost of drainage for the entire site.
5.1.2 Site Work Elements
Drainage This item includes stormwater management and is expressed as a cost per
developed/disturbed acre.
Grading These items include excavation, placement and compaction of embankment,
removal of excess excavation, and furnishing suitable material for embankment. Grading
assumes removal of 2.5 feet of earth from all track areas with removed material being used either
as embankment or being removed from site.
Sub-ballast This item includes furnishing, placing and compacting eight inches of subballast for all ballasted tracks and turnouts.
Paving The various paving items include furnishing, placing and compacting
bituminous paving of appropriate depths to suit anticipated service conditions.
Site Lighting This item is expressed as a cost per acre for those areas outside of the
buildings where servicing of the trains would take place (i.e. storage tracks and access roads,
fueling pad, train washer), or where train crews might be expected to walk frequently (i.e. around
turnouts and along yard ladder tracks).
55
Water, Sewer and Gas Connections This item includes the anticipated cost of onetime connections to these utilities and does not include construction of the service lines to the
proposed facilities from the connections since it is not know at this time where those utility
connections might be made.
On-Site Electric Conduits, Manholes, etc. This item represents the anticipated cost of
furnishing and installing the electrical infrastructure for a 480-volt stand-by power system at the
storage tracks.
Electric Substation and Commercial Power Connection This item includes the cost
of furnishing and installing an A.C. substation and connection to the commercial power grid to
provide power to the buildings (does not include traction power).
Fence This item includes furnishing and installing an eight-foot perimeter fence and
road and track gates around the entire facility.
Demolition This item includes removal of any existing structures.
5.1.3 Track Elements
Remove Track/Turnouts These items include removal of any exiting tracks and
turnouts. No salvage value credit has been applied to the unit costs.
Construct Track/Yard Turnouts These items include the furnishing and placing of
various types of track (both inside and outside of the buildings) and turnouts including (as
appropriate) rails, crossties, switch ties, ballast, fasteners and other track material (OTM).
Install Grade Crossings These items include furnishing and installing various types of
grade crossings to suit anticipated service conditions. The cost of tracks in the crossings is not
included and is covered by the previous item.
Bumping Posts This item includes the cost of furnishing and installing rigid bumping
posts on stub-end tracks.
Switch Heaters This item includes the furnishing and installation of electric switch
heaters on each yard turnout.
Electrification This item includes the cost of furnishing and installing catenary support
poles, anchors and foundations, a three-wire catenary system, signal power feeders, bonding and
grounding, and sectionalizing and switching equipment.
Track Signals and Controls This item includes the furnishing and installation of all
yard signal equipment and logic controllers in the control office and at both entrances to/from the
yard.

56
5.1.4 New Facilities

Servicing and Inspection Building This item includes a two-track building that
includes pits and inspection platforms for performing all necessary daily inspections for trains
operating on the Amtrak NEC.
Maintenance and Shop Building This item includes a six-track shop building that
includes space for locomotive and passenger car repair including lifts, pits, cranes, wheel truing
machine, auxiliary shop spaces, tools and equipment, and locker room facilities.
Trainwash Building This item includes a single-track building, all washing equipment,
chemical storage tanks, water and chemical recovery equipment, and a locomotive and
undercarriage wash facility.
Train Servicing Platforms These items include platforms located adjacent to the train
storage tracks to be used for access to the stored trainsets by car cleaning and serving personnel.
Offices and Train Operations Building This item includes administrative and
supervisory offices, training rooms, dispatchers office, meeting room, communications room,
and operations center.
Storeroom This item includes a building with a truck loading/unloading dock,
connected to the maintenance and shop building, capable of housing sufficient parts and tools to
support the operations in the maintenance and shop building.
Train Crew Building This item is for a separate structure with supervisory offices and
facilities (locker rooms, meeting room, lounge) for train crews, plus space for train cleaning and
servicing personnel and their supplies. This office can be constructed with the storage yard as
part of the first phase of construction of the overall facility so that train operations can
commence once the storage yard is completed.
Fueling This item is for a fueling facility for diesel locomotives and includes a 10,000
gallon above-ground fuel tank, delivery system and fueling pad with spill containment.
Traction Power Substation This item includes furnishing and installation of an
electrical substation for providing power to the catenary system. Where Amtrak has a nearby
existing traction power substation, this item includes only the connection to the Amtrak
substation.
480 Volt Standby Power System This item includes the control panels and other
equipment necessary for providing standby power to trainsets while stored in the yard in order to
maintain lights, heat and air conditioning without operating the head-end power units on diesel
locomotives.
Communications This item is for all SCADA, voice and data communications
connections and equipment necessary to maintain contact between the facility and the MARC
trains, and for operation of infrastructure within the facility.
57
5.1.5 Amtrak Connection This item includes the track and systems work necessary
to connect the proposed facility to the Amtrak NEC and provide the operational flexibility
necessary to allow the MARC trains to arrive at and depart the proposed facility without making
reverse movements on the NEC.
5.1.6 Bridge Construction This item is for anticipated modifications to existing
overhead highway bridges associate with several of the sites and includes demolition and
reconstruction of the existing superstructures and substructures as necessary to accommodate
construction of new tracks to the proposed facility.
5.1.7 Contingencies and Escalation The sum of the preceding items provides a Base
Cost to which must be added several contingency and escalation items to arrive at a Neat
Construction Cost. Contingent items include a planning contingency of 40% and a construction
contingency of 15%. An escalation factor of 3.5% per year for two years (assuming a two-year
design window) was also added. An additional two-year escalation was applied to the Perryville
B Site since construction of the MARC facility would be delayed by approximately two years by
the construction and relocation of a new Amtrak MOW Base.
5.1.8 Professional Services These allowances were determined by applying their
respective percentages to the Neat Construction Cost. Professional Services include preliminary
engineering, future changes and claims, consultant design fee, MTA design cost, construction
inspection and related services, and MTA construction cost. Right-of-way costs and agency
force account costs cannot be determined at this time and were, therefore, not included. Adding
these Professional Service costs to the Neat Construction Cost yields the Total Project Cost.
5.2
CAPITAL COST RESULTS

Capital cost estimates in 2011 dollars were prepared for each of the five candidate sites
and are included in Appendix C of this report. The total project cost includes a two-year
escalation factor at 3.5% per year. The results of the planning level capital cost estimates are
shown in the table below.
Site
Perryville B
Perryville A
Opus
Edgewood APG
Prologis
Neat Construction Cost

$387.5 M
$328.1 M
$325.6 M
$386.0 M
$352.8 M

58
Total Project Cost

$530.9M
$449.6 M
$446.1 M
$528.9 M
$483.3 M
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
MTA is proposing to construct a MARC locomotive and passenger car maintenance facility and
train storage yard connected to the NEC. Five sites were ultimately included in this document
for further analysis and included the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site, the Perryville A (Farm)
Site, the Opus Site, the APG Site, and the Prologis site. As noted in Table 1-Site Alternatives
Evaluation Matrix, each site has significant costs and/or obstacles associated with the
development of the site. The most significant costs/obstacles for each site are included below:
Perryville B Site Relocation of the existing Amtrak MOW Base
Perryville A Site Private farm onsite is likely cultural resource that may prevent
development during Section 4(f) NEPA process
Opus Site Property located in an area that is designated the Perryman Wellfield
Protection District which may create zoning/development issues; coordination issues with
Amtraks Northeast Corridor Master Plan II for location of interlockings in high speed
territory
APG Site Property would be developed as an EUL; Federal land under military use
with known hazardous waste contamination on the property will likely make
development difficult with additional liability concerns; significant quantity of imported
fill material required
Prologis Site Requires several full/partial commercial acquisitions, eight partial
residential acquisitions and the relocation of an existing stormwater management facility.

59
APPENDIX A
SYSTEMS EVALUATION DRAWINGS

APPENDIX B
CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

MARC Perryville B Site Maintenance Facility: Conceptual Cost Estimate
Yard & Shop Tracks and Facilities - Amtrak & All MARC Phases Combined
Project Name: MARC Maintenance Facility
Date Prepared: 12/22/2011
ID
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY
1
Preconstruction
Mobilization (4% of items 2 through 56)
Stakeout (2% of items 2 through 56)
2
Clearing and Grubbing - MARC
3
Clearing and Grubbing - Amtrak
4
Erosion and Sediment Control (25% of items 5+6)
Subtotal
SITE WORK:
5
Drainage - MARC
6
Drainage - Amtrak
7
Grading - MARC - with on site soil
8
Grading - Amtrak - with on site soil
9
Grading - contingency - MARC
10
Grading - contingency - Amtrak
11
Grading - import / export - MARC
12
Grading - import / export - Amtrak
13
Sub-ballast (Furnish, Place, and Compact) - MARC
14
Sub-ballast (Furnish, Place, and Compact) - Amtrak
15
Paving - Access Roads & Walkways - 8" - MARC
16
Paving - Heavy Duty - 14" - MARC
17
Paving - Heavy Duty - 14" - Amtrak
18
Site Lighting - MARC
19
Site Lighting - Amtrak
20
Water, Sewer and Gas connections
21
On Site Electric conduits, manholes, etc. - MARC
22
On Site Electric conduits, manholes, etc. - Amtrak
23
Electric Substation & commercial power connection
24
Fence
25
Building Demolition
Subtotal
TRACK
26
Remove Track
Remove Turnouts
27
Construct Track - Ballasted - MARC
28
Construct Track - Ballasted - Amtrak
29
Construct Track - Embedded
30
Construct Track - Pedestal
31
Install asphalt and rubber grade crossings
32
Install conc panel grade crossings - MARC
33
Install conc panel grade crossings - Amtrak
34
Construct Yard Turnouts - MARC
35
Construct Yard Turnouts - Amtrak
36
Bumping Posts
37
38
Switch Heaters
39
Electrification
40
Track Signals and Controls
QUANTITY
UNIT
1.0
1.0
48.0
29.0
1.0
lump sum
lump sum
Acre
Acre
lump sum
48.0
29.0
85000.0
50000.0
100000.0
50000.0
330000.0
50000.0
25500.0
14300.0
12885.0
41290.0
35178.0
25.0
10.4
1.0
1120.0
950.0
1.0
9255.0
1.0
Acre
Acre
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
SY
SY
SY
Acre
Acre
LS
LF
LF
LS
LF
LS
21,920.00
19.0
43700.0
22120.0
1930.0
2670.0
540.0
610.0
250.0
35.0
18.0
3.0
40.0
1.0
1.0
Project Phase: Conceptual

UNIT COST
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
7,973,597
3,986,799
48,000
58,000
2,887,500
14,953,896
$
150,000.00
$
150,000.00
$
25.00
$
25.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
56.00
$
56.00
$
32.00
$
54.00
$
54.00
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
$
610,000.00
$
100.00
$
100.00
$ 2,000,000.00
$
35.00
$
408,918.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
7,200,000
4,350,000
2,125,000
1,250,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
6,600,000
1,000,000
1,428,000
800,800
412,320
2,229,660
1,899,612
375,000
156,000
610,000
112,000
95,000
2,000,000
323,925
408,918
36,376,235
TF
Each
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
Each
Each
Each
Each
LS
LS
$
19.50
$
8,550.00
$
190.00
$
190.00
$
500.00
$
1,100.00
$
450.00
$
850.00
$
850.00
$
125,000.00
$
125,000.00
$
8,100.00
$
23,300.00
$ 26,250,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
427,440
162,450
8,303,000
4,202,800
965,000
2,937,000
243,000
518,500
212,500
4,375,000
2,250,000
24,300
932,000
26,250,000
5,600,000
57,402,990
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
14200.0
20700.0
5700.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3894.0
14388.0
LS
LS
LS
Each
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
SF
SF
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,500,000.00
33,400,000.00
5,600,000.00
170,000.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
330,000.00
550,000.00
330,000.00
2,500,000.00
360,000.00
280.00
260.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,500,000
33,400,000
5,600,000
1,360,000
3,692,000
5,382,000
1,482,000
330,000
550,000
330,000
2,500,000
360,000
1,090,320
3,740,880
95,317,200
1.0
LS
$ 6,750,000.00
6,750,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
500,000
211,300,321
84,520,128
44,373,067
24,230,283
23,060,631
387,484,431
19,374,222
30,998,754
38,748,443
9,687,111
30,998,754
13,561,955
-
530,853,670
$
$
1,000.00
2,000.00
-
Subtotal
NEW FACILITIES
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Servicing and Inspection Building

Maintenance and Shop Building
Trainwash Building
Train Servicing Platforms
Offices and Train Operations Building
Storeroom
Train Crew Building
Fueling
Fuel Tanks (2 each 35,000 gallons)
Communications
Traction Power Substation
480V, 3-Phase, Standby Power System
AMTRAK Shop Building
AMTRAK Office Building
Subtotal
AMTRAK CONNECTION
55
56
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
O
P
Connection to Track 1 - Modifications to Perry and Prince Interlockings

BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
Reconstruct Bridge connecting golf course
1.0
LS
$
BASE ESTIMATE SUBTOTAL (Lines 1 thru 50)
PLANNING CONTINGENCY (40% of line A)
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (15% of line A+B)
ESCALATION (3.5%/yr thru construction completion for lines A+B+C) 2 yr.
ADD'L ESCALATION (3.5%/yr add'l MTA costs due to construction of Amtrak Facility) 2 yr
NEAT CONSTRUCTION COST (A+B+C+D+E)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (5% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
(5% -10% range)
FUTURE CHANGES AND CLAIMS (8% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
CONSULTANT DESIGN FEE (10% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
(10% - 20% range)
MTA DESIGN COST (2.5% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND CRS (8% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
MTA CONSTRUCTION COST (3.5% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) (See Note 2)
41.0
Acre
ROW CONTINGENCY (20% of line J)
ROW ESCALATION (4%/yr thru start of construction for lines J and K)
AGENCY FORCE ACCOUNTS
lump sum
TOTAL PROJECT COST

CTP
PP:
PE:
CO:
RW:
500,000.00
$
$
$
$
19,374,222
48,435,554
463,043,895
-

MARC Perryville A Site Maintenance Facility: Conceptual Cost Estimate
Yard Tracks & Train Crew Facilities - All Phases Combined
ID
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY:
1
Preconstruction
Stakeout (2% ofitems 2 through 45)
2
Clearing and Grubbing
3
Erosion and Sediment Control (25% of item 4)
Subtotal
SITE WORK:
4
Drainage
5
Principio Creek Structure
6
Grading - with on site material
7
Grading - contingency
8
Grading - import / export
9
Subballast (Furnish, Place, and Compact)
10
Paving - Access Roads & Walkways - 8"
11
Paving - Heavy Duty - 14"
12
Site Lighting
13
14
On Site Electric conduits, manholes, etc.
15
16
Fence
17
Building Demolition
Subtotal
TRACK
18
Remove Track
Remove Turnouts
19
Construct Track - Ballasted
20
21
22
23
Install conc panel grade crossings
24
Construct Yard Turnouts
25
Bumping Posts
26
27
Switch Heaters
28
Electrification
29
QUANTITY
UNIT
1.0
1.0
54.0
1.0
lump sum
lump sum
Acre
lump sum
54.0
1500.0
50000.0
100000.0
290000.0
25000.0
12750.0
50900.0
30.6
1.0
950.0
1.0
16800.0
1.0
Acre
SF
CY
SY
CY
CY
SY
SY
Acre
LS
LF
LS
LF
LS
0.0
0.0
44080.0
2230.0
2980.0
720.0
730.0
40.0
2.0
40.0
1.0
1.0

UNIT COST
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
7,179,700
3,589,850
162,000
2,025,000
12,956,550
$
150,000.00
$
300.00
$
25.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
56.00
$
32.00
$
54.00
$
15,000.00
$
610,000.00
$
100.00
$ 2,000,000.00
$
35.00
$
550,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,100,000
450,000
1,250,000
2,000,000
5,800,000
1,400,000
408,000
2,748,600
459,000
610,000
95,000
2,000,000
588,000
550,000
26,458,600
TF
Each
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
Each
Each
Each
LS
LS
$
19.50
$
8,550.00
$
190.00
$
500.00
$
1,100.00
$
450.00
$
850.00
$
125,000.00
$
8,100.00
$
23,300.00
$ 26,800,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,375,200
1,115,000
3,278,000
324,000
620,500
5,000,000
16,200
932,000
26,800,000
5,600,000
52,060,900
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
14200.0
20700.0
5700.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
LS
LS
LS
Each
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,500,000.00
33,400,000.00
5,600,000.00
170,000.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
330,000.00
550,000.00
2,500,000.00
360,000.00
330,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,500,000
33,400,000
5,600,000
1,360,000
3,692,000
5,382,000
1,482,000
330,000
550,000
2,500,000
360,000
330,000
90,486,000
1.0
LS
$ 6,750,000.00
6,750,000
1.0
LS
150,000.00
150,000
1.0
LS
$ 1,100,000.00
1,100,000
1.0
LS

NEAT CONSTRUCTION COST (A+B+C+D)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (5% of lines A+B+C+D)
(5% -10% range)
FUTURE CHANGES AND CLAIMS (8% of lines A+B+C+D)
CONSULTANT DESIGN FEE (10% of lines A+B+C+D)
(10% - 20% range)
MTA DESIGN COST (2.5% of lines A+B+C+D)
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND CRS (8% of lines A+B+C+D)
MTA CONSTRUCTION COST (3.5% of lines A+B+C+D)
41.0
Acre
lump sum
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
300,000
1,550,000
190,262,050
76,104,820
39,955,031
21,817,777
328,139,678
16,406,984
26,251,174
32,813,968
8,203,492
26,251,174
11,484,889
-
TOTAL PROJECT COST
449,551,359
3,000.00
-
Subtotal
NEW FACILITIES
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

Trainwash Building
Storeroom
Train Crew Building
Fueling
Communications
Subtotal
AMTRAK CONNECTION
Connection to Track A - Modifications to Perry and Prince
Interlockings
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
43
Demolish remains of 2 private road bridges over Amtrak
44
Construct railroad bridge over Mill Creek for south lead track
45
Retaining wall north end of Firestone Rd bridge over Amtrak

Subtotal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
O
CTP
PP:
PE:
CO:
RW:
300,000.00
$
$
$
$
16,406,984
41,017,460
392,126,915
-

MARC Opus Site Maintenance Facility: Conceptual Cost Estimate
ID
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY:
1
Preconstruction
2
3
Subtotal
SITE WORK:
4
Drainage
5
6
Grading - import / export fill material
7
8
9
10
11
Site Lighting
12
13
14
15
Fence
16
Building Demolition
Subtotal
TRACK
17
Remove Track
Remove Turnouts
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Bumping Posts
25
26
Switch Heaters
27
Electrification
28
QUANTITY
UNIT
1.0
1.0
57.0
1.0
lump sum
lump sum
Acre
lump sum
57.0
120000.0
50000.0
100000.0
25000.0
12750.0
62160.0
30.6
1.0
1220.0
1.0
16800.0
0.0
Acre
CY
CY
CY
CY
SY
SY
Acre
LS
LF
LS
LF
LS
0.0
0.0
42859.0
2230.0
2980.0
720.0
730.0
40.0
4.0
40.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
14200.0
20700.0
5700.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

UNIT COST
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
7,125,010
3,562,505
513,000
2,137,500.00
13,338,015.00
$
150,000.00
$
25.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
56.00
$
32.00
$
54.00
$
15,000.00
$
610,000.00
$
100.00
$ 2,000,000.00
$
35.00
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,550,000
3,000,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
1,400,000
408,000
3,356,640
459,000
610,000
122,000
2,000,000
588,000
23,493,640
TF
Each
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
Each
Each
Each
LS
LS
$
19.50
$
8,550.00
$
190.00
$
500.00
$
1,100.00
$
450.00
$
850.00
$
125,000.00
$
8,100.00
$
23,300.00
$ 26,500,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,143,210
1,115,000
3,278,000
324,000
620,500
5,000,000
32,400
932,000
26,500,000
5,600,000
51,545,110
LS
LS
LS
Each
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,500,000.00
33,400,000.00
5,600,000.00
170,000.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
330,000.00
550,000.00
3,850,000.00
360,000.00
330,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,500,000
33,400,000
5,600,000
1,360,000
3,692,000
5,382,000
1,482,000
330,000
550,000
3,850,000
360,000
330,000
91,836,000
1.0
LS
$ 8,600,000.00
(5% -10% range)
(10% - 20% range)
41.0
Acre
lump sum
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,600,000
188,812,765
75,525,106
39,650,681
21,651,585
325,640,136
16,282,007
26,051,211
32,564,014
8,141,003
26,051,211
11,397,405
-
446,126,987
9,000.00
-
Subtotal
NEW FACILITIES
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
O

Trainwash Building
Storeroom
Train Crew Building
Fueling
Communications
Subtotal
AMTRAK CONNECTION
Connection to Track A- Construction of Chelsea and Poplar
Interlockings
TOTAL PROJECT COST

CTP
PP:
PE:
CO:
RW:
$
$
$
$
16,282,007
40,705,017
389,139,963
-

APG Edgewood MARC Maintenance Facility: Conceptual Cost Estimate
ID
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY:
1
Preconstruction
2
3
Subtotal
SITE WORK:
4
Drainage
5
Site Demolition
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Site Lighting
13
14
15
16
Fence
Subtotal
TRACK
17
Remove Track
Remove Turnouts
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Bumping Posts
25
26
Switch Heaters
27
Electrification
28
QUANTITY
UNIT
1.0
1.0
74.0
1.0
lump sum
lump sum
Acre
lump sum
74.0
1.0
121000.0
900000.0
100000.0
26400.0
26140.0
49720.0
39.0
1.0
2320.0
1.0
10555.0
Acre
lump sum
CY
CY
CY
CY
SY
SY
Acre
LS
LF
LS
LF
1300.0
4.0
42400.0
2230.0
2980.0
645.0
550.0
44.0
2.0
44.0
1.0
1.0
Track Foot
Each
Track Foot
Track Foot
Track Foot
Track Foot
Track Foot
Each
Each
Each
LS
LS
1.0
1.0
1.0
14200.0
20700.0
5700.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

UNIT COST
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
8,466,275
4,233,138
370,000
3,700,000.00
16,769,413.10
$
200,000.00
$
350,000.00
$
37.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
56.00
$
32.00
$
54.00
$
15,000.00
$
610,000.00
$
100.00
$ 2,000,000.00
$
35.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
14,800,000
350,000
4,477,000
18,000,000
2,000,000
1,478,400
836,480
2,684,880
585,000
610,000
232,000
2,000,000
369,425
48,423,185
$
19.50
$
8,550.00
$
190.00
$
500.00
$
1,100.00
$
450.00
$
850.00
$
125,000.00
$
8,100.00
$
23,300.00
$ 26,800,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
25,350
34,200
8,056,000
1,115,000
3,278,000
290,250
467,500
5,500,000
16,200
1,025,200
26,800,000
5,600,000
52,207,700
LS
LS
LS
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,500,000.00
33,400,000.00
5,600,000.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
330,000.00
550,000.00
11,500,000.00
360,000.00
330,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,500,000
33,400,000
5,600,000
3,692,000
5,382,000
1,482,000
330,000
550,000
11,500,000
360,000
330,000
98,126,000
1.0
LS
$ 6,750,000.00
6,750,000
1.0
ls
80,000.00
80,000
1.0
LS
$ 2,000,000.00
(5% -10% range)
(10% - 20% range)
41.0
Acre
lump sum
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,000,000
224,356,298
89,742,519
47,114,823
25,727,442
386,941,081
19,347,054
30,955,287
38,694,108
9,673,527
30,955,287
13,542,938
-
530,109,282
5,000.00
-
Subtotal
NEW FACILITIES
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Trainwash Building
Storeroom
Train Crew Building
Fueling
Communications
Subtotal
AMTRAK CONNECTION
Connection to Track A - Modifications to Magnolia and Wood
Interlockings
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
41
42
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
O
Retaining wall south side of Magnolia Rd bridge over Amtrak

RELOCATION OF BGE TRANSMISSION LINE
Relocate 5700 LF of transmission line
TOTAL PROJECT COST

CTP
PP:
PE:
CO:
RW:
$
$
$
$
19,347,054
48,367,635
462,394,592
-
Note 1: Connection to Amtrak Magnolia Siding at WOOD Interlocking assumes that signal infrastructure for former connection is still
in place and requires only upgrading and reconnection.
Note 2: Right-of-way is assumed to be a lease to be negotiated with APG. No lease figures are available at this time.

MARC Prologis Site Maintenance Facility: Conceptual Cost Estimate
ID
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY:
1
Preconstruction
2
3
Subtotal
SITE WORK:
4
Drainage
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Site Lighting
12
13
14
15
Fence
16
Building Demolition
Subtotal
TRACK
17
Remove Track
Remove Turnouts
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Bumping Posts
25
26
Switch Heaters
27
Electrification
28
QUANTITY
UNIT
1.0
1.0
56.0
1.0
lump sum
lump sum
Acre
lump sum
56.0
150000.0
30000.0
100000.0
25000.0
12750.0
42170.0
30.6
1.0
1220.0
1.0
16800.0
0.0
Acre
CY
CY
CY
CY
SY
SY
Acre
LS
LF
LS
LF
LS
0.0
0.0
44510.0
2230.0
2980.0
720.0
780.0
40.0
2.0
40.0
1.0
1.0

UNIT COST
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
7,718,771
3,859,386
504,000
3,500,000.00
15,582,156.80
$
250,000.00
$
37.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
56.00
$
32.00
$
54.00
$
15,000.00
$
610,000.00
$
100.00
$ 2,000,000.00
$
35.00
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
14,000,000
5,550,000
600,000
2,000,000
1,400,000
408,000
2,277,180
459,000
610,000
122,000
2,000,000
588,000
30,014,180
TF
Each
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
Each
Each
Each
LS
LS
$
19.50
$
8,550.00
$
190.00
$
500.00
$
1,100.00
$
450.00
$
850.00
$
125,000.00
$
8,100.00
$
23,300.00
$ 26,500,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,456,900
1,115,000
3,278,000
324,000
663,000
5,000,000
16,200
932,000
26,500,000
5,600,000
51,885,100
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
14200.0
20700.0
5700.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
LS
LS
LS
Each
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,500,000.00
33,400,000.00
5,600,000.00
170,000.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
330,000.00
550,000.00
11,500,000.00
360,000.00
330,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,500,000
33,400,000
5,600,000
1,360,000
3,692,000
5,382,000
1,482,000
330,000
550,000
11,500,000
360,000
330,000
99,486,000
1.0
LS
$ 7,200,000.00
7,200,000
1.0
LS
290,000.00
290,000
1.0
LS
90,000.00

(5% -10% range)
(10% - 20% range)
41.0
Acre
lump sum
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90,000
380,000
204,547,437
81,818,975
42,954,962
23,455,915
352,777,288
17,638,864
28,222,183
35,277,729
8,819,432
28,222,183
12,347,205
-
TOTAL PROJECT COST
483,304,885
9,000.00
-
Subtotal
NEW FACILITIES
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Trainwash Building
Storeroom
Train Crew Building
Fueling
Communications
Subtotal
AMTRAK CONNECTION
Connection to Track A- Modifications to Magnolia and Wood
Interlockings
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
42
43
Retaining wall north end of Emmorton Rd bridge over

Amtrak
Retaining wall north end of Magnolia Rd bridge over Amtrak
Subtotal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
O
CTP
PP:
PE:
CO:
RW:
$
$
$
$
17,638,864
44,097,161
421,568,859
-

Appendix A - MARC Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix A - MARC Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARC Maintenance Facility

SITE SELECTION REPORT

PERRYVILLE B (SOUTH OF AMTRAK) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND .................... 8

MARC Maintenance Facility

4.4.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).......................................................................................... 46

5.0 CAPITAL COSTS EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 55

APPENDIX A Systems Evaluation Drawings

MARC Maintenance Facility

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

RAILROAD SYSTEMS CRITERIA

MARC Maintenance Facility

AMTRAK CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS

MARC Maintenance Facility

Two points of connection to Amtraks Northeast Corridor

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Federal Superfund Liens.

MARC Maintenance Facility

Table 1. MARC Alternatives Analysis - Site Selection Matrix

Full Property Acquisitions (acres)

Area to be Leased For Project (acres)

Total Site Area (acres)

(Cecil Co.-116.6 total acres)

(Harford Co.-56.1 total

GI (Harford Co.-72.8 total

Project does not comply

Current Land Use

Residential-Partial Aquistions (acres)

Other Business/Commercial - Partial Aquistions (acres)

zoning; however, letter

Estimated Reforestation/Afforestation Requirements (acres)

* 0.06 acres is TCE from

Merritt (0.65), Delcostello

National RR Passenger Co.

Prologis Exchange (63.88)

Oldcastle Precast (1.06)

Community Fire Company of

Onsite and offsite*

*Additional acreage could

unlikely that the

FEMA 100-year floodplain (Acres)

Potential Forest Interior Dwelling Species Habitat (Acres)

1-Ikea property to southpotential soil contamination

APG is a SUPERFUND Site

None-Upgradient from APG

potential soil contamination;

APG is a SUPERFUND Site

MDNR Sensitive Species Project Review Areas (Acres)

Potential Hazardous Material On-Site Impacts

soil contamination; MOW

1-Ikea property to south-

Historic Sites - offsite (No.)

Meeting House" 1,000 feet

13-MIHP: "Rollins House"

*ECP Report states that

*Will require Section 4(f)

*Currently not evaluated and

Table 2. MARC Alternatives Analysis - Major Costs

Remove Turnouts (No.)

Systems Work (All MARC):

Communications and Signals

Traction Power Substation*

* These costs are removed if MARC decides to

Site Grading for Tracks (Total CY)

)RUHVW,QWHULRU'ZHOOLQJ6SHFLHV),'6$UHD

)RUHVW,QWHULRU'ZHOOLQJ6SHFLHV),'6$UHD

)RUHVW,QWHULRU'ZHOOLQJ6SHFLHV),'6$UHD

3)2& 3)2$ 3)2$