Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Re:

GoTriangle Board of Trustees
John Tallmadge, Interim Project Director – Light Rail
February 19, 2019
Update #2 on Negotiations with Duke University

On November 20, 2018, GoTriangle Board Chair Ellen Reckhow, Board members Mayor Steve Schewel,
and Commission Chair Wendy Jacobs, Jeff Mann and I met with Duke University President Vincent Price,
Health System Chancellor Eugene Washington, Executive Vice President Tallman Trask, and Vice
President Michael Schoenfeld to request Duke University’s support for the light rail project and followthrough on their consideration of a property donation needed for the alignment. In response, President
Price sent a letter articulating their key concerns and appointing Dr. Trask as their principal liaison for
the GoTriangle-Duke relationship. He expressed that Dr. Trask will have the sole authority to provide
information and make decisions on all operational issues regarding Duke’s participation in the DO LRT Project. The identified concerns were:
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

The closing of Blackwell Street and access to the American Tobacco Campus, DPAC and
neighboring locations;
Making certain that access to the Duke Hospital Level I Trauma Center remains unimpeded for
all emergency vehicles at all times;
Minimizing disruptions during the construction process and maintaining complete access to
Trent Drive and other essential patient transit and access points;
Ensuring the continuity and safety of research and clinical activities that take place in buildings
adjacent to the planned rail line;
Guaranteeing the electric power supply for Duke University and its medical facilities, and;
Reconsidering Duke’s request that the planned line be elevated over State Road 751 to facilitate
safety and avoid addition congestion during peak periods and special events.

Since then, Dr. Trask and I met on November 26th, had a phone discussion on December 5th, and met
again on January 14th. We also met jointly with our staffs on December 12th, December 19th, January
11th, and January 16th. Our progress on the issues of concern are detailed below.
Since the January update, I have met again with Dr. Trask on January 30th and February 18th. Utilities
teams have met on several occasions. An executive leadership meeting was held on February 8th.
Updates since the January memo are provided in italics at the end of each section below.

Page 1 of 8
WBS 0203B

 1.
Blackwell Street railroad crossing closure – Since beginning these negotiations with Duke in
November, GoTriangle has proposed a new design solution along Pettigrew Street to address Norfolk
Southern Railroad’s objection to shared crossing gate operations that would have been required at
Mangum Street and Dillard Street with the light rail system operating at street level. This new design
solution includes a tunnel under the intersections with Blackwell and Mangum Streets, keeping
Blackwell Street open to people walking, biking, or riding in vehicles at the railroad crossing. Dr. Trask
has indicated that this proposal has addressed their concern about Blackwell Street. No change since
January.
2.
Access to Emergency Drive and Trent Drive south of Erwin Rd during construction – Dr. Trask
has been clear that both of these access roads need to be open throughout construction. With the
assistance of our consultants, we described the Maintenance of Traffic proposals for each intersection
along Erwin Road from Research Drive to Flowers Drive. While indicating that there are details to be
worked through, Dr. Trask acknowledged that we could satisfactorily address this concern through the
final design period. No change since January.

3.
Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption (EVP) system – GoTriangle is proposing to implement an
emergency vehicle pre-emption system, enabling emergency response vehicles to communicate with
traffic signals to change them to green. GoTriangle will equip the traffic signals in the vicinity of the
Hospital with Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) equipment to provide an additional level of flexibility
for emergency vehicle operators to navigate the corridor during and following construction of the light
rail line.  GoTriangle has reviewed this proposal with Durham County EMS who operate many of the
ambulance services to the Duke Trauma Center and they are comfortable with the proposal.
GoTriangle and Duke agreed to coordinate to determine which traffic signals will be upgraded with this
technology. The Parties acknowledge that use of EVP at the traffic signals requires emergency vehicles
operating in the corridor to be equipped with EVP transponders.  Dr. Trask has some concerns about the
EVP system we’ve proposed, namely that vehicles come from all over the state, and outside the state,
and that Duke can’t provide all of them with transponders.  He has also said that there
are some concerns about liability from claims against Duke if the EVP doesn’t function properly. Duke’s
attorneys are preparing language for our review. This liability language took the form of broad
indemnification language that is described further below. 
4.
Global Health Research Center – Dr. Trask provided information about the National Institutes of
Health requirements for building security, including a 100-foot buffer and impediments that would
prevent a large vehicle from crashing into the building.  GoTriangle has confirmed with our consultants
that the finished structures will be 106 feet from the GHRC Building. We have committed to develop a
plan that meets the NIH security requirements during construction and in the finished condition. These
plans will be reviewed by Duke University and Health System. Dr. Trask indicated that Duke University
would consider cost-sharing in the implementation of protective structures. No further update since
January.

Page 2 of 8
WBS 0203B

 5.
Noise and vibration – Dr. Trask has repeatedly indicated that he does not have a significant
concern with vibration during operation of the light rail system, but recently raised questions about how
our design for the bridge compared with the techniques that Metro Transit used in Minneapolis
proximate to the medical center. We shared information on January 16th about the vibration-muting
design techniques that are included in the current bridge design that are similar to those in the at-grade
design in Minneapolis. Dr. Trask has been clear that his primary concern is that we cannot construct the
aerial light rail structure nor rebuild Erwin Road without unacceptable levels of vibration that would
disrupt research and put patients at risk.
We agree that neither patient safety nor research integrity should be compromised due to vibration
during construction. This is a concern that transit agencies and universities and medical centers have
typically had to work through in preparation for construction. While we know we require solutions that
are specific to this project next to Duke Health System’s facilities, we have a list of 20 medical centers
around the country with rail systems in close proximity that are useful examples that solutions will be
found through cooperation. Dr. Trask maintains that he is not sure that we can meet the thresholds that
they would require and doesn’t want to sign an agreement allowing the light rail project to move
forward, only to have to request it to stop because vibration was disrupting patient care or research
activities. We agree that we must plan appropriately to avoid such risks. The two construction activities
that are of most concern to Dr. Trask are drilling of the holes (nine feet in diameter and thirty-five to
forty feet deep) required for the aerial structure supports and the rolling of pavement along Erwin
Road.
On January 16th, our construction management consultant communicated to Duke that it had contacted
three construction firms to inquire whether they would be willing to bid on our contract given the most
stringent vibration thresholds that we have received from Duke Medical Center, and with a description
of the structures to be built close to the Medical Center buildings. All three responded that they would
be willing to bid due to their confidence that construction methods were available and that appropriate
care could be taken to meet the vibration thresholds. Techniques that are available to contractors
include drilling the holes with different size bits or at slower speeds, and avoiding the use of vibratory
rollers for the pavement.
GoTriangle has proposed agreeing to the following approach for addressing Duke’s concerns:
First, GoTriangle agreed to design the elevated guideway as a segmental box girder bridge so the
girders can be erected using equipment on top of the structure and not in the roadway. This method of
construction has the least impact to Erwin Road traffic of the options considered.
Second, GoTriangle has proposed to mutually establish, with Duke, tolerance thresholds for allowable
noise and vibration during construction and to include such thresholds in the
construction contracts.  (We have proposed to use language that Duke uses in its own construction
contracts and have requested that language. Dr. Trask has committed to provide us that language
by January 26.) These thresholds will be based on identified vibration-sensitive hospital equipment,

Page 3 of 8
WBS 0203B

 ambient conditions, specific construction activities, existing soil conditions, building structure
assessment and conditions,  guidelines used for previous Duke construction projects near their
facilities, and FTA Noise and Vibration construction assessment guidance.  In order to determine some
of these factors, GoTriangle will need to conduct baseline vibration monitoring, and has communicated
that to Dr. Trask. He has requested a written monitoring plan. We require additional information from
Duke about the vibration-sensitive equipment and have requested that information verbally. On
January 14th, Dr. Trask committed to provide that list and to work with us to allow for vibration
monitoring in the buildings with sensitive equipment once we provide a written request. We are
following up with a written request for this information.
Third, GoTriangle will include contractual requirements to investigate actual vibration propagation from
construction activities in a location remote to Duke’s sensitive receptors and use this information to
confirm the effectiveness of mitigation strategies employed in the actual construction operations prior
to working in the proximity of areas defined as vibration sensitive. This likely would be done during
construction activities on Erwin Road near LaSalle Street, away from the sensitive equipment.  Dr. Trask
has suggested that we consider drilling a test shaft for the aerial structure piers now so that we can all
have the data about the vibration of the construction techniques before proceeding to
construction. Our concerns with this approach are: we don’t have a location where we can do this and
we would need to find a location with similar soil conditions to Erwin Road; we don’t have an existing
contract with a construction firm that could do the work; and we don’t agree that the information that
this test would generate is necessary for Duke to be assured that the construction can be completed in a
way that keeps patients safe and protects the integrity of research.
Fourth, GoTriangle will continuously monitor construction activities for noise and vibration against the
established thresholds and will establish a contractor notification protocol. This will be done with
sensors that are placed at the construction sites and inside Duke facilities. Duke will have access to this
real-time noise and vibration monitoring data through a Stakeholder website and app.  If the established
thresholds are exceeded, contractors will be notified immediately and compelled to cease operations
and implement suitable mitigation to bring the construction activity back into compliance with the
contractually-mandated threshold prior to resuming work.
Based on the experience of our Construction Management Consultant and their recent confirmation
from experienced construction contractors, GoTriangle is confident that construction techniques will be
able to comply with the jointly established vibration criteria. Right now, Dr. Trask remains concerned
that there may not be acceptable construction techniques to drill the holes for the aerial structure
supports or the new pavement rolling.
Since January, Dr. Trask has said both that this can probably be worked out, but also that it remains a
concern. On January 30, Dr. Trask provided a document titled Guidelines for Working around Duke
Health Facilities, dated January 9, 2019. This document includes a construction vibration threshold that
is 40 times more stringent than the standard for especially sensitive operating rooms. In clarifying
whether there was a misunderstanding about the units of measurement in the Guidelines, Dr. Trask
replied that they have “very aggressive standards.” The standard in the guideline was 10 times more

Page 4 of 8
WBS 0203B

 stringent than the most stringent activity that Dr. Trask has said he is concerned about – cell implant
devices. He did acknowledge that it “Will take some very complicated calculations to determine exactly
how high we might agree to.” In the revised cooperative agreement sent to Dr. Trask on February 15, we
proposed the methodology described above for determining those levels to ensure that their sensitive
equipment is protected, and commit to how we would monitor construction vibration levels and hold our
contractors to meeting them.

6.
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) - sensitive equipment –  On November 26th, Dr. Trask
introduced concern about potential impacts of Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) generated by the
light rail operations on sensitive electronic equipment in the medical center
buildings. We have provided Dr. Trask with the list of buildings with EMI potential impacts,
and the analysis that shows the distances from the train that there could be impacts to equipment, and
what types of equipment that EMI can impact.  We have requested Dr. Trask to provide us with the
information that we need about the location of EMI-sensitive equipment so that we can complete the
next step of analysis to determine whether there are specific machines that will need protection. Dr.
Trask has raised two issues. First, given his concern about the adequacy of GoTriangle’s analysis, he has
given our report to three electrical engineering faculty and asked them to review it to let him know
whether the methodology and conclusions are sound. Second, Dr. Trask is concerned that light rail
operations will limit where new equipment, perhaps more sensitive to EMI, can be placed in their
buildings along Erwin Road.
GoTriangle is updating the EMI analysis for the elevation of the LaSalle Street station and expects to
have that report complete by the second week of February. We have also recently learned that
Maryland Transit Administration agreed to mitigate EMI impacts of the Purple Line light rail train on the
University of Maryland’s equipment, including future equipment, with “at-the-receptor” protection. We
will discuss a similar approach with Dr. Trask.
This has been determined by Dr. Trask to be the most important remaining issue, because he is not
comfortable that there is a solution. On January 30, Dr. Trask provided a 24-page hardcopy list of Duke
Medical Center assets worth more than $50,000. Our consultants with expertise in EMI-sensitive
equipment reviewed the document and identified two electron microscopes and six magnetic resonance
imaging machines that could be susceptible to EMI. I have requested more detailed information about
these eight devices and their specific locations from Dr. Trask, and have been told his concern is not
limited to these devices, and that Duke is “not willing to permanently compromise what patient care
devices we can put in our hospital and clinics, how or where.” We have sent draft cooperative
agreement language that commits to mitigating the effects of light-rail generated EMI on all future
equipment, assuming that Duke makes reasonable efforts to locate EMI-sensitive equipment outside of
the disturbance zones of the light rail.
On February 18, we transmitted a revised EMI analysis report, and the underlying data to Dr. Trask. He
has sent that to a consultant that they have hired to review the analysis and has indicated that the
consultant’s review will take one or two weeks. The revised analysis does not reveal impacts that are
much different than the previous analysis showed.

Page 5 of 8
WBS 0203B

 7.
Alignment – On November 26th, Dr. Trask said that the alignment shift that would push Erwin
Road north is not worth the cost for the 20 feet of trees saved.  He was interested in whether the
sidewalk was still in the design between Cameron and Towerview. We reviewed the current
engineering drawings with Dr. Trask and his team in December, and noted that the sidewalk between
Cameron and Towerview remains in the design. In addressing concerns about a narrow area for
underground utility relocation, GoTriangle is relocating one of the vertical circulation elements at
the Duke/VA Medical Centers station on Duke’s side of Erwin Road.
Dr. Trask expressed that the extension of a light-rail bridge over Cameron Boulevard is going to be
important for special-event traffic flow.  We have stated that unless a new traffic analysis based on
updated traffic counts provided by Duke demonstrates that the at-grade crossing results in
unacceptable traffic delays, GoTriangle will consider this as a request for a betterment and the cost
would need to be borne by Duke University. With this understanding, and at Duke’s request, we have
begun to develop a design alternative for the bridge extension over Cameron Boulevard.
In January, Dr. Trask asked to see the extent of the proposed median barriers protecting the aerial
structure piers in Erwin Road. In reviewing those plans, he raised concerns that they did not provide
adequate breaks for emergency vehicles to navigate around backed-up traffic on either side of the
Emergency Drive entrance. GoTriangle agreed to evaluate whether breaks could be created in the
barriers to accommodate emergency vehicle movements. GoTriangle has since developed an alternative
design that creates more breaks in the pier barriers to address this concern. This will be shared at an
upcoming meeting. No other alignment changes have been requested by Dr. Trask since November 20th.
8.
Maintaining Power to the Medical Center – The utility design teams from GoTriangle and Duke
have met to discuss Duke’s concerns about “pinch points” for utility relocation. GoTriangle has made a
design change to the aerial station at the Medical Center to create more space for the utility relocation,
and our engineering consultant has contracted with Duke’s approved utility design firm to develop the
utility relocation designs. We are confident that we have an electric utility relocation design that
protects the underground 44KV line and assures power continuity throughout the period of
construction. We have sent those drawings and plans for power redundancies to Duke University and
Duke Energy for their review. A “utility summit” to go through these drawings is scheduled for February
5th.
At this “utility summit,” Duke University staff raised concerns with our solution because they did not
want us to temporarily use an above-ground power pole during the utility relocation work. This is
standard practice, and we commit to installing protections for the pole for the period that it would be in
service. Power redundancies have also been explained. An alternative utility design would require Duke
Energy to authorize us to build a retaining wall closer to the 44kv line, and we are also pursuing this
approach.
9.
Property Donation – Duke University signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding with
GoTriangle in December 2016 indicating that they would consider donating the property required for

Page 6 of 8
WBS 0203B

 the light-rail project on Duke property. GoTriangle has expressed a desire for Duke to execute such a
property donation agreement as a demonstration to the community that Duke is working toward an
agreement. It would also aid in our communication with the FTA, and private project sponsors, about
the progress we are making in negotiations with Duke.  On November 29th, GoTriangle sent a current
version of the draft donation agreement language for their consideration. Dr. Trask has said that
he brought this request forward for consideration at the Duke Board meeting at the beginning of
December, but at that time they were not willing to sign the property donation agreement while they
still had outstanding concerns. No change, but they have reiterated if terms can be reached on the
cooperative agreement then they still intend to make the property donation.  
10.
Relocation of Duke Transit Operations Facility – GoTriangle’s property donation request
includes the property east of Buchanan Boulevard between North Carolina Railroad property and the
Durham Freeway. This property is currently occupied by the Duke transit operations facility and other
equipment/operations. GoTriangle has communicated that the relocation of those functions and
structures must occur prior to the middle of 2020 in advance of construction work.  Dr. Trask said this
was reasonable if Duke is able to move into an existing facility, but too soon if a new facility needs to be
built. In response, and following further review of the projected construction
schedule, GoTriangle has changed the requested date for relocation of the current functions to January
1, 2021. GoTriangle has discussed with Duke whether they would like to retain property on this site
for development adjacent to the Buchanan Boulevard Station. At this time, they have indicated that
they are not interested in retaining those properties, but we will discuss those opportunities with them
further. No change, but this is still seen by Dr. Trask as something that can be worked out.
11.
Cooperative Agreement - The purpose of the cooperative agreement between Duke
and GoTriangle is to identify the ways in which the parties will cooperate to address or
resolve remaining issues or to mitigate identified impacts throughout the remainder of engineering,
construction, and operations. It is also an agreement that the light rail project can proceed subject to
the requirements defined in the cooperative agreement. All of the issues in this update are expected to
be covered in the Cooperative Agreement with Duke. We provided revised language at the beginning of
January. Following more recent discussions about construction vibration and EMI
mitigation, GoTriangle will be proposing further changes to these sections. These changes were sent to
Dr. Trask on February 15.
Dr. Trask sent us draft language regarding indemnification on February 5th. The terms of this language
were unacceptable in that they required GoTriangle and the State of North Carolina to indemnify Duke
University against any and all liabilities related directly or indirectly to the light-rail project and to secure
$2 billion in a letter of credit or bond to insure the indemnification.
On February 8, GoTriangle Board Chair Ellen Reckhow, Durham Mayor Steve Schewel, Durham County
Chair Wendy Jacobs, GoTriangle CEO Jeff Mann, and I met with Duke President Vincent Price, and
Executive Vice President Tallman Trask. Duke Vice President of Public Affairs and Government Relations
Mike Schoenfeld, Vice President of Durham Affairs Stelfanie Williams, and GoTriangle Director of
Communications Mike Charbonneau also attended.

Page 7 of 8
WBS 0203B

 The purpose of the meeting was to reiterate the importance of Duke’s cooperation on the project and the
urgency of making a decision on the cooperative agreement and the property donation by the end of
February. President Price and Dr. Trask reiterated that they need to be satisfied that the light rail will not
compromise their clinical and research operations, and that they are not convinced that EMI will not be a
significant problem. They also indicated that the indemnification is important because they are a $2
billion per year operation and there are many risks and unknowns about the light-rail project. When
pressed to give an answer about whether President Price had already made up his mind, he replied that
it was unlikely that he could be made comfortable, but that the odds were not zero and that they would
continue to work in good faith on the issues. As noted above, we continue to work on the issues of EMI
and indemnification.
We have since learned that the Duke Board of Trustees meets February 21 through 23.

Page 8 of 8
WBS 0203B