Purple Passion

It seems that this summer, purple is the new black.  It's probably just the Governor election in Maryland, but the purple line has been front and center lately in a way I've never seen before. There have been a dozen stories written about it lately. Of course since it's suppose to run on the same rigth-of-way (ROW) as the Capital Crescent Trail (CCT), and the trail is used as the main reason for not building it, it matters to cyclists.

There's a lot of debate on the issue and as you could guess not all of it is accurate. First there's a debate about what form of transit the purple line should take.

Some in the county, including County Executive Doug Duncan and Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition President Mier Wolf, have pushed for heavy rail.

But the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition has openly fought ANY purple line because they claim they want to protect the CCT. The two candidates to replace Duncan both claim to support the purple line with small differences.

On the campaign trail, [Isiah] Leggett and his primary opponent for the Democratic nomination, council member Steven A. Silverman (D-At Large), have said they support the Purple Line but disagree on its design. Silverman favors a predominantly above-ground system, while Leggett said he would consider some tunneling known as "cut and cover" to avoid neighborhoods.

And then the Governor is clearly pushing for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Officials do not have a preference as to what mode the transitway should take, but Flanagan said bus rapid transit ‘‘may beat light rail in terms of cost effectiveness.”

How is that not a preference? Plus, what they're talking about is not true BRT - that would run in it's own right of way like a train on rubber wheels - their system will run on regular roads. When buses are the alternative, no wonder this is true.

Among the directors of the "Save the Trail" organization is the Vice President for Government Affairs of the National Asphalt Pavement Association, Jay Hansen.

As someone else wrote about the Governor's position

It is interesting that this tour apparently focused on the difficult engineering challenges while the effort to build the intercounty connector has focused so much on how engineering can resolve environmental and community conflicts.

Interesting too, that this project won't even start until the ICC is complete - but they claim it wasn't pushed to the back burner. While I'm discussing the ICC, I also saw this recently

Another element planners could address is the desire for a bike path. The ICC master plan calls for one running the entire length of the highway, but the state plans to construct only about seven miles of a bike path, almost all in Montgomery County.

Back onto the purple line, personally, I think heavy rail make the most sense, but I could live with light rail. The argument is that a metrorail type line wouldn't be able to win federal funding because it's cost-to-ridership ratio would be too high. Someone in the know told me that under today's standards metro wouldn't have been able to get federal funding, but that may be a different problem for a different blog.

So what about the positions on this? One thing that's been coming up a lot is that the ROW is too narrow.

We learned that it will be very difficult to do anything. They showed us how little space there was to build anything between existing train tracks and neighborhoods; they showed us how little space there is coming into the Silver Spring Station; and they showed us some narrow roads where houses would have to be taken to make way for the project.

and

There isn’t much room between the CSX railway and residences and businesses on either side of the tracks in downtown Silver Spring. Another transit line next to the tracks would be a tight squeeze.

yet, the bicounty transitway study seems to show a different picture. And I read this

An approx. 60' width is needed to accomodate two light-rail tracks and a 10' wide trail. The County owned Georgetown Branch Corridor right-of-way is at least 60' wide over its 3.3 mile length from Lyttonsville to Bethesda, and is 90' wide or more for over 1/2 of its length. Adjacent property owners have encroached upon the r.o.w. in many places so that it appears much narrower. At the Columbia Country Club, 4/5 of the public right-of-way has been fenced off for the private use of Club Members, with no compensation given to the public.

Why is it such a tight squeeze?

In those areas, 25 feet must separate the transitway from the CSX tracks, and planners have had to develop alternatives, such as raising the transitway over the tracks, that would preserve the community and be cost-effective.

That's just ridiculous. All over the country - all over the world, transit runs right next to rail. Ever ridden the red line out to Silver Spring? That is a CSX "rule" I think, not a federal railroad rule - and as such it can be changed. Again with the CSX. Another claim of too narrow comes from a board member of the Coalition for the CCT.

the danger arising from a trail-transitway separation of eight feet (perhaps less)

But again, that happens all the time. Look at this photo.

Arguments about destroying greenspace are valid. There is the question of are we willing to sacrifice the park-like setting of the eastern CCT for transit improvements. I'm not sure what the answer is, I do love trees, but I don't think this means taking all of the parkness away.

All trees must be removed in a 60' wide swath to make room for transit and trail between Rock Creek and Bethesda if the Inner Purple Line is built on the surface. Trees would remain along the south side of the corridor to shade the trail for the major part of this section, where the right-of-way is considerably greater than 60' wide. But the tree canopy will be opened. Light-rail cars will pass by trail users as frequently as every several minutes during rush hour periods. Much of the park character of the Trail will be lost in Chevy Chase/East Bethesda neighborhoods. But access to trails and parks would increase overall if the Purple Line transit/trail is built. Neighborhoods east of Rock Creek do not have good off-road access to Rock Creek Park. Completion of the Inner Purple Line transit/trail would provide neighborhoods on both sides of Rock Creek with good access to a trail and to Rock Creek Park. Trail users would be separated from motor vehicle traffic at the roadway crossings, so vehicle interactions overall would be reduced.

So, there would be some green space. I think it's important that bike advocates walk the walk. If we want to get space in places for our transit choice we shouldn't stand in the way of other good transit options.

But is it a good transit option? I haven't heard anything definitive about it. Opponents like to say that it won't do anything.

"To destroy the Capital Crescent Trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring, to put in a light-rail system that will not meet the transportation needs of the county or improve the Metro system, is foolish to say the least," Pam Browning said.

But I tend to agree with the Post.

It would begin to compensate for Metrorail's main deficiency -- its radial design, which reflects planners' flawed assumption that the District would forever be the lone focal point for the region's development and job growth. Much of the economic boom in recent decades has taken place in or near suburban hubs ringing the city; naturally, traffic has followed. A four-mile link between the Metro stations in Bethesda and Silver Spring, two of Montgomery's major development centers, would reflect the new reality of commuting patterns. Eastward, there is equally powerful logic in a rail line linking Silver Spring, College Park and New Carrollton.

And the Purple Line has benefits for cyclists.

The preferred CCT alignment for the final 1.1 mile from Lyttonsville into Silver Spring is along the CSX corridor. A CCT built along any other route into Silver Spring would not provide good separation from motor vehicles and would not have a seamless connection to the Metropolitan Branch Trail that is needed for the regional trail network. CSX has said it will never allow the CCT in their r.o.w. as a trail-alone project. But CSX has sent a letter to Maryland DOT Secretary Flanagan in early 2004 affirming its willingness to discuss the Inner Purple Line joint transit/trail project with state planners. It is much better for the CCT to be in the CSX r.o.w. as part of a transit/trail project than to be excluded from the CSX r.o.w. entirely.

Despite the individual letter above, the CCCT and WABA have the same positions stated best in this letter

Polarizing the issue into a "if you are not with us you are against us" kind of debate hurts bicyclists because it diverts attention from the real challenge. A public right-of-way such as the Georgetown Branch is a community asset that should be designed to serve the broadest population possible. It will take commitment and creativity to make sure that this valuable transportation corridor will serve everyone: transit users, cyclists, and pedestrians. WABA is committed to making that happen.

Finally, all this brings me to something that Richard Layman said on his blog.

This is the one concern I have with "Rails to Trails" programs. You create a built in constituency to oppose transit, if people aren't willing to co-locate transit and trails.

At first I was inclined to disagree. So few rail-trails are suitable for conversion (in low density areas - like the Western Maryland Rail-trail, too narrow - like the CCT in DC, plenty wide enough, etc...) that I didn't figure this happened very often. Then I saw this in my hometown.

NOISY protests over a possible light rail line on Richmond have eclipsed a quieter discussion of where to put rapid transit in the East End, a historic neighborhood in the midst of economic revival and on the threshold of gentrification.

The other remaining option, also a rail corridor, is a half-block north of Harrisburg.  The leafy strip, an abandoned rail right-of-way scarcely 50 feet wide in places, has been converted into a community treasure called the Harrisburg Hike and Bike Trail.

Homes back up to it, and if a two-direction transit route was built there, the space left for walking and biking would be cramped.

"Definitely not," said Jessica Hulsey, who lives a short stroll from the trail. "We worked very hard to create these trails."

So, it does happen. I still disagree and claim that it's the exception, not the rule. There are thousands of miles of rail trail in the U.S, very few of these miles involve transit conversion fights. But we need to be cognizant that when we fight to "save a trail" from transit conversion - especially one that was always set aside for such use - we shoot ourselves in the foot when the next rail trail opportunity comes along.

Comments

[Ernie Brooks]

Your article leads me to believe that your understanding of rail-banking may be in error. Rail-banking is a way to preserve the existing railroad corridors for reversion back to their original use should that ever become necessary. When a Right-of-Way (ROW) is railbanked it can have interim uses of various types, including trails, light rail, Metro-type heavy rail, busways, etc., but if it is ever determined that the nation's freight lines (such as CSX) need to re-establish use there, they can take the ROW back (with proper compensation, of course.) Therefore, a local passenger rail use of a rail-banked corridor would fall under an "interim use" classification, just as locating a trail in the ROW would, not a "re-establishing rail" classification, and it would be subject to removal if the original rail line ever needed to be re-established. Granted, it isn't very likely that the original rail service would ever be resurrected in the Georgetown Branch ROW, but that is officially why it would be rail-banked, and not so that it will be available for other types of rail service.

[Wayne Phyillaier]

The fact that a local rail transit project would be an allowed "interim use" and would not be considered as "re-establishing rail" under the rail-banking program is a distinction without a difference, for the point being made that "...when we fight to "save a trail" from transit conversion - especially one that was always set aside for such use - we shoot ourselves in the foot when the next rail trail opportunity comes along". The County Council voted $10M to purchase this right-of-way largely to consider it for a future rail transit use. If not for that potential future use, the Council would not have purchased the corridor and the CCT would not exist today. Cyclists understood this, and argued that an interim use as a trail would not be used to block future transit uses if that was the ultimate decision. The strong "Save the Trail" movement we are seeing should cause politicians elsewhere to have second thoughts about allowing any interim trail use if they want to keep a rail-banked corridor under consideration for future public transit. The Purple Line transit/trail must be sold to the public on its merits to be the best ultimate use of this corridor. But if cyclists now argue transit should be blocked here because "we got here first", then we are not playing fair.

Wayne Phyillaier

[washcycle]

Ernie, I was going to write two things. One - you're correct, my knowledge of rail banking is incomplete and probably full of errors. Two - basically what Wayne said, that the county bought the line for future transit purposes, and that that was what I was referring to.

[Richard Layman]

Railbanking misses the point. Washcycle understands things fine. So do I. I am a big transit advocate. I am a big bicycling advocate. I believe that such can co-exist. But apparently many others do not, and therefore, you get the kind of b.s. in Bethesda. They probably could care less about the trail, but the seize on it as a way to further deflect transit.

I know that the National R-t-T-C is concerned about the anti-transit problem in Bethesda.

This is why I wrote a few weeks ago to just change the alignment, like Robert Smith wrote yesterday, even though it is not a good idea.

Had these people not fought this so vociferously, the line would have been constructed by now.

Here's another photo that you could have used in your entry, showing path + bike + light rail in a pretty compact arrangement. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/12328091/ It's from Barcelona, and the photo is courtesy of John Norquist.

[Kathy Jentz]

We at ACT - http://www.actfortransit.org/- are working very hard to get this issue to the fore-front of this political cycle. Thanks for picking up on this issue and making such a thorough report. There is a lot of BS going around and misinformation deliberately put out by those who want to keep the ROW out of the country club and others who do not have the best interest of the county citizens of the near future in mind. Please check out our site for answers to some of your questions. You are welcome to attend some of our informational meetings as well as to discuss this in more depth.

[Jim]

How many of you actually use the trail. ACT has a very close alignment with the Chevy Chase Land Company which stands to make a lot of moola if the light rail stops at Chevy Chase Lake. This is from the "Save the Trail" website.

"The Action Committee for Transit fought to keep the Trail closed; fought to keep the Tunnel closed; fought to prevent the re-building of the Trestle over Rock Creek Park. Richard Hoye (Vice President of ACT) routinely sends spam emails to Petition signers claiming that he and ACT are friends of the Trail -- but this is false."

The Save the Trail group is made up of voluteeers who are not being paid by developers. How about ACT.

Lets talk BS. You advocates who have never used the trail in your life but are for the trail know who you are and in my mind you are simply mercenaries. Mucho Buena Suerte Sin Verguenzas.

[Wayne Phyillaier]

Jim, I use the CCT several times every week. I am a past Chair of the Coalition for the CCT. When I was the Chair I personally organized two rallies and a petition drive to open the trestle. I continue as an officer on the CCCT Board, and last fall personally coordinated the recent CCT trail traffic survey. I continue to be the www.cctrail.org webmaster for the CCCT.

I have never taken a penny from any developer and have no development interests here. I do want to see the CCT be completed into my Silver Spring neighborhood and do want to give the Purple Line transit a fair chance to pass or fail on its own merits. My position is explained fully at www.silverspringtrails.org

Jim, I will not question your motives or affiliations. I don't know your motives, and they are not important. But I do question why you find it necessary to launch a personal attack against people you do not know, intead of discussing the facts and issues. Are you afraid of a clean and fair debate?