DCist: Opinionist: Ryan Avent

i

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:38:14 -0500

I fully support a Purple Line LRT option (or a cut-and-cover HRT one, for that fact.) I would also support an extension to the Purple Line, from Bethesda to Tysons with the following stops: - Bethesda (at current Purple Line terminus) - Bradley Blvd x CCT - River Rd x CCT - Mass Ave x CCT - NIMA/NGA North Entrance* - CIA - Chain Bridge Rd x Hwy123 - Great Falls St x Hwy123 - Tysons East (tie to Silver Line) *from Mass Ave to NIMA/NGA, either align w/ Overlea Rd or tunnel... I think that once the Silver Line is in place, there will be even more pressure on Metro Center and this would help alleviate some of that pressure... So how much would this cost compared to the ICC that'll make people leave further out?

j878

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:51:34 -0500

Douglas, The Purple Line isn't a WMATA project. It's an MTA project entirely in the State of Maryland. MTA runs Baltimore's subway line, light rail line, the MARC trains, and local/commuter bus service to/from DC, Annapolis, and Baltimore, MTA is the agency that will be running the Purple Line. (Heavy rail isn't appropriate for this corridor, anyways) The reason cut/cover or tunneling isn't used more is that it costs almost six times more, in general, than the equivalent per mile cost for at-grade. BRT is a fine choice for this corridor for limited funds. It'll do a great job of connecting cross-county, and it goes through a number of areas with very high bus ridership but low incomes (Langley Park, etc)

bikerbikerbiker

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:23:17 -0500

I suppose nearly anything is possible in a state where the ICC enjoys statutory protection, and plans for an adjacent multiuse trail were killed out of concern for the environment. The idea that the LRT will eventually pay for itself (or offset its cost) by encouraging high density development around the proposed stations is sexy. However, you are fooling yourself if you think those yuppies--because this will be market rate housing--will leave the Mini Cooper in the garage, just because they live atop a Metro station. Put a toll ring around the District, and require revenues be directed to transit service improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Douglas Willinger

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:41:14 -0500

Make it WMATA rail, not something different that introduces a whole new set of maintenance rituals. Make it cut and cover beneath the field of the Masonic Eastern Star Home and alongside NH Ave to the valley where it would cross upon a new bridge and continue on to University Boulevard, perhaps as an elevated.

j878

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:17:33 -0500

Heavy rail - Metrorail, BART, NYC Subway (think seperated tracks, often below ground or above - usually with discrete stations) Light rail - Baltimore's light rail, Muni's trains (San Francisco) - shorter vehicles, often running in mixed traffic - sometimes in their own lanes, sometimes not. Sometimes they have their own stations, sometimes just glorified bus stops. Wikipedia has a decent explanation for the layperson.

ClevelandRocks

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:09:35 -0500

LRT, HRT, good cholesterol, bad cholesterol. It's too confusing. What are examples of each? simple answers please.

j878

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:01:57 -0500

Douglas, The vehicle types are totally different. You could not run a LRT MTA vehicle on HRT tracks (plus, WMATA is already running a lot of trains on those same tracks)

Echo My Gekko

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:58:20 -0500

Wasn't Parris Glendening a democrat? He was probably too busy knocking up his deputy chief of staff to promote "Smart Growth" in the MD suburbs of DC.

j878

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:33:54 -0500

No, it's not a technical term. I was just typing quickly and using a shorthand term, that was sloppy of me. The MTA, in their DEIS documents use 'low-investmnet', 'medium investment' and 'high investment'. You can read about it on page 42/342 of the Capital Cost PDF. The high-investment BRT is pretty much the same as the high-investment LRT, with the exception of the vehicle type, and you can see that the capital cost is 1 billion versus 1.6 billion. As for operating cost (see page 39/43 of the Operating and Maintenence document), the annual operating cost of the high-investment BRT versus LRT is 15.8 mil (BRT) versus 22.8 mil (LRT). Again, LRT would be great if it weren't so much more expensive for almost the exact same level of service. If budget were no object - sure, run light rail. But we need to not only worry about the initial cost, but the cost to the agency in the future.

Douglas Willinger

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:26:45 -0500

Why the physically difficult route through Silver Spring to the east of the Red Line? Why not instead route the Purple Line along or via the Red Line southward to New Hampshire Avenue, and then out to University Boulevard? A NH route would provide greater ridership with future new development there, and the straighter route segments would allow higher speeds to offset the less direct general route?

monkeyrotica

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:07:59 -0500

I prefer the term "top shelf light rail." Something with monkey waiters, string quartets, and table service.

ClevelandRocks

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:04:13 -0500

Is high-level light rail a technical term, as in an elevated pathway or track, or do we just mean "really good"?

monkeyrotica

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:14:45 -0500

If governments weren't serious about building out mass transit when oil was $147 a barrel, what makes you think they'll get serious now that it's $62 a barrel? Annapolis is up to its ass in hock and they can't pay for crap they bought years ago. If history is any indication, mass transit in MD will take the budget axe long before schools, law enforcement, and social services, and compared to gridockriffic VA, MD is mass transit nirvana. And if you thought the ICC barely ran the nimby gauntlet, you ain't seen nothing yet. I predict a massive Monkey County campaign to keep "those PG people" out of their lily white subdivisions.

j878

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:13:12 -0500

In an world with unlimited funding, light rail would be the best option. However, that isn't the case. Well-done BRT (see the Orange Line in LA, or the Transmilenio in Bogota) can be built at a significantly cheaper cost. If you look at the high-level BRT versus the LRT option, you will find that the travel times almost entirely similar, as is the ridership. Yet the capital cost is quite a bit lower. The reason transit agencies try to sell the light rail option is because the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts process funds the capital cost instead of the operating cost of a transit project. Getting FTA funding is a great way to avoid spending a massive amount of money on the initial outlay for the system, even if the operating costs (down the road) might be higher for light rail - they very much often are, due to the maintenance facilities required, the track maintenance required, etc. Not to mention that a track problem means that vehicles are trapped and unable to route easily around. A lot of people think that since LRT vehicles carry more people, they are more fuel efficient and less labor intensive to run than buses. Not true most of the time. And they're not necessarily more energy efficient either - and the vehicles are quite a bit more expensive than an articulated bus as well) I work in transit, and i read a lot of these posts with some degree of frustration. Like all of you, i'd love to see great rail or BRT everywhere, with 5-10 minute headways and almost 24 hour service. But high construction and operation costs mean that we have to be smart and thoughtful about what we build and where we spend limited resources.

IMGoph

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:53:52 -0500

ryan: since this post is titled opinionist, i'd like to hear your opinion on which option (BRT or rail) will win out in the end here. let's assume an obama presidency coupled with an extended economic recession...

FreeEnergy

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:01:12 -0500

We have to look at things in the long term. As a nation we are in desperate need of changes in how we consume foreign oil.We are one the only industrailized nation who does not take full advantage of rail systems. Our economy has gone down the drain raidly this past year.We need to shore up our future by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels especially foreign oil. People this past year have had to tighten their belts to make up for the exorbitant cost of fuel.The high cost of fuel in turn raised the prices of every consumer product from farming &shipping food, to producing and shipping other products.Electric companies passed on their higher production costs with large rate increases. We have spent less because we had less to spend.We quit eating out as much or at all, quit going to the movies, quit buying new products and only stuck to the bare necessities. Spending less because we have less to spend in turn creates more job losses. It is a real economical catch-22. Now reports of people who can't afford their necessary medications are added to the list of the suffering. Just as gas prices start to fall some and they are still no where near cheap, OPEC cuts production of oil by 1.5 million barrels a day. There is no end in sight in this situation. We spent 168 Billion on the last stimulas pkg. That could have gone a long way toward getting some alternative energy plans in place such as electrified rail systems, wind or solar or getting the price of electric cars more affordable to buy. It would cost the consumer the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car. Why doesn't our country invest in getting us out of this mess instead of their quick fixes that don't work? Just read a fascinating book The Manhattan Project of 2009 by Jeff Wilson . Every member of congress to read this book too, and fast! www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com