Opinionist: Ryan Avent
Economic blogger for The Economist and former DCist editor Ryan Avent discusses proposed Purple Line development.
It was back during the administration of Parris Glendening that a heavy rail option (that is, Metrorail style) for the Purple Line was first ruled out. In those days, oil was just $20 per barrel and Montgomery and Prince George’s counties were home to almost 150,000 fewer people than live in those places today. The District was still losing people every year, and transit-oriented development had yet to turn Bethesda and Silver Spring into the buzzing, high-rise centers of activity they are today. Governor Glendening, though a fan of smart growth, probably saw heavy rail as a rather hard sell in such an environment.
But make no small plans, they say, and with good reason. As congestion times and fuel prices have risen over the past decade, development in Maryland’s Metro-accessible inner-suburbs has soared. The heavy-rail alternative might be looking quite attractive at the moment - enough so, at least, that it would be nice to see how the option fared alongside the others on the menu in the just released Purple Line Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Especially when you have the crack reporting team at the Washington Post leading off its piece on the matter with this:
Building the Purple Line through Montgomery and Prince George's counties could require demolishing up to 31 private properties, including some Silver Spring apartments, and constructing sound walls to shield residents from a high-pitched "squeal" noise caused by turning train wheels, according to a six-year state study released yesterday.
Oh, for an underground Metro line.
Map of the proposed Purple Line route, which could couls the demolition of up to 31 private properties. High resolution PDF map can be found via the MTA here. |
As such, the inconveniences may not do all that much to swing local opinion. And to properly understand the costs and benefits of the Purple Line, we also have to look at a much broader swath of land. Along the Purple Line route, trees may be lost and some homes or businesses destroyed. But by improving congestion and increasing the carrying capacity of the inner suburbs, the line, properly built, would slow the metropolitan area’s outward growth. If more people can live in Montgomery County with less congestion, then fewer people are driven to leave for places like Frederick county, where new housing construction might mean the loss of thousands of trees on previously undeveloped land. Doing transit right should involve much less disturbance of land and property, on net, than doing transit wrong or doing nothing at all.
The annoyances described by the Post are also likely to take a backseat to the hard numbers the study presents; those on effectiveness, efficiency, and ridership. From a narrow cost-effectiveness perspective, BRT has the advantage. It involves, quite simply, a much smaller initial capital investment than a rail line. On other measures, light rail - and especially the high-investment light rail option - is the clear winner. Light rail promises to carry anywhere from 20% to 70% more riders than BRT. It promises to do it a lot faster, as well. Those variables are extremely important, because they will drive land-use around the system. The better the system you build, the better and more valuable will be development around the stations, which is the real payoff - in budgetary and quality of life respects - from reorienting transportation away from an exclusive focus on roads.
It’s a question of return on investment, and as such, it’s likely that under normal circumstances the high-investment light rail option would get the nod from Maryland’s government and the support of the people. These aren’t exactly normal circumstances, however. State budgets are being hammered by economic weakness. Already, $25 million in funding for the line has been cut thanks to budget trimming, which has affected every project in the region but the statutorily immune Intercounty Connector. It’s a good opportunity to remember that while one should make no small plans, neither should one make big, stupid plans.
But even with the drain on funds posed by budget crisis and the ICC, all is not lost. Maryland will wisely wait until spring to submit its preferred alternative. By that time, several important things will be known. First, a new president will be in office. An Obama victory on November 4th would mean a transit-friendly administration - an about face from the transit-hostile bureaucrats in the Bush Department of Transportation. Second, by spring, the government will have a much better sense of what priorities will be emphasized in the 2009 bill to reauthorize the nation’s transportation funding structure. And finally, it is quite likely that by spring a second stimulus package will have been passed, which will probably include billions of dollars for infrastructure investment.
Potentially, the path toward a proper investment in the Purple Line will be much clearer in a matter of months. Let us hope that, electorally speaking, everything falls into place. And let us hope that Marylanders have the patience and the foresight to support the light rail option. When the trains start running, sound walls and noise dampers and all, they’ll be glad that they did.