The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
Former Blade Staffers Launch 'DC Agenda'
D.C. Unemployment Rate Reaches 11.9 Percent
D.C. Insurance Dept. Denies Birth Control Coverage Meddling
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.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
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
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...
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.
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.
Is high-level light rail a technical term, as in an elevated pathway or track, or do we just mean "really good"?
I prefer the term "top shelf light rail." Something with monkey waiters, string quartets, and table service.
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?
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.
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.
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)
LRT, HRT, good cholesterol, bad cholesterol. It's too confusing.
What are examples of each? simple answers please.
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.
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.
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,
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)
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?