Save The Trail Petition

RECENT LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

(For More Letters, click here.)

Washington Post

Saturday, January 3, 2009; A12

Picking the Right Purple Line

I appreciated Marc Fisher taking the time to talk with me ["A Little Give and Take..." Metro, Dec. 28], but I wish he had mentioned that more than 16,500 Capital Crescent Trail users from all over the region have signed petitions to save the trail from the degradation of the Purple Line and that about a THOUSAND e-mails have been sent to Maryland Gov. Marting O'Malley asking that the Purple Line be built in another location or underground.

Mr. Fisher also failed to mention that the state's Draft Environmental Impact Statement confirmed that the Purple Line will result in the clear-cutting of all surrounding trees and has a "goal" (no guarantee) of only a 10-foot buffer between the trains and trail users. That may be purple, but it sure isn't green.

We can't put this extraordinary, peaceful trail anywhere else. But we can plan for the long term to create a Purple Line as a true Metrorail along the Beltway or underground, and in the short term as improved express bus service along both East-West Highway and Jones Bridge Road.

Trail supporters are not anti-transit. We're saying that it is time for our public officials to give us a progressive, long-term transportation solution that will protect our irreplaceable urban greenspace, improve the Metro system and relieve traffic congestion. A light rail line along the trail would do none of these.

Pam Browning

Organizer, Petition to Save the Trail

************

Recently The Post has published several articles and letters that do not accurately represent the Town of Chevy Chase's position on the Purple Line. And while Marc Fisher refrained, in his Dec. 28 Metro column, from repeating the groundless charges of elitism that others have leveled at the town, some points need clarification.

The town supports a mass transit connection between the eastern and western parts of the region. Only one Purple Line alternative, however, would serve 40,000 more jobs, cost $1 billion less and protect more than 15 acres of mature trees: bus rapid transit along Jones Bridge Road.

Mr. Fisher claimed that this route would skirt "major population and work centers." In fact, it would provide the only direct access to the NIH-Naval Medical and the north Woodmont centers before continuing into downtown Bethesda, ending at the Metro depot.

And he claimed that light rail along the Capital Crescent Trail, one of the most heavily used trails in the nation, would leave it "an oasis of green." The state itself has acknowledged that all mature trees would be cleared from the right of way and could not be replaced.

The Jones Bridge Road alternative, in contrast, would minimize harm to the trail's parklike qualities, and it would permit completion of the trail into the Silver Spring Transit Center.

Given its far lower costs, the additional population served and the lesser impact on the environment, it is clearly the better Purple Line.

Kathy Strom

Mayor, Town of Chevy Chase

**********

On Purple Line, Buses Offer More Flexibility

Thursday, January 29, 2009; GZ04

The "red herring" that Ben Ross [Letters, Montgomery Extra, Dec. 11] surfaces is one of many that he creates and that are more like straw men to divert attention from what his organization, Action Committee for Transit, and the developers it represents are really proposing.

Herring No. 1: The Capital Crescent Trail is supported by a geographically widespread and diverse group of people, far from Ross's "small but wealthy community." And if one looks at the plans supported by Ross, one sees that these plans do allow for the elimination of the trail.

Herring No. 2: Until I pointed out to the ACT leafleters that whatever buses would be used would be natural gas or electric, they were distributing screeds trying to scare people about the diesel fumes they would be breathing.

Herring No. 3: Buses traversing everyone's neighborhoods? Would Ross prefer automobiles seeking shortcuts? And what about looking out of your window and seeing a train roaring past?

Herring No. 4: The underserved population shivering on street corners because there's no train. Wouldn't everyone, whatever their station in life, appreciate having reliable, responsive and flexible transportation? And is fixed rail the only way?

Herring No. 5: Action Committee for Transit itself, which might be more aptly named Action Committee for Development. If transportation were the real goal, why not push for the much-needed regional rail system, one that goes through not only Montgomery and Prince George's but also Arlington and Fairfax counties, as well as Alexandria, and links the Red, Yellow, Blue, Orange and Green Metro lines?

Why put up a limited, expensive, intrusive and destructive system that is reminiscent of a "bridge to nowhere"?

Yes, we need a rapid-transit rail system, but it should be the right one, not the Purple Line. Until then, new bus routes and more buses would serve well.

Howard Kaplan

Chevy Chase

************

Gazette, Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2009

Purple Line:  Making the right choice made difficult by misconceptions

Ilaya Rome-Hopkins | Commentary

Before we rush to select a locally preferred alternative for the Purple Line we should have a better understanding of what we are asking for and why.

Any modern urban area needs good public transportation. The concept of transit-oriented development (building higher density around access points to public transit) also has many merits. But to push public transportation as a means to higher development densities seems to miss the point entirely. And yet, this is one of the stated goals of the Purple Line.

In these last months and weeks of discussion about the Maryland Transit Administration's Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Purple Line, I have been amazed at the fundamental misconceptions that informed and intelligent people have regarding this critical project.

First, the Purple Line is like Virginia's Silver Line. The Purple Line is not a new line on the heavy rail Metro system. Despite the maps that make it look like an integral part of the system, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is not involved in this project. Having the transit way stop at four Metro stations makes perfect sense and the technology should be available to share a fare card but let's be clear, the Purple Line is not Maryland's version of Virginia's Silver Line.

Second, buses are dirty, light rail is clean. Again, with future technology either of these systems will be able to use cleaner fuel than diesel and coal-burning power. Buses have emissions at their source of use. Light rail emissions are at the power plant and take a heavy toll on our atmosphere. Planning Board Commissioner John Robinson, during the Jan. 8 hearing, rightly called for an "apples to apples" comparison of the modes (light rail and bus rapid transit) to determine the per rider use of power and the subsequent "carbon footprint" of each system.

Third, buses run in traffic, light rail has a dedicated right of way. As we all know, there is no more room on our roads. The only way that any transit will be effective is to provide a clear right of way. That means in most cases and for most parts of the route keeping the transitway on the master plan alignment and making the necessary investments to separate the vehicles from the roadways with overpasses.

In this scenario, the time difference is minimal and attributable to a different configuration at the end of the bus route. Therefore, a dedicated right of way can and should happen for buses or trains.

Fourth, buses are old and clunky and light rail is sleek and modern. The truth is that both can be either, depending on how much you can spend on the system. One significant difference is that light rail requires the use of overhead wires, which then precludes any canopy trees being in the vicinity to avoid foliage on the track. This is not how the systems are portrayed in the materials provided by MTA.

Fifth, the Purple Line means a completed trail. We need multi-modal transit options to get people out of their cars and to promote healthier transit and recreation choices. This includes safe options for bicyclists and pedestrians. As much as we all want to see the trail extended and continued, this is not part of the MTA plan. The trail must be viewed as an integral part of the transitway.

Sixth, rail offers more permanency for developers. The "level of commitment" argument is often used to imply that tracks and trains are more permanent than guided routes and bus stations.  And yet, the Planning Board staff analysis of the MTA Alternatives Analysis/ DEIS cites a study that shows there is no discernable difference between modes in terms of commitment to development around a specific area.

Ultimately this project is not designed to get cars off the road. It is designed to promote transit-oriented development that may actually lead to more people and more cars in already congested areas. This is not good or bad but we need to be honest with ourselves if we can plan for it accordingly.

Today's buildings are the largest contributors to green house gases. Therefore, if the transitway is built and denser development is permitted, Montgomery and Prince George's counties must require that any new buildings be at least LEED Gold (U.S. Building Council guidelines) since they will already earn points in the complex scoring system based on the proximity to public transit.

Choosing between modes (light rail or rapid transit) and alignments is a complex process. But it is even harder to reach the right decision when the basic facts of the case are so misunderstood.

Ilaya Rome Hopkins lives in East Bethesda, the neighborhood at the west end of the route that is bound by the two proposed alternatives. She is president of the East Bethesda Citizens Association, serves on the Montgomery County BRAC Implementation Commit-tee and is a board member of the Western Montgomery County Citizens Advisory Board. The views in this article are her own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those organizations.

*************

Gazette

Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2009

Forget Purple Line; complete Red loop

There seems to be a lot of talk about the need for an east-west connection, and the only solutions offered are for the Purple Line as either light rail or bus. But there is another option, which has been overlooked, although it seems obvious to me.

The third solution would be to extend the end of the Red Line Metro at Shady Grove to hook-up with the other end of the Red Line at Glenmont. That way you could get between Silver Spring and Rockville by going north instead of having to go to downtown D.C. and then go north. It would also be a cheaper fare and much quicker trip.

Another advantage of this loop would be better subway service from both Gaithersburg and Olney.

R.E. Rieck, Silver Spring