Save The Trail Petition

Letters to Public Officials

Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights, Inc.

Representing the Citizens Associations of Brookdale, Chevy Chase Village, Chevy Chase West, Drummond, Green Acres-Glen Cove, Kenwood, Kenwood Condominium, Somerset, Somerset House I, Springfield, Sumner, Western Avenue, Westmoreland, Westbard Mews and Westwood Mews

October 3, 2007  

The Honorable Martin O'Malley, Governor
The State of Maryland
100 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401-1295

Dear Governor O'Malley:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights, Inc., a civic organization representing 15 Montgomery County communities in Bethesda and Chevy Chase surrounding Friendship Heights. We represent over 10,000 households, some of which are adjacent to the Capital Crescent Trail. 

We are writing in support of the petition by the Save the Trail organization opposing a light rail line along the Capital Crescent Trail from Bethesda to Silver Spring.  We believe it is unfortunate that the state is considering a light rail along the Capital Crescent Trail, in support of developers but in opposition to our communities. Three hundred foot-long trains, running at 55 mph every three minutes and within 30 feet of homes and apartments along its route, would significantly threaten the safety and tranquility of many of our residents.

The Trail, a biking and walking path that weaves through our communities, is an amenity that immeasurably adds to our quality of life.  It is illogical to defile this slice of green space with a light rail, the so-called Purple Line, which will not even address the serious transportation issues Bethesda will face in the coming years. 

There are alternative routes for the Purple Line that should be explored. Among them is below or ground level transit service that would run from Silver Spring and whose terminus in Bethesda would be at the NIH/Medical Center station. With the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) creating 450,000 more patient-related visits to the Bethesda National Naval Medical Center campus each year, it is logical that the planned Purple Line should intersect with the Red Line at Medical Center, not in downtown Bethesda. This would not only preserve the Capital Crescent Trail for recreational use but would prevent what will become a transfer nightmare for patients, visitors and staff members of the Medical Center when they have to switch from light rail in Bethesda to the Metro to get to their destination.

In addition, with the thousands of additional housing units being planned for downtown Bethesda, the Capital Crescent Trail will be even more essential and appreciated as green space by the residents of our now urbanized communities. If there is a light rail running along the Trail there will be no respite from our urban environment, and the quality of life for both our current and future residents will be significantly diminished.  

We urge you to keep the Capital Crescent Trail as it is and consider, instead of a light rail, more practical and community friendly transit alternatives.

Sincerely,


Phyllis Edelman
Chair, CCCFH

cc: I. Leggett

     R. Berliner

Steeds, Mar 24, 2007, Contd

David Steeds Analysis -- Sent to Transportation Secretary Porcari and other Officials
March 24, 2007

Alternatives for the Purple Line

Michael Madden’s letter of March 7 to Mayor Barnes states that “the tunnel costs are at least $150 million higher than an at-grade alternative” and concludes by recommending that “it is not worthwhile to further study the underground tunnel options”.   By focusing narrowly on mobility benefits to riders of the rapid transit, the letter also claims that there are no additional benefits associated with the tunnel alternatives.

This is an incomplete definition of benefits.   Benefits accrue to a much wider population than just the ridership that Mr. Madden chooses to focus on.  As shown below, once these benefits are taken into account, the tunnel options become much more attractive.  In addition, tunneling will also have ridership benefits especially with heavy rail which would make a seamless metro connection between the two legs of the red line, but these benefits are not considered here.

The Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail undertook a survey (available at cctrail.org) of usage last year with measuring points (among others) at the end of the paved trail at Bethesda Avenue, and at beginning of the graveled trail at Elm Street Park.  The preliminary results of the survey provide valuable information on the current benefits obtained by trail users and a good basis for estimating future benefits from different design options for the Purple Line.

1.   Current benefits to trail users:  $76.6 million over 30 years.

The survey reports current usage at Elm Street Park as 10,091/week, with a diverse mix of bikers, runners, joggers, and walkers.  These groups derive very different benefits from the trail, being high for bikers, runners and joggers who would otherwise have to pay to visit a health club to get their exercise, to quite modest for walkers who could otherwise use public streets.  Further survey work would be required to obtain estimates of “willingness to pay” for the different groups of users.  In the meantime, a plausible working assumption for the average value of trail use is needed, and this is taken as the cost of a movie ticket at Bethesda Row, currently $9.50.  On this basis, weekly usage is worth $95,865, with an annual value of $4,984,954.  In order to be compared to construction costs, this recurring annual benefit has to be expressed as a single net present value.  At 5% over 30 years, the net present value is $76.6 million.  It should be noted that this is a substantial sum and that any development of the trail that would detract from current usage would incur correspondingly substantial costs.

2.   Future benefits to trail users with at-grade light rail:  $38.3 million over 30 years.

The construction cost of the at-grade light rail option is shown in Mr. Madden’s letter to be $40 million.  This includes the trail elevated at Pearl Street with the light rail at grade, and various other measures to enhance safety and accessibility with two pedestrian crossings, one above and one below grade.    One result of this at-grade construction will be greatly reduced aesthetics on the trail itself.  Instead of bucolic, quiet, verdant surroundings, the trail will become the exact opposite, with trains whizzing past at considerable speed.  Usage is therefore likely to fall, but further survey work would be required to obtain estimates of how different users would respond to the dramatic changes in the trail’s surroundings.  In the meantime, a working assumption for the likely fall in trail use is needed, and this is taken to be 50%.  This decline, or future benefit to trail users, would be worth $2.5 million/year with a net present value of $38.3 million.

3.   Future benefits to trail users with tunneled light rail:  $170.2 million over 30 years.

Mr.Madden’s letter provides three tunnel options, each with a permanent paved trail on the surface, with similar costs of about $200 million.  An important result of the deep tunnel options will be little disruption during construction with, above all, an improvement in the aesthetics of the trail and its surroundings bringing it up to the quality of the trail as it already exists west of Bethesda.  In this case, usage is likely to rise and a good basis for estimating this increase is the survey undertaken at the end of the paved trail at Bethesda Avenue.  The survey found usage here at 23,015/week with a similarly diverse mix of users deriving very different benefits from the trail.  Using the same basis for valuation as at Elm Street Park, this usage is worth $11.4 million with a net present value of $174.8 million.

Comparison of the at-grade and tunneled options for light rail can now be made by taking benefits as well as construction costs into account  --  see table. 

Costs and benefits of at-grade and tunneled options ($million)

Whereas the tunneled option involves an extra cost of $160 million, it also yields an extra benefit of $136.5 million.  The net cost is the difference of $23.5 million  --  well within the margins of error of the cost and benefit estimates.  In addition, it is not clear whether the at-grade option includes the very considerable costs of sound-proofing.  This would further reduce the difference between the options.

Contrary to the conclusion drawn by Mr. Madden, this analysis shows that a more careful study of the underground tunnel options is fully justified.

   David R. Steeds

dpsteeds@yahoo.com

March 24, 2007

Return to Table of Contents

March 22, 2007

David Steeds to Tom Autrey

Mr. Tom Autrey
Montgomery County Planning Department
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring MD 20910

Dear Mr. Autrey,

Thank you for your letter of March 1 informing me about recent work on the cost of tunneling between Pearl Street and Jones Mill Road.

You did not refer to my query about earlier work on the cost of tunneling and why the tunnel option was rejected some years ago.  I have posed this question to many people but have not yet received any meaningful response.  I infer that no analysis was ever carried out beyond a back-of-the-envelope calculation that showed that a tunnel would cost many times more than construction at grade.

The recent analytical work that you mentioned was reported in a letter of March 7 from Mr. Madden to Linna Barnes, Mayor of the Town of Chevy Chase.  This work does not add anything to our understanding of the design options.  It simply says that a tunnel will cost five times the cost of at-grade construction and draws the conclusion that any further consideration of tunneling should be dropped.  This was exactly the conclusion reached (and acted upon) based on the earlier back-of-the-envelope work.

This kind of work cannot begin to provide the sound analytical basis that your Department and the Planning Board need in order to reach an informed conclusion on the design options.   As a first step, it is necessary to look not just at the costs but also at the benefits of the options.  In the attached note, I illustrate how this can be done.  The bottom line is that, in comparing tunneling with at-grade construction, costs are $160 million higher but benefits are also higher, by $136 million.  The net difference is $24 million in favor of at-grade construction.  This is well within the margins of error of the cost and benefit estimates, indicating that further consideration of tunneling is necessary.

I would welcome your views on the attached note and would like to know how your Department and the Planning Board will ensure that further consideration of tunneling is actively pursued in the DEIS Alternative Analysis.  Surely, we must do better than a simplistic back-of-the-envelope calculation of costs if the DEIS is to provide the basis for sound decision making.

Yours sincerely,

David R. Steeds

cc: Chairman Royce Hanson

Return to Table of Contents

February 12, 2007

Re: Defective Design of Purple Line

Governor Martin O’Malley
100 State Circle
Annapolis MD 21401-1925

Dear Governor O'Malley,

This is to share with you my firm conviction that the proposed light-rail surface-level Purple Line -- initially envisaged between Bethesda and Silver Spring -- will be an environmental and financial catastrophe, and to urge you to act now to stop any further expenditure of public money on the defective design work that is underway.

The design work entails comparing five options for light rail design, also with a sixth "do nothing" option. This work is defective because it purports to be a comparative analysis but it ignores the two main alternatives: (a) to build an underground Purple Line, and (b) to build an east-west connector on a different route, in the faster-growing areas of the county outside the Beltway. I attended a presentation of the design options by the consulting engineers some months ago and, when I asked about the underground option, was informed that this had been considered and rejected some years earlier on grounds of high investment cost. Nobody, however, could provide me with any details of that analysis nor even give me a reference that I would be able to follow up.

I am writing to you today to draw your attention to an article in today's Washington Post: "On Road to Dulles, Confusion and Angst". This shows how defective design work has indeed led to confusion and angst, with the Commonwealth of Virginia poised to go ahead with a design that is not clearly the best, and may well be a poor second-best, with Governor Tim Kaine caught between a rock and a hard place. One of the reasons for this turn of events is the advent of a low-cost technique for tunneling that has been used successfully in Europe and Asia. This warrants re-visiting the earlier analysis and conclusions drawn on the surface/underground alternatives in the Tysons Corner area and, I suggest, re-opening the underground option for the Purple Line between Bethesda and Silver Spring. At the same time, an east-west connector outside the Beltway should also be re-considered. Such comparative analysis would provide a fully informed basis on which to take investment decisions: whether any improvement in east-west communication by rail is justified, and what would be the best option.

I look forward to learning what action you intend to take on Purple Line design.

Yours sincerely,
David R. Steeds

Return to Table of Contents

February 5, 2007

Acting Secretary John D. Porcari
Maryland Department of Transportation
7201 Corporate Center
Hanover, MD 21076

RE: 10,000 Signatures Against the Purple Line On the Capital Crescent Trail

Dear Secretary Porcari,

As the Organizer of the Save the Trail Petition Drive, I am writing to request a meeting or a walk on the Trail with you -- to share the concerns of more than ten thousand Trail users who have petitioned lawmakers to either tunnel the Purple Line as an underground Metro rail, or to route it elsewhere than the Capital Crescent Trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring.

The Capital Crescent Trail is the most popular trail in Maryland -- with more than 1.5 million users annually. It is an important environmental and recreational resource, as we found in the Petition Drive, not only for the local community, but also for hikers and bikers from all over the Metropolitan Region. The branch between Bethesda and Silver Spring is an essential link in a web of trails that connect Mt Vernon, Georgetown, Bethesda, Rock Creek Park, Kensington, Silver Spring, Sligo Creek Park, and the Metropolitan Branch Trail.

As you know, if the Purple Line is built along the Trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring, all of the trees along the Trail will be clear-cut and replaced by catenary wires, and trains will run less than ten feet from hikers and bikers -- destroying the beauty, serenity, and safety of the Trail.

In the increasingly urbanized environment of lower Montgomery County, the Trail provides a unique opportunity for families and friends to find recreation and peaceful reflection in a natural setting. The trees and natural Trail are irreplaceable. Their importance to the Environment, and to the mental and physical well-being of our communities should not be minimized.

Already, the Capital Crescent Trail is becoming dangerously over-crowded due to its popularity. Where do we turn then, especially as thousands of new residences are being created in downtown Bethesda? Will all of us have to get in our cars and drive for many miles to find a small piece of nature and tranquility? Does it make sense to destroy the oasis of nature that we have here? On behalf of ten thousand Petition signers, I urge you to consider Metro rail tunneled underground between Bethesda and Silver Spring. As you know, advocates for a tunneled Metro at Tysons Corner have commissioned an engineering plan that found tunneling to be cost-competitive. And of course, the savings related to the community, traffic, and the environment are enormous. I am enclosing a 2002 letter from the Maryland Sierra Club to then-Governor Glendening recommending that tunneling Metro be considered, especially in light of the new tunneling technologies. (Information on the Tyson's Corner Tunnel proposal can be found at http://www.TysonsTunnel.org).

Another Metro-rail option that should be considered is a rail partially along the Beltway from Silver Spring to Medical Center in Bethesda -- known as the "Metro Purple Line Loop" -- a popular plan proposed by former County Executive Doug Duncan. Years ago, before anyone knew of the impending move by Walter Reed Hospital, this plan came very close to being adopted by the Montgomery County Planning Board.

The Metro Purple Line Loop plan should be re-visited now in light of the relocation plans of Walter Reed to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Thousands of new employees, visitors, and outpatients will be coming there daily - creating a significant traffic problem that could be alleviated by the Purple Line Loop.

Connecting the two legs of the Metro Red line with Metro-rail makes much more sense than connecting them with a totally different light rail system. Unlike light rail, a Metro rail connection would provide a seamless, faster connection and attract more riders than light rail. It would take cars off the road. And it would enhance Metro -- allowing for a circuit connection and several configurations between Shady Grove and Glenmont - and improve Metro's ability to evacuate in emergencies. It would also improve Metro's potential for expansion.

A Metro rail connection between Bethesda and Silver Spring, either underground or along the Beltway, is a Win-Win transportation plan. A light rail along the Trail, on the other hand, would be an environmental disaster, an assault on neighboring communities and, I believe, a failure as a long-term transportation solution. I urge you to support a plan that will benefit generations to come - a plan that respects the importance of this natural Trail, and the importance of a seamless Metro connection between the two legs of the Metro Red Line.

Again, I respectfully request a meeting, and if possible, a walk on the Trail together.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. I can be reached at 301-654-0183.

Very sincerely,

Pam Browning,

Organizer Save the Trail Petition Drive

Return to Table of Contents

February 5, 2007

Dr. Royce Hansen, Chairman
Montgomery County Planning Board
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910

RE: 10,000 Signatures Against the Purple Line On the Capital Crescent Trail

Dear Chairman Hansen,

As the Organizer of the Petition Drive to Save the Trail, I am writing to request a meeting or a walk on the Trail with you -- to share the concerns of more than ten thousand Trail users who have petitioned lawmakers to either tunnel the Purple Line as an underground Metro rail, or to route it elsewhere than the Capital Crescent Trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring.

The Capital Crescent Trail is the most popular trail in Maryland -- with more than 1.5 million users annually. It is an important environmental and recreational resource and, as we found in the Petition Drive, not only for the local community, but also for hikers and bikers from all over the Metropolitan Region. The branch between Bethesda and Silver Spring is an essential link in a web of trails that connect Mt Vernon, Georgetown, Bethesda, Rock Creek Park, Kensington, Silver Spring, Sligo Creek Park, and the Metropolitan Branch Trail.

If the Purple Line is built along the Trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring, all of the trees along the Trail will be clear-cut and replaced by catenary wires, and trains will run less than ten feet from hikers and bikers -- destroying the beauty, serenity, and safety of the Trail.

In the increasingly urbanized environment of lower Montgomery County, the Trail provides a unique opportunity for families and friends to find recreation and peaceful reflection in a natural setting. The trees and natural Trail are irreplaceable. Their importance to the Environment, and to the mental and physical well-being of our communities should not be minimized.

Already, the Capital Crescent Trail is becoming dangerously over-crowded due to its popularity. Where do we turn then, especially as thousands of new residences are being created in downtown Bethesda? Will all of us have to get in our cars and drive for many miles to find a small piece of nature and tranquility? Does it make sense to destroy the oasis of nature that we have here?

Like the above-ground transit plan for Tysons Corner, locally the proposed light rail along the Trail is an unpopular, developer-driven plan. Interestingly, Bechtel Corporation performed the original EIS for the light rail along the Capital Crescent Trail, and now Bechtel is pushing for the above-ground rail at Tysons Corner. Bechtel might lose these contracts if transit is tunneled.

Moreover, Chevy Chase Land Company owns all the land around the proposed light rail station at Connecticut Avenue, where density ceilings will be lifted to permit maximum development—if there is a light rail. The net result will be more traffic congestion, not less. Neither the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Community nor up-County commuters want this increased development and traffic congestion on Connecticut Avenue.

On behalf of ten thousand Petition signers, I urge you to consider Metro rail tunneled underground between Bethesda and Silver Spring. As you know, advocates for a tunneled Metro at Tysons Corner have commissioned an engineering plan that found tunneling to be cost-competitive. And of course, the savings related to the community, traffic, and the environment are enormous. I am enclosing a 2002 letter from the Maryland Sierra Club to then-Governor Glendening recommending that tunneling Metro be considered, especially in light of the new tunneling technologies. Information on the Tyson's Corner Tunnel proposal can be found at www.TysonsTunnel.org (I also am enclosing a Washington Post article about Tyson's Corner.)

Another Metro-rail option that should be considered is a rail partially along the Beltway from Silver Spring to Medical Center in Bethesda—known as the "Metro Purple Line Loop"—a popular plan proposed by former County Executive Doug Duncan. Years ago, before anyone knew of the impending move by Walter Reed Hospital, this plan came very close to being adopted by the Planning Board.

The Metro Purple Line Loop plan should be re-visited in light of the relocation plans at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Thousands of new employees, visitors, and outpatients will be coming there daily—creating a significant traffic problem that could be alleviated by the Purple Line Loop. Connecting the two legs of the Metro Red line with Metro-rail makes much more sense than connecting them with a totally different light rail system. Unlike light rail, a Metro rail connection would provide a seamless, faster connection and attract more riders than light rail. It would take cars off the road. And it would enhance Metro—allowing for a circuit connection and several configurations between Shady Grove and Glenmont - and improve Metro's ability to evacuate in emergencies. It would also improve Metro's potential for expansion.

A Metro rail connection between Bethesda and Silver Spring, either underground or along the Beltway, is a Win-Win transportation plan. A light rail along the Trail, on the other hand, would be an environmental disaster, an assault on neighboring communities and, I believe, a failure as a long-term transportation solution. I urge you to support a plan that will benefit generations to come—a plan that respects the importance of this natural Trail, and the importance of a seamless Metro connection between the two legs of the Metro Red Line.

Again, I invite you to walk the trail with me to see for yourself what is at stake.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration. I look forward to hearing from you regarding an opportunity to meet. I can be reached at 301-654-0183.

Very sincerely,

Pam Browning,
Organizer, Petition Drive to Save the Trail

Return to Table of Contents

Maryland Sierra Club Letter to Governor Glendening

February 15, 2002

The Honorable Parris Glendening

State House

Annapolis, MD 21401

Dear Governor Glendening:

We support immediately funding and proceeding with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Inner Purple Line if it includes a thorough exploration of options such as: (1) placing additional segments underground to preserve the natural aspects of the communities along the proposed route and the recreational value of the right-of-way; and (2) heavy rail, primarily or exclusively underground, for the Inner Purple Line.

Specifically, we believe the study would not be complete without considering underground options between Bethesda and Silver Spring, and that underground alternatives may be appropriate for other segments not currently planned to be underground, depending on their impacts. We also believe that a heavy rail Inner Purple Line should be given thorough consideration.

For the Bethesda to Silver Spring section:

1) The underground alternative would preserve a very attractive community amenity, and a valuable regional resource, the Georgetown Branch Hiker-Biker Trail, and therefore would remove opposition from community groups and regional trail users. Opponents of the current proposals strongly believe single track above ground light rail would be impractical and would turn a pleasant hiker biker trail into a sterile, noisy, unpleasant place. They further believe double tracked above ground light rail would wipe out the trail for all practical purposes. These concerns must be fully addressed. Tunneling could resolve them.

2) The underground alternative will allow for a more seamless connection at the Bethesda station, which is an important part of making it an attractive transportation alternative to the car. Modeling of ridership should fully account for the difference in connections.

The following considerations apply more generally:

3) Going underground would provide greater flexibility in determining the route.

4) Heavy rail (Metro) can move more people faster.

5) Extending Heavy Rail Metro to the Purple Line provides compatibility for backup equipment such as rail cars and relieves the cost of maintaining two sets of inventory for repairs.

6) New tunneling technologies, some of which were used on the Silver Spring to Glenmont section of the Red Line, make it a much less expensive alternative than in the past. Tunnel technology has improved rapidly. In the past tunnel builders never really knew what they were boring into and so they often hit "soft" or extra "hard" spots that put them behind schedule. Now they can send sound waves into the material ahead and compute what is ahead of them. This allows them to pick the best route. Tunnel builders can produce a 3-D picture of a chunk of earth 300 feet long by 50 feet in diameter. This allows the identification of fractures, different rock densities, and faults. They can also identify holes filled with mud or water. Drill into them and fill them with grout. This prevents a messy collapse that used to set operations back when these soft pockets ruptured and sent water and mud into the tunnel works. There are also new and improved tunnel boring machines (TBM). These are 30 feet in diameter and engineered to withstand the pressures of highly stressed rock. The 500-pound cutting heads can be changed from inside the machine. The machines put in supports as they bore along. These technologies are more advanced in Europe. The DEIS should examine their impact on the cost estimates for putting the Purple Line underground.

7) Faster, heavy rail would get more people out of their cars.

8) The economic value of environmental and community assets needs to be taken into account in calculating the preferred alternative.

9) In determining whether ridership would be sufficient to warrant heavy rail or building more light rail segments underground, it should be remembered that the Green Line was filled to capacity within weeks of opening, far exceeding the ridership predicted.

We recognize that building heavy rail or building additional light rail segments underground would increase costs, although, as noted above, new construction techniques should limit the additional costs. We also recognize that other factors, not limited to cost, favor the light rail Inner Purple Line as currently envisioned. However, we believe the modifications and alternatives we have described have significant advantages, too. A thorough, open-minded study of the options, with results and analysis fully available to the public, is absolutely necessary if we are to reach the solution that is best for future generations. The ultimate completion of the Inner Purple Line will be facilitated, not delayed, by a thorough study of the options.

Finally, as we have demonstrated in detail in previous correspondence, rail at the Wilson Crossing is a crucial component of the Purple Line that should be included in the replacement of the Wilson Bridge.

Sincerely yours,

Jon W. Robinson

Chair

Return to Table of Contents