Save The Trail Coalition

Testimony -- December 10, 2009

before the Montgomery County Planning Board

Karen Dietrich, East Bethesda

Ladies and Gentlemen:

My name is Karen Dietrich, and I live at 7901 Kentbury Drive in Bethesda.  My house is adjacent to the Capital Crescent Trail as well as to one of the major trail access points in East Bethesda, described as the “Sleaford Road Extended right-of-way” in the Purple Line Functional Plan being discussed today.  I would like to express my opposition to the Purple Line Functional Plan insofar as it would amend the previously approved County Master Plan to permit for the construction of a double track light rail on the Capital Crescent Trail between Silver Spring and downtown Bethesda.

My opposition is based on three main concerns – the unavoidable loss of the Trail as we know it, the astronomical cost of the proposed Purple Line construction, and the potential safety risks posed to the community.

Loss of the Trail

Along with the 10,000 other individuals who utilize the Capital Crescent Trail on a weekly basis, I spend time on the trail frequently, taking walks or going on bike rides with my children.  I frequently use the trail to walk to downtown Bethesda.  During warm weather, I commute to my job in Washington by bicycle. And whenever we have out of town guests, we make a point of showing them this wonderful resource that we have right in our backyard.  On any occasion, the trail is a welcome refuge from our otherwise busy lives in a major metropolitan area.  We run into our neighbors on the Trail, we collect acorns and rocks and leaves.  We encounter birds, and squirrels, and occasionally even catch a brief glimpse of a fox.  And in the summer, when the rest of our area is hot and humid with poor air quality, the tree canopy covering the trail, and the bushes and plants growing alongside it, provide what feels like an entirely different climate.   The air is cooler and cleaner, the temperature several degrees lower, and people walking and jogging enjoy a welcome respite from our oppressive summers.  The Trail is enjoyed by the elderly, parents pushing strollers, bird watchers, families with small children, cyclists, teens going to and from school, athletes in training, and daily commuters. Trail users come from all around the region, and the Trail is revered for its tranquility, safety, and natural beauty.

Proponents of building a double-track light rail on the Trail argue that the Trail will be maintained or even improved.  But placing a glorified sidewalk next to a double set of train tracks, cutting down 17 acres of trees and eliminating the shady, park-like atmosphere of the current trail cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called an improvement. 

While I understand that the right of way for the trail was originally acquired with a transit line in mind, what was originally contemplated was a single line trolley line, not a full-service, double track, light rail with service every six minutes through crowded neighborhoods.  Moreover, when the right of way was acquired and the Master Plan drafted, the degree to which the trail would be used and appreciated by walkers, runners and bikers simply was not expected or contemplated.  When looking at highly developed urban areas, such as Boston or New York, or even Berlin, Germany, what stands out more than anything else decades later, is the foresight shown by urban planners in preserving green space (such as Central Park in NYC and the Emerald Necklace in Boston).  

If the Purple Line is built as proposed, the Capital Crescent Trail would essentially cease to exist as we know it.  The clear-cutting of thousands of mature trees (which provide oxygen and shade, not to mention a park-like atmosphere), the elimination of a welcome refuge from urban life, the loss of a pleasant and safe route for pedestrian and bicycle commuters -- these are costs that are incalculable.  Once destroyed, natural, open spaces like the Capital Crescent Trail are difficult, if not impossible, to reclaim.  Even if it does not meet overly technical definitions of “parkland,” to us and our children, this public space represents one of very few easily accessible green spaces.   All of these benefits would be lost by clear-cutting the trees along the trail and turning the trail into a glorified sidewalk situated next to train tracks with trains passing every few minutes. 

Cost

In addition to the incalculable environmental costs of losing the trail, I am also highly disturbed by the staggering cost for the construction of the Purple Line. At a cost of over 1.6 billion Dollars, the light rail project could only be justifiable if it made a tangible difference in the lives of many, many residents of this area, and the Purple Line does not begin to satisfy that requirement.  While it may shorten the commute of a fairly low number of riders – the vast majority of whom already take public transit in the form of buses – the Purple Line will not take cars off the road or ease traffic congestion in any appreciable way.  It will have absolutely no mitigating effect on the anticipated growth taking place north of downtown Bethesda, not just at NIH and the National Naval Medical Center but also in the corridor north along Wisconsin Avenue into Rockville. 

Inexplicably, MTA has ignored even impartial reports that the light rail option it chose has costs that far outweigh its benefits.  The World Resources Institute, a nonpartisan environmental think tank with a goal of climate protection and significant experience analyzing and implementing sustainable transit solutions around the world, issued a report in January 2009 concluding that the light rail option chosen by MTA “will increase CO2 emissions and very likely overrun current cost projections” and that “the expected cost-effectiveness of [the light rail options] will not be realized.”  

The Institute explained that,

“There is enough evidence in the existing literature to indicate that cost and ridership forecasts are often optimistic at the planning stages. For example, [one study on] consolidated data for 44 urban rail projects … found that average cost overrun was 45 percent and actual ridership was on average 51 percent lower than forecast.  The cases analyzed [in this study] include the Washington Metro (which had a cost overrun of 85 percent) and the Baltimore Metro (which had a construction cost overrun of 60 percent and an actual ridership of 40 percent of the figure forecast in the opening year). Transit projects entail the double risk of higher costs and lower demand than expected, and it is better to incorporate such risks in the decision making process than to ignore them.”

And, in terms of the alleged environmental benefits of the Purple Line, the Institute stated that “[e]nergy consumption from roadways decreases with introduction of LRT, but the resulting emissions reduction is not sufficient to counterbalance the effect caused by the high electricity CO2 emission factor.”  

And on the subject of cost, I think it is worth pointing out that neither the estimates for the staggering cost of building the Purple Line – nor the potential sources of funding for the project identified by MTA – take into consideration or provide for the construction or maintenance of the allegedly “new and improved” Capital Crescent Trail.  So in the end, the taxpayers of Montgomery County are either going to have to come up with the many millions of Dollars that will be required to re-construct and maintain the Trail, or, perhaps more likely, a political decision will be made in the face of some fiscal emergency not to save the Trail after all, despite the many promises that have been made.  

Safety

Finally, placing a double track light rail next to a pedestrian trail on a stretch of land that is 66 feet wide, or narrower in some places, presents a substantial safety risk that should not be underestimated. 

Currently, the Trail is a safe place for families to walk, for cyclists to travel without the dangers posed by vehicular traffic, and a safe route to school for hundreds of students.  Building light rail here will not only eliminate these benefits – the resulting trail will be much too narrow and crowded, not to mention that trains will be whizzing by every few minutes – but the tracks also will cut in half several communities, including parts of Silver Spring, Bethesda and Chevy Chase, for whose residents crossing the right of way for work, school, or to visit friends or to walk to restaurants or stores is a way of life.

There is no question that people will cross the tracks, not just at designated crossings but elsewhere as well.  Children jump gates and fences for fun, and people in a hurry are inattentive or take short cuts.  In a densely populated area, with trains passing as frequently as every 3 minutes and coming from both directions, that spells trouble. 

Indeed, according to data from the Federal Railroad Authority,

“Since 2003 Prince George's County has averaged slightly more than one death per year from people trespassing on railroad property…  Montgomery County sees the most trespasser fatalities in Maryland, averaging three deaths per year, and claiming 33 percent of the state's 55 total deaths since 2003. It has the highest population of any Maryland county…”

Moreover, "Trespassing on a railroad's private property and along railroad rights of way is the leading cause of rail-related fatalities in America," according to a 2008 report by the Federal Railroad Administration. Nationwide, there are about 500 trespassing-related deaths every year.”

And fences built along railroad tracks are not enough of an obstacle to deter trespassers.  Addressing the death on the tracks of a 14 year old boy in Laurel earlier this year, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Authority stated that  “You can't fence off every bit of track, and when you try to do that people cut holes in it.  This is a steady, consistent problem.” 

This spokesperson also explained one reason why deaths on railroad tracks are increasing:  Young people who are talking on a cell phone or listening to an iPod don’t hear trains coming.  

In July of this year, two teenagers were killed by the Baltimore light rail when they were hit not once, but twice, first by a train going in one direction, then by a train going in the opposite direction.   In April, a 22 year old man was severely injured on the light rail tracks in Linthicum, by a train traveling slowly as it entered the station.   And last November, a college student wearing headphones was hit by a trolley in the Boston area when he crossed the tracks.

As the mother of two young children and as the owner of a home backing up to the Capital Crescent Trail, these statistics inspire grave concern.  A few minutes ago, I mentioned the staggering financial and environmental costs of the proposed Purple Line. But I cannot imagine a greater cost than the cost to human lives.

For these reasons, I strongly urge you to decline to adopt the Purple Line Functional Plan to allow for the construction of a double track light rail on the Capital Crescent Trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring. Please use your wisdom, vision and courage to put transit elsewhere.  We need to preserve the Capital Crescent Trail as this region’s “Central Park” -- so that we, and generations to come, will be able to enjoy this natural resource, regardless of the growth and development that takes place around us.  We need to spend our tax dollars wisely, in a way that provides the maximum benefit to the maximum number of individuals, and we most certainly need to protect the lives of the thousands of children who live in the densely populated areas along the proposed route.

 
Thank you for your consideration.

World Resources Institute, “Public Comments on the Purple Line AA/DEIS” (January 2009).

World Resources Institute, “Public Comments on the Purple Line AA/DEIS” (January 2009).

World Resources Institute, “Public Comments on the Purple Line AA/DEIS” (January 2009).

Megan Miller, “Pedestrian Railway Deaths Recurring Problem in Maryland,” Capital News Service (May 5, 2009).

Megan Miller, “Pedestrian Railway Deaths Recurring Problem in Maryland,” Capital News Service (May 5, 2009).

WBALTV.com, “2 Trains Hit Light Rail Crash Victims” (July 8, 2009).

Matt Zapotosky, “Man Struck By Light Rail,” The Washington Post (April 6, 2009).

Staff writers, “T: Student wearing earphones hit by Green Line trolley,” The Boston Globe (November 17, 2008).

Return to List of  Planning Board Testimony