MTA Declares War on Chevy Chase, Part Two

To understand the scope of MTA’s conflict with the Town of Chevy Chase, we need to examine the alternative options for the Purple Line in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). One is favored by the Town and the other five are not.

Three options use bus-rapid-transit, a high-speed bus system that is often cheaper and more flexible than rail lines. The “Low Investment BRT” option would run buses on existing streets in lanes shared with other traffic. Use of dedicated (or bus-only) lanes would be minimal. This is the only option that would run buses on Jones Bridge Road to the Medical Center and would stay out of the Town limits, and is therefore closest to the alignment recommended by the Town’s consultant. The “Medium Investment BRT” option would run buses along the Capital Crescent Trail, inside the Town limits, and use a mix of shared lanes and dedicated lanes. The “High Investment BRT” option would also run along the Capital Crescent Trail inside the town limits. It would use dedicated lanes and grade-separated pathways (like tunnels and bridges) wherever possible.

Three options use light rail (LRT), all on the Capital Crescent Trail. “Low Investment LRT” would run trains at ground level, often sharing lanes with traffic. “Medium Investment LRT” would run trains in a mix of shared and dedicated lanes at ground level with a bridge across Connecticut Avenue. “High Investment LRT” would operate exclusively in dedicated lanes at ground level with frequent use of bridges and tunnels.


All trail-based options would preserve part of the right-of-way for pedestrian and bike usage with transit alongside, with the two uses separated by grade and a fence. But none of the proposals for transit co-existing with the trail are likely to satisfy those who believe that transit is an inherent threat to the trail and the nearby communities.

The purpose of the DEIS is to evaluate the impact of each of these six options on a variety of criteria, including travel time, speed, ridership, vehicle miles traveled, impact on open space, noise, carbon dioxide emissions and cost. The Town contends that BRT outside of its limits, as represented by a Jones Bridge alignment, is a superior alternative on multiple counts. We will examine the contents of the DEIS in Part Three.

But before we do, readers need to be aware of two elements of context.

1. The long-term momentum behind rail.
The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Master Plan of 1990 refers to a "transit" use for the Georgetown Branch, but Washington Post articles from the late 1980s and early 1990s often refer to a "trolley" line. So in the earliest days of this debate - long before the project was referred to as the Purple Line - rail was the most discussed use. Bus proposals for Jones Bridge Road began receiving serious consideration only in 2003, when then-District 18 Delegate John Hurson received a favorable hearing from the Ehrlich administration. Several politicians alleged that Hurson won the support of Governor Ehrlich for buses by agreeing to support slots, an allegation Hurson denied. The Columbia Country Club also lined up behind buses since the trail cuts through its grounds (and the club encroaches on the right-of-way with fences). The association of buses on Jones Bridge Road with Governor Ehrlich, the country club and a possible connection to slots has negatively affected perceptions about the proposal for years.

The above history illustrates a long-term momentum in favor of rail, with buses viewed by some as a concession to the country club and a distraction rather than as a serious proposal. Has this affected MTA's analysis of the project?

2. Bureaucratic warfare
Many people will question my use of the term "war." Have you ever been in a long-term conflict with a bureaucracy? I have. Bureaucracies do not wage war with weapons or polemics. They do so by controlling information. They emphasize the arguments in their favor, de-emphasize other arguments and sometimes even refuse to acknowledge some data opposing their view. These tactics may not make the bureaucracy's positions wrong, but they do affect its dealings with opposition. There are a few signs of this in the DEIS that warrant examination.

We will begin in Part Three.