MTA’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) contains a set of facts that are extremely problematic for opponents of rail on the Capital Crescent Trail. But the bigger problem for rail opponents is the evolving political dynamic on the issue.
Purple Line rail foes have suffered a string of defeats. In November, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association endorsed rail. On November 16, the Post endorsed rail. In December, County Council Member Roger Berliner, who represents Chevy Chase, restated his support for rail. On December 10, the Gazette endorsed rail. On December 22, the Montgomery County planning staff endorsed rail. On December 28, Post columnist Marc Fisher endorsed rail. On January 4, the Post called for rail again. On January 8, County Executive Ike Leggett told the Post, "It's pretty clear there's overwhelming support for light rail," while saying he was undecided. Yesterday, the Montgomery County Planning Board endorsed medium-investment light rail by a 4-1 vote. The lone bright spot for rail opponents was the withdrawal of the Environmental Defense Fund from the pro-rail coalition.
But these recent events have reinforced, not changed, the basic political alignment on the Purple Line. Here is the order of battle.
The Combatants
Purple Line Now, the primary pro-rail organization, has assembled a giant coalition of civic, environmental, business and non-profit groups and has signed up dozens of state and county politicians. Rethinking the Purple Line, an anti-rail alliance, contains a number of civic groups and municipal governments located near the Capital Crescent Trail. The Chevy Chase opponents do not have close relations with opponents in East Silver Spring, who have different concerns and are themselves divided. The Jones Bridge BRT option has spawned new opposition to that proposal along Jones Bridge Road in North Chevy Chase. The Columbia Country Club, long opposed to transit through its grounds, is rumored to be in negotiations with MTA. Rail supporters are at least as well-organized, at least as well-financed and are much more numerous than opponents – a fact that is not lost on most politicians.
Prince George’s County
The Town of Chevy Chase’s push for buses sets up a dream scenario for Prince George’s politicians. The notion that opposition to rail from one of the state’s wealthiest neighborhoods might condemn Prince George’s residents to further rides on buses provides irresistible propaganda opportunities for many politicians. Senator Paul Pinsky (D-22), who said of the town and the country club, “They seem to live in Alice in Wonderland,” provides just one example. There is zero support for BRT in Prince George’s County (and Town consultant Sam Schwartz did not study it east of Silver Spring). That lack of support will factor into the state’s political decision-making.
Montgomery County
Only Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) and Delegate Al Carr (D-18) are known to oppose rail for the Purple Line. County Executive Ike Leggett, every County Council Member and every other state legislator in Montgomery except Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18) is a listed supporter of rail. The inability of rail opponents to break out of their home district exposes a major liability. The anti-ICC coalition was much, much larger and it still lost.
The Administration
The calculus of the administration looks fairly simple. From a policy perspective, if MDOT Secretary John Porcari believes MTA’s data, the only conceivable reason he would not recommend rail is pure cost. The numbers indicate rail superiority in almost every other area. But if he did choose BRT, the data argues for running buses directly on the trail. The on-trail bus options beat Jones Bridge BRT on travel time, speed, ridership, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, reduction in carbon dioxide and cost effectiveness. Medium-investment BRT, which runs buses on the trail, costs $14.01 per hour of user benefit compared to $18.24 for Jones Bridge.
From a political perspective, the Purple Line is a high-profile, high-cost project that could use up a significant percentage of the state's transportation budget. Any rational politician would embark on such an endeavor only if he or she was sure to receive substantial credit for it. (The unpopularity of the $2.4 billion ICC must be galling to the Governor.) If the administration chooses BRT, they would disappoint the entire Prince George’s establishment, most of the Montgomery establishment and the colossal number of groups in the pro-rail coalition. If the administration chooses rail, they would antagonize a few neighborhoods near the trail and receive praise from almost every power player in the Washington suburbs.
So what do you think the state will do?
Friday, January 16, 2009
MTA Declares War on Chevy Chase, Part Five
Thursday, January 15, 2009
MTA Declares War on Chevy Chase, Part Four (Updated)
More data from the Purple Line DEIS details the staggering scope of MTA’s rejection of a Jones Bridge BRT alignment for the Purple Line.
CO2 Emission Burden, Percent Change from No-Build Option
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 0.00%
Medium-Investment BRT: -0.02%
High-Investment BRT: -0.05%
Low-Investment LRT: 0.04%
Medium Investment LRT: 0.04%
High Investment LRT: 0.04%
Bottom Line: Light rail actually produces slight increases in carbon dioxide emissions because of the power necessary to operate the system. High-investment BRT, which runs buses down the trail, performs best on this measure. But none of the options would deliver any significant changes in carbon dioxide.
Noise
Jones Bridge BRT would have a “modest impact” on Leonard Drive, Wayne Avenue between Cedar Street and Cloverfield Road and Wayne Avenue between Mansfield Road and Sligo Creek Parkway. The other two BRT options would have “modest impact” on Leonard Drive, 16th Street between East-West Highway and Spring Street, Wayne Avenue between Cedar Street and Cloverfield Road, Wayne Avenue between Dartmouth Avenue and Dale Drive, Wayne Avenue between Mansfield Road and Sligo Creek Parkway and Arliss Street between Flower Avenue and Walden Road. All of the light rail options would have “no impact” on noise.
Bottom Line: Light rail is less noisy than buses because of vehicle "skirts" (panels covering the train wheels) and walls on some parts of the alignment.
Capital Cost, 2007 Dollars
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): $386,390,000
Medium-Investment BRT: $579,820,000
High-Investment BRT: $1,088,480,000
Low-Investment LRT: $1,206,150,000
Medium Investment LRT: $1,220,150
High Investment LRT: $1,634,840,000
Bottom Line: All bus options are cheaper than the rail options. Jones Bridge BRT would cost about one-third of the cheapest rail option and one-quarter of the most expensive rail option.
Annual Operating and Maintenance Subsidy, 2007 Dollars
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): $14.0 million
Medium-Investment BRT: $12.8 million
High-Investment BRT: $10.6 million
Low-Investment LRT: $21.1 million
Medium Investment LRT: $19.4 million
High Investment LRT: $16.0 million
Bottom Line: The least costly system to operate is high-investment BRT, which runs buses down the trail. The subsidy difference between Jones Bridge BRT (the most costly of the bus options) and high-investment rail is only $2 million per year.
Annual Cost per Hour of User Benefit, 2007 Dollars (FTA Cost Effectiveness)
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): $18.24
Medium-Investment BRT: $14.01
High-Investment BRT: $19.34
Low-Investment LRT: $26.51
Medium Investment LRT: $22.82
High Investment LRT: $23.71
Bottom Line: The BRT options are more cost effective than the rail options. But the most cost effective option is medium-investment BRT, which would run buses on the trail.
My Take on the DEIS
The DEIS is a sweeping rejection of the arguments for a Jones Bridge BRT alignment. Some of its conclusions are supportable but others are not. Its two most problematic components are:
1. Failure to account for more ridership with extra stops
According to the DEIS, the Jones Bridge alignment would have 40,000 daily boardings while high-investment BRT and all rail options would have 60,000 or more. Yet, the Jones Bridge alignment evaluated by the state has an extra station at the Medical Center. And the state never evaluated the impact of a second station at North Woodmont in Bethesda as suggested by the Town. The state's reasoning is that the greater speed of the other alignments drives up ridership compared to Jones Bridge BRT. But does that completely swamp the ridership increase of one (or two) extra stations to the extent alleged in the DEIS? That may not be likely, especially when one of the extra stops is at the exploding National Naval Medical Center.
2. Failure to study tree impacts
The loss of mature trees on the Capital Crescent Trail is a powerful argument made by the Town. The state's reaction was to ignore it and promise to count destroyed trees only after the alignment was chosen. This more than anything is evidence of bureaucratic warfare.
On the above two issues, MTA has not fairly evaluated the Town's arguments. Town residents have reason to feel aggrieved on those grounds.
But the state has one very powerful argument in its favor that rail opponents cannot effectively rebut: a trail-based, grade-separated alignment will inevitably be faster. The Connecticut-Jones Bridge intersection is one of the most congested intersections in the county. Park and Planning found that northbound evening rush-hour traffic moved at 6.1 miles per hour on Connecticut in the vicinity of the intersection. This horrendous intersection is effectively quicksand for buses.
Town consultant Sam Schwartz recommends prioritizing buses at traffic signals to move them through the intersection as a solution. But that will not help buses stuck in long queues on Jones Bridge Road and it may further congest north-south traffic (causing a disaster for Kensington commuters). The ultimate solution would be to grade-separate the intersection, but that would dramatically increase the Jones Bridge alignment's cost.
The speed advantage of lane-dedicated, grade-separated trains based on the trail alignment has a ripple effect on many other numbers, including ridership, reductions in traffic, user benefits and cost effectiveness. That alone makes a compelling case for MTA's evidently preferred options without engaging in bureaucratic games over the extra Jones Bridge stations and tree loss. The speed and performance superiority of rail make it the better option for the Purple Line provided that the politicians will pay for it. After all, while many politicians have signed a pledge to support light rail, few in the state delegation have publicly stated their willingness to raise taxes to fund it.
Rail opponents disagree with the facts contained in the DEIS (and have done so on this blog). But the DEIS has reinforced the most important set of facts concerning the Purple Line: the overarching political climate. More in Part Five.
Update: The Planning Board voted 4-1 today to endorse medium-investment light rail.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
MTA Declares War on Chevy Chase, Part Three
The Purple Line Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) contains a set of facts that is devastating to the Town of Chevy Chase’s case against use of the Capital Crescent Trail for transit. Of the arguments made by Town consultant Sam Schwartz for bus rapid transit on Jones Bridge Road, MTA agreed with almost none.
Following are statistics directly from the DEIS comparing the six options for the Purple Line.
Travel Time, End-to-End
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 96 Minutes
Medium-Investment BRT: 73 Minutes
High-Investment BRT: 59 Minutes
Low-Investment LRT: 62 Minutes
Medium Investment LRT: 59 Minutes
High Investment LRT: 50 Minutes
Bottom Line: Compared to the alternatives, the off-trail alignment is slower because it has to navigate the Connecticut-Jones Bridge and Wisconsin-Jones Bridge intersections, two of the most congested intersections in the county. The fastest options have grade-separated alignments over Connecticut Avenue. Town consultant Sam Schwartz believes some of the Jones Bridge alignment's longer travel times can be mitigated by prioritizing buses at traffic signals, but the gap with rail is a very large gap to make up.
Average Speed
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 10 MPH
Medium-Investment BRT: 13 MPH
High-Investment BRT: 16 MPH
Low-Investment LRT: 15 MPH
Medium Investment LRT: 16 MPH
High Investment LRT: 19 MPH
Bottom Line: For the sake of comparison, the Planning Department found evening rush hour speeds on Connecticut Avenue northbound of 6.1 miles per hour and Wisconsin Avenue northbound of 6.8 miles per hour. Since the Jones Bridge alignment is not grade-separated, it has to contend with that traffic. And remember - the DEIS is assessing projected traffic conditions in 2030, which will presumably be worse than the awful traffic we see today.
Daily Purple Line Ridership in 2030
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 40,000
Medium-Investment BRT: 51,800
High-Investment BRT: 58,800
Low-Investment LRT: 59,300
Medium Investment LRT: 62,600
High Investment LRT: 68,100
Bottom Line: According to the DEIS, high-investment BRT (which runs buses on the trail) can compete with light rail in ridership, but off-trail BRT can not. The state does not believe the Jones Bridge alignment picks up net ridership by going past the Medical Center - instead, it believes there will be fewer riders because of its slow speed. That is a major disagreement with the Town, which would like to have stations at both the Medical Center and North Woodmont in Bethesda. The state did not examine a Jones Bridge alignment with a North Woodmont station.
User Minutes Saved Per Day in 2030
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 623,700
Medium-Investment BRT: 851,200
High-Investment BRT: 994,200
Low-Investment LRT: 1,033,700
Medium Investment LRT: 1,098,200
High Investment LRT: 1,211,800
Bottom Line: Higher speeds for light rail translate into more time saved for users. Only high-investment BRT on the trail can compare.
Change in Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled, 2030
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): -0.02%
Medium-Investment BRT: -0.044%
High-Investment BRT: -0.067%
Low-Investment LRT: -0.064%
Medium Investment LRT: -0.07%
High Investment LRT: -0.071%
Bottom Line: Higher speeds and more time saved for high-investment BRT and the light-rail options lead to at least three times the reduction in trips of off-trail BRT.
Potential Impact on Public Park Lands
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 2.09 acres
Medium-Investment BRT: 3.02 acres
High-Investment BRT: 2.09 acres
Low-Investment LRT: 1.98 acres
Medium Investment LRT: 2.38 acres
High Investment LRT: 1.51 acres
Bottom Line: High-investment light rail has a lower impact on public park land than any of the BRT options.
Potential Impact on Open Space at Public Schools
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 14.46 acres
Medium-Investment BRT: 10.98 acres
High-Investment BRT: 9.58 acres
Low-Investment LRT: 11.46 acres
Medium Investment LRT: 11.40 acres
High Investment LRT: 9.96 acres
Bottom Line: Most options have a similar impact on open space at public schools, except for Jones Bridge BRT, which is significantly greater. One reason for the Jones Bridge alignment's bigger impact on open space is its seizure of acreage near North Chevy Chase Elementary School - a sore point in the surrounding neighborhood.
Tree Destruction
The DEIS does not compare the number of trees removed under each option. Instead, it says this on page 168:Significant trees with a diameter breast height size of 30 inches or greater or with a diameter that is at least 75 percent of the state champion tree of a given species were not specifically identified within the corridor during this stage of the planning process. However, forested areas and neighborhoods with street trees that appeared to contain a number of significant trees were mapped for identification. The delineation and surveying of these significant trees will occur following the selection of a preferred alternative.
Bottom Line: Tree destruction is one of the Town's central arguments against using the trail for transit, but the DEIS does not deal with it. That is ironic for an analysis that is titled an environmental impact statement. This is classic bureaucratic warfare: dismissing an argument by refusing to acknowledge its existence.
We will continue examining the data in Part Four.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
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.
Monday, January 12, 2009
MTA Declares War on Chevy Chase, Part One
Late last year, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Purple Line. The DEIS is many things. It is a description of multiple alignments and modes proposed for the Purple Line. It is an analysis of costs and benefits for the project. And it is also a Declaration of War on rail opponents in the Town of Chevy Chase.
But first, a bit of background on the project. The Purple Line is a transit project intended to connect Bethesda and New Carrollton. It has gone through various iterations over the years. One of the earliest versions of the line was envisioned as a trolley between Bethesda and Silver Spring. In 1988, the county purchased a rail right-of-way that had been abandoned by CSX for $10.5 million for the purpose of building both a transit line and a hiker-biker trail. The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Master Plan of 1990 stated:Use of the route for transit would provide an alternative to driving on East-West Highway and Jones Bridge Road. It would assist those people who rely primarily on local public transit. The key to attractive, successful transit service is providing reliable, speedy service. The Georgetown Branch provides an existing travel corridor that could readily be adapted for transit use.
Over time, part of the right-of-way evolved into the very popular Capital Crescent Trail. The trail functions as a continuous pedestrian and bike corridor from the Jones Mill Road/Jones Bridge Road intersection through the grounds of the Columbia Country Club, the boundaries of the Town of Chevy Chase, west into Bethesda and beyond. The portion of the right-of-way east of Jones Mill Road has never been finished as a trail and winds through neighborhood streets in Silver Spring. But the finished part of the trail is a treasured community amenity in the areas around Chevy Chase and has created a large, active constituency to protect it.
What does the trail need protecting from? Some see any rail alignment on the trail as a threat to the trail’s viability. As proposals have surfaced over the years to use the right-of-way for both of its original purposes – a rail line with a trail alongside it – some of the trail’s defenders have mobilized in opposition. The Columbia Country Club sees any rail through its grounds as a threat to its golf course and has cooperated with the Ehrlich administration to promote a bus-rapid-transit (BRT) route along Jones Bridge Road as an alternative. Under the O’Malley administration, light rail and bus alignments on the trail and a bus alignment along Jones Bridge Road are being evaluated for the Purple Line.
As the state advanced its planning for the Purple Line, the Town of Chevy Chase financed a study by transportation consultant Sam Schwartz calling for a BRT route on Jones Bridge Road. Many residents of the Town believe a Jones Bridge Road alignment is superior to a trail alignment for the following reasons:
1. In a few places, they believe the right-of-way would be too narrow to safely house both a light rail line and a hiker/biker trail.
2. Construction of a rail line on the trail would involve substantial loss of mature trees and have other negative environmental consequences.
3. Bus lines are cheaper than rail lines.
4. A Jones Bridge Road alignment would connect directly to the Medical Center on Wisconsin Avenue, a facility about to undergo a significant expansion due to the federal government’s BRAC plans.
But as vigorous as Town residents have been in their advocacy, MTA’s DEIS has rejected almost every one of their arguments. While the DEIS does not make an alignment recommendation, MTA’s data stacks up so overwhelmingly against a Jones Bridge BRT alignment that it is difficult to imagine that they will pick the Town’s favored alternative. To illustrate our point, MPW has summoned its crack bureaucratese translation team to reveal the extent to which MTA has shot down the Town’s proposal.
Translation begins in Part Two.
