I guess everyone always feels that their area is neglected, but why is the focus always on Montgomery county and other nothern jurisdictions? Southern Maryland is the home to the fastest growing counties in Maryland, and also some of the worst traffic. We have very little in the way of a job base, so most of us commute up to DC, VA, or MC/PG counties. But we have outdated 2 lanes roads ill-equipped to deal with today's traffic. We have ZERO public transportation, save for the commuter buses that must sit in the same traffic I do, thus making them useless for getting to work faster. No HOV, no trains, no interstates or highways without traffic signals. When will Southern Maryland (especially Charles County, which is only 20 miles to DC) get the transportation attention it deserves?

O'Malley being elected means nothing for the Purple Line. You still have to overcome the NIMBYs and their well-paid lawyers.

What we really need is a second bridge across the river on the west side of town, a bit further out from the American Leagion Bridge. We have a huge bottleneck between the 270 corridor and northern VA.

Isn't Fenty for repairing/reopening Klingle Road? That may have significance sooner than Whitehurst.

Besides widening 66 inside the beltway, at least 1 (if not 2) new bridges across the potomac, and getting the "silver" line to dulles deconected from the orange crush--all things that seemingly will never happen regardless of their necessit--there are simple things that can be done to improve things.

1. D.C. could really enforce the no parking/standing rules between 7-9:30am and 4-6:30pm. People standing or cars parked in those lanes cause major congestion.

2. whatever the next road project is, could it not have 15 merges in a one mile stretch? Just think about the roosevelt, 14th street, and memorial bridges. each has like a dozen merges (sometimes across 3 or 4 lanes) right before and right after the bridges. it seems like almost every congestion point is in someway related to merging (or multiple mergings) in short and successive periods.

3. Could someone repair the potholes and other various bumps all around the metro are this winter? These problems really slows up traffic for no reason

4. Could the Blue line be converted to just be a spur (link up) at both ends (largo to stadium armory and springfield to king street) and a shuttle between the pentagon and rosslyn--freeing up the orange and yellow lines from sharing tracks and gumming up the works? Does anyone remember the difference between a single devoted red line and when the red line shared tracks with the green line? Sharing tracks just creates clogs.

5. Not new lines, not new trains, but how about express tracks? This would free up space on existing routes. Some suggested express routes: (1) ORANGE: (a) metro center, rosslyn, west falls church, vienna; (b) metro center, l'enfant, stadium armory, new carrolton; (2) RED: (a) metro center, gallery place, silver spring, glenmont; (b) metro center, tenleytown, grovesnor, shady grove; (3) YELLOW: king street, pentagon, l'enfant, gallery place.

"O'Malley being elected means nothing for the Purple Line. You still have to overcome the NIMBYs and their well-paid lawyers."

That's fine with me.

The Purple is nothing but a feel-good transit advocacy and "smart growth" property values booster project being forced down our throats. It's planned to line the pockets of developers and please transit advocates who just can't get enough of rail. Nobody who lives in the areas affected wants it.

Additionally, the Purple Line will NOT do ANYTHING to relieve traffic congestion in the area. ANYONE who actually DRIVES in that area knows that.

And anyone who thinks it will relieve Beltway congestion is delushional.

And anyone who thinks it will "get people out of their cars and relieve traffic and reduce our dependence on foreign oil" is just plain stupid.

The Purple Line is therefor, a waste of money. Kind of like Dulles rail.

Read my lips :We don't want it! It's not necessary!

I invite those who think the Purple Line and Dulles rail are such great and wonderful solutions, and ESPECIALLY those who think of rail WHENEVER the matter of traffic is raised to to read this link:

http://www.rppi.org/thegreatraildisaster.shtml.

I find it laughable that the same people who complain about "NIMBY's and well-paid lawyers" opposing rail transit readily join the ranks of "NIMBY's and well-paid lawyers" who want to stop roads.

Hypocrite, thy name is rail transit advocate.

Proposing to fund transportation needs through current revenues without raising taxes is hardly stangling. If people feel so strongly about it let them contribute more money voluntarily. Current revenues are enough; remember we have a surplus.

I can say to CEEAF that there are alot of people in SS that want the purple line. Sure there is much debate on which neighborhoods it will go through and whether it will be above ground/underground or bus. But to say now on in those neighborhoods want it. Please, grow up alittle.
Ask any of the people who sit through the 40 minute commute via bus from Silver Spring Metro to Bethesda Metro (a 5 mile trip should not take 40 minutes) There are atleast 4 different bus routes that go between SS and Bethesda not to mention untold number of drivers.
Purple Line is the only way to reasonably expand metro. The hub spoke metro system is to old and out dated.

To DTSS,

I suggest YOU "grow up a little" and accept the fact that "just because" YOU and a few in "SS" want the Purple Line doesn't mean EVERYONE wants it. Read the survey results and show up at the hearings if you don't believe me.

Transit advocates are a hilarious and hypocritical lot. You ALWAYS give MAXIMUM credibilty to road opponents, no matter how few their numbers or how trivial their opposition. But you attempt to marginalize opponents of your precious rail and expect them to shut up and go away quietly.

Just in case you forgot, it's OUR money! EVERYONE will be paying to build this white elephant and we'll be subsidizing it's operation and maintenance FOREVER, WHETHER WE USE IT OR NOT.

Sorry you have a problem with people who don't like your little trolley car project, but that's reality for you. Reality's a stinker, isn't it?

"Ask any of the people who sit through the 40 minute commute via bus from Silver Spring Metro to Bethesda Metro (a 5 mile trip should not take 40 minutes) There are atleast 4 different bus routes that go between SS and Bethesda not to mention untold number of drivers."

They will STILL be caught in "40 minute trips". In case you don't know it, light rail is pretty slow, especially when it runs on existing streets (and slows down the REST of the traffic, thereby exposing the myth of its alleviating congestion).
The only thing that will change is that they will be sitting on a trolley car instead of a bus.

And if you think that "untold number of drivers" are going to ditch their cars and hop onto the Puirple Line trolley, think again. Read the link I posted if think I'm wrong.

"Purple Line is the only way to reasonably expand metro. "

Not so. That's the one-track mind approach. "Got traffic? Build more rail!" is expensive and outdated. Ever hear of BRT? Of course, you MUST have since you're smart enough to know who needs to "grow up a little"! What do you have against BRT except that it's not rail?

"The hub spoke metro system is to old and out dated.""

Agreed. But reverting to a nineteenth-century mode of transport isn't a solution.

Transit advocates, especially rail transit advocates, have an incredible sense of entitlement. They think they are supposed to get what they want just because they want it, to heck with public sentiment or common sense.

In any event, the discussion is academic. Since the moneyed and influential folks in Chevy Chase and Bethesda are against it- they don't want it in their back yards and they won't give up their golf course or bike path, the Purple Line hasn't got much of a chance.

Like I said, reality's a stinker, isn't it?

DTSS,

The best you can hope for is a Purple Line from SS to College Park - the folks in Chevy Chase and Bethesda aren't having it.

Given the areas it WILL serve, I doubt if you'll see much of the upscale neo-urbanist development rail proponents like to promote as "smart growth".

And I ask you again, what's wrong with BRT?

"Proposing to fund transportation needs through current revenues without raising taxes is hardly stangling. If people feel so strongly about it let them contribute more money voluntarily. Current revenues are enough; remember we have a surplus."

Excellent point.

If the transit advocates want rail so badly, then let them pay for it with a "Metro tax". Let's impose a special tax on real estate close to Metro - say within a mile or two.

That shouldn't be much of a burden.
Transit advocates like to brag that proximity to transit boosts property values. Therefor, they'll recoup the cost of the tax when they sell.

After all, drivers pay for nearly 100% of the cost of THEIR commute. Where is it written that transit users are entitled to a nearly-free ride at everyone else's expense?

""What we really need is a second bridge across the river on the west side of town, a bit further out from the American Leagion Bridge. We have a huge bottleneck between the 270 corridor and northern VA."

That's too much like making common sense.

Instead, we have to listen to nonsense about why we need the Purple Line.

And Dulles rail.

Before I keep getting flamed for being "anti transit", let me clarify a few points.

I'm not anti-Metro or anti-transit. I use it myself whenever it makes sense.
What I AM against - EMPATHICALLY - is the single-solution, "one size fits all; Metro is the silver bullet" approach prevalent among many in this region.

Too many of us think of RAIL ONLY when discussing possible solutions to the region's traffic problems. The immediate response when confronting the traffic is always "we need more rail". Roads are demonized and road opponents are given a degree of legitimacy, credibility, and influence that far exceeds their numbers.

Case in point: whenever the Post reports on the planning or progress of a new road, it publishes a counterpoint from at least one of the most vocal road opponents. In effect, the Post is providing road opponents - individuals as well as groups -with free publicity.

This region has engaged in a rail-only transportation policy for over 30 years. It built the nation's second-largest and most costly subway system while it simultaneously canceled most of its planned highway system. Some 1500 lane- miles were scratched - more than in any other major US city - from the planning maps. More than were built.

Some may think that's a good thing. There are those who say neighborhoods were "saved from destruction" when the freeways were canceled. Those folks don't know the whole story. The region's highway system, particularly the DC portion, was one the the most if not THE most sensitive and comprehensive ever designed. Parts of it were designed to tunnel underneath densely-populated and historical areas. That's why the Third Street and E Street tunnels exist and why the eastern portion of I-395 ends at a tunnel under Barney Circle.

Indeed, some portions of Metro construction were more disruptive than many roads ever planned or built in the region.

It's time we admit the rail-only approach has failed miserably to manage our traffic. After building a 108-mile subway, we have the nation's third-worst traffic congestion. No one can make a logical argument that the traffic exists thanks to a lack of transit. Nor can anyone logically argue that simply more transit is the answer.

I realize that would be a tough pill for many in our region to swallow. After 30 years and $14 billion of rail-only, no one - least of all the transit advocates and road opponents - is willing to admit that Metro hasn't met all of our needs after all.

Face it. We need a comprehensive transportation network of BOTH roads and transit, complemented by telecommuting, smarter land-use, and infrastructure enhancement that keeps up with development.

Simply building more rail and allowing fringe groups to block new roads and rail against "sprawl" is no solution. Rail-only is a collosal failure. Thiry years of ever-worsening traffic is proof enough of that.

I enjoy reading comments from the CEEAF who posted at 6:52 pm. The CEEAF who posted earlier, who uses all caps and absolute terms such as "no one" and "always," in a world where I see a lot of gray rather than black and white, and where I know many people face terrible problems far worse than anything we comfortable (spoiled?) city dwellers and surbanites encounter in the DC area of the good old US of A - eh, not so much.

CEEAF, in the "Who's to Blame" thread, posting on Oct. 22 as "no easy answers," I mentioned Robert Caro's outstanding bio of Robert Moses. I saw today that four days later, you posted an interesting response from the perspective of a former New Yorker. I recommend the Moses bio, it's an excellent read.

I recently read Zachary M. Schrag's THE GREAT SOCIETY SUBWAY, which has a pretty detailed account of the transit and bridge and highway debates and battles that roiled the DC area during the 1950s and 1960s. Some of the behind the scenes stuff is pretty unbelievable. I recommend Schrag's book to anyone interested in transit and transportation issues.

Do you (or anyone else) know of any books that give a focus on the mid-20th century DC area transportation battles? I'm always on the lookout for good, solid books on DC history. I've read a few specialized accounts of DC during the 1960s and 1960s (one book focused on specific neighborhoods and the problems of urban renewal after World War II; another had a fascintating account of the Hobson, Cafritz and Boggs families (WASHINGTON CENTURY)) but I don't know of any books that center on the transportation debates. I'm thinking of something as carefully sourced to archival records as Dr. Schrag's subway book is. I'm drawn to books that are scholarly and balanced, not tendententious. While no one gets a chance to go back and have a "do over," I'm fascinated by how those transportation issues played out, way back then. Whichever side we take on various issues now, we're all affected by the choices made then.

What does the claim "the Purple Line will NOT do ANYTHING to relieve traffic congestion in the area. ANYONE who actually DRIVES in that area knows that" actually mean?

Does it mean that no current drivers would prefer to take the train? That's unlikely -- just ask any of the Metro riders who left their cars at home why they are taking the train. They'll tell you that the train is faster and more convenient than their car. I drive the Purple Line route every day and I'd leave my car at home in a flash if there were a Metro line there.

Does it mean that current drivers who switch to the train will be replaced by new drivers? Well, that is possible, but even if that happens it means that more people are reaching their destinations in the same amount of time.

My big question about the Purple Line is, why is the heavy rail option off the table? Ehrlich et al. say that it was already taken off the table by a previous administration... in 1996! But wake up, it's now 2006! Since then, both counties have grown in population and are the homes of many more jobs.

I think it is completely irresponsible to consider bus and light rail, but not to consider heavy rail.

The answer to someone's question "what's wrong with bus rapid transit" is actually very simple. Bus rapid transit is slower than train and can't carry as many people. The whole point of mass transit is to get lots of people from place to place quickly.

CEEAF,

Some of your comments are patently untrue, such as "Nobody who lives in the areas affected wants [Purple Line rail]" or "[Advocates for mass transit] ALWAYS give MAXIMUM credibilty to road opponents." My neighbors and I all want the Purple Line and we live in one of the areas affected. Although we want the Purple Line, we aren't road opponents. Obviously an area needs more roads when more people move into that area.

When someone makes claims that are patently untrue, that is a red flag signaling that that person is grasping at straws and that their case is weak.

I believe that the case against the Purple Line (light OR heavy rail!!) is very weak.

If it weren't so weak, the Ehrlich administration would not have had to cloak its $35 million anti-Purple-Line-rail study as an "environmental" study counting trees. Please! Replacing a row of a few thousand trees with a fast high-capacity commuter train is an environmental no-brainer.

As a Marylander, I am embarrassed that my state government would even think about wasting $35 million on a study designed to derail fast high-capacity mass transit. I am even more embarrassed that my state government called that study "environmental"! What a sham.

Current Driver, I think CEEAF sometimes veers off into hyperbole and exaggeration, making him or her appear like someone who sees the world in absolutes. That's too bad because at other times, CEEAF has some interesting observations.

I think some of the people writing here conflate readers who simply describe their individual experiences with "activists." Saying you personally benefit from transit (or highways) doesn't necessarily mean you begrudge money being spent for other modes of transportation. Unless, of course, you view life as a zero sum game. You can see some of that on an earlier thread at
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2006/10/meetings_on_future_of_roads_an.html
where I posted a late observation about transit and highways this morning. Personally, I just don't get the hostility that underlies some of the postings on this message board. Life is too short, blah blah blah.

Longtime Metro Rider,

You're absolutely right. A lot of CEEAF's observations are very interesting.

For example, CEEAF characterized at-grade light rail as a "little trolley car project" that would be just as slow as BRT.

This is one of the strongest arguments in favor of genuine, Washington Metro heavy rail!

I agree with CEEAF on this point. If our existing Metro lines (that CEEAF already uses) had been designed as light rail, they would carry fewer passengers more slowly.

Current Driver:

"Does it mean that no current drivers would prefer to take the train? That's unlikely -- just ask any of the Metro riders who left their cars at home why they are taking the train. They'll tell you that the train is faster and more convenient than their car. I drive the Purple Line route every day and I'd leave my car at home in a flash if there were a Metro line there."

I think you missed my point.

A light-rail mode is proposed for the Purple Line.

According to many credible studies, the link I posted among them, light rail does not attract sufficient ridrship to significantly impact traffic.

Light rail doesn't get people to "leave their cars"; light rail mainly attracts people who were already taking the bus.

That's a proven fact. Some, especially those enamored with the current light-rail craze (and there are many), might not like hearing it, but it's true.

As for speed, light rail is no faster than a bus, since it runs on streets and is thereby affected by the same factors that affect buses - scheduled stops, traffic congestion, red lights, cross street traffic, drivers making left turns, etc. Therefor , by definition, it can necver be faster than driving. In fact, it could be slower since anyone driving has the option of changing their route.

I grant you a heavy-rail subway can be faster than driving for those who live near a station and only need to use one train.

However, I can tell you from experience that by the time I drive the 9 miles in rush-hour traffic to the nearest Metro station, find a parking space, wait for a train (my station is at the end of the line, therefor the wait is longer), then ride through 17 stops, I can get downtown more quickly if I drive. Even with traffic.

To Longtime Metro rider and current driver.

Please read the link I posted re: rail.

According to the study, light rail just isn't worth it.

They don't like heavy rail either. Neither do I, since I think we have enough of it, but I would agree that heavy rail would be a better alternative, simply because it would attract more riders. Not enough to "clean up" the Beltway in Mont. Co., but a significant number just the same.

Plus, heavy rail would attract development, maybe even some affordable housing, given the demograhics of some parts of the planned service area. However, heavy rail is simply too expensive, and since we've allowed them to bum-rush Dulles rail (a totally unnecessary project, IMO) to the tune of $4 billion (plus operating and maintenance subsidies), we can forget about a heavy rail configuration for the Purple Line. The money just isn't there.

Personally, I think the best bang for the buck would be BRT running on a dedicated lane on a new and improved East-West Highway. Thanks to the NIMBY's, however, it'll never happen.

To Current Driver:

"My neighbors and I all want the Purple Line and we live in one of the areas affected."

OK, but that doesn't mean EVERYONE wants it.

There are those in Bethesda and Chevy Chase who simply don't want it near them. Some in Bethesda and Chevy Chase don't want "certain" people to have easy access to those areas. There are those who feel the Purple Line will damage the Congressional Country Club, which many consider to be historic. Some have concerns about where the stations and their attendant bus stops and traffic would go. And there are some, especially in Silver Spring, who don't want to lose the bike trail. Some (like myself) think it's a waste of scarce money that could be better spent on other alternatives. Doug Duncan's predecesor (I don't recall his name) was elected County Executive partly because he opposed the Purple Line.

"As a Marylander, I am embarrassed that my state government would even think about wasting $35 million on a study designed to derail fast high-capacity mass transit."

The Erlich Administration has dragged its feet because they knew of all of the above. Face it, support for the Purple Line is by no means universal.

And if you read my link, you would see that light-rail is by no means "fast" or "high- capacity".

" Although we want the Purple Line, we aren't road opponents. Obviously an area needs more roads when more people move into that area."

You are one of the very few transit advocates I've ever seen say that. Thanks.

"You are one of the very few transit advocates I've ever seen say that".... That's because I'm not a transit advocate in the lobbyist sense... I'm a car commuter who has a job to get to and shopping and errands that need to be done. There's a big difference!

It sounds like we are on the same page about some things. You did say, "reality is a stinker." Here is what I wish were part of reality, or what I hope reality can hold. But who knows if this stuff can really happen.

- I wish that certain Bethesda/Chevy Chase folks did not want so badly to keep "certain" people (which I guess probably means black and Hispanic people) away from their towns that they are willing to hold up mass transit projects in this congested region. It is morally wrong to make commuters sit in their cars (or in the bus) for extra hours every week, instead of spending that time in their homes with their families, for the sake of keeping Bethesda and Chevy Chase white.

- I hope that a hiker/biker trail can coexist with a train line along the Purple Line route.

- I hope that the train line can be fast and high-capacity, no matter what it takes to make it that way.

- I hope that station locations and attendant bus stops can be found to suit the communities involved.

- On a more detail-oriented note: I hope that the line runs to Bethesda, not Medical Center, because Bethesda has great shopping and restaurants but its traffic and parking are so awful that I avoid driving there like the plague!

"I wish that certain Bethesda/Chevy Chase folks did not want so badly to keep "certain" people (which I guess probably means black and Hispanic people) away from their towns that they are willing to hold up mass transit projects in this congested region.""

Sorry to say it, but we both know that's the basis for their opposition. They mask their true feelings with blather about "concerns about crime/safety"

"It is morally wrong to make commuters sit in their cars (or in the bus) for extra hours every week, instead of spending that time in their homes with their families, for the sake of keeping Bethesda and Chevy Chase white."

I agree. As it is morally wrong to keep people stuck in their cars away from home and family just because a small minority of people don't like roads. That's exactly what the ICC opponents are trying to do, but that's another topic.

"- I hope that a hiker/biker trail can coexist with a train line along the Purple Line route."

I think it could. It could also coexist with improved roads and a BRT route.

"- I hope that the train line can be fast and high-capacity, no matter what it takes to make it that way."

That would take either Metro-style heavy rail or a light-rail on a dedicated, grade-separated right of way, running with 3-4 cars rather than the usual 2. Light rail on the streets or parallel to a bike trail can't go very fast.

And I promise you, if they put it on the street, it will be nothing more than the equivalent of a fancy, expensive bus line.

"- I hope that station locations and attendant bus stops can be found to suit the communities involved."

This will take some ingenuity. Perhaps low-rise or partially underground garages and lots of landscaping.

"- On a more detail-oriented note: I hope that the line runs to Bethesda, not Medical Center, because Bethesda has great shopping and restaurants"

Not to worry: There is an influential Mont. Co. Council member who INSISTS the Purple Line doesn't end at the Medical Center for purely selfish reasons. I don't remember his name, but he lives nearby.

" but its traffic and parking are so awful that I avoid driving there like the plague!"

I agree with you on the traffic. As for parking, there is plently of cheap municipal garage space. DC could learn a lot from Bethesda. And from Silver Spring.

I read the article to which you linked. Naturally, I focused on the part dealing with DC's subway.

The author noted that "Yet Washington lost 22,000 transit commuters in the 1990s even while it gained more than 100,000 jobs." I take that to mean the Washington area, rather than the city. I don't have time to do a lot of research into numbers (I have a real job to do, LOL). But isn't part of the problem the fact that the planners of Metrorail designed a downtown-centric hub and spoke system during a time when that reflected the anticipated travel pattersn? Keep in mind that the planning for Metro began during the late 1950s, some 10 or 15 years after the end of World War II. The number of federal jobs in Washington rose greatly during the New Deal and World War II, with most of them still in the city, rather than places such as Crystal City. (Get There readers may find interesting the early proposals for rail and highways pictured at http://chnm.gmu.edu/metro/plan1.html ) It seems that planners did not anticipate the later concentration of jobs in areas such as the Dulles tech corridor. You can't use Metrorail for door to door commuting if you live in Crofton and have a job near Dulles or Tysons. But if you live in old town Alexandria and work in downtwon DC, Metro is a reasonable option. I tend to think some of the loss of ridership cited by Mr. O'Toole reflects the growth of suburban and exurban job centers. The question is, could that have been anticipated in 1959?

As lucky as most of us are in terms of income and opportunities, and for all the complaints you see on this blog, we probably would agree that most of us are fortunate in our circumstances, there always will be people who rely on public transit. My elderly mother is one, she doesn't drive, and couldn't get around as much as does, if she couldn't use a bus or subway. Other people can't afford a car. Twenty years ago, I used to ride a bus to work and I remember hearing a few fellow riders talk about that being the fourth bus they rode to their jobs (the ones talking seemed to live in Maryland and work in Virginia). I didn't disdain them or view them as fools for not owning cars; I simply was grateful my daily commute was not that long and felt sorry for them that theirs was. We don't hear much from such lower income car less commuters here on this blog; I can't presume to speak for them, except to note that they are out there.

We see the importance of planning in many endeavors when we open our newspapers every morning and scan the headlines. Could all the changes that took place in the DC area in the 1980s and 1990s have been anticipated in the 1950s? Some, perhaps, but not all of them.

First of all, I live in Baltimore so I would probably never use the proposed purple line or the Dulles rail extension. But I think both should be built. In fact, to me, there is no reason Dulles rail shouldn't be extended all the way to Leesburg.

I live at the suburban end of Baltimore's only heavy rail Metro line (yes, it exists - you can look it up) and work downtown at the next-to-last stop at the other end. My wife and I leave the house at virtually the same time, and she works slightly north of downtown in the Mt. Vernon district of Baltimore, but out of walking distance from a subway stop. A trip that takes me 45 minutes door to desk (out the door, park the car, wait for the train, walk to the office) often takes her an hour driving. For my shorter commute, I am rewarded with paying 50% of what I would for parking for a monthly subway pass, filling my gas tank about every 2 1/2 weeks, and a virtually stress-free commute. A rail commute isn't the answer for everyone (it does limit my options for after work entertainment, especially in a city like Baltimore where virtually nothing is connected via public transit), and not everyone lives or works near a convenient stop to make the commute competitive (on a cost and time basis) with driving.

Baltimore has light rail connecting downtown to the airport, but it's not "grade separated" downtown and has to stop for traffic lights and navigate at low speed through pedestrians and traffic, thus making the trip very slow from its connection with the subway. Once it exits downtown the train moves swiftly since it acts like any other rail line. If the purple line is built so it can act like any other rail line (whether as light rail or heavy rail) then it could be a huge success, enabling people who live along the route to access public transit in new ways. Maybe the number of people who commute end to end is low, but commuting along the purple line to connect with another train is still a possibility.

As far as the Dulles rail goes, it's unfathomable to me how one of the largest job/retail centers (Tyson's Corner) in the region isn't connected the rail system. The sheer number of people who work (and, with the new redevelopment, live) in the area make rail transit a must. CEEAF, have you ever been to Tysons Corner? It's impossible to walk from place to place, and driving is horrendous.

And connecting the largest airport to downtown only makes sense. For a city as dynamic as Washington, it should be possible to fly into either airport and take public transit to your downtown hotel. And with all the growth in Loudon County, extending the line to Leesburg should be an option. Traffic is only going to get worse along the Rte. corridor, and rail is one way to help lessen that (another would be to have more jobs close to where people live, but it seems pretty tough to undo 50 years of suburban "planning"). As the old adage goes, you can't pave your way out of traffic. More roads = more cars = more traffic.

Baltimore,

"CEEAF, have you ever been to Tysons Corner? It's impossible to walk from place to place, and driving is horrendous."

Many times. I worked at Freddie Mac for 4 years and lived in Reston for 13.

For the record, I've got no problem with extending Metro to Tysons. I fact, I think it's a good idea.

That said, I'm against rail all the way to Dulles. The need for rail to Dulles isn't there - the projected ridership numbers don't justify the expense. Building rail to Dulles just because some people think it's a nice idea doesn't make it make sense.

We're not building Dulles rail to help traffic. Even its most ardent supporters agree that it won't. We're building Dulles rail because developers will make a killing and because politicians and transit advocates think we absolutely MUST have rail to our "largest airport", common sense and cost be damned.

Let's call Dulles rail exactly what it is -a trophy project and a developers' boondoggle.

"As the old adage goes, you can't pave your way out of traffic. More roads = more cars = more traffic."

That "old adage" is asinine nonsense right out of the car-haters' handbook. I've seen it on more agenda-based websites than I care to remember.

The truth is, you can't RAIL your way out of traffic. The proof of that is that after 30 years of a "rail-only" transportation policy - building and extending Metrorail while canceling freeways - in this region, we have the nation's third-worst traffic. That's a fact no one can dispute.

Here's a fact many rail transit advocates don't like to admit (and hope most people don't know):

Of the 10 worst congested cities in the US, 8 have made a heavy investment in rail. Only one (Houston) built only roads (Houston opened a light-rail line in 2004). Keep in mind only 2 of the 10 are worse off than we are (Source: Texas Transportation Institute).

I don't know about you, but the above-mentioned facts tell me rail doesn't significantly reduce congestion, especially in the dense cities transit advocates prefer.

FYI, most other US cities have far more lane-miles of highway per capita than Metro DC, no rail, and much less congestion. For example, metro Richmond, VA has twice the lane-miles/capita as metro DC, no rail, a fraction of the density, and a fraction of the traffic congestion. Richmond isn't among the top 35, much the top 10, worst-congested cities.

So go around saying "you can't pave your way out of traffic." and "More roads = more cars = more traffic". That nonsense simply is not true.

More of the "rail-only" methodology this region has implemented over the last 30+ years will do nothing to help our traffic congestion. It's a recipe for continued failure.

To be frank, we don't need much more expensive, heavily- subsidized rail, especially at the expense of long-overdue, badly-needed roads. We've already spent $14 billion to build the nation's second-largest subway and the result is the nation's third-worst traffic.

It's about time we admitted we made a mistake thinking Metrorail made our planned highway system unnecessary. Metro has not, does not, and cannot fully meet our transportation needs. It's time we acknowledged that reality and stopped fooling ourselves with the fallacy that more simply rail is all we need.

We need more roads, plain and simple. And until we acknowledge that fact and stopped letting rail advocates dictate the region's transportation policy, today's traffic is as good as it gets.

I posted above about the people who 20 years ago were riding four buses from Maryland to Virginia to reach their jobs. Hopefully the opening of Metro's Green Line has cut down on some of their commuting time. As someone myself who as a child often rode three or four buses to reach various destinations, and remembers when buses and streetcars were the only options for public transportation in DC, I appreciate the faster and easier travel provided by Metro.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/18/AR2006111801189_pf.html
provides some perspective on the life of one man whose job hunt centers on places he can reach by bus or rail.

I don't believe that anyone is saying that "rail-only" is the way to go. Obviously a comprehensive network of well planned and well maintained roads is needed to allow our society to function. That doesn't mean that rail can't be a significant part of any potential solution. You say that all this public transit investment has gotten us only the 3rd worst traffic in the country. The obvious response: imagine if there hadn't been this investment! Let's add those thousands of cars to the road each day and see how long it takes to get to work or the grocery store.

As far as your comparison to Richmond, that doesn't really work because Richmond isn't a comparable city in any sense, which you allude to in the fact that you mention it's lower population and lower density.

A major problem for traffic in the DC region is that there is no one centralized job center. People are just as likely to work downtown as in Rockville, Tysons, Springfield, etc. This means that people are commuting in all directions, and any network of roads has to have maximum capacity going in every direction, not just feeding to/from major employment centers. And, of course, a sky rocketing cost of living forces people to move further and further from where they work, thus putting more cars on the road and discouraging public transit and carpooling.

Rail, roads and land use all must be comprehensively planned in tandem if traffic is to be "solved."

Baltimore,

"I don't believe that anyone is saying that "rail-only" is the way to go."

You would be surprised.

For example, ICC opponents, among them the Audobon Society and the Sierra Club, want to kill the ICC so badly, they are going to sue to have it stopped.

What do they and the Coalition for (what THEY say is) Smarter Growth consider a viable alternative? You guessed it! The Purple Line! Rail!

" Obviously a comprehensive network of well planned and well maintained roads is needed to allow our society to function."

Exactly! That's what I've been advocating on every message board and blog I post to.

"That doesn't mean that rail can't be a significant part of any potential solution."

In this region, it already is. And my position is that we don't need any more. So far, no one has proven me wrong.

The problem I have with rail transit advocates is that there desire for rail is hardly ever based on proven need or on empirical data. It's purely emotional stuff like "it's unfathomable to me how one of the largest job/retail centers ... in the region isn't connected the rail system. The sheer number of people ... in the area make rail transit a must."

" You say that all this public transit investment has gotten us only the 3rd worst traffic in the country."

Actually, it's the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2005.pdf.

" The obvious response: imagine if there hadn't been this investment! ""

The obviously SIMPLISTIC response.

Transit advocates like to exaggerate the impact of rail on traffic congestion, but studies show the impact of rail in the inner-core areas it serves to be small in comparison to its costs. The impact of rail on traffic in outer suburban areas is insiginificant.

Metro carries 30% of commuters and 10% of total daily trips. Considering that many in the inner-core areas of the region that are served bt Metro wouldn't drive even if metro rail didn't exist, you can't make the "imagine if there hadn't been this investment" argument. Especially when you look at the fact that most of the population, job centers, and attendant traffic are in areas not served by Metrorail.

"That doesn't mean that rail can't be a significant part of any potential solution."

In this region, it already is. And my position is that we don't need any more. So far, no one has proven me wrong.

But the problem I have with rail transit advocates is that there desire for rail is hardly ever based on proven need or on empirical data. It's purely emotional stuff like "it's unfathomable to me how one of the largest job/retail centers ... in the region isn't connected the rail system. The sheer number of people ... in the area make rail transit a must."

" You say that all this public transit investment has gotten us only the 3rd worst traffic in the country."

Actually, it's the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2005.pdf.

" The obvious response: imagine if there hadn't been this investment! ""

The obviously SIMPLISTIC response.

Transit advocates like to exaggerate the impact of rail on traffic congestion, but studies show the imspact rail in the inner-core areas it serves to be small in comparison to its costs. We simply don't have the widespread density (maybe that's why smart-growthers are pushing for it).

The impact of rail on suburban areas is insiginificant.

Metro carries 30% of commuters and 10% of total daily trips. Considering that many in the inner-core areas of the region that are served bt Metro wouldn't drive even if metro rail didn't exist, you can't make the "imagine if there hadn't been this investment" argument. Especially when you look at the fact that most of the population, job centers, and attendant traffic are in areas not served by Metrorail.

"Let's add those thousands of cars to the road each day and see how long it takes to get to work or the grocery store."

I expected this argument, but that's enough to justify the huge cost of rail. Those "thousands of cars" would be better accomodated by increased road capacity. Goole the TTI and read their reports.

"As far as your comparison to Richmond, that doesn't really work because Richmond isn't a comparable city in any sense, which you allude to in the fact that you mention it's lower population and lower density."

I get this argument whenever i bring up Richmond.

You missed my point.

The transit advocates like to point to their self-proclaimed "advantages" of density and "futility" of adding to road capacity.

The transit advocates don't like to talk about Richmond because Richmond is the antithesis of their arguments.

The transit advocates NEVER like to discuss the many other cities close in size to metro DC that have a fully built-out road network, NO heavy rail, and far less congestion.

"A major problem for traffic in the DC region is that there is no one centralized job center... This means that people are commuting in all directions,... And, of course, a sky rocketing cost of living forces people to move further and further from where they work, thus putting more cars on the road and discouraging public transit and carpooling."

I would agree with your statement re: growth patterns and the reason for them. That in and of itself doesn't "discourage" public transit and carpooling; it makes them impractical. Transit only works when large numbers of people are going to the same place. Carpooling only works when they are going to the same place at the same time.

I would dare say that reality is the primary problem transit advocates have with suburban growth and development. They don't like it because THEIR preferred means of transport doesn't work in that setting.

"Rail, roads and land use all must be comprehensively planned in tandem if traffic is to be "solved."

Exactly.

But emotionalism like " imagine if there hadn't been this (rail transit)investment" and "That doesn't mean that rail can't be a significant part of any potential solution" doesn't justify the huge outlay in capital expenditures and the perpetual operating/ maintenance subsidies needed to build and maintain rail.

And slogans like "More roads = more cars = more traffic" certainly doesn't make rail a more sensible, useful, or cost-effective alternative than roads.

If we had built the 1500 lane-miles of canceled freeways instead of Metro, we would have spent far less than the $14 billion spent to build Metro, we wouldn't NEED Metro, and we wouldn't be spending the hundreds of million per year in Metro subsidies. You may like it, but it's true.

"Let's add those thousands of cars to the road each day and see how long it takes to get to work or the grocery store."

I expected this argument, but that's enough to justify the huge cost of rail. Those "thousands of cars" would be better accomodated by increased road capacity. Goole the TTI and read their reports.

"As far as your comparison to Richmond, that doesn't really work because Richmond isn't a comparable city in any sense, which you allude to in the fact that you mention it's lower population and lower density."

You missed my point.

Transit advocates like to point to the advantages of density and the futility of adding to road capacity. I think your problem with richmond is that Richmond is thhe antithesis of the transiot advocates' argument".

"A major problem for traffic in the DC region is that there is no one centralized job center. People are just as likely to work downtown as in Rockville, Tysons, Springfield, etc. This means that people are commuting in all directions, and any network of roads has to have maximum capacity going in every direction, not just feeding to/from major employment centers. And, of course, a sky rocketing cost of living forces people to move further and further from where they work, thus putting more cars on the road and discouraging public transit and carpooling."

I would agree with your statement re: growth patterns and the reason for them. That in and of itself doesn't "discourage" public transit and carpooling; it makes them impractical. Transit only works when large numbers of people are going to the same place. Carpooling only works when they are going to the same place at the same time.

I would dare say that reality is the primary problem transit advocates have with suburban growth and development. They don't like it because THEIR preferred means of transport doesn't work in that setting.

"Rail, roads and land use all must be comprehensively planned in tandem if traffic is to be "solved."

Exactly.

But emotionalism like " imagine if there hadn't been this (rail transit)investment" and "That doesn't mean that rail can't be a significant part of any potential solution" doesn't justify the huge outlay in capital expenditures and the perpetual operating/ maintenance subsidies needed to build and maintain rail.

And slogans like "More roads = more cars = more traffic" certainly doesn't make rail a more sensible, useful, or cost-effective alternative than roads.

B'more,

Sorry for the unreadability of the previous message - too much cutting and pasting.

"I don't believe that anyone is saying that "rail-only" is the way to go."

You would be surprised.

For example, ICC opponents, among them the Audobon Society and the Sierra Club, want to kill the ICC so badly, they are going to sue to have it stopped.

What do they and the Coalition for (what THEY say is) Smarter Growth consider a viable alternative? You guessed it! The Purple Line! Rail!

" Obviously a comprehensive network of well planned and well maintained roads is needed to allow our society to function."

Exactly! That's what I've been advocating on every message board and blog I post to.

"That doesn't mean that rail can't be a significant part of any potential solution."

In this region, it already is. And my position is we don't need any more. So far, no one has proven me wrong.

The problem I have with rail transit advocates is their desire for rail is hardly ever based on proven need or on empirical data. It's purely emotional stuff like "it's unfathomable to me how one of the largest job/retail centers ... in the region isn't connected the rail system. The sheer number of people ... in the area make rail transit a must."

" You say that all this public transit investment has gotten us only the 3rd worst traffic in the country."

Actually, it's the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2005.pdf.

" The obvious response: imagine if there hadn't been this investment! ""

That's the obviously SIMPLISTIC response.

Transit advocates like to exaggerate the impact of rail on traffic congestion, but studies show the impact of rail in the inner-core areas it serves to be small in comparison to its costs. The impact of mass transit on traffic in outer suburban areas is insiginificant.

Metro carries 30% of commuters and 10% of total daily trips. Considering that many in the inner-core areas of the region that are served bt Metro wouldn't drive even if metro rail didn't exist, you can't make the "imagine if there hadn't been this investment" argument. Especially when you look at the fact that most of the population, job centers, and attendant traffic are in areas not served by Metrorail.

"Let's add those thousands of cars to the road each day and see how long it takes to get to work or the grocery store."

If we had built the 1500 lane-miles of canceled freeways instead of building Metro, we would have spent far less than the $14 billion spent to build Metro, congestion would be lots better, we wouldn't NEED Metro, and we wouldn't be spending the hundreds of million per year in Metro subsidies. You may like it, but it's true.

"As far as your comparison to Richmond, that doesn't really work because Richmond isn't a comparable city in any sense, which you allude to in the fact that you mention it's lower population and lower density."

I get this argument whenever I bring up Richmond.

The transit advocates like to point to their self-proclaimed "advantages" of density and "futility" of adding to road capacity. They don't like to talk about Richmond because Richmond is the antithesis of their arguments. And they NEVER like to discuss the many other cities close in size to metro DC that have a fully built-out road network, NO heavy rail, and far less congestion for the same reason.

"A major problem for traffic in the DC region is that there is no one centralized job center... This means that people are commuting in all directions,... And, of course, a sky rocketing cost of living forces people to move further and further from where they work, thus putting more cars on the road and discouraging public transit and carpooling."

I would agree with your statement re: growth patterns and the reason for them. That in and of itself doesn't "discourage" public transit and carpooling; it makes them impractical. Transit only works when large numbers of people are going to the same place. Carpooling only works when they are going to the same place at the same time.

I would dare say that reality is the primary problem many transit advocates (as well as smart-growthers and environmentalists) have with suburban growth and development. They don't like it because THEIR preferred means of transport doesn't work in that setting.

"Rail, roads and land use all must be comprehensively planned in tandem if traffic is to be "solved."

Exactly.

But emotionalism like " imagine if there hadn't been this (rail transit)investment" and "That doesn't mean that rail can't be a significant part of any potential solution" doesn't justify the huge outlay in capital expenditures and the perpetual operating/ maintenance subsidies needed to build and maintain rail.

And slogans like "More roads = more cars = more traffic" certainly don't make rail a more sensible, useful, or cost-effective alternative than roads.