The Purple Line debate is funny because EVERYONE who is opposed to it seems to have some sort of vested NIMBY interest. They use other arguments against the line, but it always seems to spring from NIMBYism. (Or they're just roads junkies who can't see why we aren't making Sligo Creek Parkway into a six-lane highway.)

Are there any Purple Line opponents who don't live along or near the CCT, on the proposed Thayer/Silver Spring Avenue alignment, or on Wayne Avenue?

From Dr. Gridlock: Most of the Purple Line opponents who write to me are from one of those areas. (I also here from supporters in those areas.) But I also have talked to people who oppose light rail as a concept.

Some favor bus rapid transit over light rail, saying that rail is too expensive for the number of passengers it would carry. Others say the Purple Line would simply take riders away from Metro and Ride On and put them onto a different form of transit.

Indeed, the Purple Line -- which I support -- would not be surrounded by parking lots and garages, the way so many Metro stations are. For riders, the line would draw heavily from people who can walk to stations.

That's fine. The most successful Metro stations are ones like those between Rosslyn and Ballston that are woven into the fabric of walkable communities. Less successful are the ones like Vienna or Shady Grove that are surrounded by asphalt and concrete for parking.

"The most successful Metro stations are ones like those between Rosslyn and Ballston that are woven into the fabric of walkable communities. Less successful are the ones like Vienna or Shady Grove that are surrounded by asphalt and concrete for parking."

Dr. Gridlock, I beg to differ. Stations like Vienna, Shady Grove, Largo and New Carrollton have thousand of parking spaces, all of which are taken by 8AM on weekdays. This doesn't include the commuters who arrive by bus or Kiss and Ride.

I know you're a long-time supporter of the neo-urbanist/smart-growth "walkable communities" communities concept to the point of being pretty much biased, but to say the Metro stations between Rosslyn and Ballston are "more successful" than the stations which carry thousand to/from the end of the line - past those in "walkable communities" is a bit of a stretch.

It is funny, because EVERYONE in support of the Purple Line has a direct or indirect link to developers. Politicians, activists... Check out the Purple Line Now web page on see who is on the board. Chevy Chase Land Company????

The Purple Trolley is a joke.

The reason more people aren't against this lightweight short sighted solution is because they think it will be part of the Metrorail system. As it is curently planned it will dead-end at Bethesda and can never possibly be extended to Virginia.

Good for the NIMBY's at least they have done their homework.

Yes, I'm a neighbor, and yes I'm opposed - at least to the rapid bus line idea. Already I have to deal with crazy drivers who treat the 30mph Jones Bridge Rd like it's the Indy 500 at all hours of day or night, and ZERO police enforcement of the speed limit... now people think it's appropriate to have thousands of buses going 55mph on a street with an elementary school?? I'm all for better transportation options - I'm a commuter too after all - but the bus thing is so scary it defies belief.

But I'm curious that the blog posting suggests bus rapid transit is the least likely outcome - is that really true? On what basis do you say this? And how do those of us who live in the small, aging houses along the proposed BRT route compete with a well-funded effort by the Town of CC to endanger our children rather than touch the precious bike trail/country club?

Let me start by saying that the Purple Line Project is badly thought out and not scalable for the future (either BRT or Light Rail.

With that being said, the buses on Jones Bridge would be MUCH more predictable and less dangerous than the current drivers who are using Jones Bridge's center lane as a high speed passing lane. It is an outrage that the MoCo Police do not enforce the law on Jones Bridge.

By the way, are you sure they you are not a member of ACT (Action Comittee for Transit) working on behalf of the Chevy Chase Land Company? They have been passing out flyers/mailers trying to stop the BRT option. Not because of safety, or efficiency, but because if the BRT heads up Jones Bridge Road Chevy Chase Lake will not be able to be zoned for high density development. All of the money that has been spent by the Chevy Chase Land Company on the Steve Silverman campaign and with payments to ACT will be for naught.

Coalition to Build the Inner Purple Line
Board of Directors

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updated: March 5, 2008

Edward Hall Asher (2003), President of the The Chevy Chase Land Company has also served as President of the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce, as Chairman of the Village of North Chevy Chase, and in a leadership capacity in a variety of other community and business groups (shared seat with Michele Horowitz Cornwell).

Michele Horowitz Cornwell (2003), The Chevy Chase Land Companyhas served on the Executive Committee since 2006 as Coalition Secretary and shares a board seat with Edward Hall Asher.

Are developers not allowed now to have interests in the outcome of major transit planning decisions? I mean, we're letting a country club have an interest in the decision, a club that serves a tiny, tiny percentage of the people whose lives would be positively affected by the Purple Line - why not a developer, whose livelihood is inextricably tied up with land-use policies?

Absolutely developers should be able to do their job. What makes them morally superior to NIMBY's or trail users?

There were over 400 people who were at a rally to save the trail on Saturday 5/31. Most were not NIMBY's, just folks who love the Capital Crescent trail as it exists.

By the way Mr. Schwartz the transportation consultant said that it would be prohibitively expensive to have the Purple Line on the trail and to keep the CCT tunnel open. What if we close the CCT tunnel in the name of profits for the developer, and a kid (or anyone) gets hit while navigating Wisconsin Avenue with their bike, will these development profits be worth it?

The developers don't care about the trail, they don't care about providing cheap transportation, they only care about short term profits. Screw the quality of life issues.

The NIMBY's are at least trying to protect something that is beautiful, free, and open for use by anyone.

savethetrail.org

As matter of fact the ANWAR drilling proponents can use the same argument that Lindemann uses in defense of developers.

"a developer, whose livelihood is inextricably tied up with land-use policies?"

If this isn't going to be a part of Metro, it needs a new name. "Purple Line" sounds like a heavy rail line integrated into the Metro system -- but it isn't.

Why is ANWR an issue here? Energy production in a location supported by the local people, local governments, and caribou, but halted by San Francisco and Massachusetts liberals?

The only NIMBY issue there is that Ted Kennedy opposes wind farms in his own state.

I regularly run on the CCT. I want the Purple Line to be built on it. If the county hadn't acquired that right of way, there might still be freight trains running down it. The right of way was acquired with the express intent of building mass transit on it. This was always coming.

There'll still be a trail there; there would just be trains running every few minutes. If you don't like that, you can go east of Bethesda, where the CCT will remain untouched, or you can go to Rock Creek Park, or to any of the unmatched array of parks that exist for the enjoyment of Montgomery County residents.

The alternative to building the Purple Line is basically 24-7 gridlock on the Beltway between Georgia and 355, and near-24-7 gridlock on East-West Highway between Colesville and 355.

The Purple Line will do nothing to relieve automobile traffic. Even the Pro-Purple Line folks say that.

If you want to lessen traffic do the following in this order.

1. Build the ICC
2. Build the Corridor Cities Transitway
3. Provide more clean fuel burning buses and bus routes where there are currently few.

Lindemann, what is your connection to the developers. Do you run on the CCT to get to your job or meetings with the Chevy Chase Land Co? The ROW was bought for the rails to trails project. It already is a widely used trail so let it be. Go find another part of the country to screw up.

Bruce Adams, who as a member of the County Council cast the
crucial swing vote to build the interim gravel trail that now goes
through Chevy Chase, writes that "Of course the rail won't destroy
the trail. From the very beginning, the plan has been to have the
rail and trail side-by-side between Bethesda and Silver Spring.
For trail supporters to attempt to block the rail line by arguing that
it will destroy the trail is just not playing fair." [Gazette, Feb. 5,
2003]

http://www.innerpurpleline.org/trail.htm

Not an expert on this issue, but it seems disingenuous to suggest the light rail line would not be part of the Metro system. Technically true, perhaps. But it would still connect with the system by stopping at Metro stations in Bethesda and Silver Spring (Red), College Park (Green), and New Carrollton (Orange).

First of all, it is not a trail to begin with. It is a railroad line where the tracks and ties were removed and which was temporarily turned into a "trail."
So it is not a question of turning the trail into rail. It is a question of restoring rail to the rail.

"If you want to lessen traffic do the following in this order.

1. Build the ICC
2. Build the Corridor Cities Transitway
3. Provide more clean fuel burning buses and bus routes where there are currently few."

Apart from the ICC's extremely debatable effect, none of this will help much with lower-county transportation issues. As you'd know if you'd attended the Purple Line meetings, there is a limited amount that can be accomplished by running additional buses along the same routes that currently exist between Bethesda, Silver Spring, College Park, and New Carrolton. Ride-On's 15 bus runs every 4 minutes for part of the morning rush hour - how are we going to improve service along that route by adding more buses?

Those opposed to the Purple Line need to either offer actual transportation solutions or just admit that they don't mind the lower county marinating in gridlock as long as nobody uses the CCT for its original intended purpose.

I wasn't in favor of building the ICC, but if we as a state have decided that taking wetlands and homes to build that thing was a good idea, it's hard to argue that building a rail line on a rail right-of-way that was always intended to be used for mass transit (in addition to its trail purposes) isn't justified.

So 400 people came to the Saturday rally in Bethesda to ask that the CCT not share the old rail corridor with the Purple Line. But who spoke for the over 13,000 people MTA estimates will board the Purple Line every day at Bethesda, who need better transit? And who spoke for all of us who are still waiting for the CCT to be finished to Silver Spring? It is time to finish the trail, and the CCT needs the Purple Line to clear the way through the CSX corridor.

http://www.finishthetrail.org

Wayne Silver Spring Trails,

The Chevy Chase Land Company speaks for you (through ACT) by sending out disinformation with both flyers and mailers.

This Light Rail will NOT remove traffic from 495 as Lindemann suggests. That is complete BS and the type of exageration that the Purple Line folks have used to promote this concept.

If the entire population of Maryland knew all the facts about the Purple Line it would have been voted down long ago just as Steve "Purple Line" Silverman was.

*Cost = Additional Taxes for all MDers
*Traffic Impact = Near Zero
*Users = Extremely Limited, Current Bus Riders
*NOT a Metrorail system, beautifully executed disinformation campaign perpetuated by Joe S. above

Save the $billions for clean fuel buses.

Silver Spring Trails,

Have you heard anything about the feasibilty of keeping the Air Rights tunnel open for trail use? Mr. Schwartz the consultant hired by the town of Chevy Chase said that it would be a huge financial cost to keep the trail open and running through the tunnel.

How are people going to cross Wisconsin Avenue safely on bicycle?

Silver Spring Trails,

Have you heard anything about the feasibilty of keeping the Air Rights tunnel open for trail use? Mr. Schwartz the consultant hired by the town of Chevy Chase said that it would be a huge financial cost to keep the trail open and running through the tunnel.

How are people going to cross Wisconsin Avenue safely on bicycle?

Buses stop at Metro stations and we don't give them Color Line designations.

Sin V.:

The MTA's light-rail "high investement" option keeps the trail in the tunnel, and their website shows a profile of how they would do it. I believe public support can succeed in having the trail stay in the tunnel for the other light-rail options as well. Neither MTA nor Sam Scwhartz has given a cost estimate for keeping the trail in the tunnel, so we can't know what Sam Scwhartz is using to support his assertion.
Note that Sam Scwhartz' report replaced the fence or railing that was on the north side of the trail in the tunnel in the MTA profile with a solid wall to the ceiling. He offers no explanation why he thinks a railing or fence, as proposed by MTA, will not work. He then used this solid wall to support his assertion the trail will be enclosed like a "tomb". In fact in MTA's profile trail users would overlook the Purple Line station platform and north tracks, much like looking down from a balcony.
Other examples like this throughout his report call Sam Scwhartz' objectivity into question.

The fact that the BRT option has been downplayed by the MTA calls the Porcari administration's objectivity into question.

1) Ridership is almost comparative between the two systems - up to 59,000 daily with BRT, up to 68,000 daily with rail.
2) The low and medium BRT alternatives are significantly less costly and more cost-efficient than any of the rail scenarios, important in these tight financial times (for rail advocates counting on federal funding, see #4 below).
3) The high BRT scenario is comparable in cost and ridership with the low rail scenario - but BRT is typically implemented much more quickly than rail, providing faster relief for county citizens requiring, or yearning for, better east-west transit.
4) It is difficult for rail projects to meet federal standards to obtain FTA funding (eg. Dulles rail). After years of planning, there could be a long period of back-and-forth trying - possibly unsuccessfully - to gain federal approval. If the feds reject Purple Line rail, officials could start from scratch to plan an alternative transit system, or could try to fund rail in other ways. People needing east-west transit will suffer during the protracted wait.

"This Light Rail will NOT remove traffic from 495 as Lindemann suggests. That is complete BS and the type of exageration that the Purple Line folks have used to promote this concept."

I make trips on 495 for which I would use the Purple Line were it available. So yes, it will remove some trips from 495.

It's disingenuous to suggest that adding an east-west route won't affect the Beltway. Of course it would. Unless you have some actual evidence you'd like to present.

"1) Ridership is almost comparative between the two systems - up to 59,000 daily with BRT, up to 68,000 daily with rail. "

Rail has 15 percent more riders than BRT! That's not "almost" comparable. That's a significant difference.

"1) Ridership is almost comparative between the two systems - up to 59,000 daily with BRT, up to 68,000 daily with rail. "

"Rail has 15 percent more riders than BRT! That's not "almost" comparable. That's a significant difference."

Is the cost difference 15%. I doubt it.

BRT could be a win/win solution.
*The trail west of Jones Mill Road is saved.
*The state saves money.
*SiverSpringTrails has his connection to the CCT.

The ONLY problem is that Chevy Chase Lake cannot be zoned for higher density development. The developers will not stand for this.

While all of the NIMBYS fight it out on the north side of MD how about starting the Purple Line on the south side of town. I am talking about the right of way already exists on the new Woodrow Wilson bridge. Start on the Purple line from Eisenhower Ave to Branch Ave now then work your way around. The only way to take cars off the Beltway is to have fast efficient transit options that travel along the same path. And for all the people that say heavy rail isnt cost effective please make sure to add in your calculations the "cost" if the Metro did not exist and there were an additional 700,00 commuters on the roads.

Chris,

Excellent idea. The problem is that the system can't be the proposed Purple Line slow-ass Light Rail if it is going to circle the city. It will take all day to travel any significant distance with this trolley system.

We should rename it the "Terrapin Line" in homage to our beloved UM Terps and for the fact that it moves like a turbo charged turtle.

As a current student at U-MD, I think the Purple Line is very necessary to ease access to the University, especially for students. The current Metro station is NOT on campus, but is a five-min. bus ride away. While I'm not saying that the Metro is terribly inconvenient, the Purple Line would provide a shortcut to Silver Spring and Bethesda that would save MoCo student commuters loads of time (myself included).

Obviously I still won't be in school when this line is built, I know it definitely would be a blessing for future Terps. Of course the University Administration (led by our deluded president, Dan Mote) disagrees with the students on the effectiveness of the line, and where on campus it should run. While both student government bodies unanimously (and the MTA) support a central route through the campus with a stop at the Student Union, the adminsistration (who all have reserved spaces on campus and obviously wouldn't ride the Purple Line) advocates an very route that would make the line inconvenient for students.

To all the Conservatives and NIMBYs who oppose the line- move to Virginia. This line WILL be built and you guys can take all your anti-public transportation views down South, where they belong. I'm glad to see Maryland has its priorities straight as far as traffic easement and livability is concerned; Virginia couldn't even get the Silver Line right.

To Sin V:

The Purple Line isn't a "trolley system" you dumba**. Why don't you try taking the Metro between College Park and Bethesda, and see how 'fast' that is? Even if the Purple Line went 15mph on average, it still would be faster than Metro or the I-495 parking lot.

The Purple Line will finally give people a transit line where people can get around MD without having to go into DC first.

There are two problems with BRT on Jones Bridge Road being the "win-win" solution.

First, the BRT has a ridership projection that compares well with light-rail when it is along the CCT alignment into Bethesda. Taking the long way into Bethesda on Jones Bridge Road causes ridership projections to fall.

Second, it is not consistent to assert we must keep transit away from the CCT in Bethesda, and also assert it is fine to have BRT alongside the CCT in Silver Spring. If BRT can co-exist successfully with the CCT east of Jones Mill Road, then it also can co-exist successfully with the CCT west of Jones Mill Road. It is a double standard to "save the trail" in Bethesda while advocating for BRT alongside the trail in Silver Spring.

There are two sides to this, but I would prefer having the CCT alongside the light-rail between Silver Spring and Bethesda that gives the best transit service, over having CCT alongside BRT for just over 1/2 of its length between Bethesda and Silver Spring and then having a transit route with seriously compromised transit service.

Jonathan,

Once you start paying taxes and have move out from under mama's skirt you might become more interested in how public money is spent. Until then, let the tax paying adults work this one out.

jonathan said:

"Even if the Purple Line went 15mph on average, it still would be faster than Metro or the I-495 parking lot."

It is this kind of short-sighted reasoning that is going to stick the State of Maryland with a major ongoing expense that funds a flawed lightweight solution.

What does Jonathan care. He will be back in Jersey running the "Orange Julius" at the mall.

Jonathan,

Sorry I saw that you said you are from Moco. I should have recognized the Takoma Park pautchouli oil stench. Why don't you move to Venezuela you Socialist idiot.

;o)

SilverSpringTrails said:

"If BRT can co-exist successfully with the CCT east of Jones Mill Road, then it also can co-exist successfully with the CCT west of Jones Mill Road. It is a double standard to "save the trail" in Bethesda while advocating for BRT alongside the trail in Silver Spring."

There are no houses on the CCT east of Jones Mill only industrial parks and plenty of graffiti. Why don't you and your neighbors start taking care of your neighborhood rather than trashing some else's.

Harrison Bergeron here we come.

Harrison:
No houses along the future CCT east of Jones Mill Road??

Have you never seen the neighborhoods of Lyttonsville, Rosemary Hills, North Woodside, Woodside, and the apartments in the Silver Spring CBD that line the route of the 2.4 miles of future CCT east of Jones Mill Road?

You need to get out of Chevy Chase more often.

I am sorry I turned around and went back west when I started to see more and more MS13 graffiti markings. :o(

Clean up your neighborhood.

Stating my bias ahead of time: I am for LRT over BRT.

Further, in reading the comments so far I'm struck by a few things:

1) Sin V seems to be delving into personal attacks rather than sticking to his argument about how BRT would be better than LRT.

· Boston does have BRT (called the Silver Line), currently in two parts. They cannot seem to get the tunnel that would bridge these two sections (which is what they want; they aren't considering an at-grade route).
· Seattle, after 20 years of BRT have retrofitted their tunnels for LRT
· Ottawa (Ontario, CAN), after one aborted attempt, and one successful trial attempt, is seeking funding for a new LRT system. This system is replacing in large part the 30+ year BRT system.
· The municipality of York, bordering Toronto (Ont, CAN) opened an extensive BRT system called VIVA. The lynch pin of this system is one heavy-rail extension of the TTC into the city of Vaughn, and a possible (and wanted) extension of the other side of the line north. That is, VIVA is being made to integrate with a future metro extension.
· Metro Rail (Los Angeles) has the successful Orange Line BRT... after being forced by the federal government to abandon building heavy rail do to topographical concerns (methane deposits that made the Red Line slightly dangerous to build). All other lines than Red and Orange are LRT, and the two future projects considered are LRT.

It isn't that BRT *can't* work: both Boston and LA have successful ones, as does Pittsburgh. However, those systems were placed in pre-existing locations due considerations far more serious than a former rail right-of-way. MTA is trying to take a balanced approach knowing it will cause grief.

Besides, even if BRT is successful, you are using either CNG stock or hybrid stock that's still direct pollution, in addition to other buses. From a pondering standpoint: would you really want a trail with bus fumes next to it?

2) I am no developer, I am poor as a collection plate on Saturday... but I do know one thing: rail, unmoveable, non-convertable rail, makes economic sense in a way BRT doesn't. In several of the places I mentioned, BRT does NOT run on dedicated lanes separate from other traffic (in LA and Ottawa, this is not the case; the majority of BRT is on BRT-dedicated guideways). There is a fear that despite the commitment of BRT, one day (as is happening now) the buses can be and are being rerouted. It's a genuine fear.

I have other thoughts, but that's all I'm willing to type for now. Thanks all.

1) Sin V seems to be delving into personal attacks rather than sticking to his argument about how BRT would be better than LRT.

They started it. :o)

In all seriousness. With the limited tax dollars we have at our disposal we need to be very efficient with our expenditures.
I really can't see spending > $2,000,000,000.00 on a system that supplies mass transit to locations that already have mass transit. That is unless it is a far-sighted systemic solution. Heavy Rail that runs right alongside the beltway and connects to the real Metro whenever convenient. It has to be FAST. The Light Rail won't do it.

I'm the poster from yesterday who copped to being a neighbor and opposed to the bus option - I'm laughing at the accusation that I'm somehow a developer in disguise. Alas, just someone who was willing to live on a busy road in exchange for a good school district.

But now of course I'm wondering how many of the other posters are paid contributors, courtesy of some constituency or another. If so, you're probably not going to get reimbursed for your time if you keep indulging in all this name-calling.

And in any case, I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question - the original blog posting states that the Purple Line "almost certainly will be light rail rather than a rapid bus route." DR> GRIDLOCK, PLEASE ANSWER - why do you come to this conclusion? (I'm trying to figure out whether I need to start panicking about the bus thing.)

How are kids at the Elementary School going to be in any danger from the buses. In my mind Jones Bridge Road is about as dangerous as it can get during rush hour. Hopefully any bus drivers would be professionals and follow the laws. Right now it is the wild west on JBR.

Sometimes teachers hold classes in the road you know

"Heavy Rail that runs right alongside the beltway and connects to the real Metro whenever convenient."

So a Metro line connecting...let's see...Grosvenor, Forest Glen, Greenbelt, and New Carrolton, with no stops in between? Who would ride it? Forest Glen is the least-used stop in the whole Metro system, and there's no dense development around any of those places except New Carrolton.

Fast Heavy Rail that runs parallel to the beltway, has its own distinct stops with bus terminal & parking (for those coming from outside the beltway). Stopping at every spoke possible Branch Avenue, Falls Church, Vienna.

We need a systemic solution, not a $2billion bandaid. The Light Rail Tram won't scale. If you are going to build the currently planned Purple Line do it as cheaply as possible so we can one day do it right.

That's why I support BRT. It is the cheapest solution.

You still haven't answered the question of who would actually ride such a transit line. If you haven't noticed, most development around the Beltway is pretty low-density, owing to its easy accessibility via car. So most trips on such a line would involve

1) Car or transit to the line
2) The trip on the line itself
3) A bus to wherever you're actually going

Talk about your costly boondoggles...

They should call it the Purple-Sorta-Line and Sin V and Lindemann should get a room.

Lindemann seems to think that all Maryland citizens, live on the Purple Line route. All can walk and no one lives outside the beltway. Too late for that Ms. Lindemann. The sprawl that is Centreville, Olney, Urbana, Waldorf, Laurel... is irreversible. We just need to provide mass trasit for these folks.

Whats up with the southern side of the state? PG has been fairly quiet regarding transit options. With the recent BRAC realignment coming at Andrews extend the green line to Andrews. Then run the "purple line " Metro style trains, from Andrews with stops at Temple Hills/marlow Heights, Oxon Hill, National Harbor, and across the river linking up to Huntington. To the north connect up at Largo Town center, New Carrollton, Greenbelt. Then work out UMD and the rest of the MoCo mess.

Dr Gridlock some clarification on terms please LRT = Light rail Trolley like/Streetcar system? on dedicated right of way or not?, Heavy Rail= current Metro type rail. BRT = Bus rapid transit, buses running in dedicated lanes?
And this project has already been determined to be either LRT or BRT?? Is that correct?

The Purple Line services areas that already have mass transit.

Metro DC Marylanders that could use mass transit.

Waldorf
Olney
Bowie
Laurel
Upper Marlboro
Clarksburg
Damascus
Urbana

This is just a few of the areas that pay Maryland tax and that will NOT be helped by the Purple Line.

Heavy Rail that circles DC with additional stations connecting to exiting Metro stations when possible. Parking & Bus Depots at each new station.

Those areas will all be helped by the ICC. How many environmentally disastrous boondoggles do we have to build for you people?

The existing mass transit options for east-west travel along the Purple Line route are inadequate, as you'd know if you actually used them.

How will Waldorf or Upper Marlboro be helped by the ICC?

"How will Waldorf or Upper Marlboro be helped by the ICC?"

This one's easy.

I can get from Upper Marlboro to NOVA on the Beltway without the congestion and delays caused by the extra volume from people traveling on the Beltway from Laurel or Columbia to Rockville, Gaithersburg, or Germantown. Saves me the hassle of wasting time and fuel by driving through DC to avoid the Beltway.

Anything else?

Waldorf
Olney
Bowie
Laurel
Upper Marlboro
Clarksburg
Damascus
Urbana

Lindemann, shouldn't these folks have a way to use mass transit if they want it. The Purple Line will just waste money that could be used for a big picture mass transit solution for the entire area.

Once we spend $2billion on the Purple Line Tram that can't be connected to go west from Bethesda, forget it, game over. It won't scale. We will have to scrap it and rebuild for heavy rail someday after our buyers remorse has become unbearable. The Light Rail system can't be ugraded to accomodate for future requirements.

These folks who live outside the beltway will have to drive forever.

Why not build something for the whole region.

As ceefer says at least the ICC will reduce beltway (I495) traffic and have a benefit for all drivers.

The Purple Line will benefit relatively few for such a high price.

Look at the Sierra Club Map. This will NEVER happen if we put in the Purple Line as LIGHT RAIL.

http://www.sierraclub.org/dc/sprawl/images/purple-line-map-large.gif

How will Baltimore be helped by the so-called Purple Line?

Baltimore will help pay for it. That will be the limit of your involvement.

Thanks.

"Look at the Sierra Club Map. This will NEVER happen if we put in the Purple Line as LIGHT RAIL.

http://www.sierraclub.org/dc/sprawl/images/purple-line-map-large.gif"

The Sierra Club map reflects the inner Purple Line alignment, not the circumferential Beltway line you've been arguing for. So are you now arguing that the Purple Line should be built along its presently proposed alignment as heavy rail? I mean, I agree, but that wasn't your position earlier in this thread.

Montgomery County pays for everything the state does in B-more anyway. Keep some of that money at home.

How does the Purple Line help Annapolis? Nothing should be built unless it helps ME!

Great Lindemann, you and I agree on something. Now how can the planned Light Rail form a circumferential line around DC? Whether it be inside the beltway or outside.

The current plan that MTA is promoting cannot go west from Bethesda

It is quite obvious to me from your earlier postings that you couldn't care less about any parts of the DC area other than Montgomery County and Silver Spring / Bethesda area.

It also seems to me that your primary focus is Chevy Chase Lake. What exactly is your relationship with ACT and or the Chevy Chase Land Company.

They are the ones that have kept this boondoggle Purple Line alive all of these years. If it was judged only on its ability to take cars off the road the Purple Line project has the least merit of all Maryland's Transportation projects.

Oh, I forgot, the Purple Line is a social justice program. It is not about relieving traffic.

Let the traffic engineers prioritize the transportation projects not the social activists, developers, or NIMBY's

The people who live north of Shady Grove toward Frederick need help bad. The traffic in that area is beyond description.

Likewise Branch Avenue toward Waldorf/LaPlata, yikes what a mess.

We have to get these people help.

Let the traffic engineers prioritize the transportation projects not the social activists, developers, or NIMBY's

The people who live north of Shady Grove toward Frederick need help bad. The traffic in that area is beyond description.

Likewise Branch Avenue toward Waldorf/LaPlata, yikes what a mess.

We have to get these people help.

But social activists, developers, or NIMBY's are the noisy ones. We wouldn't want these decisions left to people that actually have any idea what they are talking about!

A late colleague of mine, from New York, once said of Metro: "That's what you get when you use tinker toys for a subway".

Calling the LRT a 'toy train' to dismiss it belies the fact that for a lot of places around the world, LRT (light-rail transit) is a feasible and cost-effective option. BRT might be cheaper, but the examples I gave show that cheap in the short term can provide for cost later on.

It is a given that heavy-rail won't be used because the cost is prohibitive the other way, and with the Silver Line to Dulles only now (after ten years of fighting) coming to any fruition, LRT is the compromise answer between a full Metro line, and a BRT line.

And for those who wonder "How does this help ME", consider: if this project is successful as built, regardless of not going further west than Bethesda, then those in Urbana and Waldorf and Olney can push for new lines to be built.

I need to bring up another point. Baltimore has an LRT line (from Towson to Glen Burnie), which works well, was cost efficient and timely. The problem learned from there is don't build on the cheap (they are now double-tracking the entire line; parts of it were single track to save money).

There is an overall transit picture that some who worry about NIMBY aren't seeing.

I ride metro every day from Shady Grove to Brookland. There needs to be more transit options for upcounty residents. Purple line connects areas that are already served by metro. Why spend money to save some people a little time when more transit options are needed for those of us who don't have options already in place. We have no choice but to drive. Scrap purple line as is and move it north to give us a break.