UMD tries another Purple Line route

Transit

by Matt Johnson • May 7, 2010 2:31 pm

As reported yesterday by the UMD Diamondback and Rethink College Park, the University of Maryland has proposed yet another alignment for the Purple Line on campus.

Streetcar and pedestrian at Portland State

Under the title "Purple Line may be built partially underground", the Diamondback reports on a meeting between the campus administration and the University Senate. The author reports that a deal is close to being struck about an underground Purple Line route through campus. According to the Diamondback, the Maryland Transit Administration suggested the subterranean alignment.

Unfortunately, this is inaccurate. I spoke with both Michael Madden, project manager for the Purple Line, and Ann Wylie, UM's Vice President of Administrative Affairs, yesterday. They confirmed that the University requested that the Maryland Transit Administration conduct a study of the feasibility of a new tunneled route. Furthermore, MTA and UM still disagree on the preferred route.

For several years now, the University of Maryland administration has adamantly opposed any surface or aerial rail transit on campus. They have opposed any reasonable alternative, despite large support in the student body for a central route. They have long maintained that an underground placement of the line is the only acceptable alternative.

Transit dollars in the United States are scarce. So for as long as the University has opposed a surface alignment, MTA has called for one. Burying the line across campus would be prohibitively expensive, and without meeting federal cost-effectiveness criteria, the project won't get built.

But the University continues to waste time and resources studying infeasible routes. The new proposal calls for a tunnel running south of the McKeldin Mall, south of Tydings and Francis Scott Key Halls. The map below shows a rough alignment. Neither MTA nor UM were able to provide information about the specific route the tunnel would take.

The locally preferred alternative is shown in purple. The new UM proposal
is in blue, with the tunnel section darker. (larger map)

In regards to this new proposal, "no agreement has been made," said Dr. Ann Wylie, VP of Administrative Affairs.

Michael Madden explained that MTA had studied the tunnel alignment at the request of the University, but the results found that the tunnel was "not viable." Dr. Wylie pointed out that MTA's main objections to tunneling are cost-related. She indicated that the University was looking into funding.

Unfortunately, though, federal cost-effectiveness guidelines don't take into account merely the amount of federal funding, but the entire cost of the project. Even if UMD was able to fund the full additional cost of the tunnel, it could still kill the project.

But there was more to object to in the Diamondback's article than an inaccurate headline and getting the main point wrong. Despite overwhelming support among students, the reporter did not include the sentiments of a single person supportive of the Purple Line, not even a tunneled Purple Line.

The article dwells on the major problems some claim the Purple Line will bring to campus: crime and maimed pedestrians. The article fails to mention a single benefit of the Purple Line.

And to drive her point home, the reporter brings evidence to the table about the destructiveness of rail in a campus environment. Years of disruptive construction were followed by a divided campus and pedestrian fence corrals at the University of Minnesota, she says. The implication is that the "electric train" there has ruined the aesthetic quality and the pedestrian mobility of the campus.

But there's one problem with this argument: Minnesota's Central Corridor, which will link Minneapolis and Saint Paul, hasn't opened yet. In fact, construction only started a few months ago and hasn't even reached the University of Minnesota.

The fact of the matter is that rail can peacefully coexist in campus and urban environments. Streetcars cross a pedestrian plaza at Portland State University and the University of Pennsylvania has several trolley lines nearby.

The University of Maryland will benefit greatly from this investment. Students, faculty, and staff will see improved access to the region. And the elimination of cars from Campus Drive (a part the Purple Line project) will actually improve pedestrian safety in the center of campus.

Of course, the reporter could have a point. In the video below, watch normally orderly Germans flee from a careening tram in Berlin's Alexanderplatz.

Update: the Diamondback has published an updated article.

43 comments — Share	— tags: College Park, FTA, Maryland, Prince George's, Purple Line, transit, UMD

UMD plans to ban all transit from Campus Drive (Apr 27, 2010)
Prince George’s and the Post back light rail Purple Line (Nov 17, 2008)
The Purple Line is cost effective and a great idea, too (Oct 27, 2008)
Racial politics kept College Park Metro far from campus (Dec 4, 2007)
The federally tilted playing field on transportation (Sep 10, 2007)

Comments

I seem to recall that the western (Bethesda-Silver Spring) and eastern (SS - New Carrollton) portions of the line were once separate projects. How practical might it be, at this point, to re-split them so that UM admin intransigence doesn't kill the whole thing?

by Adam S on May 7, 2010 2:39 pm

Woudn't an underground route create even more of those evil "vibrations" that UM seems to be so concerned about?

I'm also interested in the revolutionary procedure that's going to allow them to dig a tunnel under the campus for $23 million.

There's a discussion here about the per-mile cost of tunneling (particularly for light rail projects), and costs generally tend to be much, much, much higher than what the university officials have hinted at.

I'm sorry, but this is NIMBYism at its worst. If buses have traveled this route without incident, there's no reason why light rail would be any worse (and many reasons why it'd be better)

by andrew on May 7, 2010 2:42 pm

Isn't the university part of the state government? Why can't the Maryland legislature just order UMD to follow the most logical and cost-efficient alignment?

by Phil on May 7, 2010 2:57 pm

They want to talk about disruptions during construction, do they now?

Well, I assume any underground portion would be cut-and-cover, since boring would be massively expensive and it looks like the proposed route doesn't go under any buildings.

I'm sure many in the administration were around the DC area while the cut-and-cover portion of the Metro was built. And I doubt the state or the university would be willing to shell out the money necessary for the speed at which those sections of the Metro were built.

Point is, building a tunnel would rip the campus apart for a few years.

by Tim on May 7, 2010 3:10 pm

Ugh, every passing day I'm more and more ashamed to have a UMD diploma. It's one thing for the University to believe in an alternative; it's another thing entirely to promulgate lies.

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt no matter how much I may disagree, but I'm quickly running out of such courtesies with the University, and my knowledge of the English language can only go so far with trying to keep a semi-civil tone when writing comments.

Just to pick on one of many of the University's aggravations, as Tim notes: cut-and-cover is vastly more intrusive than a surface line, and quoting the impacts of construction of the line in Minnesota only reinforces the paradox of this logic.

And then there's the vibration impacts of an underground line as compared to a surface line... and that it's an alignment already shunned by many & now they're making it more expensive... and they don't seem to have the most basic grasp of federal funding formulae... and the students seem to be irrelevant... and the summer everything closure proves no point... and... and... I'm done for now.

Anyone want to help buy a pro-Purple Line brick for the campus? Or any other Penn Staters out there who want to help buy a brick at UMD which says something like "We are Penn State!" ? I'm just in a spiteful mood now.

by Bossi on May 7, 2010 3:21 pm

It looks like they intend to run the rail line on the surface across one of the prettier green spaces on campus -- right across the front lawn, as it were -- and then tunnel under their own chapel. The point seems to be to make it as inconvenient as possible to get from the train to the Student Union and/or Health Center.

by mark on May 7, 2010 3:23 pm

I go to Penn State. I'm on Beaver Ave. right now. I actually love riding CATA to the mall. Would you believe that I live, shop and go out mostly in the downtown part of town, and don't have a car?

by MPC on May 7, 2010 3:25 pm

The Diamondback article reads as though this (presumably) student journalist will have a fine career with FOX or the Washington Post OpEd pages in the future.

FWIW, it might be that the UM administrators drive through their campus every day. If UM is anything like UT, a large portion of the student body is oblivious to anything smaller than a 747 and have not the least concept of roadway, walkway, or roadbed. Within the past two semesters I have twice had students, walking parallel to the roadway on my right (and of course utterly infatuated with their conversation on an iPhone)turn and abruptly step into my car at about the point of the front door. They may be right that their students would fail to recognize or respond to a train.

by Central Texan on May 7, 2010 3:52 pm

@Bossi: As a PSU alum and a UMD alum - I'm with you! @MPC: Isn't State College great? I do hope, though, that you take the bus to the grocery store every once in a while - McLanahan's can get a little heavy on the wallet....

On the Purple Line, well, UMD doesn't seem to have any idea what they're doing with respect to transit or how real students and faculty want to use the campus.

by Chris Seay on May 7, 2010 3:52 pm

McLanahan's can get a little heavy on the wallet....

Plus, I don't trust their meat. Not since I saw them slapping new labels onto expired meat.

by MPC on May 7, 2010 4:17 pm

When you wrote "Streetcars cross a pedestrian plaza at Portland State University and the University of Pennsylvania has several trolley lines nearby." did you mean Penn State, in State College, PA? Because the trolley lines I remember at UPenn (in Philadelphia) are underground on campus and do not come to the surface until they are well away from the heart of the campus. Not far, but definitely off campus. Or at least that's how it was when I went there in the early 80's

by ZZinDC on May 7, 2010 4:32 pm

This administration is odd at UofM. SDSU actually begged and pleaded to get the Green Line run through the center of campus instead of putting it at the edged (even though in this case it actually required a tunnel due to the fact the center of campus sits upon a mesa above the surrounding land.)

They figured it was completely un-useful to everyone if it was in the middle of no where and wouldn't help reduce the parking problems if it was too far away to actually use it to walk to class.

by jmauro on May 7, 2010 4:32 pm

I hate to say this, because I do think a Campus Drive surface alignment is what's right for UMD, but Penn is a bad example for comparison: Penn's trolleys used to go through campus at surface level, but are now in a subway until campus ends around 40th street, because Penn wanted to reunite a campus they felt was divided by the streetcar.

The difference worth mentioning is that campus drive already gets a lot of automobile traffic, and a streetcar would not further divide the campus, whereas the former route through the Penn campus is now a pedestrian only area.

by Lucre on May 7, 2010 4:58 pm

I know the pedestrian fences they speak of in Minneapolis on the U of Minnesota campus. They were put up prior to the train construction ever starting. If the Central Corridor just went away, those fences would still be there. Attributing them to the train is completely disingenuous.

This whole thing is disappointing - misinformation from UMD staff and from the reporter. Regardless of the reason for the misinformation, the result is regrettable.

by Alex B. on May 7, 2010 5:07 pm

The UMD campus is a monument to poor planning---sprawl, US 1, ugly buildings poorly placed, etc. A streetcar could only enhance the campus. As for noise or vibration--I used to teach within sight of the Chicago "L", It was never a big deal.

by Rich on May 7, 2010 7:04 pm

I'll give that teaching is quite a bit different from running sensitive experiments, though both alignments share such proximity to sensitive equipment & per my understanding: mitigation treatments are available where necessary.

by Bossi on May 7, 2010 7:10 pm

As a current Diamondback reporter (not the author of the above story), the inaccuracies are certainly disappointing. But I would like to add something else to the conversation:

In conversations with Ann Wylie last year, I asked her about the possibility of raising donations for an underground line. She said that even if they could get donors to cover the full cost of running the line underground, the MTA wouldn't go for it because of the possibility of a donor suddenly dropping out and imperiling the entire project.

Now it seems the university is looking for extra funding again. Where would the money come from? It seems unlikely that the state would front those tens of millions of dollars just to solve this squabble, even at a discounted rate from Clark Construction. Why push again for an underground line when there's no money for it?

by Carrie W. on May 7, 2010 7:13 pm

Wait, the light rail is supposed to be the cause of the University of Minnesota's divided campus? Really? There's a little bit more significant of a division on that campus. It's called THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

by Joel M. on May 7, 2010 7:56 pm

I lived in San Francisco and was never run over by the market street trolly in all the years I lived there. Here in LA, where the Commuter train runs on the same tracks as the regular train, fences have been put up to keep foolish humans from being run over by 100 ton tonka trains. Seriously, before the fencing went up, pedestrians crossed the tracks without much injury, until some idiot mother and her child ran in the middle of the tracks as the train bore down on them. They didn't survive, but thanks to these poor souls, fencing went up quickly, and with little fanfare. Where's Darwin when you need him?

by Mark Andresen on May 7, 2010 8:43 pm

Was that video an intentional display of irony? Not one person so much as broke stride.

by J. Grybowski on May 7, 2010 9:43 pm

@Grybowski-
Yep, though I'd probably say sarcasm moreso than irony... but as with so many things that's another discussion entirely.

by Bossi on May 7, 2010 9:50 pm

@Carrie W.
The problem is not that a donor would drop out, it's the FTA's cost-effectiveness criteria.

Let's say a project like the Purple Line is right on the edge of the acceptable cost. Just to make up some numbers, let's say the project will cost $100 million.

Of that, the State would be paying $90M and the FTA $10M. Someone, a university, perhaps, says, "let's build one section in a tunnel."

The project increases in this example by $10M, and the university is willing to pay the full cost. This brings the project up to $110M, with the State and others paying $100M and the FTA still paying only $10M.

In this case, the federal share actually decreases as a percentage. But it doesn't matter.

The overall cost of the project is what matters in the cost-effectiveness formula, not just the federal portion. So in the example above, additional costs - even when not paid by the federal government - could jeopardize the entire federal commitment.

That is why MTA is not going to accept a subway alignment.

by Matt Johnson on May 7, 2010 10:34 pm

My favorite kind of NIMBYism is the kind that vehemently opposes nice, pleasant things like light rail for the sake of preserving ugly roads driven on by dangerous cars.

by dan on May 7, 2010 10:47 pm

I can also see a donor dropping out as a problem, Matt. This is the exact reason that Nat Ghandi doesn't want to certify the new DCPS Teacher's contract, as it relies on money generated from private sources - and those sources have attached certain conditions to that money - i.e. that Michelle Rhee remain as Chancellor, regardless of who is Mayor.

In the world of financial projections that rely on some year to year assumptions, that's just not a leap that most public sector entities will be willing to take.

It still wouldn't satisfy the FTA, however - you're absolutely right on that.

by Alex B. on May 7, 2010 11:11 pm

A tunnel for $23M, eh? Sounds like an interesting use of Student Employment. :)

by Craig on May 8, 2010 12:36 am

As a recent graduate, I obviously agree with the rest of the students by fully supporting the Campus Dr alignment which is easily the most convenient. Still, if they can get funding for the tunnel alignment I would support it as well, simply for the sake of being able to end ths years long argument.

One thing I noticed about many of the posts on this site is that they're written by idealists who unrealistically want things done their way and will never compromise. You guys need to get real. Was trashing the author of the Diamondback piece really necessary? Yeah, she didn't gush about every virtue of light rail, but so what? I don't agree with her, but it isn't that big of a deal. It's written for students anyway, not you.

by Bond...James Bond on May 8, 2010 1:39 am

Lots of similarities between this and the Central line at the University of Minnesota. I'd like to point out that a tunnel option was originally the preferred option through the University of Minnesota (east of the river...west of the river has always been a surface alignment in the median of County Rd 122). But as Matt suggested, the FTA cost-effectiveness criteria is what killed the Minnesota tunnel.

by Froggie on May 8, 2010 8:35 am

@bond: Matt could have been a lot harsher on this reporter. The Diamondback has a wide circulation on campus and it's online content spreads far beyond College Park. She wrote a story that confused a lot of people and was almost completely baseless. There can't be an informed public discourse without an informed public.

This isn't about being an idealist, stubborn, or unwilling to compromise. This is about the reality that UMD's continued opposition to the Purple Line in any achievable form (3+ years). The UMD administration's position is tantamount to rejecting the entire 16-mile project. There is no other east-west alignment across campus..... no tunnel, no other road, no other option. They are also ignoring the wishes of ever major student group on campus.

by David Daddio on May 8, 2010 9:47 am

@Bond...James Bond, It's strange that you think the people talking about how the constraints of federal regulations make the tunnel alignment unrealistic are the ones not open to compromise instead of the UM administrators who keep pushing an unacceptable option due to FTA cost-effectiveness.

You seem to be confused about what is actually being discussed here;
1. The project must conform to FTA cost-effectiveness guidelines in order to proceed.
2. The UM administrator quoted is pushing an option that would disqualify the project. Even if the university would find donors for their dream-route it would not conform due to the particular accounting used by the FTA.
3. The people here are arguing that the university should stop being unrealistic and idealistic and work for an option that conforms to FTA cost-effectiveness guidelines.

The idealism and lack of realism you decry isn't on part on the people who support an above ground route, it's on part of the university administration who is unwilling to compromise their pie in the sky version.

by Ernst on May 8, 2010 9:59 am

@ Bond: You haven't hung around here a lot, clearly. You'd know that there is plenty of compromising around.

If the majority of the folks here had their way, there would be at least 10 metro lines, twice the amount of streetcars, direct trains from Richmond to Baltimore twice an hour, bike lanes all over the place, tolls on all major roads into the District and no ICC.

On the other hand, the leadership of UMD wants no purple line.

Now who's the one getting their way by not making compromises?

by Jasper on May 8, 2010 10:14 am

Where is the option of not serving UMD at all. If they can not come up with a damn plan or routing for the lightrail than maybe it should bypass the university

by kk on May 8, 2010 10:26 am

@kk, the University and the constituency of riders it brings are a key part of the MTA ridership estimates. Without it, there is a lot less impetus for the Prince George's County portion of the project and also a need to go back to square one of the planning process.

by David Daddio on May 8, 2010 1:13 pm

Why does nobody ever bring up San Diego State when talking about rail on a campus? Originally the line was going to follow a freeway alignment with a station at the north edge of campus. However, the university ponied up the money to have their station built in a central location UNDERGROUND. It's the only station on the entire Trolley network that is underground. If UMD wants their Purple Line underground, that's the model to follow. Until then, get out of the way and let progress happen!

by Reza on May 8, 2010 1:29 pm

i don't know the particulars of this case, but i will say this -- if someone wanted to build a train line through the middle of one of the main green parts of my old campuses (The University of South Carolina-Aiken) -- holy cow, i'd have an absolute fit. the place is spectacularly beautiful -- there's no way in heck i'd allow anybody to run _any_ motorized thing through there - especially not something as ginormous as a light rail train. no way. i could make an exception for small, slow-moving, NEVs and utility golf cart-type vehicles, but that's it.

any object we're going to put in the vicinity of human beings should be human scale. having a huge light rail line flow through the middle of a campus green space doesn't seem like a great idea to me, but i'm happy to let the UMD folks decide for themselves what they want. hopefully they can at least make the train appear greenish.

also, a smaller streetcar would be preferable to a larger light rail-type traincar.

the other problem with building trains in America is that we're all cowards when it comes to highly-predictable fixed-route modes of transportation, so we build ugly concentration camp-like fences around our train lines, build pedestrian overpass gerbil runs over them, build mugging- and rape-enabling and inducing tunnels underneath them, etc. -- instead of trusting trains to slow the flip down when they're in the vicinity of humans, and maintaining priority for pedestrians and cyclists.

whatever they decide to do, generally speaking, any place should not be sacrificed to the Gods Of Rapid Transit without excellent reason/just cause.

today, the _one_ place we can hope to find some serenity in and near our cities is on the college campuses which are in and near our cities. to take away that simple reprieve from urban inhabitants would be to seriously diminish one of the final vestiges of human dignity in these environments.

by Peter Smith on May 8, 2010 3:44 pm

@Reza,

My understanding of the SDSU case was that the tunnel through campus was both a necessity due to the geography of the area, but it was also actually cheaper than the other alternative that skirted the edge of campus because that land would have required purchase.

So, that's not really a model that can be followed, unless UMD can find a way to make the tunnel option cheaper than Campus Drive.

by Alex B. on May 8, 2010 3:51 pm

@AlexB,

I'm not saying I don't believe you but do you have a link? The Wiki article says something but this article says something else:

"The 4,000-foot SDSU tunnel and underground station Â– an alternative to a cheaper option that would have stopped at the bottom of a steep hill on the campus periphery Â– was "a very visionary and courageous decision," said Paul C. Jablonski, chief executive of Metropolitan Transit. "

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050703/news_lz1n3trolley.html

by Reza on May 8, 2010 9:00 pm

re: SDSU

I'll admit I'm not familiar with the area, but it sounds like the geography necessitated the tunnel as the cheaper alternative. And shifting the alignment to a central location rather than on the periphery would have likely been a big boost to ridership. Both are big wins in the FTA formulae.

by Bossi on May 8, 2010 11:17 pm

What's UMD's leadership smoking? Campus Dr. during rush hour simply does not move. LRT can help alleviate that by providing an alternative means of transit. Close Campus Dr. to private vehicles and the speedup is greater. This will also nearly eliminate electromagnetic interference from spark plugs and the like. UMD's transit hub is in the middle of campus on Campus Dr., do they plan to move that? This hub supports UMD's bus system, a costly undertaking. The Purple Line will replace the Metro shuttle completely at a lower per-passenger cost. It can also reduce demand for other UMD buses, allowing for further savings.

Seriously, what is going on in the minds of UMD's administrators? I can't see the underlying logic. Maybe others can.

by Chuck Coleman on May 9, 2010 2:55 pm

@Reza,

The SDSU tunnel certainly cost more in cash, but it was more cost-effective since it encouraged higher ridership.

The cheap option was to stay in the freeway ROW, which would have had very low ridership. Other, higher ridership alternatives involved purchasing land, which made them less cost-effective.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TTuebU_1CUAJ:www.bdcnetwork.com/article/381111-Big_Tram_on_Campus.php+sdsu+tunnel+light+rail+cost&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Again, this situation doesn't really apply to UMD - the alternative tunnel proposals the administration is offering do not offer any extra ridership. Likewise, the idea of getting a station to serve the central part of campus at SDSU required a tunnel, thanks to the geography of the area - that is also not the case at UMD.

The same thing applied to the proposed tunnel at the University of Minnesota - since the alignment was going to be the same either way (and thus ridership would be more or less the same), the tunnel just added costs and didn't change the effectiveness, thus the FTA axed it.

I wish the FTA's criteria allowed for local governments to add on projects like that to help improve the overall character of a line without changing or harming the overall ridership characteristics of the project, but that's not the way the program is set up. UMD and Maryland need the Feds, thus they have to play by their rules.

by Alex B. on May 9, 2010 3:33 pm

I think I've found the answer to my question from looking at the map. The Campus Dr. alignment also runs on Union Dr., which bisects the large parking lots to the west. Closing off this alignment to private vehicles will reduce access to these parking lots, especially the one to the north. This will be especially hard on sports fans. Moreover, one of the western accesses, Fieldhouse Dr., goes right past the President's house. I don't think he's happy about the prospect of heavy traffic in front of his house.

It looks like the solution UMD has not thought of is to build garages where the south lots are and create (gasp!) green space in the northern lot. The downside is that sports fans will have longer walks. But then, why should only athletes get exercise (calling them student-athletes is all too often derisive of students)?

by Chuck Coleman on May 9, 2010 5:49 pm

What about eminent domain? Works well in politically weak communities.

by Thayer-D on May 10, 2010 7:31 am

@Thayer-D

In Minnesota, the Metropolitan Council had to threaten the use of eminent domain against the University of Minnesota in order to finally come to an agreement about the final details.

by Alex B. on May 10, 2010 7:56 am

@Alex B.... I don't see how the State of Maryland could eminent domain its own property. What it can do is put this UMD president and his future replacement in their proper place: fundraising and cheerleading.... not transit planning.

@Reza interesting with San Diego State. Matt Johnson continues to point out that such a funding model hurts cost-competitiveness. Also what UMD is proposing offers inferior station locations vs. MTA's preferred stop in front of the union. UMD also hasn't shown how it intends to move Shuttle UM routes and the bus hub to their proposed campus purple line stop. Basically Sand Diego St paid more for a better alignment, UMD is proposing to pay more for less.

by David Daddio on May 12, 2010 1:00 am