Transit
Changes mean more Purple Line and trail grade-separation
Maryland's MTA is removing the only grade-crossing between Silver Spring and Bethesda in its plans for the Purple Line. This will improve the experience of trail users on the adjacent Capital Crescent Trail and could improve reliability of the light rail line.
Revised MTA plans for the Lyttonsville area. Click for full map.
Between Silver Spring and Bethesda, the proposed Purple Line will run on an abandoned railroad line. This line has been a bicycle/pedestrian trail for some time, and an improved trail will be included as part of the Purple Line project.
Lyttonsville is an industrial and residential neighborhood near Silver Spring. The area is located north of East-West Highway, between the CSX tracks (MARC Brunswick Line) and Rock Creek. Here, the Purple Line diverges from the active CSX right-of-way to run on the abandoned Georgetown Branch.
The MTA briefed local residents on the new plans at a neighborhood work group meeting last week. Some significant changes have been made to plans in the area. The primary difference is that the future CCT and the Purple Line work yard are flipped in their positions. Now, the CCT is proposed to run along the north side of the Purple Line transit/trail corridor from Rock Creek to the CSX corridor.
One of the major benefits of the Purple Line to trail users will be the inclusion of grade separation at all intersections. Currently, cyclists have to cross traffic 3 intersections and one driveway between Bethesda and the eastern end of the trail in Lyttonsville. Plans had already included adding grade separations at Connecticut Avenue and Jones Mill Road.
With the proposed bridge over the tracks for Stewart Avenue and the closure of the driveway, cyclists and pedestrians will be able to cycle from the Silver Spring Transit Center to Woodmont Avenue in Bethesda without crossing a street.
Other changes are described below:
At Rock Creek, the CCT remains on the north side of the light rail tracks. The prior plans called for the CCT to switch from the north to the south side of the tracks at the Rock Creek trail bridge. The new plan holds the trail on the north side. The trail bridge is simpler since it does not have to twist under the Purple Line bridge.
The access ramp from the CCT down to the Rock Creek Trail would be like before, except that it would be built on the north side of the berm. This access ramp is still under discussion between MTA and M-NCPPC. There are concerns about cost and the impact on the trees on the side of the berm, and a decision could be taken to just continue to use the existing connection on Susanna Lane.
At Grubb Road, a new bridge will carry the access path across the Purple Line tracks to the CCT on the north side. The drawings show a long switchback ramp to provide the elevation needed for the new access bridge. But the access path is roughly along the same alignment as the old Brookville Road bridge that crossed over the B&O tracks here long ago.
The railbed elevation is already well below the elevation the access path has now, and I believe the extent of the switchback ramp shown in the drawing is grossly overstated. When I asked Purple Line project manager Mike Madden about this, he indicated the ramp in the drawing was only conceptual and was not based on any elevation measurements, so it is likely overstated in the drawing.
Along Brookville Road, MTA is proposing an access trail paralleling the main trail. The drawing shows two trails alongside each other along the south side of Brookville Road. The main CCT is the wider trail (to be 12 feet wide) that is next to the Purple Line tracks. It goes under the Lyttonsville Place bridge and under the relocated Stewart Avenue bridge.
The access trail is the narrower trail (to be 8′ wide) that is adjacent to Brookville Road and between Brookville Road and the main CCT. It serves as a Brookville Road sidewalk and also gives access to the main CCT between the Lyttonsville Place and Stewart Ave. bridges. The access trail crosses Lyttonsville Place and Stewart Avenue at-grade at the north end of the bridges.
At the Lyttonsville station, the CCT is on the north side. Under the old plan, the Purple Line tracks and station were on the south side of the rail yard, and the trail was on the south side adjacent to the industrial lots. Under the revised proposal, the trail and Purple Line have been moved to the north side, closer to Brookville road.
Additionally, MTA is considering moving the transit station location further east, closer to Stewart Ave. This would place the station closer to the entrance to the Walter Reed Annex, the area's largest employer.
A bridge at Stewart Avenue, will be constructed. Part of Stewart Avenue will be shifted to line up with the main entrance to the Walter Reed Annex and to have Stewart Avenue cross over the CCT and the Purple Line on a new bridge. The old plan had both the trail and transit crossing Stewart Avenue at-grade. This change would remove the only at-grade roadway crossing on the CCT and Purple Line between Bethesda and Silver Spring, making the rebuilt trail 100% grade separated.
A relocated trail bridge over the CSX tracks. The CCT would cross over the CSX tracks on a new bridge similar to the old plan, but the bridge would be shifted to the north closer to Kansas Avenue. This would not be a significant change for the trail, but does reduce the impact of the Purple Line on Talbot Avenue. Talbot Avenue could remain as a two way street as it is now, and much less r.o.w. would need to be taken from the several homes on Talbot Avenue.
Overall I consider flipping the CCT from the south to the north side to be roughly an even trade for trail users. Access will be slightly more inconvenient from neighborhoods to the south, but easier from the neighborhoods and businesses on the north. The trail will be closer to Brookville Road Much like the lengthy discussion of north versus south in Bethesda/Chevy Chase, your preference will be determined largely by whether you live or work on the north vs. the south side of the corridor. As always, much will depend on the details to be developed during the next design phases.
The MTA comparison of the impacts shows that the overall footprint of the project is little changed through this area. A few feet of r.o.w. would be taken on the north side, but a comparible area is spared on the south side. The notable exceptions are the parking structure for the Purple Line maintenance yard employees that would be built where the car storage lots are now, and the realigned section of Stewart Avenue that would be built where the landscaping stone storage yard is now.
Some residents from neighborhoods on the south side of the project are making claims that the new plan will impact them much more than the older plan. But I don't buy it. The most active part of the project, the Purple Line main track and station, are moved farther from the south side neighborhoods. The storage tracks and maintenance building are only a few feet closer to the south side residences than in the older plan, and still have good separation from the residences.
The parking structure will be closer to the Claridge House high-rise, but will a parking structure used by the approx. 200 employees really be that much worse than the car storage lots and landscaping business lots that are there now? Detailed noise studies have been promised by MTA.
Comments
@ggwash
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
by David K on Sep 21, 2011 3:59 pm • link • report
I believe the current timeline calls for construction to start in 2016.
by Matt Johnson on Sep 21, 2011 4:01 pm • link • report
by David K on Sep 21, 2011 4:10 pm • link • report
by Ben Ross on Sep 21, 2011 4:11 pm • link • report
And next, eliminate the grade crossings along the CSX tracks at Forest Glen Road and at Randolph Road, and add grade-separated pedestrian crossings at Kensington and Garrett Park stations - those are the only ones remaining south of Gaithersburg.
by Frank IBC on Sep 21, 2011 7:56 pm • link • report
Our neighborhood NIMBYs, though, are already complaining about the changes.
by hugo on Sep 21, 2011 7:57 pm • link • report
I agree that the concept of switching of the trail & tracks from south to north of the yard has pluses & minuses, but comes out fairly even. The challenge is in the details. For example, the southern alignment of the trail was next to trees. The northern alignment is between tracks & a road. There doesn't seem to be any space for trees in the plan. That would result in a 1/2 mile stretch of trail with almost no shade. That's much more unpleasant than a single at grade crossing. This could be addressed by shifting everything south 10 ft for more green space. There's space for that in the area, but the sooner the plan is adjusted the better.
One other option the planners mentioned was the possability of roofing the yard. From the perspective of the Purple line quality, that would mean they cars are less worn down from the elements @ night, wouldn't need to be individually cleared of snow on winter mornings & might make a nicer work environment in bad weather. It would also decrease noise & light pollution in the neighborhood (the yard would need 24h lighting). This also would require early planning & budgeting. The new plan, which doesn't include car roads the length of the yard would be better for this. Wide written support for a roof would allay many neighborhood concerns & improve the line. In an ideal world, that roof could even be a green roof. Based on the heights in the area, it might even be possible to make the roof a community plaza, but I recognize that would significantly increase the cost.
My biggest concern is the parking garage. It didn't exist at all in the original design. That garage is the closest thing to houses & will increase disturbances. Do you want a multistory garage suddenly appearing around 200 feet from your home or apartment?
Did the original design not account for employee parking? With requiring such a large garage, are they assuming that almost all employees will drive to work right next to a mass transit stop? This seems like the classic car-centered county/state blunder that Greater Greater Washington rails against. Moving parking north of Brookville Rd (perhaps sharing one of the existing federal or state lots) would, at least, create a buffer between the relocated maintenance building & homes.
Like I said, I’m in this area frequently. The current business at the proposed garage site isn’t exactly scenic, but it’s very low traffic & I’ve never heard any noise from it. Having 200 cars entering & leaving a garage over 3 shifts will be a real change.
The reason they had an at-grade crossing in the old plan is that the only reason cars crossed that road was to get to a parking lots of a few businesses. With the very low car traffic there now, an at-grade crossing would be absolutely no problem for trains & trail users.
The addition of the garage south of the tracks & the subsequent increase in traffic is the sole cause of the added expensive & computer car bridge over the tracks. Building the garage & bridge over the tracks would also mean cyclists & pedestrians would have to go up a ramp to access the station/trail at this location. The current bridge doesn’t even look wide enough for 2-way car traffic & a pedestrian/bike lane.
While I want to see the purple line running ASAP, I think small changes will make it better for everyone in the long run.
by Dan H on Sep 21, 2011 8:16 pm • link • report
In the original plan the Talbot bridge was going to be replaced by an almost identical bridge. There is a lot of politics regarding that bridge & several attempts to improve it. The residents north of the bridge like that it's one-way because that makes sure it does don't bring too many cars through their neighborhood that want to bypass East&West Hwy & 16th st.
For reasons I don't fully understand, the bridge will be longer in the new plan requiring a different design. I strongly urged making it wide enough to have a single car lane & a bike/pedestrian lane since it will become a major access point to the trail. The current plan is still just a car lane so, if you want to see space for safe bike/pedestrian access, give input to the planners!
@hugo, I don't know where you live in the neighborhood but I'm really excited about the trail to downtown Silver Spring. Even if it's not worth catching a train, what used to be a steep & winding walk up East West Hwy will become a fairly flat walk/bike on a trail. This will make it practical for my family to walk to Silver Spring.
by Dan H on Sep 21, 2011 8:55 pm • link • report
Well, a few things. Maintenence yards often have a lot of employee parking because
a) transit isn't running when a lot of heavy LRT maintenence gets done (nighttime or non-peak hours). And there is transit service, but it's often running at very infreuqent headways and with no timed transfers. Very difficult for an operator who may need to get in a 4am to get a LRV out of the yard on time to take transit.
b)a lot of the employees - blue collar ones that work in the yard/etc are not going to be able to live anywhere near the Purple Line - a lot of maintenence workers (working class white ones, in particular) live in Calvert, Anne Arundel, etcetera. Asking them to relocate or hiring new ones is pretty unreasonable.
This is less of an issue for bus operators - where the potential employee pool is often larger - but much more of an issue for light rail - where the labor pool is likely to be much more dispersed. THis is especially true since a lot of the light rail operators may get drawn from area LRT system (ie, Baltimore's), and would be commuting a long distance anyways.
by AA on Sep 21, 2011 9:54 pm • link • report
While some workers won't be able to take a train for one direction, there could be buses. In addition, a non-trivial number of workers could live in walking distance. There are two apartment complexes with low income housing units in easy walking distance. if the LRT drivers are paid better, as you suggest, there are many apartment complexes that fit middle class salaries (at least for now). There's also this magical concept called carpooling. If they wanted to build less parking & incentivize carpools, they could (i.e. 15 close space for cars with at least 3 people & a park by the bus-yard lot if you drive solo)
As per the meeting, the yard is scheduled to have three 8h shifts with 200 employees total (there will be 25 trains stored there overnight). That's probably 75 people during the day time shifts. A multi story garage for 75 people is as if they're assuming almost every one of them will drive solo every day. That is not good urban planning.
by Dan H on Sep 21, 2011 10:15 pm • link • report
There aren't. Look at the existing transit service in that area. Look where most maintenence workers or operators come from. And operating a LRT vehicle is nothing like driving a bus - the labor pool is much more scattered.
You have this idea that LRV maintneence and operations is a easily locatable skill-set. It's not, trust me. Ask anyone at MTA-Maryland.
by AA on Sep 22, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report
A large portion of the night shift employees will be interior train cleaners. Sure that involves some specialized training on how to clean various parts, but it still comes down to knowing how to use a mop and a garbage bag. The maintenance is obviously complex, but people will get trained & there's no reason to assume they can or cannot live somewhere 9 years from now. This is shocking, but with the proper incentives some qualified people might even want to move to be closer to the job.
If we're serious about smart growth, "we should do it this way because this was how it was done" is not a good enough answer for me.
by Dan H on Sep 22, 2011 1:48 pm • link • report
This has nothing to do with smart growth, but has everything to do with access for your workers. A few of the stops simply HAVE to have parking because transit just isnt runnign then. A lot of workers at the Brentwood yard in Metro have no option to get there BUT by driving. Service just isn't running that early, and defnetly not to where they live.
by AA on Sep 22, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report
by Cyrus on Sep 22, 2011 10:46 pm • link • report
From the trail perspective, this is still a cycle AND pedestrian trail with speed limits. I look forward to the police ticketing any bikers who treat it like a highway. In addition, the grade crossing at this location has almost zero traffic since it just connects to a parking lot and would barely require reduced cycling speeds (unless the garage brings significant traffic south of the trail)
The trail still needs a bridge to cross the CSX lines. Unless that is being ramped way up and then down, double-height CSX isn't crossing here. The Talbot bridge would also be a major access point to the trail from my the community south fo the tracks (the only one between the Lyttonsville station & 16th st in the revised plan). Removing that trail access AND car/pedestrian access across the tracks would cause a major firestorm.
At the meeting it was also made extremely clear that Montgomery county values the very few remaining areas south of the Beltway that are zoned industrial. I don't expect that to change any time in the remotely near future so real mixed use north of Brookville isn't on the table.
On the note of Chevy Chase Lake, when they were explaining the land & location criteria for why the yard was selected for this location, it was pointed out that Chevy Chase Lake also met all those criteria. For some strange reason, no one took the idea of putting the yard in Chevy Chase across the street from the gold course seriously.
by Dan H on Sep 22, 2011 11:07 pm • link • report
by Martin on Sep 23, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report
CSX is proposes to run double stack freight cars on the Metropolitan Branch as part of a grander plan to divert freight traffic from clogged West Coast ports and instead use the newly expanded Panama Canal and Port of Baltimore to ship freight. The Metropolitan Branch is the only direct rail line from the Port of Baltimore west. The OML through Patapsco State Park is encumbered with tunnels that cannot be altered. Only two bridges in Montgomery County are affected becuase of insufficient height are the Talbot Bridge and the Humpack Bridge in Washington Grove. Both must eventually be raised or taken down. Either way neither will be able to carry auto traffic regardless of the "politics" of the local neighborhoods. Any new bridge crossing will have to meet standard CSX clearances which will require massive bridge structues, including a massive viaduct towering over Silver Spring, which has not yet been placed in any rendering but will soon.
by Cyrus on Sep 23, 2011 5:27 pm • link • report
I was at the meeting, and don't recall that anyone from MTA stated that Chevy Chase Lake met all the criteria - i think that assessment came from someone in the audience.
In any case, there are two features of these parcels that are very different.
At Lyttonsville, the MTA is prosing to use an approx. 2200 foot long strip of land between Grubb Road and Stewart Avenue that is adjacent to the Purple Line main track for the sidings and maintenance facility. At Chevy Chase Lake, there is only an approx. 900 foot long parcel of land adjacent to the proposed Purple Line main track, on the north side between Conn. Ave. and the east side of the existing supermarket parking lot, that is underdeveloped (and even that assumes taking the supermarket, lumber yard, and most of the small businesses along the east side of Connecticut Ave. as "underdeveloped"). All of the other land in the area is already in use for appartment buildings, office high-rise, or townhomes. I doubt that MTA can fit a similar amount of storage track and maintanance building into that 900 foot long parcel as it can in the 2200 foot long parcel at Lyttonsville.
At Lyttonsville, the sidings and maintenance facility have no adjacent resedential uses on the north side. The WSSC yard and remaining industial uses will provide a buffer on most of the south side. Contrast that with Chevy Chase Lake, were existing residences would be adjacent to the facility on all sides, with very little buffer.
I'm not in the habit of taking sides with Chevy Chase, but one only has to look at aerial views of the two areas to see why the idea of placing the maintenance facility at Chevy Chase Lake is not being taken seriously.
B.T.W., the MTA has scheduled the Chevy Chase Lake station area neighborhood work group meeting for 5 Oct., 7 p.m., at B-CC High School. You can see plans and aerial views for Chevy Chase Lake at that meeting, and if you still think a maintenance yard at Chevy Chase Like is a serious idea then you can try to explain why to MTA and the Chevy Chase neighbors at that meeting.
by Wayne Phyillaier on Sep 23, 2011 9:12 pm • link • report
@Cyrus, I know this is part of the CSX plans, but the current Purple line plans will include a new bridge for the pedestrian/cycle trail to cross over the CSX tracks slightly west of the current Talbot bridge. Perhaps they are planning to make this bridge & the new Talbot bridge high enough to allow double-height freight cars, but it really doesn't look like that from the existing plans without radical changes & possibly even buying some houses in this area. If both the proposed trail bridge & the Talbot bridge disappear, then the trail would end at the CSX lines with absolutely no way to get to downtown silver spring. That's not going to happen.
by Dan H on Sep 23, 2011 10:36 pm • link • report
We do not oppose the purple line. We do not even oppose our community housing these support facilities. However, we were never presented with the expanded vision for the rail yard, now expanding the entire northern border of our neighborhood. We were also never presented with the transposing of the track and trail, which will cut our neighborhood off from easy access and place the trail on the side where there is no neighborhood. The last design concept we were shown placed the entire maintenance shop west of lyttonsville place - tucked behind WSSC (in nobody's back yard). Almost the entire rail yard also was placed in that location, with just a little of it east of Lyttonsville Place.
For those charging Nimbyism - shame on you for insulting this neighborhood. This is a majority minority community of families from humble economic backgrounds that will bear the brunt of negative impacts of the rail yard so you and thousands of others may enjoy the benefits of the Purple Line and expanded trail. Instead of criticizing these concerned neighbors for their efforts, you should join them in fighting for the best design that will bring the least negative impacts to the area.
Finally - the promise of the purple line is smart growth redevelopment. Brookville Road, which not too long ago was a residential area with homes and churches, could be redeveloped into a thriving economic area that would benefit the region and the residents. A noisy, dirty, ugly and pollution-making maintenance shop and rail yard taking all the land would not allow this option, but would further industrialize the area. We invite you to join us in pressing the county to make better use of county-owned land in Lyttonsville to minimize negative impacts to the community.
by Susan B on Oct 5, 2011 3:07 pm • link • report
I'm not sure if you're still tracking this thread. I asked Purple Line planners from MTA if their plans considered double-stack CSX cars at the Talbot Ave bridge and they weren't aware of any CSX plans. Such freight cars at this point would cut off the CCT under the current design.
I decided to contact CSX to get a definitive answer regarding double-stack freight cars under the Talbot Ave bridge. I just got the following reply in the mail:
“You recently contact CSX to request information concerning future plans in your area.
We hope you will understand, but because of security concerns, we cannot disclose the requested information. All public information is available on our website at http://www.csx.com
We apologize for not being able to provide the information you requested, and thank you for contacting CSX.”
It might just be a form response, but I found it to be a bit disconcerting. Their website talks about double-stack cars on other lines, but doesn't mention anything about this one. Where did you see/hear/read that they are planning to put double-stack cars on this line?
by Dan on Oct 17, 2011 9:56 pm • link • report
The Metropolitan Branch is being modified to handle double-stack trains as a part of CSX's National Gateway project. (http://nationalgateway.org/)
In some cases, that means lowering the tracks, rather than raising bridges. There do not appear to be any plans for the Talbot Avenue bridge at present, but those tracks will be handling double-stacks eventually.
by Matt Johnson on Oct 18, 2011 12:18 am • link • report
by Dan on Oct 18, 2011 8:45 am • link • report
Add a Comment