Greater Greater Washington

Development


The other Purple Line fight: Wayne Avenue

While the future of the Georgetown Branch right-of-way through the Town of Chevy Chase has gotten the majority of the attention throughout the planning stages of the Purple Line, there has also been a quieter discussion on Wayne Avenue in eastern Silver Spring. Back in January, the Montgomery County Council endorsed the light rail, medium investment option (PDF) for the Purple Line. That option calls for a dedicated right-of-way on Wayne Avenue east of Downtown Silver Spring. In a recent meeting with Wayne Avenue residents, Purple Line Project Manager Michael Madden addressed concerns and explained to a divided audience why the tunnel option has fewer aggregate benefits and more drawbacks for Wayne Avenue residents.


Photo by photo_zim_8.

There is a faction of Wayne Avenue residents who have taken the stance that any train on Wayne Avenue will disrupt traffic flow. Since motorists could theoretically be inconvenienced, the train must go underground. Also, won't someone think of the noise? How about those awful overhead wires that a Congress from a century ago had the foresight to ban in the L'Enfant City?

There is also a group of Purple Line proponents, the Silver Spring Advocates, who point out that when there is a convenient, efficient transit line, traffic either stagnates or decreases as more people shift to the train. This is similar to what has been experienced in the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor in Arlington.

The main advantage of the tunnel option is it would take the Purple Line transit cars off of already-congested Wayne, proponents said. Under the medium-investment option, the Purple Line would not have dedicated lanes. Left-turn lanes would be added to Wayne to accommodate the light rail.

But Silver Spring resident Adam Daniel said adding a train to Wayne would not make things much worse than they are now.

"Wayne is a street with noisy buses on it," said Daniel, who lives near the Wayne and Dale Drive intersection. "If anything, I would expect it to be a quieter street than it will be decades down the road if there is no mass transit."

Light rail vehicles are also so quiet that the biggest danger in urbanized areas is that people don't hear them coming. One would think that the anti-neighbors would be in favor of a light-rail Purple Line due to its quiet operation. Advocates and Madden elucidated the benefits of the surface rail option:
The surface route calls for a station at the planned site of a proposed Silver Spring Library at Wayne and Fenton Street and a second in downtown Silver Spring, said Michael Madden, the Purple Line project manager. The tunnel option would displace three houses on Wayne and restrict access to three or four others, Madden said.

With a tunnel, it would take 5.4 minutes to get through Silver Spring as opposed to 9 minutes for the surface option. But with the tunnel only bringing stations at the transit center and Manchester Place, the short travel time only benefits those traveling through Silver Spring, not residents along Wayne, said Jonathan Elkind, a Silver Spring resident and chairman of the Silver Spring Advocates, a pro-Purple Line group.

For the Silver Spring portion of the Purple Line, the medium-investment option would cost $179 million and the tunnel option would cost $352 million, according to the study.

In a broader sense, the two opposing points of view also represent different views about the role of intracity rail in urban areas. Using other regions' metros as metaphors, BART would be analogous to the Tunnel option on Wayne Avenue. BART was built as solely a way for commuters from car-dependent places in the suburbs/exurbs to get into job centers in San Francisco and Oakland. It only has 43 stations over 107 miles of total track length. Most of its stations are park-and-rides, similar to Vienna or Greenbelt on our own Metro. It wasn't really designed to serve the dense inner suburban and urban areas it passes through. Similarly, the tunnel through Silver Spring would only have a station at the Silver Spring Transit Center (the existing Metro Red Line station). It wouldn't serve other destinations in Downtown Silver Spring. There would be no increase in the amount of land that is a convenient walk to a train station of some kind. There will be no increase in property values that would lead to an increase in tax revenue. There will be a much smaller reduction in CO2 emissions as more people either drive to the Metro/Purple Line at the Silver Spring Transit Center or never make the switch to transit due to lack of convenience. BART tells a cautionary tale in this respect. Because of the lack of convenience for anything other than suburb/exurb to downtown commuting, it has a little more than 1/3 the average daily ridership of our Metro.

On the other hand, the New York City Subway would be analogous to the surface option for the Purple Line on Wayne Avenue. Within Manhattan and the inner parts of the boroughs, the Subway makes frequent stops, serving many neighborhoods along the way. That makes it less convenient to commute from the end of the lines into Manhattan but that means that more people have convenient access to the system. There are more vibrant, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods. Since there are more people riding the system, more businesses are supported in areas adjacent to the Subway stations. Similarly, the surface option for the Purple Line will have more stations, including one in front of the new Silver Spring Library. Therefore, more people will use the Purple Line since it will conveniently service more destinations, in addition to have more stations closer to where more people live.

Our Metro has been so much more successful that BART, both in ridership and regional cultural significance, because it has more stations in more places that people live and want to go. Our Metro was planned to have a commuter rail aspect to it with its long arms extending to the Beltway (approximately). We are fortunate that its stations along those arms have breathed new life into walkable urban legacy pre-war towns such as Wheaton, Hyattsville, Bethesda, Takoma Park, and Silver Spring. In Arlington, the vision that created the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor demonstrated the value of having more stations that are close together. One Montgomery County Councilmember recently proposed adding another station on the western Red Line. Such a station would build the infrastructure that would plant the seeds for another urban corridor, similar to Rosslyn-Ballston.

The Purple Line is our region's first rail transit project that is designed to serve and transform the inner suburbs exclusively since the streetcars were ripped out in 1961. (In this context, I'm defining the outer car-dependent parts of the District as inner suburban since their urban form is largely identical to Maryland and Virginia inside the Beltway.) How it is designed and constructed will serve as a template for how to build a rail line that connects radial rail lines. The precent that this project will set will address the question of the purpose of such connector lines. Are connector lines for getting people from one radial line to another at the expense of serving people and places in between? Or, are they for getting the people in those in-between places to the radial rail lines/ getting people from the radial lines to the places in between? Finally, what is the proper balance between the needs of those traveling from one end to the other and those traveling only a few stations?

With the exception of the stretch between Bethesda and Silver Spring, which is unique since it has its own right-of-way and will run though low-density residential areas and a large wilderness park, the Purple Line has been planned to do the latter. The decision was made because the project will compete for scarce federal funds. In order to be as competitive as possible, it needs to have very high ridership projections. The planners learned the same lesson that the Bay Area and our region have learned with BART (in its failure) and Metro (in its success): more stations closer together means more people with convenient access, more transit-oriented human-scale walkable urban development, less gasoline consumption, and higher ridership.

At tomorrow's Action Committee for Transit meeting, Madden will present MTA's analyses of the Wayne Avenue tunnel and single-tracking on the Georgetown Branch, two options requested by some neighbors that would have seriously impaired the line's ability to move people. The meeting is Tuesday, June 9th, 7:30 pm at the Silver Spring Center, 8818 Georgia Ave.

Update: The original Gazette story erroneously omitted a word in Adam Daniel's quote, making it sound like he opposed rather than supported light rail. This post has now been updated to reflect the correction in the Gazette.
Cavan Wilk became interested in the physical layout and economic systems of modern human settlements while working on his Master's in Financial Economics. His writing often focuses on the interactions between a place's form, its economic systems, and the experiences of those who live in them. He lives in downtown Silver Spring. 

Comments

Add a comment »

It seems unreasonable to fault BART for failing to achieve objectives for which the system was never designed. It's a commuter railroad, a longer-distance system than MUNI and the busses; of course it does not bring the same benefits as the complementary shorter-distance systems.

Cities need their commuter railroads as a mechanism for tying regions together. These systems, for the most part, predate the automobile era, and any contribution to CO2/miles driven is chiefly a consequence of land-use decisions out in the commuter cities. Garrett Park, a local example, is an eminently walkable community laid out around the B&O commuter rail station.

by David Ramos on Jun 8, 2009 10:37 am • linkreport

I would say that surface rail along Wayne Avenue is more comparable to San Francisco's Muni because, um, it's already above ground. At least, that's what one Wayne Avenue resident I spoke to, who used to live in SF, told JUTP. Or the streetcar lines in suburban Philadelphia, which run along neighborhood streets. I think that kind of comparison especially is beneficial for the people who live along Wayne Avenue because, after the PL is built, most of it will (and should) remain residential in character, save for around the stop in Downtown Silver Spring (at Fenton Street, where the new library is supposed to go.)

The whole Wayne Avenue thing is kind of really, really old hat to me and anyone else who lives/follows news in Silver Spring, but I realize that the Capital Crescent gets more of the headlines.

by dan reed on Jun 8, 2009 11:41 am • linkreport

I don't understand the argument of there being too much traffic on Wayne and therefore we couldn't possibly have the streetcar. Won't the streetcar slow down or discourage it traffic? And with as quiet as this streetcar is supposed to be, won't that be an improvement in the quality of life for those Wayne Avenue residents? To get to a transit oriented future there are going to be some adjustments and headaches, but it's the long term livability and viability that we should be considering (like metro did) instead of constantly band-aiding our way through an ever more congested and polluted future with increasing the paved areas.

by Thayer-D on Jun 8, 2009 11:59 am • linkreport

Why does every rail post here seem to bash BART based on such a superficial understanding of that system? Of the stations I know, 14 stations are in very walkable areas and I'm sure I'm missing a few. While many drive to stations, there are many who also use it without needing a car. Also, some of the non-walkable stations are to airports and sports stadiums. Is this a bad thing?

As Dan Reed noted, it's impossible to talk about mass transit in SF without also mentioning the high ridership of the 70 miles of light rail track in the MUNI system. Note that 70 miles of tracks ALL within fairly urban areas. How much of Metro's tracks are in the urban cores of this area?

by dd on Jun 8, 2009 12:09 pm • linkreport

"its stations along those arms have breathed new life into walkable urban legacy pre-war towns such as Wheaton, Hyattsville, Bethesda, Takoma Park, and Silver Spring."

Excellent point, Cavan. And now some of those folks in those pre-war towns are trying to deny to others the expansion of the mass transit system that has so benefitted them and their towns.

by Mike S. on Jun 8, 2009 1:30 pm • linkreport

Dan and dd, I just want to point out that I'm not bashing BART. It clearly succeeds at the task it was designed for. I just used it as a metaphor for our region. It is fact that it has much lower ridership than our Metro. It is therefore a decent metaphor for the results of a system that has few stations and is designed to go from end to end rather than points in between. I chose it as an example because I figured that it would be better known and cross-checked by the GGW readers. No metaphor is perfect.

by Cavan on Jun 8, 2009 1:55 pm • linkreport

I think the issue is partially that you are trying to use BART as a metaphor, but it is an incorrect metaphor. I think the fact that BART seems to keep being used here for the same flawed metaphor heightens the annoyance.

Even going to BART history, http://bart.gov/about/history/index.aspx it is clear that part of it's original goal was to connect the urban areas of SF and Oakland. This is still a major part of its function and there's the plan of joining in San Jose.

As for the inaccuracy of the rest of your metaphor, some data is at:

http://bart.gov/docs/StationProfileStudy/2008StationProfileReport_web.pdf

The chart on page 8 shows only half the users drove to their station and 30% walked. 74% walk at to their destination (page 11). This is car heavy, but far from a system built around the use of cars.

You can also look at regional maps:

http://www.bart.gov/docs/StationProfileStudy/SystemwideMaps_Regional.pdf

It's clear that a good portion of commuters stay in the easy bay and some even go from SF to Oakland for work.

by dd on Jun 8, 2009 3:18 pm • linkreport

I have to agree with other commenters that the demographics and geography of the bay area are so different that it's hard to compare BART and Metro ridership.

I've never seen a hypothetical plan for a "Metro-like" BART configuration. Perhaps one of your future posts will illustrate your ideas for how BART could have been better designed for much more ridership.

by David desJardins on Jun 8, 2009 4:47 pm • linkreport

Am I the only one who thinks that Adam Daniel's comment actually favors the train? He seems to be saying that Wayne will be a noisier street if we don't build the Purple Line on it.

by David desJardins on Jun 8, 2009 4:49 pm • linkreport

"light rail vehicles are so quiet that their biggest danger in urbanized areas is that people have look out for them since they can't hear them coming."

I agree -- in my experience, it is actually possible for light rail to be much quieter than a metrobus. How about a big Silver Spring field trip to Boston or some other city with light rail?

by The Natural Capital on Jun 8, 2009 11:15 pm • linkreport

The field trip to find light rail is only 35 miles away - Baltimore has light rail.

by Bianchi on Jun 9, 2009 9:30 am • linkreport

I find your analogy between the purple line and the Metrorail system to be completely bogus. The reason that the Metrorail system, and for that matter the NYC Subway, can stop so frequently is that they have dedicated right-of-way between stops. The penalty for stopping at stations frequently is offset by the benefit of not having to stop for anything else. Surface light rail has to stop for all the reasons that regular buses stop: signals, traffic, pedestrians, accidents, emergency vehicles, etc. Mix that with frequent stations and you get a train that goes nowhere fast.

It seems incredible to me that in 2009, when WMATA is finally realizing that limited/skip-stop service is a great thing for a lot of people that can be rolled out cheaply and quickly, we are on the edge of spending billions on a train that is going to get stuck in traffic and stop every 2 blocks.

IMHO, if it's worth 2-billion to build on the surface, spend another billion and put it underground. Otherwise, you don't need to spend billions of dollars to have transit vehicles sit in traffic: we're doing that already.

by Michael on Jun 9, 2009 1:43 pm • linkreport

I said that the questions being asked are how to balance the needs being convenient to as many people as possible vs. making an end to end trip as fast as possible:
Are connector lines for getting people from one radial line to another at the expense of serving people and places in between? Or, are they for getting the people in those in-between places to the radial rail lines/ getting people from the radial lines to the places in between? Finally, what is the proper balance between the needs of those traveling from one end to the other and those traveling only a few stations?
Remember that this project still has to compete for federal funds. The extra billion will make that process much harder. The New Starts process isn't very conducive to starting anything new. Maybe after the Transportation bill is rewritten and we get a New Starts that actually starts new projects we can design a system that is less concerned with immediate ridership.

Finally, the tunnel option would require the demolition of three houses while the surface option requires none.

by Cavan on Jun 9, 2009 2:25 pm • linkreport

Hey, Cavan...

I guess I'm coming from a different place here. Now that Dulles rail is underway and we have learned that No. Virginia spent more money vying for New Starts funding than they'll be getting, it's apparent that New Starts should be renamed Not Starts. (Yes, I've actually spoken with people at WMATA who confirmed my suspicion that the delays incurred in getting the federal $900-million resulted in cost escalations of over $1-billion. Oops!)

Until the we get a new transportation authorization bill, we should just buck up an pay for things ourselves versus waiting for the feds to help out.

If it's worth doing at all, it's worth doing right.

Sorry if I chose your post as a place to vent my growing frustration with the way our transportation funding system works in this region and this country.

The new motto for the Purple Line should be "It's Not Over Until It's Under." Sound familiar? ;-)

by Michael on Jun 9, 2009 2:32 pm • linkreport

Michael, light rail doesn't have to stop for traffic lights. You just have the lights change to suit the trains, rather than the other way around. If you're seriously suggesting that surface light rail is bad because there might be a "pedestrian" standing on the tracks and refusing to move, well, I think that's just sllly.

by David desJardins on Jun 9, 2009 3:22 pm • linkreport

I guess I'm coming from a different place here

Yeah. I'll bet you're a homeowner on Wayne, right?

by David desJardins on Jun 9, 2009 3:23 pm • linkreport

David:

You just have the lights change to suit the trains?

If that were so easy, we'd have TSP working already on the Richmond Highway (REX) and Georgia Avenue (79) WMATA lines. Both routes have tried (and according to several sources within DDOT and WMATA) failed at getting buses to move faster.

And for the record, I live in Ward 1 DC.

by Michael on Jun 9, 2009 3:32 pm • linkreport

Timing lights and installing modern technology is not trivial, but it can be done for a lot less than a billion dollars.

by David desJardins on Jun 9, 2009 3:40 pm • linkreport

From my experience working in transportation/government, I'm learning that there are some things that money can't buy, such as concensus.

It would probably be easier to raise money to tunnel the purple line for its entire length than convince all the parties involved that TSP and transit lanes should be put in place to get the trains moving faster. It takes a lot of time getting all those ducks in a row, and time is money!

Instead, we'll end up with a slow purple line. It's yet another great planning disaster waiting to happen.

by Michael on Jun 9, 2009 3:52 pm • linkreport

Michael,

Unless I'm mistaken, the Purple Line is designed to get the right of way at stop lights. For that matter there are light rails the world over that are extremely functional in the exact circumstances they plan to build the purple line. It's the all or nothing approach you espouse that's going to beget the next "great planning disaster", no alternative to the car.

by Thayer-D on Jun 9, 2009 4:26 pm • linkreport

You are forgetting that S.F. has awesome electric busses and a set of tram lines -- as well as the historically interesting cable cars.

Surface rail is already working in the area. Try taking the tram from BWI to Baltimore. Works fine.

Quit whigning, people who live on Wayne. The NIMBYs want global warming halted, but not at their expense. Sheesh.

Try visiting Munchen or some other euro or Japanese city. Plenty of surface transit as well as subways. Works well.

by tom t on Jun 9, 2009 7:04 pm • linkreport

Many in the neighborhood associations along Wayne Ave. fear just the kind of development you are endorsing. They want fewer stops in Silver Spring and a tunnel under the neighborhood in order to maintain their quiet, residential character. They don't want higher density, outsiders coming in, or increased traffic.

by Miranda B. on Jun 10, 2009 1:17 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or