Seeing the Purple Line by itself (+ a great map)
June 1st, 2007 | by David Daddio | Published in Purple Line, Transportation | 17 Comments
(SEE FULL SIZE – Courtesy of the Washington Post)
The Purple Line continues to make its way into the papers with an article yesterday about the potential for 9 more stops on the transitway (in addition to the 12 already being considered – 4 of which are proposed at existing Metro stops). We’re starting to see that maps like the one to the right (which we produced in January) which are commonly put forth by transit advocates are actually rather deceptive. These maps unintentionally portray the Purple Line as a “Metro Line” when indeed it won’t be operated by the same body that runs the Metro (WMATA) nor will it in any way resemble the existing heavyrail system.
Indeed, the Purple Line has an entirely different purpose than the Metro system because the nature of Light Rail is so fundamentally different than heavy rail. Also, its inter-suburban route contrasts starkly with Metro’s DC commuter orientation. The new map above does a much better job of portraying the true nature of the project: a transitway with several stops in and between suburban communities with increasingly dense centers, but that also interfaces with the metro system, parking and road facilities, the bus system, and the regional trail system. Transit folks call that “multi-modal”, we just call it common sense.
Yes, it’ll have to be accepted that most of the Purple Line will be above ground (that’s the reality of the funding when planners look at the potential ridership), but fortunately the continued refinement of the alternatives is bringing about important changes that will reap tremendous benefits for communities like College Park (such as additional nearby stops). Over the long haul that can mean more transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly infill development like Bethesda, Silver Spring, and our own East Campus.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:56 pm (#)
Though it will not be run by WMATA or be part of the existing Metro system, I would hope that the purple line will take advantage of the existing SmarTrip system for paying fares, and perhaps even integrate itself into the existing metro fare system for ease of use.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 am (#)
It will be run by WMATA! The construction, under WMATA’s new policy, will be managed by the state of Maryland, but the operations will be part of WMATA.
And I disagree with the statement that the nature of light rail is fundamentally different from heavy rail. Light rail technology makes possible a spectrum of designs. The range goes from something that has operational characteristics essentially identical to heavy rail to streetcars that run mixed with auto traffic. Purple Line advocates have always believed that the line should be close to the heavy-rail-like end of the spectrum – running in a dedicated right of way with few or no grade crossings, with a capacity for relatively long trains (three articulated vehicles, equivalent to about 5 of Metrorail’s current vehicles) and very frequent service.
It is perfectly appropriate to show the Purple Line on the Metro map – just as Boston shows its light rail Green Line (which has poorer operational characteristics than the Purple Line will have) on the same map as its heavy rail lines. People in Boston think of the Green Line as part of the “T” just like the Red, Blue, and Orange Lines.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:47 am (#)
It’s not deceptive to me, though, admittedly, I am the author of the future system map pictured above. When I made that map, I intentionally drew the purple line as a narrower line to imply its slightly differing mode of transit. Perhaps that visual nuance is lost on most observers.
I disagree with the statement that the Purple Line won’t “in any way resemble the existing heavyrail system.” This seems to imply that to include the line would be as absurd as mapping the locations of cowbell emporiums on the system map. The Purple Line, though not heavy rail, will still require pre-boarding fare payment, will provide simplified physical transfers at heavy rail stations, and is still mass transit in function. Since there are many more jobs and residents in the suburbs than in DC proper, the new line will, like its heavy rail counterparts, serve commuters and non-commuters alike.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm (#)
How will the above ground Light Rail go west from the Medical Center or Bethesda on toward Tysons Corner?
Build it as heavy rail, underground from New Carrolton to Medical Center with a station in the center of the UMD campus. The job growth, internships, and federal grant opportunities for UMD are going to be at the Medical Center complex.
You can eventually move west from the Medical Center and southeast from New Carrolton moving toward a complete circle around the city with new stations at well thought out locations.
This is no longer a small-time Bethesda to Silver Spring Trolley. It should be built, as all great systems are, with future growth in mind. This scalable new Metro line will dovetail right into the State of Maryland’s new military base realignment issues (Navy Medical, Walter Reed…).
What kind of internships or federal grants can Bethesda offer (law firm receptionist, restaraunt cashier, Starbucks barista)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:37 pm (#)
Light rail is not the same a trolley, “heavy rail” would NEVER be built because it costs too much and there isn’t enough benefit, and you can’t justify a multi-billion dollar heavy rail project based on the convenience of internship opportunities for UMD students (the red line goes there anyway). If you continue to post this garbage without taking into account the real facts behind the project you may be the first person to ever get your comment deleted from this site.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 4th, 2007 at 8:48 am (#)
In the nearly year that we’ve been running this website this was the first comment to ever be deleted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 4th, 2007 at 11:02 am (#)
Cognitive Dissonance hurts the brain don’t it. In all future postings I will make sure not to make you rethink your positions. Rah Rah Go Purple Line (Light Rail). It will be the greatest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 4th, 2007 at 2:02 pm (#)
What is the difference between light and heavy rail?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 5th, 2007 at 1:15 am (#)
Jane Doe,
Heavy rail, like our current Metro, runs along an exclusive right of way, meaning that the trains never run on the streets and never cross them at-grade. You’ll notice that our Metro system always crosses over or under streets, but never crosses at streets. This eliminates unnecessary stops for the trains and allows them to travel at much higher speeds.
Light rail, by contrast, can run with traffic on the street, can run in its own exclusive lane on a street, can roll through its own exclusive tunnel or can roll on its own track at ground level (like an Amtrak train). The draft plan for the Purple Linen currently includes all these configurations for different parts of the line. Since light rail can run across streets and on streets, it has the advantage of not needing all the tunneling and bridging required of heavy rail and so is cheaper to build. The downside is that the service is not as fast and the passengers capacities are not as high.
More money buys a system greater speeds and higher capacities. Whether or not that extra speed and capacity is worth the extra money is completely a question of priorities. Some say it’s worth it, others say it’s not worth it. Alas, as with every political issue for which there is no clear “right” answer, heated debate ensues!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 6th, 2007 at 5:12 pm (#)
The Washington Post map has one error. Silver Spring Avenue does not intersect Flower Avenue. The proposed route will turn onto Piney Branch Rd at Thayer Ave, and then intersect Flower Ave.
The map also does not show is that this proposed route will cross and take an acre from Sligo Creek Park at the intersection of Thayer Ave, and Dale Drive, before Piney Branch Rd. This will destroy over 500 trees and a significant part of remaining green space in Silver Spring. Each tree absorbs hundreds of gallons of runoff water per week. As said earlier, I’m not against the purple line, just the Thayer/Silver Spring Ave. Route. Write your representatives if you agree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 6th, 2007 at 5:37 pm (#)
Parkland is accounted for during the Environmental Impact Statement Process (NEPA) and it is given high priority during the selection of alternative alignments. While the Purple Line may hurt that particular park, the MTA is required by federal law to mitigate effects on any parkland and recreational facilities (including the Capital Crescent Trail). This could include several offsite and onsite mitigation measures including sound barriers, reforestation, and purchase of comparable parkland. Check out the following:
SECTION 4(F) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ACT
Section 4(f) is national policy that helps preserve the U.S natural resources. The U.S Department of Transportation Act of 1966 gave a special provision for this section and stipulates that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will not approve any program or project that requires the “use” of any publicly owned public park, recreation area, wildlife refuge or historic sites unless;
a.) There is “no feasible and prudent alternative to the project,”
b.) The project includes “all possible planning to minimize harm to the project.
Section 4(f) is therefore considered the strongest preservation law at the federal level.
The term “use” does not only refer to the physical utilization of a property but also the indirect effects that would harm the value of protected sites.
Section 4(f) applies to all transportation agencies within the U.S Department of Transportation, which include;
(a) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Funds Highway and bridge projects
(b) Federal Transit Administration
(c) Federal Transit Administration
(d) Coast Guard – Owns and protects many historic lighthouses and has regulatory authority affecting bridges.
Section 4(f) only applies to all publicly owned parks, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. If owned by private institutions and individuals, even if the said areas are open to the public, Section 4(f) does not apply at all. FHWA do encourage the preservation of privately owned lands. However, if a governmental body has a proprietary interest in the land for instance fee ownership, drainage easements or wetland easement, it can be considered “publicly owned” and thus Section 4 (f) applies.
Section 4(f) has been a frequent issue as we litigate our projects and so the following need to be fully documented:
(1) Applicability/non-applicability of Section 4(f)
(2) The coordination efforts with the officials who have jurisdiction over land administration.
(3) Location and design alternatives that shall avoid or minimize harm to the Section 4(f).
(4) All measures to reduce harm, including design and landscaping.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 7th, 2007 at 11:02 am (#)
Oh come on David, what happened to free speech and everyone getting to express their opinions? Anyway, this may be of little concern to some of you, but I have asked before when I see these prospective maps, why does campus need so many stops? There should be one stop in the middle of campus, that’s it. If you can’t walk from your new apartment in East Campus to catch the line at Stamp, or vice versa, you are lazy. This is supposed to be a form of mass transit across county and state lines, but has the potential to be abused as a means for extremely local travel and thus slowed down if not built and used properly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 7th, 2007 at 12:24 pm (#)
There is definitely a tradeoff between too many stops (slow train) and not enough riders. I don’t think they will build all of those, but keep in mind that the train doesn’t actually have to stop if no one presses the button to get off. Also, a light rail station is not very substantial:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jessicajuriga/403645361/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm (#)
So i can understand the reason to build light rail versus heavy rail more economic devolopment, cheaper costs and other stuff like that.
But if you think of it in the long run dosnt it make more since to build a tranprotation system that will work with the other stystems. Like why does virginia get the “silver line” but maryland cant get a purple line. Wouldnt it make much more since to build onto the system so the same kind of trains could be used. We have an amazing metro rail system why add the light rail component
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 12th, 2007 at 11:16 am (#)
I was hoping someone else would comment on this, but I’ll go ahead and do it. Keep in mind that the silver line process was started earlier and although it is “heavy rail” most of it will be above ground (and relatively cheap). Witness the controversy over a tunnel for part of that project at Tysons Corner… The Purple Line is by no means the only light rail being considered in the region. It’s just cheaper, plain and simple, even when taking into account that it has different maintenance requirements than today’s metro.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pm (#)
The Silver Line in Virginia unlike the Purple Line is essentially a Virginia project, although I guess its supposed to stop near the Navy Yard I think in DC. The Purple Line on the other hand is supposedly supposed to be (at least that was my early understanding) a METRO wide project and not exclusive to MD. The Purple Line is (was) supposed to be parallel the Beltway all the way around DC with obvious stops at established stations like Bethesda, Silver Springs, New Carrollton, Branch Ave, Alexandria, Merrifield, etc. As well as potential new stops in Langley Park, UMD, Forrestville, National Harbor, Annandale, Tysons Corner, etc.
This is why I can’t really understand the concept of this seemingly exclusive idea of a Bi-County Transitway with LIGHT RAIL (sic). If Maryland is that shallow, and Virginia that blind that they can’t see the obvious benefits of working together to build a heavy system with many underground miles of tracks to preserve neighborhoods, parks, and help fuel better pedestrian TODs near the Beltway, then this might as well be the Twilight Zone.
I’m NOT AGAINST LIGHT RAIL TRAINS, it is just that a route like this that parallels the Beltway needs to be fast and capable of holding many passengers and should be integrated into the Metro System Rail, sorry WMATA. But, this is not just about a cutesy lil train line, this about 100s of thousands if not millions of potential residents coming to the DC metro in the next 25 years, and the more of them that can be closer to city center with adequate transportation and easy access to amenities….THE BETTER. And I understand, it may? cost more money for heavy rail, but that outweighs building some slow moving trains that barely hold any people, IMHO.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 19th, 2007 at 3:53 pm (#)
My early post said I didn’t think the WMATA should control the Purple Line, I was actually thinking about MARC. Of course the WMATA or Metro should be in charge of the Purple LIne
Like or Dislike:
0 
0