We have described before why we think the Campus Drive Alignment (purple above) is the best location for the Purple Line in College Park. However, some campus leaders have continued to advocate for an alternative, “Stadium Drive” alignment.
Today we launch a petition in support of the Campus Drive Alignment. Please add your name if you agree.
Tonight’s Purple Line open house in College Park has been postponed. In order to get late-breaking news like this please sign up to our announcement email list - scroll down on the right to find the space to leave your address.
Tonight’s Open House at the College Park Municipal Center has been postponed due to inclement weather. We are rescheduling the meeting for Wednesday December 19th, 5-8:30 PM, at the same location.
Sorry for the inconvenience, we hope to see you on the 19th, or at one of our other locations. For more details, see our website www.purplelinemd.com
The thousands of University of Maryland students, faculty, and staff who use Metro often wonder why the College Park Metro Station is located inconveniently far away from campus. A 1994 graduate study (PDF, 15 MB) led by Urban Studies and Planning Professor William Hanna came to the conclusion that during the Metro’s planning stages in the early 1970s, then-President Wilson Homer Elkins virtually ignored the alignment discussions and tacitly discouraged alignments that were too convenient to campus. The report asserted that Elkins’s lack of enthusiasm for Metro resulted from his uneasiness with metropolitan Washington and is linked with his lack of enthusiasm for racial integration.
Students, faculty, and staff often dread the long bus ride to the Metro station and wonder why it is so far away. The Maryland Department of Transportation (DOT) actually considered several different station locations for College Park, including one under Route 1 at the Ritchie Coliseum and one on campus near what is now the Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center. However, as the current controversy over the Purple Line shows, political realities often force governments to compromise the convenience of public transit to appease oppositional constituencies—such is the nature of democracy. For different reasons, each alignment for the Green Line upset a different constituency in the surrounding neighborhoods. The default alignment included the current location of the station and though the Maryland DOT was actively considering alternatives that would be closer to campus the then-Administration remained publicly silent on advocating a closer location, leaving the debate to various NIMBY groups.
In fact, Maryland’s Secretary of Transportation at the time noted the current location’s “poor service to the University” and referred to his department’s ridership numbers that estimated the number of people that would board at each proposed station location. Obviously, the more convenient a station is to where people live and want to go, the higher the ridership. DOT’s damning conclusion shows that the public and then-President Elkins knew that the current station would be the least-used possible location for a Metro station in College Park:
We can never know for certain why Elkins failed to advocate one of the several proposed campus stations, even though such a decision would prove crucially important to the University’s future. Though these campus locations were shown to be more convenient and more popular among riders, the Hanna report asserted that convenience of transit was not Elkins’s priority at the time. The report suggested that racial animus (or at least ambivalence) subtly motivated the Elkins administration regarding enrollment and even regarding Metro planning decisions. On the matter of race, the report states:
There was never a George Wallace blocking the entry for African-Americans to the College Park campus. However, it is clear that during the years of Metro decisionmaking, there was no welcome mat. A distinguished [and unnamed] campus historian put it this way: “President Elkins didn’t want undesirable elements on campus, which [to him] meant black people from Washington.” Our research clearly indicates that some campus officials and others feared that a Metro link between the District and College Park would make it easier for African-Americans to come to campus. That result was contrary to the political will of the campus at the time. (PDF pp 54-5)
The report furthers discussed the fact that in 1973, though the Administration officially opposed racial segregation, “a federal civil rights agency conducted an evaluation of Maryland’s efforts, concluding that little had been done to foster [racial] integration.” (PDF p. 55)
The report links Elkins’s lack of support for a convenient station with a fear of racial conflict. The proposed Green Line would link College Park with places such as Columbia Heights and U Street, which had recently burned in the civil disorder that followed Martin Luther King’s assassination in April 1968. The report posited another cultural motivation for the Administration beyond that of race. The University of Maryland serves the entire state of Maryland, but is situated in the Washington metropolitan area. The University’s rural, agricultural roots, the report asserted, contended with the University’s suburban metropolitan location:
Metro was seen as a threat to the non-urban character of the campus, and especially to the separation of the campus from urban ways and people. It is, therefore, easy to understand that a source of further stress and disruption was unwelcome. Only with the arrival of President John Toll, who grew up in Washington metropolitan area, did the position of the campus change. (PDF p. 58)
Indeed, how times have changed. The University of Maryland now graduates more African Americans than does any other top-25 public university in the nation. Furthermore, the University’s recruitment efforts these days often tout the proximity of Washington as a benefit of attending Maryland and the current Administration voices its support for better connecting the campus with the rest of the region through the Purple Line.
Though the Administration now supports the Purple Line, President Mote opposes the Maryland DOT’s current alignment for a light rail station in front of the Stamp Student Union. He is urging the state to change course and head for Stadium Drive instead. Mote fears that the line would degrade the currently worn down state of Campus Drive, even though any Purple Line construction would bring millions of dollars in streetscape improvements. His opposition is also based on a fear that a light rail train will cause damaging vibrations to nearby scientific equipment, even though modern light rail vehicles are quieter (and most likely produce less vibrations) than our current noisy diesel Shuttle UM buses. President Mote also states the unwarranted fear that train drivers will run down students, even though private cars on Campus Drive today are a greater threat to pedestrian safety than are trained rail operators who can simply apply the brake as with any other vehicle.
President Mote’s opposition to the Maryland DOT’s current Purple Line proposal for a stop on campus (above) is reminiscent of Elkins’s lack of support for a convenient campus station. Though President Mote is certainly not motivated by fear of racial conflict, he is motivated by other fears—fears of the new and unfamiliar—that prove similarly unconvincing. The President believes his fears, which he has not adequately proven in public, warrant the University to yet again forgo the convenient public transit the State of Maryland is offering and that students, staff, and faculty deserve.
> Read the study yourself: Metro Stop? Metro: Stop! The Politics of Transportation Planning (.PDF, 15 MB)
A broadcast e-mail was sent out by Terrapin Club Executive Director Greg Enloe on Thursday urging Club members to oppose the Campus Drive alignment recommended by MTA. Here is the email text (scroll all the way down for analysis):
Dear Terrapin Club Members,
Recently, the State of Maryland Transit Administration announced their intention to pursue the creation of a light rail line that would run from Bethesda to New Carrolton. The proposed “Purple Line” would run through areas in Montgomery County and Prince Georges County, including through the University of Maryland campus. An Open Meeting was held on October 29th in College Park to initiate discussion with community leaders and members of the College Park community and surrounding areas. A number of us attended the meeting. We wanted to update you on the project, the current position of the Athletic Department and the Terrapin Club and how to receive further information on the project.
The project is in its initial phases and the Maryland Transit Authority is still gathering important environmental impact information, as well as information on traffic patterns in the affected areas.
Maryland Athletics and the Terrapin Club leadership support the Purple Line on campus. The line will provide access for thousands of fans to come to athletics events, including football, men’s and women’s basketball and our 24 other varsity sports.
Connecting Montgomery County to College Park will provide a number of our most loyal fans from Bethesda, Silver Spring and other nearby areas with direct and easy access to athletic events, reducing dependence on automobiles and thus reducing traffic on game days.
THAT SAID, WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF A CAMPUS DRIVE ALIGNMENT FOR THE PURPLE LINE, AS CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED BY THE STATE HIGHWAY ADMINSTRATION, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. We are concerned that the Campus Drive alignment would negatively impact the essential physical character of our campus, forever damaging the aesthetic beauty of the University of Maryland.
2. A Campus Drive alignment will mean the loss of hundreds of Terrapin Club parking spaces for home football games. Maryland Athletics is a self-supported campus unit. We also pay the campus several million dollars in annual overhead and taxes. Parking benefits for fans constitute a vital element of our ability to achieve our fundraising requirements. The loss of these parking spaces will damage our ability to remain self-sufficient and to continue to pay the subsidies to the University.
3. Aligning the light rail tracks through Lot 1 will force tens of thousands of football fans to cross the tracks on their way to the football stadium, creating a significant safety concern for our fans, many of whom are families with young children. The light rail will stop every 3 minutes in peak hours and in non-peak hours, every 6 minutes.
Maryland Athletics and the Terrapin Club support either a Stadium Drive (North) alignment or Mowatt Lane (South) alignment for the Purple Line, for the following reasons:
1. A Stadium Drive or Mowatt Lane alignment would preserve the beauty of the campus we are all so proud of and would serve the student and faculty community for the entire campus.
2. Secondly, there would be minimal impact on parking spaces allocated for Terrapin Club members on football game days in either alignment.
3. A station positioned at the corner of Stadium Drive and Regents Drive would be ideal to ease traffic for home basketball games at Comcast Center. With such proximity to Comcast Center, the Purple Line would be easily accessible to the center of campus and would provide basketball fans with a reasonable transportation alternative to automobiles.
4. And finally, a more southern route at Mowatt Lane would increase accessibility to campus and would better accommodate the merchants in the heart of College Park.
In summation, Maryland Athletics and the Terrapin Club members support the Purple Line on campus with a Stadium Drive or Mowatt Lane alignment. Either is a better possible solution to ensure the beauty of our campus, fiscal stability for Maryland Athletics, and overall fan safety.
The Maryland Transit Administration plans to hold several informational meetings in the impacted areas. The next meeting for the College Park area will be held on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm at the College Park Municipal Center at 4500 Knox Road…. (it goes on to supply emails and phone numbers of people to contact)
Like other recent communications emanating from the Office of President Mote and Vice President for Administrative Affairs Douglas M Duncan, this e-mail seems designed to foment hysteria among the tens of thousands of people who really will be future beneficiaries of the Purple Line.
The Enloe communication demonstrates a failure to understand many basics about the alignment discussions.
Pedestrian safety concerns logically grow the closer the Purple Line would be to major sports venues. This is the real reason that a Stadium Drive option is problematic. As Senior Planner Greg Benz of Parsons-Brinkerhoff pointed out at the 10/29/07 focus group meeting, sports venues need “breathing room” between themselves and the transit stop to avoid unacceptable game day congestion.
The UMD Graduate Student Government has voted unanimously (with three additional co-sponsors) to approve a resolution supporting the Campus Drive alignment for the Purple Line through campus.
> A Resolution in Support of the Campus Drive Alignment of the Purple Line (PDF)
The University Administration have argued the Purple Line should not go on Campus Drive for a variety of reasons. They worry it won’t be pedestrian friendly, and have implied it would be loud or cause vibrations. Fortunately, in today’s age we can easily find video of similar systems elsewhere in the country. Let’s see if their concerns hold up to real-world conditions.
Light Rail and Pedestrians
This video of a train pulling into a station in San Jose demonstrates why Light Rail and pedestrians are compatible. Watch the man walking along the platform closely: although he is very close to the train the fixed rails means he has nothing to worry about because he knows exactly where the train will go.
Light Rail and Automobiles
This video from Portland Oregon shows how smoothly a Light Rail train can share a road with private automobiles. However, we will note we support the MTA’s proposal to close Campus Drive between the “M” and Stamp Union to vehicles except for service and emergency vehicles, and the train will operate on a dedicated right-of-way for the majority of the route.
Light Rail: Whisper-Quiet
This long video shot also in Portland demonstrates how a modern system can work in an urban context. Note that you can hear the voices of people’s conversations throughout the video because the train is quieter than a normal conversation.
On the opening day in Portland, authorities invited a band to preform inside a moving Light Rail vehicle. Imagine them trying to play in one of our diesel buses!
With all the recent discussion about the Purple Line, it seems pertinent to explore the reasons that light rail transit (LRT) is being considered for the UM Campus and the larger Washington region.
Before 1972, the term light rail did not exist. It was coined by the Urban Mass Transit Administration (now the Federal Transit Administration) to describe the upgrades of streetcar systems that were starting to become popular in the United States as a cheaper alternative to constructing heavy rail (metro) systems. The wave of new LRT systems started in Canada, when Edmonton opened North America’s first LRT system in 1978. San Francisco followed in 1980, starting the US trend. One could also argue that Boston’s Green Line, which has been operating as a streetcar tunnel since 1897, became a light rail line in 1975 when it began upgrades to modern LRT technology.
Light rail’s popularity stems from its cheapness. Light rail was originally implemented in cities of small to medium size, where a full-scale metro system was impractical. However as federal funding became more competitive and inflation drove construction costs up, many larger cities began to turn to light rail as well. It is perhaps the most versatile form of rail transit. While heavy rail systems like Metro are fully grade separated, LRT can operate in almost any context. Buffalo, New York’s light rail system is almost completely grade separated. Except for the southernmost 1.2 miles, the line is entirely in subway. The light rail systems in Dallas and Portland each have only one subway station; the rest are at grade. The T in Pittsburgh operates in a subway downtown, on its own right of way through most of the South Hills, and, in a few places–like Beechview, in-street with cars. Ridership is greatly varied. In some cities, Like Tacoma and Trenton, only a few thousand people board every day; in other places, light rail serves tens of thousands. The Green Line in Boston carries over 235,000 passengers on an average weekday.
The features which distinguish light rail from heavy rail and streetcars are in various categories. Because LRVs often travel in mixed rights of way, they use caternary (overhead) wires to power the vehicle. To overcome objections to these wires, several systems use diesel powered vehicles. Of note, Ottawa’s O-Train and NJ Transit’s River Line operate as “diesel multiple unit” LRVs. Still, caternary wires do provide benefits, such as fewer localized pollution sources. They can also be screened easily through different methods, such as planting street trees (see the Portland example above on the left). Capacity is another major distinguishing feature. LRV’s typically have much higher capacities than do streetcars, including the ability to be coupled into trains of several units. However, they are considered ‘light’ in the sense of their comparison to heavy rail, with which they cannot compete on high ridership lines. The two largest factors surrounding the selection of light rail as a mode are context and cost. Low density streetcar suburbs and suburban employment centers tend to be better suited to light rail because they lack the concentration of trip generators and destinations that heavy rail necessitates. Light rail is also chosen in situations where enough capital cannot be raised to construct a full-scale metro system.
Light rail is a safe, efficient, clean, and attractive mode of transportation. It will replace the crowded and often gridlocked Campus Drive that we know with one which is safer for pedestrians (after all, there’s nothing more dangerous than a car for a pedestrian), more accessible to the larger region, and which is more environmentally friendly.
Light rail systems have been springing up across the country, and will likely continue to do so. Here is a list of cities with light rail.
For photos, click on the links.
*Boston’s Green Line: upgraded to LRT in 1975, opened 1897
*San Francisco’s Muni Metro: upgraded to LRT in 1980
*San Diego Trolley: opened 1981
*Cleveland’s Blue and Green Lines: upgraded to LRT in 1981
*Buffalo Metro Rail: opened in 1984
*Portland’s MAX Light Rail: 1986
*Sacramento’s RTD Light Rail: 1987
*San Jose’s VTA Light Rail: 1987
*Pittsburgh’s T: 1987
*Los Angeles’ Light Rail Lines (Blue, Green, Gold): 1990
*Baltimore’s Light Rail: 1992
*Saint Louis Metrolink: 1993
*Denver RTD’s The Ride: 1994
*Dallas‘ DART: 1996
*Salt Lake City’s TRAX: 1999
*New Jersey’s Hudson-Bergen Light Rail: 2000
*Tacoma LINK: 2003
*Houston METRORail: 2004
*Minneapolis‘ Hiawatha Line: 2004
*Trenton-Camden River Line: 2004
*Newark Light Rail: 2006
*Charlotte’s LYNX will open on November 24th, 2007
*Phoenix’s METRORail is under construction, opening 2008
*Seattle’s Central LINK is under construction, opening 2009
*Norfolk just started construction on the Tide, opening 2010
Note: The following opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Rethink College Park, nor the views of other RCP contributors. Rethink College Park is always interested in contributed articles from community members.
With Purple Line’s cost-effectiveness as well as location on the University of Maryland campus being debated, perhaps we should take a look back on the history of the Purple Line route and how we got to where we are today.
The idea of a route connecting the two spokes of the Red Line surfaced not long after the initial construction of Metro, but it was not until the 1990s under then-Governor Parris Glendening that the line established steam and was expanded to include the line between Silver Spring and New Carrollton. At the time, there were two competing movements. Gov. Glendening championed a light-rail, Inner Line because that would do better to serve depressed, inner communities that could be well-served with more transit-oriented development. On the other hand, then-Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan supported a heavy-rail, outer Purple Line that more closely mirrored the route of the Beltway, under the notion that a Beltway line would better serve high-growth areas. At around the same time Gov. Glendening announced the Intercounty Connector project “dead”, the Inner Line won favor from politicians as the preferred route to connect the existing spokes of Metro in Suburban Maryland. When Robert Ehrlich became the next governor, he decided to rename the project the “Bi-County Transitway” to reflect the alternative proposal of bus rapid transit (BRT) that was being considered in addition to light rail.
(more…)
|
| Welcome to Rethink College Park. We cover development news in and around the University of Maryland. Click the map above to learn more about the issues and to read our posts sorted by area. |
Click here to view our interactive project map
| Subscribe to Rethink College Park Announcements | ||
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
