Pork-Barrel Spending on a New D.C. Metro Line Could Cost Democrats

Citizens Concern

Okay first of al Prince Georges is not at all a poor county, we are the richest predominantly african american county. Also if were really goin to assist the poor communities of Prince Georges we should extend the line into the suggested loop where it extends further deep into the county like Oxon Hill. I may be more expensive but it will put thousands to work in the next 5-10 years

purple line

Purple line...BRT...I don't really care. All I want is an efficient way to get from my home in Silver Spring to my work in Rockville without having to take the redline all the way into DC. Current city buses don't work because the schedule is too infrequent for the route I would need, and I would end up waiting at one bus stop for 30 minutes for the transfer bus.

Currently, I drive to work, but the drivers around here are ridiculous. Anything to get even 50 of them off the road would be a justice to Maryland.

Jake do your homework

Elrich is from Takoma Park not Chevy Chase. Do you call everyone who disagrees with this bone-headed Light Rail a NIMBY?

BRT will give you more bang for the buck. It is not even close.

Maybe Yes Maybe No

There is little doubt that Montgomery County would have benefited more if there had been a subway line built outside of the beltway, whereas Prince George's County very much wanted a subway line inside the beltway. That decision was made years ago by Glendenning from Prince George's County.

But there can be little doubt that the Washington, D.C. area has changed from one that was solely a north-south rush hour pattern, from the suburbs into Washington, D.C. to one that is increasingly north-south and east-west, hence the reason why the beltway grinds to a halt twice a day.

And it may be that dedicated bus service would accomplish much, but not all of the goals that our local experts believe a "Purple Line" or light rail service will realize.

The bottom line is that any steps we take to get people out of their cars and into mass transit alternatives would serve the greater good of fewer pollutants released into our air and less use of gasoline (imported oil).

It should surprise no one that Councilman Ehrlich is opposed to the purple line. First of all it cuts through his district in which some residents have already opposed its construction. A classic NIMBY position. Second Mr. Ehrlich was elected, along with several of his colleagues as no growth advocates who apparently believe that the problems of traffic congestion, over used roadways, local pollution and frustrated commuters can best be solved by clicking one's heels just like Dorothy.

Is this the best solution, maybe yes or maybe no, but it is far preferable to doing nothing and praying for divine intervention.

Light Rail is a Joke

The difference between the Silver Line out to Dulles and a Purple Line between Metro stations is that the Purple Line will NOT be a Metrorail train.

This Purple Line one-off, slow moving, mini-system, will never be anything more than a way for real estate developers to cram ten pounds of "#%^&" into a five pound bag.

They are now talking about raising taxes in Maryland just to support this boondoggle.

Pork-Barrel Spending on a New D.C. Metro Line Could Cost Democrats

Your article is so off base I just had to respond. As a Montgomery County resident who wants better transit opportunities, the light rail Purple Line fits the bill. It is definately not a pork barrel project. It is a project promoted by the people for the people of Montgomery & Prince George's Counties.

This is the first I have heard that officials want the PL "as a kind of social engineering program." Some may, but I hope the majority support the project in response to the hundreds of residents who have advocated for the Purple Line and want it light rail, not bus.

You might be able to fault the Purple Line as a Social Justice Program. Yes, it will provide better and strealined service for folks who already "ride the bus, often [from a not so wealthy suburb] to a service job in a [NOT SO-]nearby, wealthier suburb." It will also provide me with a way to get from Gaithersburg to Silver Spring and my kids to College Park without going all the way downtown and back. Otherwise we drive (that translates to more cars on the road).

Light rail is as close to an "honest-to-god subway like the rest of the Metro lines, which have been proven to be popular with the public and actually take folks out of cars," as we are going to get. Why does a subway work? Because it is a RAIL, as in Light RAIL. Swank new buses and BRT don't come close.

Getting cars off the road is a goal of the Purple Line, whether MTA promotes that or not. That is my goal as a proponent and I am confident that it will happen, just as I am confident that ridership, including new ridership, will surpass estimates.

I am certainly disappointed with Marc Elrich, who I did vote for. We should be building a lot more transit and many of those projects could work as BRT. But he is flat wrong about the PL. BRT is not a substitute for the light rail Purple Line.

Where Is The Vision For The Future?

I normally don't jump in to the blogosphere, but here goes.

My beef with the Purple Line is that the rail consultants are pushing (effectively) a light rail line, a.k.a. trolleys, and not looking at the latest transit technologies available today.

Regardless of what you call them, trolleys are slow and share ROWs with cars, which leads to accidents. Every city in the U.S. with an LRT line has its share of collisions with cars.

Aside from this danger to the community that is being glossed over, LRT lines are expensive to maintain and DO NOT work well in inclement weather, especially ice and snow. They are also quite noisy, especially when clanging bells at each intersection and station.

I've been trying to get county and state officials to seriously consider a frictionless urban maglev system, but to no avail. The Bush Administration effectively torpedoed the FTA's urban maglev initiative. Nagoya, Japan has a 60 mph urban maglev system that is almost 4 years old and operates (without a driver) with 99.97% on time reliability. It is extremely quiet, runs in ice and snow storms with no difficulty, climbs steeper grades, and requires very little maintenance. The Koreans are building a new urban maglev to connect Inchon Airport to Seoul by 2012. One could be built OVER the Purple Line and we could all still use the ROW for hiking and biking.

It blows my mind that we in the U.S. refuse to look beyond the old "tried and true" technologies of the past and their expensive maintenance intensive systems. Those cheap buses cost $300,000 to $500,000 each, need drivers, maintenance, fuel, and need to be replaced every few years. In other words, they are not the cheap alternative from a life cycle perspective, but they keep the bus manufactures in business. They also don't do real well in snow and ice.

We are not building these systems for just today, but for decades to come. We owe it to future generations to build the best systems available today. And, yes, these urban maglev systems are cost effective. They are much more cost effective over their service life, which translates into faster payback on loans and lower fares.

We need new green transit NETWORKS, not just one purple colored line. We must build for the future, a future with a transportation network that is considerably less dependent on oil. We can't afford not do do this, if we want this country to remain an economic power. BTW, 80% of any new transit line is for civil engineering and construction - meaning, jobs.

Feel free to check out my January editorial on this subject: http://magnetbahnforum.de/index.php?editorial

K. Coates

Outrageous and Uninformed

Try as you may, this is not a partisan issue, nor is it an economic justice issue. Plain and simple, the Purple Line will divert thousands of people from gas-guzzling/polluting cars to mass transit. Though some are dissatisfied with how many people would abandon their cars, the projected ridership numbers for the Purple Line are among the highest of any light rail project in the nation.

I know that is not as sexy a blog-angle to Mr. Farrell, but to those of us who would use the rail line, it is very important. This is all notwithstanding the fact that the cost-effectiveness formula you allude to is designed by pro-automobile lobbyists to steer critical federal transportation dollars to cars and roads instead of mass transit, buses and light rail.

Yes, many people are thrilled that light rail would induce economic development and create jobs. Others yet are excited by the environmental benefits of light rail. But these are all residual benefits to the central goal of mass transit -- to move people efficiently, safely, and with minimal impact on communities. On these measures, the Purple Line soars - regardless of your party affiliation or ideological bent.

Sheesh -- find some other project to kick. This one has been in the works for two decades -- and while we're used to "not in my backyard" activism, yours is instead a "not during this economy" argument. Unfortunately, the public input and environmental review process is ending in the midst of a budget crisis -- but that unfortunate timing should not impact a decision that we in the region will have to live with for many decades.

If you really want to get partisan about it, you should go back and blame the Republicans who held up the Purple Line project in Maryland, and their federal counterparts who starved states of mass transit funding. This thing could've been built years ago during a robust economy - but we shouldn't be holding the bag for your friends' collusion.

PGalore, ChevyChase resident

The depiction of the Purple Line as merely a stimulus project for PG County is simply not true. Something that PG County and Bethesda share is becoming isolated islands during rush hour. It strangles economic growth and will only get worse now that Walter Reed Army Medical Center is being dropped on top of Bethesda Naval Hospital. This project benefits BOTH areas.

This column was clearly written by someone who does not drive the Capital Beltway at rush hour. Or seen the kind of things Vladimir Putin is doing with energy supplies.

The author's approach to transit issues is both archaic and naive.

You have to look long-term

The author contradicts himself too much. In summary, his best solution would be the most expensive yet we can't do it because of the budget deficit. That shows (1) a lack of understanding between capital and operating expenses, (2) a failure of ourselves to raise taxes instead of coming up with economically-unsound but short-term reasons to always cut taxes, and (3) an utter inability to address the long-term best interests of this country. We have to be honest with ourselves and I fear the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress will join their predecessors in not telling the American people the truth. We have to raise some taxes to pay for our needed services, and our astronomical borrowing in the past. We have to invest in infrastructure and new energy. That simply costs money and we have to grow up and pay for it. We have lived a fantasy for too long in our national and personal financial lives. Any infrastrucutre programs must be paid for by a phased-in increase in the federal gasoline tax of currently 18.3 cents per gallon to about $1 per gallon in 5 cent monthly increments. This tax would no where be as oppressive or large as the $4 to $6 per gallon taxes in Europe but it would be a responsible start for the country. Grow up America and be responsible for your children's futures.