Reality & The Purple Line
- What are proponents of the light-rail line hiding?
- Sep 12, 2016
- 7 min read
Here are the common arguments raised by proponents of the Purple Line:
It will help many get another desirable option for transportation between New Carrollton and Bethesda, especially those who do not have access to their own car.
It will substantially increase revenue to businesses on the proposed line.
Only wealthy residents from Chevy Chase are against it based on prejudice against the poor and animosity towards public transportation in general.
Traffic will be substantially reduced in the areas that will be serviced by the new line.
But, what is the reality? If you look deeper into the question, you uncover some surprising answers.
1. It will help many get another desirable option for transportation between New Carrollton and Bethesda, especially those who do not have access to their own car.
First, there is the question of “ridership” or how many people will really ride this train. The true facts of ridership have been hidden from the general public. Actually there is a case before a U.S. District Court Judge, Richard J. Leon, that puts the projected ridership in serious doubt. While a recent ruling handed down by Judge Leon calls for a new Environmental Study into ridership, specifically pointing out Metro’s current substantial safety issues and falling ridership numbers, he is, in effect, opening the door to questions regarding the calculation and source of projected ridership numbers for the Purple Line in general. Supreme Court precedent requires that an agency’s study can only be questioned if “new information provides a seriously different picture of the environmental landscape.” So, in other words, the Judge used the recent serious issues with Metro to open the door for plaintiffs in the case to question the projected Purple Line ridership numbers previously provided, which undoubtedly will happen once the new Environmental Study is provided.
And, how “desirable” is light-rail? Taking into account that the trains will be “light”, meaning that they will cary very few passengers (unknown to many, that is what the “light” in “light rail” means), and will be forced to stop at street intersections as bridges and tunnels are not in the cards … the new line might not be very desirable at all. Express bus lines will achieve the same ends at dramatically lower costs. And the Purple Line will practically destroy the Capital Crescent Trail, one of the most beautiful and utilized walking/biking paths in the DC area. While there are claims that the trail will remain viable, anyone who has used the trail can easily see that with a light rail line running through it, no bikes will be able to safely pass and the tranquility will be all but lost. In short, a treasure of DC will be sacrificed at monumental cost with very little payoff when a cheaper feasible alternative is available in express bus routes. There is a certain kind of animosity many have regarding buses, but that can easily be overcome by advertising bus schedules and pricing, providing free wi-fi to bus passengers, and making express buses more available. The cost of all of these improvement would pail in comparison to the multi-billion dollar price-tag of the proposed Purple Line. To call that “desirable” is, in my opinion, an insult to the word itself.
2. It will substantially increase revenue to businesses on the proposed line.
But, will it? The line will run from Bethesda to New Carrollton in mostly undeveloped or underdeveloped areas. Developers who currently own the property surrounding the line claim that business will thrive and promise to develop high-density commercial property, but that could be nothing more than a pipe-dream.
Because there is so much risk involved, many developers who currently own the property surrounding the line simply want that property to be re-zoned to allow for high-density commercial development so that they can sell the property for a massive profit to other developers down the road. That re-zoning is contingent on actual initiation of Purple Line construction. One would think that contingency would require actual development, but that certainly doesn’t appear to be the case. So, the developers have no interest in ridership or actual development, but, instead are pushing politicians to re-zone so they can get instant gratification in a handsome profit when they sell the property to other developers in the future before any development has actually taken place. This is not to say that the developers who actually purchase the property in the future won’t have the best intentions, but the developers who are currently pushing the Purple Line cannot be said to. And, because these developers provide substantial profit in the form of ad revenue to the Washington Post, among other local news outlets, tax-payers have remained, for the most part, unenlightened to this dire situation. All they hear are claims of “haters” predisposed to fight against any public transportation when tax-payers who will actually be funding the project are misinformed and taken advantage of.
3. Only wealthy residents from Chevy Chase are against it based on the line cutting through Columbia Country Club, prejudice against the poor and animosity towards public transportation in general.
Now, this argument is one that seems like the very definition of a “cop-out”. Why animosity toward the impoverished, public transportation, or a selfish interest in saving a private golf course would be necessary to fight against a light-rail line that will destroy a heavily-utilized trail, waste billions of tax-payer dollars, and mainly benefit developers with no real intention to develop property in the area is beyond me. That along with the fact that express bus lines and lanes would be a substantially cheaper, quicker, and feasible option makes this argument weak, to say the least. Columbia Country Club has already made an agreement with the State of Maryland to allow the Purple Line, which, as planned, is no threat to the golf course. And, while there are certainly members of the Chevy Chase community that hold animosity toward the poor and public transportation in general, as with any suburban population, there is absolutely no evidence that they are the same citizens who are fighting against the line or that this is a major part of their reasoning for doing so.
Their case against the line currently in front of Judge Leon is based mainly on one thing that has nothing to do with animosity toward anyone. Their argument is based on the ridership numbers predicted for the line and the lack of explanation for their source. It is also based on the environmental impact that a new light-rail line would have. The ridership numbers are based on how many people will be riding the line in 2040, which is facially ridiculous. To think that any predictions of how many people will ride any kind of public transportation 24 years from now could be at all accurate is absurd. 24 years ago, back in 1992, President Bill Clinton was inaugurated, the price of a gallon of gas was about $1, the band Nirvana was at their peak, and the singer Billy Ray Cyrus and his wife Tish gave birth to their daughter Miley. At that time would anyone have trusted any estimates about what would be happening now? Not likely. Average MPG for midsize cars in 1992 was well-under 20. Now, it is around 30 MPG. That is more than a 50% increase. Imagine what it will be 24 years from now? With the way technology of this kind is improving, cars might be self-driving, utilizing AI software, and, as a result, traffic might be decreased by a drastic drop in car accidents clogging local roads. To base ridership numbers 24 years from now on transportation technology that currently exists is not only unrealistic, but irresponsible.
So, how on earth did they come up with these predictions that sold the Federal and State Government on spending billions on the Purple Line. Well, surprisingly enough, when asked, no one could begin to explain. So, forgive me if I am skeptical of the argument that the fight against the Purple Line is based on nothing more than animosity toward the poor, public transportation and a selfish interest in saving a golf course that has already agreed to the project.
4. Traffic will be substantially reduced in the areas that will be serviced by the new line.
Now we get to the actual reasoning for developing a new plan for public transportation in the area that will be serviced by the Purple Line. Traffic in these areas has hit an all-time high and something has to be done to substantially decrease it or drivers will spend their entire evenings waiting in grid-lock. Instead of eating dinner with their loved ones, spending money in local businesses or enjoying the ever dwindling personal time they have left with working hours constantly increasing, they will be sitting in their car wasting gas money watching stress rise to unhealthy levels on a daily basis … I get it. But, even if everything goes to plan (which is already not the case with millions being spent on legal disputes from various environmental and local community groups) the Purple Line won’t be complete until March 2022 at the absolute earliest.
In addition, the line will travel slower than 15.5 mph, it is “light rail”, meaning that it won’t carry nearly as many passengers as Metro trains, it will make alternative modes of transportation such as bike travel on the same route (the Crescent Trail) nearly impossible, and it will be far more costly than riding buses or the Metro. So, there seems to be little reason to believe that traffic will actually be substantially decreased in 7 years when the rail line is complete.
In addition to everything that has been presented here, environmental concerns for added pollution and the destruction of protected land and a failure to adequately explore alternative options like express bus lanes seems to make this project an irresponsible and quasi-criminal endeavor. There are obvious developer and political interests that have pushed through a so-called solution to traffic problems that will cost local tax-payers far too much while providing minuscule pay-offs. Light-rail has been proven to be a terrible option in other cities around the country and the current issues with Metro in the DC makes an added line seem like asking for trouble. Yet, when these arguments are brought up, they are met with absurd claims that the wealthy in the area simply don’t like public transportation, disregarding the fact that their property values will increase if light-rail stations are opened in or around their neighborhoods. In short, proponents of the Purple Line seem to be grasping at straws to protect something that doesn’t make any sense.
コメント