Planning Board investigating all options for CCT/Purple Line tunnel

When we were brainstorming ideas earlier this month, I typed up one and deleted it because it was just too crazy. The idea was to buy and tear down the Air Rights and Apex building, then build the light rail and trail, and then resell the air rights, perhaps with higher height restrictions. It might even pay for itself.

Well, it looks like it wasn't that crazy after all. At the meeting yesterday, that I did not attend and haven't yet watched, the Board had two proposed alternatives.

One proposal would build the Bethesda light-rail station for the 16-mile Purple Line just east of the tunnel, perhaps using county land at Elm Street Park. Another would build it in the tunnel but east of Wisconsin, sparing the most problematic of the two office buildings on the western side. The state would have to buy and tear down the Air Rights building on the east side of Wisconsin but could recoup some of the cost by redeveloping the land, board members said.

Someone mentioned the first proposal in the comments, but many criticized it because it moved the station too far away, which MTA seems to have reiterated. Still, residents and trail advocates unanimously supported the trail in the tunnel.

One option seems to have been removed from consideration.

The board rejected the idea of keeping the trail inside the tunnel by single-tracking trains there after state transit planners said that would make the light-rail line too slow and unreliable.

Here are the options as I see them:

1. Stop the Purple line short of the tunnel, and leave the trail in the tunnel
2. Move the last Purple line stop east, but still in the tunnel. Tear down the Air Rights Building and redevelop it. Keep the trail in the tunnel
3. Spend up to $40M to build the trail in the tunnel with the Purple line.
4. Don't excavate. Build the Purple line in the existing tunnel. Split the CCT into a ped trail that would continue through the tunnel, but be somewhat narrow (6 feet?) and divert cyclist on to street level.
5. Don't excavate. Build the Purple line in the existing tunnel. Divert the trail to street level.
6. No build

If the price of 3 gets down to the $5-10 million range, it gets more appealing. If the money isn't there then 2 or 4 become the best options IMO, depending on the cost of 2.

Of course, even if 3 is $40M it might still be the best option. It depends on where that $40M comes from. Will it use bike project funding, or will it come from road funding? Are we giving up a county-wide bikeshare system or one highway interchange? Because knowing the opportunity cost changes my answer. Also, will the state pick up more of that $40M as a purple line expense? Jack Cochrane thinks it should stay in the tunnel no matter what. The "Friends of the Trail" are staking the same position. Perhaps real trail advocates can use that to our advantage.

A decision might be less than two months away

The council’s transportation committee is to discuss the trail Dec. 5, and full council consideration is planned for January.

In addition, the board made another recommendation in favor of the best possible trail.

Board members also recommended that the county spend $1.9 million to build switchback ramps to carry runners and cyclists from the trail alongside a Purple Line down to the Rock Creek Trail. Maryland transit officials said they would study ways to spare more trees in building the trail connection.

Comments

[Wayne Phyillaier]

I feel that the option to single-track in the tunnel was not give enough consideration by the Planning Board. CCCT presented this, see http://www.cctrail.org/CCCT%20tunnel%20statement.pdf for the position statement.

The MTA opposed this option as making transit operations too unreliable and slow. But this was their opinion and was not backed up with any analysis. For example, they said they can not support the needed six minute headways with single-track here, and cited an older single-track study as proof. But their own engineer acknowledged that older study was for a much longer singe-track section along the line between stations, and was not relevant to this case.
I suspect that in the end the single-track idea might impact operations too severely, but it merits a serious look and should not be set aside based on top of the head opinions.

[dayglo]

Crazy ideas are what blogs are for! Don't make that mistake again.

[think a little]

"Of course, even if 3 is $40M it might still be the best option. It depends on where that $40M comes from. Will it use bike project funding, or will it come from road funding? "

Its not so important where the money comes from as the total price tag....if the 40mil is included the entire purple line becomes "uneconmical" under FTA guidelines and you get no fed $$$ so no Purple line

[antibozo]

As someone who used to work in the Air Rights Building, I'd like to cast my vote for tearing it down. :^)

Besides, redeveloping that space with the Purple Line station sounds like a win to me.

As far as single-tracking goes, if this is a station, in a way it counts as a longer section than it is, since trains will be stopped there a lot of the time.

[washcycle]

It could be funding transit the way the economist recommend it.

Step 1. Buy land near stops.
Step 2. Build transit
Step 3. Sell land and recoup valued added of transit.

A new Air Rigths building will be worth more per sq. ft. if it is right above a light rail station. And of course, they could allow for more sq. feet.

[Jack Cochrane]

Rebuild it to 30 stories and call it the Air Rights Needle. Might as well use as much of the air as possible.

The ramp connecting the CCT to the Rock Creek Trail is very expensive at $1.4M (or $2M now?). Is it justified?

[JeffB]

It could be funding transit the way the economist recommend it.

Step 1. Buy land near stops.
Step 2. Build transit
Step 3. Sell land and recoup valued added of transit.

Which is not too different than how some of your congressmen have made their fortunes:

Step 1. Buy land in the middle of nowhere.
Step 2. Pass bill to build highway and stipulate interchanges must be near your land.
Step 3. Sell land and recoup value from being in congress!

[Shalom]

I rode out there today, expecting to confirm my belief a surface crossing is a terrible idea.

I really like the "redevelop the Air Rights building" approach. Maybe we can even get a second Metro exit out it, and integrate Metro with the Purple Line better.

But short of that, a surface route for the trail really isn't that bad -- it might even be better!

The key is to close Bethesda Ave to cars between Woodmont and Wisconsin (except a for small driveway to that parking garage, if that's the only entrance – limited to the north half of the western third of that block).

The new route would have dedicated bike signals at Woodmont and Bethesda Ave. We'd be trading an easier crossing at Woodmont for one extra light at Wisconsin. Currently you have to wait twice at Woodmont, first to cross Bethesda Ave then to cross Woodmont. Once we redo the sidewalk (on the north side of the parking lot that's on the SW corner of that intersection), you could ride directly on a dedicated surface, with a single shorter signal, since the only permitted left turn for cars would be from Woodmont onto Bethesda Ave.

At Wisc Ave, we should prohibit left turns from Willow Lane onto Wisconsin, and no right-on-red from Wisc onto Willow, so bicycles would never face any turning traffic at all. Remove parking to create dedicated lanes east of Wisconsin on Willow Lane (south side) and through Elm Street Park. There's a huge parking lot right there, no one needs those handful of spaces – the trail will draw far more customers to farmer's market!

Result: equivalent distance compared to the tunnel, equivalent traffic safety to tunnel (dedicated bike-only route), better personal safety than the tunnel, easier crossing at Woodmont, better integration with street level retail. Only downside is the single additional traffic light with a dedicated bike signal at Wisconsin, with no turning traffic at all.