The Purple Line will finish The Capital Crescent Trail (and in the good way)

In a recent letter to the editor Chuck Sullivan of Bethesda argues that because the Capitol Crescent Trail (CCT) is great, we don't need to build the Purple Line - or something. First he points out that biking in the area is great and helps mitigate traffic. You'll never hear me argue with that. 

We already have one of the more remarkable and beautiful traffic mitigation systems in the county: the Capital Crescent Trail. Every day thousands of residents use it to commute to work. Recreational bikers, joggers and dog walkers use this trail every day. On weekends, Rock Creek Parkway is closed to vehicles, and residents can have more than 22 miles of glorious biking in a natural environment alongside Rock Creek without dreaded and deadly cars.

But then he switches to contrasting that to the proposed Purple Line, implying (incorrectly) perhaps that the Purple  Line will destroy the CCT.

Then there’s the proposed Purple Line, a train. It will require the destruction of acres of trees that won’t grow back for 75 years. The flawed and ugly design calls for the train to be squeezed next to a bike trail along a barren field. It will run behind homes and decrease property values. It will cost double whatever planners estimate. It will destroy the environment. How can anyone claim this is a fair tradeoff?

Mr. Sullivan might not be the best defender of leaving old trees alone, since he's a home builder who has argued that the tree canopy in the county is already very high and replanting trees is super great (which I also agree with). 

Then there are some untrue statements about the train being squeezed (there is actually a lot of buffer) and about a barren field (perhaps he's thinking of a previous flawed design inspired by A Boy and His Dog). that "it will cost double" is not based on anything. 

It is likely that property values will go up when work is done. And I'd be willing to bet on that. 

It will cause some environmental damage, but not so much that the project is unfit. That's what the EIS process was for. As for the tradeoff- that is in the FEIS if I'm correct. There are benefits too.

Some claim it will take cars off the road.

Not just some, but the people who prepared the FEIS. FTA did not disagree.

But the Purple Line would unleash acres of commercial development along its path, which would increase traffic.

That's a feature, not a bug. The alternative is that they live farther away, and not use transit or bike. But again, this was studied. 

Meanwhile, we have a bikeway that could get even more cars off the roads, if it were fully paved and promoted.

The bikeway will be paved and expanded all the way to Silver Spring as part of the Purple Line project. And yeah, it will remove more cars.

We are way behind other countries in promoting bicycle use. The Capital Crescent Trail is an opportunity to make up for our lack of effort and vision.

I agree. Let's finish it (by which I mean complete, not like in Mortal Kombat)

Behold the Barren Wasteland!

Comments

[CDL]

I read the same opinion piece this morning and Mr. Sullivan certainly takes a pessimistic view of the future light rail line and relocated bike-ped trail that will run alongside it. While its probably true that the trail will feel more open than it does today (though less than when it was a working railway to the Georgetown power plant), calling it a barren field is just plain hyperbole. Once the plantings and vegetation have recovered from construction, the trail should be a very pleasant (and smooth) part of the regional bike and walking network. I can't wait to take the full loop around the MBT and CCT by bike, to say nothing about a safe and quick bike ride to Silver Spring, Bethesda, and beyond!

Bring on the Purple Line!

[drumz]

Not once can I recall someone opposing the purple line on the basis that the changes to the CCT are unreasonable.

It's always straight to "the purple line will destroy the trail" which is such a huge lie but nevertheless a persistent argument despite how amazingly untrue it is.

[Neighbor]

I'm not sure why paving the CCT, completing it to Silver Spring and linking it to MBT has to be held hostage to building the PL? I'd love to see the trail improved, but am not convinced that building a train improves a trail.

Also, I'd note that as a member of the MoCo Purple Line Advisory Group, none of the pictures we were shown by MTA in any of the meetings I attended look anything like the one posted above. Rather, we were shown a 4-foot concrete wall with up to 8-feet of fencing on top. Nor were grass tracks guaranteed (a budget item to be determined later), nor were landscaped buffers to be guaranteed (a budget item...). Nor were benches or lighting or striping along the trail. The latter were all matters for the county, which has yet to pony up the funds.

What we have now is less than ideal, but the who notion of "build the rail, complete the trail" was ill-conceived from the start. I think supporters of the trail ought to be cautious before painting the PL as a cure-all.

[Crickey]

The portion of the CCT that has the highest usage by an order of magnitude and comprises far more than half the total length won't be touched.

[drumz]

The grass median actually made it in but then was taken out by Hogan.

But the issue isn't whether or not the trail can only be built in conjuction with the purple line but the fact that the opposition's entire tack was to say the trail would be "destroyed".

Only one side has been consistently lying about the trail and the purple line and its not purple line proponents.

[washcycle]

I'm not sure why paving the CCT, completing it to Silver Spring and linking it to MBT has to be held hostage to building the PL?

Wayne Phyillaier laid out that case on his blog at silverspringtrails.org. Unfortunately that blog is no more. But it basically has to do with what CSX is willing to accept on it's property and that they won't allow a trail next to their rail - but they will allow a trail next to the Purple Line. It's an interesting question as to whether or not the CCT to SS could be built without the PL. Maybe it could.

But it would be many years away. It would be back to the drawing board, and restart the negotiations and re-evaluate the project, etc... Without traffic from PL users it would be harder to justify the costs and maybe it would be worth less of an investment.

So, it really throws a monkey in the wrench and to save what? A few thousand dollars. No thanks.

[washcycle]

I'd love to see the trail improved, but am not convinced that building a train improves a trail.

Building the train improves the utility of the trail, by creating more destinations along it.

none of the pictures we were shown by MTA in any of the meetings I attended look anything like the one posted above<.i<

I got it from the PL website. I also think it's in the DEIS.