[OhioGuy]

Over the past few weeks I've been following the Purple line debate via the Univeristy of Maryland's student newspaper, The Diamondback. University officials have become increasingly vocal against a lightrail alignment that would bring the line through the heart of campus near the student union. Their argument is that it would negatively impact the pedestrian environment called for in the campus master plan. Meanwhile the students seem to be mostly supportive of the alignment through campus, arguing that it wouldn't severly impact the pedestrian oriented campus environment. It seems to me university officials are being incredibly short sighted on this issue. The purple line will most likely be light rail (though BRT hasn't been ruled out yet) and as we've seen in the case of Portland, does not hamper their hugely successful pedestrian oriented downtown. Why would it be any different here? Many European cities also have trams crossing through the hearts of their cities as well, all the while still maintaining an active & lively pedestrian atmosphere.

(below images from RethinkCollegePark)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/361935150_5c78e249e6_b.jpg

This image shows the preferred alignment from the State (purple) and the preferred alignment from University Officials (orange)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2336/1910366081_c15276ca83_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2202/1801761715_a82b1c69f6_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2007/1802605338_64a21acca2_o.jpg



I'm posting several articles below to highlight the debate over the past couple of months.

The color purple (http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2007/10/24/Opinion/The-Color.Purple-3051133.shtml)
Our View: University President Dan Mote needs to realize that the benefits of the Purple Line outweigh the possible drawbacks.
Staff Editorial
Issue date: 10/24/07 Section: Opinion

If you commute and have ever spent 45 minutes in the gridlock that is U.S. Route 1, you undoubtedly understand that even the shortest drive off the campus sometimes takes longer than it does to walk. Commuter students and staff who take the Metro to and from school or work each day are likely to dread the commute from the College Park Metro station more than they do they half-hour train ride into Washington. So with all of this pain and suffering with traffic on and off the campus, why would university President Dan Mote make it so difficult for the proposed Purple Line project, with its future stops at the Stamp Student Union, East Campus and the College Park Metro Station, to roll onto the campus on an aboveground light rail?

While Mote seems to be more in favor of placing to new rail underground, this in itself seems ridiculous. Not only would construction cost an exorbitant amount of money as compared to keeping the Purple Line aboveground, but the campus stop would be located at Byrd Stadium as opposed to Stamp Student Union. An aboveground line would not be obtrusive or loud by any means, and, in the end, it comes down to being more centralized on the campus as well as being more accessible. Aboveground railway just makes more sense and is more cost-effective.

According to former Vice President for Administrative Affairs John Porcari, who is now the state secretary of transportation, the university would be the single greatest beneficiary of the Purple Line, making commuting and access to the university much easier for students, faculty and staff. And while Mote harps on the false idea that pedestrian traffic would lead to delays for railway passengers and safety hazards for pedestrians, he neglects to mention that the railway would be timed according to traffic, creating no more delays for riders or pedestrians than they already deal with on a daily basis from on-campus traffic and Shuttle-UM trips from the Metro station and other surrounding areas.

The Purple Line would also help encourage university fans wishing to attend football or basketball games to leave their cars at home, reducing parking and traffic issues for on-campus students and reduce the risk of drunk driving after tailgates. Students who usually have to wait for a bus to the campus from the Metro will not have lengthy delays due to traffic or have to risk standing alone late at night at the station to get home. At the end of the day, Mote's arguments about possible delays don't hold a candle to the definite benefits the Purple Line would bring to the campus. His excuses seem unreasonable and unrealistic in light of the fact that he seems to be the only one with these concerns. No one else seems to have any other disputes.

The Purple Line is a great idea, and it's as simple as that. Mote can continue to base his opinion on ththe Purple Line on minor flaws that could be easily dealt with, but the longer he continues to ignore the benefits of this light rail, the longer students - who have moved two feet on Route 1 in the length of time it took you to read this article - will have to wait for relief of traffic and commuting issues.

[OhioGuy]

Support for the right location (http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2007/10/25/Opinion/Support.For.The.Right.Location-3054647.shtml)
Dan Mote
Issue date: 10/25/07 Section: Opinion
State officials are gauging the university's support for the Purple Line, which will one day more directly connect Montgomery and Prince George's counties via light rail and place a new station right on the campus.

The university strongly supports a street-level (at-grade) Purple Line path across the campus. It will provide access for our students, faculty, staff and visitors and is in line with reducing dependence on the automobile. The state's plan describes the Purple Line running along a dedicated, double-track alignment that will carry the light rail trains at speeds of about 16 mph. As such, it will provide rapid and efficient transportation from Bethesda to Silver Spring, New Carrollton and places in between. To be an effective regional transit system that runs on schedule, the trains' alignment must be restricted. While buses will be allowed to travel along it, and there will be access for service and emergency vehicles between the tracks, pedestrian access will necessarily be strictly limited for safety reasons to designated crossing points.

There is still work to be done, however, in finding a satisfactory route for the line. The university favors an alignment that is consistent with the Master Plan. Our Master Plan calls for closing Campus Drive to traffic in order to allow it to serve as a major pedestrian walking mall. The stated goal of the Master Plan is to promote "unimpeded [pedestrian] movement across the campus." Turning Campus Drive into a dedicated transit way is inconsistent with this vision of free pedestrian transit.

The university favors an alignment north of Campus Drive, dedicated to mass transit and allowing for emergency and service vehicles. Such an alignment would positively impact the entire campus by both providing a dedicated route for the Purple Line and moving current bus traffic off of Campus Drive. Such an alternative plan would provide the same service but would not impede pedestrian traffic across Campus Drive or impact the beauty of the campus entrance. We have asked the State Highway Administration to consider a Stadium Drive alignment, which we believe satisfies both the needs of the Purple Line and the needs of the university.

Our advocacy of a Stadium Drive alignment is based on an analysis of the needs of the campus. With the planned construction of the new university Teaching Center, the additions of the Bioscience Research Building and the new journalism building, the English department moving to Tawes and the transformation of Cole into an academic building, the demands for pedestrian traffic across Campus Drive are increasing. In fact, Campus Drive and its extension beyond Cole are now more central to the academic part of the campus than they were seven years ago, when the Master Plan was developed. Were the Purple Line located there, the addition of fences to control the security of pedestrian traffic across it, which already numbers in the tens of thousands each day, would be inevitable.

A Campus Drive alignment would irreversibly damage the beauty of the campus entrance. It would require overhead wires and would impinge on the circle where the "M" is planted. This iconic place will not remain as special as it is today with such an alignment. The Stadium Drive alignment will protect this signature place.

East Campus, a development that is very important to the university's future, is expected to be opening in the next few years. Its developers have also considered the most reasonable location for the Purple Line. It is their conclusion that holding open an empty right-of-way of 130 feet in the middle of the commercial district for what could be many years of Purple Line planning, debate and funding is not in the best interest of East Campus. They prefer the Paint Branch alignment, which connects readily to the Stadium Drive alternative.

It is my goal to work closely with the Maryland Department of Transportation to assure that the alignment serves those from both inside and outside the university community. In the meantime, it is important that the community understand my views and the reasons for support of the Purple Line in an acceptable location.

[OhioGuy]

Mastering the master plan (http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2007/10/30/Opinion/Mastering.The.Master.Plan-3063719.shtml)
Our View: President Mote is ignoring facts of the master plan and basing his opinion of the Purple Line on misinformation.
Staff Editorial
Issue date: 10/30/07 Section: Opinion
The Purple Line seems to be causing a bit more turmoil than originally expected. However, the reaction is not overwhelming disapproval for the light rail, which could connect the campus with East Campus and the College Park Metro Station, that's causing the turmoil, but rather university President Dan Mote's lack of consistency between his master plan and Facilities Management's Master Plan.

According to Mote's Oct. 25 column "Support for the right location", he insisted that the future plan to close Campus Drive to make it more pedestrian-friendly did not include plans to make the road a "dedicated transit way." To do so, Mote wrote, "is inconsistent with this vision of the free pedestrian transit."

We have yet to figure out whose vision he is referring to, as the Facilities Master Plan clearly states that campus roads, including Field House Drive, Valley Drive, Preinkert Drive and Campus Drive are to be "closed to general, daily traffic and configured to support the campus shuttle and pedestrian and bicycle use." The master plan clearly seeks to include transit traffic and even increase Shuttle-UM usage to decrease car usage. Yet Mote managed to completely ignore this fact while trying to paint the image of Campus Drive as entirely pedestrian, when in reality, the Purple Line would fit in quite well with the desired master plan, not Mote's desired plan.

The master plan would seek to shut down certain campus roads to general traffic and provide shuttle service from parking garages located on the outskirts of the campus to on-campus locations, minimizing traffic and congestion on the campus. The Purple Line would be a manageable addition to the master plan and the vision for Campus Drive, despite the unreasonable excuses President Mote has been offering against the inclusion of the Purple Line on Campus Drive in the master plan.

The mere fact that Mote overlooked the actual vision of the master plan when addressing the issue in his column makes us wonder if we can believe anything he says when it comes to the Purple Line or if he is simply playing by his own rules and creating his own master plan.

Considering his obvious misinformation on the issue, can we believe the weak excuses he has provided for pushing to move the Purple Line to Stadium Drive are any more substantial? Or is he simply ignoring the facts and creating an argument based on his own personal opinion of the Purple Line? At this point, who knows?

The Purple Line has the ability to connect the campus as well as facilitate a better option for commuting students, faculty, staff and fans. While there might be some bugs to work out with the setup, the excuses he has offered in place of factual arguments are leading us to believe that Mote is simply not a reliable source for correct information regarding this issue. It's time for him to get on board with the master plan and leave his own plan behind.

[OhioGuy]

Purple on Campus Drive (http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2007/11/09/Opinion/Purple.On.Campus.Drive-3089950.shtml)
Rob Goodspeed
Issue date: 11/9/07 Section: Opinion
No professors on our campus will accept "F" work. In fact, according to university policy, students receiving an "F" in a class receive no academic credit. Unfortunately, university President Dan Mote is failing transportation planning. Between classes, Campus Drive is at what planners describe as an "F" level of service: gridlock. And Mote's proposed solution - moving all vehicular traffic and the Purple Line to Stadium Drive - fails to maximize access, efficiency and safety on the campus.

Last week, the Maryland Transit Administration presented detailed data on exactly how many vehicles and pedestrians are on Campus Drive. What does that data tell us about what President Mote should do? What does an "A" solution look like? Let's take a look at the data.

MTA told us that during the day, 78 percent of the vehicles on Campus Drive are private automobiles, 11 percent are city and university buses and the remainder, delivery trucks and service vehicles. However, if we count people and not vehicles, we get quite different results. Assuming, on average, cars will have 1.5 passengers, Shuttle-UM buses will have 30 riders and other public buses 20 passengers each, we find a whopping 68 percent of all people traveling on Campus Drive are riding public transit - just 11 percent of the vehicles! Furthermore, the MTA found that some 17 percent of the cars were just passing through the campus.

MTA has proposed closing Campus Drive to private vehicles and reserving it for buses and trains only. Let's assume the 17 percent of cars just passing through the campus choose different routes and 10 percent of the remaining car commuters choose to ride buses or the Purple Line (which seems reasonable with housing being built nearby and huge increases in bus ridership as it is). The result is a net reduction of 1,391 vehicles from campus during the day on this road alone! Reducing the number of vehicles on the campus is something everyone can support and a goal supported clearly in the Facilities Master Plan.

President Mote has raised concerns about pedestrian safety on Campus Drive, a valid concern on any campus. Fortunately, MTA studied when, where and how many people were crossing the road. What they found was although the number is large - some 25,000 pedestrians - the vast majority cross during the 15-minute intervals between classes. Since the Purple Line is proposed to operate every six to 12 minutes, this would mean only two trains would pass through during all but one of these passing periods. The Transportation Research Board has noted that "Although [light rail] systems have excellent overall safety records, public perception often runs counter to the statistics."

President Mote's proposed Stadium Drive alignment has a number of important drawbacks.

First, on the issue of safety, his route actually means the trains will traverse our campus for a further distance, and in areas where pedestrians are less concentrated.

Second, this route is removed from the activity centers on the campus. Most Shuttle-UM buses depart from near the Stamp Student Union for a good reason: it's located at the center of the campus near large buildings people are going to, something contained in the Master Plan.

Third, the MTA engineers were very concerned about the impact of major sporting events on the stadium. President Mote's route would send trains immediately adjacent to Byrd Stadium, and planners feared the huge crowds of people would inevitably spill onto the road and clog traffic.

Lastly, routing everything to Stadium Drive won't solve the problem that buses, trains and cars will be competing for the same road. The beauty of the MTA proposal is that it helps us maximize access to the campus while still allowing the 68 percent of the people on Campus Drive riding buses to continue to access the center of the campus.

Modern light rail is fast, clean and efficient. It would help take thousands of cars off the campus and help thousands of students, faculty, staff and Terps fans access the campus more easily and efficiently. If it were built, I have no doubt the Purple Line would be an unobtrusive asset and a symbol of forward-thinking excellence.

Luckily, unlike with the location of the College Park Metro Station determined under a past president, there's still time for President Mote to re-write his proposal for full credit. Let's champion an "A" plan that maximizes access, efficiency and safety: the Purple Line on Campus Drive.

Rob Goodspeed is an urban planning graduate student and a co-editor of RethinkCollegePark.net. He can be reached at editors@rethinkcollegepark.net.

[OhioGuy]

Faculty assail state's Purple Line plan (http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2007/11/13/News/Faculty.Assail.States.Purple.Line.Plan-3096774.shtml)
Nathan Cohen
Issue date: 11/13/07 Section: News
University senators yesterday blasted the state's plan to run a light-rail train down Campus Drive, using rhetoric that appeared to rally behind university President Dan Mote's opposition to the plan.

Faculty and student senators raised concerns that the trolley-like trains that the Maryland Transit Administration would send through the campus would hit pedestrians, clutter the campus' landscape and disrupt their research experiments as the trains vibrated along the rails.

Although the senate declined to take a formal position on the plan this year, the faculty senators' comments raised the profile of what has already developed into a conflict over the future of regional transit. The fundamental disagreement is over whether the rail planned to connect area Metro stations should travel along the state's preferred Campus Drive or Stadium Drive.

Graduate students have already announced support for the Campus Drive alignment because of its easy access to Stamp Student Union and its more direct route; the Student Government Association has not announced plans to take a position on the matter.

History professor Gay Gullickson made it clear at yesterday's meeting where he stands on the issue.

"If the light rail comes to campus it will fundamentally change the ambiance," Gullickson said. "We compete with university students at our peer institutions. I don't think we'll compete well."

While the trains would run at 16 mph on the campus, Mote has said the Purple Line would pose a threat to pedestrians on Campus Drive and has instead supported a line that would bring it down Stadium Drive, where there is less foot traffic.

Senate Chair William Montgomery steered the issue away from a formal vote, but Kenneth Holum, a history professor set to become Senate Chair next year, said he would like to see the senate make a recommendation when he takes over.

The university administration, historically, has followed the senate's recommendations, and Holum was among the majority of senators who sided with the administration's stance on the project.

"I'm very much in favor of mass transit," he said. But he added, "I think there's an issue with routing."

Many other senators were even more critical of the MTA's proposal, which includes an above-ground light rail that would connect Bethesda Metro to New Carrollton Metro, with stops along the way at the university, Langley Park and Silver Spring. On the campus, the Purple Line would stop at Stamp Student Union, East Campus, University of Maryland University College and the M-Square Research Park.

"I think this is an ongoing invitation to disaster," said James Harris, Dean of the College of Arts and Humanities. "We'll end up with two campuses split by what was originally a good idea, going underground."

Those in attendance at the meeting, which included the senate and many top members of the university administration, seemed most concerned about MTA's plan to reduce the number of walkways on Campus Drive from eight to four.

"The culture on campus is that pedestrians rule here," said Duncan. "The question is what do you do when students ignore the crosswalks. The answer [from MTA] was, I hope the train would stop."

Despite what appears as a united front in the university's upper echelon against the Purple Line, Vice President for Administrative Affairs Doug Duncan recognized the light rail train would be running on state land and politicians in Annapolis would make the final decisions on its route.

"As it was put to me, it's state land and [they] could do whatever [they] want with it," said Duncan. "If University of Maryland is the obstacle to the Purple Line, there would be retribution."

Not all the members spoke against the Purple Line, however. Graduate Student Government President Laura Moore said she likes the line exactly where MTA wants it.

"I'm kind of dismayed by what I'm hearing right now," Moore said. "We have [mass transit] on Campus Drive, and somehow they run on schedule. Nobody's died."

[OhioGuy]

Seeing Purple (http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2007/11/20/News/Seeing.Purple-3111859.shtml)
Ben Slivnick and Megan Eckstein
Issue date: 11/20/07 Section: News
In nine years on the job, university President Dan Mote has battled state budget cuts, staff layoffs, union workers' strife and a recurring housing shortage.

But mention the Purple Line - a planned light-rail route that will connect suburbs around the Capital Beltway - and the usually low-key president freezes. His eyes narrow, and he invokes his legacy at the university.

He's made the rare move of taking a jab at the Student Government Association for not taking a position on whether the above-ground light-rail train should travel along Campus or Stadium Drive. Top university administrators have been dispatched to rally faculty against the Campus Drive plan.

Since the turbulent budget cuts Mote fought against four years ago, conflict between administrators and state officials have rarely spilled out beyond administrators' closed doors - especially not over a transitway, which officials haven't even funded, let alone finished planning.

"I will be long dead by the time this thing gets built," Mote said at a recent meeting. "But some decades from now, when this thing does get built, I don't want anybody to look back and think, 'How could they have been so stupid and so ignorant about the impact it would have on this kind of beautiful place, to damage it in this way?' So, I'm not going to give up on this because this is so fundamental to the future of the university."

What could be problematic for Mote is that he can't depend on the student support that rallied against the budget cuts four years ago. On the Purple Line, a classic student versus administrator battle is brewing.

The Graduate Student Government, siding with the Maryland Transit Administration's proposal, unanimously passed a resolution supporting the Campus Drive route Friday. The group has consistently said administrators' fear of putting the line in the middle of the campus overlooks students' needs for convenient access to the Metro and a major link to the metropolitan area.

Mote counters that by saying without careful consideration, fast-moving trains will mar the scenic entrance of campus and impede the safe flow of 25,000 pedestrians whose convenience is a major goal of the campus master plan.

The proposed light-rail transitway is set to run through the campus along Campus Drive, shutting down some roads and hitting four possible locations: the new East Campus developments, the Stamp Student Union, UMUC and the M-Square site, according to the plans of the MTA, who will make the final recommendation on the project to state politicians. Mote has lobbied for an alternative route that would send the train down Stadium Drive near Byrd Stadium.

It's a game of tug of war with Mote fighting to maintain Campus Drive's traditional look and the MTA pulling for a two-and-a-half minute quicker travel time. GSG President Laura Moore and the MTA argue that a Stadium Drive location would let passengers off too far from the heart of the campus while Mote counters that it would be safer for pedestrians.

Though the MTA has proposed shrubs to keep pedestrians away from the tracks, "as soon as the first dog or student gets squashed, it's going to be high fences to prevent people from getting in there," effectively dividing the campus in two, Mote said. He said the MTA's plans to keep the number of crosswalks between four and six along the nearly one-and-a-half miles it runs on campus is like "herding sheep" - a recipe for disaster.

But the light-rail train is far different than the Metro car that claimed the life of senior Maurice Ferguson by the College Park Metro Station nearly three years ago. Light-rail cars travel at about 16 miles per hour and run on rubber wheels.

Moore and the MTA say the safety concerns are far too exaggerated, but in the meantime, lines of communication among the parties have essentially shut down. The most influential stakeholders have never met face to face, and the MTA and Mote constantly misquote each other's stances in public forums - with the MTA even poking fun at Mote's concerns.

While speaking to the GSG last Friday, MTA engineering consultant Joel Oppenheimer said that Mote didn't want to make the campus uglier and dissuade alumni from visiting the campus and donating money.

Just as the administration feels shrugged, so does Moore, who says she has been excluded from the drawing table. Mote's Chief of Staff, Ann Wylie, said a meeting with Moore, who is a "student who believes they know more than the president about the university," would be unproductive.

Moore, however, accused administrators of being out of touch with transit concerns because most drive cars and park near their offices.

"Campus is a different place when you have to park a mile from where your classes are," she said. "It's different when you can't afford a car. There are so many day to day issues they're not in touch with ... they all have campus parking passes and make six-figure salaries. They don't experience campus the way we do."

Moore went on to point out that even those students who do have cars often have to walk to classes from far away parking lots, unlike most administrators. Those without cars are often at the mercy of public transportation, she said, stressing that she thought students would represent the largest population of the campus riding the line.

The one voice who had not defined his stance in the debate is SGA President Andrew Friedson, who is the only student leader to meet with the president. He is perhaps in the best position to facilitate a compromise. While Mote has blasted Friedson's SGA for their neutrality, Friedson said he is waiting until ridership information is released this winter.

"The idea of rushing to judgment on something that will have long lasting effects, I think is irresponsible," he said. "I'm not avoiding a stance, but I'm just avoiding taking a stance without seeing all the facts."

But without a loud student voice, Moore questioned who will represent the students' views in a project largely intended to benefit the region's tens of thousands of commuters and not just this student body.

"If we don't go on the record now, the only voice is going to be the administration's," Moore said. "And in this issue, I don't believe they're speaking for the students."

At the end of the day, the debate is somewhat futile unless some argument convinces the MTA.

"We still feel that the Campus Drive alignment is our preferred alignment, and we think we can prove it to be so," the MTA's project manager for the Purple Line, Mike Madden said.

[OhioGuy]

Until we're Purple in the face (http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2007/11/21/Opinion/Until.Were.Purple.In.The.Face-3112877.shtml)
Staff Editorial
Issue date: 11/21/07 Section: Opinion
It's too bad we can't find anywhere to watch The Simpsons on demand. Ever since this whole Purple Line fiasco has erupted, we've had a hankering to watch the episode where Springfield buys the monorail from a con artist instead of fixing their Main Street. As Vanity Fair wrote earlier this year in a ranking of best Simpsons episodes ever, "Marge vs. the Monorail" (No. 3 on the list) "reveals the town's mob mentality and its collective lack of reason" in its decision making.

While the Purple Line debate centers on where the Purple Line light-rail train should be placed, The Simpsons episode's portrayal of a slick spinster who relies on attractive - but ultimately cooked-up - information to further his own agenda bears some striking similarities to our own situation. In fact, given the bizarre, disjointed case university President Dan Mote and other university officials have made against bringing the bi-county connector rail through the center of the campus, it's not hard to imagine Mote dressed in a barbershop straw hat smooth-talking his way into the strangely gullible faculty and alumni minds.

Setting aside Mote's ludicrous argument that the light rail would be an eyesore (even as big, red Shuttle-UMs tool around the campus) it's more troubling to hear the flimsy argument that Mote apparently concocted with Doug Duncan, the vice president for administrative affairs.

Duncan actually convinced faculty senators that their sensitive research would be affected by "vibrations" caused by the train. The senators who reacted with rattle-brained hysteria need to do their homework. The light rail is no steam-powered locomotive. It's a relatively lightweight, rubber-wheeled, electrically-powered machine that makes so little noise it's equipped with a bell to warn pedestrians of its approach. Duncan should be ashamed of himself for floating such a baseless claim.

Even more disturbing is Mote's apparent effort to bring alumni into his fold. In a letter obtained by local development blog Rethink College Park, Terrapin Club Executive Director Greg Enloe tells alumni in a borderline delusional e-mail that "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." He goes on to say that the line will mean the loss of hundreds of football parking spaces in Lot 1.

Mr. Enloe apparently cares more about getting his fill of weekend pigskin than the daily needs of students trying to get a high-quality college education in a severely gridlocked area. He and the university similarly ignore the fact that U.S. Department of Transportation research shows that light rails have dramatically fewer injuries compared to commuter rails and buses. Enloe has also apparently not read the master plan, because Lot 1 is slated for demolition anyway.

We can only hope that students aren't suckered into Mote's misleading, huckster campaign the way faculty, alumni and top administrators have been. "Mob mentality" and "lack of reason" as portrayed in cartoons has no place at a serious university. Especially when it will have such a permanent crippling effect on generations of students that follow.

*Correction: The Wednesday staff editorial titled "Until we're Purple in the face" mischaracterized the administration's contact with University Senators regarding concerns that the planned Purple Line could cause vibrations that would affect sensitive experiments. Vice President for Administrative Affairs Doug Duncan responded to concerns brought up by senate members. He did not initiate discussion of them at the senate meeting. However, according to an e-mail obtained by The Diamondback, university President Dan Mote's chief of staff, Ann Wylie, wrote that "serious issues about the Purple Line's effect on sensitive experiments" continue to prompt concern about a Campus Drive alignment.

[OhioGuy]

Purple Line sparks more feuding (http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2007/12/06/News/Purple.Line.Sparks.More.Feuding-3135648.shtml)
Brady Holt
Issue date: 12/6/07 Section: News
A university vice president trashed the state's plan for the Purple Line transitway at a College Park City Council meeting Tuesday night, leaving council members caught in the middle as students joined the fray.

Though the meeting was expected to be informational, a Maryland Transit Administration official clashed with Vice President of Administrative Affairs Doug Duncan over the campus master plan, a document created to guide future development on the campus. Duncan has repeatedly cited the plan's pedestrian-friendly guidelines as the reason Purple Line should not travel along Campus Drive.

College Park Mayor Stephen Brayman was forced to mediate the dispute, which centered on whether the Purple Line would keep Campus Drive a pedestrian-friendly thoroughfare once the road is closed to all vehicles except Shuttle-UM.

Duncan and MTA officials argued over whether which route would be convenient for students, with a stop near Stamp Student Union, and cut overall commute times. University officials have proposed an alternative route that would follow Stadium Drive or another less central route for safety and aesthetic reasons.

Duncan called the MTA's assertion that the Campus Drive proposal would not disrupt pedestrian traffic near the center of campus "straight-up misleading."

"The Campus alignment is contradictory to the master plan," he said, rising out of his chair. "I'm sorry [the MTA] keeps saying otherwise."

MTA consultant Joel Oppenheimer countered that the master plan calls for a Campus Drive free of cars but not necessarily public transportation.

Duncan approached a shouting match with Oppenheimer until Mayor Stephen Brayman suggested that "you're both right" and that it was time to move on.

Duncan spent much of the rest of the meeting in his seat with his arms crossed, and at one point refused to answer a question from city staff.

Graduate Student Government President Laura Moore, an ardent advocate for the Campus Drive route, added to the debate.

"If you hear the administration's message on this, Campus Drive is a pristine meadow and the Purple Line is a steam locomotive," she said. "I think that the Campus Drive alignment is very positive for pedestrian access and for bicycles."

But Duncan said that the idea of trains running through the center of campus goes against the university's principle of "pedestrians first," a concern that may not have been alleviated by the MTA presentation.

The traffic problem on Campus Drive is "not too many cars, it's too many pedestrians," said Mike Madden, the MTA's Purple Line project manager.

But for all the MTA's difficult questions and spirited debate, Madden was able to answer at least one question easily and confidently to the satisfaction of all present, when District 2 councilman Jack Perry interrupted the presentation.

"Now, what does 'MTA' stand for?," Perry asked.

[ltsmotorsport]

Ok, a little OT, but when is the Silver line coming? Is it subway/elevated, LRT, or BRT? Last time I was in DC I flew into Dulles and had to take a bus to Falls Church. A transit line is just what is needed.

Back to the Purple line. I agree with students and the state. The alignment should be right through campus. And LRT would be sooooo much cooler. ;)

[SnyderBock]

Light rail runs through Denver's, downtown, Auraria Campus - which is home to a conglomeration of colleges including Metro State, Denver University, CU-Denver (correct me if I'm mistaken here). Anyway, Auraria Campus is designing an entire campus redevelopment/makeover around the two light rail stations which serve it. There are also talks of possibly running a modern streetcar through the campus (in addition to this) at some point in the future.

So far, the students love it and use it (it is mainly a commuter college without on campus living) and for the most part, the colleges favor it - though they do want to have influence on exact alignments and station locations.

[ardecila]

Ok, a little OT, but when is the Silver line coming? Is it subway/elevated, LRT, or BRT? Last time I was in DC I flew into Dulles and had to take a bus to Falls Church. A transit line is just what is needed

It's a full-blown Metro line, mostly elevated. Tysons Corner continues to fight to have their segment of the line moved underground, but WMATA says this is too costly. The target date for opening the Silver Line is 2013 for the first half, and 2016 for the second half out to Dulles.

[OhioGuy]

Ok, a little OT, but when is the Silver line coming? Is it subway/elevated, LRT, or BRT? Last time I was in DC I flew into Dulles and had to take a bus to Falls Church. A transit line is just what is needed.

Here's a link to the Dulles Metro website: http://www.dullesmetro.com/

According to the latest project update on the website, utility relocation should begin next month with actual construction on phase I beginning during the summer.

As for the subway/elevated issue, as already noted it will be mainly elevated. Obviously a subway would have been nice through Tysons Corner, but I guess anything is better than nothing at all. Silver Spring is a great area regardless of the fact it's metro station is above ground, so we'll just have to hope for the same for Tysons Corner. Plus I've gotta say the station renderings from the website look fairly decent, though obviously the design can't compete with the beautiful architecture of Metro's subway stations (my favorites being the stations with the honeycomb walls). :)

[ltsmotorsport]

Sweet. Thanks guys.

[OhioGuy]

More Purple line news:

Light Rail Backed in Report on Purple Line (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201077.html?wprss=rss_metro)
Montgomery Planners Like Route Near Trail

By Miranda S. Spivack
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 23, 2008; Page B01

Montgomery County planners yesterday endorsed building a light rail system for the proposed east-west Purple Line and recommended running the trains mostly above ground and next to the Georgetown Branch Trail, a route heavily used by walkers and bicyclists.

The proposed 16-mile link between Montgomery and Prince George's counties would include as many as 22 stations at locations including Bethesda, Silver Spring, the Takoma and Langley Park areas, the University of Maryland's College Park campus and the New Carrollton Amtrak and Metro station.

"We have to grow, and we have to do it in a way that is sustainable," said Tom Autrey, the report's chief author. "The bottom line is that we have to take care of folks in these near suburbs so that we can experience growth in a reasonable way that is less dependent on the auto."

Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) is expected to choose a Purple Line route early next year and determine whether to build a light rail system or a busway, a type of transit system that often uses dedicated bus lanes and whose vehicles get preference at traffic lights. The plan endorsed yesterday by the Montgomery County planning staff calls for a system that would cost about $1.2 billion in 2007 dollars. The staff report is advisory and must be reviewed by the Planning Board and County Council.

County Executive Isiah Leggett (D), a light rail proponent, also is expected to weigh in, but not until he completes an assessment of financing and other data, an aide said.

The Montgomery recommendation is expected to be well received in Prince George's and eastern Montgomery, where residents say they need something better than the slow-moving bus system that is their only east-west transit link to Silver Spring and Bethesda.

"The Purple Line will connect our communities, enhance economic opportunities, take cars off the road and be a great benefit to both counties," said Prince George's County Council member Eric Olson (D-College Park), who represents New Carrollton and surrounding communities.

But the proposal reignited controversy in some communities along the proposed route, whose residents worry that light rail would be a few steps from their back yards.

In Bethesda and Chevy Chase, a coalition of affluent communities, a country club and some trail advocates are pushing to bypass the trail route and create a more northerly alignment that would use rapid buses and terminate at the Medical Center Metro stop, next to the expanding National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.

Planners instead recommended running the light rail next to the Georgetown Branch Trail, an extension of the Capital Crescent Trail, and proposed expanding the 10-foot-wide trail to 12 feet where possible. They also propose planting additional foliage and finding other ways to buffer neighborhoods from the light rail line.

The western terminus would be in downtown Bethesda, at an as-yet unopened south entrance to the Metro station near Woodmont and Bethesda avenues.

In Silver Spring, some residents near downtown are worried about street-level light rail near their homes and are urging that parts of the route be put underground.

Mark Gabriele, who heads a community association in a neighborhood north of downtown Silver Spring, said he thought a surface route would get caught in "downtown gridlock." Running the system underground in Silver Spring would be more efficient, he said.

In Bethesda, the rail line would use an existing tunnel under Wisconsin Avenue, sharing it with the walking and biking trail, and then follow the trail to Silver Spring. East of Silver Spring, the rail would operate mostly along streets.

Silver Spring would have three stops: at the Metro station at Colesville Road and Georgia Avenue; on 16th Street; and near a proposed library at Fenton and Wayne streets.

The planners dropped a proposed light rail station on Dale Drive, citing ridership studies. Some residents have been strongly opposed to the stop.

Pat Burda, a resident of the Town of Chevy Chase, is among those who favor placing the system closer to the naval hospital. She said the staff-endorsed proposal fails to address "the phenomenal amount of traffic" from the hospital expansion and calls for cutting down too many trees.

"The amount of trees that will be removed is quite devastating," she said.

Ben Ross, a transportation activist, lauded the Montgomery plan but said he thought it underestimated potential ridership.

By 2030, the cheapest busway is predicted to carry people on 40,000 trips daily, and the most expensive light rail line is estimated to reach 68,000 trips, according to a state study.

The state studied eight options, ranging from an $82 million plan to upgrade bus service to a $1.6 billion, high-end light rail system. Autrey said the $1.2 billion plan appears to be the most cost-effective when ridership, time spent traveling, construction and other factors are considered.

Autrey said the Purple Line had been the subject of substantial internal debate, with many staff members worried about the impact on the trail.

"I use the trail, but there are tradeoffs. It is a tough, tough decision, and we don't make this recommendation without understanding what the trail has become to many people," he said.

[Cirrus]

Except for one small subdivision fully of rich NIMBYs and one golf course owner, everyone is coming out in favor light rail on the original alignment. At this point, picking BRT would seriously piss a lot of people off.