Senate wants MTA to study heavy rail for Purple Line

Members of the state Senate's Budget and Taxation Committee have asked the MTA to reconsider how the Purple Line should be built, in favor of a heavy-rail, underground system.

The Purple Line — a proposed light-rail system that would connect Metro lines from Bethesda to New Carrollton and would connect Prince George's and Montgomery Counties — has long been at the center of a heated battle over what route the rail system should take through this university's campus. Most of the debate has hinged on whether the line should run down Campus Drive or Preinkert Drive because the Maryland Transit Administration's initial research determined a light-rail system would be the most practical and cost-effective option.

"We don't agree that it's necessary," MTA's Chief of Project Development Mike Madden said of the senators' request to go back to the drawing board. "We have examined heavy-rail mode in the past and found it cost-prohibitive."

But the more expensive underground alignment could be in the university's best interests, Vice President for Administrative Affairs Ann Wylie said.

"I think there's a very good solution to the whole thing," Wylie said. "Put it through the middle of campus, and put it underground."

The university administration originally suggested running the Purple Line underground because the train's vibrations, which administrators fear would disrupt sensitive research projects, would be dulled beneath the layers of dirt and concrete. An underground alignment, Wylie said, would also be more in line with the university's Strategic Plan, which calls for closing Campus Drive to all traffic.

The idea was disbanded after it became clear there was simply no money to fund an underground track.

Light rail is significantly cheaper than heavy rail because it is slower, has less carrying capacity and can share the road with other vehicles on above-ground tracks. The last point is key in built-up areas, Madden said, since heavy rail would need to run underground for large parts of the route, including on and around the campus.

"Generally, heavy rail has to be completely grade-separated — you can't walk across it or drive across it, so in a lot of cases it's underground," Madden said.

Madden estimated above-ground light rail would average about $40-50 million a mile, and underground heavy rail would cost a whopping $200-250 million a mile.

Senators got the idea to give heavy rail a second look when President Barack Obama's administration unveiled a new mass transit agenda in January. The state hopes to fund the Purple Line in large part with federal dollars.

"There's no money to fund [the Purple and other new lines] at this time anyway, so by looking at them it certainly gives you more time to know what you're dealing with when you do have money to fund them," said Sen. James DeGrange (D-Anne Arundel) in an interview with the Maryland Reporter, an online news site for government and politics in the state.

According to a Federal Transit Administration press release, the new agenda would base funding guidelines for major transit projects on "livability issues," including economic development opportunities and environmental benefits. Cost and time saved are also considerations, but they are no longer the primary criteria.

Senators said environmental benefits might play a part in one of the new proposed lines, but they did not point out the Purple Line specifically.

And though the FTA press release hailed the change as "dramatic," Madden disagreed.

"Even though there's been a slight change in the policy, cost-effectiveness is still one of the criteria," he said. "The fact remains that heavy rail would never be affordable."

apino@umdbk.com