75°Scattered Clouds

Two Streetcar Groups Issue Statements

by Katie Pyzyk — March 28, 2013 at 1:44 pm 880 54 Comments

At a Wednesday night townhall meeting, residents joined the County Board in a sometimes heated discussion about bringing streetcars to Crystal City and Columbia Pike. Two opposing local organizations are also sounding off on the issue.

Following the townhall, John Snyder, president of the pro-streetcar group Arlington Streetcar Now, issued the following statement:

“Arlingtonians strongly support moving forward with the streetcar which neighborhoods and
businesses have been working to bring about for a decade. The streetcar represents a next-generation transit solution that will increase capacity, improve ridership, and spark new investment that will enhance and revitalize our community.

“Arlingtonians acknowledge the foresight of those who supported Metro over the naysayers, and know that this generation has a similar choice to make. Tonight Arlingtonians demonstrated that they know the streetcar is an extraordinary opportunity to support an transportation investment in our future that will pay dividends for South Arlington neighborhoods and the well being of the county as a whole.”

Peter Rousselot, spokesman for Arlingtonians for Sensible Transit, issued a statement presenting an opposing viewpoint:

“We continue to be deeply concerned about the unwillingness of the County Board to fairly consider transit options for Columbia Pike, other than the fixed-rail streetcar. There is much evidence that rational and viable alternatives exist.

“Unfortunately, as the County Board has done on other occasions, it used most of the Town Hall merely to restate the same claims in favor of the streetcar proposal without allowing a full discussion of other options. As we have said, there is at least one highly attractive alternative – modern bus rapid transit (BRT) – which:

  • Produces virtually the same increase in transit capacity,
  • Would have the same positive impact on commercial development,
  • Would have far less adverse impact on small business,
  • Is far less expensive,
  • And thus would preserve more scarce financial resources to support affordable housing and many other priorities.”
Print
×

Subscribe to our mailing list