Incidentally, the airport's official name was "Washington National Airport" ... named for our first president. It got changed by the Gingrich folks to "Reagan Washington National Airport" in the mid-90s ... and remains officially that. Washingtonians generally just call it "National Airport" as they always have ... It's the out of towners (and those of a staunch Republican persuasion) who call it "Reagan Airport".

by Lance on Aug 11, 2008 2:32 pm  

I prefer DCA...the real FAA official name of the airport.

by RJ on Aug 11, 2008 2:39 pm  

David - your fantasy map never had a stop for the Kennedy Center, did it? That would be useful, especially if they make E Street a promenade with KenCen as the anchor.

by Michael on Aug 11, 2008 2:46 pm  

To keep things on the Washington Metro topic ... I seem to recall that one of the rabid Reagan renamers (Bob Barr?) held up federal funding for the Metro unless the system paid for new maps and station signage that added Regan's name to the Metro stop near National. (The funding when released did not contain extra money to pay for said renaming, it goes without saying.)

One of the nice things about the BWI renaming is that it didn't carry such a mandate -- basically, the airport was told just to add Marshall's name to new signs whenever they were due to be purchased. I note that Marshall's name is on the latest MTA maps, but not (I don't think) on the physical Light Rail or MARC station signs.

by jfruh on Aug 11, 2008 2:46 pm  

Michael: That should probably be a light rail line. Track Twenty-Nine's Metro & Light Rail plan has the Columbia Pike line doing something like that (but under 17th, which I think is too far east)

by David Alpert on Aug 11, 2008 2:55 pm  

hey, it's still "national."

*wink*

by jenny on Aug 11, 2008 2:58 pm  

I did a post on DC home-rule recently and covered Mr. Barr's shenanigans. (http://tracktwentynine.blogspot.com/2008/07/we-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident.html).

As for my Light Rail Line under 17th, the main reasoning is to hit Farragut Square, which I've made the nexus of the Metro system. Moving the line further west would cut down on the 4-block walk to the State Department, but it would also add time for commuters headed directly to the office buildings downtown.

Unfortunately, it would also be difficult to facilitate a transfer to the Red Line. Since my line goes up 16th, it could use New Hampshire north of Foggy Bottom, and would cross the Red Line directly at Dupont Circle, but that station's depth would make difficult any attempts at quick transferring.

Incidentally, my streetcar plan should be out later this week, and I have some updates to the Metro/LRT Plan as well.

Stay tuned! (http://tracktwentynine.blogspot.com/search/label/Transportation%20Futures)

by Matt' on Aug 11, 2008 3:13 pm  

I believe the PortAmerica development preceded the development now known as National Harbor.

by William on Aug 11, 2008 4:03 pm  

And at the time Potomac Yards was probably still the proposed site for the new baseball stadium ... which NoVa was hoping to bring to the area ... and not a shopping center. (It was railyards prior to then.)

by Lance on Aug 11, 2008 4:29 pm  

Rich white people line? I can't wait! I mean, I probably wouldn't be allowed on it, but it's about time that rich white people live near Metro! (That being said, though, would they let it go to not-very-white Wheaton or not-very-rich Manassas?)

by dan reed on Aug 11, 2008 5:12 pm  

I like the columbia pike line. Isn't there a stub tunnel at pentagon built with just that in mind. It makes more sense - ignoring the money issue - than a streetcar.

by VC on Aug 11, 2008 5:57 pm  

It'll always be national. :)

by Mark on Aug 11, 2008 6:27 pm  

Yes, there is a bellmouth just south of Pentagon Station. The tunnel provision was constructed to placate Arlington County (with a future line) without increasing the cost of the system (which would have upset the other jurisdictions).

Of course, the original finish date for Metro was supposed to be 1983. The Adopted Regional System wasn't finished until 2001 when Branch Avenue opened.

It is very unlikely that federal funding will be available for a Columbia Pike subway. Virginia could go 100% local, of course, but with their transportation funding issues, I doubt you'll see Metrorail at Lincolnia before the year 2525, if man is still alive.

by Matt' on Aug 11, 2008 7:09 pm  

Lance,

You were close. But Jack Kent Cooke considered Potomac Yard for what is now FedEx Field.

http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/deal-set-for-the-redskins-to-move-to-hb/

Also the site is a former Superfund site, finally cleaned up in the 90's

by RJ on Aug 11, 2008 11:41 pm  

RJ, that site was considered for many things before becoming a shopping center ... including a baseball stadium (in 2002):

"The commonwealth's efforts to land a baseball team are invested in the Virginia Baseball Stadium Authority, which, through the state's secretary of commerce and trade, is authorized to design, finance, construct, own and operate a major league ballpark.

Paul said that, after a site study by Kansas City-based HOK Architects, a field of about 40 sites has been reduced to parcels of land in Arlington, Fairfax and Loudoun counties.

Sources close to the situation said four sites top the list:

Potomac Yard in Crystal City;

Tract of land south of the 14th Street bridge that was once the site of the Marriott Twin Bridges Hotel;

Parcel of land at the intersection of Route 28 and the Dulles Toll Road in Herndon; and

Site at the intersection of the Dulles Greenway Highway and Route 267 between Dulles Airport and Leesburg."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20020503/ai_n10052474

by Lance on Aug 12, 2008 11:18 am  

Correct, the baseball stadium was proposed for PY but there was absolutely no support and the leading candidate for Arlington was the 14th St Bridge location. The overall leading candidate was Springfield EPG but residence eventually shot it down. Ironically, the EPG will now receive the NGA portion of BRAC and construct a billion dollar building instead. Then the whole thing seemed lost when MLB wasn’t ready to let the Expos go, nor offer an expansion team. Alexandria then accepted the Strip Mall and eventually Arlington accepted the Eclipse Condo project. When the Nats were looking for a home, Virginia Baseball Stadium Authority jumped back on board and proposed the site next to the IWO JIMA Marine Memorial along NLynne and 50 destroying the apartments there; however it was rejected by Arlington County Board, and DC got the Nats.

by RJ on Aug 12, 2008 12:27 pm  

Tonight the Newshour had a piece on public transit around the nation, and how many cities are dealing with the increased demand by trying to move people off transit. They say they cannot handle the increased load. At least, raising fare prices and cutting back service would seem to indicate to me that cities are trying to reduce ridership.

This is bad news, and illustrates what I mean when I say before punishing people who drive cars, a massively improved bus (and rail, though I know much less about that) system must be in place.

by Jazzy on Aug 12, 2008 7:58 pm  

Jazzy, Wow that's interesting. Intuitively it makes sense that mass transit would be far less efficient (and thus far more costly) than "personal" vehicles that can go where you want, when you want. I did some googling the other day and I happened upon someone discussing how all the "proof" that mass transit was more efficient was flawed because you're not comparing the same "good". Yeah, if you really had 400 people in cars going to the exact same location (and starting off at exactly the same place), it would be more efficient than driving 400 motor vehicles there. But that isn't how life works. What happens instead is that in order to be able to handle those 400 people going from one place (say DC) to another (say Rockville) during the morning and evening rush, you end up running a train during the day (or at night) that costs just about the same to operate with maybe 20 people in it. And you DON'T do anything (or at least do minimal) to help these same people get around to the hundreds of other places they have to go when they get home. So ... when you compare like to like ... and take into account all the times this transit is running at off peak times ... you have one of the most wasteful and most expensive means of transport out there. Which again, intuitively makes a lot a sense. I mean, imagine if you had to build a trainline to every conceivable spot in the metro area and you had to run it so that it ran every 5 minutes everywhere you wanted to go (so that we're comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges), and you have a very very expensive means of transport in trains ... No wonder cities are cutting back. Trying to improve transportation options in this way is like a dog trying to catch its tail. The more you try, the less you can afford it. (I.e., each incremental improvement in service goes up in cost geometrically.)

by Lance on Aug 12, 2008 8:19 pm  

You paint a more complicated and bleak picture than the one I have in mind. And I do think getting people out of their cars and onto public transit is a good thing.

But we don't live in Switzerland. This is a huge country, and we do not just live in our little cities - we will at one time or another need a car.

My angle is to improve the hell out of public transit, and what depresses me is that from the report, there seems to be even less will than I thought (and fewer actual plans, despite what they say) to do that. Completely depressing.

I cannot support this with facts at hand, but I believe that environmentally it is a gain to move people out of their cars and onto transit. Especially single passenger cars commuting from DC, Md or Va.

by Jazzy on Aug 12, 2008 8:37 pm  

Also for me, I won't hold my breath waiting for public transit to turn a profit. For me, that is not the point.

by Jazzy on Aug 12, 2008 8:44 pm  

Lance: Sure, it wouldn't make sense to build a train to every conceivable destination, but on the other hand, we have thousands of people that get on the train at Ballston and get off at Farragut West. Not only that, but employer location and housing are not randomly assigned. Employers like to establish themselves where transportation is available (that's why there are rental premiums for downtown office space), and employees like to house themselves where there's convenient transportation (that's why land near a Metro station carries a price premium).

It's not that there are hundreds of people going from the exact same location to the exact same location, but that we can arrange for a lot of homes and a lot of jobs to be lcoated close to each other and aligned along a corridor.

by Michael on Aug 12, 2008 10:45 pm  

Let's not forget that the spatial arrangement of our cities is very much a consequence of economics and policy prerogatives (intentional and otherwise).

It would be very difficult (impossible) to serve everyone in the Metro area with rail transit. Of course, it wasn't cheap building an system of Interstates convenient to the overwhelming majority of the population of the US. The spread out pattern of suburbia was tailored to a society where almost the entire population had access to an automobile and cheap gas.

If the economics (or the policies) change, it is likely that over the long term, so will the built environment. Let's not forget that transit used to be a profitable enterprise in this country.

I don't think anyone here is arguing, however, that the car is about to disappear. However, if we can leverage transit to get 1 in 10 people to take one round trip a day off of the highway network, we would have an enormous benefit in fuel savings and a commiserate price drop.

Building a more extensive transit network has many benefits, but the goals of transit planners aren't to force people out of their cars. However, transit reduces fuel consumption, provides alternatives, increases mobility, and allows for a rethinking of the built environment.

Cars are not waste-free either. While it's true that most Metro usage comes during a few peak hours, the same can be said for freeways. And look at cars. People use them to drive from home to work, where they sit unused, taking up space for 8 or 9 hours. At night, the same thing happens.

Let's think about the opportunity cost for an institution like a university of providing parking. If the university is landlocked, like my undergraduate school was (in Midtown Atlanta), every parking space provided by the University represents roughly 300 square feet that can't be used to:

1. House students, who bring in tuition dollars.

2. Offices for professors, who bring in expertise.

3. Laboratory space, research $$$.

4. Park/Recreation/Student Life, more attractive to students.

5. Classroom space, student capacity--tuition $$$.

My university provided thousands of spaces *and* shuttle service to the nearest subway station, although a goodly portion of the campus was walkable from MARTA as well. At the same time, there are thousands more park and ride spaces scattered across the region being paid for by the taxpayers. Why should the college pay for spaces when they could just encourage transit use?

Yes, transit is an expensive solution to our transportation problems. But so are highways. Transit, on the other hand, reduces demand for roadway capacity and fossil fuels. It also provides mobility for people (like me) who do not own cars. It is also the most efficient mode, especially when land use and transit planning go hand-in-hand.

by Matt' on Aug 12, 2008 11:12 pm  

"I don't think anyone here is arguing, however, that the car is about to disappear."

well ... I think I've read here where some folks would like to see it disappear from Washington at least ... :)

by Lance on Aug 12, 2008 11:18 pm  

Lance: I've never seen anyone write that. Rebalance between cars and other modes, yes. Get rid of the car, no.

by David Alpert on Aug 12, 2008 11:24 pm  

Color version, though smaller:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/metro/popup/allan00.html

It was drawn up by one of Metro's architects. Never was anything official.

by Joseph Henchman on Aug 13, 2008 7:28 am  

"I don't think anyone here is arguing, however, that the car is about to disappear."

No one is. But people are trying to make it more difficult to drive, and while, as an occasional driver, I will accept some amount of pain, it is hard to accept it when mass transit options are being REDUCED. (see post above citing Newshour piece.)

Until the actual reality of what is going on now in Washington regarding transit planning (expansion, cutbacks, funding) is addressed, a lot of this discussion is beside the point. No one wants to deal with this, for some reason.

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2008 7:47 am  

The airport on the Potomac is still officially called National (look at the stone sign as you drive in), and there is no reason to call it anything else.

by Marshall on Aug 13, 2008 8:44 am  

The main trouble with the DC area IMHO is that everything gets talked about and nothing gets done. In Atlanta, Hartsfield was built with a subway station built in, and the subway was extended to the airport in 2 years for the 1988 DNC.

How long have we been arguing about getting the Metro to Dulles ? 30 years ? At the rate, the obvious "subway beltway" (a circumferential line) will be built in about 2060.

by Marshall on Aug 13, 2008 8:58 am  

I'd like to repeat and emphasize what David A. said: "Rebalance between cars and other modes, yes. Get rid of the car, no.", and also Jazzy's sentiments about increasing access to transit where people currently live. Someone wrote "this isn't Switzerland" regarding the difficulty of getting transit available on our continent. However there once were trains to many places in the US and trolleys in the DC area where they no longer exist. Just getting back to that baseline would be a phenomenal improvement. Zurich is about the same size as DC and consistently is rated as having the best transit in the world - and most households have at least 1 car! You can see cars all over Zurich! No one is saying get rid of cars. Zurich has a big lake and mountains to engineer around. One village/suburb of Zurich paid for the tram themselves to come to their village because they knew it would increase their property values - and it did!

by Bianchi on Aug 13, 2008 9:48 am  

This map look similar to a built out version of the 1968 ARS map.

Four differences, no circumferential line, most of extensions didn't go that far, the Columbia Pike line went only as far as Lincolnia and Burk was served was served by a branch off the J Route Blue line west of Van Dorn Street.

It is also important to note that the map was prepared by Harry Weese and Associates.

In responce to VC on Aug 11, 2008 5:57 pm and Matt' on Aug 11, 2008 7:09 pm:

Yes there are provision for the Columbia Pike route in the Pentagon station. No they were not built to "placate Arlington County".

The Columbia Pike provision along with other provision were built to allow for expansion of the system base on the lines that were marked future on the 1968 ARS map. Provision also exist east of West Falls Church station for the Dulles Route, in the tail track tunnels south of Huntington and in the yard lead tunnels north of Glenmont.

In my opinion, if the light rail line becomes reality on Columbia Pike you can pretty much kiss the idea of building a subway line under them goodbye.

by John R Cambron on Aug 13, 2008 9:49 am  

Marshall, as soon as you can come up with $5B+ in funding for Dulles Rail, they're ready to start. Convince the Virginia House that the effort is worth a tax hike and it will start.

In other news, nothing has happened on the 30s bus line revitalization, there is not a new streetcar line being developed for Anacostia, and there isn't an effort to revitalize the S bus line in the district.

by Michael P on Aug 13, 2008 9:50 am  

"Rebalance between cars and other modes, yes. Get rid of the car, no."

Right - but again, just words until we verify that actual funding INCREASES, transit INCREASES, and improvements to mass transit are indeed in the works.

"and also Jazzy's sentiments about increasing access to transit where people currently live. Someone wrote "this isn't Switzerland" regarding the difficulty of getting transit available on our continent."

I wrote that (Jazzy). And I did not write it regarding the difficulty of getting transit available on our continent. It applies, yes. But I wrote it mainly with size in mind.

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2008 9:54 am  

Marshall,

I wouldn't cite MARTA as an example of places where "things get done." Here in Washington, we finished the system as originally proposed and have gone beyond that baseline. MARTA is still unfinished, and is unlikely to ever be finished.

As for the Airport, plans for a station there go back to 1961, with Atlanta's first rapid rail proposal. A decade later when the MARTA system was approved in a referendum in 1971, the construction priorities listed as a part of the RTCAA (the MARTA contract with its jurisdictions) called for the opening of Atlanta Airport Station to be open by early 1978. This station was located in Hapeville, north of the original terminals. Bus service would have been provided to the airport in the same way Boston provides service from the Blue Line T Station at Logan.

In 1978, the RTCAA was changed to reflect that the new Airport terminals would be located on the West, rather than North, side of the Airport. The Airport Station was moved in plans to be adjacent to the new terminals.

In September of 1980, when Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport opened, the MARTA station was finished, but unconnected. The line would not reach the Airport until 1988 and wasn't extended there for any particular event. It just took 8 years to get there.

The South Line had been slowly constructed toward the airport--balanced with construction on the Northeast Line so as not to upset either Atlanta/South Fulton and Northern DeKalb. Many feared that if the line was able to reach one terminus before the other that construction on the other would be halted. Therefore, the Board constructed each north and south at the same time in small segments. The South Line reached Garnett in 1981, West End in 1982, Lakewood in 1984, East Point in 1986, and finally Airport in 1988.

by Matt' on Aug 13, 2008 10:15 am  

David and others, Why is it that when I hear "rebalancing" that means throwing more taxpayer money at building these transit systems that everyone supposedly wants so much, but isn't willing to pay for --- on the one side of the equation. And exempting developers (and the people who ultimately buy/rent their buildings) from having to privately pay for the parking needs generated by the new development, effectively externalizing the costs again --- on the other hand. On both sides of the equation, I see private costs being made public costs ... with all these public costs being to finance mass transit/less car solutions that otherwise wouldn't get financed? If using public money (and public streets) to balance the scales is "balanced", then tell me what is "not balanced"? :)

by Lance on Aug 13, 2008 11:13 am  

Lance: Because people want highways so much but aren't willing to pay for them either. From the 1940s through to today, they got them, at great public expense and only partially covered by gas taxes. Our transportation systems cost money no matter what they are. We built a lot of auto infrastructure and we got auto-oriented development. We should now rebalance by beefing up our transit infrastructure so it is also a modern, viable system for those who want to use it—which, based on recent ridership records nationwide, is a lot of people.

As for the parking again, why not advocate that everyone should have to build private roads when they build a new development (because, after all, they'd be pushing traffic onto the streets)? Development does, indeed, put pressure on our infrastructure. Denser development puts on less pressure and costs less than sprawly development, and the more we can encourage people to use transit, the less the pressure. The more people will walk or bike, the less the pressure even more.

by David Alpert on Aug 13, 2008 11:46 am  

"As for the parking again, why not advocate that everyone should have to build private roads when they build a new development (because, after all, they'd be pushing traffic onto the streets)?"

But they do ... I know for a fact that at least in Va. Beach, when a new subdivision goes in, the developer is responsible for building (and paying) for the roads, sewers, etc. in the subdivision .. and THEN dedicating it all to the city which is responsible for maintenance thereafter (and which gets the increased property taxes.) The developer is also responsible for redeveloping (and paying for) the surrounding arterial roads, traffic lights, etc. I don't know for a fact, but think the same is done in suburban northern Virginia.

"Because people want highways so much but aren't willing to pay for them either. From the 1940s through to today, they got them, at great public expense and only partially covered by gas taxes."

Okay, granted you have a good point there ... Except for one point that muddies the waters here ... The Interstate system wasn't built primarily as a way for making possible development in far flung plances ... or even as a way of allowing people to drive from city to city ... It was part of a national defense system. Eisenhower had seen how the Germans had used their autobahns to great advantage during the second world war, and Eisenhower, an Army guy, wanted to be sure we'd have the same facilities here to move troops around if ever attacked. That's how the Interstate System got funded through Congress ... So, are the gas taxes really expected to pay for all this national defense system? ... Or just the wear and tear they put on it ... ?

by Lance on Aug 13, 2008 12:36 pm  

Developers may build the roads to access the houses, but what about the spillover traffic when the drivers on those houses try to drive outside of the subdivision?

My point is, every kind of development causes some stress on the system. It also generates general tax revenue which can be used to pay for infrastructure upgrades. If we choose to upgrade the transit system instead of the road system, especially to encourage development in dense nodes (in places where there can be 500 people who want to go from point A to point B) what's wrong with that?

The defense aspects of the highways were a cute selling point, but now they are overcrowded and building more is not going to make them less crowded. If we're at war, we have enough highways for military convoys to get around if they need to. But really, modern war isn't about moving huge armies quickly anymore anyway. If we're attacked, it won't be by a big army which we can only fight if we can move lots of trucks; but on the off chance that happens, we already have the roads for it.

by David Alpert on Aug 13, 2008 12:43 pm  

"Developers may build the roads to access the houses, but what about the spillover traffic when the drivers on those houses try to drive outside of the subdivision?"

I think you missed where I did say the developers of the subdivisions are responsible for upgrading the arterial roads too. E.g., The typical 2 lane road in a rural part of Va. Beach with open storm drainage ditches on either side of it gets upgraded into a 4 to 6 lane "boulevard" with a median in the center, turn lanes, and underground storm drainage and utilites, PLUS traffic lights, signs, road markings, etc ... ALL paid for by the developer who wants to put in a subdivision off that road. The resulting development there (and adjacent cities such as Chesapeake) has been spectacular ... and all paid for by the developers who, of course, pass the cost on to the new homeowners.

by Lance on Aug 13, 2008 1:22 pm