Paul, interesting idea. You cite the WMATA study which says this is the "most dense commuter destination not served by transit rail." I would be surprised if this area has more vehicle trips than Wisconsin Avenue, south of Tenley. Wisconsin Avenue is a corridor that would greatly benefit from the addition of streetcars or light rail.

by Ben on Jan 4, 2009 11:15 am  

Not sure I understand the need to maintain a transfer at Fort Totten?

by Patrick T. Metz on Jan 4, 2009 12:34 pm  

First, I think it's incorrect to say that the superblock land uses have severed the street grid in these areas. Those land uses (cemeteries, universities, etc.) predate most of the street grid. They were large campuses laid out in those spots because they were on the fringe at the time.

For any sort of heavy rail to be viable, it would have to be part of a larger expansion proposal. Simply building this as proposed makes little sense to me from an operations and cost effectiveness standpoint. Operationally, both of these branches would have half the level of service that the rest of the Red line gets. At the same time, the travel distance and travel time on the branches would not be the same, due to different track lengths, speeds, curves, number of stations, etc. Thus, as trains 'unzip' and 'rezip' together on the Red line, you'd have all the same kinds of switch problems that we see at Rosslyn with the Orange and Blue lines coming together.

Finally, as a matter of cost-effectiveness, I can't see this working out. This would be incredibly expensive to do, and unlike a new Blue line through the city, it would add to operational headaches, not relieve them. It would spread the area served by transit, yes, but it wouldn't actually increase the number of trains running through.

For serving the Hospital complex, I would think a light rail or streetcar line along Michigan and/or Irving taht connects Columbia Heights to Brookland would provide a much more cost-effective way to get Metro access, as well as providing some much needed crosstown service in the area.

by Alex B. on Jan 4, 2009 12:47 pm  

Another random idea to add to the pool: why not make this a branch of the Yellow Line instead? It would branch from the Green Line after the Shaw station, serve the Bloomingdale and hospital station. Then, instead of going to Fort Totten, it would cross back to Georgia Ave for a second transfer to the Green Line, and continue along that street to a terminus at Silver Spring.

by anonymouse on Jan 4, 2009 12:58 pm  

Obviously you don't drive much in that area....during most of the day, North Capitol and the E/W roads provide lightly used shortcuts between more heavily used corridors. I've gone thru this area for years when going from Adams-Morgan to College Park and used North capitol to easily reach parts of lower Montgy County and make cutovers from PG County to places like Chevy Chase (via Capitol and Missouri/Military. Even with the proposed development, this area could not support a new Metro line and the density/limited access set-up of North Capitol itself would mean that construction would ensnarle traffic and threaten thoughtful redevelopment of the area.

More sensible would be better and more frequent bus links between Metro and the major institutions in the area, with consideration of some future trolley routes Few people know that you can take buses from A-M/Mt P to Catholic, even though regular service does exist, on the 16th St side. Center connecting Washington Hospital Center/VA/Children's to NW DC would enhance their pattent base and get people like me to consider their facilities over those at GW or GU.

by Rich on Jan 4, 2009 1:06 pm  

@anonymouse - focusing this as a Yellow Line branch instead is an interesting thought. That's a less sensitive line to disrupt. One big goal of this was to serve upper Georgia. So like you say we'd have to have the Yellow begin to terminate at Silver Spring rather than Fort Totten.

@Alex B - I think your attaching more meaning to the word sever than was intended. Perhaps I could utilized the word interrupt instead. As for larger expansion, David did propose a Brown line in a fantasy map last February that I linked to. I saw this branch as a possible phase 1 to some incarnation of that larger project. I understand that heavy rail carries large costs. Would you propose any expansion of metro east of Rock Creek? If so where? I have my doubts Georgia Ave is going to reach it's full potential with only a streetcar or BRT.

@Rich - While called the North Capitol Branch I run a good portion of it beneath 1st St NW. I do this I recognize the limited access portions of North Capitol are not pedestrian friendly and require their own thoughtful development.

by Paul S on Jan 4, 2009 1:37 pm  

As many as 15,000 people work at the Washington Hospital Center complex (including Childrens, V-A, and NRH), and it desperately needs a mass transit link. Currently, they run shuttle buses from the Metro.

The WHC area is a terrible bottleneck for commuters, though much of it is lightly trafficked during off-hours. With additional development coming, light rail appears to be an excellent quick fix to provide a Metro link. But a well-thought out Brown line seems like a great idea...albeit an expensive one.

One possible outcome of adding heavy rail into the mix could be the development of additional medical facilities in the WHC neighborhood. With the medical infrastructure already there, a Metro stop would certainly be a lure for doctor's offices, outpatient clinics, and the like.

Plus many of the WHC employees who now pay that $12 a day garage parking fee would take the Metro. Some shy away from taking it now, because of problems with the shuttle service, especially during off-hours.

by Mike Silverstein on Jan 4, 2009 2:31 pm  

Paul, my issue with the wording you used was not the effect (as those land uses do indeed interrupt the street grid) but the causality that was implied. My first interpretation from reading your piece was that these cemeteries and universities suddenly interrupted an otherwise 'natural' street grid, and this is not the case - those grids evolved with and around those large land uses.

For Metro expansion, I will second anonymouse's thought of using this as a Yellow line extension rather than a Red line one. As far as Metro goes, I think priority should be placed on expansions to the system that do not extend further out, but rather increase capacity system-wide. The new Blue line, for example, would do this - as it not only serves new areas, it also relieves pressure on existing lines and allows for the tail ends of the existing Orange and Blue lines to run trains at a much higher frequency - thus it benefits the system as a whole.

Thus, my focus on system expansion would be for projects that remove the interlined portions of the Blue/Yellow in VA, the Green/Yellow in DC, and of course, the New Blue line through DC.

A counter proposal would be to think of this as a new Yellow line - have the Yellow line split from its current tracks as it passes the Jefferson Memorial, following the Maryland Ave right of way. You'd build a new platform around 7th St to maintain the transfer at L'Enfant Plaza, have the line continue up Maryland, cross under the Mall at some point, and then proceed North along North Capitol to the Hospital complex. I would consider routing it under the golf course and then up some combination of Illinois and Georgia Aves, hopefully with another transfer to the Green line, perhaps with a new Green line station in the area of Grant Circle.

Additionally, as much promise as the Columbia Pike streetcar has, routing either the Blue or Yellow lines out on a new line from the Pentagon to Bailey's Crossroads would then make all of the Metro Lines self-contained - non-interlined, and thus all able to operate at a much higher capacity.

Just a thought, as this would be an extremely long term plan, but I can't see how this proposed split of the Red line would fit into the longer term benefit of the entire system.

by Alex B. on Jan 4, 2009 2:45 pm  

Alex - I like your idea about the yellow line. What about, as an interim solution, the system was a streetcar/LRT along North Capitol, which submerges along Rhode Island Avenue, and becomes the new Blue Line, terminating at Georgetown or Rosslyn. It would look something like the Green Line in Boston. You could easily have a second branch of the street car that continued due south.

I do agree that ridership and traffic are both surprisingly light. I frequently use North Cap as a quasi-expressway to get into the city from Silver Spring. Were it not for the horrible five-way light at Blair/4th/Cedar, this would be a great commuter route in general for buses.

To add onto what Rich pointed out, there is currently NO metrobus service that runs the length of North Capitol. When I used to work near Union Station (and thought of biking, but could not use the Metropolitan Branch trail), there was no bus route that I could throw a bike on that would get me past Fort Totten, unless I rode across and grabbed the 70/79 bus on Georgia. Some BRT could go a long way here, coupled with TOD.

by Joe in SS on Jan 4, 2009 3:05 pm  

I love the conversations these transit visualizations catalyze.

I agree with Alex B.'s idea of separating all the lines to make cull capacity an option on each stretch of track. separating the yellow from the green line has always been an obstacle in my transit visualizations. I recently discovered the model of running it up Maryland to North Capitol, crossing over at Irving Street, then up GA to Silver Spring, and from there follow the MARC/CSX track with a stop at Kensington and then terminating on the Western Red line.

Splitting up all the Metro lines, including the new Silver Line eventually, could work wonders increasing capacity while simultaneously increasing accessibility with the new tracks. Paul's got the right idea looking at an ignored corridor, but instead of a spur, I'd favor the Yellow Line extension.

by Dave Murphy on Jan 4, 2009 5:07 pm  

I'm working on a Yellow Line extension map as an alternative to this Red Line concept. I will post in the comments shortly.

My focus will still be on what can be incrementally done within the district rather than building an entire new line that has no shared track whatsoever with any existing line. Building an entire new line with zero redundancy is more of a 30+ year project that needs to line up in priority behind the separated Blue Line. While any upgrades I propose should be able to have synergy with long term ideals of having all lines with dedicated rights-of-way I was aiming for a incremental approach rather than purely another fantasy system map exercise.

I think there is a possibility to add a few stations in the nearer term (~12 yrs?). Now that I've given it greater contemplation I agree that leveraging the Yellow Line is the better alternative. The Red trains are already running very full even if the segment I was branching off (Brentwood/Brookland/Takoma) wasn't directly responsible for high ridership.

by Paul S on Jan 4, 2009 6:02 pm  

Those are all actually good ideas couldn't we just run a 80 something metro extra route for the time being from Union Station to Fort Totten straight up North Capitol Street to Riggs Rd and then to Fort Totten; and then a ligtrail or heavyrail line in the future.

I'm surprised there isn't a bus running between Michigan Ave & Hawaii Ave along North Capitol that's one of the longest stretches with no bus service along with Foxhall Rd and New York Ave in DC

As for the spur from the red line where exactly could it run at Fort Totten would it use the green or the red lines tracks or would it be a new tracks under or above the current lines at Fort Totten.

by kk on Jan 4, 2009 7:07 pm  

OK, here's the Yellow Line focused concept I promised.

I imagine two possible alternatives (map). Both alternatives split northbound Yellow trains off from the Green Line at Shaw/Howard. Where the alternatives differ is between Shaw/Howard and Brightwood.

Alternative 1: GEORGIA AVE focus

Follow Georgia Ave all the way from Howard/Shaw to Silver Spring. This line would not divert east to the Hospital and AFRH.

Stations would be:

• Georgia Ave at Columbia Rd. This is a few blocks from the western edge of the Washington Hospital campus. Perhaps a Small Area plan could be developed along the stretch from this station to the hospital to make it more walkable.
  
  
• Petworth - create a transfer between this new Yellow Line and the Green line at Petworth
  
  
• Brightwood - new station at Missouri & Georgia Ave
  
  
• Piney Branch - new station at Piney Branch Rd & Georgia Ave
  
  
• Kalmia - new station at Kalmia and Georgia Ave
  
  
• Silver Spring - final termination at Silver Spring

Alternative 2: This line travels east from Shaw/Howard along Rhode Island then travels up 1st St NW to serve McMillan, the Hospital and AFRH before traveling under the golf course and up Illinois to meet Georgia Ave.

Stations would be:

• Bloomingdale - Rhode Island at 1st St NW
  
  
• McMillan - Michigan Ave at 1st St NW
  
  
• AFRH - Irving at 1st St NW
  
  
• Grant Circle - a new Green & Yellow Line station under Grant Circle to facilitate transfers. In my Red Line vision I aimed to avoid putting stations in purely non-commercial locations but it's unavoidable in this scenario
  
  
• Brightwood - new station at Missouri & Georgia Ave
  
  
• Piney Branch - new station at Piney Branch Rd & Georgia Ave
  
  
• Kalmia - new station at Kalmia and Georgia Ave
  
  
• Silver Spring - final termination at Silver Spring

Now that I've outlined some Yellow line options in this comment, will provide further analysis it in next comment...

by Paul S on Jan 4, 2009 7:28 pm  

The two new alternatives outlaid in my prior comment have different goals.

Alternative 1 just focuses on Georgia Avenue. It's a straight shot and less complicated. Unlike Alternative 2 it soes not require actions like going under the golf course or creating the Sherman Circle station in a purely non-commercial neighborhood. Focusing on Georgia Avenue maximizes economic development rather a purely aiming to minimize car trips. Georgia Avenue has the potential to be one of the absolute most vibrant corridors in the city. With *extensive* commercial frontage plenty of mixed use density could be added to make this avenue rival Connecticut Ave. However it's no short task as this stretch from Howard to Silver Spring is SIX miles! Providing the superior infrastructure of heavy rail could accelerate the timetable for revitalization. The Hospital would still be served by the new Columbia Road station but it would be a few blocks walk. McMillan and AFRH would not be as directly served. However those projects are master planned large tract sites and the economic development will occur there regardless. Georgia Ave requires more stimulus because to incent landowners to sell or develop. MetroExtra style BRT won't make this vision happen.

Alternative 2: As outlined in the previous comment this option aims to more directly serve the North Capitol corridor before eventually traveling back to Georgia at Brightwood. A primary benefit would be minimizing the traffic impact of the new planned developments. It also provides some love to Bloomingdale and could stimulate some revitalization in Near Northeast which the GA Ave line likely would not. I am unsure how tenable traveling under the golf course or the mega station at Grant Circle would be. This alternative would have greater costs but perhaps the McMillan/AFRH developers could be swayed into paying into the project.

--------------

As for how either fits into a long term 2050 fantasy map vision of having every rail line eventually having it's own dedicated path... I don't really love the idea proposed by Alex B of having the Yellow line split off after L'Enfant and travel under the mall to North Capitol. Taking lines out of the core downtown isn't very favorable to me. The Yellow has been the express route for downtown to the Pentagon and National airport. Could we create a new path along Ninth for the Green Line from L'Enfant to U Street and allow the Yellow line take sole control of 7th Street/Georgia?

by Paul S on Jan 4, 2009 8:26 pm  

You guys here are taking all my ideas (or ideas I've helped germinate) and inadequately crediting them. Anyway, this was proposed in my last year transportation wish list, and will be re-proposed in this year's version. David was kind enough to make a map that showed both the separated blue line (as silver) and the idea of a brown line, in part paralleling the red line.

Wish list: urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2008/01/2008-transittransportation-planning.html

Map (my routing for Silver and Brown) produced by David Alpert: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/2281813917/

Michael S's original Brown Line proposal: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/2179236720/

(notice how we flipped the line west and then down Wisconsin Ave. in the map produced by David)

The thing about this proposal, and I do agree, is that BeyondDC points out rightly that there isn't enough potential ridership to justify such a routing as heavy rail. Streetcars or light rail could make sense as an alternative, as I have proposed for a couple years with regard to the area around Michigan Ave. and North Capitol.

Ideally, we could completely rebuild the red line as doublestacked tunnels but it won't happen.

Ken F. has an idea we talked about a couple weeks ago. How if CSX's rights were bought out on the Met. Branch (they have alternative railroad track options between DC and Baltimore and Baltimore and Frederick) then we could take all four tracks on the Met Branch, and add subway trains to two of them.

It would screw MARC a bit. Or not, we could just convert those lines to full regional rail like how Metro-North, LIRR, NJ Transit, SEPTA run railroad lines.

The Amtrak train could go through then. Or if all lines became subway tracks and weren't interoperable then the Amtrak train that goes to Pittsburgh could do so via Baltimore.

It would make for an odd routing for the subway, as the Met Branch railroad tracks flip towards Rockville (routing would be from Rockville to Silver Spring to Union Station)

by Richard Layman on Jan 4, 2009 9:03 pm  

Richard, I'm sorry if you feel there was not adequate credit. Your name is mentioned within this posting via a link to your recent article on McMillan. Additionally Alpert's Brown Line map is linked to which also serves as an indirect credit to you considering the very first line of that Brown Line posting thanks you. I did my best to link to related ideas that would take the readers to more information on the planned developments and past ideas.

I'd also says posting wasn't meant to be a "eureka, I've found it" solution. I'm merely initiating a discussion on a lazy sunday to see where it goes. As it turns out I'm now leaning towards track expansion being a Yellow Line branch rather than Red.

by Paul S on Jan 4, 2009 9:48 pm  

I think the Georgia focused option makes the most sense. Georgia Ave was a major transit corridor in the streetcar days, right now it's a huge bus route, and the economic development rationale is clearcut and compelling. The Metro would be running through places that already seem like places that should have Metro service and where there's lots of built-in capacity for further development.

by Matthew Yglesias on Jan 4, 2009 9:51 pm  

Paul S

Alternative 1 is along the lines I was thinking. The only major difference is instead of merging the line back into the Red line south of Silver Spring, my version turn left at Eastern Avenue then turns right a Colesville Road and head out MD US-29 to a terminal out beyond Briggs Chaney. The center of the platform for Sliver Spring station on the route of the Yellow line would be at 2nd Avenue allowing for a surface entrance to the Sliver Spring station complex closer to Georgia Avenue.

by Sand Box John on Jan 4, 2009 9:53 pm  

Also -- I would advocate an additional station at the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Arkansas Avenue.

by Matthew Yglesias on Jan 4, 2009 10:04 pm  

@Sand Box John - nice map. Did you just put that together today? I liked you Metro logos =) I think I would just move your Howard Univ Stop to Columbia Road so it can be closer to the Hospital. Then, like I mentioned in my recent comment, perhaps the city could develop a small area plan to improve the stretch of Columbia Road from Georgia to the hospital to make it more walkable.

by Paul S on Jan 4, 2009 10:06 pm  

@MYglesias - Regarding an Arkansas Ave station that could be worthwhile. While construction costs of stations are lofty we need only look to Arlington to see that stations every 3/4 or 1 mile can really bear fruit.

by Paul S on Jan 4, 2009 10:27 pm  

Sand Box John, because of its extra intersection between Red and Yellow, your idea would really increase mobility in the Eastern Red/Northern Green/Northern Yellow corridor. Getting from Brightwood to Wheaton, for example would be much easier.

The extra capacity and the not-quite-redundant routes would really increase ridership on the Purple Line, too as riders in the Georgia Ave corridor will want to connect to the Western Red Line or a place between the Red and Green.

I do have to wonder if anyone would have ever thought that Silver Spring would be a three line intersection station (three separate tracks, not a situation like Metro Center with two lines sharing the same tracks). The Sarbanes Transit Center will be quite busy with the Red, Yellow, and Purple lines.

by Cavan on Jan 4, 2009 10:48 pm  

Paul S

Yes.

I have the advantage when it comes to drawing maps of the existing system. I know where all of the metrorail underground easements are.

Done.

The M icon I created myself, If you want to use it the URL is http://mysite.verizon.net/cambronj/M.gif

Cavan

It is my opinion that the best way to move trains quickly along a given corridor is keep the route as straight as possible.

Remerging the Yellow line into the Red line at Silver Spring is counter productive. If one is going to bring another line into Silver Spring one might as well run it through and run it out into an area that is not presently being served.

by Sand Box John on Jan 4, 2009 11:17 pm  

Paul, John, etc,

I find it interesting that you think heavy rail is better suited to run up US-29. I always thought it might be productive to run the yellow line to Silver Spring and then up to Rockville, creating another short cut between the two spurs of the red line. Perhaps cut it across to Grosvenor and then over to North Bethesda and the Montgomery Mall area.

For 29, I always figured the Columbia Pike (VA) route through the city, up 16th St to Silver Spring, and then up 29 to Columbia would make good sense, though it would be pretty long.

by Dave Murphy on Jan 5, 2009 12:47 am  

Dave Murphy,

I am not that big of a fan of light rail. Transit expansion in the Washington area using light rail is a short term limited capacity solution. Transportation planner tend to base their plans on 20 to 25 year projections. I like to look at thing long term, 50 to 75 years and beyond. When one think looong term, light rail become the losing chose.

I don’t see the logic in running a parallel route to a suburban destination when considering the Purple line will basically be doing the same thing.

A Columbia Pike VA Columbia Pike MD corridor pair has its merit, but one must remember, the primary purpose of the metrorail system is to serve the urban core. The Tysons, Dulles, Loudoun County Silver line will in my opinion be the exception to that rule. I happen to believe that a significant percentage of the trips generated by the Silver line will be confined to Fairfax and Loudoun Counties.

by Sand Box John on Jan 5, 2009 8:36 am  

If the issue is whether it is best to focus on Georgia Avenue or the North Central corridor, keep in mind that you cannot do both.

The idea that doctors or patients or family members will "walk a few blocks" to the hospital center is wishful thinking at best. There is already shuttle service from the CU Metro stop.

One thing that would seem to favor a North Central route would be the large amount of undeveloped land along North Capital Street...from McMillan past the AFRH.

If your goal is to get people out of their cars, onto the Metro, and serve the 15,000 employees of the Hospital Center, the patients, and their families, and to help develop a medical office complex, along with McMillan and other parts of that area, the North Central is your pick.

If the goal is to redevelop Georgia Avenue, than that's the way to go. Of course, you will have to kill everything along Georgia Avenue first - with the construction.

by Mike S. on Jan 5, 2009 8:50 am  

I think heavy rail is great idea for that area, having lived there, and taken buses which seemed to spend most of the trip looping back and forth between the hospitals.

I can see how diverting the yellow line would be a better option than diverting the red line, but it's still a problem: we've just extended yellow line service to Ft Totten so that increasingly busy areas like U St and Columbia Heights can get trains more frequently; diverting the yellow at Shaw undoes that improvement.

by Lucre on Jan 5, 2009 10:50 am  

Lucre,

That's why I'd advocate that such an extension would and should be part of a plan to completely separate the Yellow and Green lines so that they can both run at full capacity. At that point, it's only a matter of having the rolling stock to do it.

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2009 10:57 am  

Not that credit matters, but yes, the original link was inadequate because it was to a secondary concept, not the primary one.

E.g., in my discussion of the "brown line" I don't take credit for the original concept, which was Michael S's. Where my version of the Brown Line differs from Michael's was a realization that the capacity of the red line is fixed, that running another line on those tracks isn't feasible. Hence the North Capitol-based route.

WRT someone's point about GA Ave., I will say that without considering these kinds of proposals within the context of a metropolitan transit network, it becomes difficult to make "graded" recommendations.

BeyondDC is absolutely right that heavy rail only should go where the LU intensification benefits and ridership can justify the investment. Plus, he argues that rather than extending Metro out really far, use railroads. He and I disagree about the opportunity for new heavy rail, specifically within DC. I argue that long term economic competitiveness, redundancy and capacity issues in the core justify the separated blue line. He thinks for the same amount of money we can build a lot of streetcars and light rail. The problem is that both of us are right...

Anyway, wrt the transit network, ridership projections, and the ability to intensify land use post-creation of adding additional fixed rail transit lines to the transit network, there is no way that Georgia Avenue can justify having a subway. Most of the land use in the DC part of the road is not very dense, with the exception of Petworth, which is mostly attached housing, but with few opportunities for additional development beyond what is happening in the area from New Hampshire Ave. to Kansas Ave.

But this does lead to point I made in my blog entry on DC transportation projects as part of the economic stimulus:

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2008/12/transportation-infrastructure-plan-for.html

that what DC has considered as routes for streetcars needs to be reconsidered within a broader, regional context (again, the concept of the transit network: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2008/04/meta-regional-transit-network-and.html) and that some of the proposed lines should be light rail, and extended out of the City, adding to and strengthening the regional transit network, rather than merely focusing within DC.

Probably, with participation from Montgomery County, it would be reasonable to build light rail on Georgia Avenue, instead of the proposed streetcar, and then extend it out Colesville Road, instead of terminating the route at the Silver Spring Metro Station.

Anyway, next week I'll likely have time to produce my version of this year's (primarily) DC Mobility Vision Plan, which is pretty robust, being that it is based on foundational principles (6) and (4) conceptual organizing theories undergirding the vision as proposed.

by Richard Layman on Jan 5, 2009 11:12 am  

I liked Alex B.'s suggestion of separating the Green and Yellow line in DC entirely. The NCPC recommended tunneling the VRE/Amtrak ROW through southwest, my fondest hope would be to see the ROW include tracks and 3rd rails for Metrorail trains and to widen the first street tunnel to allow a subway connection between L'Enfant Plaza and Union Station. (As I understand, there would have to be a wye built underneath Columbus Circle to connect the First street tunnel to the Metro station; as I recall, that area is slated to be rebuilt anyway.) Well we're at it it would be nice to see a central Capitol Hill metro station under East Capitol Street between the Supreme Court and the Library.

From Union Station, I would suggest going under 1st St NW through the Soldier's Home (which is what it was called when Lincoln used it as a summer White House). From there intersecting the Green Line at a new transfer at Grant Circle and moving west to run under Georgia Avenue toward Silver Spring.

by Steve on Jan 5, 2009 11:40 am  

I'm curious about limitations of development on Georgia Avenue, is that a function of neighborhood resistance or a more intractable issue? Could one have said the same thing about U Street or Columbia Heights 30 years ago?

I would very much like to see most of DC's "streetcar" map built with LRT, when roads weren't choked with private automobiles, streetcars could move efficiently but a streetcar that gets stuck in traffic is rather like a bus on rails.

(And for "Well we're at it" read "While".)

by Steve on Jan 5, 2009 11:52 am  

@Alex B - Lucre's point about Columbia Heights and U Street actually does not support your idea.

Yellow Line does not run north of the Convention Center during rush hour. It does at offpeak times because Columbia Heights/U Street generates more off peak trips than the majority of the remainder of the Green Line. Therefore WMATA uses Yellow Line trains to increase off-peak redundancy of coverage to U Street & Columbia Heights and reduce wait times at stations. To meet the needs of just two popular stations that is more effective than running more Green Line trains - but that's exactly the solution we'd need in your fully separated scenario.

Again, I've already conceded earlier in the thread that fully separated lines are the ideal for the long term vision. But that's 40+ years into the future. This thread aims to discuss an expansion that could occur in a shorter time horizon and down the road be integrated into the utopian vision.

by Paul S on Jan 5, 2009 11:55 am  

>>there is no way that Georgia Avenue can justify having a subway. Most of the land use in the DC part of the road is not very dense, with the exception of Petworth, which is mostly attached housing, but with few opportunities for additional development beyond what is happening in the area from New Hampshire Ave. to Kansas Ave.

Nearly the entirety of the Georgia Ave corridor has commercial frontage. Most of the commercial properties are low slung and in many cases abut up against rowhouses in the rear rather than having deep lots like car dealership, shopping mall or grocery store land use. I'm speculating that the extensive commercial frontage bundled with rezoning and heavy rail can transform the corridor to be medium density (5 stories) mixed use. If that development can occur than the ridership will be there in the long run. Aren't the goals to increase population back to 800K? How is that going to happen if we don't try to maximize presently underutilized corridors?

by FourthandEye on Jan 5, 2009 12:15 pm  

Paul, I'm not sure that your description of the situation is correct.

The initial plans were for the Yellow line to run all the way to Greenbelt. This never really happened due to a lack of rolling stock. Thus, Yellow line trains turn around at the Convention Center, where there is a pocket track.

With the additional delivery of new railcars not too long ago, WMATA agreed to run Yellow line trains during off-peak hours to Fort Totten. There are still not enough cars to run them all the way to Greenbelt, but they can do Fort Totten. The reason they do not run to Fort Totten during rush hour is the lack of a pocket track there, thus trains cannot turn around fast enough without blocking other trains on the main line.

But yes, the whole point of my idea is to accomodate the complete removal of the interlined segments. Interlining may be an advantage today, but it will not be when trains reach a certain capacity - then you will have the same bottleneck that we have with the Rosslyn tunnel today.

U Street and Columbia Heights get more trains with the Yellow line not because there are two services, but because there are more trains. The whole idea with separating all the lines is that each line then has the capacity to expand. System capacity will always be limited by the lowest common denominator - if that's the shared track, then each branch off of that shared track will be forced to operate at a lower capacity. Thus, building a track that removes the interlining not only adds capacity on that new segment, but also frees up capacity on the existing branches.

This certainly is a long term vision, but you can't simply dismiss that in this discussion of near term solutions. As Sand Box John notes, this is a long term investment. Any discussion of new heavy rail routes without taking into account the long term impacts of interlining is foolhardy. It's also possible that there is no realistic 'phased' solution. It may be that this is a one-shot deal that must be done at once.

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2009 12:18 pm  

Steve -- my point is based on the reality that the commercial frontage along Georgia Ave. is less than 60 feet deep for the most part, and all of the residential lots abutting georgia ave. (say 6 blocks in either direction), for the most part, are already developed.

Unless you were to do wholesale redevelopment (comparable to urban renewal) of already extant residential blocks (a mix of rowhouses, single family detached, and some small apartment buildings), you can't add substantive density.

It's not possible to redevelop all the small buildings into 10 story buildings without massive redev. And I know residents like myself would not favor our houses being taken by eminent domain to do such.

Hence my point.

Recognize that this is a slight overstatement. There are certain sites developed as automobile oriented (Rite Aid, CVS, Safeway at Piney Branch) that have significant redevelopment opportunity. + Curtis Chevrolet, etc. Sort of Walter Reed, but it's likely that the campus will remain a federal facility.

But in any case, it's nothing how like Wilson Blvd. has been redeveloped in Arlington.

Since the ability to generate "massive" land use oriented change doesn't exist as a result (i.e., do a "build out analysis" of the corridor and you'll see what I mean), heavy rail doesn't make sense.

http://www.ca-city.com/images/news/pdfs/BuildOutAnalysis.pdf

Remember the maximum capacity of the subway is roughly 38,000 people/hour in each direction. (That's for single line service with no switching between lines.) So to spend more than $400 million/mile for tunneling + more money for station infrastructure, you have to be able to generate high numbers of passengers during peak periods.

For this reason I think a separated blue line is justifiable. Other heavy rail investments are not likely to reap as much benefit, and therefore fall way down on the scale of importance from a cost-benefit standpoint.

However, there is no question that a light rail line makes sense--IF it is extended into Montgomery County. (I say LR as differentiated from streetcar.) Based on the same kind of analysis of ridership and development opportunity.

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on every block of Georgia Ave., but I do live a few blocks from it, and I bicycle large segments of it a few times each month, both to Downtown as well as to Silver Spring.

And I do understand physical planning and build out analysis.

(Note regarding North Capitol too that it is my primary biking route between where I live--near Takoma Park--and multiple trips each week to Capitol Hill for work and advocacy related activities. Given that I am one of the rare people willing to ride kamikaze on N. Capitol, I do believe that I have a pretty good understanding of the density and opportunity issues for these corridors.)

by Richard Layman on Jan 5, 2009 12:57 pm  

Richard, Is Georgia Ave wide enough for a LRT right of way? The Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis seems to have a rail bed around 25' wide, could GA Avenue accommodate that in such a way that wouldn't cause residents to object to loss of parking and driving lanes?

by Steve on Jan 5, 2009 1:06 pm  

A Georgia Avenue trolley is the biggest no brainer of all TOD time. First of all, it was developed along a trolley line so it has nodes of density about every 15 minute walk. Secondly, there are plenty of developable sites along it's route, 60 foot depths or not. The length of its main street fabric is probably the longest of any main thoroughfares into town. There will be an incredible disruption of traffic if it where done in it's own right of way, which is the only real way to make it successful, but any transition in peoples habits is difficult. The question is do we want to "voluntarily" make the change towards something ultimatley better, or wait till we are forced to change with fewer options. Leadership anyone?

by Thayer-D on Jan 5, 2009 1:21 pm  

"The question is do we want to 'voluntarily' make the change towards something ultimatley better, or wait till we are forced to change with fewer options. Leadership anyone?"

Sounds like a metaphor for our entire national (auto)-mobility paradigm and its interactions with our economy and collective livelihood.

by Cavan on Jan 5, 2009 1:26 pm  

Richard,

I disagree with your notion that there's not that much to build on GA ave. Keeping in the mindframe that this is a 50 year + investment, there are plenty of sites that could see wholesale redevelopment without use of eminent domain or large scale razing.

Adding a subway line on Georgia totally changes the result of a buildout analysis. The only question becomes the timeframe. Again, with a long term vision, I think it makes sense from a conceptual level, especially when coupled with the benefits of un-doing the interlined portions of track.

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2009 1:32 pm  

For my own personal education, can anyone explain to me the nature of this open space at GA and Missouri?

View Larger Map

by Paul S on Jan 5, 2009 1:40 pm  

Paul S, It's a school and park. Casey Tress planted about 50 trees on this parcel last year.

by Bianchi on Jan 5, 2009 1:54 pm  

Thanks Bianchi, I figured at least one of the green areas was a school. But there are quite a few green tracts in the image.

by Paul S on Jan 5, 2009 2:03 pm  

Actually, it's part of the Fort Circle Park system of the National Park Service, a kind of greenbelt that connects a number of the Civil War forts.

2. Alex, I see your point. I don't imagine you ever were out on Wilson Boulevard in the late 1980s, at say Virginia Square? It was a lot different than it is today. Kinda like Deanwood... But, I think that kind of redevelopment along Georgia Avenue is unlikely. It would require rezoning of the corridor to downtown like densities. I just don't see it happening, despite the fact that there are a number of spots that justify and can handle intensification.

The only point I am making is that given that, LR or streetcar is justifiable, heavy rail is not, unless for some reason it was done to abandon the current red line routing from Silver Spring to Union Station.

2. Steve, I am not up on the technical requirements for LR. I do think it would be a stretch to accommodate it, but that it can be done.

However, all the nimbys think that GA Ave. _isn't_ even wide enough to accommodate streetcars, which is patently false. But it would likely require removal of some parking.

I base that on this image of the River Line in Camden, NJ:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/3085357454/

by Richard Layman on Jan 5, 2009 2:15 pm  

Re: River Line in Camden NJ

There is only one track serving both directions in that picture. What kind of frequency can one track achieve? Yet more than one track and you overwhelm the avenue.

by Jason on Jan 5, 2009 2:32 pm  

View Larger Map

If you view the larger map, you can roughly align the Hiawatha Line LRT tracks with the scale indicator of Google Maps. As the rail bed is roughly half of the 50 foot scale, I'm guessing it's about 25 feet.

by Steve on Jan 5, 2009 2:46 pm  

Steve - Thanks for posting that link. Not only is the scale of those tracks very wide, I'm not seeing any businesses or homes fronting the streets the rail is on. That's a very different reality than Georgia Ave. This application seems more apropos to a Route 50 in Arlington than Georgia Ave.

by Paul on Jan 5, 2009 2:57 pm  

When I ride the Hiawatha Line, I've commented that it's odd there are so many single-family detached houses near it, even right next to the stations. That has more to do with the LRT line being only a few years old, and in a city that's long had no rail infrastructure. As the intersecting LRT line in Minneapolis gets built, along with the commuter line to Saint Cloud, I expect TOD will start to emerge. FYI: it already goes from downtown Minneapolis past the two airport terminals (both of which have stations) to the Mall of America.

by Steve on Jan 5, 2009 3:11 pm  

Steve, it's not odd at all. That's the fabric of most of Minneapolis - single family homes on relatively small lots. There are no real rowhouses in that city, or density akin to Chicago's three flats. There are a few areas that have walk up apt. buildings, but that's about it.

The Hiawatha line was chosen as Minneapolis' first because it serves downtown, the airport, the Mall of America, and the VA hospital. It also runs on ROW that was long ago acquired to widen Hiawatha Ave into a freeway, but that plan was stopped due to neighborhood opposition. In short, it hit a lot of good spots and the land was already assembled.

For a better idea of how LRT would work on Georgia Ave, take a look at the Downtown segments on the Hiawatha line. Keep in mind that those are also the slowest segments...

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2009 3:19 pm  

@Steve - My comment was directed more towards the applicableness of fitting a similar LRT into the existing main street fabric of Georgia Ave. I was not trying to diminish the accomplishment or TOD potential of the Hiawatha Line.

by Paul S on Jan 5, 2009 3:20 pm  

Ken F. has an idea we talked about a couple weeks ago. How if CSX's rights were bought out on the Met. Branch (they have alternative railroad track options between DC and Baltimore and Baltimore and Frederick) then we could take all four tracks on the Met Branch, and add subway trains to two of them.

That may be cheaper than building a new heavy rail line. But it only increases capacity from Montgomery county to Union Station. There is very little TOD and economic development opportunities for the District to running more trains along to same isolated rail bed. A goal of the original poster was expanding metro's reach within the district.

by Jason on Jan 5, 2009 10:13 pm  

To accommodate turns, you typically need a minimum of 28 feet of ROW width for a 2-track LRT line. Stations, of course, are extra.

by Froggie on Jan 5, 2009 10:49 pm  

Re the LR (and Froggie's data), I don't think it's a problem with implementation. Portland does it with low floor, and Baltimore does it not very well with high floor trains. Georgia Ave. is 6 lanes including the parking lanes on both sides, although they are narrow, not wide, lanes.

And yeah, Jason, you're right. And expanding the transit network within DC, including but not limited to heavy rail, is something I write about quite a bit...

by Richard Layman on Jan 6, 2009 4:44 am  

(shoulda caught this before)

Alex: for a good idea how Georgia Ave LRT would run, I think a better comparison would be the proposed Central LRT line back in the Twin Cities, and the University Ave portion in Minneapolis in particular.

Took a quick look at the Georgia Ave dimensions. From my viewpoint, to fit in LRT, you'd have to either run it in traffic (basically a streetcar without dedicated ROW), eliminate a traffic lane, or eliminate the parking lane and part of the sidewalk. Things get even tighter closer to downtown (around where Georgia Ave becomes 7th St NW).

by Froggie on Jan 6, 2009 8:45 am  

Yeah, I'd agree that the Central Corridor would be a better case study, but being that it isn't completed (or even under construction) yet, I wanted to mention something that you could see with the current aerial photos.

by Alex B. on Jan 6, 2009 9:22 am  

True, it's not under construction yet, but the preliminary design plots are posted on the project website, so you can get a good, similar idea what to expect on Georgia Ave.

by Froggie on Jan 6, 2009 9:50 am  

Is there truly an example of LRT that exhibits the characteristics of Georgia Ave inside the district?

• 6+ Miles of length all of which would have to be in mixed traffic (no opportunity to weave out any segment into a dedicated ROW)
  
  
• A two-way street with an urban main street fabric - not a limited access road
  
  
• The stretch from Shaw to Silver Spring has 60+ intersections
  
  
• Does not have a major parallel street that can absorb displaced car volume
  
  
• Not wide enough to provide ROW in Median without taking away either all street parking or 50% of the lanes for cars
  
  
• While it would terminate at a downtown metro station it would not be one that is a true multi-modal hub like Union Station in LA.
  
  

There could be an example of a streetcar that does this but Light Rail? If somebody has an existing LRT example that meets the criteria nicely I'd love to see it. But often blog comments point to LRT implementation that have their own ROW 80% of the way then dump out onto a one-way street downtown or travel mostly on limited access pseudo highways. This is Georgia Ave not Leesburg Pike, East-West Hwy or Riverdale Road. I imagine it's not going to be easy to find an example. I'd assume places like Charlotte, Houston, etc picked roads very different from Georgia Ave.

P.S. - please don't point to Boston's Green Line - that's been around forever and the community has shaped around it. We'd be trying to fit LRT into an existing fabric.

by Paul on Jan 6, 2009 9:57 am  

Paul, the Central Corridor between Minneapolis and St. Paul would be a very similar project. Take a look at Froggie's link above.

by Alex B. on Jan 6, 2009 10:23 am  

Similar characteristics, agreed.

But one big difference I'm seeing, after doing some research, is street width. University Ave has a 120ft ROW in St. Paul, and 100ft ROW in Minneapolis. Georgia Ave's ROW looks to be only about 80ft.

At an absolute minimum, you need 72ft of width to have a 2-track LRT on dedicated ROW, and 4 lanes of traffic (11ft per lane, including curb buffer). That doesn't include turn lanes, sidewalks, or parking.

by Froggie on Jan 6, 2009 10:49 am  

Re: Central Corridor in Minn/StP

One, Froggie points out the street widths are dramatically different. Two, I've only scanned a few of the PDFs but I'm not getting a sense of the existing land use from them. Maybe after work I can try to look at the renderings and Google maps side by side.

If 72ft is the bare minimum it doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to scape in just above that. Most other LRT projects are giving themselves alot more room to work with.

by Paul S on Jan 6, 2009 10:58 am  

I wonder why people are so concerned about decreasing the automobile throughput of Georgia Avenue? There used to be street cars and their tracks were sacrificed to make more room for cars. Why would it be worse to reverse that decision?

As for a parallel street, what if you put an underpass for 13th Street under Walter Reed? It's not something I'd like to see, but it could absorb traffic displaced from Georgia Avenue. I spent two years crossing 13th Street at rush hour, and it's never that busy. (Or, for that matter, put the LRT on 13th Street.)

by Steve on Jan 6, 2009 12:49 pm  

I don't see how dedicated ROW would be possible on Georgia Ave. But you don't have dedicated ROW on Lombard St. in Baltimore or in the downtown sections of Portland, although it is true in Portland that they use two streets, and have the light rail go in a different direction on each street.

by Richard Layman on Jan 7, 2009 3:30 pm