This may seem pretty nitpicky, but wouldn't it make more sense to simply label the Q segment (new Blue Line between Mt Vernon Sq and River Terrace) as another portion of the G segment (Blue Line from River Terrace to Largo)?

I understand the rationale behind some of the duality, for example: While the A and B segments are one continuous line, the stations are labeled so the lowest numbers are closest to the center of the system. This means, for a line like the Red, that two internal line designations (in this case, A and B) are necessary.

On this schematic, segment G ends at River Terrace but continues toward downtown on segment Q, which might be logical if there were some other branch that continued Q past that junction. However, there isn't; one runs right into the other, and in the direction of decreasing station number, you're still going towards downtown. Is it so difficult to change internal designations that they can't be updated to reflect a new reality?

Also, it seems a bit awkward to label the River Terrace station as D98; maybe Q06 or something might be less awkward.

by Adam on Jul 7, 2008 10:00 pm • link • report

I regret this comment being rather off-topic, but a couple of questions have recently occurred to me concerning the "fantasy/vision" alignments. Has DDOT or USDOT studied the optimal utilization of the stretch of VRE track between L'Enfant Plaza and Union Station? It isn't connected to the Metrorail system at this point, but it does have a right-of-way under Capitol Hill and it's extremely unlikely that any new ROWs will ever be permitted under or near the Hill. If it's only carrying a couple of thousand VRE riders per day to and from Union Station, would a hypothetical WMATA alignment carry more?

Question two: The Purple line is being considered along a stretch of the old B&O Georgetown Branch between Silver Spring and Bethesda, but the line was called the Georgetown Branch because it goes all the way to Georgetown. Rail to Georgetown is kind of the Holy Grail of mass transit in this area, could it be archived for a bargain by laying light rail track from Bethesda rather than digging a billion-dollar tunnel through downtown DC and another billion-dollar tunnel under the Potomac to Rosslyn?

by Steve on Jul 7, 2008 10:34 pm • link • report

I'm pretty sure the ROW of the Georgetown Branch inside the District is not really usable for transit; currently, it's the Capital Crescent Trail.

Also, part of the rationale for building the second tunnel under the Potomac is the fact that the one there is a huge capacity constraint on the entire Metro system, maybe with the exception of the Red line (which is not directly connected to it). The fact that an additional crossing would likely touch down in Georgetown is great, to be sure, but it's not the only rationale for building it. There's been plenty of discussion of the capacity problems at Rosslyn elsewhere on this blog.

by Adam on Jul 8, 2008 1:04 am • link • report

When I say "not directly connected" in the comment above, I mean that of the five lines, the Red is the only one that is not interlined with another at some point. We currently have Blue-Orange, Blue-Yellow, and Yellow-Green sharing tracks at various locations in the system, so schedules for any of those lines must be written up with all of the others in mind. Therefore, the Rosslyn tunnel affects nearly the entire system.

by Adam on Jul 8, 2008 1:11 am • link • report

Steve,

I don't think that new tunnel alignments under Capitol Hill are completely out of the question in the future, but I do agree with your premise that they will certainly be hard to come by.

However, the First Street Tunnel carries more than a few VRE trains daily. It is Amtrak's only connection for trains traveling South from Union Station. Currently it is used by the Cardinal to Chicago, the Silver Services (Star, Meteor, Palmetto) along the Atlantic Coast, the Crescent to New Orleans, The Carolinian to Charlotte, and NEC Regional services bound for Newport News.

While it might be possible for VRE commuters to detrain at L'Enfant, the Amtrak connection is vital. Besides, many VRE commuters are bound for Union Station in order to transfer to Red Line or MARC connections. Additional transfers would be very onerous to passengers and would make them less likely to ride.

Another barrier to using the First Street Tunnel for Metro service is its location. While the Red Line Station at Union Station is located just west of the station headhouse (it's under the parking structure ramp adjacent to the other First Street (NW)), the First Street (NE) Tunnel is underneath the headhouse's eastern end, accessible from tracks 21-29. It would be difficult to build a Metro viaduct or tunnel to cross all of the Amtrak tail tracks at Union Station.

One idea I read about recently (perhaps on this blog, but I can't remember) is that since DDOT is talking about closing I-395, why not use it for a new transitway. It's much more accessible. A spur from Metro's Red Line under New York Avenue from the general vicinity of the Brentwood Yard could turn south and use the 395 tunnel all the way to Federal Center. As a matter of fact, it pops out right underneath the VRE/First Street Tunnel connection.

I think that with gas prices tending upward we need to be looking at substituting transit for automobiles not transit for transit. Metro should not expand at the expense of other transit modes. If anything, the First Street Tunnel needs to be replaced and expanded. Maryland is already proposing routing MARC trains through the tunnel and across the Potomac to serve Crystal City.

For a broader discussion of the issues facing commuter rail in the region, I think you might find a post I wrote on the subject informative. You can find it at:

http://tracktwentynine.blogspot.com/2008/02/make-no-little-plans-i.html.

by Matt' on Jul 8, 2008 11:03 am • link • report

Matt': Yup, that I-395 idea was here. Here's the post.

Steve: More broadly, we should be increasing MARC and VRE frequency, and through-routing the trains so that trains from Maryland go to Union Station, then L'Enfant, and out to Virginia. It would be good for Marylanders who work in Southwest DC, the Pentagon, or Alexandria, and good for Virginians who work in Silver Spring. It would also enable much higher train volumes on those lines, so they can be more like Metro lines where people simply show up at the station and a train comes within 10 minutes or so.

A while back I created a transit vision map showing the merged and expanded MARC and VRE systems, which this plan calls the Maryland-Virginia Express (MVX). We have the rail infrastructure; the only obstacle is finding better ways to schedule freight and passenger rail to coexist together.

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2008 11:18 am • link • report

i'm intrigued about the possibility of use of the VRE ROW for WMATA use. it would seem to parallel the current WMATA trackage up until federal center SW, but could we then run metro trains directly up to union station from there, creating a short-cut connection from the east end of the red line to DCA, etc.?

by IMGoph on Jul 8, 2008 11:21 am • link • report

IMGoph,

Short answer: No, at least not without substantial capital investment to build Metro tracks along said ROW. Although the gauge is the same, third rails (for power delivery) would need to be installed along that segment. Also, Metro probably cannot legally run on the existing ROW anyway, due to federal railway regulations.

A better idea might be to build a regional rail (David's MVX) spur to DCA and improve service, as suggested previously.

by Adam on Jul 8, 2008 1:10 pm • link • report

A thought:

The upper ceiling for the size of mainstream tunnel boring machines is now about 15m diameter. Coincidentally, this is *just* enough for a square configuration of four Metro tracks in a single tunnel. Would this be handy enough (and could we use it in enough places) to justify blowing fifty million on a machine that bores out three miles a year?

IMGoph & Adam - regulations can be changed, and simply adding a third rail isn't nearly as expensive as buying and constructing an entirely new ROW, or tunnel boring. However...

I think it might be more appropriate to just place a light rail line up 1st street NE (hooking up with Blue/Orange at Capital South Station, additional light rail at Independence and Constitution, red line at Union station, and progressing onto North Capitol Street after Union). It would fulfill the same function, taking a bit of strain off of Metro Center and making it easier to get to Union Station.

by Squalish on Jul 8, 2008 9:39 pm • link • report

Re: Adam on Jul 7, 2008 10:00 pm

In response to your remarks about the labels. This schematic is based on WMATA internal labeling nomenclature.

Here is the schematic of the existing railroad:

http://mysite.verizon.net/cambronj/wmata/sys_schematic_ars.gif

The G Route begins east of D&G junction (D98), The station letter number labels on the G route count up from 1 beginning at Benning Road. (The same also applies to the J, K and N routes) If WMATA were to label the segment of new Blue line west of River Terrace / D&G junction the G route, then WMATA would have to change all of the letter number labels east of River Terrace / D&G junction on the existing G route to accommodate the 5 station on the new segment of Blue line between 12th street NW and River Terrace / D&G junction. WMATA had to deal with a similar dilemma when they built the New York Avenue station. WMATA chose to label that station B3.5 instead of changing the number part of labels on all the station on the Red line north of Union Station.

That is one of the reasons why I chose to label the new Blue line route segment from 12th street NW to River Terrace / D&G junction Q. The segment from 12th street NW to Rosslyn is labeled P because I wanted to stay consistent with WMATA's zero chaining point schema. (see below)

As to why I chose to keep the legacy D98 label attached to what will become the combined River Terrace station and D&G Junction and not call it Q06. The simple answer is D&G junction is on the existing D route.

Background on WMATA's internal labeling nomenclature.

All of the routes on the metrorail system are identified with letters. The zero mile post (the civil engineering term is zero chaining point) for the A, B, C, D, G, J and K routes is where the two train halls cross in Metro Center (12th and G Streets NW). The zero chaining point for the E, F and L routes is where the train halls cross in Gallery Place 7 th and G Streets NW). The zero chaining point for the N route is at chaining point 238+26.00 on the D route. That point is 196' east of the portal east of the Stadium-Armory station.

The stations are labeled with numbers starting with 01 ascend upwards from the zero chaining points or the beginning of a route. The number labels starting with 99 are assigned to yards and main line junctions on the railroad that are not with the area of a station., those number labels descend downwards.

Technically speaking the letter number labels are not attached to the stations, they are attached to the RTU (Remote Terminal Units) in the wayside train control rooms that are located in each station and at location along the railroad that are not within in the vicinity of a station. The RTU is the data link interface between the wayside train control rooms and the communication network that the central control computer uses to communication with the wayside control room.

Why is there no H, I, M and O routes. The H route was relabeled J when the original J route was deleted from the system back in late 1970s. The original J route terminal was to be built where the Backlick Road VRE station is today. The letter I is not used because it looks similar to 1. M is assigned Colombia Pike Lincolnia route that branches off the C route from the future provision that was built into the south end of Pentagon station. O is not used because it looks similar to 0.

by John R Cambron on Jul 10, 2008 12:21 am • link • report

David, any thoughts on TrackTwentyNine's map?

http://tracktwentynine.blogspot.com/2008/05/making-your-mind-up.html

by FourthandEye on Jul 25, 2008 8:57 pm • link • report

Your maps are amazing. I did notice a few issues, though.

The A route does not show A98 at Hungerford. This is a train control room with no interlocking. You can only get 1.5 miles or 2.5 miles between rooms, depending on their vintage, and since A15 Shady Grove was a later addition they had to include A98. It might have been better if they called that A15 and Shady Grove A16. That would allow for a future station at Montgomery College, although squeezing it in would be quite a trick.

Your depiction of C02 seems to show the interlocking on the wrong end of the station, McPherson Square. Perhaps you were figuring on a new crossover and a new junction. If so the 2030 map would make sense.

I note that you show J01 Quaker Lane. That is a "stealth" station that most people don't know exists. Originally it was a test station, with a trailer mounted over the train control room and only one track. The tower operator could dial up speeds, set station stops. and the like. It was quite a set-up.

You also show C11 Potomac Yard, which is the topic of much discussion lately. There is talk of re-aligning the line at that point, including elevated portions and other configurations. But C11 has been configured since the C route opened beyond the Airport.

D&G Junction was supposed to be the site of the Oklahoma Avenue station. A local citizen had it removed from the plans. So that would likely have been D09 instead of D98.

by Bob on May 21, 2012 2:29 am • link • report