Transit
Connecting communities (or not)
It was Councilmember Marion Barry (ward 8) who had the day's most relevant quote. "Streetcars are about connecting communities," he said, as he urged his colleagues to support the proposed 1.3-mile, $43-million Anacostia demonstration streetcar in his ward. There's only one problem: the proposed line doesn't connect communities at all.
Full system plan as of January 2008. Streetcars are red, express buses blue.
There's no community on South Capitol Street, with the 295 freeway on one side and Bolling Air Force Base on the other, and where the first of DC's streetcar lines is slated to be built. The originally proposed line would have run along the abandoned CSX tracks all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue, but failed negotiations with CSX killed that idea. Then DDOT proposed a line along Martin Luther King Jr. Ave between historic Anacostia and Congress Heights, but some residents objected to not being able to park on both sides of the street.
Ultimately, DDOT settled on an alignment down the very wide and low-density Firth Stirling Avenue, and then onto South Capitol, which has no buildings on it whatsoever, serving basically as a frontage access road paralleling the freeway alongside a military base. Firth Stirling itself is slated to become a dense, mixed-use neighborhood main street if Barry Farm is redeveloped and the cloverleaf interchange at Suitland and 295 is converted to a diamond, freeing up land. But the Barry Farm stop is a mere third of a mile from the Anacostia Metro, an easy walk (supplemented by bus service).
The real riders of this line will be federal workers at Anacostia Naval Station and Bolling Air Force Base. But the federal government is not paying a cent for what Tommy Wells (ward 6) says amounts to no more than a "shuttle train" for federal employees. And it connects no communities. In essence, Barry was asking the Council to support a streetcar project for reasons that argue against the project instead. This divergence between rhetoric and reality characterized the entire hearing, where supporters and critics seemed to be talking about entirely different projects. That's because they were.
To supporters, like DDOT Director Emeka Moneme, the reasons to build this segment have little to do with this segment itself. Instead, this project is about starting, at long last, DC's streetcar system. And we certainly should be building a comprehensive system throughout the region. East of the river, the benefits abound of providing reliable, economic-development-stimulating streetcar service past the Anacostia Metro, through Historic Anacostia, and down Minnesota Avenue all the way to Benning Road and the Minnesota Avenue Metro.
In his testimony, Moneme often answered a question about the South Capitol alignment by discussing instead the benefits of a streetcar in Anacostia generally. David Catania (at large), who decided to put the first line in Anacostia during his WMATA board tenure, spoke about building demand for Class A office space in downtown Anacostia. Unfortunately, the planned line doesn't go to downtown Anacostia.
Moneme's testimony made clear that, quite simply, DDOT is building this first segment in this location because it is the path of least resistance. Here, there is no argument about capacity on Firth Stirling (it is really two parallel roads separated by the abandoned tracks, with ample excess space), and no residents on South Capitol to complain about anything. The District owns land, currently partially used for garbage truck storage, that will serve as the new line's maintenance shop.
Yes, it's easy to build a line in the middle of nowhere. But is it a prudent use of funds? If this piece catalyzes the next one, maybe. Will it? Chairman Jim Graham argued that with CFO Gandhi's recent warning about debt for capital projects, funds are precious. Will DC be stuck with this little "shuttle train" for years and years?
Moneme thinks not. He believes that this segment will build public support for future streetcars. It will show people how smooth, quiet, and reliable a working streetcar can be, and how non-intrusive the overhead wires really appear. He's hoping this path-of-least-resistance project will make it easier to build the next segment in an area with some resistance today, such as an extension to the center of historic Anacostia.
That's possible. Or, perhaps the line will encounter some mechanical problems, suffer from low ridership (due to its failure to connect communities) and create opposition instead of support. Even if it does convert skeptics to believers, is it worth $43 million? How about a really nice video, or maybe we could just fly every resident of DC to Portland to see their streetcars firsthand.
This debate comes down to a strategic decision. The current line serves few DC residents and connects no communities, but is easy to build and passes by cheap land for a maintenance shop. Is it better to get a track in the ground as soon as possible, in the easiest possible place, to show people a working streetcar even if the immediate benefits are few? Or is $43 million too high a price? Should we wait longer to build a streetcar in an area which needs and wants one? Graham and Wells say, do it right and in the right place. Fenty and Moneme say, just build something now.
Meanwhile, Catania says build it now and, in fact, this is the right place too. Of all the opinions at the hearing, Catania's is the least plausible. He was the only one to firmly defend a line to Bolling, arguing that a streetcar will generate office demand in Anacostia among defense contractors doing business at those military bases. He also wants the line to continue to National Harbor to access the jobs there. As Wells pointed out, National Harbor is not designed for transit and competes with DC for business; a line (and my transit vision map contains one), but building such a line first, with DC money, is not the right priority.
Catania is stuck in a commuter-only mindset, like the one in force when Metro was designed. Streetcars aren't a way to more quickly shuttle workers to their jobs; buses do that more cheaply over short distances. Streetcars work best to open up run-down areas to development, creating new, mixed-use, mixed-income communities, like Portland's Pearl district (or the Rosslyn-Ballston Metro in Arlington). H Street, Minnesota Avenue, or the AFRH/Hospital Center/McMillan Sand Filtration area may be such places. An access highway to a military base, far from any people, with no parcels available for development along most of the route, is not.
But the engineering is done, the cars are waiting in the Czech Republic, and the administration is ready to go. Is it best simply to get this one built and then push for the next segment? Or are we wasting our money? Whatever will create the complete planned system, or better yet the original full system, I support. The approximately $1 billion price tag may come in large part from incremental tax revenues from development it spurs. The $400 million earmarked for the 11th Street bridges looks inviting; Graham called it a "Christmas goose," suggesting the Council might find it appealing to reallocate that money to streetcars. Most likely, to kick off the investment requires federal investment from a better FTA, which we can hope to get from a President Obama.
Pictures from along the route:
 |
South Capitol Street, looking north toward the beginning of the streetcar line. |
 |
Approaching the maintenance facility. 295 is on the right, Bolling on the left. |
 |
The future maintenance facility. South Capitol is to the left. |
 |
Looking back south from the maintenance facility toward the end of the line. |
 |
Layers of barricades between the street and the bases. |
 |
The CSX tracks (which the line won't use) cross South Capitol near the maintance facility. |
 |
Looking south as the tracks cross. The maintenance facility is on the left. |
 |
Firth Stirling, looking back toward South Capitol. 295 is crossing overhead. The space in the center is the CSX right of way. |
 |
Firth Stirling, with Barry Farm to the right. The streetcar will replace this bus. |
 |
Barry Farm from Firth Stirling. |
 |
Farther north on Firth Stirling. Note the two roadways which are both Firth Stirling; the CSX tracks are in the center. The buildings on the left would be redeveloped in the Barry Farm plan. |
 |
Another block north on Firth Stirling. At left is the cloverleaf, which could be a site for redevelopment if the intersection becomes a diamond. |
 |
Looking toward Barry Farm from the Anacostia Metro. |
 |
Looking northeast from the Metro. Beyond these ramps and to the right is historic Anacostia; Poplar Point is on the other side of the freeways to the left. |
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
by Vik on Jul 14, 2008 9:19 pm • link • report
by William on Jul 14, 2008 9:36 pm • link • report
According to experts in transit oriented development, streetcars have sometimes been used to serve special use/employment districts. But in order to be successful the destination should possess certain characteristics:
* 2,000-5,000 dwellings
* Recommended density of 50-150 dwellings per acre (15-25/acre minimum)
* 7,500-50,000 jobs
* Commercial density of 2.0 FAR
Does Bolling Air Force Base meet any of these standards? Is it planned to meet any of these standards? I think the answer is "no".
If the streetcar is to catalyze development along its route, some critical planning factors must be considered:
* Market readiness shapes development response. What is the market for development in this neighborhood today?
* Necessary infrastructure improvements to support TOD can be costly. Installing a rail line is just the beginning. A comprehensive public investment in infrastructure and design upgrades must be implemented to convert an industrial area to a residential one.
Putting $43 million into a "Streetcar to Nowhere" is bad enough. But a big public failure right out of the box will probably doom our chances for expansion of the system. Streetcars are unknown in DC and we need an immediate success to build public support.
Haste makes waste. The city should work instead to get a route with the necessary ridership projections, the necessary land use, the necessary market demand, and the necessary public support.
by Laurence Aurbach on Jul 14, 2008 10:03 pm • link • report
1. The demonstration aspect isn't all that important, since Arlington will be building a streetcar on Columbia Pike that far more people from around the region are likely to ride.
2. The real question isn't whether to build this line FIRST or not. The real question is whether we should build this line NOW. We can't build other lines now because the planning isn't done, so other lines are outside the realm of our choice. The question to be answered is simply is this Anacostia segment part of the system we intend to operate at completion? If the answer to that question is yes - if we want this line at all - then the time to build it is now. The longer we wait to build this 1.3 mile segment, the more expensive it will be to build this 1.3 mile segment.
If we choose the "wait and do it right" option, then in 10 or 15 years when it's time to build this segment again, it will cost many millions of dollars more to build than it does right now, and we'll end up with the same system but at greater expense.
No. Unless the intention is not to build the segment EVER, then we should build it now while we're ready, before the cost goes up.
by BeyondDC on Jul 14, 2008 10:04 pm • link • report
Is the city still going ahead with the Anacostia line?
by BeyondDC on Jul 14, 2008 10:09 pm • link • report
I agree that if this is the right line to build, than build it now, but if it's not the right line and doesn't follow that path that we want it to follow, I don't think it's wise to build it. If it doesn't end up being used or doesn't encourage pedestrian friendly development b/c it's running along highways, than the only benefit, albeit a benefit, is that it will get people out of cars that pollute, but it seems like it'll be more like a shuttle than anything else. Why not build BRT first if that's likely to be the case?
$43 million isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, and I agree that if this particular line is planning to be built eventually anyway, we should build it. But if this design is the result of a compromise that doesn't help us achieve all the goals, than perhaps we can wait. But from a cost perspective, there's no doubt this will go up in price with time.
by Vik on Jul 14, 2008 10:15 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jul 14, 2008 10:19 pm • link • report
If Graham wants to stop the project, he has to introduce a "resolution of disapproval" to the entire Council and get them to pass that. If they do, then DDOT can't move $10 million from the 11th Street Bridges to fund this project.
Moneme kept referring to data in a DC Alternatives Analysis document that covers the entire streetcar network, potential alignments, ridership estimates, and more. Apparently it's in draft form and has to be reviewed by Fenty before being released. Graham was fairly irritated (probably rightly) that Moneme had all this data but couldn't share it yet.
Lance: It was never a secret that cars were bought. The Council kept passing budgets including this line. Unfortunately, nobody really raised questions about it, neither the Council nor the public, so DDOT marched merrily along with public plans to build this streetcar here, kept getting its budgets approved, etc.
Graham may try to hold up the project until he can see the DCAA document, but on the other hand, that would delay until the fall. It would be bad if they delayed, then saw the DCAA and decided to let it happen anyway. Plus, it really is late in the process and the Council probably should have held a hearing a lot earlier (such as years ago); it's not like they never knew about this project, so they need a stronger reason to stop it now. For those reasons I suspect it's going to go ahead.
by David Alpert on Jul 14, 2008 10:41 pm • link • report
by lou dc on Jul 14, 2008 11:01 pm • link • report
if they do build this line, it risks failure due to underutilization, thus setting back the cause of streetcars even more.
it's like a bad case of catch-22.
i say, build the line, and push like hell to get the H street line up and running ASAP.
by IMGoph on Jul 14, 2008 11:03 pm • link • report
I'd say put these trams on the K-Street busway instead but you'd gave the catenary problem. Any alignment would have to be short, (3 cars don't cover much ground) and be outside of the L'Enfant city, any ideas?
by Steve on Jul 14, 2008 11:04 pm • link • report
I say build the line. We have to start somewhere, right? We have the cars, we have the right of ways, and we have the funds. Why waste the chance to build something like this -- if we don;t build it, where will this money go?
by DG-rad on Jul 14, 2008 11:46 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jul 14, 2008 11:55 pm • link • report
by Steve on Jul 15, 2008 12:36 am • link • report
Now Bolling and Anacostia Station are more dense than typical military bases, but I don't believe a trolley connection would get too many people out of cars, particularly if it's only serving those destinations and a Metro station with some incidental stops along the way.
That having been said, I'm going to agree with DG-rad that anything built now is better than something built much, much later. Figure out a ROW to get it to Minnesota Avenue. There's a better argument if the southern leg is already built. Then you're really serving the residents east of the river.
by Dave Murphy on Jul 15, 2008 3:19 am • link • report
Also, if you include NRL (a bit of a distance I know) there are well over 6000 jobs. No way every one will use the lightrail but it may be enough to prevent completely empty trains fo the DEMO.
It is a start which (in conjunction with H street) can show DC taxpayers that this can work. In addition, it gives DC/WMATA? a chance to learn about opreating this system.
Go ahead and delay again and you will find it most likely will never happen.
by leeindc on Jul 15, 2008 8:41 am • link • report
by Cavan on Jul 15, 2008 9:05 am • link • report
As to the question of building the Anacostia line, I do think there is a point to saying "wait until succesful lines are built to convince the residents to allow a MLK Ave. line."
Although I do agree that it's probably better to get cars on rails soon. While this may not be the perfect line, at least is will not be a high-profile failure. It's not like it will be cruising up an down K St. empty. Only a small percent of the DC population will ever even see this line.
I don't think it will hamper too much the continued construction of a DC network, although I do think it will give ammunition to the anti-Purple Line "grassroots" brigade. They'll look up from their gin and tonics and say "see, light rail doesn't really serve that many people. Now get out of my way, I'm putting here."
by Reid on Jul 15, 2008 9:47 am • link • report
Still: How fast can H street get locked in?---that's the demonstration project that could help shift regional thinking on transit.
by Hans on Jul 15, 2008 10:27 am • link • report
The people who are employed at Bolling/ Naval Annex/ NRL really have no motivation to live near Metro to begin with, unless for other members of their family. And for Alexandria/Fairfax residents, it's a reverse commute. I don't think any of the starter line planning has actually looked at where the workers of these military facilities live, nor tried to calculate travel times, etc. But imagine the commute: Drive to Dunn Loring, say, then take the orange line to L'Enfant, then the Green line to Anacostia, then wait for the streetcar (and, with the number that have been purchased, how frequently can it run?), then (if you don't work at the DIA) wait for the intra-base shuttle to your actual building.
Oh, and on the weekends, there will be approximately zero commuters taking the streetcar to Bolling.
In the very early days of the streetcar planning, there was an idea to use the CSX tracks as they actually enter Bolling AFB, all the way down to NRL and Blue Plains. Then a new commander at Bolling said no to that. And presently, Bolling has cut and removed the tracks at what had been several grade crossings.
For CSX not to get rid of the tracks is stupid. The only cargo had been chlorine to Blue Plains, but that ended when Blue Plains switched to chloramine, which doesn't arrive by rail. And of course now the tracks have been partially torn up.
by thm on Jul 15, 2008 10:43 am • link • report
by erahk0 on Jul 15, 2008 10:45 am • link • report
As such, I don't see an upside to our building this line ... only a downside. If it turns out to be a black hole into which money gets thrown into with no real benefits coming out of it, then people's enthusiasm for street cars will be dampened. If on the contrary it turns out to be a "success", 99% of DCers will never even know it. As one poster said, there's a far better chance of most DCers seeing Va.'s proposed Columbia Pike. (And that "demo line" isn't going to cost us a cent to build.)
by Lance on Jul 15, 2008 10:52 am • link • report
It's a document that really needed an overhaul. The whole DCAA process had lots of opportunities for citizen input--I wish there had been some place for input on this forthcoming revision.
Examples of awfulness in the final report:
It completely ignores the scaling value of a network (i.e. Metcalfe's Law [no relation].)
It makes a clear distinction between "streetcars" and "light rail" (the latter not being deemed appropriate for DC) it still considers both "rapid bus" and "BRT" but without actually defining what they mean each to be. Nowhere do they clearly state what extra features "BRT" would have beyond those that "Rapid Bus" would have. "BRT" remains a poorly-defined chimera, built around a sort of wishful thinking in which all you have to do is call something "BRT" and magically it will have whatever wonderful performance and features you wish.
The poor logic is like this: on the one hand, all the ridership projections presume the same ridership for streetcar, "rapid bus," and "BRT," which is to say: features don't matter. (In reality, rail always draws more riders.) But if features don't matter, why not just use regular buses? In order to justify "rapid bus" instead of regular buses, you have to assume that features do matter.
And so on. It's so infuriating that it's hard to read.
by thm on Jul 15, 2008 11:18 am • link • report
by Bianchi on Jul 15, 2008 11:31 am • link • report
by DG-rad on Jul 15, 2008 11:41 am • link • report
If you care about streetcars in DC, I encourage you to call your federal representatives in Congress and ask them to repeal or amend the federal law prohibiting the overhead wires.
You can call the house switchboard at 202-225-3121 and ask for your congressman's office. The Senate switchboard is 202-224-3121.
If you need to look up your Congressman or Senator, congress.org is a good place to start.
I just called mine, Congressman Moran. He's a big supporter of transit, especially rail transit.
Sorry for getting "all political", but there's a federal law that's getting in the way of an effective streetcar system, and only Congress has the power to change it.
by Michael on Jul 15, 2008 11:45 am • link • report
by DG-rad on Jul 15, 2008 2:12 pm • link • report
In any case, I doubt that wires are the stumbling block. It's the enormous up front costs that a tram system requires that is (whether you hang wires you propose or you don't.) As you correctly point out, it's not just District residents who would benefit from a street car system, but also commuters like yourself. And the fact that the monumental core of the city is America's monumental core means that every American has a stake in this project. This should be a federal effort and not a District effort. If you're going to rally people around an issue pertaining to getting us all a street car system, rally people around asking their reps why Congress and the federal DOT isn't funding and planning such a system ... rather than the ill-equiped and not completely "vested interest" District DOT.
by Lance on Jul 15, 2008 2:13 pm • link • report
I only ask people to contact their real congresspeople because you all don't have a vote, so contacting Norton is next to worthless.
by Michael on Jul 15, 2008 2:53 pm • link • report
If you leave the design up to the federal DOT (really the FTA), what you're going to get is a recommendation to use BRT since according to federal guidelines it's just as good.
by Michael on Jul 15, 2008 3:02 pm • link • report
I'm all for modifying the law so that the streets that really are monumental remain that way. Protect Pennsylvania, Constitution, Independence, maybe one or two others, sure, but for goodness sake, the District is not a museum to Federalism, it is a working city that needs to function. Let the functional parts of the city function.
by BeyondDC on Jul 15, 2008 3:06 pm • link • report
I disagree about how some areas of the L'Enfant plan should be off limits. The city is not a museum, and if the Grand Avenues are the most efficient routes, by all means, we should use them.
by MarkM on Jul 15, 2008 4:17 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Jul 15, 2008 4:44 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Jul 17, 2008 10:59 am • link • report
Add a Comment