Comments on Morning links: More muck - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:51:14 EDT

"The center leg freeway is a leftover from plans to build 95 into DC. The comprehensive plan calls for it's closure. "

cite? My understanding is the call is for decking it (where its not already covered), not closing it

"The main purpose it serves is to provide a shortcut for Maryland-Virginia drivers across DC so they don't have to use the WW bridge. "

1. I live in Va and have used it to get to and from places in DC, and I imagine its used by DC residents to get to and from Va. And of course having an alternate route to the beltway for someone going from say Arlington, to Md is not a bad thing - I suspect if that section were made a blvd, it would still be used that way.
It's a major headache for DC.

"Same thing for SE/SW. It should be a surface grade boulevard"

It might have been better to build it that way to begin with, which would have saved on construction costs and disruption to existing neighborhoods. But we are where we are - I doubt the benefit cost for doing that is close to positive (note well, DC height limits reduce the amount of incremental development you could get from doing that) I dont think its comparable to the JFX in Baltimore (and note, the JFX thing is still at the being talked about stage, it may not happen for decades, if ever)

Comment by Douglas Willinger

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:42:24 EDT

The headache is the failure to complete DC 95 and those that disregard design and routing. It's like being plauged a century or more ago who were against urban railways and did not care if they were tunneled, as if coal mattered more than electrification.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:30:14 EDT

The center leg freeway is a leftover from plans to build 95 into DC. The comprehensive plan calls for it's closure. The main purpose it serves is to provide a shortcut for Maryland-Virginia drivers across DC so they don't have to use the WW bridge.

It's a major headache for DC.

Same thing for SE/SW. It should be a surface grade boulevard.

Comment by JustMe

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:54:58 EDT

I don't know what this means. When I think of Baltimore, I think of the transformation of row house neighborhoods, of harborplace, of the Central light rail line, etc - I am not sure I get why it would be considered a poor stepchild wrt to urbanism, old or new.

Agreed. I'd argue that Baltimore has it better than a lot of places when it comes to urbanism, simply because it has a more traditional urban infrastructure of neighborhoods with vibrant commercial and retail amenities. Sure, there's an elevated highway in the way, but they still have a lot to work with.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:53:59 EDT

as for the JFX, its only the lower elevated section south of Chase Street under discussion. The comparable DC highway, the center leg of I395, is already partly in tunnel, and will be decked as part of the restore L'enfant plan.

As for SE-SW across the city to connect to I295, the baltimore comparable is I95, which no one is suggesting tearing down.

I would note that the new 11th street bridge connection has resulted in plans to convert the stub end of SE-SW to an urban boulevard, which sounds much like what is proposed for the JFX.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:46:57 EDT

"When you fall behind places like that in creative new urbanism it's sad."

Comment by Gray

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:39:50 EDT

@charlie: You just identified a very strong incentive for non-federal workers to keep a balance on their SmarTrips: doing so allows them to avoid having to deal with negative balances. The other reasonable option is to use the auto-reload feature.

If a rider doesn't want to do either, then it seems reasonable to remove the ability to leave the station with a negative balance.

Or we could just make it marginally harder for people to buy SmarTrips, I guess.

Comment by charlie

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:24:42 EDT

@Gray; a federal worker is relevant because their smartrip is already linked up to get benefits. Those of us w/o it have little incentive to keep large amounts on our cards.

And yes. This was argued about here a few years ago when WMATA wanted to cut smarttrip prices, but as long as you institute a little hassle the fraud problem will go away. There isn't much of a market for paying $2 for a smarttrip to take a $6 bus ride to the airport. Far far less to buy a $2 card and use it for a $3 subway fare.

I understand WMATA is rightfully terrifed after being burned on the multimillion chop your paper card up and exchange it fraud, but it is a few bad actors that are the problem.

Comment by Gray

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:18:58 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by charlie

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:14:18 EDT

@Michael Perkins; that assuming that I want WMATA tracking me, I have enough money on a credit card/debit card and I trust WMATA enough to give them credit card information.

Not everyone is federal worker!

A much simpler rule: you can only buy one card at a time.

Comment by Michael Perkins

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:09:38 EDT

@Charlie: But they've also implemented the auto reload option so you should never go negative.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:38:08 EDT

New Orleans is considering removing I-10, Baltimore is talking about the JFX downtown going, but DC's Southeast/Southwest freeway remains (and in fact is enlarged with the new bridge).

When you fall behind places like that in creative new urbanism it's sad.

And we should have closed the center-leg freeway long ago.

Comment by charlie

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:36:21 EDT

"By early 2014, Metro said it should be able to sell the cards for about $1, according to a presentation for the Board of Directors. But first it needs to make other changes such as eliminating the ability of cards to carry a negative balance, so riders cannot game the system."

Sigh. That is one the primary benefits of Smartcards -- you can leave the system without dealing with exit fares.