K Street Transitway delayed seven years, again

Transit

K Street Transitway delayed seven years, again

by Joey Katzen • January 26, 2009 12:59 pm

DC has a plan on the books to reconfigure K Street, creating a dedicated, physically separated bus lane in each direction. The original "K Street Transitway" study happened in 2004, but there's been little to no progress since. DC Councilmembers including Jim Graham periodically ask about it, and the Downtown BID thinks it's a high priority, but there's still no money. Now, according to the National Capital Region Long-Range Transportation Plan updates announced on January 15th, the K Street Transitway was just delayed seven more years. Instead of money first coming in 2010, we'll have to wait until at least 2017 to begin the project.

Rendering of K Street busway, by Newlands & Company.

The preferred alternative would eliminate K Street's side access-and-parking roadways from Washington Circle to Mount Vernon Square. Instead, the project would create dedicated bus lanes in the center, separated from general traffic by medians on both sides. Bus stations and fare machines would be located in the medians. The Circulator could use this, along with Metrobuses that run on K Street. (The recent service evaluation for the D buses recommends using the Transitway). DC could add tracks ~~under~~ to the transit lanes for streetcars in the future.

Luckily, the other regional projects recently delayed by more than five years in the NCR Long-Term Transportation Plan are primarily freeway widening proposals. Regional bike, pedestrian, and transit plans appear largely on course, except for the many transit cuts Maryland and Virginia have recently made and WMATA faces soon. This fall's federal transportation reauthorization could change the math on funding, giving DC money to build the Transitway. Otherwise, we'll have to suffer through slow bus service on K Street for almost another decade.

28 comments

Tags: BRT, Circulator, DC, DDOT, downtown DC, K Street Transitway, MWCOG

K Street Transitway options balance buses, bikes, cars, and loading (Jul 30, 2009)
Amid rail advocacy, are we neglecting bus projects? (Feb 3, 2009)
Video animates streetcar on K Street (May 27, 2010)
DDOT moves planned I Street cycle track to M Street (May 4, 2010)
Amid exciting innovations, DDOT neglecting bus priority (Mar 23, 2010)

Joey Katzen is an entrepreneur and attorney living in Arlington, Virginia. A native of the Commonwealth, he hopes our public and private sectors can work together to continue transforming each of our neighborhoods into attractive places we can be proud of.

Comments
Add a comment »

"DC could add tracks *under* the transit lanes for streetcars in the future."

Are they planning on a tunnel, as I see the word "under"?

The project BTW is a waste of money unless done as a deck to allow future excavation beneath without having to tear up the street again.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-66-north-leg-west-k-street-tunnel.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/01/trip-within-beltway-101.html

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 26, 2009 1:12 pm • link • report

"DC could add tracks under the transit lanes for streetcars in the future."

This is an idea I hear a lot, but it's one I've always been confused by. If we were to create a ROW for buses, how would we be able to then construct rails? We'd have to take away the ROW for the time it would take to construct the rails (not an insignificant time). Then we'd have all K St. traffic on only 4 lanes.

Additionally, even once that painful period is passed, what do you do with the bus lines that use K but aren't converted to streetcars? Do they continue to use the same ROW? Now that I think of it, I guess there's no reason they couldn't.

Anyway, it seems that if we're looking at another seven year delay, why don't we take that time to simply skip ahead to rails, even if they trains aren't ready? It seems like a more realistic way to get streetcars on K St. than doing a two-step approach.

by Reid on Jan 26, 2009 1:23 pm • link • report

Perhaps with the delay they can consider an option that includes bicycling amenities. Given that the K Street corridor serves a high a rate of cycling (and not all couriers, though they shouldn't be excluded), and currently one Smart Bike station, any "improvements" that don't accommodate cyclists is going to fall short.

by Jeff on Jan 26, 2009 1:27 pm • link • report

I'm not sure if you could entirely remove buses from the lane, as it may add extra transfers for people that use routes that are only on k for a few blocks.

With regards to bike lanes, perhaps some stations at major intersections, but I would push bike lanes either a block north or south.

by Mike on Jan 26, 2009 2:01 pm • link • report

The concept video is pretty neat, including the fact that all of the taxis look relatively modern and are painted easy-to-spot NYC yellow. (To view, click on the illustration.) Now how many years will we have to wait for a modern taxi fleet? Many years beyond 2017, I'll bet, given the DC taxi industry's (and Taxi Commission's) openness to change.

by Washingtonian on Jan 26, 2009 2:21 pm • link • report

I'm sorry if this question as already been answered, but-

Why down the middle? From a user standpoint, boarding from the sidewalk seems much more pleasant. Less pedestrian crossing of car lanes, and the transit way would sort of provide a buffer between car traffic and peds on the sidewalk.

by spookiness on Jan 26, 2009 2:30 pm • link • report

>Why down the middle?

So cars turning off K Street don't block the transit lanes. Center-running light rail works pretty well in San Francisco.

As for "tracks underneith", according to discussions I've had w/ DDOT in the past, tracks have never been on the table in any official capacity for this project. There is certainly not a subway option, as one commented above suggested.

I posted on BDC that the silver lining to this may be that by 2017 we'll be ready to put down some tracks on K Street. Hopefully that will be the case.

by BeyondDC on Jan 26, 2009 2:38 pm • link • report

I think Joey meant that they would add streetcar tracks to the ROW surface itself. I don't think he was talking about a subterrain railway. Right?

That's at least what I was talking about...

by Reid on Jan 26, 2009 2:43 pm • link • report

I put in that word in editing, and yes, that's what we meant. Tracks into the roadbed.

by David Alpert on Jan 26, 2009 2:49 pm • link • report

Regardless, unless something has changed in the last 6 months, my understanding is there are no tracks currently planned.

by BeyondDC on Jan 26, 2009 2:57 pm • link • report

my understanding is there are no tracks currently planned.

Well, yeah probably not. But it's not like they've done much planning of this project recently anyway. So to the extent they ever do, hopefully it will incorporate tracks. At least to the extent they are on H St. Or at least to the extent the say they are doing on H St. (has a single track been laid yet?)

by Reid on Jan 26, 2009 3:45 pm • link • report

Oh, I agree. There should be tracks here. I'm just explaining that the current plan doesn't include them.

by BeyondDC on Jan 26, 2009 3:54 pm • link • report

And, DC shouldn't lay any tracks on K St or H St until we resolve issues surrounding the ban on overhead wires which is a limiting factor for future light-rail/streetcar expansion in the L'Enfant-city planned area.

I wonder who is leading the charge for the resolution of these issues.

DC needs more fixed-guideway transit - and soon! I'd take BRT and/or streetcars. It's about time that DC residents have access to more efficent and more frequent transit options to points within the city.

by otavio on Jan 26, 2009 4:46 pm • link • report

Way back when, when Dan T. was head of DDOT, K street businesses tried to get them to put the bus lanes on the outside, like spookiness suggested. He told them it wouldn't work and when they didn't listen he had the bus/bike lanes on 7th and 9th put in. They don't work and he proved his point. So those lanes were designed to fail so that K Street's wouldn't.

by David C on Jan 26, 2009 6:13 pm • link • report

Realistically, a transitway for rubber-tire vehicles will not be dedicated to buses. Buses might be permitted to use it, but the feds will instantly recognize it for what it is -- a purpose-built speedway for motorcades and obscure "emergency" vehicles. A great big advantage to building it with train tracks would be to preempt such encroachments.

by Turnip on Jan 26, 2009 7:29 pm • link • report

Turnip, that assessment is so cynical and so true. You are right. The thing would be shut down all the time for "emergency uses" rather than moving people like it's supposed to.

by Cavan on Jan 26, 2009 7:47 pm • link • report

But is K Street a street that for example is used to carry the VP home? I don't think it is. Basically, is it a street now that is shut down for federal emergencies? I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I don't see a lot of federal vehicles currently shutting down K Street.

I wouldn't let this possibility derail the conversation.

My impressions from the rendering are that it would be a very quick way to get up and down (or across) K street. It also points up just how ugly K Street is. Can't we get more trees?

These poor consultants, drawing and rendering their hearts out, and for what?

by Jazzy on Jan 26, 2009 8:06 pm • link • report

Interesting, the look of it reminds me of San Francisco's Market Street. I do wonder about the elimination of parking. Perhaps an underground street/public parking solution, such as in Paris and London, could be added.

In an unrelated note, hopefully the Whitehearst freeway will be gone by that time, too.

by David Fabian on Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm • link • report

The concept of dedicated lanes for buses is very appealing; currently the circulator buses and other routes on this stretch operate below 12 mph commercial speeds. This could be a low cost, rapid implementation solution in the heart of the nation's capital. It will be important to scalate it in the list of capital projects in the region, as part of the "economy stimulus package" (wishful thinking). Even as light rail seems more appealing to most commenters and decision makers, a well designed and operated bus system in the corridor is much more cost effective, and has also the potential to reduce Green House Gases in a greater degree than electric trains (given the heavy reliance on coal power sources for the DC Metropolitan Area).

by Dario Hidalgo on Jan 27, 2009 10:31 am • link • report

It's worth pointing out that Mr. Hidalgo works for EMBARQ, a pro-BRT advocacy group that is bankrolled by Shell and Caterpillar.

In his defense, he's not hiding that. But I just thought I'd make that clear after you read his comment.

by Reid on Jan 27, 2009 11:35 am • link • report

The BRT is most cost effective assuming all of the following:

1. There is no capacity for additional TOD.

2. The overall line ridership is low enough that you do not need especially frequent buses (each with its own unionized driver!).

3. Gas prices don't get out of control.

4. Your rider market is captive enough that they won't care about comfort.

Only #1 is really true for K Street, and even that is dropped if we consider K Street a continuous transit corridor with H Street east of Union Station.

The busway will undeniably be a huge improvement over what's there now, but to suggest BRT is better on its own terms than a train at this location is simply wrong.

by BeyondDC on Jan 27, 2009 1:33 pm • link • report

I'm not so sure. I don't take metrorail for short distances (there are exceptions), but I do take buses. Seems rather a blanket statement.

by Jazzy on Jan 27, 2009 2:10 pm • link • report

Jazzy you're assuming that new rail on K street would be like Metrorail. This is probably not true. I think the rail most of the commenters here have in mind for K street is a light rail or street car type of rail with stops on the street and every few blocks. This is similar to a bus in that it would be more efficient for short trips, like Metrobus currently is in some situations.

by Chris on Jan 27, 2009 4:07 pm • link • report

In that case, great!

by Jazzy on Jan 27, 2009 4:32 pm • link • report

@BDC - so the streetcar driver won't be unionized?

by Paul S on Jan 27, 2009 4:44 pm • link • report

Paul,

With streetcars you don't need as many drivers to move the same number of passengers, since 1) streetcars have higher capacity per vehicle than buses (usually), and 2) streetcars can be coupled into trains, further expanding their capacity without the need for additional drivers.

In other words, one streetcar driver can move as many passengers as 3 or 4 bus drivers. Even if the streetcar driver makes as much money as the bus driver (or more), you're only paying (and providing insurance for) one of them.

by BeyondDC on Jan 27, 2009 4:49 pm • link • report

Of course the bigger problem isn't the bus drivers, it's all the retired bus drivers that inflated their pensions with overtime made possible by the labor shortage artifically created by labor rules (e.g., have to start out part time for the first six months)

by Reid on Jan 27, 2009 5:13 pm • link • report

I noticed that the Transitway was back in the 2010 TIP budget after the 3/18/09 amendments. Do you know the status now?

by Thomas on Mar 30, 2009 5:01 pm • link • report