i mean, seriously folks, are we totally forgetting about neigthborhoods in river east? we need more rail capacity over there, too.

planning meeting in Bellevue last night reminded me that there are areas of SE and SW that nobody cares about because the rest of the city knows nothing about them. but they exist, and they could really benefit from Metro rail access

by DG-rad on Feb 19, 2009 9:58 am • link • report

Perhaps this is all just semantics on my part, but there's no need to run metro trains on those lines at all. Assuming you have some sort of national rail reinvestment with an emphasis on adding capacity and electrifying lines, that would solve two big issues (CSX and power supply).

Then, it's only a matter of improving the tracks and adding rolling stock - but I don't think you brand this as Metro. You brand this as more of an S-Bahn service. Metro would be the equivalent of the U-Bahn, and this S-Bahn would be compatible with intercity rail.

So, I'd see all of those lines as EMU trains operating at much higher service frequencies, but I still wouldn't brand it as Metro.

by Alex B. on Feb 19, 2009 9:58 am • link • report

"add enormous capacity to our Metro system (though also at great cost)"

I vaguely remember the last estimate I heard for another Blue Line was about $10 billion.

A few months ago that sounded like some real money, but now with the government spending a trillion here and a trillion there, $10 billion (or even $30 billion) seems pocket change.

by Omari on Feb 19, 2009 10:01 am • link • report

Alex, while branding is certainly an issue to be discussed, I don't think David is proposing running Metro-style vehicles on those lines -- that would defeat the cost-saving purpose. They would remain conventional commuter rail in infrastructure, just with higher frequency schedules. EMUs (or even DMUs if electrification doesn't go through) would be best.

I'd agree that you wouldn't want to call these Metro lines exactly, not least because it would be impossible to incorporate the stations into the Metrorail ticketing system and still use them as MARC/VRE stations. But they should be branded so that it is clear that they're like Metro lines -- maybe MetroRegional or something? And by all means use the color designations, and keep them all on the same maps. Network effects are the whole point of the enterprise.

Love the map. Would love to see similar lines run on NE Corridor/CSX tracks in Baltimore too -- BWI would be a logical place for those two systems to meet.

by jfruh on Feb 19, 2009 10:07 am • link • report

What about separating the Yellow line from the Green line within DC? Basically, run it under 14th St. straight up to Silver Springs and turn 14th into "Main Street" It is wide an already has the Columbia Hts. Station and then beyond there it could follow 16th or Georgia. In between it could stop Logan Circle or other developing areas such as the 14/U/Florida area. Beyond the DC core it could capture Walter Reed Medical Center.

I would also suggest moving the proposed Blue line further to the North, if possible. Not sure how feasible this is though if Union Station is to become more connected and there is a desire to send it down H St. in NE.

Each of these lines would be expensive, but would make much more of DC's commercial area and future commercial area accessible to MetroRail.

by Ohio Hoya on Feb 19, 2009 10:11 am • link • report

DG-rad: Yeah, it's too bad there are (AFAIK) no good rail lines left out in River East. There's the Anacostia Branch, but that just duplicates the existing Metro Orange Line. An express would skip those stops, not serving River East.

jfruh: Agreed. Having the lines on the Metro map is key, as is running them at Metro-like frequencies (say, every 5-10 mins on every line rush hours and every 10-15 middays and evenings).

by David Alpert on Feb 19, 2009 10:15 am • link • report

Providing subsidize transportation out to distant suburbs or as Ravent would say "exurbs" only encourages sprawl. The exurban freeloaders will only use metro to avoid traffic jams on morning and evening commutes but will drive everywhere else.

by Tom on Feb 19, 2009 10:19 am • link • report

David, running more trains on existing rights of way is a good idea. However, the reason why MARC (and VRE) only run at the times they run is because that's all the time they can lease from CSX. In the case of the Penn Line that runs on Amtrak's NE corridor, that's all the time they can lease from Amtrak.

Rolling stock is an issue to be sure, but the capacity of the tracks in the temporal dimension is the larger issue. Intrinsic to the properties of the systems, the headways are much tighter on electrified heavy or light rail than they are on freight/commuter rail.

If you want Metro-like service on the existing freight track corridors, you're going to have to build Metro tracks along side the freight tracks like on the Red Line between Union Station and Silver Spring and the Blue/Yellow south of the airport. That goal in itself is cost-effective because it would be all surface construction. However, I don't see an increase in commuter rail service to Metro-like service because CSX owns the line and sees MARC as a nuisance at worst, neutral at worst.

by Cavan on Feb 19, 2009 10:24 am • link • report

Ohio Hoya, that is a nice but expensive vision.

For future reference, Silver Spring is singular.

by Cavan on Feb 19, 2009 10:27 am • link • report

This would be fabulous! Where does one get plugged in to help this dream map come to fruition?

by Mike K on Feb 19, 2009 10:29 am • link • report

Tom, the sprawl is already there. That's the problem. The roads have already been built and the damage has already been done. The exurbanites are already there and "free loading" based on their road and sewer infrastructure.

The new Metro service would be about steering future growth off the highways and onto TOD around the train stations. While I don't like the face that it would encourage some outward building, it would be concentrated outward building rather than the ravenous land-consuming beast that is car-dependent sprawl. It's better than what we've been doing.

by Cavan on Feb 19, 2009 10:31 am • link • report

MARC and VRE obviously need to get better. Branding it all as a single system (like Philadelphia or Boston), with express/regional and local service is a good idea (one I explored on my map last year as well).

I do think we need to be careful in situations like this to always be clear that Metrorail is not the right mode for this sort of service. I know David realizes that, but everyone who reads may not. Even considering we may have to add new tracks for DMU or EMU, building Metrorail to Laurel or Burke would be a gigantic waste of money. We don't need to spend that much to get high quality service in these corridors.

by BeyondDC on Feb 19, 2009 10:36 am • link • report

Cavan: Right. Maryland really wants growth. Even if elected leaders had the strength to overcome political opposition to infill, the pace of that would be too slow. Prince George's really wants more development somewhere. They're putting it on freeway interchanges like Konterra, and then they want to build new freeways to get there. Given that it's already the express public policy of Maryland to develop more around Shady Grove and Germantown and around Laurel, and the federal government is absolutely set on moving a lot of defense jobs to Forts Meade and Belvoir, we may as well try to get some transit there.

Cavan, to your earlier point: I know that CSX . However, Metro-North owns the rail tracks between New York and New Haven, with very high frequencies for a commuter railroad, and somehow freight manages to get through Westchester County, NY and Fairfax County, CT. If CSX had another rail route around DC for through traffic and if an authority took over the rail lines for the benefit of both passenger and freight, is it totally impossible to fit in the freight amid much more frequent passenger service?

by David Alpert on Feb 19, 2009 10:36 am • link • report

BeyondDC: I agree that building new Metrorail lines to these places is not the right solution. At the same time, do you agree we should get Metro-like frequencies (probably a little less?) And if we have Metro-like frequency, why not tell people, "see, now you have Metro!"

The problem is that Maryland keeps wanting to extend Metro, to reach places like Konterra and Fort Meade. That's because everyone knows the current MARC is pretty minimal, so people say, "MARC's not enough, we need Metro". We can get "Metro" just by adding a lot more MARC and calling it Metro, I think (if we can work out the scheduling with CSX).

We could also do mroe to integrate the two. At College Park, we could rebuild the station one day so that the southbound Green Line track and the southbound MARC track meet at the same platform, and vice versa for northbound. That would make this super-MARC or "Metro express" or whatever you call it feel more like the express trains on a single system.

by David Alpert on Feb 19, 2009 10:45 am • link • report

I don't have all the scheduling off the top of my head about the existing rail lines. I've been told that in the view of CSX, they're currently at capacity for what is acceptable to them.

I suppose your scenario about the rail bypass and a regional transit authority taking over the tracks could be feasible. However, the problem is that freight rail is not subsidized in our country. They own and maintain their own lines. If they want new tracks, they have to build and maintain them on their own. CSX is not about to spend untold billions to acquire the land, build a bridge, play the politics, fight the NIMBY lawsuits, and then build a new rail line so someone else can use THEIR tracks.

The only way to get CSX to relinquish some kind of control on their privately owned tracks is if the governments got together and built them a bypass and promised to maintain it for them. Even still, CSX would not be obliged to lease more time to a regional successor to MARC/VRE. I just don't see the various local governments getting together to spend billions to build CSX a bypass.

While it might be more cost-effective to do a regional passenger rail system under the right conditions, you would have a better chance politically with the Bright Shiny Object of expanded Metro service. For whatever reason, our elected officials now see the benefits of Metro. It's an issue that they can use to get votes given the right circumstances. It would still be a really hard sell since both MD and VA would be on the hook for this project, financially. As you already know, the Virginia legislature doesn't help out the Northern Virginia jurisdictions for any kind of new infrastructure. Maryland is tied up with the Purple Line, the ICC, and Baltimore's Red Line for the next few years.

I like the vision and how it uses existing rail rights of way, though. It makes sense.

by Cavan on Feb 19, 2009 10:51 am • link • report

While we're rehabbing rail rights of way, I'll point out that the Georgetown Branch does indeed go all the way to Georgetown. (Obviously there would be resistance from NPS which owns it in DC, and the rail trestles would probably need to be replaced, but this is a fantasy, right?) It might sweeten the deal for DC if the Purple line could help bring MoCo residents (and their disposable incomes) to Georgetown's high-end retail.

by Steve on Feb 19, 2009 10:52 am • link • report

I think this may be the best map yet. Someone linked a page from the NCPC about the desire to move freight rail from the region's core http://www.ncpc.gov/UserFiles/File/4Evaluation070413.pdf, both as a means to make the city look better and as a national security issue. The best plan is one that cuts across the Potomac near Indian Head and bisects DC/Annapolis as it reconnects closer to Baltimore. That would speed up freight operations, make the region more secure, and would free up a lot of rail for this vision and the required extra frequencies.

by NikolasM on Feb 19, 2009 11:03 am • link • report

I would propose an additional purple line extension from Bethesda to Tysons. In Bethesda, it would align with the Capitol Crescent with stops at: Bradley Ave, River Rd, Mass Ave. Then it would split with the CCT to service NIMA/NGA (this is a tough spot because of the neighborhoods involved... maybe tunnel?) At this point it would cross the Potomac to service the sea of cars at the CIA. The last leg would be on Rt 123 with stops at: downtown McLean, Great Falls St, and Tysons East (to join up with the Silver Line).

by ingsy on Feb 19, 2009 11:05 am • link • report

>do you agree we should get Metro-like frequencies (probably a little less?) And if we have Metro-like frequency, why not tell people, "see, now you have Metro!"

Absolutely I agree. More or less.

I'd be happy with 15 minute peak headways on MARC and 1/2 hour or hourly (but 7 day) off-peak service. As for branding, I like your idea of calling it "Metro Express", or something like that. I do think we need to differentiate a little, but a regional system comprised of MetroRail, MetroBus, MetroTram and MetroExpress (or whatever) is probably the best solution.

For the record, I assume you're aware of the MARC Growth and Investment Plan. The good news is that MTA knows MARC sucks and does want to improve it. If I recall correctly, the point of the plan is to "turn MARC into something resembling an actual transit service", as one MTA official told me at a TPB event last year.

by BeyondDC on Feb 19, 2009 11:14 am • link • report

I get the idea behind your proposal, but any fantasy of mine would include more service for river east. Perhaps an extension of the purple line from New Carrollton through LTC, Branch Ave or Suitland, and Crystal City by way of a new stop at National Harbor. Something to compliment trolley service inside the district east of the river.

PS - my spam prevention words are "Everything Urban"

by JTS on Feb 19, 2009 11:15 am • link • report

Hardly any freight stops here in the first place - mostly it's Baltimore going south/west, Hampton Roads going north, or coal going northeast.

David - add an infill for White Flint right next to the Garrett Park stop. I got into a conversation with a Garrett Park neighborhood activist the other day who was committed to a NIMBY stance on it because it was so close to the G.Park one (which "At least 10 people a day depend on"), and they didn't want greenspace to disappear. There's a developer interested in TOD-ifying the large, empty shopping center east of the intersection of the tracks & Parklawn Drive, who's trying to shift the local masterplan to move the station further down the line behind his property rather than 1/3 mile away parallel to the Metro station.

Cavan: Freight bypasses of DC (which really doesn't have all that much freight business, just a lot of through traffic, particularly from/to Baltimore) can be out in the hinterlands without impacting utility. Commuter rail can't. Also, urban construction is considerably more expensive than rural construction. Two or three bypass routes give us most of the freight tracks in the area for full passenger use.

DG-Rad: It's a single-track at the moment, and needs some sprucing up, but you've got a rail line if it can be divorced from the aspirations of the streetcar network. It hasn't carried freight in a few years. Extensions to National Harbor are eyed, but it would be nice to just get it running first, even on singletrack 15 minute headways to & from Anacostia Metro.

by Squalish on Feb 19, 2009 11:17 am • link • report

Cavan, I think you're raising realistic near term objections with CSX and the like, but the context for a plan like this would be massive federal involvement in rail of all modes, including freight.

DG-Rad - I agree, east of the river gets the shaft, but there aren't that many ROWs over there. I'd be curious to see something using the Anacostia branch, perhaps extending it south of blue plains to reach National Harbor and connect with any other future transit services across the WWB.

by Alex B. on Feb 19, 2009 11:17 am • link • report

Also - the CCT isn't on here. Give the Pink Line full passenger service, and the CCT can focus on a route with comprehensive coverage (with multiple opportunities to get off onto MARC) rather than expedited transit times for people who want to travel from Clarksburg to Shady Grove.

by Squalish on Feb 19, 2009 11:21 am • link • report

I would add to this fantasy direct connection between upper NW and upper NE, for instance a light rail between Tenley and Takoma Park and/or Ft. Totten with a stop or 2 in between.

Right now there aren't even any busses that go directly from NW to NE. For me to get from near the Cleveland Park metro to the area bewtween Ft. Totten and Takoma Park (Eastern Ave and New Hampshire Ave NE) it takes 1.5 hours by any of the public transport options (train to bus/ bus to bus to bus). All the busses that start off going in that direction veer off course and stop at Ft. Totten where you have to wait for a bad connection/transfer.

If someone knows a route that doesn't require 3 busses please tell me.

My fanatasy includes direct connection between upper NE and upper NW.

by Bianchi on Feb 19, 2009 11:21 am • link • report

One other thing: I humbly request GGW to officially endorse TSARCHITECT'S Proposal and rename the Tenleytown Metro "Tenleytown-AU-Tobago"

by JTS on Feb 19, 2009 11:44 am • link • report

I think that Tobago is more the part closer to Connecticut and Nebraska than the Tenleytown part. The corner of Wisconsin and Nebraska has a name. But Connecticut and Nebraska doesn't. It needs an identity. Comet Square? ConnNeb? Run Over Pedestrians Corner? Forest Chase Hills Park?

by David Alpert on Feb 19, 2009 11:46 am • link • report

"Run Over Pedestrians Corner?"

LOL!

sad but all too true.

by Cavan on Feb 19, 2009 11:52 am • link • report

Vehicular Manslaughter Bay?

by Steve on Feb 19, 2009 11:56 am • link • report

On the state of freight rail infrastructure generally, see this recent New America report, Steel Wheel Interstates.

Responding to some earlier comments: The railroads always claim they're at capacity. Freight fits their business model better than passenger service. That doesn't mean they'll never play along if you sweeten the pot enough.

Florida had a plan to buy CSX tracks through Orlando for a commuter rail system, and had worked out a deal that was amenable to CSX. In that case, CSX had an alternative line it could use for through traffic, and would have been able to run local traffic during off hours (e.g. at night). The state also was to pay for improvements on the alternative line to accommodate the increased traffic (e.g. improved crossings), had to immunize CSX from liability from accidents on the purchased tracks, etc. -- there was a lot to it, it involved a lot of negotiations, and not everybody liked all the details. (In fact, some legislators disliked it enough to kill it in 2008 -- I don't know if it's moved forward since then.) My point is, you can write a deal the railroads will agree to it, if it's worth it to you.

by Gavin Baker on Feb 19, 2009 12:07 pm • link • report

yeah, Dead Ped Point. If only it were vehicular manslaughter. The MD State Police held me to more accountability last week for driving with a burned out headlight then they did the driver who killed the 14 y.o. biker.

by Bianchi on Feb 19, 2009 12:12 pm • link • report

I like Comet Crossing for Connecticut/Nebraska, btw.

P.S. If you're curious about the Central Florida plan, see the SunRail site. The deal to buy 61 miles of track was about $500m. Plus another $600m in capital costs, and they think they can get the system running by next year. That might give a point of comparison.

by Gavin Baker on Feb 19, 2009 12:19 pm • link • report

So can we superimpose this map with the lightrail map to see the future full coverage of the region?

I still maintain a light rail line connecting, at least Kensington to Van Ness or Dupont would be fantastic.

by William on Feb 19, 2009 12:31 pm • link • report

@Bianchi:

Perhaps call it something incendiary and MDP and DDOT will be shamed into rectifying the problem.

@David

If I'm not mistaken you didn't incorporate the Virgina Avenue Tunnel into your map. I don't know if you considered it. Perhaps stops along VA Ave in Capitol Hill (particularly at the Marine Corps Barracks) and then after it crosses the river along Fairlawn Ave, in Fairlawn, Greenway and Benning.

by Steve on Feb 19, 2009 12:31 pm • link • report

How about extending the Red Line north into the City of Gaithersburg? Stops at Old Town Gaithersburg and the Montgomery County Fairgrounds site have been planned by the city and county for years. The Red Line could intersect with MARC and I-270 in Gaithersburg just north of the Fairgrounds. As for the Green Line, how about access further south into PG County and Charles County?

by GWalum on Feb 19, 2009 12:34 pm • link • report

It would be helpful if the borders of Arlington, Alexandria, Montgomery and PG were shown in light grey -- as is the border of DC -- just to provide some spatial context and the relative extent of service in the respective jurisdictions. . Thanks.

by JJK on Feb 19, 2009 12:39 pm • link • report

Gallows Road notwithstanding, perhaps naming areas for death is not the best way to build political capital in these communities.

But David's point gets to a problem. Neighborhoods are nominally bounded primarily by streets but are actually focused around central social areas. For example, in most real estate definitions of Tenleytown, the Methodist Cemetery is not included, although people who live near there say they live in Tenleytown and historically it was part. But that is the neighborhood center of Tobago, has such poor identity is that it pretty much lacks a neighborhood center.

JTS, Although I am humbled by your advocacy, I would not consider the Tenleytown Metro part of Tobago, and would prefer Van Ness-UDC to be renamed so.

Not to get sidetracked, this S-Metro is a great idea, with freight bypassing.

by цarьchitect on Feb 19, 2009 12:40 pm • link • report

Why does the Blue line still run through arlington cemetery? Have a connector shuttle between Rosslyn and Pentagon, and run the silver line along the new blue line alignment (through west end, etc.)

Combine the blue line south of pentagon with the yellow line into the city center.

by ah on Feb 19, 2009 12:46 pm • link • report

You may be onto something, but "Limeline"? Jeebus. And I have never even heard of any of the places on the proposed Purple Line.

by Jamie on Feb 19, 2009 12:58 pm • link • report

At least we haven't gotten to Tan Line yet.

by Steve on Feb 19, 2009 1:17 pm • link • report

Well, there's another reason to brand this system as an s-bahn or something other than Metro - Metro's color-based naming system is inherently limited.

If you really want to integrate the systems so there's one map, and one coherent user experience, you probably need to abandon the color-only naming system.

by Alex B. on Feb 19, 2009 1:20 pm • link • report

Our great-grandchildren would be lucky to have the color based naming problem.

by Cavan on Feb 19, 2009 1:24 pm • link • report

The color system isn't limited, it's just that DC's metro is unique in that there are no spurs. Chicago and Boston both use only five colors for a more complex system.

For example, the unfortunately named "lime line" would be a lot simpler if the dulles end of it was just a spur on the blue line, and the bwi end of it was an extension of the orange line. And I'm sorry, but I think we can live without spending 5 billion on an Arboretum stop that twelve people per day will use. Presto: one less color, and a less cluttered and map.

by Jamie on Feb 19, 2009 1:29 pm • link • report

@Jamie -- I'd go to the Arboretum a lot more if it were a couple of stops from L'Enfant plaza. Braving NY Ave. traffic to get there is a major PITA.

by ah on Feb 19, 2009 1:53 pm • link • report

There's also a neighborhood on the other side of NY Ave.

by David Alpert on Feb 19, 2009 1:53 pm • link • report

Chicago uses more than five colors.

Red

Blue

Orange

Green

Pink

Brown

Purple

Yellow

And that's about the limit of easily recognizable colors. I guess DC's Silver line would be one more, but beyond that, the colors get too close to other colors for comfort. In that case, the primary identifier of a line must be something else - a name, a number, a letter - and that 'something else' is color-coded. Color becomes the secondary identifier.

Anyway, I think it's worthwhile to have some level of difference between this sort of S-bahn system and the Metro, not just for the sake of naming, but for the user experience. In concept, you'd have many systems operating, each at different levels - local buses, express buses, trams, the Metro, the S-Bahn, longer haul commuter trains, and Intercity rail. Each serves a distinct market and ought to be appropriately branded as such, though integration should be a priority across modes.

by Alex B. on Feb 19, 2009 2:09 pm • link • report

>The color system isn't limited, it's just that DC's metro is unique in that there are no spurs.

Right. That's another thing I did on my map. Green+Yellow and Orange+Blue+Silver (assuming no new Blue subway) could easily be combined into just two colors.

by BeyondDC on Feb 19, 2009 2:09 pm • link • report

I'm curious as to why the "Center for Physics" stop has been renamed "Calvert Park," especially in light of the discussion in response to the first fantasy map. I can see not wanting to single out just one of the many office buildings in the area (even though it *is* the one that I work in), but as I understand it, Calvert Park isn't the whole area, just the park that's on the other side of the MARC/Metro tracks.

If we're fantasizing about the Purple Line alignment that goes down River Road, why not call the stop River Road? And if we're going with the alignment (that I think I saw discussed here once) where the Purple Line runs along the MARC tracks for a stretch, then the stop would be adjacent to Calvert Park, but then your schematic map is topologically wrong.

by Johanna on Feb 19, 2009 2:19 pm • link • report

why stop the purple line there? (pretending cost doesn't exist)

extend it past Bethesda to Glen Echo and/or Glover Park, perhaps Langley, connect it with the blue/orange/silver lines at Rosslyn or E Falls Church, take it through Seven Corners, through Bailey's Crossroads, through Shirlington, maybe through a hospital or two out there?, and connect it back with the yellow/blue lines at King Street or so.

or it could then even connect Virginia with Maryland at the Green and then the Blue and Orange lines. --that might save some traffic on the beltway and make the airport more accessible to SE DC/MD folks?

by K W on Feb 19, 2009 2:52 pm • link • report

How about the orange line extension to George Mason University/route 123 near oakton? We need to provide train service to University students as well as free up some space on route 66.

by MG on Feb 19, 2009 2:58 pm • link • report

Shucks, not this time. Maybe during the NEXT depression. And since the metro is NEVER going to dig new underground subways, I'm not sure why you don't focus more on the reality of streetcars, which WILL happen.

by Tom A on Feb 19, 2009 3:12 pm • link • report

Alex is spot on that once colors become slightly confusing, you just name them. They did that in Paris, London, Madrid, Tokyo, and Moscow, even though some of those systems have spurs. Even the U-Bahns use separate colors and names for lines that share the same track.

When you have a name, people just use the easier term for it, so if the color is uncommon people use the official name. Most people can intuitively tell the difference between purple and violet, but most people don't know those names. With a name, they could use that for whatever the less popular system.

In Moscow, for example, each of the 12.5 lines has a name and a color. The ring line is called koltsevaya (ring) because that is the most obvious thing to call it since the word for brown is a little hard to say and pretty much means "barky." On the other hand, in casual conversation "Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya" is pretty universally replaced with "seraya" (gray).

Russian language also considers both sky blue and sea blue to be primary colors, so I suspect that more colors could be pretty easily picked up by the populace, as long as the names are short.

by цarьchitect on Feb 19, 2009 3:31 pm • link • report

Tom A:

I really suspect that once the Silver line is up and running there will be some serious clamoring for the splitting of Blue from the Orange-Silver lines. The Rosslyn - Foggy Bottom tunnel is already maxed out as is.

(I'd also love to see some streetcars put in...)

by NikolasM on Feb 19, 2009 3:57 pm • link • report

Bianchi, I don't know where you are going but the H buses does go from NW to NE. As a matter of fact they go right through Cleveland Park down Porter st and end at Brookland metro.

by nathaniel on Feb 19, 2009 4:57 pm • link • report

Whats with the lack of lines for SE DC and Southern PG County. Was it by choice to not place anything over there or did you forget there are tons of people over there will piss poor service.

How about a line running from the National Harbor up Livingston RD or Indian Head Hwy stop at Eastover and then along southern Ave and connecting with Southern Ave station, a new Fairax Village stop, new Bradbury Hgts stop, new Benning Hgts stop then have it connect at either Benning Road, Capitol Hgts or a new station between them and then connect with the orange line at anywhere between Minnesota Ave and New Carrolton.

The blue and green lines are so close together there but there is not even a consideration for connecting them

by KK on Feb 19, 2009 5:07 pm • link • report

David, first, congratulations on the Metro fastasy map birthday. I really love this and you've done a great job with it, and it's fun to read everyone's suggestions.

I have a special place for Paris's Metro in my heart because it was the first subway I ever rode. The tunnels from the street to the platform were more confusing than the trains themselves. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro, you'll see their 16 lines are referred to by numbers, though they do each have a unique color. They have 3 shades of purple and 3 shades of green, but no silver (or grey). A kind commuter saw my distress and said "toute est indiqué par les plaques bleus" - "everything is shown on the blue plaques" - not that that helped, but hey it was France and I got to use my high school French, yay.

by Michael on Feb 19, 2009 5:10 pm • link • report

nathaniel, when i take an H bus i have to change busses 2 more times to get to upper NE, Eastern Ave & New Hampshire Ave NE. That's where I'm going. Do you know a route that goes up that way that doesn't make a loop into ft. totten?

by Bianchi on Feb 19, 2009 5:12 pm • link • report

Everyone who's suggested more lines, lines east of the river, Metro extensions and more, please remember that this particular map isn't trying to capture all potential new transit, but rather the possibility of new transit along our existing commuter rails specifically as well as specific Metro expansion that WMATA has already suggested.

If you're interested in what transit could look like if we built lines everywhere we should have some, take a look at this map from last June.

by David Alpert on Feb 19, 2009 5:32 pm • link • report

For the lines couldnt we just rename them for example

Blue = Line B

Orange = Line O

Red = Line R

Green = Line G

Yellow = Line Y

Purple = Line P

Silver = Line S

it would save on the confusion for the general public with basically the first letter of the color becoming the lines new name and then as we add lines just pick letters to ease the transition from color to letter

Or Just go with how many European cities do and have the heavy rail U 1,2,3, etc and the Light rail be L1,2,3,4, etc.

As for adding the different shades of blue, green and purple have yall seen some of the maps where the colors are off; I have seen some where the red and orange look like their the same color now imagine that with many shades of green and blue you would not be able to tell the differance it would be the same as having the map in black and white.

Would it be possible at all to have the blue, silver and orange all seperate and perhaps meet at a few different points along their routes.

Say have all lines meet at Rosslyn on different tracks then one take the blue line split, one few current route and maybe the other go further north to maybe like up Wisconsin Ave and east to west on Military RD and then along the far eastern end of DC to where they all meet at Stadium Armory, RiverTerrace or Oklahoma Ave

by Kk on Feb 19, 2009 5:34 pm • link • report

The aforementioned MARC Growth and Investment Plan is probably the best starting point. It already envisions turning the Amtrak corridor into a full 4-track solution from Baltimore south at least to New Carrolton, the CSX Capital Subdivision (Camden Yards to Union Station) would go to 3 tracks and the Metropolitan Subdivision (Point of Rocks to Union) would also go to 3 tracks as far as Silver Spring. Adding that amount of track should allow a heavily expanded MARC service to run along those routes without re-branding of any kind. What it won't allow is for service all that more significantly frequent than the envisioned MARC plan.

4 tracks with speeds anywhere up to 125mph still only nets you roughly 60,000 trips. That is with 15min peak headway and 30min off-peak headway. Now that being said I'm rather comfortable with saying that BWI is linked to the system if ou can catch a trian every 15min during rush hour or 30min off peak (the bigger issue with BWI is getting folks from the airport to the rail station which is still 10min away if you catch the shuttle bus just right).So all of that is sorta mostly as a preface of saying that the Pink, Lime, and Teal lines are essentially what MARC is already proposing with a few caveats that I think are worth talking about:

Capitol Station: The 1st Street Tunnel is going to be a pain to try and build anything in to so trying to infill underground there is probably counterproductive however just outside the tunnel where the tracks cross Wash Ave, Canal, & S Capitol you've got space to create an aerial structure which would still be pretty close to Rayburn.

Beyond King Street: Obviously the MARC plan doesn't go past Alexandria but if we were to imagine a dream scenario MARC and VRE coudl be put under the WMATA aegis and then rebranded as a combined system (which would then have incentive to run trains the full length both peak and reverse-peak)

The only other thought that comes to mind is that if we are dreaming up then the Purple Line needs to keep on going to help serve more of the south eastern corner of the map.

by Greg on Feb 19, 2009 9:42 pm • link • report

David,

I am surprised that your vision would keep the Yellow Line at it's existing stunted route, stopping at Fort Totten, while creating all these wonderful new fantasy lines.

The Yellow LIne is the only line right now that directly goes from southern virginia towards maryland via the 14th Street bridge, however it is the shortest line in the system and these maps would maintain that reality.

The original WMATA designs way back i the 70's called for the Yellow Line to go to West Hyattsville and then to turn East towards Bowie. The end of the line that was Mt Vernon, and is now Fort Totten makes no sense when you consider the investment already made in the system.

I have always envisioned switching the yellow and blue line ends in Virginia, where Yellow would go to Franconia/Springfield and Blue would go to Huntington.

The I-95 corridor would then have a transportation alternative that would connect National Airport, BWI, MARC, and VRE, by cutting straight through the city. By continuing the Yellow Line extension to Greenbelt for now, this could be achieved through operational changes, without any new construction, instead leveraging the massive investment/disruption already made in the innercity tunnels through Shaw, U Street, Columbia Heights and Petworth, that cost billions to create, and that are now creating some of the best TOD examples in the system.

by Scott Pomeroy on Feb 20, 2009 8:38 am • link • report

Great map! What about extending the Orange Line east to Annapolis (or add some type of connection). I think a line running adjacent to Route 50 East would be great - while we're dreaming. Annapolis could have stops near the Westfields Mall/Med Center and then down West Street to the "new circle" by the Westin Hotel (which would be convenient for downtown residents and Navy football stadium events as well as commuters who now park at the stadium on weekdays anyway).

I'm a DC-ite now living, temporarily, in Yokohama, Japan (mass transit heaven!). I will have serious withdrawls when I have to leave this place. I wish every member of Congress and every Mayor in the US was required to spend a week here using the transit system. Its what we should shoot for.

by JapanBoy on Feb 20, 2009 11:47 am • link • report

Scott,

It's interesting you mention the 'switching the yellow and blue line ends in Virginia' --- this too was part of the original plan from WMATA:

The Yellow Line was originally planned to follow a slightly different route. The plan would have sent Yellow Line trains to Franconia-Springfield, with Blue Line trains serving Huntington. This was changed due to a shortage of rail cars at the time of the completion of the line to Huntington. Because fewer rail cars were required to operate Yellow Line service than would be required to run Blue Line service out to Huntington – due to the Yellow Line's shorter route – the line designations were switched.

[Wikipedia, Yellow Line]

by Jonathon on Feb 20, 2009 12:22 pm • link • report

I know this is kind of late, but I agree with DGrad about the lack of Anacostia service. Given the pre-existing freight rail infrastructure, it's rather intuitively obvious to me that either the "lime line"* or the Purple Line could be extended down the aformentioned Anacostia track.

Or maybe something could be done with the Penn Branch, connecting to L'Enfant and Crystal City via the Virginia Avenue tunnel? Not all of the express services need to terminate at or pass through Union Station, necessarily.

*I agree with the previous commenter that "Lime Line" is kind of a crap name. Why not bronze or khaki?

by Daniel M. Laenker on Feb 20, 2009 3:50 pm • link • report

Also, as long as we're talking about the [Lime] Line, I'd add a station at Hyattsville Arts District.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Feb 20, 2009 4:13 pm • link • report

Easy answer @ Daniel and DGrad:

Give me the per capita income and relative political involvement of people who live east of the Anacostia.

by MPC on Feb 20, 2009 4:18 pm • link • report

MPC, I'm honestly surprised that you care that the poor have been shut out of the political process.

That said, there are a surprising amount of jobs east of the Anacostia, and with some improved transportation Anacostia could realize a great deal of redevelopment.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Feb 20, 2009 5:13 pm • link • report

David A: Since you already mentioned the PG County transportation plan, why not include the Purple Line plan to National Harbor? Perhaps with a more optimal inside-the-Beltway route rather than the Westphalia long-cut they suggested.

by Dave Murphy on Feb 23, 2009 1:28 am • link • report

I find it amusing that one thing that's not actually in your "fantasy map" is one of the few Metro expansions that's actually been proposed in long-range planning documents like Vtrans 2025-- extending the Orange Line from the Vienna stop to Fair Oaks Mall, Stringfellow Road (replacing the existing park-and-ride), and then Centreville/VA28.

by John Thacker on Mar 5, 2009 3:34 pm • link • report

The new Blue Line running roughly parallel to the Silver/Orange seems very redundant. I appreciate the need to connect Georgetown to the system, but why do we need stops in West End (mere blocks from Foggy Bottom), Longfellow Park (about two blocks from both Dupont and Farragut North/West) and Thomas Circle (a few blocks from McPherson Sq)?

If we're going to build an entirely new line in that area, it should be further north to connect Georgetown, Dupont, Logan and Shaw -- then perhaps some route north of Mass Ave that tracks down to Union Station? Basically anything other than a needless route through the Golden Triangle would be better.

by Josh on Apr 23, 2009 5:01 pm • link • report

Tanglewood, MD, with all its musical streets is pretty odd, especially when you realize it has nothing to do with the Tanglewood music center.

by цarьchitect on Apr 23, 2009 5:25 pm • link • report

My guess is that the aim is to get Metro to the employment centers of downtown more than anything else. The biggest thing is eliminating the bottleneck of Rosslyn tunnel.

by NikolasM on Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm • link • report

Posted that in the wrong article...

by цarьchitect on Apr 23, 2009 5:33 pm • link • report

Josh, Redundancy is precisely what is needed, because that is really where the crushes and one-stop transfers to the Red Line are. The neighborhoods it passes through are some of the most dense areas in the region, many of which will still get denser in the next 10 years. It also allows people to take a different train if there is an accident downtown, and for the same cost as adding express track to existing stations.

But judging from your wishlist, you might be interested in this wish-upon-a-star version.

by цarьchitect on Apr 23, 2009 5:40 pm • link • report

To Josh's comments concerning the M Street Subway.
It is the land use that dictates the path of the new Blue Line.
Unless there is a dramatic change in zoning, the land use of the golden triangle now puts Farragut North and West on the eastern fringe and Dupont Circle at the northern fringe of the development. M Steet is a logical cut through that provide a relief to the current Orange/Blue line and the Red Line.
Remember when this new Blue opens, riders originating at Union Station will have an option and Green/Yellow riders from the north will use the new Blue instead of packing in on the Red.
I could make the case that the New Blue head across L street to be closer to the heart of the golden triangle and to provide an important transfer to the Red Line to make the trip out to Tysons more appealing from NW DC and Bethesda.

by bob previdi on Nov 6, 2009 4:59 pm • link • report

The map is incorrect. All VRE trains run to Fredericksburg and stations between. Amtrak only stops at Woodbridge, Quantico, and Fredericksburg.

by Monty Johns on Sep 22, 2011 1:53 pm • link • report

What is the feasibility of adding expresses on existing lines (i.e. are there any/many places where metro trains can pass others?)

by E. Morris on Dec 18, 2011 10:05 pm • link • report