You don't realize how distorted the Metro map (or even a stylized version of it like this) is until a line from College Park to Rockville (which is northwest the entire way) looks like the Purple Line.

Happy to see the Route 1 line - would definitely be a help to areas like Beltsville - but it's duplicated in a lot of places by the Camden MARC line, and we know that TOD won't happen at a BRT stop the way it will at a rail station. I'm looking for that Route 29 line. Did they see all the dark green on that bus frequency map?

by dan reed on Apr 15, 2009 2:23 pm • link • report

1. The midsection of the Green and Orange BRTs seem to duplicate Circulator routes. If we build these BRT lines, would Circulator be allowed to use them?

2. Why does the Fuschia BRT extend to the Vienna-Fairfax Metro station?

by tom veil on Apr 15, 2009 2:28 pm • link • report

Whoops! #2 should read "Why does the Fuschia BRT NOT extend to the Vienna-Fairfax Metro station?"

by tom veil on Apr 15, 2009 2:30 pm • link • report

I would imagine a Circulator bus could use the BRT lanes.

Tom, it could make sense to connect them, but it is a bit out of the way from Old Town Fairfax. Also, I think Fairfax just needs a well marked bus from the Vienna metro station to circulate through old town (maybe they do, I dunno).

by NikolasM on Apr 15, 2009 2:35 pm • link • report

predictably, nothing east of the anacostia...

by DG-rad on Apr 15, 2009 2:37 pm • link • report

DG-rad, what're you talking about? There's fully two, possibly even three stops on the Orange BRT line to Minnesota avenue which are east of the river. Won't that be nice, and helpful for anyone who works or lives anywhere in wards 7 & 8.

by Lucre on Apr 15, 2009 2:44 pm • link • report

As long as none of this obviates the streetcar plans, then it is all good.

by William on Apr 15, 2009 2:45 pm • link • report

For those as ignorant as me: BRT=Bus Rapid Transit

by npm on Apr 15, 2009 2:46 pm • link • report

You're spot on with the necessity of creating a regional system. Metro and BART are so successful because they are complete systems. Cities shell out money for one BRT or light rail line and then people raise hell when it doesn't get as much traffic as they anticipated. Well of course it doesn't, there's no system in place! One line can only pull from a limited stock of people. If there was only one road, it probably wouldn't get nearly as much traffic either.

by Paz on Apr 15, 2009 2:49 pm • link • report

I'd also like to point out that this BRT plan doesn't place any stops closer than about a mile from the National Hospital Center.

by Lucre on Apr 15, 2009 2:55 pm • link • report

I staff the TPB committee that's working on this proposal. I haven't posted about it yet because everything is still preliminary. For example, as of this morning the map shown above is already obsolete. There are now about twice as many corridors on it, with more still to be added. That larger map will then be whittled down over the next month to a smaller selection of corridors.

by BeyondDC on Apr 15, 2009 3:05 pm • link • report

These lines should be high-speed light rail, not more vehicle traffic!

by Mark on Apr 15, 2009 3:07 pm • link • report

BDC: Great! Once the larger map with more corridors is done, I'd love to post that too so that members of the online community can weigh on which to whittle.

by David Alpert on Apr 15, 2009 3:16 pm • link • report

BeyondDC, that's great to hear that you're working on this project. When I first read this post, I was concerned that the plan was unfamiliar with the limitations of BRT and saw it as some sort of substitute for light rail. You know, the usual drivel that comes out of the anti-transit lobby.

However, having spoken to you a lot in person and read your writing, it's nice to know that the project is being chaired by someone with a very intimate knowledge of the strenghts and weaknesses of BRT as a tool.

by Cavan on Apr 15, 2009 3:23 pm • link • report

NikolasM: Downtown Fairfax is only about 4 mi. from Vienna station. And while the city's CUE bus does serve the station (with overly-long headways, but that's another story), it's more an issue for people in the middle of the BRT line. From Annandale it's a much shorter ride to Vienna, and by providing Metro connections at both ends, you'd probably have a better balance of traffic in the two directions, which would increase capacity.

by c5karl on Apr 15, 2009 3:25 pm • link • report

A lot of these proposed lines seem to coincide with metro lines. The green line is for a very large part over the yellow metro line. Why exactly do we need a bus there? Why hasn't metro been wanting this for about say 15 years? Why aren't there metro lines on these routes anyway?

So, I am getting back to what I've said before: too little, too late. Other cities around the world have had this for years. Signal priority, exclusive lanes or queue jumpers should be standard practice, and quite frankly we should not be dependent on stimulus money to get them.

People will not get out of their car until they discover that transit is faster. There are plenty of studies that have shown that bus usage climbed significantly when queue jumpers were installed, or buses were allowed to use the emergency lanes. Why? Because they are the best visual and repetitive reminder to car drivers that they're wasting time.

[PS on queue jumps. You'd be surprised how aggressive cars behave on the Fairfax County parkway when buses jump in line by using the right turn lane (where the bus stop is).]

by Jasper on Apr 15, 2009 3:39 pm • link • report

But what would be the point of connecting them? Would someone from Annandale take the BRT out all the way to Vienna to hop on a Metro to go all the way back into the city?

by NikolasM on Apr 15, 2009 3:41 pm • link • report

Two clarifications:

1) This whole concept is being developed as something that can be fully constructed in the very near term specifically using money from the $1.5 billion federal stimulus discretionary grant program.

Light rail and streetcars aren't on the table because we can't do them in that timespan. Even the Columbia Pike streetcar (which already has years of planning behing it) can't be done in that timespan.

I think that ultimately the corridors selected will be corridors that aren't suitable for streetcars (like I-395) or corridors that need road improvements anyway (like K Street).

2) I'm not chairing the committee (that would be Hharriet Tregoning), I'm just one of the staff people working on it.

by BeyondDC on Apr 15, 2009 3:45 pm • link • report

Another clarification, since folks are hung up on the Fairfax line: It wouldn't go to Vienna Metro. It would basically be improvements to the 29k route and would end at GMU or Old Town Fairfax.

by BeyondDC on Apr 15, 2009 3:47 pm • link • report

HERE IS THE LATEST MAP. You can see it is very different (no Fairfax line, for example). But don't take this map very seriously either - it isn't much closer to what the final version will look like than the one posted originally at the top of the thread - changes are still being made at a rapid pace.

Anyway, long story short: Don't get too hung up on the corridors right now.

by BeyondDC on Apr 15, 2009 3:51 pm • link • report

Oh and doesn't that southern green part coincide with the REX bus?

by Jasper on Apr 15, 2009 4:07 pm • link • report

Dan, nice to see that you're on the staff and can get updates. Good to see that there's still a chance for a Fairfax line. And I know you said not to get stuck on corridors but I suggest a Rt. 50 line in VA.

by Vik on Apr 15, 2009 4:20 pm • link • report

By 2012? Excellent. It's so nice (and very rare) when the government INSISTS on doing things quickly.

I don't think consumers care if it's streetcars or rapid buses. We just want to get to work faster!

by Tom A. on Apr 15, 2009 4:34 pm • link • report

I think a rte 236 BRT from Alexandria to Fairfax would be a good idea. It would reinforce the important connections of a pre Washington DC era. A rte 7 from Alexandria to at least Tyson's would be cool too.

by NikolasM on Apr 15, 2009 4:37 pm • link • report

236 would be good b/c that area is tacky but still dense in areas and they're trying to re-do it like the area where Landmark Mall is. That would also allow a better transit connection for the project going on at Mark Center.

by Vik on Apr 15, 2009 4:38 pm • link • report

BDC: are these corridors going to be weighed/judged by any set or system of criteria before they are kept (or dropped from) the final map?

by Froggie on Apr 15, 2009 4:46 pm • link • report

>> I don't think consumers care if it's streetcars or rapid buses. We just want to get to work faster!

Besides getting people to work faster we want to get people to commercial corridors/destinations faster and more conveniently. I hope these BRTs would have NextBus displays - atleast the lines inside the district.

by Paul S on Apr 15, 2009 4:57 pm • link • report

I love the concept here, the addition of frequent service combining the C2/C4/Q2 would be fantastic, as would the addition of regular service to the dysfunctional Colesville Road Z-buses that are now there.

I do wonder why the Columbia Pike line loops down to Annandale HS instead of going out to the huge NOVA campus just a couple of miles west.

Also add me to the list that would love reliable mass transit from the station that has Fairfax in its name (Vienna/Fairfax/GMU) to the actual town of Fairfax!!!

by Joe in SS on Apr 15, 2009 5:10 pm • link • report

Neat! Looking at the newer map, it isn't clear to me whether the Indian Head Highway Express route connects to the National Harbor development, but given the poor planning of building that in a place that currently lacks decent transit links it seems like it would be worth considering having a stop there.

by Danush on Apr 15, 2009 5:36 pm • link • report

Can someone clarify? This project would be funded out of the 1.5b discretionary stimulus money, which cities around the country are competing for. With that in mind, does this proposal now compete with the K street transitway?

I'm all for either one, but if I had to choose, I would pick K street because I am concerned that this proposal would neglect signal timers, exclusive lanes, etc.

by JTS on Apr 15, 2009 9:12 pm • link • report

>are these corridors going to be weighed/judged by any set or system of criteria before they are kept (or dropped from) the final map?

Yes. The criteria will depend on the federal guidelines, which haven't come out yet.

>does this proposal now compete with the K street transitway?

If DC is planning on submitting K Street for the $1.5b discretionary program, then yes the projects would compete... unless the decision is made include K Street in as a component of this project.

by BeyondDC on Apr 15, 2009 10:57 pm • link • report

I love the Route 1 Line. Laurel's bus connections are laughable right now. I'd probably use it all the time. I bet it would clean up Route 1 a little, to boot, especially in northern Prince George's.

by Dave Murphy on Apr 16, 2009 12:29 am • link • report

Is there any way this can get through NEPA in the time allotted?

by The Overhead Wire on Apr 16, 2009 4:01 am • link • report

Probably not. NEPA takes, at a minimum, 12 months...and is typically a 2-3 year process...and longer for bigger/more extensive projects.

by Froggie on Apr 16, 2009 6:47 am • link • report

Thanks for the map, BDC. I think the Route 7 line from Alexandria into Tysons Corner will be key (if it's approved). I would suggest potentially extending it north of Tysons to provide a transportation alternative to people commuting from that area.

I would also suggest adding a Lee Highway/29 line extending from Rosslyn through Arlington/Falls Church/Vienna to Fairfax.

by Nick on Apr 16, 2009 8:31 am • link • report

So this is what we want to leave our children....a bus system? Go back to the drawing board and put transit where its needed.....an East-West and North -South transit system like the Purple line and the CCT!

by Ed Asher on Apr 16, 2009 9:08 am • link • report

The new map with many new lines adds in several freeway running lines that serve longer distance commuters. The original concept focused on a few high ridership arterial-running lines. It looks like the early good concept based on ridership and community-serving transit (as opposed to park & ride lots) is degenerating into something for everyone without any standards for performance.

We'll have to work to restore this concept to a competitive, high-ridership, community-serving network.

by ccort on Apr 16, 2009 9:13 am • link • report

No one will bother to apply for anything that can't get through the NEPA process on time.

NEPA is one of the reasons why we can't use stimulus cash to build the Columbia Pike streetcar, though.

by BeyondDC on Apr 16, 2009 9:28 am • link • report

re: NEPA. These projects (I'm assuming in existing ROW with exclusive lanes and signal priority) might qualify for what is known as a Documented Categorical Exclusion (Documented CE), which can be completed in as little as 6-9 months. At most they would require and Environmental Assessment(EA). There's little chance that the Feds would insist on a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

I am curious, however, whether any of these corridors are based on previous studies. Usually you would do an Alternatives Analysis before advancing to the environmental stage.

by Esmeralda on Apr 16, 2009 9:28 am • link • report

Most of them are based on WMATA's Priority Corridor Network. Those that aren't are based on either existing or ongoing studies. For example, increased bus service has been part of the plan for the I-395 HOT lanes since the beginning, and VDRPT is in the middle of a BRT study for the corridor right now.

by BeyondDC on Apr 16, 2009 9:40 am • link • report

Why are there no lines between MD and VA? Since, Tyson's is going to become a walking car-free paradise, how are the people from MOCO going to get to their jobs in Tyson's?

I don't think metro rail through metro center is a reasonable answer.

by Tom on Apr 16, 2009 10:36 am • link • report

Bethesda/Rockville to Tysons will probably be on the next interation, but any BRT on that route would use the Beltway HOT lanes, which won't be ready until at least 2013, which is after the planning horizon favored for stimulus projects.

Everyone knows we need that connection, but whether or not it makes the final cut for this application will depend on whether we want to risk including a corridor that doesn't meet the federal timeline.

by BeyondDC on Apr 16, 2009 10:45 am • link • report

take a bus to tysons rather than rail? I don't think so...

by Ed Asher on Apr 16, 2009 11:16 am • link • report

I welcome any semi-permanent transit options, even if I think BRT *at equivalent service levels* has fewer advantages and more disadvantages than light rail.

The basic question remains - what precisely do they mean by BRT? And would this be useful as a precursor to a light rail program? Strategies have been enacted where a corridor develops organically, with heavier modes of transit replacing the lighter ones on the most used corridors. So a BRT system could build enough rolling stock for four of these corridors, then wait for light rail tracks to be put in on one of them before shifting the rolling stock to the next most demanded. Repeat for long enough and you've got a functional network of mostly light rail with BRT at the fringes, by adapting a BRT stimulus.

There's some tweaking that could be done to the PDF map, of course.

Just to pick one route out - US1 (green)

Before ending at Lorton, the US1 BRT should go up to the NGIA/INSCOM HQ, with 35 acres of commuter surface parking(versus ~50 at the Pentagon), instead of a mile away. The middle should probably veer off a little to hit Washington Hospital Center, and on the other end, it would really be appropriate running down the Patuxet Freeway to include Fort Meade.

by Squalish on Apr 16, 2009 5:07 pm • link • report

> take a bus to tysons rather than rail? I don't think so...

From BETHESDA, and the near-term alternative is NOTHING.

Jeeze.

by BeyondDC on Apr 16, 2009 5:09 pm • link • report

Why is "three-years" hyphenated in the second paragraph after the bullet list?

by martindelaware on Jul 13, 2009 4:17 pm • link • report

I, for one, would welcome a Wilson Bridge connector, though I know there's no shot of seeing that one before I'm six feet under.

by Craig on Jul 14, 2009 12:09 am • link • report

Who is "a committee" of the Transportation Planning Board....and who are they, anyway? This smacks of a Chevy Chase funded anti transit exercise....is a stinking BUS system really what you want to leave your children? I think not: The Silver Line is on its way, the Purple Line has been approved by everyone EXCEPT the Chevy Chase funded Maryland Governor! Build clean, efficient TRANSIT now!

by ed asher on Jul 14, 2009 8:56 am • link • report