Bicycling
Railbanking could fix the Anacostia streetcar dilemma
DC has gone back and forth on the planned Anacostia streetcar, first planning to run it in an unused CSX right-of-way, then switching to a street alignment, then moving the alignment. If DC instead took advantage of "railbanking," they could still run the streetcar on the CSX line, build a streetcar more cheaply than the current street alignment, and give Anacostia a valuable transit link.
Railbanking allows cities and states to preserve unused rail corridors. Over the last 100 years, railroads have abandoned over 100,000 miles of rail corridors. Once these corridors are gone, they're difficult or even impossible to reestablish. In the The National Trails System Act, Congress set up "railbanking" to preserve these corridors in case railroads need them again. In the interim, the corridor can be used as a trail, or for transit with a trail. "Because a railbanked corridor is not considered abandoned, it can be sold, leased or donated to a trail manager without reverting to adjacent landowners." Railbanking has led to the creation of over 2,000 miles of trail (and 1,700 miles in development), including the Capital Crescent Trail. And, in a few cases, it has saved rail corridors that eventually returned to service.
Earlier this month the Surface Transportation Board (STB) had a hearing on the success and failures of the first 25 years of railbanking. Marianne Fowler, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's senior vice president of federal relations, explained that under the statute, if transit is added to a railbanked corridor, the trail has to also remain. Landowners or others can petition the STB to revoke a railbanked corridor's status "if they believe that a trail sponsor has o intent of using a right-of-way as a trail." If the Board agrees, they can declare the right-of-way "fully abandoned," which would make the property revert to landowners with underlying rights.
But as long as the corridor contains a trail, it can also include a light rail line or even a highway. In the case of the Purple Line, the State of Maryland is legally required to build the Capital Crescent Trail alongside the light rail. Otherwise, someone could, and probably would, petition the STB to declare the right of way abandoned.
This also serves as a potential remedy to the Anacostia Streetcar problem. Originally, plans called for the streetcar to run along the unused (not technically abandoned) CSX right-of-way from Pennsylvania Avenue SE to Bolling Air Force Base, with a possible extension up to the Minnesota Avenue Metro. But the District called off negotiations when it turned out that CSX didn't own the underlying rights to the land, known as the Shepherd Industrial Branch or Shepherd Branch (sometimes also spelled Shepard). Then, having promised Anacostia a streetcar, the District began work on a streetcar line that would run from the Air Force Base to the Anacostia Metro in the street and with traffic. When the Council pointed out that the streetcar didn't really connect any people, DDOT moved it to run from South Capitol Street to the intersection of MLK and Good Hope. That's what they're working on now.
But if DDOT can still work out a deal with CSX, they can go back to the original plan, this time by railbanking the ROW instead of just buying it. DDOT had already planned to build light rail with a parallel trail and the ~50 foot wide ROW has room for both. There is one place where the ROW narrows, but that isn't impossible to get around. The Purple Line, by comparison, needs 36 feet of width for the rail. All DDOT would need to do is ensure that they build the trail and allow for the extremely rare possibility that freight rail service is one day reestablished. If they do that, they can railbank the ROW and it won't matter who owns the underlying land. The transit line could then run parallel to the one planned, but in its own ROW, with a few at-grade crossings, instead of with traffic. And, it would include a trail. It could still operate between the Air Force Base and the Minnesota Avenue Metro, or across the new South Capitol Street Bridge, or both.
DC would get a better transit option and a trail, CSX dumps some unwanted property and easements for more than they're worth when separated, and one rail corridor avoids disappearing entirely.
Comments
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- DC's divide need not be black and white
- Preservationists ask to shrink 3rd Church replacement
- Planners are the new public health officials






by SG on Jul 21, 2009 2:01 pm
Instead of trying to build it where people don't want it and trying for years to do so is only going to create pissed off residents and the city should not be looking for that. There are many places in DC where it could go other parts of SE, NE, etc why are they so dead set on putting it there. If the people don't want it they don't want it.
by kk on Jul 21, 2009 2:56 pm
by chris on Jul 21, 2009 3:14 pm
The CSX tracks were initially chosen because (1) it would earn everyone involved political brownie points for doing something East of the River, (2) it was thought that using existing but unused tracks would be fast, (3) there would be no space allocation conflicts between streetcars, parking, and driving. A relatively minor consideration was that an expanded Defense Intelligence Agency building was opening up near the main entrance to Bolling AFB, and transit service to Bolling is poor.
DC's Transit Expansion study identified about 50 miles of routes, all of which I think ought to be built with streetcars, and if I were to make a corridor priority list for streetcars there would be at least another 50 miles I would put ahead of the CSX right of way.
I do think a streetcar line from Anacostia through the Naval Annex, Bolling Air Force Base, Bellevue, NRL, and Blue Plains would be successful. Bolling itself is sprawling, and a streetcar to its main entrance would only serve the relatively small fraction whose buildings are close by. To serve these facilities, a streetcar should run inside of them, and be paid for by the Air Force and Navy.
by thm on Jul 21, 2009 3:45 pm
by coneyraven on Jul 21, 2009 4:34 pm
To serve these facilities, a streetcar should run inside of them, and be paid for by the Air Force and Navy.
The one problem with routing the streetcars into the base is security. Bolling will likely not want streetcars to enter their base. If they are agreeable to it, they would need to do security checks of the vehicles and passengers like they do to visitors currently.
by Alex on Jul 21, 2009 5:25 pm
by David C on Jul 22, 2009 12:56 pm
Darrin Davis
by Darrin D. Davis on Jul 22, 2009 11:58 pm
by David V on Sep 22, 2009 7:55 am
I don't know whether the old cars are heavier or lighter than today's cars, and whether the old design standards for streetcar rails are sufficient to carry the new cars for a full design life, or whether their design life would be significantly shorter with new cars. In any case, the old rails are probably very old and would need inspection and rework.
The most important legacy of the old streetcar network is the route structure. Most buses in DC that have two-digit route numbers were old streetcar lines, and are generally our most popular routes. Most of these are very good candidates for streetcar conversion.
As far as I understand, the old power system would not be allowed under current electrical codes and would be considered a safety hazard today.
by Michael Perkins on Sep 22, 2009 8:43 am
by David C on Sep 22, 2009 9:39 am
Add a Comment