Transit
Was the lack of express tracks a lack of foresight?
One of the more common complaints about Metro, especially with increasing ridership, is the lack of a four-track subway downtown. Last week, a set of point-counterpoint posts by myself and Spencer Lepler touched off more calls for express tracks in GGW's comment threads.
Photo by the author.
They say hindsight is 20/20, and that is precisely what these past express track criticisms are. If we consider, however, the foresight it took in the early 1960s to even consider a subway, we should be applauding WMATA's designers. When all this Metro talk started, the corpses of Capital Transit's streetcars weren't even cold yet and transportation planners wanted to build a subway?
Of course, while we can't go back in time and change things, it's never too late to change the future. Many GGW readers are demanding express tracks for the Silver Line. Citing the extremely long travel time from Dulles to downtown in addition to the inflexibility of a two-track system, many of you claim that Metro is only repeating the mistakes of yesterday. And perhaps that's the case, but let's look back on Metro's past.
Heavy Rail systems in the United States can generally be broken into two categories: Modern and Pre-Auto Age.
Chicago L. Photo by the author.
Pre-Auto Age:
- New York City Subway (1868, first L)
- Chicago CTA: L (1892)
- Boston MBTA: Red, Orange, Blue (1901)
- Philadelphia SEPTA: MFSE, BSS (1907)
- New York/New Jersey: PATH (1908)
- Philadelphia/Camden PATCO: Speedline (1936)
- Cleveland RTA: Red (1955)
BART. Photo by the author.
Modern Systems:
- San Francisco: BART (1972)
- Washington Metro (1976)
- Atlanta: MARTA (1979)
- Baltimore Metro Subway (1983)
- Miami Metrorail (1984)
- Los Angeles: Red Line (1993)
The characteristics of systems in each period are very different. Cleveland's Red Line was the last gasp of the pre-war systems and would preceded almost two decades of subway (and urban) decline in the United States. By the 1960s, planners had big ideas for how to revitalize America's metropolises. In 1972, BART opened, the first of a new type of "rapid transit." Marked by an acronym, and notably absent the "subway" moniker, BART was designed for the space age. And it came just in time for the first Oil Crisis.
BART and the systems to follow it were designed based on an entirely different premise than the earlier subways. With the modern systems, the goal was to give suburban commuters an alternative to driving. These systems were marked with long distances between stations, higher speeds, comfortable seats, and most importantly, a sea of parking at outlying stations.
The earlier systems, contrastingly, were designed with the pedestrian in mind. Stations were close together, resulting in slower speeds, but with the advantage of reaching more pedestrian patrons. These systems had shorter cars, designed for tight corners in the built-up urban areas they served. Rarely did they venture into the suburbs and almost never included parking.
Of the seven early (pre-auto) systems, only three include express tracks somewhere in their systems. The most extensive set of express tracks lies in the New York City Subway. There, many of the lines operate express service in the peak direction or in both directions. In Philadelphia, the Broad Street Subway includes express trackage for most of its length. The Chicago L offers express service on the Purple Line during rush periods (and a short stretch of the Red south of Belmont). These three cities are the densest three cities in the United States with over one million people. This is not a coincidence.
Of the six modern systems, only the Washington Metro comes close to a ridership threshold where express (or 4-track) service becomes cost-effective. Look at Metro's counterparts. The systems constructed in the 1970s (BART and MARTA) both garner about 300,000 riders a day, the 1980s systems (Baltimore, Miami) get around 60k. The main point is that Metro was far more successful than anyone ever imagined it would be. It's the exception rather than the rule.
Let us return to the 1960s and 70s. Think big hair. Think disco. Imagine a Washington in turmoil, fresh out of the freeway fights that pitted suburb against central city, the feds against the locals, neighbors against neighbors, fresh from the smoke and rubble left after the 1968 riots. Already jobs were starting to follow residents to the suburbs. In America, cities were changing dramatically.
From this viewpoint, Metro is an alternative to driving. It is not a way to redefine the way people live. It will never be able to compete directly with the automobile on the automobile's turf. These heavy rail projects were a last-ditch efforts to save central business districts. No one expected any of these projects to rival the older systems.
Think about the position in which these planners found themselves. Considering the three-state makeup of the region, it is amazing we even have Metro. The funding problem is perhaps one of the most complex in the nation and a four-track subway would have roughly doubled the cost of the system.
Given that, had planners pressed for a four-track system, Metro would either be half the size it is today, would have taken twice as long to build, or would have been killed outright. The debate we're having with the Tysons/Dulles Silver Line right now is case-in-point. Already the project has been sliced and diced in terms of frill, and it's still uncertain whether it will ever reach the airport. The first phase dangled right on the cusp of being too expensive for FTA's criteria, and several times the project looked all but dead. If things like redundant elevators and the familiar hexagonal tiles might be enough to kill the project, can you imagine the reaction of FTA if Virginia demanded four tracks?
No. We cannot fault Metro's designers on the four-track front. Politics is the art of the possible, and thanks to their hard efforts, unlike many cities that were considering heavy rail in the 1970s, we actually built our system. And we finished it. Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Miami never achieved their full transit vision. Even here the belt-tightening Reagan years contributed to an extended construction period. Metro was supposed to be finished by 1983, but it wasn't actually complete for another 18 years. Not until the Green Line to Branch Avenue opened in 2001 did the dashed lines on the Metro map turn solid.
With the second generation of Metro on the way, we have a chance to change things, but we can only do so much within the bounds of feasibility. The station bypass tracks proposed by some of you along the Dulles Toll Road solve some problems in terms of travel time, but they create others. And without major solutions in the downtown core, there's little room for added capacity at the edges of the system.
As I pointed out last week, many Silver Line riders won't be headed all the way downtown, but only to Tysons. Metro was planned when Washington was fairly monocentric. But today, we live in a polycentric region with some of the worst traffic in the nation. As ridership increases on Metro, there is a growing need for projects like the separated Blue Line.
Not only would a four-track Silver Line fail to meet FTA's funding criteria, it would merge into a two-track Orange Line at East Falls Church. Perhaps it is inevitable that a new Arlington subway will need to be constructed in that corridor, perhaps not. But we cannot fault Virginia for leading on a two-track Silver Line. Two tracks is better than none, even if it's not as good as four. Bringing rail to Tysons, Dulles, and Ashburn is a $5 billion prospect. That number is big enough without express tracks.
It's far too early to know what the future holds. Perhaps a Dulles Express will one day ply the rails in Washington, perhaps not. I am confident that as time goes on, we will reform our process. We can't afford not to. But building the Silver Line without express tracks is not the end of the world. In fact, if our region takes the right approach, we will find that it is a valuable, useful addition to our transit network. Tysons could easily grow into a vibrant, walkable edge city.
Perhaps in a decade or two express tracks will be being seriously discussed along the Silver Line, perhaps not. But I doubt anyone will regret that we built the Silver Line - something that would have been impossible if we'd insisted on express tracks.
 | Matt Johnson has lived in the Washington region since mid-2007. He has a Master's degree in Community Planning from the University of Maryland and a BS in Public Policy from Georgia Tech. He has worked in the planning field since 2006 and lives in Greenbelt, where he serves on the city's Advisory Planning Board.    |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- Bikeshare and better health go together
To get that done in DC, we would need to get MARC and VRE to ride on a 10-15 minute basis. From 5am to 1 am, and less frequently in between. Getting from Alexandria to College Park should not go through the yellow and green lines, but with VRE and MARC, preferably without a change of trains at Union Station.
by Jasper on Oct 16, 2009 11:39 am • link • report
by spookiness on Oct 16, 2009 11:48 am • link • report
by цarьchitect on Oct 16, 2009 11:50 am • link • report
by Douglas Stewart on Oct 16, 2009 11:59 am • link • report
by andy on Oct 16, 2009 12:17 pm • link • report
Where's my every-15 minute connection to Baltimore so I can go see the Orioles at night by train? How come that I literally live on the same (mega) block (enclosed by Pohick, Lorton Station BLVD, Lorton Rd, Silverbrook and South Run) as a VRE stop, and there is no transit from my place to the VRE station (a 1h20 min walk according to Google).
On the historic nature of what metro has achieved: Yes, it achieved much. Imagine what it would achieve now, if the investment in the system had continued on the initial level.
by Jasper on Oct 16, 2009 12:24 pm • link • report
Andy is dead on target.
the naysayers to multiple tracks are not thinking of potential problems of having a two track only system.
The weekends closures would become a thing of the past if we'd built in redundancy.
We also need more subway lines- and streetcars.
by w on Oct 16, 2009 12:32 pm • link • report
Perhaps what is most problematic is nature of Metro as a "hybrid" of sorts. Outside of the city, it is easily characterized as a commuter rail system, but in the core it resembles a subway (think U Bahn/S Bahn of Germany).
In order to cope with future growth, we must consider building either express tracks or station bypasses. Although building more switches would overall benefit the system by building in redundancy, do we really want trains running in opposite directions on the same track?
by John on Oct 16, 2009 12:33 pm • link • report
If NYC can't get funding for more than two tracks, no other city can. Of course the funding guidelines should be changed, but that will take time, too much time for the Silver Line to be changed. There may be hope for the relocated Blue Line, if it's built. As others have pointed out, there need to be more lines to provide other options.
Just one more thing, the lack of express tracks in DC is probably also due to another issue. In NYC, the four track lines are entirely within the city, and have very closely spaced stops for virtually their entire length. Express service was deemed necessary to shorten the trip time of longer distance travelers. For the Metro, given the longer distance between stations, except in a small section of the center city, there probably was not a need foreseen for express tracks for this reason.
by kinverson on Oct 16, 2009 12:46 pm • link • report
by varun on Oct 16, 2009 12:59 pm • link • report
by Brick City on Oct 16, 2009 1:37 pm • link • report
I did not miss a historic subway system.
Newark does have a "subway" but it is not heavy rail. Boston's Green Line, Pittsburgh's Light Rail, Philadelphia's Subway Surface Lines, San Francisco's Muni Metro Subway, Los Angeles' Blue Line Metro Center station, St. Louis' Metrolink's downtown subway, and others are all examples of light rail systems that operate partially in subway.
That does not make them heavy rail.
In Newark's case, an abandoned canal was converted to subway tunnels by covering the canal bed. This was done in Rochester, New York (now abandoned) and Cincinatti, Ohio (never completed) as well. Prior to conversion to modern vehicles, Newark used old PCC streetcars. They were similar in appearance to those which plied the streets of Washington and every other major American city up until the 1950s and 1960s. Some survived much later. In Pittsburgh, for example, PCC streetcars operated until the discontinuation of service on the Drake Branch in 1999.
Newark's "City Subway" is certainly an interesting case study. I enjoyed riding it, just like I enjoy all my transit adventures. But it's still light rail.
by Matt Johnson on Oct 16, 2009 1:51 pm • link • report
Separated. Blue. Line.
by Steve Davis on Oct 16, 2009 1:58 pm • link • report
by James on Oct 16, 2009 1:59 pm • link • report
by James M on Oct 16, 2009 2:03 pm • link • report
The Silver Line would benefit greatly from a third track, even if this track is not dedicated to peak express service.
by Mark on Oct 16, 2009 2:29 pm • link • report
by Erik on Oct 16, 2009 2:39 pm • link • report
I don't think anyone here disagrees that a third (or even a fourth) track is a bad idea.
The point of the post was that virtually any added expense that did not increase ridership *by a corresponding amount* would have put the project beyond the funding threshold.
In fact, the project almost didn't get funding. MWAA had to make serious sacrifices to get the cost down without affecting ridership.
Sacrifices made include:
Only through these cost-saving measures was the project able to meet cost effectiveness. A third track would have made the project impossible.
The FTA funding process is clearly broken. But few of us want the Silver Line delayed until it's fixed. That might be next year, or it might be in a decade, if ever.
by Matt Johnson on Oct 16, 2009 2:44 pm • link • report
All of the traffic is not going downtown; some is going the opposite way and other traffic is going from suburb to suburb.
We need more options of travel to each direction. Most of the lines travel in a northwest, northeast, south, west, southwest direction which leaves out the areas inbetween; if we had lines going in every direction or atleast a cirular line it could take traffic off of lines we people are going from one end to the other by just hoping on the circular line.
We need to fill in some of the gaps inbetween the lines such as the area between the blue/orange in arlington and fairfax, the orange and green in pg county, the blue and the green, green and the river and the redline portions in maryland.
If some is going to say King Street to Vienna, Landover to West Hyattsville they shouldn't have to go almost DC to transfer or even in the case of being in DC such as Fort Totten/Takoma to Tenelytown/Friendship Hgts/Van Ness or Deanwood to anywhere along the eastern portion of the redlin the distance on rail vs driving/bus/whatever else is about 3 or 4 times longer than the actual distance.
There should be lines run inside and outside of DC connecting all the lines together which could be easy as running something almost the diamond shape of DC , Arlington
and portions of Alexandria.
It would stop useless travel to DC when there doesn't have to be thus clearing up the amount of people on the lines downtown and could be used better to transport people in the time of breakdowns and accidents
@ Erik
I thinks its because National was one of the end points of the Blue line about 20 years ago plus trains do once in a while end there.
by Kk on Oct 16, 2009 2:46 pm • link • report
National Airport has a third track because the Blue Line terminated there until Van Dorn Street opened in 1991.
West Falls Church has a third track mainly due to the yard leads for the WFC Rail Yard.
However, in both of these cases, the pocket tracks are present because of these stations make good places to short-turn trains. All the lines radiating from downtown exceot for the Green Line on the south side have a pocket somewhere just outside downtown the busiest section of line in order to store gap trains or to short-turn trains.
As a note, the third track at National Airport is not a proper pocket anymore. The connection from Track 2 (SB) to the pocket at the northern end has been removed, and the connection from Track 1 (NB) to the pocket at the southern end has been removed.
You can see the fresher concrete where the rails used to be in this picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/39017545@N02/3841613356/in/set-72157619033353623/
by Matt Johnson on Oct 16, 2009 2:57 pm • link • report
by Erik on Oct 16, 2009 3:03 pm • link • report
1. Connecting pedestrian tunnels, e.g. Gallery Place-Metro Ctr; Farragut N and W. As it is, people have to literally go down to Gallery Place and/or Metro Center to connect many of the lines, and then must take red between the two. If you build pedestrian tunnels, you take a lot of pressue off the lines and have a way around if there is an accident, etc.
2. Occassional third tracks: passing lanes at various points for an express train
3. Express via timing of trains. When a train breaks down, have the first train out miss certain stops(prev GGW post on that). Another: During rush hour force some of the return trips to wait to allow an express train on the track.
All this requires some acknowlegement of the problem, and a desire to change it. So far, I do not see any of that at Metro.
by SJE on Oct 16, 2009 3:14 pm • link • report
by egk on Oct 16, 2009 4:35 pm • link • report
by Bossi on Oct 16, 2009 5:33 pm • link • report
by ksu499 on Oct 16, 2009 6:02 pm • link • report
Marta is essentially Metro w/o riders and with worse management.
I think the train (sorry for the pun) already has left the station for the silver line and more tracks.
by Rich on Oct 16, 2009 8:25 pm • link • report
In my opinion, no.
What has been written over the last few days here has proven to me more why I believe the answer is no.
The railroad is not being managed, operated and maintained by railroaders. It is being managed, operated and maintained by politician and government bureaucrats. Further down the food chain, the folks charged with doing the actual heavy lifting don't have skills needed to do their jobs and the people in leadership positions that know what needs to be done to keep the trains running on time.
As stated here and elsewhere the level of incompetence, lack of accountability and apathy through out the organization has made the agency nearly dysfunctional.
Much has been written here and elsewhere as to how to solve metorail's capacity problems. more tracks, more lines, express track, more rolling stock, more transfer connections. . . All of this is all fine and good, but it will not solve the route problem. The folks within WMATA have forgotten how to run a railroad.
by Sand Box John on Oct 17, 2009 10:20 am • link • report
If they had put in room for a sole passing track in around each Silver Line station; they could run express service once built.
But their thinking is so tunnel-visioned; it's no surprise they didn't....
by george on Oct 17, 2009 6:36 pm • link • report
The MARC and VRE are equivalent to the LIRR and Metro North (nee New Haven and NY Central lines in NY) and the S Bahn in Germany which are regional heavy rail. Dulles should have also followed that model.
by Eli Rabett on Oct 17, 2009 10:25 pm • link • report
by Gray, Germany on Oct 18, 2009 3:09 am • link • report
by 707stuckinKCMO on Oct 18, 2009 10:12 am • link • report
Muni's streetcar system was built a long time ago. In fact, the San Francisco Municipal Railway is the oldest public transit authority in the United States.
However, the modern vehicles and the Market Street Subway opened in 1980. It's light rail, anyway.
by Matt Johson on Oct 18, 2009 10:18 am • link • report
NYC Transit also operates their service diversions a little differently than WMATA. When local tracks are closed they bypass stations in one direction and make the customer change trains and ride back. In DC, WMATA makes stops in both directions on the single track. WMATA could consider one direction station stops for single track areas without transfer stations so as to shorten the single track time period and have greater train throughput.
by Steve Strauss on Oct 19, 2009 3:13 pm • link • report
Back to point of this discussion. Most likely including express tracks on the metro would have meant cutting a funding somewhere else; most likely meaning a cut to the proposed system mileage or quality of service. Since the political process which created Metro was always a bit tense when it came to racial, socioeconomic, and regional equality the conversation about where to cut back the system would have been a bit tense and might even have endangered passage of the compact itself in VA, DC, or MD. Especially when you consider that express tracking downtown or on the suburban arms would have disproportionally benefitted suburbanites who's average trip is probably longer distance-wise. In any event, great discussion.
by Adam Goldstein on Oct 19, 2009 11:43 pm • link • report
Perhaps because the suburban stops are much older than the rise of the 2-car family or people would walk to the rail stop that they don't have parking there.
And the regional rail lines that serve the suburbs also have express trains. It's not just the Broad Street Line that has them. I've waited at a flag stop many times as a kid and watched the express pass me by.
by mapgirl on Oct 20, 2009 5:23 pm • link • report
I didn't generalize about the SEPTA Regional Rail lines. In fact, I didn't even mention SEPTA's Regional Rail lines. SEPTA's Regional Rail system is defined by FTA as "Commuter Rail" not as "Heavy Rail." In a forthcoming post, I disucss differences between modes. Philadelphia's Regional Rail system will definitely be mentioned.
Unlike Washington, where the Metro (Heavy Rail) system is the backbone of the network, in Philadelphia the Regional Rail serves the most trips and connects the most destinations. That does not make it Heavy Rail, just like having underground segments does not make Light Rail systems into Heavy Rail.
The only Philadelphia transit lines mentioned in this post are linked next to the name "Philadelphia" in the list of systems: BSS, MFSE. Those two lines, the Broad Street Subway, and the Market Frankford Subway-Elevated are the only two Heavy Rail Lines in Philadelphia that are run by SEPTA. PATCO also runs a Heavy Rail Line, the Speedline.
Regional Rail trains, while not Heavy Rail, do often operate express and limited stop services in addition to local stop service. This is just like MARC and VRE in the Washington Region. But they aren't Heavy Rail either. They're also defined as Commuter Rail. Because of the different attributes of Commuter Rail systems, it is not always necessary to have exclusive tracks for express service. With Heavy Rail, high frequencies tend to make extra tracks necessary.
So while an R2 might blow through Sharon Hill on the local track without stopping (or on the express tracks), with the Broad Street Subway, that movement always happens on the express tracks. On the Market Frankford Subway-Elevated, skip stop service means that not all trains serve all stations, but that is not the same as express service. A lack of express trackage on the MFSE means that trains cannot pass one another while moving in the same direction.
Personally, I think that high-intensity Commuter Rail systems like SEPTA Regional Rail, Long Island Railroad, Caltrain, and others should receive a different monikker than "Commuter Rail," but the Federal Transit Administration disagrees. Again, I will be discussing these types of differences in a forthcoming post.
by Matt Johnson on Oct 21, 2009 9:25 am • link • report
At least they have improved their wireless service, so I can write this while trapped underground in another "switch failure" and "single tracking" incident. Good luck Tysons.
by Eric on Oct 27, 2009 12:08 am • link • report
Add a Comment