Transit
MTA considers a better Corridor Cities Transitway
Three potential alignment changes for the Corridor Cities Transitway, a proposed light rail or BRT line running north from Shady Grove Metro through Gaithersburg, will let the line reach the walkable neighborhoods near its route and substantially increase ridership at relatively little cost.
A bus traveling part of the future CCT route. Photo from EPA.
In 2006, planners ignored the many walkable, urban neighborhoods near the route and instead opting to locate stations near large parking lots. Around the same time, Montgomery County's Action Committee For Transit proposed a U-shaped realignment that would have solved those problems, but would have required a fairly dramatic re-planning effort.
To their credit, MTA heard the criticism and responded. They are now strongly considering a series of three realignments that would dramatically improve access to walkable destinations and increase expected ridership on the line.
Three proposed realignments shown in green, red, and yellow.
The first two realignments, those shown in green and yellow, would more directly serve dense, walkable, mixed-use developments. The green one would move to run through the center and densest part of Crown Farm, a massive TOD-to-be. The yellow alignment would provide a station at Kentlands, the famous New Urbanist development.
The red alignment will more directly serve the so-called Science City. Although that won't be a particularly walkable destination, it is dense with jobs and will provide a significant boost in expected ridership.
All together, these three changes are expected to increase ridership from somewhere between 21,000-30,000 daily (depending on mode and other factors) to between 29,000-42,000 daily, at a cost of about $100 million on top of the estimates for the original alignment. That's such a phenomenally good deal that it would set the Corridor Cities Transitway as one of the most cost-effective projects in the pipeline in the entire country, therefore positioning it excellently to receive federal funds.
MTA should adopt all three realignments. Each one improves transit access to important destinations over the original route, and each improves Maryland's chances of receiving federal funds.
 | Dan Malouff is a professional transportation planner for the Arlington County Department of Transportation. He has a degree in Urban Planning from the University of Colorado, and lives a car-free lifestyle in Northwest Washington. His posts are his own opinions and do not represent the views of his employer in any way. He runs the blog BeyondDC and also contributes to the Washington Post Local Opinions blog.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
These alternates wiggle all over the map, looping off to dodge into pockets of ridership wherever they might be found. Of course serving riders is good, but zoom out and consider for a moment the overall alignment before these alternates were suggested:
It's as if the planners can't decide between through service and feeder routes and are hoping that one alignment can perform both functions. With so much additional distance, how will it be able to compete with automobile running times up I-270 to Clarksburg or along the Great Seneca Highway?
(This is not the first time this sort of mistake has been made: look at Metro's Green Line in DC. It tries to serve two north-south corridors, 7th Street/Georgia Avenue as well as 14th Street, but doesn't really cover either of them all that well. Without sufficient funding to build both, they got two of them wrong rather than one of them right.)
A sensible way for a CCT to serve both purposes would be to build it along a fairly direct main line route, with branches splitting off to those side destinations. Its should resemble a tree, or a river and its tributaries, rather than this collection of loops that in trying to go everywhere ends up going nowhere.
by intermodal commuter on Dec 18, 2010 2:38 pm • link • report
However, if you're trying to get people from Clarksburg to the Science City, or from Bethesda/White Flint to Science City...or if it's residents (kids, seniors, etc.) trying to get around without a car in the far-out burbs, then the circuity won't matter so much if in fact there are jobs, homes, stores, and services along the circuit.
Also, the more the facility is designed to be integrated into residential and retail development, the weaker the ridership predictions will be on a full-day basis. The models are good for peak-period work trips, but not as strong at the off-peak travel predictions, which are strongly affected by design factors and proximity to trip origins and trip ends . In a well-integrated system, you should see better ridership due to the improved connections.
by jnb on Dec 18, 2010 4:57 pm • link • report
I also wonder how long the rides would be on this line. Unfortunately for people like me that want to use transit even more than I do now, if the travel times are too prohibitive and/or expensive it wouldn't be worth the ride.
by LTParis on Dec 18, 2010 9:11 pm • link • report
I think there is far too much attention paid to "street building" in places like DC and Arlington, which are already fairly pedestrian friendly, and not enough on the low-hanging fruit of massive developments like this.
A basic system of cut-throughs and paths, not to mention basic zoning, could really turn this TOD unit into a better place to live, and one that uses less gasoline.
Instead we focus on community building exercises like the 15th street bike lane and minor details. Granted I see the argument it is important to get the flagships right as models. But far too much talk is about community building rather than hitting this low hanging fruit.
I was in King Farms on Friday, and while it is a pleasant place, it really struck me how pedestrian unfriendly it was.
by charlie on Dec 19, 2010 12:45 pm • link • report
It's amusing to see the volume of people in King Farm who drive to Shady Grove, despite being within walking/biking distance of it & also having a decent shuttle service.
by Bossi on Dec 19, 2010 12:58 pm • link • report
As for Bossi's comments, let's face it, people are flat out lazy, and they would rather spend $5 for parking than walk more then 3 minutes.
by LTParis on Dec 19, 2010 3:07 pm • link • report
I won't dispute that some King Farm residents drive to the Shady Grove metro station (because I can't disprove it), but no one I know does that and I've never seen anyone do it.
by King Farm Resident on Dec 20, 2010 2:09 pm • link • report
Add a Comment