Of course, we could cover everything if we invested the same amount of money in a web of streetcar lines rather than throwing it all into one corridor.

by BeyondDC on Jun 5, 2008 10:56 am  

But BeyondDC, you do recognize that streetcars are not the same as heavy rail. We could call everything covered now if we counted buses.

I'm not anti-streetcar, just pro-inner blue line.

by DC on Jun 5, 2008 12:45 pm  

It would be interesting to see what the job dispersion plot looked like before Metro - i.e, do the jobs follow Metro, and would the relatively sparse Blue Line circles fill in with job dots X number of years after the line is built. Does Metro help create/consolidate jobs or does it really just serve as an alternative form of transport to the jobs that are already there.

by Andy on Jun 5, 2008 1:22 pm  

And I'm not anti Metro. Just pro spending what money we have on getting the best bang for our buck.

Let's talk about buses. If WMATA stopped investing in them we could use that money to build another Metro line somewhere. Do you think that would be worth it? No buses in exchange for one more Metro line? 'Cause I don't, and the 400,000 some bus riders on WMATA (more than any single Metro line) don't either.

Now take a look at WMATA's system maps. Count the streetcars. You'll notice there aren't any. Right now, in the context of 100 miles of existing Metro and zero miles of streetcar, building the new Blue line is tantamount to saying one new Metro line is worth more than an entire streetcar system. None of the numbers support that conclusion. Far more riders would use a city-wide streetcar network than one more Metro line. Probably an order of magnitude more.

The new blue line should probably eventually be built, just not right now. First we need to fill the gap in our transit system and build the streetcar network that could be used by hundreds of thousands of people. THEN build the redundant Metro line.

by BeyondDC on Jun 5, 2008 1:23 pm  

This assumes that there's a fixed pool of transit money and we have to decide how to spend it. That's not the case. We're spending $500 million on a wasteful bridge, for example, and billions on the ICC. And of course trillions on the war.

I prefer to advocate for all kinds of transit to be a higher spending priority, period. I don't think we should stop extolling the virtues of one kind of transit expansion just because another one ought to be higher on the priority list.

Let's build the Blue Line and the streetcars and the Purple Line and express buses with signal priority. We have plenty of money if we don't build wasteful highways out in the middle of nowhere, widen the Beltway or bridges, or throw it down the drain in Iraq.

by David Alpert on Jun 5, 2008 1:33 pm  

The new Blue line offers several benefits.

One, the level of service for a subway is much higher than streetcars or light rail.

Two, the new line is not simply an expansion, it will relieve the biggest bottleneck in the whole system. Adding that subway tunnel will dramatically increase the capacity of many other lines - the network advantages to such a move are huge.

Three, while it may not be the top priority now, it will be necessary in the nest 10-20 years. Given the long lead time on projects like this it's imperative to start planning for it now, even if you prioritize streetcars first.

by Alex B. on Jun 5, 2008 1:52 pm  

David: I agree. There is no good reason why we can't build both. There are bad reasons though, and we may have to live with them. If we do, the streetcars are more valuable.

Alex:

1: That is only true if you are comparing one Metro line to one streetcar line. The level of service provided by an entire network of streetcars is greater than the level of service provided by one Metro line.

2: My plan includes three additional crossings between Rosslyn and the West End, plus more efficient use of existing Metro. It is untrue to claim that streetcars can't relieve the Rosslyn bottleneck.

3: Fair enough.

by BeyondDC on Jun 5, 2008 2:51 pm  

Could you add another color dot for residents? There are quite a few people in the buildings around Thomas Circle and the West End who would use the new Blue line as a starting point of their commute instead of the end.

by Alex on Jun 5, 2008 3:03 pm  

Alex: I didn't make the map, just drew circles on top. I don't have the data set or the tools to enhance it like that. But it's a great idea.

by David Alpert on Jun 5, 2008 3:07 pm  

Streetcar wires can look horrible. We have no business building streetcars at all if every outside view will become a spider web of cable and poles. Are there less ugly power sources for the cars?

by Compatriot on Jun 5, 2008 3:41 pm  

I've had to make that long walk from Foggy Bottom Metro to the State Department many times. It's not fun, and doubly less so in a suit. The Virginia Ave. ramps make that crossing pretty unfriendly to pedestrians. Buses and/or streetcars seem to be the only solution to that, and a street car that ran frequently enough up 23rd Street could link up the mall, GW, and the red line.

However, clearly the best long-term solution is to just have WMATA give a concession to TourMobile. My commute would be much more fun on a double-decker!

by dino on Jun 5, 2008 4:47 pm  

Commission on Fine Arts likely would not allow overhead wires. Streetcaars would need to be powered by under-track cables.

by William on Jun 5, 2008 4:48 pm  

david,

given the big transit hole that foggy bottom is, why not run a separated blue line tunnel under (approximately) the roosevelt bridge, in order to serve the state dept and the west end of the mall, then have it turn north, cross the orange line at the current foggy bottom station, then turn down m street? feasible?

by IMGoph on Jun 5, 2008 5:07 pm  

IMGoph: Georgetown, Georgetown, and Georgetown are the top three reasons.

by NikolasM on Jun 5, 2008 6:24 pm  

@ImGoph - I may not be following your comment properly, but it seems you might have just traded having a station in Georgetown for having one near the State Dept. If so, I'm not sure I like that trade.

@BeyondDC - I can't really see light rail going over the Key Bridge and down M Street in Georgetown and maintaining any kind of timeliness without a dedicated lane. I also don't see that dedicated lane happening either. Just because you can draw it on paper doesn't necessarily mean it "works".

by MVT on Jun 5, 2008 6:26 pm  

Do you want to put a tunnel under (or near) bridge piers? I suspect not.

by Steve on Jun 5, 2008 9:10 pm  

Why not have two new lines downtown, one going down M street and the other going in the northwest rectangle area (the area above the mall west of the whitehouse)

How about having the Blue line split from the orange line near federal triangle, and go west over to the northwest triangle area and have a station at 18th & E st. or 18th & New York Ave and the another at 23rd and Constitution Ave then have the blue line go over the Roosevelt Bridge and then underground by passing Rosslyn and connect with the current line heading south.

and

Have the silver line run to georgetown and down M street with the proposed blue line route.

Heres a map to view

by kk on Jun 5, 2008 10:12 pm  

kk: I see some problems with your speculation

- The Blue Line cannot go over the Roose.Brdg to Rosslyn AND going south to Arlington Cemetery. It's like making a U turn (!?)

- The Blue Line tunnel downtown DC will have to be dug under the White House, which will possibly pose some security problems

- The Silver Line and Orange should not split at Rosslyn, then it will be more of a pain controlling that hacking bottle neck also with the Blue Line splitting and merging too

- AND the main problem is that the Blue Line wont be able to transfer directly to the Red Line at all.

by Hanuki on Jun 6, 2008 3:22 am  

@Hanuki

If the map he drew is correct, the line would run under the Ellipse. Not to say that there wouldn't be some security issues, but there is already a red line tunnel much closer to the actual White House (and some nice rail tunnels on the Capitol grounds, as well).

However, that's a pretty sharp turn from Federal Triangle station to the new blue line. I know there's a non-revenue turn off somewhere around connecting the red and blue/orange lines. Is that where that'd be? If not, perhaps it would be better to break off at the curve after Smithsonian to run up C St. or Virginia Ave. But yeah, I think the crossing is a bit of a pipe dream.

I'm not sold on street cars being the Barak Obamas of transportation solutions, but given the cost of adding two Potomac crossings it almost seems better to take away the parking lane on the north side of Constitution and replace it with a streetcar from about the Smithsonian station. It would serve tourists heading to the far end of the Mall as well as DOI, DOS, and lower-Foggy Bottom employees. Or, run up Virgina Avenue to be closer to more work sites.

by dino on Jun 6, 2008 7:17 am  

MVT: Right. Because heaven forbid we take lanes away from cars. End of the world, that would be.

by BeyondDC on Jun 6, 2008 9:54 am  

BeyondDC wrote:

"Right. Because heaven forbid we take lanes away from cars. End of the world, that would be."

Is that the defense you plan to use whenever some challenges your logistics?

Yeah, in this particular area (Key Bridge and Gtown M Street) I do think it'd be ridiculous to entirely dedicate lanes to a form of transit that might come through once every 5-15 minutes. I also don't see how the streetcars are going to stay on schedule during rush hour without the dedicated lane. It's on occasion taken me 25 minutes to cross the Key bridge during rush hour.

Some areas Metro is just plain better. We need a mix of Metro and Streetcar. I'm all for Streetcar down by the State Dept or H Street. But your going do have to present a much more convincing argument for Rosslyn/Key Bridge/Gtown then just drawing the lines on the map.

by MVT on Jun 6, 2008 12:32 pm  

is the state dept. really all that important compared to the general crossing of the bridge and linking significant and great numbers of activity centers cost effectively while at the same time providing redundancy in the core of the system as well as adding capacity. Especially if the new line could have double tunnels with two tracks on the top and two on the bottom.

by Richard Layman on Jun 6, 2008 2:19 pm  

I have an unrefined plan for the Metro. Fairfax County knows we need a line running through (not bordering) it, i.e. via Columbia Pike to Silver Spring through downtown DC (We can also extend it beyond Silver Spring, but I don't know much about that area)

I suggest a light route going from about Annandale along Columbia Pike to Pentagon above ground.

Then it'll merge onto the Yellow line bridge and split from the Yellow line and going north underground instead. Here we can have a Jefferson Memorial/Tidal Basin part-time station

The line then goes along 14th St, then curves onto the State Dept area along Virginia Ave. There will be 3 stations here: 1 by the Mall, 1 at 18th street intersection and 1 at E street intersection.

It then will meet Orange, Silver and Red line at Foggy Bottom and Dupont Circle, and hopefully some station on M street (Blue?)

From there, the line will go along 16th street through Adams Morgan to Columbia

Heights. I suggest a walk bridge between this station on 16th Street and Columbia Heights, along Irving Street, thus connecting it to the Green and Yellow line

The line will then surface and continue onto Arkansas Ave, 13 street and then Georgia Ave in that order to get to Silver Spring

*** If my plan works, then we have covered most of the job hubs plus provide transit from the hustling Northern Virginia to downtown and its monuments.

Here is my suggested downtown section awkwardly-constructed upon Google Maps. The dot means station

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/hanukikanker/Screen_001.jpg

by Hanuki on Jun 6, 2008 10:58 pm  

Oops, I meant a pedestrian tunnel at Columbia Heights, not walk-bridge (since it's still underground)

And the station on M street would probably need a tunnel to West End station on the future Blue Line

by Hanuki on Jun 6, 2008 11:19 pm  

I don't think Metro should be expanded much past the Beltway. There are a lot of tensions arising from Metro's being put to dual, sometimes competing, purposes as a commuter rail network and a city subway. (see removing seats from cars, and bathrooms in stations) I really think the region needs to make a hard boundary around the city, inside which will be primarily served by Metro, and outside which will be primarily served by MARC or VRE. Already some of these outer Metro extensions, like Dulles, or the idea to extend the Yellow Line down to Ft. Belvoir, are so far outside the city they compromise Metrorail and would be served better by commuter lines. I think Paris (www.ratp.fr) does a good job delineating between subway and commuter service.

by Jon Morgan on Jun 10, 2008 2:54 am