Posts about Blue Line
Yesterday, we discussed how Metro could grow its core capacity if it chooses to build a Rosslyn wye in the short run. Today we'll look at how a terminal for the Blue Line could fit into the picture.
Today, Rosslyn is the biggest bottleneck in the system, which will only get worse when the Silver Line opens. Three lines vie for space in one tunnel from Rosslyn eastward, which limits trains on the Blue, Orange, and Silver Lines.
Metro could relieve the pressure for now by either building a new terminal for the Blue Line at Rosslyn, or a "wye" to let some trains from Tysons go to Arlington Cemetery and farther south in Virginia. But in the long run, Metro needs more capacity over the Potomac River.
Post-2025 solutions with a Rosslyn terminal
The Rosslyn terminal would enable Blue Line trains to terminate at Rosslyn without interfering with the Orange or Silver Lines. This would allow more Orange and Silver trains from Tysons and the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. But it also means that all Blue Line riders going to DC would need to transfer at Rosslyn or Pentagon.
That solution might work for a few years, but if Metro ridership continues to grow, the Rosslyn terminal would need to become the first phase of a new Potomac crossing.
A separated Blue Line: Metro could easily expand a Rosslyn Terminal into a new line to DC. A likely path would take the line under the river to Georgetown and then east into the downtown core.
In addition to the 26 trains per hour (TPH) running between Rosslyn and Downtown on the Orange/Silver subway, an a separated Blue Line to Georgetown and into downtown would allow 12-16 additional trains to cross the Potomac at Rosslyn.
This would increase the number of trains running between Virginia and DC per hour during the peak from 40 to 52.
However, because the Blue Line shares with the Yellow Line, the new subway across downtown Washington would only be able to operate at roughly half of its maximum capacity. That's probably fine in terms of ridership for a while (and off-peak for much longer), but in order to get the full potential out of the new line, it would need to be separated from the Yellow Line.
A separated Blue Line could also allow for more service on the Green Line through the Waterfront or Capitol Riverfront areas, which are quickly adding jobs. Metro could get some additional Green capacity by shifting some Huntington trains to the new Blue subway via Rosslyn (a sort of reverse Rush Plus).
Shifting some Huntington trains to run through Rosslyn would not increase the number of trains crossing the Potomac beyond what could cross under the first separated Blue Line scenario, but it would enable more service on the Green Line.
Two new subways?
What about both a separated Blue Line and a separated Yellow Line? Two new subways in the core would be very expensive. But if Metro wants to maximize the capacity on its system, it has to separate each line in the core.
One way to do this is to build a new terminal for the Blue Line at Pentagon. The Blue Line could have its own platforms, and trains from Franconia-Springfield (now all colored Yellow, or perhaps a new color) and Huntington would all cross the 14th Street bridge.
This would also have the advantage of reducing the amount of interlining in the system. With the lines no longer sharing with each other, delays wouldn't cascade across multiple lines if a train were to break down or some other mishap were to occur.
But the real issue is being able to have the flexibility to balance trains across the different lines. Right now, the Blue and Orange must be balanced based on ridership demand, as do the Green and Yellow. The problem is that Metro is bumping up against the absolute capacity of both subways.
With just a separated Blue, there would still be demand for a direct trip across the 14th Street Bridge. And once that demand outstrips Metro's ability to provide supply, Metro won't be able to do anything (because the Yellow shares with the Green). With just a separated Yellow, service between Pentagon and the western side of downtown is constrained by demand for the Orange/Silver.
At some point in the future, if Metro keeps growing, it may become necessary to build the other separated line. With both a separated Blue and a separated Yellow, the number of trains crossing the Potomac would increase to a maximum of 78.
Other improvements would probably be necessary to enable a full 26 trains per hour to run on the Green Line. It's not clear if the terminals at the end of each line could handle turning 26 trains each hour. Metro would probably need places for trains to turn around short of the terminals, like the pocket tracks at Silver Spring and Grosvenor on the Red Line. Alternatively, Metro could look into rebuilding the terminals, Branch Avenue and Greenbelt, with more capacity.
It's hard enough to say if we can get one new subway by 2040, given the funding picture today. But a second new subway might be in the cards farther down the line, and now is the time to start planning for it.
Last week, we talked about plans to give Metro the capacity it needs to get through 2025. What about beyond? The primary issue after 2025 will be cross-Potomac capacity.
Metro will likely choose to build, hopefully by 2025, either a new terminal for the Blue Line at Rosslyn that doesn't share tracks with the Orange or Silver Lines, or a "wye" so trains from Vienna and Tysons can turn toward the Pentagon.
However, neither solution increases the number of trains that can cross the Potomac River. Metro will need to start planning for the next phase very soon, since it takes so long to plan and build transit. Also, Metro's plan beyond 2025 could influence which of the options (terminal or wye) it chooses for 2025. Let's look at how Metro might expand its core capacity starting with each of the 2 primary Rosslyn alternatives.
Post-2025 solutions that go with a Rosslyn wye
Without construction in the core, a Rosslyn wye alone can't add any cross-Potomac capacity. Metro could build a second wye at Pentagon, for trains from Vienna and Tysons to cross the 14th Street bridge. However, the 7th Street tunnel, which carries the Green and Yellow Lines through downtown, can't take any more trains.
Wyes at Pentagon and L'Enfant: If Metro builds a total of 3 wyes, at Rosslyn, Pentagon, and L'Enfant Plaza, it could fit a few more trains across the river. Trains from Arlington Cemetery could cross the 14th Street Bridge, then continue east onto the Green Line toward Branch Avenue.
This scenario would let Metro fill unused capacity in the system without building any new trunk lines. However, much of this new capacity would go on the Green Line south of Waterfront station. Customers wanting to get to the downtown area would have to transfer.
It would, however, significantly add service to the growing Waterfront and Capitol Riverfront areas. DC has zoned much of these areas for downtown densities, but instead of the 5 lines that serve downtown or 3 in the Golden Triangle, this area has just one. This option would beef up service there, though many of the people riding there would want to come from downtown, and this doesn't boost that connection.
To absolutely max out capacity, Metro would need to run a line, like the lime-colored line on the map above, from Franconia to Branch Avenue. It's not completely necessary, but it would allow more full use of the capacity.
Unfortunately, this would increase the amount of interlining in the system, because trains would be running across multiple lines. The complex scheduling it would take to run this sort of service pattern might actually lower the total number of trains Metro can run through a tunnel.
This scenario would increase trans-Potomac capacity from 40 to 52 trains per hour, or just to 46 TPH without the Franconia-Branch Avenue Line.
Pentagon wye and separate Yellow Line: Metro has talked about building a separate tunnel for the Yellow Line. It's not clear where it would go yet. It could run north along 9th or 10th Street, or it could run east toward Capitol Hill before turning north.
This subway would separate the Yellow and Green Lines. That would allow Metro to run additional Green Line service between Greenbelt and Branch Avenue, including more service between downtown and the Waterfront/Riverfront areas.
It would also allow more service across the Potomac by decoupling the Green and Yellow Lines. However, since the Yellow Line shares tracks with the Blue south of Pentagon, this new subway would not be used to its full capacity.
Metro could get some additional capacity by routing some trains from Tysons via Arlington Cemetery over the 14th Street Bridge and into the new subway, if it built a wye at Pentagon. This would increase service across the Potomac to 52 TPH. Without the line running from Tysons through Arlington Cemetery, that would drop to 46 TPH.
Splitting Yellow Line service: Another option Metro studied for the Yellow Line is a new tunnel through the Capitol Riverfront, past the Capitol, and north to Union Station. This would increase service at Union Station, a major bottleneck, and give riders two ways to get downtown from the Waterfront/Riverfront area.
However, a lot of the riders in Alexandria and southern Arlington don't want their train to go so far east. They want to get to the 7th Street corridor. Therefore, Metro studied the idea of splitting the Yellow Line, with some trains taking their current path through L'Enfant Plaza and Archives while others would go to Union Station.
This operating plan makes a lot of sense with the Rosslyn wye, because those trains can fill the "gap" left on the 14th Street Bridge by Blue Line trains running north toward Rosslyn. With a new path for some Yellow trains, there would be room to add more Green Line service.
This approach would allow 52 trains per hour to cross the Potomac.
Tomorrow, we'll look at another set of long-term solutions, which Metro might pursue if it builds a new Blue Line terminal and then can send the Blue Line across the river toward Georgetown.
When WMATA released its Momentum plan last week, it reopened the conversation about dealing with core capacity. By 2025, the plan seeks to address one of the biggest chokepoints in the system: Rosslyn.
Metro has to juggle service at Rosslyn, where the Orange and Blue lines merge entering the District from the west, because it faces a structural limit to the number of trains per hour (TPH) that any given section of track is capable of handling. That limit is 26 TPH, or about one train every 2.3 minutes.
The reason for Rush Plus last year was to deal with capacity issues at Rosslyn without undertaking any capital projects. Essentially, Rush Plus was a stopgap measure to get a little more capacity out of Metro. But Rush Plus hurt many Blue Line riders, and without major changes at Rosslyn, even Rush Plus won't be enough.
As ridership increases, Metro has to either find creative ways to move more people throughout the system, without crossing 26 TPH on any segment of track, or expand capacity.
Before Rush Plus
Before Rush Plus started, during peak periods, exactly 26 TPH (the maximum) passed through Rosslyn. Those 26 TPH consisted of 10 Blue and 16 Orange trains.
At Pentagon, those same 10 Blue trains were passing through in addition to 10 Yellow trains. In total, 36 TPH were entering the District from Virginia during the morning rush via Rosslyn and Pentagon combined.
But this left some capacity unused. The Yellow Line bridge was carrying only about 40% of the trains it could carry. As you can see in the diagram below, there was also extra capacity in the Yellow and Green Line tunnel.
This map shows the frequency of service for every line during the peak period. Every track segment is the same width, corresponding to 26 TPH. If 26 TPH pass through at peak, it's "full" with colored lines; if there are fewer trains, there is black space.
After Rush Plus
Once Rush Plus took effect, those numbers increased slightly. At Rosslyn, the numbers are now 19 Orange and 7 Blue, which is still 26 trains per hour. But at Pentagon, in addition to the 7 Blue trains running via Rosslyn, there are now 13 Yellow trains. That means a total of 39 TPH are entering the District from Virginia during the morning rush.
Since the number of trains is the same at Rosslyn as it was before, Metro could have kept the number of Blue and Orange trains the same, and just added new Yellow trains. But adding trains from Virginia was only part of the equation. Metro was also attempting to address the severe crowding on the Orange Line and paving the way for the Silver Line. As a result, Metro traded some Blue Line trains for Orange ones.
When the Silver Line begins operating, some of the Orange trains will have to become Silver trains, in order to keep the total number passing through Rosslyn at 26 TPH.
Cross-Potomac capacity will be maxed out
One of the biggest constraints with Metro is getting trains between Virginia and DC. There are 2 Metro crossings of the Potomac: a tunnel for the Blue/Orange lines and a bridge for the Yellow Line.
Each of these crossings has a capacity of 26 trains per hour, for a total of 52. However, because the Yellow shares with the Green Line, the Yellow Line bridge can only carry 26 TPH minus however many trains per hour are running on the Green Line (at present, 12 TPH).
This means that there are 14 slots available for the Yellow Line to cross the Potomac. Right now, the Yellow Line is taking 13 of those slots during rush hour: 10 for trains running between Huntington and Mount Vernon Square and 3 for trains running between Franconia and Greenbelt.
When the Silver Line opens, Metro's plan will be to redirect one more Franconia train to Greenbelt. This will mean cross-Potomac capacity will be maxed out at 26 TPH through the Rosslyn tunnel and 14 TPH over the Yellow Line bridge, for a total of 40 TPH between Virginia and DC.
Through 2025, those 40 trains are probably enough. But there's another problem: now there aren't enough trains running between Pentagon and Rosslyn. Riders from south Arlington, Alexandria, and southern Fairfax have long waits to get a train to Rosslyn, the Orange and Silver corridors, or to reach stations like Foggy Bottom without a transfer.
How can Metro fix Rosslyn?
Metro wants to address the Rosslyn chokepoint soon. It's one of 7 capital items in the "Metro 2025 recommendations of the Momentum plan.
Planners haven't decided on a specific solution yet, but are studying 2 options. One would build a "wye" at Rosslyn, a track connection so that trains from Tysons or Vienna could turn south and head for Arlington Cemetery, and vice versa. The other option is to build a new station at Rosslyn with separate platforms for the Blue Line.
The wye at Rosslyn would also let Metro add rail service between the Blue-Yellow corridor and the Orange-Silver corridor. Some trains going through Arlington Cemetery would go toward downtown, as the Blue Line does today, while some trains would turn west and run through Ballston and Tysons.
This approach would likely mean a good deal of disruption for Orange and Silver line riders, since Metro would need to build new underground connections to the line between Rosslyn and Court House. It would also permanently limit the number of trains between Court House and downtown DC, because some of those slots would go to the Blue Line and the new north-south all-Virginia line.
But this would also give riders a one-seat ride from Tysons to Pentagon and points south. It would also build a little more redundancy into the system, allowing trains to divert to the south in the case of track work, a disabled train, or other disruptions.
The real issue, though, is that this project only allows for a small increase in the number of trains, and does not increase the number of trains between Virginia and the District. It also would mean that some trains wouldn't stop at Rosslyn, forcing those actually heading there to wait for a later train or transfer.
Under the wye scenario, the service pattern would probably look something like this: 14 Yellow trains crossing the 14th Street Bridge (4 of them from Franconia) each hour during the peak; 5 TPH on the Blue Line between Franconia and Largo via Rosslyn; 10 TPH on the Orange Line from Vienna into DC; and 11 TPH on the Silver Line from Tysons. This still adds up to 40 TPH between Virginia and DC. In addition, the wye would enable 5 completely new TPH between Pentagon and Court House.
A new Blue Line terminal at Rosslyn involves building new, separate tracks at Rosslyn, possibly in a new station next to the old one, that would become the new end of the Blue Line. Blue Line trains could stop and turn around without interfering with the Orange and Silver trains going to Foggy Bottom, and Blue Line riders could transfer to either direction of those trains at Rosslyn.
A new Blue Line station at Rosslyn would allow even more trains between Pentagon and north Arlington
It would require passengers to transfer to the Orange or Silver lines to get to downtown or west toward Ballston and Tysons. But it would also form the first step toward a separated Blue Line through downtown. If and when Metro is able to build that, it could simply extend the new tunnel under the Potomac and beyond. If WMATA thinks a separate Blue Line will be the long-term approach, this solution might be more attractive.
Another advantage to a Blue station at Rosslyn is that it reduces the amount of interlining in the system. That should have a positive effect on reliability, because a delay on the Blue Line won't affect the Orange or Silver lines, or vice versa.
Note that we don't know which trains will go to Franconia or Huntington under this or any other future plan, or how many and which trains will go to New Carrollton vs. Largo vs. turn at Stadium-Armory. Since all trains to those destinations come from the same track, it's not an operational issue, just a question of balancing simplicity with convenience and being fair to riders on each branch.
Transferring can be painless
If Metro does go with the new Blue Line station at Rosslyn, they can help make transferring painless by getting the design of the new station right.
Cross-platform transfers are more commonplace in some cities. Montreal, for example, has 2 in their Metro system, Lionel-Groulx and Snowdon. New York has many, especially between local and express services on each line.
A 4-track stacked Rosslyn station would allow passengers from an inbound Blue Line train to simply walk across the platform to board an inbound Orange or Silver train. To transfer from an inbound to an outbound, the passenger would just have to go downstairs or upstairs.
The station could look something like this:
It would be more expensive, but in terms of simplifying riders' ability to transfer, it could be worth it to build a new Rosslyn station with 4 tracks.
On the other hand, such a station would cost more, and would disrupt all service through Rosslyn during construction, just as the wye would, while a separate station could avoid interfering with Orange and Silver service.
But any new station will be there a long time, and riders may regret making it more difficult to transfer. After all, many riders still suffer from the lack of a direct connection between Farragut North and Farragut West (a tunnel that Metro proposes to complete as part of their 2025 plan).
WMATA hopes to lengthen all its trains to 8 cars, add pedestrian connections at downtown stations, and maybe build new rail tunnels for the Blue and Yellow Lines in the region's core. That's part of a strategic plan which its media relations team showed only to the Washington Post this week, and which board members will see at a meeting today.
More broadly, the agency will focus on safety, service quality, better regional mobility, and its own financial stability in the strategic plan. Besides a set of still somewhat amorphous connections and service improvements, the plan calls for building a system where riders can more easily "plan, pay, and ride" in a smoother customer experience.
The big money, up to $20 billion, in the plan would be for tunnels to separate the Blue Line at Rosslyn and the Yellow Line at L'Enfant Plaza, the two major chokepoints, as part of a vision for Metro by 2040. Silver Line trains from Dulles Airport could also turn at Rosslyn to go toward Arlington Cemetery, then stop at Pentagon before crossing the Yellow Line bridge into DC.
By 2025, Metro wants to have the railcars and power stations to run all trains with the full 8 cars. It would like to build pedestrian tunnels to link Farragut North with West and Metro Center with Gallery Place, and a train tunnel so that some Dulles trains can go down to Franconia-Springfield, which would relieve some of the immediate Blue Line problems of Rush Plus, which will only get worse once the Silver Line opens.
WMATA Media Relations team makes transit supporters' task harder
This plan covers a lot of ground, and is at times very detailed yet at others quite vague. I wasn't able to get all of the details, because WMATA decided to give an exclusive look at the plan to the Washington Post.
This has been the agency's practice every since Barbara Richardson, Lyn Bowersox, and Dan Stessel took over at WMATA communications and media relations. This isn't a matter of blogs versus traditional media, though that's been an ongoing problem as well; WMATA also does not tell the Washington Examiner about its major initiatives.
This seems inappropriate, and really disrespects the journalists and bloggers who care about transit in the region. It's also pretty foolish, because it forces others to write about the plan in a more hurried way than they otherwise would.
WMATA planning head Shyam Kannan spent an hour talking to me after midnight last night, and this post was still not done by 4:30 am as a result. Still, there are plenty of questions I did not have time get answered.
What will happen with Union Station and commuter rail?
While the plan goes into a fair amount of detail about how there could be a second Pentagon station for the trains making the new track connection, the plan does not talk about whether the new lines would serve Union Station, the system's biggest point of overcrowding. It seems obvious for any separated Blue Line to go there.
One of the biggest opportunities to improve regional travel would be to let MARC trains reach L'Enfant Plaza, where riders can transfer to all four lines that don't serve Union Station, and onward to Virginia. Unfortunately, perhaps bowing to political realities, the plan just calls for WMATA to play a role of supporter and advocate.
Finally, the plan shows some diagrams with vague arrows depicting potential extensions to the ends of lines, regional transit in the suburbs, and streetcars crossing the river:
All of these ideas and more were part of a study WMATA has been working on for a few years, called the Regional Transit System Plan. That also included proposals to send the Yellow Line through the rapidly-growing Capitol Riverfront and up to Union Station.
According to Kannan, the RTSP study is still going on, and even many decisions about which routes WMATA wants to pursue in the future are not fully set.
Customer service, trip planning are even more central to the plan
Kannan emphasized that the rail expansions and connections are not the "real meat" of the plan, despite what was in the Post article; instead, it really focuses on "an improved customer service experience today" that will let riders plan, pay, and take transit more smoothly than today. The vision for 2025, which is not far away, is fundamentally about "the completion of a journey to a self-service system. He explained:
Imagine, for a moment, walking into a Metrorail station or a Metrobus platform and not needing to ask for assistance in either route planning, fare payment, and even walking to or from your bus or train. There would be improved lighting so you can read your book, mobile payment options so you can use your smartphone to pay your fare.With these added services, Kannan said, station agents will not need to sit in their booths all day to handle everyday needs. Instead, Metro could dedicate its staff to "customer-facing ambassadors" who could roam around and help people, and choose people for those jobs best suited to a customer service role, which as we all know is not always the case with today's station agents.
Another big element of this self-service world is better trip planning. Kannan talked about having a "unified regional trip planning technology" so a rider can use a desktop computer, smartphone, or other device, pick where he or she wants to go, and get transit suggestions that could use Metro, commuter rail like VRE or MARC, or regional buses like Ride On and DASH.
The plan describes that as "Provide transit riders with a regional trip planning system that is mobile-device friendly." Hopefully this language does not lead the agency to decide it should issue a procurement for a big IT project to build one single integrated trip planner that works on today's mobile devices, and that's all. WMATA is not in a position to be a good customer-facing software company, and a big contracted software project will build something that will likely be obsolete as soon as it launches.
Rather, the agency needs to offer open data and support open source projects to create the building blocks of trip planning. VDOT funded a grant, which I wrote for Arlington County, to make progress on some open source technology for trip planning. If WMATA can support the efforts of the people who are going to do this work, and other developers who contribute and create other tools of their own, it will do far more to "provide" this kind of "unified regional trip planning technology."
The plan is not very detailed about how to reach this or most other goals, from "Educate the customer about transit coverage and usage in regional emergencies" to "Work with partners to ensure seamless connections between Metro and other transit systems in the region." Those are fodder for future plans. Meanwhile, though, if top management buys in and directs the organization to follow this plan, it can get the 13,000-person organization moving all together in some important directions.
The WMATA board will discuss the document at a meeting today. As usual with WMATA's process, since staff don't release anything until the very last minute before a board meeting, that means board members won't have the opportunity to hear any considered feedback from riders, to the extent they are interested in riders' views, as some are, while others are not.
Matt Johnson and I have also been working on some posts about the core capacity Metrorail proposals, and will try to better illuminate what kinds of tradeoffs Metro faces as it tries to deal with its bottlenecks and overcrowded segments.
Prince George's County Councilmember Mel Franklin is still trying to exempt most development projects within a half-mile of transit stations from public meetings and site plan review. Unfortunately, his second hurried attempt at the legislation does not fix the problems which sparked outcry from community and smart growth activists.
Franklin is placing his revised bill (PDF), CB-79, on the Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development (PZED) Committee agenda for October 17 and is seeking public comment on the bill.
Jim Titus and I discussed the original version of CB-79, and recommended a better way to promote urban-form transit-oriented development (TOD) and preserve public participation. We suggested relying upon the county's existing form-based development code, called Subtitle 27A.
Councilmember Franklin has been one of the more vocal proponents of smart growth and TOD since joining the Council in 2010. He pointedly shunned developer contributions to his campaign when he ran for his council seat, and he actively advocated for more government accountability and "putting the 'public' back in public meetings."
Therefore, many community activists and smart growth supporters were caught off guard by Franklin's rushed efforts to spearhead CB-79 and a companion bill, CB-80, which would exempt transit station area development from the traffic analysis that often requires widening roads around a development.
Franklin (District 9) has two co-sponsors for these bills, Derrick Leon Davis (District 6) and Council chair Andrea Harrison (District 5).
Timing of CB-79 raises transparency and good government concerns
Franklin presented CB-79 and CB-80 with little fanfare on September 25. He originally scheduled both bills for a quick hearing before the PZED Committee, which he chairs, on October 3. However, after receiving a barrage of public opposition, Franklin pulled the bills from the agenda on October 2 and promised to revise them.
In an email sent to concerned parties on October 6, Franklin circulated a proposed second draft of CB-79, and said that CB-80 "ha[d] been pulled for this year and is being substantially revised for consideration next year."
Franklin is placing CB-79 on the PZED agenda on October 17, presumably so it can clear the committee process in time to be introduced as expedited legislation on October 23. That's the last possible date in the 2012 legislative session to introduce zoning bills. Only two more regular legislative days remain in the 2012 session after then: November 6 (Election Day) and November 20.
Franklin's stated goal in introducing CB-79 is to streamline the development review process, thereby making it more attractive to the private sector and luring developers away from sprawl and toward transit. But many community and smart growth activists believe the legislation would encourage shoddy, suburban-style, non-pedestrian- and non-transit-oriented development.
Additionally, many community members have expressed concern that CB-79 is reminiscent of the same type of non-transparent, developer-friendly legislation that has fostered an ethically troublesome pay-to-play development culture in the county. A federal corruption investigation sent the previous county executive, Jack Johnson, his wife, former councilmember Leslie Johnson, and several other county officials and developers to prison in recent years.
In an open email to Franklin on October 2, former councilmember and chair Tom Dernoga excoriated the way the current PZED chair was proceeding with these bills. He wrote:
You "may" have a point about the [need to change the] status quo. However, the manner in which you are handling this is mind-bogging [sic], and raises serious questions in the mind of the public whether land use ethics have been cleaned up from the days of Jack Johnson and his predecessors. ...Substantively, Franklin's proposed second draft of the bill cures few, if any, of the problems with the initial version. Indeed, the new draft creates additional complications.
Who drafted these bills? What non-County government interests participated in the analysis, drafting and review? I hate to be pointed, but the substance of the bills, combined with the process to this point, make these questions obvious. Any valid policy bases are obscured by the manner in which they are being pursued.
CB-79's "opt-in" language provides little protection to wary communities
The proposed second draft of CB-79 introduces, but does not define, a new term: "expedited transit oriented development." The bill states that areas within a half-mile of Metro or MTA transit stations may be designated for such development in a comprehensive plan adopted and approved by the Council after January 1, 2013. Such plans could include a master plan, sector plan, sectional map amendment, zoning map amendment, or overlay zone.
The purpose of these changes, according to Franklin, is to emphasize that a transit station area can only be exempted from traditional site plan review by "opting in" during a future comprehensive planning process that requires notice and a public hearing.
Despite Franklin's emphasis, however, the Council would still be able to designate an area for "expedited transit oriented development" at the tail end of the comprehensive planning process managed by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC).
The Council could overrule the Commission and designate such areas, even the community and M-NCPPC specifically opposed such a designation. Historically, such last-minute controversial Council amendments have been commonplace, and they usually favor developer interests.
CB-79 adopts Subtitle 27A language but limits form-based zoning, accountability, and transparency
In our earlier post, we recommended using the County's existing Subtitle 27A process to achieve Franklin's stated goals for CB-79. The new draft of CB-79 now includes some elements of the Subtitle 27A process within its text. While this may seem like a good idea at first blush, it actually introduces new and unhelpful complications.
The new draft attempts to graft large portions of Subtitle 27A, the form-based Urban Centers and Corridor Nodes Development and Zoning Code, onto this new and undefined "expedited transit oriented development" process. Specifically, CB-79 would require all expedited TODs to adhere to the use restrictions and to the building envelope, urban space, recreation, architectural, and parking-and-loading standards of Subtitle 27A.
Unfortunately, CB-79 conspicuously leaves out Subtitle 27A's most important portions: the "regulating plan" and the administrative procedures for permits.
The regulating plan sets out the shapes of buildings, setbacks, street types, and more for each type of the station area. M-NCPPC, the public, and the Council create the regulating plan through a collaborative and comprehensive public planning process. Without a regulating plan, CB-79 would end up applying building envelope and urban space standards in a vacuum.
The administrative procedures provide for advance public notice and appeal rights, which are essential accountability tools that keep public officials and developers honest, while still permitting a streamlined permitting procedure. By doing away with this, CB-79 would upset the proper balance between speed and accountability. And it would do so in precisely the non-transparent way that candidate Mel Franklin argued against during his run for public office.
CB-79 would end up limiting the public's ability to participate in the review of essential and profitable development projects. That's a dangerous move for a county with such a torrid (and recent) history of developer and public official corruption.
Subtitle 27A provides more accountability and less chance for mischief than CB-79
Councilmember Franklin has stated that CB-79 will strongly incentivize private sector investment in the redevelopment of the county's long-neglected station areas by shortening and creating more certainly in the development process. But the reality is, the county already has legislation that accomplishes those worthy goals in a much better reasoned and sensible way. It's called Subtitle 27A.
Form-based zoning under Subtitle 27A was developed by the professional planning staff of the M-NCPPC, with the assistance of three reputable outside consulting firms over the course of multiple years, at significant expense to the county and M-NCPPC. It has been available to the County Council for more than 2 years. Yet this Council has taken no action to develop regulating plans for any of the county's 15 Metro station areas.
In 2011, M-NCPPC began a series of public meetings designed to educate the public about TOD plans for the Blue Line Corridor in the central portion of the county, along Central Avenue (MD-214). The eventual goal of that process is to facilitate implementing Subtitle 27A at the 4 Metro station areas along that corridor (Capitol Heights, Addison Road, Morgan Boulevard, and Largo Town Center).
Before concluding that additional legislation such as CB-79 is needed to properly spur development at Metro stations, shouldn't the county at least implement and then properly evaluate Subtitle 27A?
In a future post, I will explore other ideas that will help to incentivize urban TOD in Prince George's County. For now, though, please take council member Franklin up on his invitation to submit additional public comments on CB-79. You may do so by emailing the Clerk of Council at firstname.lastname@example.org, with a copy to Franklin at email@example.com. It's also a good idea to send your comments to your own council member, if you are a county resident.
On Monday we discussed how Rush Plus would affect the Yellow Line. If you commute on the Blue Line, you'll be in for some changes too.
The primary reason for Rush Plus is to allow more Orange Line trains to go through Rosslyn, which is currently maxed out. This will also make way for the Silver Line to Tysons, whose trains will also need to go through Rosslyn.
In essence, 3 Blue Line trains per hour in each direction will now travel across the Yellow Line bridge, and will now be labeled Yellow Line trains.
These trains will run all the way from Franconia-Springfield to Greenbelt. Riders from Alexandria and southern Arlington going to the eastern side of downtown DC or the mid-city will have shorter, transfer-free trips and more frequent service. But those traveling toward northern Arlington or the western half of downtown will see fewer trains.
Will my commute be longer?
Your commute might get a little longer if you commute between certain pairs of stations, but no one's commute should increase by more than 6 minutes.
If you commute between Franconia-Springfield or Van Dorn Street and any station that is both north of Pentagon and west of Metro Center, your commute might be longer under Rush Plus.
Why "might"? Only 30% of Blue Line trains will switch to the Yellow Line, so you'll only be affected if the next train leaving after you reach the station is one of those. The other 70% of trains will see no change.
Blue Line trains currently leave Franconia-Springfield every 6 minutes during rush hour (10 trains per hour). That won't change, but the destination of 3 of those trains will be Greenbelt rather than Largo. Here's the morning rush hour schedule for trains departing Franconia-Springfield. Trains shown in yellow will be Yellow Line trains to Greenbelt starting Monday, June 18.
Let's look at an example
Let's say you commute from Franconia-Springfield to McPherson Square.
If you normally catch the train that leaves Franconia at 8:04, your commute will be the same as it is today. Your commute will also be the same if you normally get the 8:16, although you might notice more crowding. That's because with the 8:10 becoming a Yellow Line train, some people will wait for this train who would have caught the 8:10.
But if you usually ride the 8:10, that train won't be a Blue Line train anymore, starting on Monday. You could either take this train, or wait for a Blue Line train. Which is better?
Currently, pre-Rush Plus, you have 2 options for getting from Franconia to McPherson Square by train. If you stay on the 8:10 train the whole way, you'll pass through Rosslyn and then arrive at McPherson Square at 8:44.
You could also get off the 8:10 Blue Line train at Pentagon, hop across the river on the Yellow Line, then change back to Orange or Blue at L'Enfant. That would get you to McPherson Square 9 minutes later, at 8:53.
Under Rush Plus you'll also have two options, but they will be different. If you just stay on the 8:10 train, you'll cross the Potomac via the Yellow Line bridge and arrive at L'Enfant Plaza, where you'll transfer to a Blue or Orange train. This option will get you to McPherson Square at 8:46, 2 minutes later than you do today.
You also have the option of getting off the 8:10 train at Pentagon and waiting 6 minutes for the next Blue Line train. That would get you to McPherson Square at
8:54 8:50, 6 minutes later than you do today.
That's to get to McPherson Square, but each destination station is a little different. If you commute from Franconia to Smithsonian, you'll be saving 6 minutes over your commute today. But getting to Rosslyn will take 6 minutes longer.
The bottom line: Take Yellow or wait for Blue?
If you're taking Metro from Franconia to Foggy Bottom, or any station in Virginia north of Pentagon, it will be faster to take the Blue Line, even if that means waiting 6 minutes for the next train. On the other hand, if you're commuting to Farragut West or any station farther east, and the next train is a Yellow, then taking the Yellow and transferring at L'Enfant will be faster.
From Franconia-Springfield or Van Dorn Street, if a Blue train is next, take that. If you're going somewhere east or north of L'Enfant Plaza, transfer to a Yellow Line train at Pentagon.
In terms of winners and losers, Metro Center appears to be the divide. If you're headed somewhere west of Metro Center and north of the Pentagon, if your train is one that is now Yellow, your commute will get longer. If you're going to somewhere east of Metro Center, and your train is one that becomes a Yellow, Rush Plus will be making your trip faster.
Get more information
If you're curious about the specifics of your commute, use Metro's Trip Planner. Entering June 18 as your travel date will show the Rush Plus schedules.
If Rush Plus impacts your schedule negatively, you might be able to adjust for it by sleeping 6 minutes later or getting up a touch earlier. Another option will be Metrobus routes 9E and 10E, which are being extended to Rosslyn to help Blue Line riders.
The key to making Rush Plus work for you is planning. So take some time before Monday's rush hour to look at the Trip Planner.
By 2040, Metrorail ridership is expected to top 1 million daily rides and the system's core will be severely crowded. To cope, Metro has been looking at long-term possibilities for expanding transit, whether on the Metro system itself or in other modes, like streetcars or BRT.
A "second generation" of the system might bring new lines to the region and extensions of lines beyond their current terminals. None of the plans are concrete right now, but the first step toward system expansion involves studying of multiple possible concepts and determining which make sense.
These projects are still very much in the planning phase. At this point, for Metro planners, it's mostly about modeling ridership and attempting to find ways to optimize operations and redundancy in the system.
If this second generation system is constructed, only some of the lines and extensions up for consideration today will become a reality. And, before the work is complete, they may look significantly different than they do at this early stage. However, while changes to the current proposals are to be expected, these suggestions are noteworthy, nonetheless, as one or more of these scenarios likely represents the future of Metro.
Separated Yellow Line: As we've discussed before, Metro is looking at ways to separate the Yellow and Green lines. Mainly, this will allow for capacity increases on the Green Line, since the Yellow will still have to share with the Blue Line.
One concept involves building a new line under 10th Street SW/NW parallel to the existing Green/Yellow subway. This line would likely end near Thomas Circle. An alternative would take the line further east, crossing the Blue/Orange subway at Capitol South and ending at Union Station.
Separated Blue Line:
This idea is not a new concept. Metro has been talking about it for several years. It would greatly expand core capacity, especially on the Orange Line. Additionally, it would open up new areas of the core, such as Georgetown and Logan Circle, to rail service.
With regard to a separated Blue Line, Metro has looked at 2 basic concepts. Both would involve a new separated Blue Line from Rosslyn to the Anacostia River.
One option would be a subway roughly following M Street. From Rosslyn, it would cross the Potomac River to Georgetown, and then proceed east, toward Thomas Circle, Mount Vernon Square, and Union Station. It would rejoin the current Blue/Orange rail line at River Terrace, where the existing Blue and Orange lines diverge.
An alternative vision also takes the Blue Line from Rosslyn to Georgetown, as described above. Then the line would turn south toward the State Department. It would run through Federal Triangle and Archives before curving north toward Union Station. It would then head east to rejoin the Blue/Orange lines at River Terrace.
Separated Silver Line: This option would shave a few minutes off of trips from Downtown to Tysons Corner and Dulles, but it would not add much capacity to the system. Instead of a new Blue Line subway along M Street, that line would be given over to Silver Line trains. Blue and Orange Line trains would continue to share tracks in DC.
The Silver Line would also get its own tracks in much of Arlington. After Rosslyn, the line would run "express" along I-66, with East Falls Church as its first stop after Rosslyn. It would share tracks with the Orange Line along I-66 before diverging to head out along the Dulles Toll Road toward Tysons.
"Brown" Line: The study is considering some completely new lines, as well. One, dubbed the "Brown Line," would start at Friendship Heights and run down Wisconsin Avenue to Georgetown. It would then turn southeast, passing the State Department, before heading east toward Federal Triangle and Archives. It would stop at Union Station and continue north toward the Washington Hospital Center, Petworth, and Silver Spring. North of Silver Spring, the line would follow US-29 to White Oak and the Cherry Hill Employment District.
Beltway Line: Another possibility is a heavy rail line circumnavigating the region. It would mostly follow the Beltway, but would deviate from that alignment to serve areas like Wheaton and National Harbor.
It would not replace the Purple Line light rail currently in the design phase. In the northern suburbs, the Beltway Line would be north of the Purple Line alignment, intersecting the existing rail lines at New Carrollton, Greenbelt, Wheaton, and Grosvenor.
National Harbor spur:
Metro is also considering building a spur off of the Green Line, connecting Congress Heights to the National Harbor development on the Potomac River. This line would primarily follow MLK Avenue. Since it would be sharing the Green Line, it would constrain headways on both branches south of Anacostia.
Extensions: The planning group is also looking at extensions to some of the existing lines. Elected officials in outer areas and people on our "fantasy map" discussions have often suggested them.
Without additional core capacity, though, these additions will only further burden the system. Although not all of these extensions will be built, Metro is looking at a variety of options for modeling purposes. They're considering how many new trips are generated, as well as how these extensions affect crowding in the core.
Potential extensions include:
- Red Line: Western extension from Shady Grove to Metropolitan Grove
- Green Line: Northern extension from Greenbelt to BWI Airport
- Orange Line: Eastern extension from New Carrollton to Bowie
- Blue Line: Eastern extension from Largo to Bowie
- Green Line: Southern extension from Branch Avenue to Waldorf
- Yellow Line: Southern extension from Huntington to Lorton, via US 1
- Blue Line: Southern extension from Franconia to Dale City
- Orange Line: Western extension from Vienna to Gainesville
- Silver Line: Western extension from Route 772 to Leesburg
None of these are about to be built or even necessarily things Metro believes are good ideas. The study is simply evaluating options with an open mind. They generated some projections around ridership, which we'll look at in more detail, and are also studying light rail and BRT options alongside or instead of Metrorail.
Before long, the Metro system will be bursting at the seams, besides those spots where trains are already stuffed to the gills. What can we do?
To figure out some solutions, Metro's planning department has been analyzing many different alternatives for fixing the capacity bottlenecks. They've been posting the presentations to their Technical Advisory Group on PlanItMetro, allowing us to get a look at some of the possibilities even before they're fully analyzed.
To start with, Metro definitely needs to upgrade power systems to accommodate more 8-car trains, and build enough railcars to make up those trains. Other key capacity fixes that have been talked about for years include pedestrian walkways between Farragut North and West, and between Metro Center and Gallery Place.
Even with all of this and the "Yellow and Orange Line Service Increase" plan, trains will have 22% more demand than capacity by 2040, particularly on the Orange Line between Court House and Rosslyn, Yellow between Pentagon and L'Enfant Plaza, and Green between Congress Heights and L'Enfant, especially the segments around Waterfront and Navy Yard.
In the past, we've discussed some of the possibilities. One long-discussed option is to separate the Blue Line into a new tunnel of its own through Georgetown, the Mount Vernon Triangle, and H Street.
Another would be to build a separate tunnel for the Yellow Line next to the current Yellow and Green tunnel between L'Enfant and Mt. Vernon Square. This would allow more Yellow and Green trains since ethey would no longer have to share tracks.
However, it would cost a lot of money yet not provide access to any new areas or deal with the growing transit demand as Southwest and Near Southeast become dense residential and job centers. Nor would it do anything about the heavy demand at Union Station, which will only increase as MARC and VRE add capacity.
Another option would be to route the new tunnel through SW and SE, along I Street SW/SE, then turning north past the Capitol to Union Station. Some trains over the bridge could take this route, while others could take the current route. Already, Metro plans to make some of the trains from Franconia-Springfield go over the bridge, so the Franconia trains could be the ones to take the 7th Street route while the Huntington trains went to Union Station, for example:
One drawback of this option is that this new tunnel will not carry the maximum frequency of trains. That's because there's a limit to the number of trains through the King Street-Pentagon route, some of which would go to Rosslyn, some to L'Enfant, and the rest in the new tunnel.
The study estimates 6-minute headways during peak and 12-minute off-peak. By comparison, the Red Line has 2.5-minute headways peak and 6-minute off-peak.
In general, this is a drawback of the way the system was originally designed where different lines (except Red) share tracks. Many links don't get the maximum possible number of trains. To fix that, Metro could separate more lines with new tunnels. Or, they could add more switches so that different routes could use the available capacity:
This option adds four track connections. Three, between Waterfront and the 14th Street bridge, between the bridge and Arlington Cemetery, and between the cemetery and Court House, would enable a new service between Branch Avenue and Dulles Airport.
A fourth lets trains on the Dulles line turn toward Vienna to maximize trains on both of the northern Fairfax branches. New stations connected to West Falls Church and Pentagon for the new lines would also accommodate transfers.
This option gives Virginia a lot more service and the whole system more flexibility to route around problems. On the other hand, it's likely to lead to more people transferring at more stations, and creates more crowding at Rosslyn since many trains will now bypass it. (Or can Rosslyn get another station like Pentagon does in this option?)
The clear question with all of these is whether Metrorail expansion is even right to consider, or whether money is better spent on light rail and bus service. Dan from BeyondDC always argues that for the cost of one heavy rail line, you can get streetcars and light rail all over the place.
Metro planners also took a look at many of these options, some of which are in the presentation already online while others will come up in future phases of this plan. Stay tuned for more great nuggets of information as the study progresses.
When discussing capacity constraints at Rosslyn, some suggest truncating the Blue Line at to make room for more Orange Line trains at Rosslyn. However, that is not the right approach.
For many commuters, the Blue Line is the quickest and most direct route to get to work. From Alexandria and points south and from southeastern Arlington, trains take riders directly to the job centers around Farragut Square and Metro Center.
As I pointed out, the Yellow Line bridge does not offer a quicker trip for those bound for the western side of downtown. Eliminating the entire Blue Line route through Rosslyn would severely inconvenience riders, and could affect ridership.
And at any rate, the Blue Line has ridership which, at present, is commensurate with the service levels at Rosslyn. Approximately 38% of trains at Rosslyn are Blue, and are carrying approximately 35% of the riders continuing through Rosslyn.
So the demand is certainly there for Blue trains via Rosslyn. At some point, as I discussed previously, it may become necessary to redirect some Blue trains via the Yellow Line bridge to make way for the Silver Line. Metro will probably make that decision based on the ridership patterns once the Silver Line opens and starts to build a rider base.
But it is still necessary to keep some Blue Line trains serving Rosslyn, mainly to meet the demand of riders headed to the western portion of Downtown and out the Orange or Silver Line corridors.
And if the service continues to Rosslyn, it must continue on to downtown DC. There are two primary reasons.
First and foremost, Rosslyn is incapable of serving as a terminal. It has two platforms and two tracks. There is no crossover at the station. In fact, any train that went out of service at Rosslyn would have to continue to Foggy Bottom and then enter the crossover just east of that station before turning around. And of course, as was pointed out with regard to the Yellow Line, headways are such that a pocket would be necessary anyway.
The other reason that any train serving Rosslyn must continue toward downtown DC is that it is already taking up one of the "slots" on the Orange/Blue subway. The switch at Rosslyn is capable of handling 26 trains per hour in each direction. If, say, 4 of those slots were given to Blue Line trains going out of service at Rosslyn, that would mean 4 fewer trains making it Downtown, period.
So barring a complete redesign of the station at Rosslyn, anything that makes it that far has to continue on to downtown DC. The first feasible place to turn back a train on the Blue/Orange subway is the pocket just east of Stadium-Armory.
With that in mind, some of you may be wondering whether the Blue Line even needs to go to Rosslyn. It does. Aside from the fact that the ridership shows that there is demand, there is more to Blue Line service through Rosslyn.
It is currently possible to travel from any one of Metro's 86 stations to any of the other 85 by taking no more than 2 trains. That's because every single line intersects every other line. In some cases, this happens twice. That adds redundancy to the system and makes Metro more convenient.
Cutting the Blue Line back to Arlington Cemetery would hurt not only Blue Line riders, but those in the core, too. This is because riders coming from Alexandria and south headed for Rosslyn, Ballston, or Tysons and vice versa are able to make that trip without entering the core. While giving all 26 slots at Rosslyn to the Orange and Silver Lines might seem to reduce crowding, the fact is that riders who currently change from the Orange at Rosslyn to the Blue would have to stay on trains all the way to L'Enfant - exacerbating problems in what is already the most crowded part of the system.
Crowding on the Metro is not going to ease any time soon. There are some steps that can be taken to reduce the current impact and stave off the time when the system runs out of capacity. These strategies include increasing the number of 8-car trains and better balancing of the multiplexed lines. But the only long-term solution will be to build a separated Blue Line, including exclusive platforms at Rosslyn.
Since many transit projects have either broken ground or are in the engineering phase in the region, it is important to create long-term visions that will continue to make Greater Washington Greater.
Some projects are new, while others repeat from last year's list because they were good ideas then and are good ideas now.
Build a southern entrance to Columbia Heights: A couple of weeks ago, I walked from my office near McPherson Square up to Columbia Heights. It was a very pretty walk up 14th St. NW. After passing U Street, I couldn't help but notice the gap in vibrance and new economic investment between Florida Avenue and the area surrounding the entrance to the Columbia Heights Metro.
Columbia Heights is a reverse cut-and-cover station. It is not too far below the surface, unlike a tunnel bore station like Wheaton. The single entrance to the Metro station is just north of the platform. There would be an improvement in ridership and economic development from having a second entrance to the south of the platform.
Many more residents who live between U St. and Columbia Heights would have convenient, fast transit access. More people would travel to the station in order take advantage of the amenities that would open near the new entrance. It would also be much cheaper to build a new entrance to a cut-and-cover station as opposed to a deep station like Woodley Park.
VA-7 light rail: Echoing Steve Offutt's vision for rail on VA-7, I envision this project as light rail. VA-7 is a main road in Northern Virginia that connects Alexandria to Tysons Corner and points west. It is also a spine that connects multiple ugly, gas guzzling edge cities that have lots of strip malls and acres of surface parking. Many of these strip malls are aging and would be prime Smart Growth redevelopment opportunities in the same vein as Rosslyn-Ballston.
I envision light rail rather than heavy rail because circumferential lines have traditionally had lower ridership than radial lines, although they tend to be less peak-focused. I also see this project as Virginia building their side of the Purple Line.
VA-7 has a lot of similarities to the current plans for the Purple Line. It connects traditional walkable urbanism, modern TOD, and post-war edge cities, both inside and outside the Favored Quarter. Most importantly, it offers connections to Maryland at the Wilson Bridge and at a to-be-named place east of Tysons. Like the existing plans for the Purple Line, challenges would include balancing speed and frequency of stations.
Complete the Purple Line: Between the VA-7 light rail vision, and the current Purple Line project, there is only one hole remaining in a completed Purple Line between New Carrollton and Alexandria. (There is also a hole between Tysons and Bethesda, but it is much smaller and has its unique challenges.) This past fall, Prince George's officials expressed interest in extending the Purple Line from New Carrolton to Largo through Suitland, (although there are proposals rerouting it to the Westphalia development) Oxon Hill, and National Harbor. This would be a long-term vision to be undertaken after the current plans for the Purple Line see groundbreaking.
National moratorium on highway building: My position has not changed. If anything, it has been calcified as we have experienced the highway lobby's misguided attempts to shove more highway projects down our collective throat. I can't remember who said that trying to solve automobile congestion by paving over more land is akin to trying to cure obesity by loosening one's belt. It's still true.
In Virginia, the laughable terms of the deal with Fluor-Transurban on the I-395 widening are a threat to suck money out of the Virginia budget for decades. Maryland is already experiencing sticker shock on the ICC.
I doubt that it was coincidence that the SHA and highway lobby attempted to get the I-270 widening passed in Montgomery County before toll pricing was discussed for the ICC. They wanted to take advantage of public perception of roads as "free." That project would have locked up money for new transportation projects in the state for decades. Projects like the ICC and the I-395 HOT lanes are emphasizing in the public consciousness that highways are huge, expensive projects with many negative externalities.
Close the Center Leg (I-395) between New York Ave and Massachusetts Ave: I reiterate what I said last year: "This segment induces through traffic on New York Avenue between the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and the Center Leg. The existing open cut could potentially be decked over and used as a right of way for a future heavy rail Blue Line at much lower cost than tunneling the same distance."
Separated Blue Line: A separated Blue Line through a new tunnel at Rosslyn, through Georgetown, the West End, the Golden Triangle BID, the Convention Center, Union Station, and along H Street NE will add enormous new commuter capacity and serve important areas that the Metro currently doesn't reach. The separated Blue Line will both solve the problems associated with the zipper at Rosslyn and offer redundant east-west service in the urban core of the region.
Just as I wrote back in June in the wake of the Red Line crash, everyone would be better served by having redundant transfer stations. This project is of high importance to the whole region, not just the District of Columbia. Perhaps the WMATA member jurisdictions could reach some sort of construction funding compromise similar the existing formula that is employed for operations.
Commuters will be greatly positively affected in Virginia on both the Blue and Orange Lines. Commuters from Prince George's County wouldn't have to put up with service delays that reverberate from delays associated with the Rosslyn zipper. Service on both the Blue and Orange Line could be increased since they wouldn't have to share tracks in the District, affecting all three jurisdictions.
Rockville Pike streetcar/White Flint: A coalition of landowners surrounding the White Flint Metro have gotten together in favor of a vision to recreate Rockville Pike between White Flint Mall and Montrose Road into a human-scale walkable urban place similar to Bethesda. The landowners recognize the vision as both the right thing to do economically and environmentally as well as an honest business opportunity. It is rare that such a stark opportunity for Smart Growth presents itself. My detailed testimony on behalf of ACT to the Montgomery County Council can be found here.
A major part of transforming the area into a traditional human-scale town is evolving Rockville Pike from its current state as a dangerous too-wide suburban arterial into an urban boulevard similar to Connecticut Avenue between the White House and Dupont Circle. The new White Flint town would be well-served by some kind of super-local transit. A streetcar in the median of Rockville pike will serve as a traffic calming mechanism, a safe haven for pedestrians crossing the road, and contribute to an inviting urban feel.
This would all be accomplished without taking away any automobile lanes. Existing lanes would be narrowed from over 12 feet to 10 or 11 feet. Drivers would drive more cautiously while pedestrians would have less asphalt to cross. The landowners believe in the boulevardization of the Pike so much that they are willing to cede a few feet of their properties in order to make it work.
National high-speed rail: We saw a lot of really cool maps and schematics about national high-speed rail corridors, similar to the existing Acela. While we haven't seen much since, some preliminary funding for studying the project was put in the stimulus package.
The reasons for building High Speed Rail remain as compelling as last year: "Train stations are usually located in the heart of downtown, while airports tend to be located 50 miles away. [Their remote location induces car-dependent sprawl along their access highways.] Delivering people to a city's center will boost demand for amenities downtown. It will also increase demand for regional and local mass transit, since visitors will arrive in the city without cars. As we have seen with our own Union Station, vibrant intercity train stations are powerful ways to create a sense of place."
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools