Posts about K Street Transitway

Transit

What's the status of our major transit projects?

by Dan Malouff   •   June 29, 2011 10:17 am

With yesterday's news that the Baltimore Red Line is being advanced to Preliminary Engineering, it seems a good time to check up on the various rail and BRT projects in the region and report on their status.

Proposed Baltimore Red Line subway station. Image from MTA.

Here are the 15 major rail and BRT projects in our region.

Roads

Two plans devise opposite approaches for Rockville Pike

by David Alpert   •   March 16, 2011 1:47 pm

Two separate plans in Montgomery County hope to transform parts of Rockville Pike from disjointed chains of strip malls into walkable districts. Each would reconfigure the road to more urban boulevard layouts, but each does so differently, carrying some leading to a danger of creating two, slightly incompatible configurations adjacent to one another.

Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.

At White Flint, in unincorporated Montgomery County, a multi-year planning process led to development plans and zoning that encourage converting the many large commercial properties into a mixed-use neighborhood that contains parks, day care centers, affordable housing, retail and much more.

One centerpiece of this plan is a configuration for Rockville Pike which places a transitway down the center while maintaining the current number of travel lanes. Buses, and possibly one day light rail, can more efficiently travel up and down the Pike, allowing more people to live in the area without increasing traffic.

White Flint roadway design.

To the north, the city limits of Rockville begin just south of Rollins Avenue and encompass the portion of the Pike around the Twinbrook station. There, the city has conducted another multi-year planning process, also aiming to create a walkable district with street-facing buildings, a more complete street grid, parks and more. In fact, I attended a meeting for this plan over three years ago for one of the earliest articles on Greater Greater Washington.

Rockville came to a different conclusion for the Pike. They want to build a "multi-way boulevard" with through lanes in the center and side roads designed for turning traffic, parking, buses, and bicycles.

Rockville "multi-way boulevard."

Both designs constitute an improvement over the current Rockville Pike, but they solve the problems in different ways. Each has advantages, disadvantages, and simple differences.

Width. The Rockville plan would widen the overall roadway, placing some of the outer lanes on land currently occupied by parking lots. This means that it can't be constructed all at once, but would happen piecemeal as properties redevelop. The White Flint model fits within the existing roadway.

Pedestrians. The White Flint option provides a median so pedestrians, especially ones who move slowly, don't have to cross any large sections at once. On the other hand, the Rockville option keeps the fast-moving through traffic farther from the sidewalks, potentially creating less of a feeling of walking right on a highway.

Bicycles. The Rockville design plans for bicycles to use the curbside lane, which separates them from the main traffic. However, they would still have to mix with turning vehicles, buses, and delivery vans. The White Flint plan, on the other hand, includes a bike lane at sidewalk level between the pedestrian part of the sidewalk and the road.

Transit. Buses will be able to move faster under White Flint's arrangement, and it would be easy to create light rail in the future. The center transitway can also use grass for most of the roadbed except for narrow strips for the buses' wheels, providing opportunities for stormwater retention. On the other hand, Rockville's arrangement puts bus stops closer to the stores that will open onto the street.

Drivers. Drivers might find moving in and out of service lanes confusing or frustrating, as they do on K Street. However, the Rockville plan provides more overall through lanes.

Ironically, DC currently hopes to transform K Street from a model that looks like the Rockville design, though a little narrower (one through lane on each side road plus one parking lane instead of two through lanes, and without a turn lane in the center), into one very much like the White Flint design, though one lane narrower on each side.

Is it necessary to harmonize the two? They could operate next to one another, though there would be some conflict. Buses would have to switch between center lanes and outer lanes. It could be confusing for drivers. And it doesn't lay the groundwork for a rail line along the entire stretch, as ACT has proposed.

Rockville and Montgomery County need to determine whether it's better to let each district go its own way, making their own choices, or whether it's more important to have one, unified street design for the entire corridor, even if that means some areas or some leaders don't get their top choice.

The Rockville Planning Commission is discussing the plan at a meeting tonight, 7 pm at Rockville City Hall.

Transit

New Jersey says no to FTA money. What would you build?

by Matt Johnson   •   October 6, 2010 1:23 pm

It was reported yesterday that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, is expected to kill the ARC Tunnel project. The tunnel would double rail capacity under the Hudson River, and would allow more trains to enter Manhattan each day.

Photo by Rrrodrigo on Flickr.

Christie, it seems, plans to take the state's share of the project and devote it to building roads. This means that New Jersey will lose some $3 billion in federal funding for the project while furthering its sprawl. That money will end up going to other transit projects in other cities.

If the governor does indeed cancel the project, it will be a big loss for the region, and for the Northeast as a whole.

Currently, the only railroad access from New Jersey into Manhattan is through the North River Tunnels, each with one track, which were built in 1910 by the Pennsylvania Railroad. This bottleneck means that all Amtrak and NJ Transit trains operating along the Northeast Corridor into Penn Station fight for space in the tunnels, which are operating at about 100% capacity.

While the ARC Project isn't perfect, it's still an essential project. New Hudson River tunnels will need to be built eventually, and it's unfortunate that the taxpayers of New Jersey are losing out on this opportunity for a federal partnership.

But without the local match, those federal dollars will go elsewhere. While there's no indication that a project in this region would be likely to receive this funding, it is an interesting thought exercise to wonder what we could do with $3 billion.

Considering that we'd need a local match of at least $3 billion, that would mean $6 billion in funding for transit projects in our region. I asked the contributors what they'd spend that on. Here are some of the ideas they suggested (ordered by overall cost):

Metro capital upgrades: WMATA estimates $11 billion in unfunded capital needs over the next decade. Spending this money toward keeping Metro in a state of good repair would be an excellent use of these funds, even if maintenance isn't as "sexy" as a shiny new rail extension.

Separated Blue Line: With congestion on the rise in the Blue/Orange subway, it's only a matter of time before we'll need a separated Blue Line in Downtown DC. Some estimates show this project costing upwards of $6 billion.

Image by David Alpert.

DC Streetcars: At about $25 million per mile, $6 billion could build about 240 miles of streetcar. That would certainly finish off DC's planned 37-mile system and those planned in Northern Virginia, with plenty of room for expansion.

Image from NCPC.

Washington freight bypass: NCPC studied ideas to reroute freight rail traffic around the Washington region. These concepts are estimated to cost between $3.2 and $5.3 billion, depending on the alternative. A freight bypass would speed commuter and inter-city trains (and add capacity). It would also move hazardous rail cargoes outside of the central business district.

MARC investment and expansion: In September 2007, Governor O'Malley put forth a plan to quadruple MARC capacity by 2035. Doing so would cost about $3.8 billion, with the majority ($2.9 billion) going toward the Penn Line. It would include through-running of MARC trains into Northern Virginia by 2020. But the recession has meant the plan is unfunded.

Baltimore-Washington Maglev: In 2002, this project was estimated to cost $3.2 billion. It would provide a very high-speed link between Washington, BWI Airport, and Baltimore.

100% 8-car operation: It would cost about $600 million to buy enough railcars to allow the system to operate all 8-car trains during peak periods. This is essential to increasing capacity on the system.

Metro station pedestrian connections: With congestion at the downtown transfer stations growing, many have called for connections between the Farraguts (around $72M) and between Metro Center and Gallery Place (around $100M). Both of those could be constructed for well under $6 billion.

Image from DDOT.

K Street Transitway: In February, DC was turned down for a TIGER grant to fund this project. The $140 million busway would've increased travel speeds and added improved stops for many of the buses serving Downtown DC. Whenever it's constructed, it will also be home to the K Street streetcar line.

Water taxi docking stations: With water taxis starting to troll the Potomac between Alexandria, National Harbor, and the Waterfront, one wonders if money couldn't be spent to build stations along the Potomac to encourage small-scale ferry service between Virginia and Washington.

If we could get New Jersey's transit money, what would you suggest we spend it on?

Update, October 7: Governor Christie has officially killed the ARC Tunnel.

Transit

Video animates streetcar on K Street

by David Alpert   •   May 27, 2010 10:19 am

Even with the H Street streetcar project on track, it'll be several years before the streetcar can extend westward to K Street.

The K Street Transitway plan would reconstruct K Street to have dedicated transit lanes in the center. The original design didn't include a streetcar, but anticipated adding one to the transit lanes in the future. The Downtown BID and DDOT hired ZGF Architects to plan that streetcar, and to create this video showing the streetcar on K.

Transit

TIGER funds bus corridors, not K Street or bike sharing

by David Alpert   •   February 17, 2010 11:59 am

The Washington region will receive $58.8 million for bus priority improvements across the region, but no money for the K Street Transitway or regional bicycle sharing in the TIGER grants. USDOT announced the winners today.

Image from USDOT.

Through regional planning organization MWCOG, local governments had applied for $204 million in bus improvements, $13 million for regional bike sharing, and $47 million for "transit station" improvements including a Takoma-Langley Transit Center and the Medical Center underpass.

About $140 million of the bus improvements would have built a dedicated busway along K Street for regional and local buses, many of which use that street, while the rest would have improved a patchwork of corridors in all jursdictions.

The final award provides $26.6 million for the bus corridor improvements, which will improve service on 16th Street, Georgia Avenue, H Street/Benning Road, and Wisconsin Avenue in DC; Addison Road, University Blvd, US-1 and Veirs Mill Road in Maryland; US-1, Leesburg Pike, and the Van Dorn to Pentagon route in Virginia. It also funds and connections from the TR Bridge and 14th Street to K Street in DC for Virginia buses.

Update: Here's more on the funded bus projects, which mean some long-awaited and exciting improvements will be going forward.

In addition to the bus improvements, the Takoma-Langley Transit Center gets $12.3 million, and Virginia gets $20 million for "station improvements (bus bays, real time bus information and other improvements" supporting bus priority on the I-95/395 corridor," which contribute to a longer-term plan to set up dedicated bus lanes.

Roads

K Street Option 2 is the "preferred alternative"

by David Alpert   •   December 17, 2009 10:19 am

It looks like the K Street Transitway will resemble Option 2, the two-lane transitway with two three-lane side roadways, if DC gets the federal funding it needs to build the project.

FHWA published in the Federal Register that they've issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the "preferred alternative," option 2. I asked DDOT if that means they've chosen option 2, but they replied that they don't want to announce anything prior to the official publication on Friday.

Segment of Option 2 from 17th to 19th Streets, NW.

I leaned toward Option 2 as well, because it provides greater flexibility for off-peak loading zones, more sidewalk space, and does move traffic faster. However, Option 2 provides no bicycle lanes or other bike infrastructure.

If Option 2 is indeed the reality, it's all the more important to push for some protected bicycle lanes on I and L, or M, or some other parallel street similar to the new one on 15th and planned for M Street SE/SW.

Parking

Last call for comments on Arlington parking, K Street

by Michael Perkins   •   October 30, 2009 10:33 am

The comment periods are about to close for two important projects: Arlington's parking and curbspace management policy and the K Street Transitway.

Photo by premasagar.

If you haven't already, please take a moment and email rviola@arlingtonva.us to provide comments or a note of support. We support the County's proposal, and offer some suggestions for improving the document:

• In order to encourage wary businesses and residents to try out the new variable pricing policy, Arlington should devote a portion of the revenue to local transportation and streetscape improvements.

• Arlington should encourage public acceptance of the variable pricing proposal by conducting a countywide parking occupancy survey of high-density and commercial districts and publishing the results online, along with a staff evaluation and recommendations.
• In general, Arlington should increase or eliminate meter time limits, which are often arbitrary or counterproductive. Once prices are managing occupancy, longer-term parkers will naturally use less convenient or garage spaces, leaving the more convenient spaces for short-term parking.

Any other thoughts or suggestions? Email them to County Staff at rviola@arlingtonva.us. If your comments are received by November 2, they can be considered for the staff proposal before the County Board.

Meanwhile, in DC, today is the last day to comment on the K Street options. Whether you prefer Option 2 (2-lane transitway, 3-lane side roads, no bike lane) or option 3 (transitway with passing lane, 2-lane side roads, bike lane), or have your own plan, DDOT would appreciate hearing your thoughts. Submit your comments here.

Public Spaces

Which K Street do you prefer?

by David Alpert   •   October 22, 2009 10:27 am

DDOT is collecting comments on the proposed K Street Transitway until October 30th. The Environmental Assessment weighs three alternatives: 1) no change, 2) a two-lane center busway and 3 traffic lanes in each direction, and 3) a three-lane center busway with 2 traffic lanes and a bike lane in each direction. So far, business organizations are pushing option 2, while WABA supports a modified version of option 3.

Option 2 (2-lane busway) from 19th Street to Farragut Square. View complete plans (PDF).

Option 2 would run Circulator and local DC buses in a center busway. The bus shelters would be part of planted medians on each side. The outer roads would have three travel lanes, narrowing to two adjacent to the National Park Service properties, where K Street is narrower.

Commuter buses, which stop for longer periods of time than local buses, would use those outer roadways, stopping adjacent to the sidewalk. Delivery services like UPS and FedEx would probably stop here as well. Evenings and nights, the curb lane could be used for parking or valet operations.

Option 3 (3-lane busway) from 19th Street to Farragut Square. View complete plans (PDF).

Option 3 uses a three-lane busway, using the center lane as a passing lane around bus stops. In this option, the commuter buses would use the busway, as the various buses could pass each other. Widening the busway by one lane means taking away half a lane from each side road. The half lane becomes a bicycle lane. To allow for deliveries, Option 3 includes small lay-bys cut out of the sidewalk, narrowing it in a few places.

Government

K Street Transitway options balance buses, bikes, cars, and loading

by David Alpert   •   July 30, 2009 10:02 am

The two build options for the K Street Transitway trade off space for cars, buses and bicycles.

One option would create a two-lane busway in the center of K Street, leaving three general-purpose lanes on each side. The other option, on the other hand, makes the transitway three lanes, where the third lane lets eastbound buses pass each other in some spots and westbound buses pass each other in other spots. That option also contains a bicycle lane along the length of K Street.

While at first glance the plans seem to provide a clear choice between more accommodation for cars versus more for buses and bikes, the difference isn't that simple. Making a true "complete street" that works for all modes is not easy.

K is a major regional street, serving as a major east-west corridor and connecting to the Whitehurst Freeway and Key Bridge on the west. Huge numbers of buses use the street, from the Circulator to local Metrobuses to commuter buses from Loudoun County and Maryland MTA.

Currently, the road has four main center lanes used by through traffic and many buses. Medians separate the center lanes from side access roads mainly used for parking, loading, and some turns. The access roads disappear around Farragut, McPherson, and Franklin Squares, which extend partway into the K Street right-of-way. Unlike European boulevards, the side roads spend most of their time unused or blocked by non-moving vehicles. It doesn't create a welcoming retail environment and doesn't maximize the potential of this important corridor.

The 1600 block of K Street under the two-lane transitway option.

The transitway project proposes to move the medians inward, creating a narrower center space for buses only (possibly including taxis at night) and making the now-wider outer sections the general travel lanes for cars. One option makes the transitway two lanes, one in each direction, with a three-lane road on each side for other purposes. In this option, trucks and taxis would be able to stop in the rightmost lane to load and unload, and it may allow off-peak parking. Bicycles would also use the rightmost lane or share other travel lanes. When parks pinch the right-of-way, the general travel lanes would narrow to two in each direction.

The 1600 block of K Street under the transitway with passing lane option.

The second option removes one general-purpose lane in each direction, leaving only two. Instead, the transitway widens to three lanes outside of the areas adjacent to the parks. At many bus stops, the third lane allows buses to pass each other. Sometimes the eastbound bus lane widens to two while westbound remains one, and sometimes vice versa. In addition, a bicycle lane runs the entire length of the street adjacent to the sidewalk. Since there are only two general-purpose lanes, trucks and taxis would not be allowed to stop there. To allow some loading, this plan would cut loading zones into the adjacent sidewalk in a few places.

A major difference between the two options is commuter buses. Commuter buses stop less often but for longer periods of time. In the two-lane transitway option, therefore, they would not use the transitway but would rather stop in the curb lane of the general-purpose lanes. The transitway with passing lanes would accommodate commuter buses as well, where Circulators and Metrobuses could stop behind the commuter buses but then go around to continue on their way.

Therefore, while the initial reaction is to assume the transitway with passing lanes is better for buses, bus speeds would be very similar between the two options. The two-lane transitway would allow buses to run all the way from 9th to 21st, with stops, in about 12 minutes on average, while the passing lane option shaves that to about 11 minutes, mostly by reducing dwell times. Meanwhile, the current configuration requires as much as 17 minutes for buses to traverse the same distance.

At WABA's urging, many cyclists attended the meeting to evaluate the impact of the alternatives on cyclists. Reactions were mixed. On the one hand, a bike lane all along K Street gives cyclists a facility that's not present today and isn't present in the two-lane transitway option. However, would trucks and taxis simply park in the bike lane on a regular basis, forcing cyclists to leave and making it more harrowing? Some agreed with my suggestion yesterday to focus instead on high-quality separated, buffered bicycle lanes ("cycle tracks") on parallel one-way streets, while others felt that it was important to make K Street truly multimodal. They also pointed out that even with parallel bicycle facilities, some cyclists will be traveling to and from destinations on K Street.

There may be ways to better separate the bike lane. One person suggested raising it up to sidewalk level, placing the gutter and curb between the roadway and the bicycle lane and essentially making the bicycle lane a specially painted extension of the sidewalk. Many European towns do this with their bicycle lanes. The bicycle lane could also occupy a middle height, or have a mountable curb separating it from the roadway. However, other cyclists worried that such treatment would make it difficult for cyclists to pass slower cyclists, dog walkers, or others that might intrude on the lane, as they couldn't easily jump over to the car lane if necessary.

This project is part of the region's application for the competitive TIGER stimulus grants. Without that money, it's unlikely DC or the region can find funds to build it. Since the deadline for the grant applications is September 15th, project officials are moving extremely fast with the Environmental Assessment, planning to submit it to FHWA in mid-August. They won't be picking one of the two options for the application; final design decisions would happen if and when USDOT funds the project, and the design may blend elements of both.