Let’s Do This
- Posted by ryan on August 20th, 2008 filed in Cities
What will it take to get the District to move on a real streetcar network? I swear I don’t understand why there’s no push on this. I was just reading this Washington Business Journal story on the AFRH development and thinking about the jobs concentration that’s going to be there. And Washington Hospital Center already contributes to heavy bus use through that area. Then you think about all the planned development up North Capitol and the lack of a good east-west connection through Mid-city, and meanwhile Harriet Tregoning is talking about the need to build well and reduce parking. Connect the dots, guys.
The city should be taking concrete steps toward a line from Union Station north to the Takoma Metro station, and a line stretching from Brookland west to Cleveland Park. And plenty of other lines, for that matter. In fact, it should be tying the increase in value that would accrue to these newly developing properties to funding for the lines. We don’t need FTA money for this.
I realize we’re in the middle of a downturn/tight-budget period, but there’s nothing wrong with moving these things ahead now. By the time they come to fruition, we’ll be glad to have them.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I hear you, but we still have the overhead wire problem. (although maybe not in the areas you’re talking about. I’m not quite sure what the exact boundaries of that restriction are.)
I think we’re really going to have to think of a dedicated financing means. Otherwise we’re fighting over general account funds. What about setting up special tax districts along the proposed lines?
August 20th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
The biggest thing is if the planning and studies, and contract awarding SHOULD happen in a downturn. By the time we get through those, hopefully good times will have returned (hopefully it doesn’t take twelve years when we are in the NEXT downturn) Then it won’t seem like we are starting some huge infrastructure project when there is no money.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
What Kiran said. Any well run company knows the time to invest is during a downturn. And from right now, contractors are desperate for work. Bidding is increasingly coming in well under what engineers are estimating projects at.
I was think about the AFRH development and realized that it’s probably just going to be another faceless mass of law firms and associations, but I was thinking about in contrast with the massive Mission Bay development in San Francisco. They are build on what was a large rail yard and warehouse area. And purposely designated part of it for a new main UCSF campus (UCSF is the Cal campus that is entirely a med school) as the main draw to create a biotech research enclave. Genentech just announced they are relocating there. It’s a mixed use project so there is housing and a library and things like that as well. And I thought, the AFRH would be a perfect place to build up a biotech research area with multiple, well thought of hospitals in close proximity. It just is unfathomable that it won’t be zoned as something to take advantage of that specific location.
Also, wrt your point, the Mission Bay development includes a new light rail line to the Southeast part of the city. The first new rail line in many, many years. It’s expected to transform that entirely section of the city. (Another massive development is slated for the old shipyard down there.)
But that’s the way they do things. New development like that would have never flown without a plan for transit. And a plan for transit first.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:32 am
It’s always capital cost. If you had the money right now you could go, but everyone is always lame in saying “we’re short on money” this would be better spent on x.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:52 am
There is a confusion of finance and funding here … an economic downturn is exactly the right time to be doing a big infrastructure project … its when there is spare capacity all around, and when the extra work does the most good.
But given our system of public finance, “we don’t have the money” in the context of an economic downturn means that its the Federal Government that needs to step up to the plate and provide the finance, because they are the level of government that has both the ability to finance in the face of an economic downturn and the responsibility to pursue a reduction in unemployment.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am
Ryan,
DC Sierra Club IS pushing hard for streetcars: it’s our top campaign right now and we are beginning to make serious progress in organizing a coalition to really push the DC government to get off the dime and realize that streetcar service beginning in 2030 (with buses painted a different color in the meantime) does not cut it. Look for a Council hearing this fall followed by a push for streetcar funding in next year’s budget. Coming soon: http://www.streetcars4dc.org
August 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am
I guess I should have worded it better. BruceMcF is right. The work SHOULD be done during downturns to soak up the spare capacity of construction firms.
I was talking about how it looks. When times are tough its far easier for the ‘no spending’ crowd to say that there is no money for the ‘boondoggle’ of transit.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:36 am
I still dont get the overhead wire controversy. DC streetcars never had wires, did they? I thought they all ran off a buried power grid retrofitted from when they ran a cablecar network across town.
And are they still going ahead with the Anacostia test line? Because that stretch of line is not that dense, compared to Gorgia Avenue or H Street NE or damn near anywhere else downtown.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:49 am
Monkey, it’s one of cost.
The old streetcars essentially ran off a third rail buried in a continuous vault under the street. They only did this within the L’Enfant City and in Georgetown, because it’s extremely expensive to build (since the vaults have to be, you know, continuous).
In short, it’s not as reliable as overhead wires and it’s a lot more expensive to build and maintain. Furthermore, nobody does that anymore, so you’d essentially be breaking new ground.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
The problem is that Federal law still prohibits overhead wires downtown. And there’s no non-overhead wire viable right now. So we’re sorta stuck for the time being (except for the non-central DC lines, like Anacostia and [I believe] H St. NE).
It’ll take Congressional action to remove the law, and the NCPC is firmly against overhead wires (like embyonic stem cell opponents, they believe a magic bullet technology is right around the corner which will obviate the need for the objectionable current technology). Guess who Congress listens to more: DDOT or NCPC?
So for the foreseeable future, we’ve got a major stumbling block. I guess as a strategic move, we could go ahead with the planning and purchasing of streetcars, and basically force Congress to let us use overhead wires.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
looks like O. Roy Chalk was right! bring back the streetcars! re-open the dupont circle station! (oh wait, am i THAT old? damnnnnnnn……)
August 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Run them on the third rail technology that is only live when the streetcar is on top of it.
Untested technology, but it would be great if someone would try it out and see if it could be made to work. Sounds like just the job for DC.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:27 am
It’s not an untested technology, it’s (mostly) working right now in some cities in France. Unfortunately they have expressed no interest in exporting the technology here because they don’t think it’ll work in snowy locations (because the salt could cause a short circuit).
Now, the response to that is two fold: it doesn’t really snow here very much and we don’t use salt down here very much anyway (it’s mostly sand, and seriously, can’t we just not salt on the streetcar tracks?)
But in the end, the fact remains that the companies that do offer third rail technology aren’t interested in bringing it here. That doesn’t stop the NCPC from using it as an example to argue against overhead wires.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Furthermore, nobody does that anymore, so you’d essentially be breaking new ground.
“Breaking new ground?” Good one!
If they’re passing on the third rail because of cost issues, seems like they’re making the same pound-foolish choice WMATA made when they opted out of a third “express” tunnel. Not a big problem when subway is low in the 1970s; BIG problem when it’s at capacity in 2008.
If the choice is to do it fast or do it right, they seem to be opting for “neither.”
August 25th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
First, the idea of express tracks is a canard. I don’t believe there have been many (if any) subways built in the world since WWII that feature multi-tracked mainlines. Certainly none in the US or North America. Building a third track into the system back in the 70s would have broken the bank - the result would have been no system at all.
Also, the buried third rail is not just a problem because of cost, it was also an operations problem (there have also been some issues in France with the new embedded third rail).
Construction, with the vaults, then requires massive relocation of utilities. That not only adds money, but also time. Furthermore, there’s the danger of buying into a system with proprietary technology.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“Aren’t interested” in the sense of turning down contracts to perform work, or “aren’t interested” in the sense of not investing their own resources in selling the technology in the US?