Core
- Posted by ryan on November 1st, 2007 filed in Cities
And then there’s urban mass transit. The Metro is a wonderful thing, and the difficulties we face are nowhere near as severe as those in, say, Chicago. Nonetheless, as Richard Layman notes here, the nature of the system as a two-lane hub and spoke network with little route duplication makes it very vulnerable to shut downs, delays, and similar problems. It also means the system can’t use express trains and can’t run all night (since repair work must be done sometime, and with no redundancy, shutting a line down kills the system). Given the emergence of strain on operations with aging and increased use, our expansion choices don’t seem all that smart. Benefits of an airport link aside, the spoke extensions are practically worthless without a reliable, functioning core. Any investment in additions on the outer edges ought to include plans for shoring up the center. Of course, that’s not how it works, since Fairfax County is primarily responsible for something like the Silver Line trough Tysons, while the core is the core’s problem. It makes no sense, but this appears to be the way our leaders think.
Given all this, a second, cross-town, heavy rail route seems worth the pain and expense because of the additional security it would provide to existing lines. Not only would many more neighborhoods be able to enjoy a system with far greater capacity, but we could feel comfortable knowing that a serious shutdown on one or two, or potentially three, core lines wouldn’t destroy the functionality of Metro. The sense of this plan is probably the reason that absolutely no one in any position of authority is remotely considering it.
Barring the construction of another heavy line, the city really ought to focus on improving the service and rationality of its bus lines and on investing in light-rail options to give Metro breathing room and a backup system in case of crisis. And bit by bit, this will probably happen. But it sure would be nice if a little more attention was paid to the long-term viability of local transportation networks.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I must say I’m always amazed at the foresight shown by NYC’s subway planners to include express lines. It’s the sort of investment I can’t imagine we’d do anymore, because the immediate payout isn’t obvious. (As, indeed, the MTA is not planning on putting express tracks in on the new 2d Ave line — assuming it ever gets built…) But boy does it add to the functionality of the subway system.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I probably should have titled the piece The value of redundancy and focus. 20+ years ago, I read a good piece, maybe by Harold Wilensky, about the value of redundancy, but I’ve never been able to find it again.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Hasn’t the concept of an M Street subway occasionally been debated? What w/ the addition of the Silver Line surely pushing the Rosslyn junction choke point over its capacity, a second Potomac crossing seems to be in order. Might as well build a crosstown route with it.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I think a lot of people think that a new crossing and a separate blue line, perhaps running along M Street, are sound ideas. Selling these ideas takes a lot of time and political heavy lifting, however, and no politician has made anything resembling a serious effort to do that lifting in recent years.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Richard Layman writes:
I read a good piece, maybe by Harold Wilensky, about the value of redundancy, but I’ve never been able to find it again.
Shoulda made a couple of copies.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
“I must say I’m always amazed at the foresight shown by NYC’s subway planners to include express lines.”
Not exactly foresight, but a necessity at that time. Trains were simply to slow to haul workers and employees from the outskirts to Manhattan in reasonable time. And the express lines also increased the capacity of the system, in a time where controlling and signaling methods were a serious constraint on the maximum frequency of train traffic.
One other point: Because many miles of tracks in NYC were built in the open first and only later covered, it was possible to keep the costs lower than with 100& pure underground works, another reason why it was possible to build such a huge system so shortly. Check google for subway history, its fascinating (for instance the abandoned stations).
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 am
I don’t see anybody ponying up the dough to dig more multibilliondollar holes downtown. Because when you show people the pricetag for “updating” Metro service, and compare it to dedicated surface light rail, streetcars sell themselves, particularly as a commuter/tourist crosstown link. Augmenting Metro with light rail seems the way to go. Imagine an H Street surface line that connects Capitol Hill, Shaw, Dupont, and Georgetown; now imagine trying to do that shopping/tourism spree on Metro. At rush hour.
Hopefully the Homeland Security move to Saint E’s will provide the critical mass needed to push the Anacostia light rail connector into high gear.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Regional planning also has to involve the pooling of resources. I think this is where a congestion charge could work. D.C. could collect the congestion charge and retain half or more of the receipts for use at D.C.’s discretion but the other half could be dedicated towards metro doing along the lines of building a purple line and increasing the connectivity within the city between different lines.