Unhelpful
- Posted by ryan on April 22nd, 2008 filed in Transit
That new core Metro capacity is needed, that that capacity should also include new track across the river at Rosslyn, and that such expansion should involve a station at the walkable yet under-served by transit neighborhood of Georgetown are all readily accepted propositions among planners. So why is Sommer gaping in incredulity?
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I think it’s because of WTOP’s stupid story where they suggest the tracks might be elevated (ha) and that the line would run “along the top of the District”. A little digging into what Metro’s actually saying, which one of the commenters does, reveals that they’re just talking about resurrecting the same M Street subway from Georgetown to Union Station that was proposed in the early ’90s. That proposal, of course, is eminently sensible if expensive.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Maybe it’s just me, but the whole story just screams “streetcar.” Isn’t that a more cost-effective solution than more tunneling? Wouldn’t it be more flexible to have streetcars augmenting and connecting the existing Metro infrastructure? And if they’re going to dynamite the Whitehurst Freeway ANYWAY, why aren’t they talking about replacing it with a streetcar line to serve Rosslyn, Georgetown, and the waterfront development around the Kennedy Center that’s already in the pipeline?
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I think a streetcar is a good idea, but it serves a different purpose–facilitating local transportation. The new river crossing and line through downtown is about handling the crush on Metro–keeping the trains carrying spoke traffic moving. And if you’re going to be running a line through the Georgetown area, why not give a dense, walkable neighborhood a stop?
In practice, an additional line will require some new funding priorities at the federal level, and a long planning and review process. It’s likely that some kind of transit, streetcar or BRT, will be in Georgetown before construction ever begins on a new core line.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I believe Shrag covered the basics of why there was no line/station in G’town. If my memory is correct, geology and finances figured highly. To make the turns needed (horizontal as well as vertical), the station would have had to been incredibly deep. And, deep = expensive.
I’m all for streetcars (and hate the idea of BRT) and metro to G’town may or may not be a good use of limited resources but they are separate issues from the need for another river crossing.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Ryan, it’s just absurd to think this could go forward at any time in the next few years. The economy is in the toilet, the FTA shut down the Dulles rail project because it had no faith in WMATA’s ability to maintain an infrastructure investment, and the lawsuits that would be filed in the wake of such a proposal, whether the rail line is above ground or below, would push it back for god knows how long. I guess once there’s a new administration, I could see things differently, but I just can’t fathom why Metro would bring this up at a time when it is least likely to succeed.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Sommer, the FTA shut down Dulles because the Bushies hate transit. That’s not an exaggeration. The Bushies will be gone soon.
You bring it up now, because 1) you need it, and 2) these things take a long, long time to come to fruition. A new core line begins operation in 2020 at the earliest. It’s critical that the PR campaign and planning begin as soon as feasible.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
As a daily rider of the orange and red line (VA to DC and back)– I think you’re deluding yourself, Ryan, if you think Metro should be expanded an inch before its mammoth backlog of unfunded maintenance is at least given a steady annual line item in someone’s tax revenues!
I remmember what it was like in the 1970s. It’s going downhill fast. The mechanical condition of the trains and the tracks gets more periolous all the time. And it get’s more crowded every day, so every car that’s taken out of service degrades service more.
Your nice PR campaign will be greeted by laughter from those who actually have to depend on it.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Dude, if maintenance funding hasn’t been resolved by the time a new core line gets to the point where it might be approved, then sure, we should think twice about moving forward. But Metro’s looking to get $1.5 billion from Congress over the next ten years (assuming Coburn gets the shushing from his colleagues that he should). If that bill goes through, we’re also looking at a steady funding stream from DC, MD, and VA. And as I clearly said before, this all presupposes a change in attitude at the FTA.
But look, you don’t think that deterioration of Metro’s equipment has anything to do with the intensity with which it’s used? If there were more capacity and redundancy in the core, Metro could better maintain its equipment.
And yes, I’m sure everyone dealing with jammed trains and platforms through downtown will laugh their fool heads off at the idea that a long-term plan might include some relief for existing lines.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
This is totally going to happen around the second Mccain administration, what with our occupation of Tehran and $8-a-gallon gas.
That’s assuming there isn’t a smoking crater where Foggy Bottom used to be.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Let’s all remember that large capital projects like these have a tremendously long lead time. Dulles rail has been in the works (in it’s current form) for more than a decade. Extrapolate that out to Metro’s current situation: Start planning in 2008-2010, be ready to begin construction in 2018, and hopefully have a line up and running by 2020 or 2025. Using Federal dollars adds a long long time to the process.
With that in mind, maintenance and system expansion planning both need to be pursued.
Also, from reading the document, it’s clear that the planning and real estate people at Metro are doing nothing more than floating the idea and keeping it on the back burner. There’s nothing to vote on, no major policy change, so I fail to see how the current attitudes of the FTA are relevant. If anything, making the case for why this is needed will only help when a new administration takes office.