Category: Washington DC

Categories
Airport Washington DC

Dulles Airport Replaces Distinctive Mobile Lounge System with AeroTrain

» System marks airport’s advance into the 21st century, but the terminals aren’t necessarily ready.

When it opened in the early 1960s, Washington Dulles Airport was ahead of its time. Its soaring suspended concrete ceiling designed by Eero Saarinen marked a distinctive entry point for visitors arriving to the nation’s capital. Everything about the airport was constructed with the most modern ideas about air travel, including in terms of transportation to and from airplanes. Instead of having travelers descend steps from airplane doors and then walk into the building, the airport’s “mobile lounges” — buses designed to “mate” with airplanes — transported people directly from a dock on the side of the primary terminal to the airplane’s front stoop, where one could simply stroll into a jet.

Over time, the concept grew outmoded. As security measures increased and the number of commuters expanded, waiting around in the main terminal for the appropriate mobile lounge no longer worked as well, as crowding ensued. Eventually, there were too many jets, and Dulles built midfield concourses designed to handle dozens of jets at a time and allow direct walking transfers between flights. They also included jet bridges, whose direct connection to the terminal offered easier access and operations. The direct convenience initially offered by the lounges became a handicap as congestion on the tarmac between the shuttles and aircraft.

The response of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), which runs the facility as well as Reagan National Airport, was to build an airport people mover. It opens for service today after seven years of construction. The 3.8-mile AeroTrain cost $1.5 billion and has four underground stations. Many of the airport’s users can now expect faster commutes between check-in desks and planes.

Dulles’ project has become the standard practice for large airports around the world. In opening its people mover along with a new terminal complex in 1971, Tampa became the first city to pioneer the approach. In recent years, cities as diverse as Dallas, New York, San Francisco, and Minneapolis have opened similar mini-trains, which take advantage of the captive audience at airports to move people about efficiently. They have significantly relieved congestion caused by shuttles between terminals at the airports where they’ve been implemented.

Yet Dulles’ method will leave many of the airport’s users in a state of utter disorientation — and do little to reduce travel times for whole segments of the terminals. The fact that the AeroTrain was clearly designed for a more flight-obsessed era doesn’t help matters much, either, since its provisions for future stations will delay current passengers. It demonstrates some of the limits of an expensive fixed-guideway system even in a controlled airport environment.

Part of Dulles’ problem cannot be solved easily with any transit system. With two midfield concourses, both around 4,000 feet long end-to-end, the airport has a difficult arrangement. By comparison, the midfield concourse of Terminal 1 at Chicago’s O’Hare International is only 1,600 feet long. Dulles could have outfitted itself with people movers running the length of its terminal, something that has been implemented in Detroit, but that would be difficult to accomplish with antiquated terminal buildings. As a result, the AeroTrain simply travels between set points, one on each end of the the first concourse (A and B gates) and one on one end of the second concourse (C gates). Because of limitations in available funds, there will be no AeroTrain access to the other end of the second concourse (D gates), which will continue to welcome mobile lounges, as will international arrivals.

As a result, the AeroTrain, which will offer 29 Mitsubishi Crystal Mover rubber-tired vehicles running every two minutes at peak times, won’t help customers attempting to get from one end of a terminal to another. A huge percentage of customers will continue to have long walks to their gates; the linear nature of an airport terminal contrasts severely with the point-centric orientation of a transit system such as AeroTrain. Other airports hoping to implement similar should aim to limit the length of terminals — an airport station can only be convenient for people who feel comfortable walking to gates with heavy bags.

Even more difficult is the fact that the station designed for C gates is located five hundred feet away from the building itself, accessible only via an underground moving walkway. That’s because AeroTrain was built with Dulles’ future expansion in mind, which would theoretically involve the tearing down of C and D gates (which were supposed to be temporary when first built) and the construction of three new midfield concourses and a new south terminal. If that complex were ever built, it the AeroTrain would be expanded into a 10-mile loop with 10 stations.

The problem for Dulles’ planners is that there is no money for those new facilities, and growth in air traffic has slowed tremendously since the project was first conceived. If high-speed rail proponents get their way, it will slow even more — a trend that should force the airport authority to reevaluate whether it needs to plan for any expansion at all. In that case, the station for the C Gates probably should have been built directly adjacent, rather than several hundred feet away. In this case, there is clearly a downside to thinking too far ahead.

Nonetheless, in some ways Dulles will become a better airport as a result of this large investment. The main terminal AeroTrain station has four underground levels (pictured above) and is as long as the whole building. It is built in a way that prevents conflict between arriving and departing passengers by having them exit vehicles on opposite sides. Meanwhile, security facilities, which have cluttered the historic Saarinen structure, will be moved into newly expanded space underground, not only improving passenger experience, but facilitating movement to the transit system and eventually to gates.

The opening of the AeroTrain coincides with the construction of the Dulles Metro project, which will extend Metrorail service from East Falls Church to the airport and then Loudoun County by 2016. MWAA is also in charge of that program, and it has probably learned some valuable experience about building a major transit system from the construction of AeroTrain.

Image above: Dulles Airport AeroTrain Station, from Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

Categories
Streetcar Washington DC

Implementing Streetcars Demands Consideration of the Way Traffic Works

» The District of Columbia is installing streetcar tracks along Benning Road, Northeast, a nice advance for the city’s transit options. But it’s doing so in a way that will limit the speed and accessibility of trains.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s announcement that he would award $130 million to streetcar projects across the country early next year excited transit advocates, who hope that the mode will soon become a frequent sight in American cities. Indeed, there are plenty of towns seriously considering building streetcar lines — at least 45 in North America as of the most recent count. Since streetcars, like local buses, run in lanes shared with automobiles, implementing them efficiently requires studying traffic patterns and attempting to find ways to avoid problems that could impair the efficiency of transit service. When the first projects get off the ground in 2010, one hopes that they’ll be built right.

Among those cities thus far that have committed to spending some of their own money — rather than just hoping the federal government will pick up 100% of the tab — is Washington, D.C. Though it has yet to secure all of the necessary funds for the massive system it plans to build, the city has already begun installing track on H Street and Benning Road Northeast, a prime corridor for improved transit investments. Once it assembles the necessary financing, it will add overhead catenary and begin running the service, potentially in two years.

The District has posted some relevant photographs on its Facebook page, and the images are indicative of the problems this corridor will encounter once it begins carrying trams. Of course, Washington isn’t alone, because streetcars face some fundamental difficulties as a result of the fact that they share their rights-of-way with automobiles. But its decisions about how streetcar tracks will be installed will plague the service provided by the vehicles and ultimately limit their utility.

Below, I have documented some of the quotidian situations that will result in delayed traffic as a result of the design of the District’s streetcar system. None of the problems are unique to streetcars — in fact, they’re shared with any vehicle that must share its running way with automobiles, including buses. But streetcars are put in a particular predicament in each of the cases noted below because, unlike buses, they can’t change lanes. If systems are designed with major flaws, such as those illustrated below, this means that these trains will operate at significantly lower speeds than equivalent buses; the result: a big investment investment in public transportation could actually mean less mobility.

But take note, other cities: these structural issues can be resolved through better designed streets.

Entering Streetcar Lane

Entering streetcar lane: The most obvious problem with streetcars, of course, is that they run in the street. That makes their construction relatively cheap, since tracks can simply be laid in a preexisting roadway. But because the streets are shared, cars can weave in and out of lanes, including those used by trains. This will force streetcar drivers to operate their vehicles overly cautiously and at limited speeds. By the same measure, while a bus has the ability to change lanes to pass stopped or slow cars, a streetcar is forced to maintain its course, even if that means getting stuck. There is no way to solve this problem unless some of the streetcar’s path is made limited-access.

Blocked Turn Lane

Blocked turn lane: Because D.C.’s system is designed with left-turn lanes to the left of the median-operated streetcar, cars have to pass through the streetcar lane in order to take a left at intersections. When there are too many cars and streetcars in that lane heading straight rather than left, cars from lanes further to the left will have trouble making the turn to the left-most lane. This could be a problem especially if there is reticence among some drivers to operate in the streetcar lane; they will remain in the middle lane until the last possible moment, where they may get stuck. Cities with streetcars hoping to combat this problem could install signage encouraging drivers to stay out of the streetcar lane most of the time, while also encouraging people hoping to turn left to move over as quickly as possible.

Too Many Turners

Too many turners: If D.C. gives its left-turn drivers their own signals, it could mean streetcars are held up by the number of cars waiting for a green light because of the limited length of the left-turn lane, which would push some left-turners into the streetcar lane. Even if the traffic light for vehicles heading straight is green, streetcars would be blocked in the above situation; this could force streetcars to wait for the next light cycle. At intersections with high expected rates of left turns, D.C. would benefit from longer left-turn lanes than what is currently being built. Alternatively, it could eliminate some left-hand turns and encourage drivers to take alternate routes to reach their final destinations.

Blocked Turns

Blocked turns: On the other hand, if Washington’s system does not have separate left-turn lights, through streetcar traffic could be significantly affected by left-turn drivers, especially if their cars are in turn blocked by pedestrians crossing in the allowed travel direction. This problem will be most prevalent at intersections with significant pedestrian and left-turn traffic; there, a separate left-turn signal might be necessary — as long as left-turn lanes are adequately long and streetcars are given signal priority before left-turning cars.

Stuck at the Light

Stuck at the light: Because of the shortness of the left turn lanes, two streetcars in a row (possible on several of the corridors D.C. is studying for its system, since they’ll service multiple lines) could block the possibility of left turns by automobiles entirely when stopped at a red light. If left-turn lanes were lengthened to ensure they are longer than at least two streetcars plus a car, this would solve the problem.

Stuck at the Station

Stuck at the station: Whether stations are positioned before the signal or after, when they stop to pick up passengers, streetcars will slow down following traffic (including other streetcars), especially if surrounding traffic is heavy. This occurs with buses as well, but since their stations are in the lower-speed outside lanes, their effect 0n surrounding traffic is more limited than median-running streetcars. On the other hand, if streetcar stops are timed with red lights ahead, changing to green once passenger pick-up and drop-off has terminated, this problem could be eliminated.

Conclusions: The fundamental problems with all of these approaches is that they encourage car traffic to move more quickly, effectively limiting any attempt to provide streetcars with a time advantage. To get a streetcar to move more quickly, the traffic system must be designed to move all vehicles more quickly, because they share the same lanes.

This raises questions about the value of streetcars in general — wouldn’t it make more sense to operate these trains more like light rail?  Cities could do just that simply by installing cheap ground-level barriers between streetcar and car lanes, and eliminating the left-turn lanes to the left of the streetcars (or moving the trams to the outside lanes), all while instituting aggressive signal priority. These approaches would dramatically improve the efficiency and speed of streetcars and provide them a relative advantage over automobile traffic, which would be limited by fewer travel lanes than before, ultimately leading to more public transportation usage. That’s a valuable goal.

Categories
Light Rail Metro Rail Washington DC

Stretching the Limits of Washington’s Dense Core

Future Washington, DC Metrorail Map

» After the completion of Metro’s first 106 miles, it’s time for another big investment.

If Washington’s Metro system is proof of anything, it is that American cities have the capability to build massive, expensive transit systems that work. Since the network opened in 1976, it has expanded to 106 miles of two-way track, five lines, and 86 stations. Despite ever-increasing sprawl, huge increases in car use, and relocation of business and government facilities from downtown to the suburbs, Metro now handles 800,000 daily trips and it has redefined life in the center of the region and around stations. As a result of Metro, Washington and its close suburbs are becoming communities where it is possible to live a normal life without owning a car

Despite the huge investment in Metro’s “first” system plan, which was completed in 2003, the region still has significant capacity needs to be met and hundreds of thousands of potential transit trips that cannot be completed because of a lack of adequate service. As the city and its surrounding region grow, opportunities for dense, transit-friendly development need to be made available. It is time, then, to plan for the next twenty years of investment in the region’s heavy rail network.

Region-Wide Transit Needs

Though none of the existing Washington transit network suffers from the extreme crowding common in cities like New York or Tokyo, the growth of the city core and of areas around stations in inner ring neighborhoods like Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Rosslyn have begun to strain the system’s capacity. The section of the Blue and Orange Lines between Rosslyn, Virginia and Farragut West, in the center of D.C.’s “new” downtown, is by far the system’s most heavily used during the A.M. peak, and it shows, with little free space on trains. A 2002 study by WMATA, the local transit agency, suggests that the Orange Line will reach its carrying limits in 2020, with the other lines following in 2025, even with the implementation of all 8-car trainsets.

The Silver Line, currently under construction, will spur out from the Orange Line just before West Falls Church, heading through Fairfax and Loudoun Counties. With a stop at Dulles Airport and four stations planned for Tysons Corner, a major office and retail center, the line will likely attract a large number of riders — exasperating exacerbating the existing capacity issues with the Orange Line, which cannot support more trains because of the fact that it shares track with the Blue Line between Rosslyn and Stadium-Armory Stations.

Two other major transit projects planned for the Washington region — the light rail Purple Line that will run between Bethesda and New Carrollton and the proposed Washington streetcar system — will do nothing to improve these problems.

The excellent blog Greater Greater Washington has proposed several major Metro expansion projects, including a separated Yellow Line between downtown D.C. and Silver Spring and a Gold Line between Tysons Corner and Alexandria, but neither of these proposals would heal the so-called “Orange Crush” between Arlington and downtown Washington.

That’s why the proposed separated Blue Line, which is being seriously considered by WMATA planners, is so important. Seven miles long, the corridor would delink the interconnection between Orange and Blue Lines at Rosslyn, include a new station in Georgetown, and run under M Street NW and H Street NE. The project would increase Orange (and Silver) Line capacity by 4o%, provide better transit access to underserved areas of inner-city Washington, and relieve the Red Line between Union Station and the new downtown. It’s a vital project for the region’s future. (The alignment of the Blue Line on the map at the top of this post was inspired by that proposed by GGW‘s David Alpert.)

But the separated Blue Line, if implemented alone, might suffer from underwhelming use. That’s because the existing Blue Line attracts far fewer users than its Orange Line teammate; the areas it serves south of Rosslyn, including the Pentagon and Alexandria, already have quicker access downtown via the Yellow Line. The Orange Line’s service to the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor will continue making it the hub of new urban growth in Northern Virginia. And even if the Blue Line were to attract huge numbers of users in its D.C. section, train frequencies would be limited by the fact that the Blue Line shares track with the Yellow Line between Pentagon and King Street. The corridor, then, would be unable to reach its full potential — a major problem considering it would be a downtown trunk route.

In addition, though the new Blue Line would expose new areas of the District to redevelopment, there are significant limits to what changes it could produce. Washington has a height cap and much of its northeastern quadrant’s building stock is made up of brownstones protected by historic preservation laws; a new Metro line should produce major new investments around stations, but the new Blue Line in and of itself would not do nearly as much as its predecessors in reshaping the built form of the region.

The Project

To complement the new Silver and Blue Lines, then, the Pink Line proposed here would offer the region a major new transit investment that would have the potential both to maximize the use of those two aforementioned lines and to spur major infill development. Running between Tysons Corner and River Terrace, the line would double capacity on the tracks to be created by both the Silver and Blue Lines by including a newly built, 10 mile-long underground connection between West Falls Church and Arlington National Cemetery. With nine new stations, it would greatly expand access to southern Arlington, eastern Fairfax County, and the city of Falls Church and trigger massive new development opportunities unavailable elsewhere in the region. It would do so while servicing some of Northern Virginia’s densest communities, containing some of its most poverty ridden and car-dependent families.

All at the measly cost of some billions of dollars no one has yet made available.

Northern Virginia Proposed Metrorail Lines

Specifics

The ten miles of underground construction required for the Pink Line’s implementation would come at a very high cost, but its benefits may well be worthwhile. The line would run south under Route 7 from West Falls Church Metro, through downtown Falls Church and Seven Corners to Bailey’s Crossroads, where it would turn back east along Columbia Pike into Arlington County, linking up to a new station on the west side of the Pentagon to avoid disrupting Yellow Line traffic flow (a new station would have to be constructed there), and joining up with the Blue Line before Arlington Cemetery station.

As the maps below show, stations along the new line would be within a 1/2 mile of very dense neighborhoods, especially those in south Arlington and at Bailey’s Crossroads. In addition, the section along Route 7 between Seven Corners and Bailey’s Crossroads would reach communities with some of the area’s highest concentrations of poverty.

Northern Virginia Density Northern Virginia Poverty

—————–

The buses Metro already runs on the affected corridors, including the 16 line on Columbia Pike (290,000 passengers per week) and the 28 line on Route 7 (143,000/week), are the transit agency’s highest-ridership routes in Virginia, confirming the importance of this corridor. The 28 buses are currently being upgraded to handle more passengers.

As the maps below show, the area’s inhabitants are predisposed to riding transit. Despite the fact that residents are now only provided substandard bus service, they already use transit at levels exceeding those found in most of the surrounding neighborhoods, with the exception of in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and at Crystal City, where Metro has stations. People along the Pink Line, probably as a result of their high-density lifestyles and higher rates of poverty, are as likely not to have a car in their households as their peers anywhere else in the region, with rates reaching up to 30%. The result? people in the area suffer from longer-than-average daily commuting times, reaching up to an astonishing 50 minutes in some areas adjacent to the proposed Bailey’s Crossroads station.

Northern Virginia Transit Share Northern Virginia No Car Households Northern Virginia Commute Times

—————–

This corridor, with densities already approaching those along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and likely to increase with more development, is simply too populated for the implementation of other modes of transit. The Columbia Pike Streetcar being discussed by transit advocates in Northern Virginia won’t do the trick not only because it won’t significantly speed commutes over existing bus service, but it also won’t link the area to anywhere other than the Pentagon or have the capacity to handle huge numbers of passengers. Metro service is necessary because the Pink Line would connect directly to the region’s four largest employment zones, at Tysons Corner, the Pentagon, Rosslyn, and downtown D.C.; this area’s residents are likely to take advantage of this Metro line in substantial numbers.

The Pink Line is prime ground for a major investment in heavy rail transit. If Metro has been successful elsewhere in the Washington region, it will be a roaring achievement here.

Coordinated Planning

Of course, transit isn’t productive unless the districts surrounding stations have been planned appropriately. The Pink Line’s corridor today is hardly the model of an urban zone, but the successful transformation of the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in Arlington from a series of auto-oriented strips to a livable, dense office and housing district suggests that similar changes could be experienced elsewhere in the region.

With development along Columbia Pike increasing rapidly, Arlington County is taking serious steps to prepare the strip for revitalization and upzoning. In addition, Fairfax County is in the process of implementing major land use and zoning changes at Bailey’s Crossroads to allow for more development there — this would include two new streetcar lines, including the continuation of the Columbia Pike corridor. These efforts are well intentioned but may actually increase the problems described above; namely, residents of the areas along Columbia Pike and Route 7 suffer and will continue to suffer from inadequate transit that does not meet the needs of a heavily populated neighborhood.

If the Pink Line Metro were built, however, Fairfax and Arlington must take their planning activities to the next level. The maps and plans I’ve created below demonstrate how appropriate development might follow the construction of a new Metro station at “Bailey’s South,” roughly at the center of the Pink Line’s new underground routing.

The map and satellite image below illustrate the area’s existing conditions. It is a peculiar place, with high-rise residential and office towers just blocks from single-family homes and retail strips. It is an unwalkable community with poor street connectivity. The implementation of the transit lines themselves would do nothing to cure that disease.

Bailey's Crossroads Existing Conditions Bailey's Crossroads Satellite Image and Proposed Transit

—————–

As shown below, however, a network of new streets and right-of-way improvements in the area roughly within a quarter-mile from the new Metro entrances could be the stage for a vibrant, livable district. Similar plans could be undertaken for each of the stations planned for the Pink Line.

The one-story retail strips along the corridor, as well as some one-story office buildings, would be demolished to make way for new buildings between 2 and 20 stories, ringing a tight network of blocks and parks. There would be a mix of uses, with housing, office, and hotel offerings within walking distance of the Metro station. The highest buildings would be located adjacent to Metro, with lower buildings along the zone’s periphery, closer to the single-family homes that would remain unchanged in the surroundings. Walkability would be the quarter’s focus, with pedestrian-scaled retail and restaurants at the ground level.

Bailey's Crossroads Proposed Buildings and Roads Layout Bailey's Crossroads Proposed Building Heights

—————–

Such district-level planning would have to be a standard component of the planning process for the Pink Line stations. The sheer degree to which the neighborhood around the Bailey’s South station could change demonstrates the extent to which urban-scale development could become standard in neighborhoods around these stops.

Related Light Rail

Though I am adamant that the transportation demands of the Pink Line corridor are too large for any transit service other than heavy rail, there should be a role for new light rail lines in the Washington region along less dense routes. The maps above show potential alignments for further extensions of the Purple Line, with a corridor running north from Alexandria to Ballston along Mt. Vernon Avenue, Glebe Road, and Lee highway. This line could play an important secondary role in redefining mobility in Northern Virginia towards the increased use of public transportation by reinforcing existing low-scaled neighborhood districts without encouraging the massive development around them that would follow heavy rail.

What We Get

Transit is all about building cities, and indeed, the Pink Line would stretch the Washington region’s dense, walkable core beyond the boundaries currently imposed on it by the limits of the Metro system. By constructing a new heavy rail trunk line, Northern Virginia would not only benefit from new service to people who desperately need better transit, but it would also expand offerings to Tysons Corner and the District of Columbia, whose new lines will have capacity limitations according to current plans.

With no funding to build this massive project, because of the recession, Virginia’s new anti-infrastructure investment Governor Bob McDonnell, and the political fear of raising taxes, Arlington and Fairfax Counties are not likely to push ahead with this project any time soon. But development off-shooting from the line’s completion would more than offset the project’s costs in tax revenue over the long term. If and when the time comes, the Pink Line offers great opportunity.

Data shown in maps based on U.S. Census 2000 information.

Categories
Bus Light Rail Washington DC

Alternative Alignments for Corridor Cities Transitway Illustrate Importance of Reaching Town Centers

Corridor Cities Transitway Alignment Alternatives Map

» But what other alternatives for transit provision are available?

After several months of discussion, the State of Maryland has released data on ridership and costs for alternative alignments in the Corridor Cities transit right-of-way, which stretches from Shady Grove Metro Red Line station to Germantown, northwest of Washington, DC. The study provides dramatic evidence of the importance of serving walkable neighborhoods directly, rather than peripherally, showing that despite increased costs, a realigned transitway — using either light rail or bus rapid transit — would serve far more riders. Yet the value of corridor realignment puts into question how well the service will reach other, unstudied, areas.

The original plan for the transitway, illustrated in yellow in the map above, would have skirted the edges of high development areas in Montgomery County west of Shady Grove Metro. Though the line would have reached the core of the walkable King Farm Village Center at its East and West Gaither stations, it would have been relatively distanced from the projects planned for Crown Farm and the Johns Hopkins Life Sciences Center, as well as the new urbanist development already in place at Kentlands. After criticism from locals, the state studied alignment alternatives, including links into the three unaffected areas as shown in blue above.

Results from the report demonstrate the significant advantage of providing transit service within walking distance of users. By routing the line north into Crown Farm, south into the Life Sciences Center, and west into the Kentlands, Maryland predicts construction cost increases of 14% but ridership increases of a full 40%, to $999 million in expenditures and to 34,000 to 42,000 daily users for light rail. This change in alignment, in other words, puts a whole new spin on the line, making it far more likely that it would receive a high cost-effectiveness score from the FTA and therefore receive New Start funds.

The former alignment would have forced the state to pick cheaper bus rapid transit for the corridor — an action Montgomery County officials have already partially approved — despite the local transit advocates who are clamoring for light rail. With most of its money headed towards the circumferential Purple Line around Washington and the inner-city Baltimore Red Line, the state of Maryland cannot afford to go forward with this process without some sort of guarantee from the federal government. The reworked alignment shown above, which is now likely to be the final choice of the area’s transportation planners, throws light rail back into the equation since its cost-effectiveness is now expected to meet the government’s requirements.

Maryland’s efforts to hew the line’s route more closely to the locations of greatest population and employment density demonstrates how good transit planning should work and indicates that the state is using an effective projections model. Minneapolis, on the other hand, has an alignment towards the southwest suburbs currently under consideration and is insistent that a route through a lightly populated area west of the city core would attract more users than a very slightly slower route through the densest, more attractive areas of the city. It clearly does not have a model that uses the same realistic assumptions about the fact that public transportation use increases in denser area. The result is that Minneapolis is likely to get stuck with a less-performing, less useful rail line, while Maryland will have a project that takes much better advantage of the limitations inherent in any fixed-guideway system.

But even a good predictions model cannot be fully effective unless transit planners have considered a whole spectrum of possible routes. If the new alignment better serves Kentlands than the previous plan, the projected station would fail to reach the center of the development’s retail area and it would force a majority of the area’s inhabitants to walk a long distance to get to transit, ultimately reducing ridership. A slight deviation of the line, shown on the map above in green, might increase the project’s cost effectiveness even further by putting hundreds of households within closer distance of the transitway. It would further enforce the idea that this project is ab0ut connecting the area’s densest population centers.

This is not to suggest that any further route changes for the Corridor Cities line are absolutely necessary, but rather to demonstrate that any transit planning is ultimately handicapped by the fact that all possible alignments cannot be considered in any study. This means that some worthy routes are thrown out of the equation because of a random decision made by a transit planner not to include them. The best way to fight back — to make sure the best alignment is picked — is through citizen activity, the manner by which this effective route change came about in the first place. When communities come together with strong arguments to make changes in government decision-making, they can achieve a lot.

Categories
Streetcar Washington DC

Washington Promotes Massive New Streetcar Project

DC Streetcar Plan Map» Lines could be completed in ten years; is it the right investment?

Like seemingly every other city in the country, Washington, DC is planning a streetcar network. Its transportation officials, however, seem uniquely positioned to actually construct their system; unlike other municipalities, Washington is installing tracks in the ground — albeit with no power source — and owns several streetcar vehicles — though they’re in storage in the Czech Republic.

Last week, Greater Greater Washington broke the big story, which is that the District plans eight streetcar lines to be built in three phases, to extend 37 miles across the city. Beyond DC followed up with news that local transportation officials expect the project’s completion in ten years or less at a total cost of $1.5 billion. It would be the most significant example of municipal entrepreneurship on behalf of such street-running light rail vehicles in almost a century.

At a first glance, the project seems well-planned — the streetcar network would complement existing Metro lines and complete connections that are tenuous today. The first routes would serve transit-deprived and primarily lower-class neighborhoods along H Street and Benning Road in Northeast Washington; along the planned K Street Transitway downtown; from Anacostia north along 8th Street through Capitol Hill and into the developing Navy Yard/Ballpark district; and north-south along 14th Street and Georgia Avenue.

The full network, as illustrated above, would connect a number of destinations with the intention of linking Metro stations circumferentially. Anacostia’s Minnesota Avenue Orange Line stop and Anacostia Green Line stop would be linked directly along Minnesota Avenue; Woodley Park, Adams Morgan, and Union Station would find themselves closer via a new streetcar on Calvert Street, U Street, and Florida Avenue; and new Rhode Island Avenue and Columbia Road lines could ensure east-west connections in Mid City. Wealthy and white Northwest DC would get virtually no service. This plan is dramatically more ambitious than that envisioned in 2005 by the city, which proposed fewer streetcars and more bus lines.

There is no provision for new transit on Pennsylvania Avenue, which bisects the city; this despite the fact that the 30s buses that currently use the street are the city’s most popular.

From a process standpoint, the District’s decision to pursue streetcar construction in a series of phases rather than line-by-line is an unusual approach that indicates the city’s interest in developing the system as a network, rather than as a series of individual elements. Each of the three phases will undergo an impact study, and will be constructed as a unit. The 1.5-mile Anacostia line already planned for fall 2012 and the tracks being laid on H Street and Benning road already will be incorporated into the first phase.

This is an important advance that evokes memories of the development of the Washington Metro, virtually all of whose construction followed a single plan and environmental assessment developed when the project was first authorized. Because of procedural changes in the 1970s and 80s by the Federal Transit Administration, most transportation authorities have approached capital expansion from the perspective of serving one corridor at a time, rather than in the interest of planning a unified network from the start. Washington’s decision to articulate a streetcar system now, rather than suggesting, for instance, one line in Anacostia, followed by something else to be determined at a later time, is the right move.

The decision to move forward with this network plan would allow overall completion by 2019 if the District is able to assemble enough local and national money. Federal aid in the form of Small Start grants seem likely.

There are some contradictions in the District’s proposal. The Department of Transportation, according to Beyond DC, plans streetcars as a quick way to get around the city, with stations positioned every four to five blocks (a quarter mile), versus every two blocks, typical for local buses (and the Portland Streetcar, for instance). For many people, streetcars would be the city’s most convenient and fastest mode of transportation and provide service levels somewhere between that offered by express buses and the Metro.

Yet plans also call for platforms that aren’t full-length; worse, the city will not generally operate trains with more than one car, meaning it’s not expecting particularly large numbers of users. Streetcars will operate in mostly mixed traffic, with the exception of along K Street, M Street Southeast, and Rhode Island Avenue: everywhere else, the vehicles would be competing with automobile traffic. That’s not a recipe for success, but it certainly will allow the city to build more miles for less money. It’s the primary explanation for why $1.5 billion is enough to construct this large of a system.

One wonders if Washington would benefit from fewer lines with increased investment in those that are built. Though right-of-ways are not available for full reservation, between intersections most of the DC streets planned for streetcar lines are wide enough to provide independent lanes for the streetcars alone. There’s no reason to mix train and automobile traffic, and if the city chooses to separate the right-of-ways, ridership will increase correspondingly.

The city wants to build a 37-mile system, but perhaps it should double its proposed price tag and extend the time frame for completion. A faster, more reliable system that takes longer to build will be more worthwhile than a street-running network thrown together at a minimal cost.

Image above: DC Streetcar Plan, from District DOT