Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

[farecard]

3. You being able to count all the agencies in North America that operate 24 hour service on one hand is not an argument. I'm talking about how Metro in DC could be better. I don't care what other transit systems in the rest of the country are doing or not doing. Irrelevant.

You don't need to lust for 24x7 to see the inevitable collision between in-use time vs. closed for maintenance time; we see it already in hours cutback. I just don't think we'll ever get 3-tracks. They didn't on the Second Ave Subway, did they?

[Sand Box John]

"Chris Brown"
. . .
False.

Accidents and problems still happen no matter how well maintenance is performed.

Also, the very act of maintenance requires a track to be down. That downtime limits or eliminates service on that track until the maintenance is complete. With a third track, service is never interrupted for any reason unless two tracks are down at once. I don't think you thought this through well.
. . .
Three points:

1. Maintenance would not make my argument moot. See my response above to MCL1984

2. The third track extra maintenance burden would be a wash because you would get the benefit of uninterrupted service in return.

3. You being able to count all the agencies in North America that operate 24 hour service on one hand is not an argument. I'm talking about how Metro in DC could be better. I don't care what other transit systems in the rest of the country are doing or not doing. Irrelevant.

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe are differences of opinion are based on are view of things. Where you are comparing WMATA to WMATA, I am comparing WMATA to its contemporaries. I also have been observing the evolution of this agency for just short of a half century.

[Chris Brown]

3. You being able to count all the agencies in North America that operate 24 hour service on one hand is not an argument. I'm talking about how Metro in DC could be better. I don't care what other transit systems in the rest of the country are doing or not doing. Irrelevant.

You don't need to lust for 24x7 to see the inevitable collision between in-use time vs. closed for maintenance time; we see it already in hours cutback. I just don't think we'll ever get 3-tracks. They didn't on the Second Ave Subway, did they?

I agree. I brought up the lack of express tracks for newer NYC subway lines too. NYC is famous for their express tracks, so if they've stopped building them WMATA is probably never going to get them. A more likely scenario for the distant (or maybe near) future is separation of lines.

"Chris Brown"
. . .
False.

Accidents and problems still happen no matter how well maintenance is performed.

Also, the very act of maintenance requires a track to be down. That downtime limits or eliminates service on that track until the maintenance is complete. With a third track, service is never interrupted for any reason unless two tracks are down at once. I don't think you thought this through well.
. . .
Three points:

1. Maintenance would not make my argument moot. See my response above to MCL1984

2. The third track extra maintenance burden would be a wash because you would get the benefit of uninterrupted service in return.

3. You being able to count all the agencies in North America that operate 24 hour service on one hand is not an argument. I'm talking about how Metro in DC could be better. I don't care what other transit systems in the rest of the country are doing or not doing. Irrelevant.

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe are differences of opinion are based on are view of things. Where you are comparing WMATA to WMATA, I am comparing WMATA to its contemporaries. I also have been observing the evolution of this agency for just short of a half century.

I don't know if we even really disagree.

You seem to be saying express tracks are not worth the burden for a marginal improvement in service. I'm saying express tracks would improve service, without giving any care to extra burden. I think we are just making different points.

[YOLO]

Removing interlining would be a good alternative and better use of funds than express tracks IMO. Something like this came up in my mind...

Silver Line: Travels across existing N tracks and branch out at EFC, go through Seven Corners/Baileys Crossroads then Columbia Pike corridor. Transfer station at Pentagon and would go to DC via the Yellow line bridge. Once it hits DC it would actually go off into M St SE, with a transfer point at Waterfront. Then it would go upward with a transfer point at Capital South, terminate line at Union Station

Blue Line: Go from Huntington and then from Rosslyn it would follow the pathing that Metro originally came up with in the early 2000s (not the loop design, but go through M St NW, New Jersey Ave NW, Union Station, H St NE) and then go to Largo Town Center

I'm sure there's better and interesting ways to approach this issue.

[mtuandrew]

Removing interlining would be a good alternative and better use of funds than express tracks IMO. Something like this came up in my mind...

Silver Line: Travels across existing N tracks and branch out at EFC, go through Seven Corners/Baileys Crossroads then Columbia Pike corridor. Transfer station at Pentagon and would go to DC via the Yellow line bridge. Once it hits DC it would actually go off into M St SE, with a transfer point at Waterfront. Then it would go upward with a transfer point at Capital South, terminate line at Union Station

Blue Line: Go from Huntington and then from Rosslyn it would follow the pathing that Metro originally came up with in the early 2000s (not the loop design, but go through M St NW, New Jersey Ave NW, Union Station, H St NE) and then go to Largo Town Center

I'm sure there's better and interesting ways to approach this issue.

You know, I was prepared with a yawn and eye roll before reading your post fully, but I’d support that plan. For Silver Line, are you thinking broadly following Roosevelt Ave, Leesburg Pike, and Columbia Pike? Seven Corners badly needs a new road layout, so there is a lot of merit in coupling that with a Metro dig.

[YOLO]

Yep, so I'd imagine EFC would need to have separate platforms and it would branch off onto N Roosevelt St underground, and then make its way over to Leesburg Pike and then go east to Columbia Pike at Bailey's Crossroads.

This would help shorten SV too, going from Ashburn to Largo is going to be one loooong ride for the train operators

[STrRedWolf]

Removing interlining would be a good alternative and better use of funds than express tracks IMO. Something like this came up in my mind...

Silver Line: Travels across existing N tracks and branch out at EFC, go through Seven Corners/Baileys Crossroads then Columbia Pike corridor. Transfer station at Pentagon and would go to DC via the Yellow line bridge. Once it hits DC it would actually go off into M St SE, with a transfer point at Waterfront. Then it would go upward with a transfer point at Capital South, terminate line at Union Station

Blue Line: Go from Huntington and then from Rosslyn it would follow the pathing that Metro originally came up with in the early 2000s (not the loop design, but go through M St NW, New Jersey Ave NW, Union Station, H St NE) and then go to Largo Town Center

I'm sure there's better and interesting ways to approach this issue.

I'm largely with you, but I wouldn't go H St NE. I'd go Massachusettes Avenue SE after Union Station and join back up with the Orange Line at Stadium/Armory. Make that your eastern Orange Line transfer point and then go out to Largo. That would save on construction, and you'll end up with Stadium/Armory, Union, and Rosslyn as transfer points.

[JDC]

"Chris Brown"

The only hindsight tweaks I would have made is the placing of at least one #10 turnout interlocking between every station, the interlocking where the track centers are greater then 16' would have no S curves between the frogs of the turnout pairs, #14 turnouts with matching equilateral Y turnouts on the inbound end of all pocket tracks, again with no S curves between the turnout pairs, #18 turnouts in the junctions not directly adjacent to stations (C&D, C&J, K&M), #16 turnouts in the interlocking used to crossover trains at terminal stations, (the interlocking south of the terminal station at Owings Mills on the Baltimore Metro is fitted with #16 turnouts).

Is there a handy website that describes what each of these #-type turnouts are?

[Chris Brown]

A line should also go down Wisconsin Avenue and 14th street.

Giving every line its own tracks with various transfer options would be fantastic and improve coverage significantly. It would also improve service because an incident on one line will not impact the others. What happened on Monday with the Red line derailment is a perfect example. Since the Red line does not share any of its tracks, that delay did not impact any other line. That's how it should be.

[mtuandrew]

A line should also go down Wisconsin Avenue and 14th street.

How would it get between the two? (Assuming you mean 14th St. NW)

I’d like to see a line south along I-295 or Capitol Ave toward National Harbor - seems like it would be great for commuters and would have a big business for people taking in a casino trip and show. Not sure how that would fit into an M St subway, but so be it

[JDC]

I think a lot of these fantasy lines would work best as streetcars or even light rail, based on geographic considerations and ridership levels. They could also be operated by DC, versus yet another thing for WMATA to manage.

[STrRedWolf]

I think a lot of these fantasy lines would work best as streetcars or even light rail, based on geographic considerations and ridership levels. They could also be operated by DC, versus yet another thing for WMATA to manage.

Before you think street car/light rail, make sure you also consider current traffic levels on the streets you want to put them on. Do not assume putting light rail in will make traffic go down.

[Chris Brown]

A line should also go down Wisconsin Avenue and 14th street.

How would it get between the two? (Assuming you mean 14th St. NW)

Well I wasn't talking about just one line. More like separating the blue line coming from Rosslyn to go through Georgetown instead and up Wisconsin Avenue.

Silver Line replaces Blue line downtown to Largo.

New Blue line will go from Rossyln to Georgetown before proceeding up Wisconsin. Blue line will make a right turn off Wisconsin near Mass Avenue to cross Connecticut north of the Van Ness stop on the Red line. This would add a stop to Connecticut avenue before going east to add stops to 16th street and Georgia Avenue north of Petworth.

Blue line would then proceed northeast to a Takoma Park transfer stop with Red line and a Langley Park final destination.

My idea for 14th street is more simple. Just separate the Yellow line from the Green line and have it run up 14th street on its own tracks before joining up again with the Green line at Columbia Heights.

Yellow line would enter downtown on the current Yellow line bridge and share tracks with the Green line up to Chinatown. Yellow line will turn left to run up 14th street for a Thomas Circle stop (or even a Logan Circle stop on 13th) followed by two more stops on 14th street before meeting Green line again at Columbia Heights.

(Alternatively Yellow Line can avoid Green line and proceed to a real Adams Morgan stop. Then a stop in Mt Pleasant. Then proceed up 16th street to Silver Spring where it ends and meets Red line)

[mtuandrew]

Okay, how about we just redesign the Blue Line to hit all the major tourist destinations, expressly to remove tourists from the rest of the system?

Springfield - Old Town Alexandria - DCA - Pentagon - Arl Cemetery - Rosslyn like usual. New tunnel - Georgetown, then to Washington Circle via M and Pennsylvania. South down 23rd, east on Constitution past all of the monuments and museums, then northeast on Louisiana to Union Station. After that, up to you - maybe out to College Park and Greenbelt parallel to CSX, maybe interline with Red Line, maybe even curve back to M St and Georgetown (and up to the Zoo and Cathedral!) Then, make sure tourists only get maps with this new "Red, White, and Blue Line" displayed, not the rest of the system

[Chris Brown]

Okay, how about we just redesign the Blue Line to hit all the major tourist destinations, expressly to remove tourists from the rest of the system?

Springfield - Old Town Alexandria - DCA - Pentagon - Arl Cemetery - Rosslyn like usual. New tunnel - Georgetown, then to Washington Circle via M and Pennsylvania. South down 23rd, east on Constitution past all of the monuments and museums, then northeast on Louisiana to Union Station. After that, up to you - maybe out to College Park and Greenbelt parallel to CSX, maybe interline with Red Line, maybe even curve back to M St and Georgetown (and up to the Zoo and Cathedral!) Then, make sure tourists only get maps with this new "Red, White, and Blue Line" displayed, not the rest of the system

Outside of the Georgetown stop, you would be adding stations downtown that are just a few blocks from current WMATA stations. Seems like a waste. I don't think anyone wants to spend billions creating a line just for tourists when people who actually live here and commute daily can use more coverage.