Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Discussion related to DC area passenger rail services from Northern Virginia to Baltimore, MD. Includes Light Rail and Baltimore Subway.

Moderators: Robert Paniagua, therock, mtuandrew

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby mtuandrew » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:56 pm

Chris Brown wrote: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.

Sorry, that was semi-sarcastic. I do think there’s demand for a streetcar along the Mall though, possibly extending across the Potomac to Arlington National Cemetery assuming NPS clears Memorial Bridge for heavy loads, and largely in order to take the tourist loads away from the Orange/Blue/Silver Lines.

I think the M Street Tunnel is in the same situation. There’s demand for transit directly between Georgetown and Union Station, but for the moment that’s being handled by buses. In the future, DC Streetcar will connect the two. WMATA doesn’t currently need the tunnel as much as it needs tighter scheduling and signaling.
User avatar
mtuandrew
 
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby MCL1981 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:44 am

DC has proven (repeatedly) that it cannot plan, build, or operate a street car system in any remotely efficient manner. The tiny little street car that's in place now is of the the largest, most expensive boondoggles in city history. It should have never been built to begin with. Expecting street car service to every handle a significant transit load across the city is a fantasy.
MCL1981
 
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:23 am

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby Chris Brown » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:35 pm

mtuandrew wrote:
Chris Brown wrote: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.

Sorry, that was semi-sarcastic. I do think there’s demand for a streetcar along the Mall though, possibly extending across the Potomac to Arlington National Cemetery assuming NPS clears Memorial Bridge for heavy loads, and largely in order to take the tourist loads away from the Orange/Blue/Silver Lines.

I think the M Street Tunnel is in the same situation. There’s demand for transit directly between Georgetown and Union Station, but for the moment that’s being handled by buses. In the future, DC Streetcar will connect the two. WMATA doesn’t currently need the tunnel as much as it needs tighter scheduling and signaling.


I think a streetcar line down Constitution to Union Station would be great for tourists and great in general. Especially if it replaces the current Circulator route on the mall that I find annoyingly slow.

I think what MCL1981 said is far too cynical and pessimistic. To think DC cannot learn from its past mistakes is short sighted. Especially now that the area is booming and DC is becoming more of a world class city. Standards are higher now and all cities in the country are actively competing to attract and retain high quality residents. The incompetence that was tolerated in the 90's and 2000's won't fly anymore in the coming years. Mark my words.
Chris Brown
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:16 am

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby scratchy » Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:53 pm

MCL1981 wrote:DC has proven (repeatedly) that it cannot plan, build, or operate a street car system in any remotely efficient manner. The tiny little street car that's in place now is of the the largest, most expensive boondoggles in city history. It should have never been built to begin with. Expecting street car service to every handle a significant transit load across the city is a fantasy.

this is a case where DDOT should bid for a PPP company to build engineer and operate the streetcar system. like Denver has done. As they have no clue what they are doing.
scratchy
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:32 pm

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby STrRedWolf » Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:40 pm

The Washington City Paper showed other ideas that didn't make the cut:

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/new ... ke-the-cut
"The last and final stop is BALTIMORE PENN STATION." I can has MARC V?
User avatar
STrRedWolf
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 5:18 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby Chris Brown » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:14 pm

After the Silver line, I really hope future WMATA expansion focuses more on adding coverage to the city and areas inside the beltway and less on expanding Metro way out into nowhere.

Like the Purple line, I want to see the Virginia and Maryland suburbs build more of their own light-rail lines to compliment Metro. I would like WMATA to focus all their expansion inside the beltway.
Chris Brown
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:16 am

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby MCL1981 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:45 am

Chris Brown wrote:After the Silver line, I really hope future WMATA expansion focuses more on adding coverage to the city and areas inside the beltway and less on expanding Metro way out into nowhere.

That "nowhere" is where most of the riders come from. Extending the red line up to Urbana or Frederick, or other lines out further have obvious merritt.
MCL1981
 
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:23 am

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby farecard » Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:43 am

MCL1981 wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:After the Silver line, I really hope future WMATA expansion focuses more on adding coverage to the city and areas inside the beltway and less on expanding Metro way out into nowhere.

That "nowhere" is where most of the riders come from. Extending the red line up to Urbana or Frederick, or other lines out further have obvious merritt.


Green to BWI, please.
Metro never was a urban core subway; like BART it's a commuter rail system passing through the hub.
User avatar
farecard
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:40 am

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby scratchy » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:56 pm

farecard wrote:
MCL1981 wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:After the Silver line, I really hope future WMATA expansion focuses more on adding coverage to the city and areas inside the beltway and less on expanding Metro way out into nowhere.

That "nowhere" is where most of the riders come from. Extending the red line up to Urbana or Frederick, or other lines out further have obvious merritt.


Green to BWI, please.
Metro never was a urban core subway; like BART it's a commuter rail system passing through the hub.
\

Metro was designed to be a way to get suburban federal workers to downtown, instead of driving on highways.
It became a urban core subway, but still has extra long segments. Remember, MARC service didn't exist yet on the Met, when it was built.

With the likely sell off of the CSX Maryland routes, Increased service on the Met to Frederick could be possible.
Greenline to BWI doesn't make sense, when MARC service could have increased headways, to do the same thing.
(or at least, they could, if MTA looked into EMUs, for new cars.
scratchy
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:32 pm

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby Sand Box John » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:04 pm

quote="scratchy"
Remember, MARC service didn't exist yet on the Met, when it was built.


The B&O, PC and Conrail were operating commuter trains on their respective lines before MARC was created. I use to hangout with a guy that worked for Washington Terminal that turned the seats in the MU, RDC and other cars that ware used for that service. Another friend of mine, now deceased, uses to commute from Twinbrook to Union Station to a bank he managed for American Security and Trust on H Street NE back in the 1960s.
John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore.
User avatar
Sand Box John
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Hebron Maryland

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby STrRedWolf » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:20 pm

scratchy wrote:With the likely sell off of the CSX Maryland routes, Increased service on the Met to Frederick could be possible.
Greenline to BWI doesn't make sense, when MARC service could have increased headways, to do the same thing.
(or at least, they could, if MTA looked into EMUs, for new cars.


The following has to happen first to get more MARC service:
  • The NEC is four-tracked WAS to BAL (which requires station rebuilds!) to get the capacity.
  • CSX is three-tracked Martinsburg to WAS to Baltimore Camden Station to get the capacity.
  • CSX Electrifies it's lines so that the EMUs *can* run (MARC isn't about to buy dedicated equipment for just one line)
  • CSX double-tracks the Old Main to Baltimore, and put in a wye at St. Dennis.

Yeah. Ain't going to happen.
"The last and final stop is BALTIMORE PENN STATION." I can has MARC V?
User avatar
STrRedWolf
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 5:18 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby scratchy » Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:33 pm

STrRedWolf wrote:
scratchy wrote:With the likely sell off of the CSX Maryland routes, Increased service on the Met to Frederick could be possible.
Greenline to BWI doesn't make sense, when MARC service could have increased headways, to do the same thing.
(or at least, they could, if MTA looked into EMUs, for new cars.


The following has to happen first to get more MARC service:
  • The NEC is four-tracked WAS to BAL (which requires station rebuilds!) to get the capacity.
  • CSX is three-tracked Martinsburg to WAS to Baltimore Camden Station to get the capacity.
  • CSX Electrifies it's lines so that the EMUs *can* run (MARC isn't about to buy dedicated equipment for just one line)
  • CSX double-tracks the Old Main to Baltimore, and put in a wye at St. Dennis.

Yeah. Ain't going to happen.


I posted that , if CSX, who made the additional track requirement, sold the line off, increase service.
as it stands, the state wants to pour more money on double decking !270, which will cost way more than adding a third track to the Met.
Most of the NEC was 4 track, up to Landover. When they built some of the platforms in the 80s, they never expected that the 4 track capacity would be needed again, and thus,
need to rip them out.
I'm not sure what would be most cost effective, Green line to BWI, of EMUs? I'm not sure the state would want to pay for duplicating existing service.

Why would they redouble track the OML, and put the Y back in? it's 25 MPH, so wouldn't be competitive, speed wise with driving from howard county.
scratchy
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:32 pm

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby scratchy » Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:41 pm

Sand Box John wrote:quote="scratchy"
Remember, MARC service didn't exist yet on the Met, when it was built.


The B&O, PC and Conrail were operating commuter trains on their respective lines before MARC was created. I use to hangout with a guy that worked for Washington Terminal that turned the seats in the MU, RDC and other cars that ware used for that service. Another friend of mine, now deceased, uses to commute from Twinbrook to Union Station to a bank he managed for American Security and Trust on H Street NE back in the 1960s.


Er, I meant, the semi frequent MARC service didn't exist yet. I know there was a B&O Martinsburg train. Metro had routes out along it, as there was little expectation for additional service.
scratchy
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:32 pm

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby Sand Box John » Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:31 pm

"scratchy"
Most of the NEC was 4 track, up to Landover. When they built some of the platforms in the 80s, they never expected that the 4 track capacity would be needed again, and thus,need to rip them out.


I'm afraid you have it wrong. The Pennsylvania Railroad built the right of way between Lanvale Street in Baltimore and the Landover interlocking to accommodate a future 4th track. A short segment south of Lanvale Street had the 4th track installed during electrification in the 1930s, that segments was extended to Halethorp at a later date. The entire length between Lanvale Street and Landover has never been mostly 4 track. At several of the MARC and Amtrak stations the 3 tracks from the 1930 footprint were realigned to accommodate station platforms.
John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore.
User avatar
Sand Box John
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Hebron Maryland

Re: Metro wants study on a M Street subway tunnel

Postby STrRedWolf » Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:24 pm

scratchy wrote:I'm not sure what would be most cost effective, Green line to BWI, of EMUs? I'm not sure the state would want to pay for duplicating existing service.


It would be more cost effective to four-track from WAS to BAL, so that MARC can run more service with existing equipment. Amtrak only needs two tracks, and would love to have it's trains (and some true-express MARCs) on the center tracks of a four-track line. Outside would be MARC exclusive, and two stations (New Carrolton and BWI Airport) would need some reconstruction for them (Odenton would be gravy due to it's high load).
"The last and final stop is BALTIMORE PENN STATION." I can has MARC V?
User avatar
STrRedWolf
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 5:18 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

PreviousNext

Return to DC - Maryland - Virginia Area Passenger Rail: MTA(MARC), VRE, WMATA(Metro)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests