Green Line Extension-The Intercity Connection [Archive]

harlem87

January 27th, 2007, 10:16 AM

MARC "sucks" because it is out of capacity and out of money. Increased storage space, new power relays, and new cars would make MARC (at least on the Penn Line) much closer to a first rate operation. Longer-term, additional trackage on the NEC would be added to avoid conflicting train schedules. All of this is more logical in the short to mid-term.

I'm not for TOD just for the sake of it, I'd prefer to keep in the inter-urban area free of development free of it for as long as possible. Besides, the Penn Line has TOD possibilities and they are already looking into it.

Specifically, a Green Line would be expensive, and simply not the logical next step the state of our transit system. Do it later. (IHMO).

As far as stations, I don't think they've gotten that far. It's appears to be like one of those pork type projects because Dulles was getting an extension, that therefore justifies "hey, BWI should get one too, then!" The difference is that Dulles is a lot closer to DC than BWI and the Dulles corridor is already built up with an immense array of IT businesses the likes of which are seen rarely elsewhere.

Nate

So like I figured you don't support Development in Maryland because you don't want Maryland to compete with Northern Virginia's Business/Economic/Revenue Growth.

You talk about you don't want inter-urban areas to be developed but you have no issue with the MASSIVE Development projects in Arlington, Alexandria, Tyson's Corner, Reston, Dulles, and Dale City.

You admitted that you support the subway extension to Dulles instead of BWI which further proves that you would hate for Maryland to attract Business/Economic/Revenue Growth away from Northern Virginia.

harlem87

January 27th, 2007, 10:19 AM

Just as electrifying Caltrain makes more sense than building the BART extension to San Jose, stepping up MARC's service would make so much more sense. MARC needs:
1. Weekend service
2. WEEKEND SERVICE!!!
3. More frequent service
4. Later hours at night would be nice, eventually

Maryland should concentrate on other projects like the Metro Purple Line (why stop at New Carrolton? Why not go all the way to Annapolis?), northeast corridor improvements (B&P and Union tunnels anyone?) and building out Baltimore's [url=http://www.baltimoreregiontransitplan.com/images/overview/brrsp/brreportfinal.pdf]transit plan (http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/brn-exec.pdf) before they worry about bringing the green line to BWI.

Nope Extending the Green Line is better.

Why didn't you sugest that VRE build a line from DC to Dulles instead of wasting $4 Billion to build the subway to the Hills of Loudon County.

DonQui

January 27th, 2007, 10:22 AM

Silver Springer

January 27th, 2007, 01:48 PM

It's a subway, not commuter rail. :nuts:

Improve connections on conventional rail between the two cities and the airport they share. the thought of a Washing DC subway line and a Baltimore subway line meeting up with eacher seems to defeat the point of URBAN transport.

Did you know that the Silver line from Tysons to Dulles will partly exist in the HIGHWAY MEDIAN of the toll road? How is that urban? The fact is, THERE IS NOTHING URBAN IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SILVER LINE. Even the Fairfax government body admits to this. This is why they are PUSHING TO CREATE URBAN CENTERS because currently IT IS NOT.

If you were actually from the Baltimore/D.C. area then you would know better than to post that comment. You are obviously are unaware of what already exists between the two cities and how linking them is essential. You are unaware of the 60,000 patrons that will be coming here starting from 2009 to 2011 and beyond on a mandatory basis. It is more than just BWI which in itself is VERY essential to the well being of MY State. You could hardly care less.

Truth be told the Green Line extension is our chance to get all the planned development for BRAC into a more urban fashion. This is our chance to get Konterra to higher density, this is our chance to get Columbia NIMBYs to STFU and create a TOD with more offices and higher density. This is our chance to create a true Baltimore /Washington Biotechnology/Nanotechnology cooridor.

The areas between B/W WILL be developed further, it's not question of if but how.

DonQui

January 27th, 2007, 01:55 PM

Did you know that the Silver line from Tysons to Dulles will partly exist in the HIGHWAY MEDIAN of the toll road? How is that urban? The fact is, THERE IS NOTHING URBAN IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SILVER LINE. Even the Fairfax government body admits to this. This is why they are PUSHING TO CREATE URBAN CENTERS because currently IT IS NOT.
Fantabulous. This is a different kettle of fish and I think this is a smart move.

If you were actually from the Baltimore/D.C. area then you would know better than to post that comment. You are obviously are unaware of what already exists between the two cities and how linking them is essential. You are unaware of the 60,000 patrons that will be coming here starting from 2009 to 2011 and beyond on a mandatory basis. It is more than just BWI which in itself is VERY essential to the well being of MY State. You could hardly care less.
Woooooa there, chill the feck out there betsy! :crazy:

I am intimately associated with the Baltimore/DC having spent time there working at the NIH in Bethesda. And show me where I said that the two cities should not linked. I just said link it like any other respectable polycentric metropolitan area would, by commuter rail. They are close, but not THAT close. It is cheaper and more practical then extending a subway which is URBAN transportation to becoming intercity traffic.

Truth be told the Green Line extension is our chance to get all the planned development for BRAC into a more urban fashion. This is our chance to get Konterra to higher density, this is our chance to get Columbia NIMBYs to STFU and create a TOD with more offices and higher density. This is our chance to create a true Baltimore /Washington Biotechnology/Nanotechnology cooridor.
again, do it the more logical way: better commuter rail.

look at countries like the Netherlands that have large independent cities located close to each other. they don't turn the country into one gigantic subway system, do they? they put the urban transit where it should be, in the metropolitan area, and then have commuter rail/regional trains connecting the cities.

Build 20 of those 30 miles within DC proper and the immediate suburbs, and the money you would spend on those additional 10 miles, plow that into creating a seemless commuter rail system for Baltimore and Washington DC.

Silver Springer

January 27th, 2007, 02:16 PM

Fantabulous. This is a different kettle of fish and I think this is a smart move.

Woooooa there, chill the feck out there betsy! :crazy:

I am intimately associated with the Baltimore/DC having spent time there working at the NIH in Bethesda. And show me where I said that the two cities should not linked. I just said link it like any other respectable polycentric metropolitan area would, by commuter rail. They are close, but not THAT close. It is cheaper and more practical then extending a subway which is URBAN transportation to becoming intercity traffic.

again, do it the more logical way: better commuter rail.

look at countries like the Netherlands that have large independent cities located close to each other. they don't turn the country into one gigantic subway system, do they? they put the urban transit where it should be, in the metropolitan area, and then have commuter rail/regional trains connecting the cities.

Build 20 of those 30 miles within DC proper and the immediate suburbs, and the money you would spend on those additional 10 miles, plow that into creating a seemless commuter rail system for Baltimore and Washington DC.

You are essentialy creating a double standard. Why is trying create urban centers where THERE ARE NONE for the Silver Line OK but the Green Line makes no sense? You applaud their effort but condem ours? What's your trick? To me New York has too many stations in some areas that are usually empty. Going out to long Island is commuter rail to me.

The Green Line will be in no way different than the second leg of the Red line from FriendShip heights to Shady Grove. I even believe that should be extended through Gaithersburg to Germantown.

Like I said you haven't a clue about the geography and ecomomics of this area. The Green Line extention will start from GREENBELT and that is nowhere near 30 miles to BWI

Did you read the quote from BAlwash? "Dulles is about 11 miles from the last Orange Line station and BWI is a bit under 19 miles from the Greenbelt station. However, the Silver Line is going PAST Dulles." Others have noted the distances are negligable.

I always say with the kind of mentality like yours, we would have never had the Metro and definitely not the western leg of the Redline or orange lines. Bethesda to North Bethesda to the planned Shady Grove TOD wouldn't exist. Arlington cooridor wouldn't exist, certainly no rail to Tysons either.

The distances of both line are virtually the same. People have this misconception (and others who should really mind their own business) that the Green Line line extension will be a lot further out than the Silver Line in excess of 10+ miles. Where is this 30 miles crap coming from? Prove it! THIS IS BAD INFORMATION, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

DonQui

January 27th, 2007, 02:27 PM

First off, putting things in caps does not make you more right. Calm the fuck down.

You are essentialy creating a double standard. Why is trying create urban centers where THERE ARE NONE for the Silver Line OK but the Green Line makes no sense? You applaud their effort but condem ours? What's your trick? To me New York has too many stations in some areas that are usually empty. Going out to long Island is commuter rail to me.
To many stations that are usually empty? If you are talking about subways, the A, C, and E lines of the 8th Avenue service on the subway alone carry more passengers than the ENTIRE Washington metro. And our commuter rail has upwards of over a million rides a day, if not more. That sound empty to you?

The Green Line will be in no way different than the second leg of the Red line from FriendShip heights to Shady Grove. I even believe that should be extended through Gaithersburg to Germantown.

Like I said you haven't a clue about the geography and ecomomics of this area. The Green Line extention will start from GREENBELT and that is nowhere near 30 miles to BWI
It IS however 30 miles from downtown DC is it not? Are you telling me that you find it perfectly logical that an train line meant for urban traffic be extended that far because people in the BalWash area have forgotten what commuter trains look like? And look at the title of the thread, it is talking about eventually extending the Washington DC subway to meet the Baltimore subway. And this to me is sheer stupidity. You want to have intercity connections, due it the way it is done all over the world: commuter/regional trains.

Did you read the quote from BAlwash? "Dulles is about 11 miles from the last Orange Line station and BWI is a bit under 19 miles from the Greenbelt station. However, the Silver Line is going PAST Dulles." Others have noted the distances are negligable.
Then they are foolish for also trying to go that far out the city on subway. Fool me once shame on you, fool me once shame on me. How does past idiocy justify pouring even more billions of dollars and a new absurd project? The fact is that subway is in general more expensive to construct and maintain because the trains are meant for heavy use and meant for relatively short distances. It would be cheaper to build a commuter rail system to link the airports.

I always say with the kind of mentality like yours, we would have never had the Metro and definitely not the western leg of the Redline or orange lines. Bethesda to North Bethesda to the planned Shady Grove TOD wouldn't exist. Arlington cooridor wouldn't exist, certainly no rail to Tysons either.
:nuts: Yes, I as a New Yorker living in Manhattan sit here and plot ways to destroy metros and ensure that they don't get built. :crazy2: The metro system as it is is probably stretched too think going out so far into the suburbs. Saying, "I dunno George, why don't we make it go farther" without regard to if it is the best solution is dumb, pure and simple.

The distances of both line are virtually the same. People have this misconception (and others who should really mind their own business) that the Green Line line extension will be a lot further out than the Silver Line in excess of 10+ miles. THIS IS BAD INFORMATION, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!
Mind their own business? If you are going to talk down to me, be an adult and do it directly. And how old are you to be talking like a kindergartner? "WAAAAAAAAAH teacher Johnny is wrong, and he is making me angwy?" Building ass-long extensions of subways when commuter rail could do the job more effectively and worse, even entertaining the thought of putting the metro all the way up to Baltimore is itself not bad information, but bad day-dreaming.

Silver Springer

January 27th, 2007, 03:04 PM

First off, putting things in caps does not make you more right. Calm the fuck down.

Getting pissed? Word of advice, try to use better vocabulary and try to refrain from using personal attacks, as you can see I haven't stooped to your level.

And I see you couldn’t even answer my questions so why bother if you're going to just ramble?

To many stations that are usually empty? If you are talking about subways, the A, C, and E lines of the 8th Avenue service on the subway alone carry more passengers than the ENTIRE Washington metro. And our commuter rail has upwards of over a million rides a day, if not more. That sound empty to you?

Yes, in Brooklyn some station were definitely empty, they were essentially surrounded by residential row homes no denser than parts of Baltimore.

It IS however 30 miles from downtown DC is it not? Are you telling me that you find it perfectly logical that an train line meant for urban traffic be extended that far because people in the BalWash area have forgotten what commuter trains look like? And look at the title of the thread, it is talking about eventually extending the Washington DC subway to meet the Baltimore subway. And this to me is sheer stupidity. You want to have intercity connections, due it the way it is done all over the world: commuter/regional trains.

Then Dulles and going past "IS however 30 miles from downtown DC is it not? Are you telling me that you find it perfectly logical that an train line meant for urban traffic be extended that far because people in the [Nova] area have forgotten what commuter trains look like?" See how that works?

Once again you prove how little you know about this area. There is a Baltimore light rail stop already at BWI. We only have to make the fare easily transferable. Further more that is NOT 30 miles out (had to put it in bold and caps since you seem not to comprehend). No one is talking about pulling the D.C. Metro Green line into downtown Baltimore.

Then they are foolish for also trying to go that far out the city on subway. Fool me once shame on you, fool me once shame on me. How does past idiocy justify pouring even more billions of dollars and a new absurd project? The fact is that subway is in general more expensive to construct and maintain because the trains are meant for heavy use and meant for relatively short distances. It would be cheaper to build a commuter rail system to link the airports.

Make up your mind. Are they "Fantabulous" or are they "foolish"? I thought it was "a different kettle of fish and I think this is a smart move". Please explain that one too? How are suburban, auto oriented areas with seas of parking and buildings 1/2 miles a part holier than the corridor between Baltimore/Washington and the two major cities themselves?

:nuts: Yes, I as a New Yorker living in Manhattan sit here and plot ways to destroy metros and ensure that they don't get built. :crazy2: The metro system as it is is probably stretched too think going out so far into the suburbs. Saying, "I dunno George, why don't we make it go farther" without regard to if it is the best solution is dumb, pure and simple.

Stop trying to instigate, don't blame all New Yorkers for your sole mentality. When the Metro was in planning stages, some officials wanted highways instead. People made the argument that some areas were not developed enough so there is no reason to put metro out there. That is what I was talking about. You have that same mentality. We know better now.

And with all the planned and current development the future is clearer for Baltimore/Washington than ever before. If we don't build the Green Line we will SPRAWL. I do not believe we have to have another Tysons Corner mess in Maryland before we figure out we have to start from scratch and create a mangled odd looking urban area.

With all the development coming through we will eventually build the Green Line. It's not a matter of if but when and the proper way to do that is to PLAN AHEAD. Get it?

Mind their own business? If you are going to talk down to me, be an adult and do it directly. And how old are you to be talking like a kindergartner? "WAAAAAAAAAH teacher Johnny is wrong, and he is making me angwy?" Building ass-long extensions of subways when commuter rail could do the job more effectively and worse, even entertaining the thought of putting the metro all the way up to Baltimore is itself not bad information, but bad day-dreaming.

How mature, are you even past pre-school?

DonQui

January 27th, 2007, 03:08 PM

getontrac

January 27th, 2007, 03:10 PM

I might repost my earlier comment from the Baltimore thread about the technical differences between HRT and commuter to help fill in the gaps here.

However, to the point that the Dulles corridor isn't urbanized. Much of it is, but in a very sprawling manner. Nevertheless, there is still much more development there than on the MD side. So Dulles, IMO, is more justifiable in the shorter term than BWI.

There are ways to extend the DC Metro so that constructing Metro in Baltimore could become much more cost-effective. If it comes down to that as the final options, I'd likely support it. But that would take a long, long time to get to Baltimore and develop our system. I'd rather not wait TOO, TOO long on our part.

If one thinks that there is sufficient travel between suburban locations of DC/Baltimore, than the Green Line has a shot. (I don't think we're there, yet). If the idea is to go from Balto. to DC, vice versa--it will not be faster or more cost-effective than MARC. Very long distances, particularly average trip lengths of 20-25 miles or more, are almost always better suited toward commuter rail. HRT technology is designed more for INTRA-urban travel....

With all the other projects on the table, use the scarcity of funds differently. DC Green Line should go last on the current disoriented jumble of capital projects list.

Nate

getontrac

January 27th, 2007, 03:14 PM

Silver Springer

January 27th, 2007, 03:23 PM

I think your comments, Silver Springer, are falling into the false dillema category, amongst other fallacies. I respect you have a different viewpoint, but your accusations to the other poster don't always logically follow.

And yes, there is discussion of exteding WMATA into downtown Baltimore.

Nate

Please elaborate? I think your fear and concern is that building the Green Line will be at the expense of something else, which need not necessarily be the case.

There may have been a blurb a while ago but I haven't read about it for a while, probably just some politician talking uninformed. Most the time it has been about going to BWI, nothing more.

I am glad that officials are jumping on the extention anyways. I feel that there are several more different reasons for the Green Line as compared to the Silver Line. I'm not saying the Silver Line should not be built just that the Green line has more specific reasons going for it.

Silver Springer

January 27th, 2007, 03:37 PM

However, to the point that the Dulles corridor isn't urbanized. Much of it is, but in a very sprawling manner. Nevertheless, there is still much more development there than on the MD side. So Dulles, IMO, is more justifiable in the shorter term than BWI.

That's your fallacy and the statement was very much an oxymoron. How can it be urban yet sprawling? Have you been there?

The sea of parking in front of the buildings, the side streets parallel to interstate highway width roads, the distances between the buildings. No cross walks for pedestrians, I could go on. Suburban it is, urban it is not.

This is surprising coming from someone who is devoted to transit. In a way you are justifying suburban sprawl.

It is not urbanized no matter how much you ant to stretch it; you cannot put Fairfax and Loudon in the same category as Baltimore or even Bethesda.

Silicon Francisco

January 27th, 2007, 06:22 PM

It is not urbanized no matter how much you ant to stretch it; you cannot put Fairfax and Loudon in the same category as Baltimore or even Bethesda.
I agree, Fairfax and Loudoun are counties :)
Maybe the hope is that Dulles line will make an Arlington out of Fairfax.

ajoutz

January 27th, 2007, 08:06 PM

I am done with this thread, unfortunately after it has been hijacked by people with the maturity of a first grader on ADD.

toodles. :hi:

PS: And extending the Metro this far remains to be shown to be the best solution.

As a former first grader with ADD, I'm insulted. I think the first question is, who are you to tell us we are wrong? Just because you used to live somewhere doesn't mean in anyway that you know how it still works. Especially more so than people who currently live here. Comparing the NYC subway to the DC metro is just idiotic. How can you try to compare a subway that was designed to transport people across a dense city to one that was built to mostly allow suburban commuters to get into the city. They have completely different goals and you can't say the distance is rediculous because it is not, I live right near the Grovesnor-Strathmore Station and I ride the Metro at least 2-3 times a week. Most people live in the suburbs and that's why the Metro goes into the suburbs, imagine that!

I think there is a good analogy for the Silver Line vs Green Line debate:

Which poor family deserves, not needs, more money?

Family A) Although they can't afford much food, they have 10 children and all are forced to live badly and uneducated, and the kids grow up dependent on welfare.
Family B) They realized that they don't have much, so they only had two kids and managed to make sure that both of them get through fairly well, and they get good educations. Both of them grow up to be successful.

Family A can't make the arguement that they need it more because they have more kids because it's their own fault they wouldn't stop crapping out kids. Family B made sure that they didn't overprocreate and so they have obviously shown that they spend their money much more wisely. Who should get the cash? The family that will use it to fix a mistake or the family who will use it to encourage more smart development?

getontrac

January 28th, 2007, 12:06 AM

That's your fallacy and the statement was very much an oxymoron. How can it be urban yet sprawling? Have you been there?

The sea of parking in front of the buildings, the side streets parallel to interstate highway width roads, the distances between the buildings. No cross walks for pedestrians, I could go on. Suburban it is, urban it is not.

This is surprising coming from someone who is devoted to transit. In a way you are justifying suburban sprawl.

It is not urbanized no matter how much you ant to stretch it; you cannot put Fairfax and Loudon in the same category as Baltimore or even Bethesda.

The definition of "urban" is much broader than commonly used here, including myself. I shall clarify. I mean to say that it is humanly developed, quite heavily, in a post-WW II, single use, land inefficient, "sprawling" manner. It is nevertheless quite dense insofar as commercial office space by non-downtown standards (anecdote).

I am in no way justifying creating suburban sprawl. I have not done so on this board. However, as I mentioned in the past, transit itself can induce sprawl if not built properly, or if land-use zoning is poor.

When the US Government refers to "urbanized territory", they do not make distinctions between the non-discrete boundary between traditional urban form and modern suburban.

Nate

getontrac

January 28th, 2007, 03:30 AM

Please elaborate? I think your fear and concern is that building the Green Line will be at the expense of something else, which need not necessarily be the case.

There may have been a blurb a while ago but I haven't read about it for a while, probably just some politician talking uninformed. Most the time it has been about going to BWI, nothing more.

I am glad that officials are jumping on the extention anyways. I feel that there are several more different reasons for the Green Line as compared to the Silver Line. I'm not saying the Silver Line should not be built just that the Green line has more specific reasons going for it.

I'd rather not spend too much time delving into the unnecessarily harshly conversed discussion you had above. I'll talk with you offline about it if you're interested, as I think that's more appropriate for the forum.

Indeed, there is the serious concern that having a WMATA Green Line extension on the big Maryland wish list could come at the expense of other projects. Funds are scarce, and generating new funds will likely be difficult politically. The more projects on the table, the more likely that one or more will be killed altogether, dragged out and taken half seriously by officials, or dumbed down and done on the cheap the wrong way.

A $3 billion Green Line extension is likely more expensive than the CAC Red Line or a HRT Purple Line (which is illogically not being studied; I know there is some bi-county and business consensus for LRT, but from my observations and many thumbnail analyses, I conclude only heavy can work). There is the Capital Cities transitway which I forget the details of. Then there is the increasing O&M on our highway system that will require more money than is spent now, just to keep the system running as is. We will be nearing the point where many of our highways will have to be rebuilt as their years of useful life expire. WMATA has been accruing some, what, $1.5 to $2 billion of deffered maintainence?

For Baltimore to be a successful "classically urban" city with a dynamic downtown with sought after commercial space, we need Metro capital investments and expansions serving the core (at first). It doesn't necessarily have to be the "Red" Line, but at least a segment of a coherant, thought-out plan (not the 2002 plan).

DC needs circumferential service to serve its fully developed suburbs, and take pressure off the Red Line. Only grade seperation will work. I've done the math--you can't deliver (supposedly MTA claimed, mentioned by ACT member)70,000 daily rides on a mostly mixed-traffic light rail. Can't happen and have reliable or fast service. Defies laws of physics. TRAC supports their interests if that is what they want. I know, personally, it doesn't make sense.

A Green Line extension could quite possibly generate more sprawl by encouraging more people to work in DC and live farther away. However, if they have a station density significantly closer than MARC stations, it will take FAR longer to get to Union than MARC, and if they don't have closer stations, what's the point? Only if there are many trips taken between town and town along that corridor would it be more "beneficial" (time-savings) than and enhanced MARC (more cars, more power, weekend service, higher frequency service--costs more money, but a lot less than $3 billion plus new Green Line operating costs). Plan space for Green Line (or Orange Line) expansion, but build it later.

I think benefits and the logic of a HRT Baltimore project and a grade-seperated DC Purple Line speak for themselves as having primacy over a Green Line extension, and I'll leave it at that

There've been many articles where the WMATA extention to Baltimore was brought up, I think as late as this past fall, by Flanagan himself. The concept is bandied about regularly. Forgive me if I don't look for the article now, I've got WAY TOO MANY articles in a rather disorganized fashion stored on my e-mail. But I'm pretty confident is was mention recently.

Nate

urbanaturalist

January 28th, 2007, 06:56 PM

I don't know about necessarily having the Green Line from DC go directly into Baltimore. At least it can stop at BWI airport and then take the Light Rail?!:sleepy: iinto downtown Baltimore.

The Commuter Rail really is for connecting large cities, and besides if DC-Baltimore Maglev is manifested then that reduces the need to have a straight subway/heavy rail from downtown DC to downtown Baltimore.

Regardless, that Green Line to BWI defiinitely needs to be built sooner than later.

getontrac

January 28th, 2007, 07:22 PM

^I like your name urbanaturalist--that's exactly what I do! Do I know you?

Although, one can catch MARC from BWI to DC already. But, I'll try to refrain from rehashing myself....difficult to control! :nuts: :bash:

Nate

harlem87

January 29th, 2007, 01:45 AM

harlem87

January 29th, 2007, 01:54 AM

The definition of "urban" is much broader than commonly used here, including myself. I shall clarify. I mean to say that it is humanly developed, quite heavily, in a post-WW II, single use, land inefficient, "sprawling" manner. It is nevertheless quite dense insofar as commercial office space by non-downtown standards (anecdote).

I am in no way justifying creating suburban sprawl. I have not done so on this board. However, as I mentioned in the past, transit itself can induce sprawl if not built properly, or if land-use zoning is poor.

When the US Government refers to "urbanized territory", they do not make distinctions between the non-discrete boundary between traditional urban form and modern suburban.

Nate

This is just your way of saying that it is wrong to encourage Business/Economic/Revenue Growth in Maryland but it is no problem to encourage Business/Economic/Revenue Growth for Virginia.

BTW- Alot of the Development in Arlington/Alexandria had most of the old ugly buildings demolished which you don't support in Baltimore(or other parts of Maryland) but yet you neer stated that you had a problem with Virginia tearing down old buildings to make way for new development.

harlem87

January 29th, 2007, 01:58 AM

I'd rather not spend too much time delving into the unnecessarily harshly conversed discussion you had above. I'll talk with you offline about it if you're interested, as I think that's more appropriate for the forum.

Indeed, there is the serious concern that having a WMATA Green Line extension on the big Maryland wish list could come at the expense of other projects. Funds are scarce, and generating new funds will likely be difficult politically. The more projects on the table, the more likely that one or more will be killed altogether, dragged out and taken half seriously by officials, or dumbed down and done on the cheap the wrong way.

A $3 billion Green Line extension is likely more expensive than the CAC Red Line or a HRT Purple Line (which is illogically not being studied; I know there is some bi-county and business consensus for LRT, but from my observations and many thumbnail analyses, I conclude only heavy can work). There is the Capital Cities transitway which I forget the details of. Then there is the increasing O&M on our highway system that will require more money than is spent now, just to keep the system running as is. We will be nearing the point where many of our highways will have to be rebuilt as their years of useful life expire. WMATA has been accruing some, what, $1.5 to $2 billion of deffered maintainence?

For Baltimore to be a successful "classically urban" city with a dynamic downtown with sought after commercial space, we need Metro capital investments and expansions serving the core (at first). It doesn't necessarily have to be the "Red" Line, but at least a segment of a coherant, thought-out plan (not the 2002 plan).

DC needs circumferential service to serve its fully developed suburbs, and take pressure off the Red Line. Only grade seperation will work. I've done the math--you can't deliver (supposedly MTA claimed, mentioned by ACT member)70,000 daily rides on a mostly mixed-traffic light rail. Can't happen and have reliable or fast service. Defies laws of physics. TRAC supports their interests if that is what they want. I know, personally, it doesn't make sense.

A Green Line extension could quite possibly generate more sprawl by encouraging more people to work in DC and live farther away. However, if they have a station density significantly closer than MARC stations, it will take FAR longer to get to Union than MARC, and if they don't have closer stations, what's the point? Only if there are many trips taken between town and town along that corridor would it be more "beneficial" (time-savings) than and enhanced MARC (more cars, more power, weekend service, higher frequency service--costs more money, but a lot less than $3 billion plus new Green Line operating costs). Plan space for Green Line (or Orange Line) expansion, but build it later.

I think benefits and the logic of a HRT Baltimore project and a grade-seperated DC Purple Line speak for themselves as having primacy over a Green Line extension, and I'll leave it at that

There've been many articles where the WMATA extention to Baltimore was brought up, I think as late as this past fall, by Flanagan himself. The concept is bandied about regularly. Forgive me if I don't look for the article now, I've got WAY TOO MANY articles in a rather disorganized fashion stored on my e-mail. But I'm pretty confident is was mention recently.

Nate

There is alot of Contridicting going on in that BS post.

harlem87

January 29th, 2007, 02:00 AM

21230

January 29th, 2007, 06:52 PM

There is alot of Contridicting going on in that BS post.

I frequent this forum as it is a great source of information regarding my city and often intruiging debates occur. When I first saw your postings, I was shocked and appalled at their sociopathic nature and was often inclined to ignore pages of threads out of disgust.

After several months of persistent offensive, shortsided and outright belligerent postings, I have grown to love your presence. In fact, I have found myself actively reading threads when I see you have made a recent posting. Reason being, you never disappoint.

So, I just want to say thank you, harlem87. It's people like you who have made reality TV popular and will put food on the table for family psychologists for decades to come.

Silver Springer

January 30th, 2007, 02:29 AM

As a former first grader with ADD, I'm insulted. I think the first question is, who are you to tell us we are wrong? Just because you used to live somewhere doesn't mean in anyway that you know how it still works. Especially more so than people who currently live here. Comparing the NYC subway to the DC metro is just idiotic. How can you try to compare a subway that was designed to transport people across a dense city to one that was built to mostly allow suburban commuters to get into the city. They have completely different goals and you can't say the distance is rediculous because it is not, I live right near the Grovesnor-Strathmore Station and I ride the Metro at least 2-3 times a week. Most people live in the suburbs and that's why the Metro goes into the suburbs, imagine that!

I think there is a good analogy for the Silver Line vs Green Line debate:

Which poor family deserves, not needs, more money?

Family A) Although they can't afford much food, they have 10 children and all are forced to live badly and uneducated, and the kids grow up dependent on welfare.
Family B) They realized that they don't have much, so they only had two kids and managed to make sure that both of them get through fairly well, and they get good educations. Both of them grow up to be successful.

Family A can't make the arguement that they need it more because they have more kids because it's their own fault they wouldn't stop crapping out kids. Family B made sure that they didn't overprocreate and so they have obviously shown that they spend their money much more wisely. Who should get the cash? The family that will use it to fix a mistake or the family who will use it to encourage more smart development?

It certainly speaks of his/her maturity level, good riddance. Your analogy makes perfect sense, we are always taught to plan ahead as we grow, but when we want to put it into practice those that want to do this get opposition while those that don't get support handouts even from people on the other side.

harlem87

January 30th, 2007, 07:14 AM

rxsoccer

January 30th, 2007, 06:42 PM

I frequent this forum as it is a great source of information regarding my city and often intruiging debates occur. When I first saw your postings, I was shocked and appalled at their sociopathic nature and was often inclined to ignore pages of threads out of disgust.

After several months of persistent offensive, shortsided and outright belligerent postings, I have grown to love your presence. In fact, I have found myself actively reading threads when I see you have made a recent posting. Reason being, you never disappoint.

So, I just want to say thank you, harlem87. It's people like you who have made reality TV popular and will put food on the table for family psychologists for decades to come.

21230, your reality show reference just made me realize who this harlem person really is! Its PUCK from the real world SF! Glad to see that A-hole found another forum to spew his nonsense in! "Maryland hates business! blah blah blah! Virginia love business! blah blah blah! Baltimore will never be as good as places like Charlotte! blah blah blah!" WE GET IT!
I can go through your 3 million posts and find nothing more substantial than that and insults repeated everytime.
Puck, the guy you love to hate! For the reality show whores out there, enjoy! we're in the company of reality show royalty here!http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/news/060828/puck.jpg

Evangelion

January 30th, 2007, 07:10 PM

Maudibjr

January 30th, 2007, 07:53 PM

This is just your way of saying that it is wrong to encourage Business/Economic/Revenue Growth in Maryland but it is no problem to encourage Business/Economic/Revenue Growth for Virginia.

BTW- Alot of the Development in Arlington/Alexandria had most of the old ugly buildings demolished which you don't support in Baltimore(or other parts of Maryland) but yet you neer stated that you had a problem with Virginia tearing down old buildings to make way for new development.

That is an amazing logical leap there. You seem to read sentances very literally with no regard for refrence or inference, I would guess that English is not your first language, but maybe an eastern european one or Russian?

Also don't kid yourself Arlington/Alexandria have more than enough NIMBY's to go around.

Maudibjr

January 30th, 2007, 08:05 PM

Seriously though.. whats withthe rivalry bw md and va.... either way in the end if one side does well wouldnt the other also benefit from jobs and economics as well? the region is a powerhouse due to the combination of "types" of areas the dc metro offers...

I agree with you. Many, many Marylanders work in in Va. and vice-versa. Each state has done quite well economicly,.

Although Virginia is quickly becoming NoVA and the rest of the state, much like MD is central MD and the rest of the state.

harlem87

February 1st, 2007, 04:11 AM

That is an amazing logical leap there. You seem to read sentances very literally with no regard for refrence or inference, I would guess that English is not your first language, but maybe an eastern european one or Russian?

Also don't kid yourself Arlington/Alexandria have more than enough NIMBY's to go around.

Oh yeah, then why the Hell are they building a 40-60 Floor Tower in Rosslyn, the proposal to build more Office Towers in the Clerandon section of Arlington, and not too long ago they build a load of Office/Condo Towers in Downtown Alexandria between the King Street Metro and The Beltway.

Silicon Francisco

February 1st, 2007, 05:32 AM

my favorite forumer
There is alot of Contridicting going on in that BS post.
I frequent this forum as it is a great source of information regarding my city and often intruiging debates occur. When I first saw your postings, I was shocked and appalled at their sociopathic nature and was often inclined to ignore pages of threads out of disgust.

After several months of persistent offensive, shortsided and outright belligerent postings, I have grown to love your presence. In fact, I have found myself actively reading threads when I see you have made a recent posting. Reason being, you never disappoint.

So, I just want to say thank you, harlem87. It's people like you who have made reality TV popular and will put food on the table for family psychologists for decades to come.
21230, your reality show reference just made me realize who this harlem person really is! Its PUCK from the real world SF! Glad to see that A-hole found another forum to spew his nonsense in! "Maryland hates business! blah blah blah! Virginia love business! blah blah blah! Baltimore will never be as good as places like Charlotte! blah blah blah!" WE GET IT!
I can go through your 3 million posts and find nothing more substantial than that and insults repeated everytime.
Puck, the guy you love to hate! For the reality show whores out there, enjoy! we're in the company of reality show royalty here!
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/news/060828/puck.jpg
Ouch, (owned)2

Oh yeah, then why the Hell are they building a 40-60 Floor Tower in Rosslyn, the proposal to build more Office Towers in the Clerandon section of Arlington, and not too long ago they build a load of Office/Condo Towers in Downtown Alexandria between the King Street Metro and The Beltway.
Clarendon is empty compared to Ballston and Rosslyn, but it has a Metro stop, might as well get dense there. The tower that I think you're talking about was supposed to be two towers.

Maudibjr

February 1st, 2007, 05:56 PM

Oh yeah, then why the Hell are they building a 40-60 Floor Tower in Rosslyn, the proposal to build more Office Towers in the Clerandon section of Arlington, and not too long ago they build a load of Office/Condo Towers in Downtown Alexandria between the King Street Metro and The Beltway.

Because that is where they have designated for growth. Why do you think they created designated growth areas? Just because there is growth does not mean that there are no NIMBY's.

Otherwise I-66 would of been expanded by now.

harlem87

February 2nd, 2007, 07:49 AM

Because that is where they have designated for growth. Why do you think they created designated growth areas? Just because there is growth does not mean that there are no NIMBY's.

Otherwise I-66 would of been expanded by now.

It's in the process.

Maudibjr

February 2nd, 2007, 10:27 PM

It's in the process.

It has been in the process since before it was built. I doubt it will be expanded, if it ever is, within the next 20 years. All of which goes to show NIMBY's exist everywhere even in Va.

NovaWolverine

February 2nd, 2007, 11:18 PM

What is wrong w/ commuter rail? I can't for the life of me understand why people in the DC area think commuter rail sucks. I urge people to go to NYC, Chicago or somewhere in Europe or Asia and see for themselves how similar it can be to subway and how much better commuter rail can be. One reason why commuter rail wasn't used for Tysons, is b/c there's no crossing over the Potomac on the side where Tysons is. They would need to build new tracks and a new tunnel, and also to echo what someone else already said, it has the development there NOW, and it needs it NOW, just as other places have gotten metro after they'd been developed. If there were tracks in Dulles, they would have gone commuter rail for sure. Tysons is an inner job center just as Arlington, Rockville and Bethesda are and that's why metro is going there, the urban thing is a help, but if there was nothing there, this project wouldn't be so highly publicized, it's b/c Tysons has grown so much that heavy rail is seen as a necessity. Brand-new commuter rail stations and trains would go a long way anywhere in the region and the difference between modes would be negligible to everyone but homers on urban issue message boards.

I don't want to start this thing again, but I hope that people generally see the upside to using commuter rail which can also spur development in TODs as it has all around the world. We will need multiple modes in our transportation system. HRT, LRT, BRT, commuter rail and the works. Just in general, we ought to open up a bit and put biases aside, I hope people see that it's not a md v. va thing, as DonQui, getontrac, along with a number of people at beyonddc can see the logic behind developing a robust, comprehensive and world class commuter rail system.

You can endorse heavy rail, there is nothing at all wrong with that, but we need to look past stigmas and making a responsible decision. I don't like heavy rail going such long distances b/c it wasn't designed for that and there are options that simply do the job better.

cgunna

February 3rd, 2007, 12:04 AM

I completely agree. I think commuter rail should be expanded to 'functional' levels.

Archiconnoisseur

February 3rd, 2007, 01:15 AM

^Agree, Orange Line must be studied as an alternative.

But, I'll briefly reitterate that it is far more logical to expand MARC capacity and frequency at this time and spent money on a (heavy) DC Purple Line and a (heavy) Baltimore Metro project.

Nate
I'm with you, Nate. I believe that MARC, especially the Penn Line, should remain the primary intercity link between Baltimore and Washington. I'm also against any increase in sprawl between DC and Baltimore. I'd prefer to see increased densification of DC and NoVa instead.

In the long term, driverless cars will make the Metro (and cabs) obsolete, so I'm a bit worried about sinking too much money into new tunnels and tracks.

getontrac

February 3rd, 2007, 01:30 AM

Even if PRT (personal rapid transit) or the like become scalable. We'll still need Metros for high capacity services. If we still have big downtowns, we'll still need Metro.

Nate

ajoutz

February 3rd, 2007, 02:22 AM

harlem87

February 3rd, 2007, 07:05 AM

harlem87

February 3rd, 2007, 07:06 AM

I completely agree. I think commuter rail should be expanded to 'functional' levels.

No its just more Bull Shit talking because he dosen't support extending the VRE to Dulles and Loudon County instead of wasting $Billions to build a Subway.

harlem87

February 3rd, 2007, 07:19 AM

I'm with you, Nate. I believe that MARC, especially the Penn Line, should remain the primary intercity link between Baltimore and Washington. I'm also against any increase in sprawl between DC and Baltimore. I'd prefer to see increased densification of DC and NoVa instead.

In the long term, driverless cars will make the Metro (and cabs) obsolete, so I'm a bit worried about sinking too much money into new tunnels and tracks.

Yeah another Maryland hating Southern Trolling Hick expressing their true Maryland Hatred by supporting anti-growth schemes to block Maryland from COMPETING against your beloved Virginia's(along with the Carolina's and Georgia's) Business/Economic/Revenue Growth.

Why don't you Maryland Haters come out and admit that you want the government to tear down ALL of the Highways, Office Buildings, Retail Buildings, Middle/Upper Class Homes in Maryland which will force a SEVERE Population Decrease in Maryland and help your southern state of Virginia(along with the Carolina's and Georgia) to reap All of the Maryland population and increase Business/Economic/Revenue Growth in Virginia, the Carolina's, and Georgia.

You Peoples wishful hope of "The Confederate South(Virginia, The Carolina's, and Georgia) Shall Rise Again" will be a failure of accomplishment.

harlem87

February 3rd, 2007, 07:24 AM

Even if PRT (personal rapid transit) or the like become scalable. We'll still need Metros for high capacity services. If we still have big downtowns, we'll still need Metro.

Nate

And Metro alone will not mobile everyone rapidly unless there is a Balance of Highways being Built.

Again; Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Philly, and Boston have both transit and Highways which are better off than Baltimore especially since Baltimore lacks an East-West/North-South Highway System like the other more successful cities that have Highways and Transit.

harlem87

February 3rd, 2007, 07:32 AM

The whole point of the Green Line Extension is to prevent sprawl between DC and Bmore by encouraging smart growth.

I hope your joking.

BalWash

February 3rd, 2007, 07:48 AM

I'm also against any increase in sprawl between DC and Baltimore. I'd prefer to see increased densification of DC and NoVa instead.

I too think that is truly anti-growth, anti-Maryland bullshit.

NovaWolverine

February 3rd, 2007, 08:26 AM

Then why don't you people suppport building a commuter rail between Falls Church and Loudon County instead of a Subway??????????????????????

Plain and simple b/c Tysons is way, way too economically significant an area in the region and it's relatively close. Again, it's just as close as Rockville and Greenbelt and they have metro and those are reasonable places that ought to have it in my opinion. But when you get 20 and 30 miles away, the benefit of it is significantly less. Commuter rail is the same thing, only it's more comfortable and travels faster. I would absolutely be content if Dulles was serviced by only commuter rail, however. The fact that there aren't any tracks and needing to build a crossing over the potomac are things to consider though. And since this is America in '07, rail travel is something that only the most progressive find appealing to do, so I don't see the planners at this point envisioning a comprehensive commuter rail system, unfortunately. It seems in VA, they'll just try to make do with what they have.

NovaWolverine

February 3rd, 2007, 08:33 AM

Yeah another Maryland hating Southern Trolling Hick expressing their true Maryland Hatred by supporting anti-growth schemes to block Maryland from COMPETING against your beloved Virginia's(along with the Carolina's and Georgia's) Business/Economic/Revenue Growth.

Why don't you Maryland Haters come out and admit that you want the government to tear down ALL of the Highways, Office Buildings, Retail Buildings, Middle/Upper Class Homes in Maryland which will force a SEVERE Population Decrease in Maryland and help your southern state of Virginia(along with the Carolina's and Georgia) to reap All of the Maryland population and increase Business/Economic/Revenue Growth in Virginia, the Carolina's, and Georgia.

You Peoples wishful hope of "The Confederate South(Virginia, The Carolina's, and Georgia) Shall Rise Again" will be a failure of accomplishment.

Why is it you think the Civil War is still going on. And btw, since you don't know shit, MD has very little room to talk when it comes to confederate/southern topics.

You make it sound as if MD is the worst place in the world and other states are capitalizing on things at MD's expense. First of all, the idea of competition in general doesn't seem to exist to you. Second, MD is doing very well in many ways. And third, you're a hypocrite if on one hand you blame the "problems" on MD politician's policies and then later make it out to sound like other states are targeting MD and that's the only reason why MD is doing well in your opinion.

Archiconnoisseur

February 3rd, 2007, 01:50 PM

I too think that is truly anti-growth, anti-Maryland bullshit.
First off, when I say NoVa, I basically mean Arlington and Alexandria. I believe that DC development needs to stay concentrated within the Beltway; it just so happens that most of the Maryland portion of the Beltway is already occupied by the District.

Secondly, I hate the automobile lifestyle. I welcome the addition of grand monumental structures, beautiful bikable streets and boulevards, and upscale high-rise housing within the Beltway. I don't welcome the continued public subsidization of "white flight" outside of it.

Thirdly, I wish to see a city that is eminently walkable and easy to navigate without a car. Most American cities are built to such a vast scale that they're impossible to live in without access to wheels. It's no wonder there's an obesity epidemic here.

getontrac

February 3rd, 2007, 04:38 PM

harlem87

February 4th, 2007, 04:46 AM

Plain and simple b/c Tysons is way, way too economically significant an area in the region and it's relatively close. Again, it's just as close as Rockville and Greenbelt and they have metro and those are reasonable places that ought to have it in my opinion. But when you get 20 and 30 miles away, the benefit of it is significantly less. Commuter rail is the same thing, only it's more comfortable and travels faster. I would absolutely be content if Dulles was serviced by only commuter rail, however. The fact that there aren't any tracks and needing to build a crossing over the potomac are things to consider though. And since this is America in '07, rail travel is something that only the most progressive find appealing to do, so I don't see the planners at this point envisioning a comprehensive commuter rail system, unfortunately. It seems in VA, they'll just try to make do with what they have.

But you just get a kick out of displaying your wishful thinking that Maryland should not extend their subway to BWI because it will make Maryland more competative to your side of Virginia and the only reason why you people want to shove down some bull shit Commuter Rail improvements down Maryland's throat because you know that it will be too damn expensive to ride and it will not encourage or complement more development between DC and Baltimore. You also don't support the Green Line Extension because you people are scared that with BRAC moving to Fort Meade that it will attract Virgians to move to Maryland because of the subway and its complemen to the future Developments between DC and Baltimore.

Thanks for trying again Maryland hater but again you failed to prove your point but only proved that you don't want Maryland to share the same kind of Business/Economic/Revenue Growth as your Coloniel Confederate state of Virginia.

harlem87

February 4th, 2007, 04:47 AM

Why is it you think the Civil War is still going on. And btw, since you don't know shit, MD has very little room to talk when it comes to confederate/southern topics.

You make it sound as if MD is the worst place in the world and other states are capitalizing on things at MD's expense. First of all, the idea of competition in general doesn't seem to exist to you. Second, MD is doing very well in many ways. And third, you're a hypocrite if on one hand you blame the "problems" on MD politician's policies and then later make it out to sound like other states are targeting MD and that's the only reason why MD is doing well in your opinion.

There is no law against politicians talking buy outs/endorsements from other states.

I could be wrong but I'm positive that I'm correct unless things have changed within the last few months or years.

harlem87

February 4th, 2007, 04:51 AM

First off, when I say NoVa, I basically mean Arlington and Alexandria. I believe that DC development needs to stay concentrated within the Beltway; it just so happens that most of the Maryland portion of the Beltway is already occupied by the District.

Secondly, I hate the automobile lifestyle. I welcome the addition of grand monumental structures, beautiful bikable streets and boulevards, and upscale high-rise housing within the Beltway. I don't welcome the continued public subsidization of "white flight" outside of it.

Thirdly, I wish to see a city that is eminently walkable and easy to navigate without a car. Most American cities are built to such a vast scale that they're impossible to live in without access to wheels. It's no wonder there's an obesity epidemic here.

You have not proved a point except that the second paragragh is scratching the surface on boarderline racism.

NovaWolverine

February 4th, 2007, 04:51 AM

But you just get a kick out of displaying your wishful thinking that Maryland should not extend their subway to BWI because it will make Maryland more competative to your side of Virginia and the only reason why you people want to shove down some bull shit Commuter Rail improvements down Maryland's throat because you know that it will be too damn expensive to ride and it will not encourage or complement more development between DC and Baltimore. You also don't support the Green Line Extension because you people are scared that with BRAC moving to Fort Meade that it will attract Virgians to move to Maryland because of the subway and its complemen to the future Developments between DC and Baltimore.

Thanks for trying again Maryland hater but again you failed to prove your point but only proved that you don't want Maryland to share the same kind of Business/Economic/Revenue Growth as your Coloniel Confederate state of Virginia.

You're a prophet, you know that?

NovaWolverine

February 4th, 2007, 04:53 AM

There is no law against politicians talking buy outs/endorsements from other states.

I could be wrong but I'm positive that I'm correct unless things have changed within the last few months or years.

You've mentioned this propaganda before, yet you've never even once posted some real truth. You're not a credible person by any means. Why do you think everyone who's read your posts think you're a douchebag.

harlem87

February 4th, 2007, 04:54 AM

NovaWolverine

February 4th, 2007, 05:04 AM

^^You're just a simpleton, we need more intelligent people to discuss what's going on. Thank god most the the people in the region, regardless of what license plate they have, aren't like you. Do you have any friends?

DonQui

February 4th, 2007, 05:08 AM

NovaWolverine

February 4th, 2007, 05:11 AM

There's no point in telling them. They envision coal powered freight trains when they hear commuter rail.

harlem87

February 4th, 2007, 05:16 AM

harlem87

February 4th, 2007, 05:16 AM

You've mentioned this propaganda before, yet you've never even once posted some real truth. You're not a credible person by any means. Why do you think everyone who's read your posts think you're a douchebag.

Playing the dumb donkey again, eh.

NovaWolverine

February 4th, 2007, 05:21 AM

Well since you didn't provide links and articles and other sources supporting your theory, how is one supposed to react to anything you say. Why is it that you never have anything of value to say? Your points would be so much more powerful and influential if they were articulated well. You make no sense whatsoever and that's the reason you're the laughing stock of this forum.

harlem87

February 4th, 2007, 05:22 AM

getontrac

February 4th, 2007, 05:23 AM

harlem87

February 4th, 2007, 05:24 AM

There's no point in telling them. They envision coal powered freight trains when they hear commuter rail.

Again playing the dumb donkey and acting as it is Great to spen $4 Billion to build a subway nearly 30 miles towards Lessburg.

Maryland haters are real funny trolls.

NovaWolverine

February 4th, 2007, 05:24 AM

harlem87

February 4th, 2007, 05:32 AM

harlem87

February 4th, 2007, 05:37 AM

^^Why would you send the VRE from Leesburg to Springfield and then to DC? Who in their mind would use that to commute into the city? Sounds like you're the jealous moron trying to sabotage.

However, inter-region BRT and LRT ought to happen in the future if the planners are pro-active enough.

Thats one of the alternatives, the other is they can build a new VRE Route from DC or Arlington toward Leesburg, or build a LRT/BRT from West Falls Church towards Leesburg.

NovaWolverine

February 4th, 2007, 05:37 AM

Thats just your way of saying that you can't handle the truth.

What is the truth? You mean to tell me I'm supposed to listen to you? You're the only person I've ever heard say something to the effect of your propaganda speech.

NovaWolverine

February 4th, 2007, 05:43 AM

Thats one of the alternatives, the other is they can build a new VRE Route from DC or Arlington toward Leesburg, or build a LRT/BRT from West Falls Church towards Leesburg.

The main thing is Dulles. That's the main area to be serviced. I would be content with commuter rail if they want to build it that's fine, but going from Leesburg to Springfield is just nuts. If they build it at all, there needs to be a direct connection into DC w/o the need to transfer to another mode of transportation. Some of those people will need to take the bus or something else to or from the metro or commuter rail to either get home or to work anyway. People aren't going to take LRT to Vienna and then metro to DC. That's why commuter rail is good and has great potential between DC and B'more b/c there's easy access from DT to DT and whatever you need to do w/o the hassle of getting off and switching to another mode of transportation going in the same exact direction.

ajoutz

February 4th, 2007, 06:14 AM

Metro is built for distances hovering between 1 km and 2 km on average.

Comuter rail is about twice that distance.

If you are going to be having distances between stations of 4 km, the hardware simply is not compatible. Subways are built for shorter distances, tracks for subways are built for shorter distances. Let commuter rail handle it for fucks sake.

I have yet to read a good reason as to why a Green-Line extensions is needed versus another commuter rail line.

New York is not structured this way, Chicago is not structured this way, Boston is not structured this way, London is not structured this way, Paris is not structured this way, Madrid is not structured this way, why are so many of you so keen to ignore OBVIOUS precedent because of tunnel vision, no pun intended. :D

That's because all of those cities are built differently from DC. How can you not understand that. I hope you realize that the extent the commuter rail would have to be upgraded is rediculous to even get marginally close to the capacity of the metro. The whole point of our current Metro is that if someone misses a train there is one coming five-ten minutes afterwards, and how is commuter rail going to compete with the number of stops the Metro has? I'd rather not have to take the Metro to Union Station or New Carrolton, than make sure that I get early enough to pick up my ticket there, and then switch onto a commuter rail car. The metro is my prefered way to travel as well as most of the people in the DC area. Ever consider the fact that most people here would rather take the Metro than have to deal with buying a set ticket and deal with all the hassles of commuter rail? Probably not because you don't live here. I've taken commuter rail to Baltimore numerous times and I ride the Metro almost everyday, I for one prefer the Metro, I like having flexible options that can change at the last minute, and guess what? I live here, so I will end up paying for it, and I would rather pay for a Green Line Extension then for more commuter rail cars that I would never ride. Even then, the time to connect the Green Line to Baltimore is not going to happen for a while, and still even then, I think a purple line connecting VA to Bethesda/Grosvenor-Strathmore to College Park is a higher priority. All we are currently discussing is making the Green Line go to BWI, which is the Baltimore-Washingon International Airport. Connecting the metro to area there is just as smart as connecting it to Dulles. They both let people go to stops close to their homes, and take one mode of transit to the airport. If I have to take the Metro to Union Station, then take commuter rail to BWI, I would rather drive. If you can't understand that, then you are an idiot.

--To NovaWolverine, I apologize for being from the same state as harlem, it's honestly pissing me off a lot as well.

getontrac

February 4th, 2007, 06:20 AM

ajoutz

February 4th, 2007, 06:28 AM

With a much smaller investment, we can drastically increase service frequency on MARC. MARC would also be MUCH, MUCH faster from BWI to DC than Metro.

I think you're comparing WMATA versus MTA, moreso than Metro versus MARC, and if we can improve the MTA and it's budget. MARC will be much better than it is now.

Nate

The thing with that is growth. Sure, upgrading MARC service (there a bunch of stations near my home) would benefit the immediate need for transport, but honestly, who wants to live next to a train station. Metro Stations are quieter, and much more aesthetically pleasing. Look at White Flint and Grovesnor Strathmore Stations. I live smack dab in between them and I have seen the land right next to the stations be drastically redeveloped into prime office and housing locations. You can't do that next to train stations. I won't argue that it's in the short run cheaper to just upgrade MARC service, but that will not encourage smart growth, and then you will end up with what happened in Virginia where the areas that should have had and still should get Metro become over sprawled and need to be fixed for densification.

DonQui

February 4th, 2007, 06:40 AM

That's because all of those cities are built differently from DC. How can you not understand that.
The cities are not built drastically differently, however, it seems that something has made the Washington DC metro area so scared of commuter rail that for some inexplicable reasons you have to re-inforce to yourselves that Washington DC is somehow that different. Every city in the world has its city proper, its dense inner suburbs, its outer suburbs, and exurbs. And none of then use metro as the way to link all rings of the metropolitan area, why is Washington DC so special? :crazy:

I hope you realize that the extent the commuter rail would have to be upgraded is rediculous to even get marginally close to the capacity of the metro.
:crazy: In other countries it does this. In this country as well. Look at METRA in Chicago, and MetroNorth, NJ transit, and LIRR in New York. In all honestly, how is Washington SO drastically different from these metropolitan areas? We have our large suburbs too, look at White Plains in Westchester. Are you telling me that the ONLY solution would have been would to spend enormous amounts of money dragging subway, which is inherently slower due to quality of trains and distances versus commuter rail, up that far? I think not.

Look beyond the Beltway, and you will see this metro-turned-commuter rail mentality is unique to DC.

The whole point of our current Metro is that if someone misses a train there is one coming five-ten minutes afterwards, and how is commuter rail going to compete with the number of stops the Metro has?
You need to have a basic understanding how various rail systems work. You are mixing apples and oranges.

Light rail: stops every 0.5 km
Metro: stops every 1-2 km
Commuter rail: stops every 3-4 km.

There are commuter rail systems in the US that on the bundled tracks have trains coming 5-10 minutes. And you are precisely making my point as regards to stop. Sending metro an additional 15 miles outside of DC means that is going to take ass-long to get into downtown DC. Send in a commuter rail, and then it will compete with time.

I fail to see how EVERY major city treast metro as an intra-city form of transport, why Washington is beating itself over the head arguing that they can stretch it to be inter-city transport. Metro trains (1) are not designed to go as fast as commuter rail (2) are designed for frequent use over short distances and (3) built to be less durable than long distance trains. Ever asked yourself why LIRR looks different from the NYC subway? It is because LIRR goes 100 km outside of Manhattan, whereas the subway goes at most 20 km outside of Manhattan. What makes you think that Washington is THAT different from the rest of the country? :crazy:

I'd rather not have to take the Metro to Union Station or New Carrolton, than make sure that I get early enough to pick up my ticket there, and then switch onto a commuter rail car.
Because you have in your mind that commuter rail is inherently inferior. Commuter rail offers you a frequently scheduled, fast, comfortable service, much more so than a metro can ever offer.

The metro is my prefered way to travel as well as most of the people in the DC area. Ever consider the fact that most people here would rather take the Metro than have to deal with buying a set ticket and deal with all the hassles of commuter rail?
You are now running in circles and repeating yourself. Like I said, it is like DC suffers from some propaganda surrounding commuter rail. Texas has propaganda towards cars, DC has propaganda for metro. Metro and subway has ALWAYS been fundamentally an URBAN form of transport. Commuter rail has ALWAYS fundamentally been a SUBURBAN form of transport. Please tell me how radically different Washington's suburbs are from other large cities in the country that justify wasting taxpayer money for the cool factor of riding a subway when EVERYWHERE around the country and the world this would be handled by commuter suburban rail?

Probably not because you don't live here. I've taken commuter rail to Baltimore numerous times and I ride the Metro almost everyday, I for one prefer the Metro, I like having flexible options that can change at the last minute, and guess what?
Ahh, teh very immature, "you don't live here so shut up." I have lived for a time in DC, but I am also arguing with an eye looking at multiple cities' systems both nationally and internationally and DC's plans on turning the metro into this commuter-rail beheamoth is "unique" to DC. What makes DC so different?

I live here, so I will end up paying for it, and I would rather pay for a Green Line Extension then for more commuter rail cars that I would never ride.
Why won't you use commuter rail lines? This is my point, you have been hoodwinked by this anti-commuter rail agenda. I don't care if you hate the fact that the sky is grey on a rainy day, it is still grey. You have not nor has anyone else convinced me why DC is SO different from EVERY other large city in the world that has inner suburbs and outer suburbs connected to the city center by commuter rail that it justifies a more (1) expensive to build (2) less efficient and (3) expensive to run system.

Even then, the time to connect the Green Line to Baltimore is not going to happen for a while, and still even then, I think a purple line connecting VA to Bethesda/Grosvenor-Strathmore to College Park is a higher priority.
A METRO line to connect to INDEPENDENT metropolitan areas should never happen, it is fucking retarded.

All we are currently discussing is making the Green Line go to BWI, which is the Baltimore-Washingon International Airport. Connecting the metro to area there is just as smart as connecting it to Dulles. They both let people go to stops close to their homes, and take one mode of transit to the airport. If I have to take the Metro to Union Station, then take commuter rail to BWI, I would rather drive.
Again, elucidate to me how Washington is so different from every god-damn city on this planet that has commuter rail going to its airport?

If you can't understand that, then you are an idiot.

--To NovaWolverine, I apologize for being from the same state as harlem, it's honestly pissing me off a lot as well.
I find it hilarious that you call me an idiot, and then tell NovaWolverine that you don't like his disrespect. How old are you, 17? Grow up buddy.

DonQui

February 4th, 2007, 06:42 AM

The thing with that is growth. Sure, upgrading MARC service (there a bunch of stations near my home) would benefit the immediate need for transport, but honestly, who wants to live next to a train station. Metro Stations are quieter, and much more aesthetically pleasing. Look at White Flint and Grovesnor Strathmore Stations. I live smack dab in between them and I have seen the land right next to the stations be drastically redeveloped into prime office and housing locations. You can't do that next to train stations. I won't argue that it's in the short run cheaper to just upgrade MARC service, but that will not encourage smart growth, and then you will end up with what happened in Virginia where the areas that should have had and still should get Metro become over sprawled and need to be fixed for densification.
How and why do you know this. FOR EVERYONE on this forum, look at how commuter rail is run in other parts of the country and the world, WHY is DC so unique that other solutions that MOST other cities use can't for some voodoo reason be applied to DC? :nuts:

Archiconnoisseur

February 4th, 2007, 07:38 AM

Here's my opinion:

No to an extension of the Green line to Baltimore.
No to any extension of existing Metro lines further from DC's center.
Yes to a Metro line to Dulles because it is DC's international airport.
Yes to any improvement of MARC service between DC, BWI, and Baltimore.
Yes to an extension of MARC to Delaware (to link MARC with Septa).

Maybe if Amtrak had to compete with commuter rail in the Northeast, it'd improve its pricing.

harlem87

February 5th, 2007, 06:51 AM

The main thing is Dulles. That's the main area to be serviced. I would be content with commuter rail if they want to build it that's fine, but going from Leesburg to Springfield is just nuts. If they build it at all, there needs to be a direct connection into DC w/o the need to transfer to another mode of transportation. Some of those people will need to take the bus or something else to or from the metro or commuter rail to either get home or to work anyway. People aren't going to take LRT to Vienna and then metro to DC. That's why commuter rail is good and has great potential between DC and B'more b/c there's easy access from DT to DT and whatever you need to do w/o the hassle of getting off and switching to another mode of transportation going in the same exact direction.

So if you are against building the VRE from DC to Dulles then your whole post is full of Shit.

I'm sorry if you can support building an EXPENSIVE Subway to Loudon County and not support building a Subway to Howard/Anne Arundel County don't expect anyone with a brain to take you Biased Bull Shit seriously.

harlem87

February 5th, 2007, 06:57 AM

How and why do you know this. FOR EVERYONE on this forum, look at how commuter rail is run in other parts of the country and the world, WHY is DC so unique that other solutions that MOST other cities use can't for some voodoo reason be applied to DC? :nuts:

I tell you what;

The day that Charlotte, NC builds a Commuter Rail(to Winston-Salem/Greensboro area and Raliegh/Durham area) and Atlanta, GA builds a Commuter Rail(to Birmingham, Montgomery, Chattanoga, Columbus, Macon, Augusta, and Greenville, SC) then your Bull Shit logic will make some legit credability.

NovaWolverine

February 5th, 2007, 07:00 AM

harlem87

February 5th, 2007, 07:01 AM

NovaWolverine

February 5th, 2007, 07:03 AM

I tell you what;

The day that Charlotte, NC builds a Commuter Rail(to Winston-Salem/Greensboro area and Raliegh/Durham area) and Atlanta, GA builds a Commuter Rail(to Birmingham, Montgomery, Chattanoga, Columbus, Macon, Augusta, and Greenville, SC) then your Bull Shit logic will make some legit credability.

Fuck Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham, etc. What is your infatuation w/ southern cities. Those are not the models of urban development we ought to be following. Look at the big older cities, which happen to be some of the most urban and beloved. You're really doing a disservice to DC even comparing it to those others.

Chattanooga?:nuts:

harlem87

February 5th, 2007, 07:09 AM

I don't support the subway to either Loudoun or BWI. I'm really indifferent to both projects. I feel like there are better methods for both expansion project. If people want to pay for less value and the "Metro" name, so be it, but it's completely idiotic. W/ the Silver Line, I believe Tysons Corner absolutely should have metro. Loudoun would be far better off with commuter rail. But the logistics involved are difficult.

Assuming that you agree that Tysons should have metro, we'd need to build a metro line to Tysons, and then commuter rail out to Loudoun. I'm fine with this, but the logistics involved are more difficult b/c now you're dealing with two different forms of transportation.

Again, I don't know why I must explain this to your dumbass again, but there aren't any rail tracks that currently go out there. It'll definitely have to be an above ground project, developing a relatively direct route to accomodate commuter rail will be difficult, but again this mode of transportation would suit Dulles and Loudoun better. Whereas in MD, you have the tracks already in place, it's already well traveled, all it needs is to be upgraded.

Why don't you just quit Harlem, does anyone like you on this site?

You are right about ONE thing; I do support Metro ONLY going to Tysons Corner.

Now the other BS your spewing is making you the Dumbass.

There was no tracks for Mark to go to Frederick, but they built it.

Ther are no subway tracks that goes to Loudon County but you support an EXPENSIVE Subway extension to Dulles Airport.

I don't know who the hell your trying to pull wools over the eyes but you sure as hell are not doing it to me becausee I know biasness when I see it.

If they can build a commuter rail from scratch to go from NYC to Long Island then why the hell can they build a VRE Commuter Rail to Dulles.

harlem87

February 5th, 2007, 07:13 AM

harlem87

February 5th, 2007, 07:16 AM

Fuck Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham, etc.
What is your infatuation w/ southern cities. Those are not the models of urban development we ought to be following. Look at the big older cities, which happen to be some of the most urban and beloved. You're really doing a disservice to DC even comparing it to those others.

Chattanooga?:nuts:

In your delussional acting mask again.;)

NovaWolverine

February 5th, 2007, 07:22 AM

You are right about ONE thing; I do support Metro ONLY going to Tysons Corner.

Now the other BS your spewing is making you the Dumbass.

There was no tracks for Mark to go to Frederick, but they built it.

Ther are no subway tracks that goes to Loudon County but you support an EXPENSIVE Subway extension to Dulles Airport.

I don't know who the hell your trying to pull wools over the eyes but you sure as hell are not doing it to me becausee I know biasness when I see it.

If they can build a commuter rail from scratch to go from NYC to Long Island then why the hell can they build a VRE Commuter Rail to Dulles.

B/c this is 2007 idiot. These are different times, a different environment. Building rail is, unfortunately, not seen as an appealing investment these days. People look at it as subsidized. And my point is, that building heavy rail to Tysons, and THEN commuter rail from Loudoun to DC, it's still going to be expensive either way. It really does not make a difference IMO. You're building two different types of tracks for two different types of transportations to be handled by two different agencies. There are other factors which you're choosing not to include. Commuter rail and passenger rail are a tougher sell these days; we ought to be progressive enough to build it anyway, but the older northeastern cities benefit from having a lot of the tracks already in place.

And w/ rail to Frederick, the Brunswick Line travels over the CSX, Old Main Line and Cumberland tracks in addition to the tracks MARC built. That project wasn't nearly as big as the one to Loudoun would be, building it all from scratch. Reston, the Dulles Corridor and the entire route out there is more developed than that in the path to Frederick, it's going to be expensive.

I still feel like the negative, and in Harlem's case, deranged, attitude towards commuter rail these days in the DC area is b/c people simply haven't been exposed to it.

Where are you from Harlem?

NovaWolverine

February 5th, 2007, 07:23 AM

In your delussional acting mask again.;)

Translation: I got pwn3d.

DonQui

February 5th, 2007, 07:35 AM

Harlem87, I gander that you were in born in 1987? Rather hard to notice really. You lack any sense of maturity and instead of responding to posts, are calling people names and acting like a twat.

Convinces me that in my maturity that I am more right than you though.

:cool:

BalWash

February 5th, 2007, 08:15 AM

I just want to bring light to a point no one has addressed: commuter rail not only does not encourage TOD, but it actually hurts further urban growth. Rockville is a perfect example of this. You have MARC train lines running along 355 just east of downtown Rockville. It has been extremely detrimental to growth in the area, preventing the city from developing east of 355 causing said area to be somewhat of a slum. This is all because above ground commuter rail tracks require expensive bridges or overpasses for them to be crossed by roads. If we're trying to make mass transit rail available to Marylanders and densify central Maryland then building commuter rail tracks is going to inhibit future growth. This is why I see HRT Metro as the only way to create great urban ring cities in places like Columbia.

getontrac

February 5th, 2007, 08:30 AM

I disagree.

Show me evidence that commuter rail doesn't generate TOD versus other modes when comparing local land zoning and development initiatives.

There are now many TOD MARC projects in the planning stages.

Grade-seperation is what it is. Metro is no different. Commuter requires significant amounts, but not necessarily fully, like Metro.

I don't see how one can rationalize that MARC hurts growth. Your explanation is too ad hoc to be taken seriously without more data.

Nate

drewbwhite

February 5th, 2007, 08:34 AM

The necessary tracks for MARC are already in place, so how could that be an issue, and even so, how would above-ground MARC tracks form a bigger barrier than above-ground Metro tracks? And what's the logic behind saying that improved MARC service couldn't attract TOD? In fact, two stations in the BW corridor, Odenton and Savage already have TOD approved around them even with current levels of service, as does Frederick's station, I believe.

Here's a thing on Savage Town Center:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301143.html

BalWash

February 5th, 2007, 08:40 AM

Here's a photo of DT Rockville showing how it has responded to its MARC line.
http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/7356/rockvillepicla5.png
All of the current development going on in DT Rockville is moving west away from the tracks.

BalWash

February 5th, 2007, 08:47 AM

DonQui

February 5th, 2007, 08:54 AM

That is not the fault of commuter rail, that is the fault of incompetent urban planning in Maryland. ;)

BalWash

February 5th, 2007, 09:16 AM

That is not the fault of commuter rail, that is the fault of incompetent urban planning in Maryland. ;)

How are you supposed to plan around railroad tracks?

DonQui

February 5th, 2007, 09:20 AM

How are you supposed to plan around railroad tracks?
The same way you do it with the DC metro, have it sunken in the ground. ;) But without the metro-specific infrastructure that is more costly and less efficient over all as composed to long distance suburban traffic.

And again, New York City has incredibly dense suburbs that are close to subway but have only commuter rail, because we did not extend the subway, an urban form of transport, into suburbs, the realm of commuter rail.

And I would like to know, not necessarily from you BalWash, but from other people as well, what is SO radically different about DC that solutions that exist for most large cities would not work for DC? :?

DonQui

February 5th, 2007, 09:26 AM

White Plains, Westchester, New York
Population: 50.000
Area: 25 km2 (roughly 3 miles x 3 miles)
Density: 5.000 persons/km2

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Downtown_White_PLains.gif

Only connection with the city center: commuter rail via Metro North.

I repeat, why only subway then? If Rockville is not dense, it is not the fault of MARC, it is the fault of Rockville for poor urban planning.

drewbwhite

February 5th, 2007, 09:53 AM

I think it's unfair to compare New York and its rail to the Baltimore-Washington area and transit there. I agree with you that Metro is an urban form of transit, and yes, I too would like to keep it that way. In fact, I'd rather it stay largely in the beltway, which, in my mind, is the urban part of metro DC. After all, Washington city limits only include some 550,000 people out of a 5,000,000 person metro where New York has 8,100,000 people of 18,700,000. So in that regard, I think Washington is more similar to Boston, where the metro serves inner, dense suburbs in addition to the city proper.

Further, Washington's growth has been, relative to other cities of the NE corridor, recent. Since it never had much of an industrial base or a port there aren't all those freight lines snaking out of the city for easy conversion to commuter rail, which bring the prices for commuter rail and metro a lot closer.

That said, for this corridor I think commuter rail is clearly the best choice at this juncture. The payoff would probably be about the same in terms of ridership / development for an extended metro vs an improved MARC. On the one hand, metro would be better integrated...but on the other MARC would be faster and more comfortable.

In terms of cost, upgrading MARC would clearly be cheaper. My fear is that if politicians go on chasing this white elephant metro extension there won't be any money left in the coffers for more important projects like Baltimore's red line and Washington's purple line, and they'll end up inefficient light rail or BRT lines. And that just isn't smart growth at all.

drewbwhite

February 5th, 2007, 10:11 AM

I don't believe there are any MARC stations serving Columbia/Ellicott City or Fort Meade. Metro Tracks can be buried going through high density areas preventing them from disturbing the city as is done in North Bethesda.

MARC serves Ft Meade at Odenton station, which is adjacent to the fort. Columbia / Ellicott city aren't served, but the proposed metro extension wouldn't serve them either. A spur has been discussed by Howard politicians for that purpose, however it would have to go way, way, way, out of the way and would be a whole 'nother project of large scale.

As for the contention that MARC hurts development with its above-ground tracks: the MARC tracks in the BW corridor are going to be sitting there above-ground if metro extension is built or if it isn't. Those rails have been there as part of the B&O and Penn RRs, and the Rockville line has been there as part of the B&O RR, for the better part of two centuries and remain important freight links. So it's not as if Rockville was doing swell and then MARC slashed through the city and ruined its party. Rockville grew around the line, and making use of it as a commuter line certainly hasn't hurt it. Even so, I have a cousin who lives in that area and I'd say "slum" is a bit of hyperbole...scruffy for sure, but not quite at a slumtastic magnitude.

Anyways, a metro extension is going to have to be above ground for probably all of the way. There isn't enough population density in this corridor to justify burying it. At the moment this corridor, though western AA is growing fast, isn't that densely populated at all. I'd see this line going from Greenbelt to Laurel to Ft Meade to Arundel Mills to BWI...and there aren't any huge population centers that demand serving there. And virtually all of those places are already served by MARC. Like I said before, it would create a competing system in a corridor that doesn't need it. I could see an extension creating more sprawl than it prevented.

BalWash

February 5th, 2007, 10:35 AM

Further, Washington's growth has been, relative to other cities of the NE corridor, recent. Since it never had much of an industrial base or a port there aren't all those freight lines snaking out of the city for easy conversion to commuter rail, which bring the prices for commuter rail and metro a lot closer.

Yes, and unlike the other cities in the Northeast, we're growing at rates almost as high as Sunbelt cities. We are at a point where we can strategically plan for the inevitable high amounts of future growth coming to the area by forcing development in the areas where it is smartest. We are adding over 100,000 people per year to the metro area. That's like adding an Alexandria every year!!! Lets think strategically and concentrate our growth along areas where at least some mass transit is already in place. The best places for that growth are the 95 corridor between the cities, the lower I-270 corridor, the Dulles Tollway and everywhere inside each of the Beltways.

In terms of cost, upgrading MARC would clearly be cheaper.
Would it be? We need lines running to Ft. Meade and Columbia. What is the cost these lines would have on inhibited development in the region by slicing cities in half? How much would the TOD created by Metro save the region?

My fear is that if politicians go on chasing this white elephant metro extension there won't be any money left in the coffers for more important projects like Baltimore's red line and Washington's purple line, and they'll end up inefficient light rail or BRT lines. And that just isn't smart growth at all.
I agree. The HRT Purple Line and Baltimore HRT expansions should definately be the priority right now. But a HRT Green Line extension should be a second priority.

After all, Washington city limits only include some 550,000 people out of a 5,000,000 person metro A small point of contention is that the Baltimore-Washington Metro area (and it is one metro area) has 8.5 million people. Even if you just include Howard and Anne Arundel, Washington is over 6 million. Saying we have only 5 million is very misleading.

The regional governments need to meet to create a master plan for the entire metro area to decide where the vast amounts of future growth will go. We're all running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to plan one of the 30 largest metropolitan areas on the planet. Instead of reacting to problems we need to plan ahead to avoid them. That is why HRT is the best option for the 95 corridor.

NovaWolverine

February 5th, 2007, 04:07 PM

getontrac

February 5th, 2007, 09:18 PM

The regional governments need to meet to create a master plan for the entire metro area to decide where the vast amounts of future growth will go. We're all running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to plan one of the 30 largest metropolitan areas on the planet. Instead of reacting to problems we need to plan ahead to avoid them. That is why HRT is the best option for the 95 corridor.

I think this is exactly what is going to happen with the new O'Malley admin. With all the talk and meetings TRAC has had with officials, it looks like we're going to be completely re-examining transportation with the intent on creating a new, well-thought-out, techinically driven, transportation plan.

This is why I say the Balto. Red Line is up in the air, since it was a faulty artifact of the rushed 2002 Glenndenning plan.

Keep your fingers crossed. :)

Nate

Archiconnoisseur

February 6th, 2007, 05:31 AM

Look guys, do me a favor and please stop responding to harlem87's posts. Every time you do so, you negate the power of the ignore feature and clutter up the thread.

TIA!

NovaWolverine

February 6th, 2007, 05:35 AM

Yeah, I just put him on my list. I should have thought of that sooner, but it's one of those things where you want to ignore, but you kinda want to see what he says next. But by now, it truly is the same thing every time.

BalWash

February 6th, 2007, 05:45 AM

Commuter rail most certainly doesn't hurt smart growth and TOD. It's not quite as effective as heavy rail, but with good planning, it can be a negligible difference.

I agree w/ DonQui. We really are no different, and commuter rail is great.

How can you say that? I just provided an example where commuter rail has been bad for development. Commuter rail solidifies suburban character wherever it is put into place and is nearly incapable (short of burying tracks) of building urbanity. I've taken New York's commuter rail into New Jersey and I've seen that it is incapable of meshing with or complementing an urban environment. Isn't the commuter rail buried as it goes through White Plains?
You can't tell me that buried commuter rail is any less expensive than HRT.

Archiconnoisseur

February 6th, 2007, 06:15 AM

In terms of cost, upgrading MARC would clearly be cheaper. My fear is that if politicians go on chasing this white elephant metro extension there won't be any money left in the coffers for more important projects like Baltimore's red line and Washington's purple line, and they'll end up inefficient light rail or BRT lines. And that just isn't smart growth at all.
If I recall, suburbanites don't carry their weight in terms of maintaining Metro costs. If this is the case, then extending the Metro further into the suburbs would only worsen funding for much needed improvements to the most heavily utilized portions of the Metro.

getontrac

February 6th, 2007, 06:27 AM

One can say that commuter rail has not helped foster development, but I don't see how one can construe that commuter rail has been bad for development.

One must come up with a good reason to tunnel if there is a perfectly good surface route to use for a rapid transit ROW. The Feds aren't going to dole out money if a surface route does essentially the same job (or at least not an incrementally less fashion versus capital cost.)

I'm not intimately familiar with the area you refer, I've been there a few times and briefly worked out there, but if you can be above ground without any or minimal environmental impacts and get all the operational benefits of tunnel, you stay above, it's just how it's done. If you can come up with a reason why tunneling would offer great benefits versus the costs, not found with above ground, then I see your point, but that's still seperate from the commuter rail/HRT issue.

Nate

NovaWolverine

February 6th, 2007, 06:30 AM

How can you say that? I just provided an example where commuter rail has been bad for development. Commuter rail solidifies suburban character wherever it is put into place and is nearly incapable (short of burying tracks) of building urbanity. I've taken New York's commuter rail into New Jersey and I've seen that it is incapable of meshing with or complementing an urban environment. Isn't the commuter rail buried as it goes through White Plains?
You can't tell me that buried commuter rail is any less expensive than HRT.

Commuter rail isn't buried in White Plains, it's elevated. You have to start blaming the local gov't and developers at some point. One stop of commuter rail isn't as much a difference as one stop heavy rail as you're making it out to sound. The headways shouldn't be all that much different. It's really not that much different in function and look, but it's a lot cheaper. And are we assuming that the green line would be above ground? If it's below ground, than you're point is more valid, but I didn't know we'd made that assumption.

If you develop densely around a commuter rail station, which you can, the end result will be just fine. There are 3 D's of building urbanity and they aren't inhibited by commuter rail. You can have you're DT a couple blocks or less from the station and if you're DT and area leading up to it are designed well, everything is good.

So you need to have good planning along with good transit, it'll work out fine.

Archiconnoisseur

February 6th, 2007, 06:38 AM

How can you say that? I just provided an example where commuter rail has been bad for development. Commuter rail solidifies suburban character wherever it is put into place and is nearly incapable (short of burying tracks) of building urbanity.
The Red Line is what turned Rockville Pike into one continuous strip mall from Bethesda to Rockville, not commuter rail. Rail lines go through Manhattan and DC as well, but both are dense in spite of them.

If it hadn't been for the Red/Orange lines, much of the suburbanization of Fairfax and Montgomery counties wouldn't have occurred. Both Bethesda and Rockville, not to mention DC, could have captured those residents and resulted in denser cities.

NovaWolverine

February 6th, 2007, 06:45 AM

I have no problem w/ building HRT into our suburbs of importance. But I do think we should have a tentative boundary so to speak for it. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, HRT shouldn't be built outside a certain distance from the city. Commuter rail needs to be promoted and invested in. The future in transit in the city and the region involves multiple forms of rapid transportation all dovetailing. I love the idea of biking and I think there is seriously a lot of potential for the immediate DC area transit wise.

BalWash

February 6th, 2007, 06:47 AM

The Red Line is what turned Rockville Pike into one continuous strip mall from Bethesda to Rockville, not commuter rail. Rail lines go through Manhattan and DC as well, but both are dense in spite of them.

If it hadn't been for the Red/Orange lines, much of the suburbanization of Fairfax and Montgomery counties wouldn't have occurred. Both Bethesda and Rockville, not to mention DC, could have captured those residents and resulted in denser cities.

What the hell are you talking about? They just broke ground on a 289 foot building in North Bethesda walking distance form the White Flint Metro and another pair of 200 foot+ buildings with 1300 units being built right next to White Flint Metro Station. Yes, in the beginning there were a lot of strip malls on Rockville Pike in between Bethesda and Rockville, but now things are growing upward very well using great transit oriented development strategies. The Red Line was an example of people planning ahead for the future in an intelligent way. BTW, North Bethesda (the main strip mall area you're talking about) is home to 4 Fortune 500 companies and another Fortune 1000 company including 3 of the 4 largest in the state. These companies are listed as Bethesda for some reason but really they're in the seperate town of North Bethesda. The area DEFINATELY deserves its Metro.

BalWash

February 6th, 2007, 07:24 AM

Commuter rail isn't buried in White Plains, it's elevated. You have to start blaming the local gov't and developers at some point. One stop of commuter rail isn't as much a difference as one stop heavy rail as you're making it out to sound. The headways shouldn't be all that much different. It's really not that much different in function and look, but it's a lot cheaper. And are we assuming that the green line would be above ground? If it's below ground, than you're point is more valid, but I didn't know we'd made that assumption.

When you say the commuter rail is elevated do you mean it is raised above the roadway or on ground level?

harlem87

February 6th, 2007, 07:50 AM

Commuter rail most certainly doesn't hurt smart growth and TOD. It's not quite as effective as heavy rail, but with good planning, it can be a negligible difference.

I agree w/ DonQui. We really are no different, and commuter rail is great.

Then build the commuter rail to Dulles instead of wasting $BILLIONS to build a subway.

harlem87

February 6th, 2007, 07:50 AM

Look guys, do me a favor and please stop responding to harlem87's posts. Every time you do so, you negate the power of the ignore feature and clutter up the thread.

TIA!

They can always ignore you and your hatred towads Maryland.

harlem87

February 6th, 2007, 07:52 AM

If I recall, suburbanites don't carry their weight in terms of maintaining Metro costs. If this is the case, then extending the Metro further into the suburbs would only worsen funding for much needed improvements to the most heavily utilized portions of the Metro.

Then why do you people support building a subway to Dulles Airport???????

NovaWolverine

February 6th, 2007, 08:09 AM

When you say the commuter rail is elevated do you mean it is raised above the roadway or on ground level?

It's ground level in some areas outside of white plains, but to get to the platform in white plains and many other places, you have to go up stairs, so it's above grade and is above roads at times.

Archiconnoisseur

February 6th, 2007, 08:53 AM

What the hell are you talking about? They just broke ground on a 289 foot building in North Bethesda walking distance form the White Flint Metro and another pair of 200 foot+ buildings with 1300 units being built right next to White Flint Metro Station. Yes, in the beginning there were a lot of strip malls on Rockville Pike in between Bethesda and Rockville, but now things are growing upward very well using great transit oriented development strategies. The Red Line was an example of people planning ahead for the future in an intelligent way.
All of the developments that you're noting are beyond those cities' traditional/official boundaries*. That's sprawl, not smart growth. I don't think any sane urban planner would crow about getting skyscrapers to pop up like little urban islands along a highway.

Try walking or biking from location to location along Rockville Pike. There's nothing urban about it; it's just sprawlsville, aided and abetted by the Red Line. If DC didn't have acres of developable land, I wouldn't be complaining. As it is, the District has vast neighborhoods of slums and industrial properties that could be torn down and replaced with higher density structures.

To me, smart growth is increased density within the Beltway, but now we're getting off topic. As others have noted, MARC is the best way to link Baltimore with DC. Despite what you claim, MARC, especially the Penn line, doesn't suck; I'd choose a MARC double-decker over a Metro car any day. I shudder to think of riding a toilet-less Metro car for almost an hour to B'more. My only beef with the MARC is that it's slow compared to Amtrak.

BalWash

February 6th, 2007, 09:41 AM

All of the developments that you're noting are beyond those cities' traditional/official boundaries*. That's sprawl, not smart growth. I don't think any sane urban planner would crow about getting skyscrapers to pop up like little urban islands along a highway.

Try walking or biking from location to location along Rockville Pike. There's nothing urban about it; it's just sprawlsville, aided and abetted by the Red Line. If DC didn't have acres of developable land, I wouldn't be complaining. As it is, the District has vast neighborhoods of slums and industrial properties that could be torn down and replaced with higher density structures.

To me, smart growth is increased density within the Beltway, but now we're getting off topic. As others have noted, MARC is the best way to link Baltimore with DC. Despite what you claim, MARC, especially the Penn line, doesn't suck; I'd choose a MARC double-decker over a Metro car any day. I shudder to think of riding a toilet-less Metro car for almost an hour to B'more. My only beef with the MARC is that it's slow compared to Amtrak.
Yet again you're making a baseless, illogical argument. The area you're referring to is North Bethesda. It has 38,000 people in 9 square miles compared to Bethesda which has 55,000 people in 13 square miles. You can call it a sprawled mess, but North Bethesda actually has a slightly higher density than Bethesda. A skyine is growing in North Bethesda that is higher than that of Bethesda, Silver Spring and Rockville! This area is centered between the North Bethesda Metro Station and the Grovesnor/Strathmore Metro Station in the area around the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. The skyline and smart growth is beginning to fill in further north up to Rockville. JBG has a property across from the Twinbrook Metro Station called Twinbrook Crossing which I'm told they are very interested in beginning quite soon. Walking distance from Twinbrook Metro Station there was recently a major town center put in that is doing great. As you can see, the Red Line is creating excellent TOD.

BalWash

February 6th, 2007, 09:45 AM

It's ground level in some areas outside of white plains, but to get to the platform in white plains and many other places, you have to go up stairs, so it's above grade and is above roads at times.

Now why can't the same principle be applied to Metro? Make it ground level away from downtown areas and elevate it through major urban centers? Surely that bears an equivalent cost to MARC expansions. Expanding Metro creates a much more seemless transportation system that provides for a much greater ability for harmonizing with future growth. Remember that our metro area will be pushing an 8 digit population within 20 years (that's 10,000,000). Just imagine how much more urban everything will be with current densification strategies in place. Expanding MARC is decidedly short sighted.

Archiconnoisseur

February 6th, 2007, 10:05 AM

Yet again you're making a baseless, illogical argument. The area you're referring to is North Bethesda. It has 38,000 people in 9 square miles compared to Bethesda which has 55,000 people in 13 square miles. You can call it a sprawled mess, but North Bethesda actually has a slightly higher density than Bethesda. A skyine is growing in North Bethesda that is higher than that of Bethesda, Silver Spring and Rockville! This area is centered between the North Bethesda Metro Station and the Grovesnor/Strathmore Metro Station in the area around the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. The skyline and smart growth is beginning to fill in further north up to Rockville. JBG has a property across from the Twinbrook Metro Station called Twinbrook Crossing which I'm told they are very interested in beginning quite soon. Walking distance from Twinbrook Metro Station there was recently a major town center put in that is doing great. As you can see, the Red Line is creating excellent TOD.
I know the area well, having commuted back and forth along Rockville Pike for almost a year. Maybe it's because you're from Atlanta, but there's nothing "smart" about the development along Rockville Pike. You can call it "North" Bethesda all you want, but from street level all one sees from Grosvenor to Rockville is a continuum of strip malls punctuated by an occasional low-rise. Your grand vision for Rockville Pike sounds more like the Las Vegas Strip to me. Walking distances? Please, don't insult my intelligence.

As for the area of North Bethesda near the Beltway interchange, all I see are sprawling office parks surrounded by vast parking lots; anathema to smart growth. In any case, what's done is done and no one is suggesting that we tear down the Red Line. What I'm suggesting is that we don't repeat the mistake by extending out any of the Metro lines further, the Silver line being an exception because DC needs a well-linked international airport.

BalWash

February 6th, 2007, 10:19 AM

I know the area well, having commuted back and forth along Rockville Pike for almost a year. Maybe it's because you're from Atlanta, but there's nothing "smart" about the development along Rockville Pike. You can call it "North" Bethesda all you want, but from street level all one sees from Grosvenor to Rockville is a continuum of strip malls punctuated by an occasional low-rise. Your grand vision for Rockville Pike sounds more like the Las Vegas Strip to me.

I've lived in MoCo all my life and have only lived in Atlanta for less than 6 months for college. Your ad hominem attacks aren't going to serve you well.

Smart growth is clearly poping up along Rockville Pipe. I consider any high rise built within walking distance of a Metro Station to be smart growth. Over 1300 units and hundreds of thousands of retail square footage are under construction at North Bethesda Center alone, right next to the White Flint Metro. Many of these residents and office workers will undoubtedly be taking advantage of their location by a Metro Station and avoid using their "personal 2 ton hunk of metal." White Flint Crossing right across from the White Flint Metro Center will top out at 289 feet, making it the highest building in the state outside of the city of Baltimore. You can keep saying the same thing over and over again by calling the area a bunch of strip malls and low rises all you want, but many more highrises and TOD are being added to the current tallest building which stands at 266 feet. Yes there are some strip malls, but they're being torn down in place of 15+ story high rises. Do you even know the definition of a low rise? Get your facts strait so you can formulate an argument that can be taken seriously. How does my "vision" for Rockville Pike sound more like the Las Vegas Strip?

BTW, I'm not the only one calling it North Bethesda. The US Census has designate the area between Bethesda and Rockville as a CDP called North Bethesda with defined boundaries.

BalWash

February 6th, 2007, 11:12 AM

^^ ^^
I forgot to mention that Strathmore Arts Center in North Bethesda has sprung up around its Grovesnor Metro Station to become the 3rd most culturally significant performance venue in the entire Metro area after the Kennedy Center and the Hippodrome. The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra plays there often and the National Philharmonic plays there sometimes too. The Washington National Opera with Placido Domingo will be showing there in May! I believe the Washington Ballet plays there too. The success of the institution rests greatly upon its location by the Metro.

Archiconnoisseur

February 6th, 2007, 01:06 PM

I've lived in MoCo all my life and have only lived in Atlanta for less than 6 months for college. Your ad hominem attacks aren't going to serve you well.
Ad hominem? Based on your posts to others, you'd do well to follow your own advice. I may not agree with the other posters, but at least I don't dismiss them by questioning their motivations or calling them names. If I'd really wanted to make an ad hominem attack against you, college boy, I would've started with your spelling. :lol:

Seriously, you seem to consider your opinions to be fact. By any definition, Rockville Pike is the epitome of sprawl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Examples_in_the_United_States). You happen to like it; I don't. Could Downtown DC eventually expand to encompass all of Rockville Pike? Sure, maybe in a hundred years. In the short term, however, we have an obesity epidemic, a war in the Middle East partly related to our need for gasoline, global warming, destruction of farmlands, woodlands, and parks, and continued white flight. IMHO, sprawl aggravates, if not causes, many of these problems.

Nature abhors a vacuum; sprawl abhors capacity. Add rail or expand a highway and the commuting public will quickly figure out a way to use the excess capacity up. The designers of the Beltway once thought it would reduce congestion. What it actually did was promote commuting, and now many people use the Beltway to simply commute around DC between newly formed edge cities. Despite this lesson, some people are suggesting that we construct a new Purple Line to, once again, reduce congestion.

If we want to promote truly smart growth, then we need to cut off the vasculature that enables the commuting, auto-centric lifestyle. Extending the Metro beyond the city limits will never do this because doing so actually promotes the construction of widely flung suburbs whose residents still require automobiles just to buy groceries. If it hadn't been for Metro-enabled "smart" growth in areas like North Bethesda, DC might have had a population density more like that of Paris.

Manhattan: density 66,940.1/mi²
Paris: density 63,321/mi²
Washington, DC: 9,316.4/mi²
North Bethesda: 4,281.5/mi²

getontrac

February 6th, 2007, 07:34 PM

I think we may be at the point where we, as a fractured group, agree to disagree.

Arguments have been pretty well constructed on both sides (at some point in the thread, at least).

I'll nevertheless throw my last word, in that, originally, subways were the original "spraw" institutions. They were built because cities needed to expand their boundaries in order to continue economic growth and allow the workers to reach their new jobs in a reasonable amount of time. So it allowed expansion of development into new territories. Of course, this was all before the WWII automobile era, so new developments were still built in a relatively dense, traditionally urban fashion.

Generally, as can be seen in practice around the world, HRT (and highly grade seperated German LRT U-Bahns) exist with in the fully developed urban areas, not extending too far from the core metropolitan complex. They rarely go beyond the edge. In my opinion they shouldn't. We should plan ROW's for future growth of subways as the metropolitan complex expands, but not build it prior to. At this point in time, I see no reason to expand the Baltimore Metro beyond Owings Mills, for I think it would cause a greater impetus to develop beyond Reisterstown and into Carroll.

When, a metropolitan complex becomes very large and densely developed, even HRT loses efficiency over long distances, like radials beyond 20-25 miles. The trains are not designed for VERY high speeds like inter-city/commuter rail (but still faster than LRT) and frequent stops make the trip interminably slow for those traveling long distances. A compromise solution would be to build a 3 (or 4 track) Metro system to offer express service from far away points. Unfortunately for DC Metro, this would require a whole new tunnel for the Red Line and that's not going to happen soon I figure. Or, like Japan, we could forgo, full grade-seperation and have commuter trains share Metro tracks where appropriate. However, again, we run into the DC 2-track bottleneck.

The longer the line, beyond a certain point, the less efficient it becomes, simply due to the fact that there are more things that will go wrong on any given day. Trains are more likely to be off schedule with lots of stations and long routes--this would affect Metro more than commuter. (Rail systems ususally can't be too short, otherwise they wouldn't have time saving benefit or operational economy, but I think you get the picture).

I contend that the Baltimore CLR is a victim of this. At 28.4 miles it is quite a long line and the entire system suffers from whenever a weak link appears. Generally, due to lack of grade seperation, LRT routes are optimal at shorter lengths and shorter travel distance than HRT, just like HRT to commuter rail.

I'll try to stand back, as I know I have a tendency to recapitulate. :nuts:

Nate

NovaWolverine

February 6th, 2007, 07:36 PM

I agree with you Arch. I personally wish that when leaving DC on a highway the first exit is 20 miles out of the city. Unfortunately the development question is complicated by the fact that there are other factors at work. Government efficiency is probably one of the bigger factors and a reason why you couldn't pay some people to live in DC. One the other hand, they don't want to be deprived of an urban lifestyle, so they're trying to bring out to where they are.

I think in the long-term, DC will be fine, and the area east of the river isn't dense at all and certainly brings down the avg. density of the city. That's going to be one hell of a long term undertaking when serious development starts to get out there. My only stipulation out there is not pushing out all the people that have been there so long, that's the only part of the city w/ a real soul IMO.

From an urban planning standpoint, to provide a true well-scaled urban environment, we can't have 6 lane roads w/ 55 mph speed limits and long blocks everywhere. That's what Arch is getting at, along w/ the ugly strip malls. So even if towers are being built, just like Vegas w/ 500ft buildings every where, it's not scaled right b/c you have to walk more than 1/8 mile most of the time to get from one block to another and there are wide streets, surface parking and concrete everywhere.

I feel like we can definitely concentrate on cores. That's why I don't feel as strongly about not developing outside the beltway, but I certainly want those cores to be well designed and a max distance away from the city that these cores appear in most cases. Reston may have something special in the future, and that may be a real win from an urban planning standpoint in 10 yrs, but I would have preferred it be closer in. I prefer the dense development should be around the beltway and in. So Springfield, Tysons, Vienna Metro/MetroWest, North Bethesda, Wheaton, Greenbelt, Largo are all great boundaries IMO. Rockville and Reston are the only exceptions IMO. If we can stay disciplined to these areas, we'll be fine in the long run b/c the infrastructure and transit dollars can be concentrated as opposed to having it thinly dispersed everywhere, not doing a damn thing.

DCBaby

February 6th, 2007, 09:59 PM

NovaWolverine

February 6th, 2007, 10:19 PM

But you have to rational. Heavy rail is expensive, more expensive than the people who designed it could have foreseen. And the thing that makes DC the same as other places mentioned is the hardware. Our trains are the same, our tunnels, pretty much most of the machinery is the same.

One of the reasons why commuter rail should be favored is b/c of the physical limitations of metro trains. They're slower, higher maintenance and less comfortable. Do the people favoring metro out to all these distant places even think there is a limitation to subway cars? And mind you, I'm only in favor of metro to Dulles if other methods are more expensive when you factor in the Tysons project also, which appears to be the case. But If you want to think that our metro is uniquely different, we better get some 22nd century subway cars and track technology.

I think the allure of being able to ride the subway out to all these places is obscuring the real factors at play. Bragging rights will mean jack if we spend more money and realize that it wasn't worth it.

So, yes, the DC metro is different than that of just about every other metro system in the country, but the ride itself is the same, and that's one of the biggest factors here.

BalWash

February 6th, 2007, 10:36 PM

Nature abhors a vacuum; sprawl abhors capacity. Add rail or expand a highway and the commuting public will quickly figure out a way to use the excess capacity up. The designers of the Beltway once thought it would reduce congestion. What it actually did was promote commuting, and now many people use the Beltway to simply commute around DC between newly formed edge cities. Despite this lesson, some people are suggesting that we construct a new Purple Line to, once again, reduce congestion.

If we want to promote truly smart growth, then we need to cut off the vasculature that enables the commuting, auto-centric lifestyle. Extending the Metro beyond the city limits will never do this because doing so actually promotes the construction of widely flung suburbs whose residents still require automobiles just to buy groceries. If it hadn't been for Metro-enabled "smart" growth in areas like North Bethesda, DC might have had a population density more like that of Paris.

Manhattan: density 66,940.1/mi²
Paris: density 63,321/mi²
Washington, DC: 9,316.4/mi²
North Bethesda: 4,281.5/mi²

I see what you're saying. Your argument isn't for commuter rail or specifically against HRT. It's against all rail in areas where maximum densification hasn't occurred. You want to eliminate all forms of transit to force people live, work and play in a concentrated area, all within walking distance of eachother. While I respect your long term planning for the region, it's definately not feasable in the short term. According to you, Rockville won't reach the proper density for mass transit, which you defined, for 100 years. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to live, work and play in the same location. We have to pick our poison, public mass transit via rail is by far the lesser of two evils (the other being roads). BTW, the people of the new high rises of North Bethesda wont be needing cars just to buy groceries. A new Whole Foods will anchor the retail section of White Flint Crossing.

In short, your philosophy about transit rests on circumstances that will not come to fruition in the foreseeable future. The extreme nature and absurdity of your belief that the Beltway (or all beltways in general) and the Purple Line (or all orbital rail lines) only prevent smart growth should be rejected as self evidently false by all. Nearly all urban planners would definately disagree with you Archi.

Not that it's relevant but: it's unfair to compare the densest part of America's densest city with the entirety of Washington, D.C. Washington is over 3 times the geographic size of Manhattan and contains tons of park land, which is inherent to its role as the nation's capital. Addditionally, DC's height restrictions certainly prevent increased density.

BalWash

February 6th, 2007, 10:44 PM

Silver Springer

February 6th, 2007, 10:55 PM

Silver Springer

February 6th, 2007, 11:06 PM

I think Don Qui repeatedly asked the question why is DC different from other cities. The answer is right under your nose. When our metro was created, it was developed with the suburban commuter in mind. As our surburbs expanded, so did the idea of expanding metro. In fact, I went to Metro's HQ in DC and there is a map of the entire DC region on the lower level of the lobby. The map is dated from the 60's and it has the metro green line going from Waldorf to Laurel - The Orange Line running from Bowie with an extension to Annapolis past the Dulles Airport. So whoever created this map, they were way ahead of their time. The DC METRO is like no other in the country. It is uniquely different than any other subway in the nation. If people in this region had to choose they would pick metro to BWI, Dulles, over Marc or VRE on any day.

I would also like to add that while Don Qui (thought he was gone for good) is trumpeting NYC's system. It is not the perfect system and there are many methods to achieve the same goals. What might not work for NYC works for D.C.

And Don't you think D.C. Metro pioneers looked at the NYC system and gauged it's strength and weaknesses? They ment to improve upon it and build a world class system here.

NovaWolverine

February 6th, 2007, 11:41 PM

I just find it ironic how all the people advocating for the Silver Line to Dulles are against the Green Line extension to BWI. The arguments against the Green Line are interchangeable against the Silver Line. What is with the double standard? You can't have it both ways.

It's a matter of details. If you think Tysons ought to have metro which most do, to build rail out to Reston and Dulles, which many also agree with, you'd have to build new tracks to get out there. So, what would you rather do, continue the metro tracks, or build an all new route to get out to Dulles, new commuter rail tracks from DC to Dulles? That's the question. The fact that Marc already serves DC and B'more is a huge detail in all of this and one of the main reasons why people support commuter rail being modernized. The other being commuter rail's effectiveness at longer distances w/ stops less frequent. So that's the reason why the arguements aren't all interchangable. In fact, I think Dulles and Reston would be better off w/ commuter rail, but am willing to settle for metro b/c of money and logistical reasons.

Archiconnoisseur

February 7th, 2007, 12:11 AM

I see what you're saying. Your argument isn't for commuter rail or specifically against HRT. It's against all rail in areas where maximum densification hasn't occurred. You want to eliminate all forms of transit to force people live, work and play in a concentrated area, all within walking distance of eachother.
Exactly. For me, this isn't a MD versus VA issue but a general recommendation against all things that promote sprawl. With regards to an extension of the Green line to B'more, it's my belief that a Metro would pull growth out along the line whereas commuter rail would confine that same growth to its relatively far flung stations. Besides, as I already pointed out, I'd prefer taking the MARC to Metro for moderate distance travel.

While I respect your long term planning for the region, it's definately not feasable in the short term. According to you, Rockville won't reach the proper density for mass transit, which you defined, for 100 years. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to live, work and play in the same location. We have to pick our poison, public mass transit via rail is by far the lesser of two evils (the other being roads). BTW, the people of the new high rises of North Bethesda wont be needing cars just to buy groceries. A new Whole Foods will anchor the retail section of White Flint Crossing.
If we don't start reining in development now, we're going to end up with a Los Angelization of the DC Metro area. It only took 15 years for the region's population to increase by 47% between 1980 to 1995, so short-term plans can still have very long-term consequences.

To me, smart growth is that which enhances pedestrian and self-propelled transportation, thereby reducing our footprint on the environment, facilitating daily exercise, and promoting public interaction. People who drive everywhere really don't know the meaning of urban; just try walking the length of Crystal City and you'll see what I mean. I can bike to and from work every day because I happen to work in the relatively dense city of Old Town.

I'm not saying that we should halt all development; I'm just saying that politicians shouldn't be allowed to spend taxpayer money to subsidize expensive roads, Metro, etc. to the suburbs. I also didn't say that Rockville couldn't reach proper density for mass transit in a hundred years; you're associating all of the Pike with the city of Rockville. The city of Rockville has certainly been dense enough for mass transit for at least a decade.

In short, your philosophy about transit rests on circumstances that will not come to fruition in the foreseeable future. The extreme nature and absurdity of your belief that the Beltway (or all beltways in general) and the Purple Line (or all orbital rail lines) only prevent smart growth should be rejected as self evidently false by all. Nearly all urban planners would definately disagree with you Archi.
Self-evident, eh?

"The most touted solution to congestion is a proposal to widen Washington's famed beltway to 12 lanes and to add an "outer beltway" linking the outer suburbs. Those ideas have encountered strong opposition, based in part on evidence that past highway expansions have led to more sprawl and eventually more congestion."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1076/is_4_41/ai_54711395

"The construction of free beltways and expressways has subsidized suburban development."

http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-18-98.html

"The reason is that beltways deconcentrate metropolitan populations to levels that prevent the creation of trade areas sufficient to support retail and service firms at the margins."

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JUPDDM000126000004000189000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Not that it's relevant but: it's unfair to compare the densest part of America's densest city with the entirety of Washington, D.C. Washington is over 3 times the geographic size of Manhattan and contains tons of park land, which is inherent to its role as the nation's capital. Addditionally, DC's height restrictions certainly prevent increased density.
Paris, the city after which DC was modeled, has a fantastic residential density that greatly exceeds that of DC. Ditto for cities such as Tokyo and London. All three of these cities, unlike Manhattan, are relatively low-rise.

NovaWolverine

February 7th, 2007, 12:34 AM

Another thing worth mentioning is cooperation at the regional level. People shouldn't portray the situation as such a hostile environment. We need everyone in the region to embrace smart growth and smarter land use. Sprawl goes wherever it is embraced. For example, if Fairfax stops it, than it goes out to Loudoun and Prince William, if they stop it, than it'll go out to Spotsylvania and Fauquier and so on. There is a limit to how much commuting people want to do, but planning for the future is a regional thing.

Silver Springer

February 7th, 2007, 12:36 AM

It's a matter of details. If you think Tysons ought to have metro which most do. To build rail out to Reston and Dulles, which many also agree with, you'd have to build new tracks to get out there. So, would you rather do, continue the metro tracks, or build an all new route to get out to Dulles, new commuter rail tracks from DC to Dulles? That's the question. The fact that Marc already serves DC and B'more is a huge detail in all of this and one of the main reasons why people support commuter rail being modernized. The other being commuter rail's effectiveness at longer distances w/ stops less frequent. So that's the reason why the arguements aren't all interchangable. In fact, I think Dulles and Reston would be better off w/ commuter rail, but am willing to settle for metro b/c of money and logistical reasons.

Who are these "most people" you're talking about? Did you take a poll of the whole region or something? From what I can tell on this forum; Of those who say Yay for Silver Line and Nay for the Green Line, 25% are from Va, 25% Could care less or don't know squat about this area 25% Are from Baltimore who hate the D.C. area and another 25% have a different regional agenda and don't value the economics. That comes out to like 4 people.:ohno:

You also want tunneling for Tysons, try to justify that cost. The line out to Dulles will be in the highway median, something wasteful and suitable for commuter rail. I say make commuter rail from Tysons to Dulles. Then eventually take that commuter rail line out to Fort Belvoir.

People are also forgetting the CSX issues that is part of the reason why developing around these commuter rail stations can be tricky. Without a dedicated right of way for MARC the long-term future is questionable. All this MARC line talk is mute IMO without its own right of way which will cost alot of money anyways. CSX has been know to pull a fast one and cause some major set backs to some developments.

getontrac

February 7th, 2007, 12:57 AM

Does anyone know comparitive cost of above ground HRT with Commuter Rail? Perhaps getontrac can answer, he seems to be one of the most knowledgeable and rational posters on this forum. Assuming the costs are more or less the same then, Getontrac, I think we only reach the point where we agree to disagree when you feel as though the urbanizing affect and convenience of Metro expansion is not outweighed by the (supposed) speed advantage of MARC. Is that where this stands?

:applause:

If the ROW already exists, at surface, the cost differences lie in how much grade-seperation is required. Frequent, high-speed commuter rail can have some, but not many grade crossings. Metro can have none. Modern Metro usually requires the ROW to be fenced off, whereas this may not necessarily be the case for commuter rail. If the existing ROW is already grade-seperated the costs are probably similar, but slightly higher for Metro due to third-rails and a more sophisticated signaling system.

Commuter Rail is generally cheaper to operate because one train can carry a very large load of passengers, and the expectation is that daytime service need not be as frequent as Metro.

DC works on a step fare system. I don't have time to do it tonight, but someone
--figure how much money it costs to go from Greenbelt to Chinatown/Gallery Place.
--how much money is it from BWI to Union Station on MARC (Union and China/Gallery are pretty close destinations to one another)
--how much time does it take to get from Greenbelt to Chinatown?
--how much time does it take to get from BWI to Union?
--based on the step fare system, what is a reasonable predictive cost to go from BWI to Chinatown on the Green Line and long would it take?
--Compare those factors to MARC.

If the average person boarding at BWI is going a short distance to a nearby suburb, than the Green Line may serve as true "urban transit".

If the average person boarding at BWI is headed deep beyond the DC beltway, the Green Line is functioning like Commuter rail and is therefore likely not cost-effective (nor cost-beneficial). I'll overstep myself and say I gaurantee it's not ;).

One size does not fit all. There are no hard and fast rules to transit, just tendencies and generalities. There are exceptions. Dulles corridor doesn't have a ROW and it's in the line of the Metro. BWI's already got a ROW and there's already a commuter line there, except it's underfunded, needs more cars and more power and more storage space and some track additions.

Something to think about.

Nate

NovaWolverine

February 7th, 2007, 01:00 AM

Who are these "most people" you're talking about? Did you take a poll of the whole region or something? From what I can tell on this forum; Of those who say Yay for Silver Line and Nay for the Green Line, 25% are from Va, 25% Could care less or don't know squat about this area 25% Are from Baltimore who hate the D.C. area and another 25% have a different regional agenda and don't value the economics. That comes out to like 4 people.:ohno:

You also want tunneling for Tysons, try to justify that cost. The line out to Dulles will be in the highway median, something wasteful and suitable for commuter rail. I say make commuter rail from Tysons to Dulles. Then eventually take that commuter rail line out to Fort Belvoir.

People are also forgetting the CSX issues that is part of the reason why developing around these commuter rail stations can be tricky. Without a dedicated right of way for MARC the long-term future is questionable. All this MARC line talk is mute IMO without its own right of way which will cost alot of money anyways. CSX has been know to pull a fast one and cause some major set backs to some developments.

First of all, learn to read. I said most people agree with Tysons having metro, that's it. I didn't say anything about what they thought of the green line or any of that. Nice try, though.

I want tunneling, but I understand the conflict, I will settle for elevated tracks. And yes, I can justify it. Along with the towers going up on Rt. 7 and widening of it, a study showed if they use new tunneling technology that digs faster and around the clock, the project can be cheaper, faster and not cause as much a disturbance.

And again, why on earth would we build a commuter line just from Dulles to Tysons. That completely defeats the purpose. It is not a shuttle, it's for commuters around the region to use. Lots of people from the Rt. 7 area go to DC to work and plenty of people from other areas come to Tysons and the Dulles corridor to work. Any line built will have to go into DC.

getontrac

February 7th, 2007, 01:01 AM

NovaWolverine

February 7th, 2007, 01:08 AM

...and another 25% have a different regional agenda and don't value the economics...

I'm sorry, which group of people were you referring to w/ this comment, I'm confused. :|

harlem87

February 7th, 2007, 02:07 AM

I know the area well, having commuted back and forth along Rockville Pike for almost a year. Maybe it's because you're from Atlanta, but there's nothing "smart" about the development along Rockville Pike. You can call it "North" Bethesda all you want, but from street level all one sees from Grosvenor to Rockville is a continuum of strip malls punctuated by an occasional low-rise. Your grand vision for Rockville Pike sounds more like the Las Vegas Strip to me. Walking distances? Please, don't insult my intelligence.

As for the area of North Bethesda near the Beltway interchange, all I see are sprawling office parks surrounded by vast parking lots; anathema to smart growth. In any case, what's done is done and no one is suggesting that we tear down the Red Line. What I'm suggesting is that we don't repeat the mistake by extending out any of the Metro lines further, the Silver line being an exception because DC needs a well-linked international airport.

Its quite odd that you haven't made the same comments about the ever SPRAWLING Route 7(Leesburg Pike/King Street) Corridor thats nothing but a LONG Strip Mall between Alexandria and Leesburg which is about a good 25-30 mile stretch.

I know what I'm reading and you can pull the wools over ther other peoples eyes on here but you are for damn sure aren't pulling no wools over my eyes.

You are a freaking Maryland hater and you like all of the other Maryland haters will do anything possible to reck down Business/Ecopnomic/Revenue Growth in Maryland just to make sure that Maryland doesn't compete against your favorite region of Northern Virginia.

Fuck what you say about New York, I know SEVERAL Good Ol' Boy Country Southern Hicks making FALSE claims of being from New York but like always when they open their mouths and talk that anti-Growth Backwards Shit they remove all doubt and reveal their true Good Ol' Boy backward Country Southern Ignorance.

harlem87

February 7th, 2007, 02:21 AM

harlem87

February 7th, 2007, 02:25 AM

It's a matter of details. If you think Tysons ought to have metro which most do, to build rail out to Reston and Dulles, which many also agree with, you'd have to build new tracks to get out there. So, what would you rather do, continue the metro tracks, or build an all new route to get out to Dulles, new commuter rail tracks from DC to Dulles? That's the question. The fact that Marc already serves DC and B'more is a huge detail in all of this and one of the main reasons why people support commuter rail being modernized. The other being commuter rail's effectiveness at longer distances w/ stops less frequent. So that's the reason why the arguements aren't all interchangable. In fact, I think Dulles and Reston would be better off w/ commuter rail, but am willing to settle for metro b/c of money and logistical reasons.

All this Shit boils down to is Federal Spending and you people are afraid that if they build the Green Line Subway it will take some of the Federal spending towards the $4 Billion Subway extension to Dulles.

harlem87

February 7th, 2007, 02:34 AM

If the ROW already exists, at surface, the cost differences lie in how much grade-seperation is required. Frequent, high-speed commuter rail can have some, but not many grade crossings. Metro can have none. Modern Metro usually requires the ROW to be fenced off, whereas this may not necessarily be the case for commuter rail. If the existing ROW is already grade-seperated the costs are probably similar, but slightly higher for Metro due to third-rails and a more sophisticated signaling system.

Commuter Rail is generally cheaper to operate because one train can carry a very large load of passengers, and the expectation is that daytime service need not be as frequent as Metro.

DC works on a step fare system. I don't have time to do it tonight, but someone
--figure how much money it costs to go from Greenbelt to Chinatown/Gallery Place.
--how much money is it from BWI to Union Station on MARC (Union and China/Gallery are pretty close destinations to one another)
--how much time does it take to get from Greenbelt to Chinatown?
--how much time does it take to get from BWI to Union?
--based on the step fare system, what is a reasonable predictive cost to go from BWI to Chinatown on the Green Line and long would it take?
--Compare those factors to MARC.

Now do the same calculations from Union Station to Dulles Airport.

How much does it cost to go from Union Station to West Falls Church.

How much are they planning to raise the cost of riding metro in the future.

Compare those factors to VRE.

If the average person boarding at BWI is going a short distance to a nearby suburb, than the Green Line may serve as true "urban transit".

If the average person boarding at BWI is headed deep beyond the DC beltway, the Green Line is functioning like Commuter rail and is therefore likely not cost-effective (nor cost-beneficial). I'll overstep myself and say I gaurantee it's not ;).

One size does not fit all. There are no hard and fast rules to transit, just tendencies and generalities. There are exceptions. Dulles corridor doesn't have a ROW and it's in the line of the Metro. BWI's already got a ROW and there's already a commuter line there, except it's underfunded, needs more cars and more power and more storage space and some track additions.

Something to think about.

Nate

Not really because if you can't make the same arguments about extending rail to Dulles ten your point is Extremely biased and shall not be taking seriously.

harlem87

February 7th, 2007, 02:36 AM

Silver Springer

February 7th, 2007, 03:20 AM

First of all, learn to read. I said most people agree with Tysons having metro, that's it. I didn't say anything about what they thought of the green line or any of that. Nice try, though.

I want tunneling, but I understand the conflict, I will settle for elevated tracks. And yes, I can justify it. Along with the towers going up on Rt. 7 and widening of it, a study showed if they use new tunneling technology that digs faster and around the clock, the project can be cheaper, faster and not cause as much a disturbance.

And again, why on earth would we build a commuter line just from Dulles to Tysons. That completely defeats the purpose. It is not a shuttle, it's for commuters around the region to use. Lots of people from the Rt. 7 area go to DC to work and plenty of people from other areas come to Tysons and the Dulles corridor to work. Any line built will have to go into DC.

Are you starting with the personal attacks again? Don't worry NovaWolverine it's going to be alright.

I'll type it second time...you said "...most people agree with Tysons having metro, that's it." and I'm saying who are these "most people", Virginians? I could care less either way. My whole point is that whatever your argument is to justify the Silver Line can be used to justify the Green Line.

After Tysons the line becomes commuter rail and even Tysons is suburban transit at best. After Tysons the silver line will be in the highway median to Dulles most of the way, what good has been the metro line in the median of 66 done? There is nothing urban or dense along this line, it even gets more suburban after Tysons.

According to the 2000 Census (which has the most accurate info) on Residence-county-to-workplace-county flows. 88,908 residents commute to D.C. from Fairfax County while only 12,244 residents in District of Columbia commute to Fairfax County and they ain't all going to Tysons. By comparison 19,509 residents commute to Montgomery County from District of Columbia. The District of Columbia to Fairfax commute probably hasn't changed much if not decreased. Tysons is also not growing lke it used to, it received (or is getting) its first office building in over 3 years. I'm tell you most of the people going to Tysons are not taking the Silver Line, they will continue to use their cars.

Silver Springer

February 7th, 2007, 03:59 AM

NovaWolverine

February 7th, 2007, 05:26 AM

Are you starting with the personal attacks again? Don't worry NovaWolverine it's going to be alright.

I'll type it second time...you said "...most people agree with Tysons having metro, that's it." and I'm saying who are these "most people", Virginians? I could care less either way. My whole point is that whatever your argument is to justify the Silver Line can be used to justify the Green Line.

After Tysons the line becomes commuter rail and even Tysons is suburban transit at best. After Tysons the silver line will be in the highway median to Dulles most of the way, what good has been the metro line in the median of 66 done? There is nothing urban or dense along this line, it even gets more suburban after Tysons.

According to the 2000 Census (which has the most accurate info) on Residence-county-to-workplace-county flows. 88,908 residents commute to D.C. from Fairfax County while only 12,244 residents in District of Columbia commute to Fairfax County and they ain't all going to Tysons. By comparison 19,509 residents commute to Montgomery County from District of Columbia. The District of Columbia to Fairfax commute probably hasn't changed much if not decreased. Tysons is also not growing lke it used to, it received (or is getting) its first office building in over 3 years. I'm tell you most of the people going to Tysons are not taking the Silver Line, they will continue to use their cars.

That's why Tysons just got a massive development project approved...

Commuter rail from Tysons to Dulles is dumb. Throw that idea out, no one is stupid enough to adopt that plan. Commuter rail is supposed to go somewhere, it's supposed to be for commuters. What is the purpose of people from Reston using commuter rail to get to Tysons and then switching to metro, that's just dumb and no one would use it and no one wants to spend any amount of money something that is pointless. Commuter rail must have a route directly into DC, there's no other way if you're pushing commuter rail.

The only reason that I'm sufficing for metro is b/c it's too much to ask for metro to Tysons, and then a direct DC to Dulles commuter rail line. That's the best, but I'm willing to compromise.

And this is the fundamental reason why the arguments for both projects are not interchangeable. If tracks were already laid for rail near Dulles, than there'd be no question of what option would be taken. If there were no MARC train tracks between DC and B'more, than extending metro to BWI, despite still not being the best option, would be a more understandable one.

And..."most people" means competent people from around the region. People acknowledge that Tysons is a significant suburban area and deserves metro service just as the other significant suburban areas around the beltway.

NovaWolverine

February 7th, 2007, 05:37 AM

And to put the whole commuter rail/BWI is too far away/blah,blah,blah nonsense to rest. In algebra it's called balancing the equation, you must do to one side what you do to the other. And to all the Maryland people who are aginst the line...lets just say I think I'm understanding why the state isn't where it should be.

I used distance for the directions instead of time.

So infact Dulles is further out from D.C. than BWI and not only that but Dulles is further out than BWI from their closest repsective metro stations. Dulles is further away from the east falls church station where the Silver line will start and BWI is closer to Greenbelt Station.

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9083/dctobwirt3.jpg

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6011/dctoiadsr0.jpg

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/944/greenbeltbwiyr3.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7156/fciadkp9.jpg

Tysons being heavy rail is a big part of this whole thing. You tell me, does it make sense to build commuter rail from Tysons to Dulles? Another reason that you like to pretend that doesn't exist is the development in the path of the two lines. Any advantage that you think the green line has by being a minute or two closer is more than compensated for when you take into acct. the development in the path of the two lines. But now we're just beating a dead horse.

getontrac

February 7th, 2007, 05:40 AM

And to put the whole commuter rail/BWI is too far away/blah,blah,blah nonsense to rest. In algebra it's called balancing the equation, you must do to one side what you do to the other. And to all the Maryland people who are aginst the line...lets just say I think I'm understanding why the state isn't where it should be.

I used distance for the directions instead of time.

So infact Dulles is further out from D.C. than BWI and not only that but Dulles is further out than BWI from their closest repsective metro stations. Dulles is further away from the east falls church station where the Silver line will start and BWI is closer to Greenbelt Station.

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9083/dctobwirt3.jpg

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6011/dctoiadsr0.jpg

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/944/greenbeltbwiyr3.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7156/fciadkp9.jpg

The relationship between distance and time is critical in transit economics and consumer choice. Calculate what I suggested and see what your results are. If you don't feel like doing it tonight, I'll do it tomorrow when I have the energy and interest.

Nate

harlem87

February 7th, 2007, 05:59 AM

That's why Tysons just got a massive development project approved...

Commuter rail from Tysons to Dulles is dumb. Throw that idea out, no one is stupid enough to adopt that plan. Commuter rail is supposed to go somewhere, it's supposed to be for commuters. What is the purpose of people from Reston using commuter rail to get to Tysons and then switching to metro, that's just dumb and no one would use it and no one wants to spend any amount of money something that is pointless. Commuter rail must have a route directly into DC, there's no other way if you're pushing commuter rail.

The only reason that I'm sufficing for metro is b/c it's too much to ask for metro to Tysons, and then a direct DC to Dulles commuter rail line. That's the best, but I'm willing to compromise.

And this is the fundamental reason why the arguments for both projects are not interchangeable. If tracks were already laid for rail near Dulles, than there'd be no question of what option would be taken. If there were no MARC train tracks between DC and B'more, than extending metro to BWI, despite still not being the best option, would be a more understandable one.

And..."most people" means competent people from around the region. People acknowledge that Tysons is a significant suburban area and deserves metro service just as the other significant suburban areas around the beltway.

Dude Shut The Fuck Up Already!

You just don't want Maryland to extend the Green Line Subway because you people are scared that it will make Maryland more competative against Virginia's Business/Economic/Revenue Growth.

You people for the past few years have been trying to find ways to steal people away from using the BWI Airport which is why Dullles added SW Airlines to their Airport.