Green Line Extension-The Intercity Connection

[DonQui]

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

Originally Posted by Silver Springer

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.

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. 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]

Originally Posted by DonQui

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?

Originally Posted by DonQui

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.

Originally Posted by DonQui

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.

Originally Posted by DonQui

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?

Originally Posted by DonQui

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. 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?

Originally Posted by DonQui

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]

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

toodles.

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

[getontrac]

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]

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

[Silver Springer]

Originally Posted by getontrac

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]

Originally Posted by getontrac

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]

Originally Posted by Silver Springer

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]

Originally Posted by DonQui

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

toodles.

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]

Originally Posted by Silver Springer

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]

Originally Posted by Silver Springer

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]

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?! 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]

^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!

Nate

[harlem87]

Originally Posted by Silver Springer

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 guy is supporting Suburban Sprawl for Virginia but chestising All Forms of Urban/Suburban Growth in Maryland.

Like I said before; people that share his biased views are nothing but a bunch of Maryland havting Virginia loving Dictating Obstructionist with a communist mentality.

[harlem87]

Originally Posted by getontrac

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]

Originally Posted by getontrac

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]

Originally Posted by getontrac

^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!

Nate

Thats right because your rehashing doesn't make a bit of sense.

[21230]

Originally Posted by harlem87

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]

Originally Posted by ajoutz

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]

Originally Posted by 21230

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.

No I'm not Rosie O'Donnel but I do like to tell the obvious and poor cold water on their credibility.