|
|
| Re: WMATA: Agencies fantasy map (624168) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: WMATA: Agencies fantasy map |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Wed May 28 00:42:07 2008, in response to Re: WMATA: Agencies fantasy map, posted by Mirai Zikasu on Tue May 27 21:24:52 2008. It's interesting to see how the different maps approach expansion, though I'm not quite sure if any particular one looks ideal. The WMATA plan seems more likely than the Greater Greater Washington ones as it offers Metrorail expansion rather than counting on MARC and VRE to improve their service and does something productive with the Blue Line given WMATA's plans to reroute some Franconia-Springfield trains to Greenbelt via the Yellow Line bridge.The inclusion of MARC and VRE on the Greater Greater Washington multimodal fantasy map are not improvement of the existing services provided by those agencies. They simply added the MARC and VRE lines to the WMATA metrorail map along with the light rail lines proposed by The District of Columbia and Maryland. Version 2 includes MARC improvement discussed in my post MARC: Long range expansion plan (2010 - 2035) along with other improvements light rail/ Bus rapid transit and heavy rail rapid transit in Baltimore. What's mysteriously missing in the first map but included version 2 is the light rail line proposed along Columbia Pike in Arlington Virginia. What looks best in WMATA's plan is constructing the new trunk line through the city that would become the new Blue Line. Taking into account that the current Orange/Blue Line is congested and will probably become even more jammed if more people start using public transportation (not to mention what will happen when the Silver Line is finally up and running), a new trunk line through the city--and one that includes both the busy area north of Farragut Square and destinations like Georgetown and the H Street NE Corridor--would hopefully help to alleviate congestion on the current trunk and facilitate travel to those destinations. I have yet to figure out why I am the lone voice that believes that the Blue Line east west trunk route (M Street subway) should only be considered after WMATA has procured sufficient rolling stock to dispatch 8 car train at 90 second headway (39 TPH in each direction) on the existing trunk segments of the system. The train control and signaling system is designed to accommodate 90 second headway on full length of all routes in the system. WMATA presently advertises 180 second headway (19 TPH in each direction) on the existing trunk segments of the system. The train that are run today at 180 second headways are a combination of 6 and 8 car train. WMATA doesn't have enough rolling stock to run all 8 car trains on 180 second headways. Either the promoters of the M Street subway know something I don't know that produced their conclusion that calls for a new east west trunk, or I know something they never bothered to code in to their computer model. I just wish WMATA's plan for the Metrorail was more ambitious to complete projects before 2030. Twenty-two years is a long time to complete projects given the current problems regarding energy and the area's horrific traffic. It took WMATA 35 years to build the existing 106 mile system. During the blitz construction years from the late 1960s to the early 1980s WMATA was putting $1 million a day into the ground. In today's dollars that doesn't seem like much, back then it was a lot. The proposed 23 mile Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project will increase the total route miles of the system by almost 25%. (phase I 11.6 miles East Falls church to Wiehle Avenue, phase II 11.5 miles Wiehle Avenue to VA-772 Ryan Road Ashburn) The largest single opening on the system was the 12 mile long National Airport to Stadium-Armory segment. The M Street subway is roughly 7 miles long. In my opinion the M Street subway will rival the Second Avenue Subway in both cost and engineering. Combined both will increase the mileage of the system 35%, That's a pretty hefty amount when you consider it took 10 years to build and open the first 6 phases that totaled 33.5 miles during the boom construction years. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
|