# More DC Metro Expansion in N. VA?



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 6, 2013)

I know, I know, ANOTHER study, but we NVAers really need this to actually happen, as once again the DC region was ranked in the top two for worst commutes in the USA. According to this article, two members of Virginia's delegation in the House of Representatives are asking for the Feds to fund a study which will look at extending Washington's Metro system west to Centerville, and south to Potomac Mills and Woodbridge. The extension to Centerville would be on the Orange Line, the line to Potomac Mills would be the Blue Line and the line to Woodbridge would be the Yellow Line.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) has moved, or soon will move, many Federal and Federal contract jobs away from places that had Metro access to locations that have none, making driving the only real viable option for many people. This is just what we didn't/don't need, with our already clogged arteries. The whole process has been akin to force feeding someone with heart disease many, many cans of Crisco. 

From the article:



> Reps. Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran... ...say continued population growth in both areas and the expansion of Fort Belvoir under the military's Base Realignment and Closure process make the study even more urgent than past expansion discussions."Northern Virginia has the worst traffic in the nation, impacting the quality of life for the hundreds of thousands of commuters who sit in traffic hours each day," Moran said in a written statement.
> 
> "Public transit is the answer to this unrelenting congestion. It's better for commuters, our economy and the environment."


----------



## Anderson (Mar 6, 2013)

The biggest issue I see is that there's less and less spare capacity for the Metro further in. It's kind of hard to see how they'd accommodate any more demand to get into DC near peak hours (especially on the Orange Line) with things as they are now.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 6, 2013)

Anderson said:


> The biggest issue I see is that there's less and less spare capacity for the Metro further in. It's kind of hard to see how they'd accommodate any more demand to get into DC near peak hours (especially on the Orange Line) with things as they are now.


With the Yellow Line expansion through Fort Belvoir at least, that would be a non-issue. Fort Belvoir is gaining about 19.000 positions and for most, it would be a reverse commute. For those who would be going to Ft. Belvoir from further out and in the direction of downtown, their detraining at Ft. Belvoir would allow the trains to pick up riders from stations closer in.

Also, in general, while there would be more trains, they would be spread out over a larger system. Your point is still valid, but this would mitigate some of the log jam.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 6, 2013)

Point taken on Fort Belvoir. As to the train issue, I'm more thinking of the clogged tunnels between Alexandria/Rosslyn and DC than anything. The Silver Line is looking to put a lot of pressure on those tunnels and projections are that they're going to hit a wall on capacity sooner rather than later there. Likewise, I _think_ the Woodbridge and Centreville extensions would be VRE-redundant (though to be fair, that might be a good thing as it would allow more turnover on the inbound trains).


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 6, 2013)

One other thing I just thought of h34r: :blush: h34r: is that the Yellow Line extension, as well as probably the balance of Blue Line extension trains would come into DC over the bridge next to CSX's Long Bridge so they would not clog the tunnel.


----------



## afigg (Mar 6, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Also, in general, while there would be more trains, they would be spread out over a larger system. Your point is still valid, but this would mitigate some of the log jam.


The key restriction is 26 trains per hour (tph) for the peak rush periods on any given shared line in the system. With the Orange. Blue, Silver line sharing 1 line from Rosslyn to east of Stadium Armory, the 26 trains have to be split between the 3 lines, no matter how far out they go. The plan is for 10 tph for the Orange and Silver lines, 6 tph for the Blue Line for the peak periods. Extend the Orange or Blue Line and the extra traffic has to squeeze into no more than 10 8-car tph.

The DC Metro planners recently released the Metro Momentum report that outlines the issues and possible future expansions to focus on. Extending the Blue and Orange Lines in VA are part of the 2040 time frame ideas while the in-line connectors at Rosslyn and Pentagon are nearer term. The emphasis is on expanding capacity in the core first with separated Blue and Yellow Lines. The concept has been around for over 10 years to re-route the Blue Line at Rosslyn with a new station at Rosslyn, new tunnel to Georgetown, station in Georgetown, then run under M street to the Convention Center, SE to Union Station, and then east or SE from there.

The Greater Greater Washington blog had several columns last month on the issues and challenges with Metro expansion. Worth the read for those interested in the future of the DC Metro system:

(Metro Momentum report release) http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17498/metros-stuffed-full-at-rosslyn-what-can-be-done/

Part 1 Metro beyond 2025: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17643/metro-beyond-2025-possible-futures-with-new-connections/

Part 2 Metro beyond 2025: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17642/metro-beyond-2025-part-2-the-blue-line-to-georgetown/

The proposals to study the extension of the Orange Line Centerville and the Blue Line south to where-ever are not new. However, the VA politicians are likely to run head on into Metro planners who will tell them that extending the lines should not be done until a re-routed Blue Line has been built in DC. If I was in charge, I would have the Blue Line re-route undergoing engineering study and design right now and the pedestrian tunnels at Farragut Sq and Metro Center to Gallery Place under construction.

Meanwhile, Phase 1 of the Silver Line started powered test runs of a 2 car trainset last weekend


----------



## Blackwolf (Mar 6, 2013)

It seems to me that the most direct manner in which Metro can improve the performance of the existing system, before delving into expansion and expensive redesign, is to return to a good state of repair. Granted, my one and only experience with Metrorail was for one week this past December, but both me and my wife heavily used the Blue, Yellow, Orange and Red lines during our visit. While it got us to our destinations safely and with reasonable comfort, the fact that the Metrorail system is suffering from a slow rot that stems from lack of maintenance was quite clear. For example, watching a rather severe case of bad ballasting on the Red line just outside Union Station was alarming; as a Metrorail train was moving across the bad track, the rails and ties were moving a half-foot up and down. Broken insulator posts holding a section of 3rd rail on the Yellow line next to the Arlington Cemetery station. And last, but not least, the continued abandonment of Automatic Train Control/Operation.

My understanding is the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system and Metrorail, both sister systems in their characteristics, were never designed for long-term manual train operation. Both are built around the same ATC/ATO systems to maximize efficiency, headway times, and safety. Yes, Metrorail's computer systems have malfunctioned repeatedly (with disastrous and fatal results in the past,) but BART's system has only had limited issues and these have been dealt with quickly. BART continues to be fully Automatic and is in the process of updating the hardware to maintain reliability; Metrorail seems to have completely abandoned their Automatic systems and it really shows.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 6, 2013)

Honestly, I think that Metro is the wrong mode to use for distances like this - it would be much better (IMO) to use the money to beef up VRE and MARC service to get people from the far out suburbs into the city, then let WMATA focus on getting those people from the handful of transfer stations to their destinations.

The exception to this would be Belvior, that's really close to Franonia-Springfield and it looks like extending down the CSX ROW to 7100 (I don't care what it's new number is) and then over to the fort would be a pretty good expansion.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 6, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) has moved, or soon will move, many Federal and Federal contract jobs away from places that had Metro access to locations that have none, making driving the only real viable option for many people. This is just what we didn't/don't need, with our already clogged arteries. The whole process has been akin to force feeding someone with heart disease many, many cans of Crisco.


Wow, out here in flyover country  I had absolutely no idea of these shenanigans. I'd imagine the average American outside metropolitan Washington (1) considers BRAC old news, presuming (as I had) that any base closings had been done years ago and (2) wouldn't think of base closings/consolidations as a local transportation or sprawl-vs-urbanism issue. The closest we got in metro Chicago was closing and redevelopment of Glenview Naval Air Station, Ft. Sheridan, and the Joliet Arsenal, and the first two resulted in new residential development each near its own Metra station.

Was there some counter-effort or pressure during the planning stage towards consciously consolidating facilities closer to transit; that is, closing sites far from Metro, MARC or VRE and relocating the remaining jobs/units to sites near rail stations? I guess, as shown by my use of the word "shenanigans," that it sounds at first blush like the planners behind these moves were not just "agnostic" towards transit but almost hostile to it. :blink:

This highlights for me the need to have comprehensive planning if you're going to have any planning at all (which IMHO is a proper role for local, regional, state, and federal government). I'm sure the local government, chamber of commerce, real estate developers, etc. in a place like Crystal City were working hard to build a more urban, walkable, work-play-live 24-hour zone -- which was then knocked into a cocked hat by one of the largest office tenants deciding to decamp for greener fields. The Federal government funds capital improvements to Metrorail with one hand, and then takes away a chunk of ridership with the other. :angry2:


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 6, 2013)

John Bredin said:


> Was there some counter-effort or pressure during the planning stage towards consciously consolidating facilities closer to transit; that is, closing sites far from Metro, MARC or VRE and relocating the remaining jobs/units to sites near rail stations? I guess, as shown by my use of the word "shenanigans," that it sounds at first blush like the planners behind these moves were not just "agnostic" towards transit but almost hostile to it. :blink:
> This highlights for me the need to have comprehensive planning if you're going to have any planning at all (which IMHO is a proper role for local, regional, state, and federal government). I'm sure the local government, chamber of commerce, real estate developers, etc. in a place like Crystal City were working hard to build a more urban, walkable, work-play-live 24-hour zone -- which was then knocked into a cocked hat by one of the largest office tenants deciding to decamp for greener fields. The Federal government funds capital improvements to Metrorail with one hand, and then takes away a chunk of ridership with the other. :angry2:


That's actually the first thing I thought of when reading this. Why were they moving away from transit, and then turning around and asking transit to be expanded out to them? This is one of the reasons public transit is so inefficient in many parts of the country.


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 6, 2013)

Oh, lookie. The software decided to make my post unreadable. Awesome!


----------



## afigg (Mar 6, 2013)

Blackwolf said:


> It seems to me that the most direct manner in which Metro can improve the performance of the existing system, before delving into expansion and expensive redesign, is to return to a good state of repair. Granted, my one and only experience with Metrorail was for one week this past December, but both me and my wife heavily used the Blue, Yellow, Orange and Red lines during our visit. While it got us to our destinations safely and with reasonable comfort, the fact that the Metrorail system is suffering from a slow rot that stems from lack of maintenance was quite clear. ...


Addressing the state of good repair is precisely what the 6 year $5 billion Metro Forward project is all about. You must have been lucky in December and not encountered part of the weekend track work projects. We are between 1 to 2 years into the 6 year project, which has been driving those who use the Metro on weekends crazy at times. Here is the list of future station closures and busitutions on weekends. The list does not include single tracking delays and reduced service frequencies which get announced on shorter notice.

What happened as the DC Metro approached completion of the original system plan in the later 1990s, is that maintenance and track replacement was allowed to be deferred and cut back. By 2009, when the Red Line collision occurred, there were a lot of problems in poor management and the safety & maintenance culture. The federal government agreed to provide $150 million a year for capital projects and rolling stock acquisition and DC, the states, the local government contributed to provide around $950 million to 1 billion a year in capital funding. One of the goals is to replace all the track circuits, test the system throughly, and return to automatic train operation. I think they are snake bit in the wake of the 2009 accident, so it will be years before they are confident enough to return to automatic operation. Meanwhile, riders have to put up with rough stops, lurching back and forth as the train sometimes undershoot the end of the platforms.

The proposal in the Momentum plan is to sustain the $1 billion a year in capital funding after the end of the 6 year state of good repair project and use the money for the 2025 vision with station capacity upgrades, the interline connectors and wyes, the 2 pedestrian tunnels, system upgrades.


----------



## afigg (Mar 6, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Honestly, I think that Metro is the wrong mode to use for distances like this - it would be much better (IMO) to use the money to beef up VRE and MARC service to get people from the far out suburbs into the city, then let WMATA focus on getting those people from the handful of transfer stations to their destinations.
> The exception to this would be Belvior, that's really close to Franonia-Springfield and it looks like extending down the CSX ROW to 7100 (I don't care what it's new number is) and then over to the fort would be a pretty good expansion.


I agree in part about its better to expand VRE and MARC to Regional rail system than willy nilly extend the DC Metro. The proposal to extend Blue Line south of Springfield-Franconia would be right along the CSX/VRE route. so extending that end of the Blue Line is questionable.

However, there are no rail lines along the axis of the proposed Orange Line extension along I-66 to Rt. 50 or as far as Centerville. Yes, there is VRE in Burke, Manassas, future extension of VRE to Gainesville, but those are further away from DC than the Vienna to Centerville segment. An argument can be made for an extension of the Orange Line along that corridor. Same goes for extending the Orange Line on the MD end to Bowie.

Extending the Yellow Line south of Huntington is not in the Metro Momentum plans as that did not make the cut of the Technical Advisory Group studies. Rt. 1 is about to be rebuilt (with DOD funding in part) with a 32' wide median strip to Ft. Belvoir where the median strip is to be wide enough for a DC Metro extension or a light rail line that could connect to the Metro at Huntington. They are making the option available, even if there are not concrete plans for it.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 6, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> That's actually the first thing I thought of when reading this. Why were they moving away from transit, and then turning around and asking transit to be expanded out to them? This is one of the reasons public transit is so inefficient in many parts of the country.


The basic problem, as I understand it, is that BRAC in the DC region was done to make DOD more secure after 9/11, with little or no regard for local impact. Done in the name of 'national security' - as were so many other things - who would question it? The ramifications of such major changes on land use, development, the environment, transportation, etc. had to take a back seat. Local leaders often seemed powerless to do anything, yet many also embraced the economic opportunities the realignment would bring. Now, as the dust has settled and the chickens have come home to roost, the politicians have become much concerned about the negative impacts.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 6, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > That's actually the first thing I thought of when reading this. Why were they moving away from transit, and then turning around and asking transit to be expanded out to them? This is one of the reasons public transit is so inefficient in many parts of the country.
> ...


Ah, that explains the appearance of being actively anti-transit.  IMHO, there's a trend in some security people to consider urban environments with buildings up to the sidewalks and easy pedestrian/cycle/transit access -- not to mention transit vehicles and stations themselves -- to be an unacceptably high security risk while sprawling low-rise office complexes surrounded by acres of parking are safer. A new post-9/11 justification for the old Cold-War-Era anti-urbanism. :angry2:

Yes, a car bomb can be driven right up to, or into, a downtown office building. However, the same can be said of cars in a typical suburban office park -- a terrorist isn't going to worry about driving across a lawn. :giggle: And while a bomb can be planted on or carried onto a train or transit bus, I'd imagine it's a lot easier to stuff an SUV chock-full of explosives in the privacy of a garage. (All examples in this paragraph include implicit but sincere "God forbid"s.) Nonetheless, security through isolation, or "if it's a pain in the ass to get there, you can't blow it up", seems to be a common model of security planning.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 6, 2013)

"Done in teh name of security" It is absolutely hilarious to see, hear, and read of some of the things committed in the name of security. It is obvious that much of this comes from people with the most minimal of acquaintences with reality.

One of my better examples of this was a missive that came from the State Department to all US citizens in Singapore during the few months I was working there. It was a warning due to threats to, "be aware of your surroundings, avoid standing out, avoid crowds, vary your routine, etc., etc. Anyone who has ever been in any Asian city of any size recognizes that avoiding crowds means don't even go there. Also, to avoid being obvious in any situation was equally silly since sevral of the US citizens that I knew there were ethnically Chinese, and there were a lot of European, mostly British local resident as well.


----------



## afigg (Mar 7, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> The basic problem, as I understand it, is that BRAC in the DC region was done to make DOD more secure after 9/11, with little or no regard for local impact. Done in the name of 'national security' - as were so many other things - who would question it? The ramifications of such major changes on land use, development, the environment, transportation, etc. had to take a back seat. Local leaders often seemed powerless to do anything, yet many also embraced the economic opportunities the realignment would bring. Now, as the dust has settled and the chickens have come home to roost, the politicians have become much concerned about the negative impacts.


As I recall, the BRAC base closing and re-alignment decisions were made in the Bush-Cheney Administration when Rumsfeld was DOD Secretary. The BRAC commission charter and subsequent decisions paid little or no attention to transit and local transportation considerations. There was a lot of fuss raised about the base moves by the local Congressmen and county leaders about the lack of transit, future commuter gridlock at Ft Belvoir, but the desire to consolidate multiple DOD agencies and commands in the secure perimeter of a large base prevailed. Just in case the terrorists were to car bomb an obscure development command or agency inside an office building instead of, I don't know, dozens of other more obvious targets in the DC region. The DOD has funds to upgrade local roads, but the road upgrades and possible transit extensions take far longer to be planned and buitl than the base relocation process. So move thousands of employees, add road capacity 5 years later. Blue or Yellow Line extension to Ft. Belvoir - 20 years if it is decided to go ahead with it.

We are seeing then play out again to a lesser extent with the FBI looking to move from the J. Edgar Hoover building on Pennsylvania Avenue for a new HQ in a campus setting with a large security perimeter. This time there is a requirement that the FBI HQ be located near a Metro station, but the requirements for space and security are likely to result in the FBI HQ ending up near the outer end of one of the Metro lines at an isolated spot, rather than in the city with plenty of places to eat lunch or dinner in walking distance. The bright side is that people are looking forward to the J. Edgar Hoover building, one of the ugliest buildings in DC, in the heart of the Penn Quarter between 4 Metro stations, get torn down. OTOH, where the FBI HQ ends up could have an effect on future Metro expansions as a high profile job center.


----------



## afigg (Mar 8, 2013)

Short Arlington Patch article on the proposed extension study which clarifies the possible Blue & Yellow line extensions a bit. The concept is to extend the Blue Line to Woodbridge, presumably either along the CSX ROW or I-95, and the Yellow Line along the Rt. 1 corridor. The Yellow Line could terminate at Ft. Belvoir. If the Blue Line is extended as far south as Woodbridge, might as well run it to the Potomac Mills mall - which would be about an 11 mile extension. I should estimate how many miles the DC Metro would be extended with a Blue Line re-route to Georgetown - M Street - Union Station, extending the Orange Line at both ends, extending the Blue to Woodbridge and the Yellow Line extended along Rt. 1 to Ft. Belvoir. Throw in a split off Yellow Line in DC to Thomas Circle and then northward.

On a related transit note for Northern VA, the Crystal City - Potomac Yards Transitway is further long than I had realized and is scheduled to start service as a bus system in spring of 2014. Washington Post article on the transitway. Now if Arlington and Alexandria can follow through and convert the route to streetcars in 8-10 years with a connection to the planned Columbia Pike streetcar, that would make for a good Metro feeder local streetcart system.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Mar 8, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> Oh, lookie. The software decided to make my post unreadable. Awesome!


Are you using an iPhone or iPod? I get the garble-dee-gook when I quote someone on my iPod. Sometimes I'll take the time to fix it and sometimes I just let it go. (I'm on a computer right now so not having the problem).


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 8, 2013)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, lookie. The software decided to make my post unreadable. Awesome!
> ...


Nope. Computer with Firefox browser. I've just found the forum to be quite buggy since the recent updates, but that's a topic for another thread (and forum).


----------



## TurboDad (Mar 15, 2013)

afigg said:


> The concept is to extend the Blue Line to Woodbridge, presumably either along the CSX ROW or I-95, and the Yellow Line along the Rt. 1 corridor. The Yellow Line could terminate at Ft. Belvoir.


As someone who's commuted in from Franconia for some time, both on the VRE and on the Metro, I think it'd be much more beneficial to beef up the schedule of the VRE trains than attempt to put more load on already-capacity-running Blue-line trains. Running the Blue line to Woodbridge at rush hour will just ensure that by the time the train's at Franconia-Springfield, it's utterly full. Never mind folks trying to get on at King Street. Why? It's already basically like that.

The VRE is a comfortable, massively more-pleasant way to ride in to the city, the only downside being their limited schedule. It would be MUCH cheaper to simply add a few trains and work in the schedule with CSX to make it happen. Even possibly just extend the third track from Franconia to Woodbridge so there's more options for scheduling the Amtrak Northeast Regional trains & such.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 15, 2013)

TurboDad said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > The concept is to extend the Blue Line to Woodbridge, presumably either along the CSX ROW or I-95, and the Yellow Line along the Rt. 1 corridor. The Yellow Line could terminate at Ft. Belvoir.
> ...


Honestly, I think the answer is ultimately going to be to build one or two dedicated passenger tracks along the RF&P (or, honestly, along a parallel line if need be) and pump that full of commuter traffic. With that said, I see a benefit to running the subway further out...but the fares should, for all-the-way-in trips, be hiked so that the VRE is a competitive option when it is running in a given direction. And yes, I believe the VRE at _least_ needs reverse-commute service (to take stress off the subway) and some limited off-peak service. To be fair, though, I'd also apply the step-up rule to 66/67 (really, I'd apply it to all VA Regionals up there) and see how much uptake that gets. If it swamps the Shoreliner, then I think you have a pre-made business case (and extra traffic on an Amtrak train in an area that train is likely still adding traffic to boot).


----------

