Monthly Archives: June 2009

Adding to Metro’s Core Capacity

Greater Greater Washington’s always had some great fantasy transit discussions – whether talking about the New Blue line, more fantastic visions, or even the multimodal vision for Baltimore and DC.  Over the last few days, the fantasy discussions have started again.  Though these are not always the most realistic discussions, they’re a great starting point for larger discussions about the role of transit in the transportation system in the city, and more importantly they discuss what kind of city we want to have.

This past week’s discussions have focused on the idea of a new Yellow line – originally posted here, along with my response.   The entire premise of separating the Yellow line from the Green line (at least as I understood it) was to increase the maximum capacity of both lines – the same premise behind the idea of separating the Orange and Blue lines.  That way, both colored lines would have full capacity for their entire length.  Doing such a project would also have ancillary benefits, such as adding redundancy to the system with multiple tracks on fairly similar routes, as well as opening up new areas to Metro service (such as adding Metro service to H Street NE with the New Blue line).  Each of these ideas is worthwhile, though slow to implement.  Given the facts that Metro is already straining to handle the crowds along the Orange line though the RBC, focusing on this kind of long term planning is important.  Building new subway lines will take a long time, and with Metro expected to reach capacity sometime between 2025 and 2030, starting the planning process now is vitally important (i.e. Metro was recommended as the preferred alternative for the Dulles Corridor in a 1997 report – the full line is now set to open in 2016 – nearly 20 years after the fact).

With that in mind, proposals that involve a great deal of capital construction must have a long term plan behind them to justify the investment.  The idea of separating the Blue and Orange lines is a good start.  Having a longer term plan to separate the Green and Yellow lines is also a good idea – even better would be to combine those efforts sowe have a nice 50 year map to follow for Metro’s development over time.

The lack of this kind of focus and long term vision troubles me with GGW’s latest series of posts about adding new trackwork in downtown DC.  The premise is a simple question: is there a simpler and cheaper way to add core capacity to Metro without building the entire New Blue line?

How about separating the Yellow Line instead? The Yellow Line plan Dave Murphy suggested last week, and some of your comments, suggest a possibility. If we separate the Yellow and Green lines in DC, then Metro could put many more trains over the 14th Street bridge. According to Metro planners, this option would involve building a shorter subway tunnel from the 14th Street bridge to the Convention Center along 9th Street.

While the tunnel at Rosslyn is already at its capacity, the 14th Street bridge isn’t, because all its trains must merge with Green Line trains from Branch Avenue. Metro can squeeze a few more Yellow Trains in if they reduce Blue trains, but not that many. If the trains didn’t have to compete with the Green Line, the 14th Street bridge could carry many more trains from Virginia.

The second iteration of the idea also generated a great deal of discussion:

If we could run more trains over the 14th Street bridge, where would they go in Virginia? I can see two possibilities: convert the Arlington Cemetery segment to a shuttle train, or add connections to route the Silver Line over that segment as well as the Blue Line.

Both of these ideas are intruiging from an academic perspective, but completely lose sight of why you’re adding core capacity in the first place.

Remembering that the whole point of the New Blue line is to separate it from the Orange line tracks it shares through DC, the reason it gets brought up first is due to the popularity of the Orange line in Northern Virginia.  This GGW idea is an attempt to solve that same problem by essentially starting on a new Yellow line.  You’re essentially building half a subway, except that you’re building the New Yellow line first when the Blue line is the obvious choice.

If you’re going to put shovels into the ground, you might as well make sure that the plans have long term significance.  Metro’s genius is that it was concieved as an entire 100 mile system.  Even so, it functioned well before the full system was complete.

WMATA should take the same step here.  If you want to add new capacity to downtown DC by building half of a new subway, just start building the new Blue line – and do it in phases.  The first phase (say, from Rosslyn to the Connecticut Ave station) would accomplish the same thing – freeing up core capacity on the Orange (and Silver) line, as well as delivering Blue line riders to the core of downtown.   However, unlike the 9th street proposal, the Blue line would be readily expandable at a later date, much like how the Mid City portion of the Green line was completed in phases (with U Street opening in 1991, while Columbia Heights didn’t open until 1999).   Ideally, you’d like to do it in one fell swoop, but the entire premise of this idea is that the funds to do such a project aren’t there.  So let’s at least plan it with expansion in mind.

With that said, the idea of a new Yellow line isn’t a bad one at all, even if the timing isn’t quite right.  However, using 9th street doesn’t make a lot of sense when you already have lines along 7th and 12 streets downtown, and along 14th street in Columbia Heights.  The alignment proposed in the original post makes a lot more sense when viewed with a long-term lens.  A 9th street alignment would indeed be redundant, but almost too redundant – it wouldn’t open up any more area to Metro service, such as the transit poor Washington Hospital Center.  A North Capitol/Georgia Ave route would provide redundancy for both the eastern Red line, the whole of the Green line, and open up a major commercial street to Metro.  This line could also be phased in over time, initially operating as just a partial segment.

As Burnham said, “make no little plans.”  If you’re looking for incremental physical improvements, I’d opt to ensure that they’re part of a larger plan.  The final result will be far better for it.

Links – higher, faster, more conservative…

My Firefox browser is full of open tabs with sites I’ve been meaning to link to over the past few days, but haven’t had the chance – so here goes.

Higher (?) – Last week, there was an interesting back and forth between several DC bloggers over DC’s height limit.  BeyondDC and Ryan Avent had an interesting exchange, followed by Matt Yglesias chiming in, as well as the Tsarchitect citing previous posts about the very same topic – since it seems to pop up (heh heh) every few months or so.

My personal view sort of splits all of those presented.  I think the height limit has served DC well by ensuring that development achieves full coverage – downtown DC is virtually devoid of surface parking lots, something that’s rather uncommon for American cities.   At the same time, it’s not too hard to envision a future where all of DC’s developable lots are taken, making it difficult to both continue to grow AND maintain the character of some great existing rowhouse neighborhoods AND focus development around urban transit hubs.

I think an interesting solution might be to create a designated high rise district within DC, where there is no height limit.  Poplar Point might serve that role well – like London’s Canary Wharf, such an area would be a place to focus taller development, perhaps accompanied by a transfer of development rights programs from the high demand but height-restricted areas in downtown.  Of course, such a plan would necessarily require a much stronger effort in building up transportation infrastructure as well, but I think building heights there on the same scale as Rosslyn would preserve the form of DC’s monumental core, provide an area to grow the tax base, and bring some much needed amenities across the Anacostia.

Faster (?) – Several good reads on high speed rail planning:

I can’t argue with these points – upping the speed of these trains to 110 mph service isn’t really high speed by any definition.  The notion that travel time should be more important than top speed is actually correct, but of course the two concepts are linked very closely together.

At the same time, even the upgrades that allow for 110 mph service – things like grade separation, signalling systems, etc. – will offer tremendous benefits to current rail service and can also be applied to future high speed service.  Those grade separations may not work for true 220 mph TGV-like service, but they could very well take an Acela-like train, operating with a slightly slower top end, but still very fast.

In short, there’s no reason to not pursue both incremental improvements and also the ‘big’ plan.  However, what both of these efforts need is a unifying national strategic plan.

Transportation isn’t conservative or liberal – Two interesting items on the roles of conservatives in planning and funding transportation.  PBS has a long interview with Rep. John Mica (R-FL) on the need for transportation investments:

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: You are a Republican – and you support transportation and infrastructure spending?

REP. MICA: Well, I tell you though, if you’re on the Transportation Committee long enough, even if you’re a fiscal conservative, which I consider myself to be, you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment. Simply, I became a mass transit fan because it’s so much more cost effective than building a highway. Also, it’s good for energy, it’s good for the environment – and that’s why I like it.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: If anything, you’d say that your time in Congress and on the Transportation Committee has brought you around to these ideas?

REP. MICA: Yes. And, seeing the cost of one person in one car. The cost for construction. The cost for the environment. The cost for energy. You can pretty quickly be convinced that there’s got to be a more cost effective way. It’s going to take a little time, but we have to have good projects, they have to make sense – whether it’s high-speed rail or commuter rail or light rail. We got to have some alternatives helping people – even in the rural areas – to get around.

Good stuff.  Always good to see these kinds of viewpoints from Republicans, as most of these infrastructure decisions really ought to (and have in the past) transcended petty partisan differences.

Mica also raised some great points about the need to reform the process of building infrastructure in the US:

REP. MICA: The second part is speeding up the process. Most projects that the federal government is involved with take an inordinate amount of time for approvals, and they cost much more because there are so many delays and hoops that people have to go through.

I offer what I call the Mica 437-day process plan, which is the number of days it took to replace the bridge that collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. Rather than the seven or eight years it takes complete any other bridge, which would be the normal time frame.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: And why did it just take 437-days to complete?

MICA: It was done on an expedited approval basis, which I think you could do with most projects that don’t change the basic footprint of the infrastructure that you’re rebuilding.

I was born and raised in Minneapolis – and was in the city during the immediate aftermath of the I-35W collapse.  When I went back to visit my family for the holidays, it was simply amazing to see the bridge complete and open so quickly.  I’d stress Mica’s point further – we need to reform the process in many ways, but the time delay for using federal funds is a high price to pay.

Along the lines of conservative stances on transportation, Infrastructurist has a nice interview up making the conservative case for public transportation.

If there’s one thing to take away from this, it’s that all forms of transportation are heavily subsidized.

Fantasies

Dave at Imagine DC (and also GGW) put up a nice concept of a separated Yellow line through the core of DC.  Separating the Blue line has been the most popular suggestion, and was originally among WMATA’s official plans, but the idea of separating the Yellow line is relatively new.   Still, amongst extensive discussion in the comments from previous fantasy maps, the idea has come up before – my name is somewhere in those comment threads.

Given the focus that Monday’s accident has put on redundancies in the transit system, it’s fitting to consider the idea.  However, it’s important not to lose sight of the reasons for such plans and expansions in the first place.  With that in mind, I’d propose a few key principles to consider for any metro expansion plan:

  • Separation of the current interlined portions of track.   The proposals to separate the Blue and Yellow lines certainly do this, and for good reason.  The ‘tail’ sections of each line are limited by the capacity of the shared track at the core.  Furthermore, the complexities of switching so many trains on and off the same line only adds to potential delays.  Separating these lines would offer wide ranging benefits to other lines in terms of increased service frequencies.
  • Plan the entire system now.  By ‘now’ I don’t mean today, but if plans are drawn up to implement this kind of expansion, it is vitally important that the lines are planned together.  The fact that all 100+ miles of Metro were planned as a coherent system is what makes it such a useful system today, rather than a hodgepodge of individual lines.  If you look at the poor connections between Baltimore’s light rail and subway, you’ll see precisely what you wish to avoid.  That means planning to separate the Blue & Orange lines, the Yellow & Green lines, and the VA portions of Yellow & Blue at roughly the same time.  Doing so, like the original system, will allow for transfers to be built in and will make for a much better overall system.  Begin with the end in mind.
  • Learn from Metro’s past. Metro’s hybrid nature as both an urban subway and a suburban commuter rail system makes for some interesting compromises in terms of system design.  Given that the newer portions would entail track mostly in urban areas, it’s important to apply the lessons of Downtown DC, the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, and others.  This is about urban transit, not park and ride stations.
  • Coordinate plans with other modes. Metro expansion should focus on the core because that’s where it’s most useful and can justify the cost.  Ideas like extending the Orange line to Centreville, or the Green line to BWI miss the opportunity to have a newly beefed up regional rail system operating in place of MARC and VRE trains.  Ideally, such Metro expansion plans would be coupled with a transformation of the commuter rail services into a more S-Bahn like system.  In the other (more local) direction, coordination with streetcar planning is also vital.

Speaking in terms of broad corridors, Dave’s plan for the Yellow line is spot on.  I think he’s got too many stations for a heavy rail line, but the general corridor is correct – the line would use the same bridge over the Potomac, then go underground and follow the Maryland Ave right of way, linking to L’Enfant Plaza with a new platform for the station complex.  The line would cross the Mall, then travel north under North Capitol, including a station at H street – which would also be part of the station with the new Blue line – also connecting to the current Union Station stop (hence the importance of planning these lines at the same time).  The line should go up to the Washington Hospital Center, serving that major employment center, then sliding to the west somehow to turn northward again under Georgia Ave.  After reaching Silver Spring, the line can either end there, or continue north along US 29, as proposed by Sand Box John.

The Blue line has been discussed many times – I think the best alignment would be across town under M street, angling southward under New Jersey Avenue, and then continuing east under H street – ideally with transfers to the Red line at both Union Station and under Connecticut Ave, as well as a Green line transfer at the Convention Center and a transfer to the new Yellow line near the Union Station complex.

Separating the Blue and Yellow lines in Virginia is probably the easiest route to conceptualize – simply shooting the line outward under Columbia Pike is the most obvious choice, making the current line to Alexandria one ‘color’ with multiple spurs – one to Huntington and one to Franconia-Springfield.

Track Circuit Didn’t Work

News today that the track circuit underneath the stalled Metro train in Monday’s crash failed:

The track circuit below the Washington Metro train that was rear-ended by another train this week didn’t work, U.S. transportation safety investigators found in a test.The circuit was supposed to relay information about the location of trains. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the June 22 accident in which nine people died. It was the worst in the 33-year-old Metro system’s history.

The circuit, part of Metro’s automated operations system, didn’t detect the presence of a test train investigators placed on it, the board said today in an e-mailed statement.

My speculation: In effect, the system didn’t know the stalled train was there.  Hence, it accelerated the back train and sent it at normal speed into a section of track the computer thought was clear.

The disturbing part would seem to be not the ATC system, but the fact that the sensor didn’t work.  ATC is a relatively new thing for railroads, but track sensors are not.  They work by sending a small current through each rail – tracks are divided into separate sections called blocks, and when a train’s wheels enter a block, the metal axle completes the circuit, sending a message to the control center on the train’s location.  This kind of technology has been in use for a long time.

The question is whether the failure is a part of the ATC system or the trac circuits.  Either way, it’s becoming more clear that the ignalling/control failure is primarily responsible here.

Metro Crash Aftermath

In the wake of Monday’s Red Line crash, DC’s various news outlets have uncovered all sorts of interesting factoids about Metro’s safety record and the implementation of various NTSB recommendations.  Speculation about the causes have run rampant, ranging from mildly informed theories to pure guesswork.  Some immediately blamed the now deceased operator, citing likely use of a cell phone.  DCist now reports via WTOP that’s not the case.

There’s also been a lot of discussion about the 1000 series rail cars and their crashworthiness.  At Greater Greater Washington, Matt Johnson has an excellent summary of Metro’s safety systems, particularly noting the design of the Automatic Train Control system as well as the track record of the 1000 series rail cars.   WCP gives you tips on how to avoid them, while the WMATA board agrees to move the cars to the middle of trainsets.

Public interest seems to focus on the 1000 series rail cars as the culprit, even though there’s no evidence that the cars themselves were the cause of the crash.  To me, the more interesting news to come out was the City Paper’s report that the NTSB found “anomalies” in the trackside equipment that’s part of the automatic train control system:

‘Anomalies’—that’s what federal investigators found in trackside electronic control equipment during testing yesterday, ’suggesting that computers might have sent one Red Line train crashing into another’ on Monday evening, WaPo writes. More from Lyndsey Layton, Maria Glod, and Lena H. Sun: ‘A senior Metro official knowledgeable about train operations said an internal report confirmed that the computer system appeared to have faltered.’ And that system, according to the NTSB’s Debbie Hersman, is ‘vital.’ Then there’s this: ‘The steel rails show evidence that McMillan activated the emergency brakes 300 to 400 feet before the pileup’—but she would have been traveling 59 mph. See also WTOP, NC8, WRC-TV, WUSA-TV, WTTG-TV, NYT, and Examiner, which notes that brake maintenance seems no longer to be an issue.

Again, it’s important to separate the two issues in this crash – the events that caused the crash itself, and the impact of the crash and the aftermath.  The former is about why this happened in the first place, the latter is about the crashworthiness of the cars.  Crashworthiness is important, without a doubt – but it’s also about keeping things as safe as possible after something has already gone wrong.

For that reason, the events that caused the crash itself are far more interesting to me.  We have evidence that the train was operating on Auto mode, that it was traveling quite fast (though eyewitness accounts tend to vary as to how fast – nevertheless, the damage shows a great deal of force was involved).  Given the slight curvature of the track, the speeds involved, and human reaction time to depress the Mushroom, it seems we can infer that the collision was unavoidable at that point – which would point to a very serious error with the Automatic Train Control system.

That’s where my interest is as the investigation unfolds.