WMATA Metro Opens New York Ave. Station

[Scott M. Kozel]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14-2004Nov20.html

"Metro Opens New York Ave. Station"
_Washington Post_ - Saturday, November 20, 2004
Excerpts:

'District leaders and transit officials gathered this morning to
celebrate the opening of the Red Line's new state-of-the-art,
above-ground station on New York Avenue NE -- the 84th stop in the
area's 103-mile Metrorail system.'

'Metro officials expect the New York Avenue-Florida Avenue-Gallaudet
University Station, which officially opened for business a few hours
before this morning's ceremony, to serve about 1,500 passengers a day.'

'Norton called the New York Avenue stop a "win-win-win" for nearby
businesses, the city and the federal government, which is building a new
headquarters for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
close to the station.'

'The station's platform, with its distinctive painted-white steel and
glass canopy, sits 30 feet above the street. Entrances to the station
are on Florida Avenue and on M Street.'

'No miles were added to the Metro system's tracks to build the station,
the first to be built in the middle of an existing line. But Robert J.
Smith, chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
said the new stop will bring "entire new neighborhoods into the Metro
family."'

'The price tag for the new stop was $103.7 million, with $53.7 million
coming from the city government, $25 million coming from the federal
government and $25 million coming from a 25-year bond paid for with a
tax on nearby businesses. The businesses will receive a tax credit if
property values rise after the station opens.'

'The New York Avenue stop is Metrorail's first new station in four
years, since Metro added five stops to the Green Line in 2001, and is
one of three stations Metro plans to open before the end of the year.'

'Blue Line riders are scheduled to get two new stops in Prince George's
County, the Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center stations, on Dec. 18.
That $456-million, three-mile extension of the Blue Line is expected to
attract 9,300 new Metro riders.'

See the URL for the rest of the article.

[John R Cambron]

My observations;

New York Avenue Station (B35, Also known as B3 and half )opened
today 11 20 2004. Here is the description of the station. As
Oren mentioned the station has two entrances, four escalators,
four stairs and two elevator between the mezzanine and the
platform. Both entrances share the common paid area of the
mezzanine. Each of the four opening in the platform have one
escalator and set of stairs. The two elevator are between the
north pair and the south pair of mezzanine to platform
escalators stair openings.

The canapé is a variation of the concrete gull wing design made
of steel that is painted. The under side of the canapé is
finished with painted sheet metal channels that run lengthwise.
The canapé is roughly 400’ (121.92m) long and offset such that
the center of the canapé is 50’ (15.24m) south of the center of
the platform. Above the bottom flange of the beams that runs the
length of the canapé both inboard and outboard of both beams are
florescent light that illuminate the platform. Between these
same beams is a sky light that runs the length of the canapé.

The station platform is 30’ 4" (9.245m) wide by 600’ (182.88m)
long. The platform shelters have yet to be installed along with
the station direction signage and strip maps that one would find
in the other station on pylons. The platform graphics and signs
should be similar to the signs that are now in place at the
future G Route Blue line stations. Passenger Information System
displays are in place and are operating. The signs and strip
maps will be attached to the columns that support the canapé and
the light polls north and south of the canapé. Both ends of the
platform have ancillary areas with service rooms at platform
level and ancillary areas with service rooms at the mezzanine
level at the north end of the common paid area. The south
ancillary areas is on the south side of M Street NE. The south
end of the platform is roughly 15’(4.57m) north of curb on the
north side of M Street NE. The north ancillary area is roughly 20’
(6m) north of the north end of the platform. There are evacuation
cart stored adjacent to both ancillary areas.

The bridge that carries the southbound track B2 over M Street NE
is a steel box beam. The remainder of the elevated structure to
the north end of the platform is an arched cast in place concrete
box beam. Form the north end of the platform to Florida Avenue NE
trackB2 is on a retained fill outside of the north mezzanine
level and ancillary area. Now here is where things get
interesting. The bridge that carries the inbound track B2 over
Florida Avenue NE is the same bridge that WMATA built back in the
early 1970s to carry the spur track that served the coal facility
that use to be on the adjacent property to the west of the
station and the Woodward And Lothrop warehouse. (Thanks David for
pointing this out to me as I would have likely not to noticed
this.) This bridge was move to the west roughly 30’ (9.14m). The
outbound track B1 through the station platform to the south side
of M Street NE is on a retained fill roughly where railroad spur
use to be. Outbound track B1 crossing over Florida Avenue NE is
roughly where the inbound track B2 use to be.

Adjacent to the southbound inbound track B2 from the north side
Florida Avenue NE to the south side of M Street NE is a bridge
that carries the Capitol Crescent Bicycle Trail. The spans over
both Florida Avenue NE and of M Street NE are steel box beams, the
remainder of the bridge is series of arched cast in place concrete
box beams similar to the structure that carries track B2 along the
station platform. Just north of the north entrance (major
mezzanine) is an elevator an a set of stairs from the ground up to
the bicycle trail bridge. The elevator is not in service yet and
the stairs were blocked off. On the south side of M Street NE is a
switch back ramp to allow trail user to get down from the bicycle
trail bridge to street level.

The M Street interlocking (B03) that use to be just south of M
Street NE was moved to the south in the tangent section directly
over K Street NE. The old outbound track B1 was abandon and left
in place. It runs from roughly 400’ (121.92m) south of the south
end of platform to roughly 400’ (121.92m) north of the north end
of the platform. The original plans for the station called for
this track to connect to new outbound track B1 forming a passing/
storage track. I have no idea if this track might be connected to
the main track at some time in the future.

John took 55 pictures of the station and surrounding areas adjacent
to the station along with 21 pictures of the future on G Route Blue
line out at beginning of the extension east of Addison Road (G03),
along with Morgan Boulevard (G04) and Largo Town Center (G05).

This essay will also be posted on USNET at;
misc.transport.urban-transit for those that want to read the
responses to this post there.

Uploading of the images coming soon.

[John R Cambron]

Post by John R Cambron
My observations;
New York Avenue Station (B35, Also known as B3 and half )opened
today 11 20 2004. Here is the description of the station. As
Oren mentioned the station has two entrances, four escalators,
four stairs and two elevator between the mezzanine and the
platform. Both entrances share the common paid area of the
mezzanine. Each of the four opening in the platform have one
escalator and set of stairs. The two elevator are between the
north pair and the south pair of mezzanine to platform
escalators stair openings.
The canapé is a variation of the concrete gull wing design made
of steel that is painted. The under side of the canapé is
finished with painted sheet metal channels that run lengthwise.
The canapé is roughly 400’ (121.92m) long and offset such that
the center of the canapé is 50’ (15.24m) south of the center of
the platform. Above the bottom flange of the beams that runs the
length of the canapé both inboard and outboard of both beams are
florescent light that illuminate the platform. Between these
same beams is a sky light that runs the length of the canapé.
The station platform is 30’ 4" (9.245m) wide by 600’ (182.88m)
long. The platform shelters have yet to be installed along with
the station direction signage and strip maps that one would find
in the other station on pylons. The platform graphics and signs
should be similar to the signs that are now in place at the
future G Route Blue line stations. Passenger Information System
displays are in place and are operating. The signs and strip
maps will be attached to the columns that support the canapé and
the light polls north and south of the canapé. Both ends of the
platform have ancillary areas with service rooms at platform
level and ancillary areas with service rooms at the mezzanine
level at the north end of the common paid area. The south
ancillary areas is on the south side of M Street NE. The south
end of the platform is roughly 15’(4.57m) north of curb on the
north side of M Street NE. The north ancillary area is roughly 20’
(6m) north of the north end of the platform. There are evacuation
cart stored adjacent to both ancillary areas.
The bridge that carries the southbound track B2 over M Street NE
is a steel box beam. The remainder of the elevated structure to
the north end of the platform is an arched cast in place concrete
box beam. Form the north end of the platform to Florida Avenue NE
trackB2 is on a retained fill outside of the north mezzanine
level and ancillary area. Now here is where things get
interesting. The bridge that carries the inbound track B2 over
Florida Avenue NE is the same bridge that WMATA built back in the
early 1970s to carry the spur track that served the coal facility
that use to be on the adjacent property to the west of the
station and the Woodward And Lothrop warehouse. (Thanks David for
pointing this out to me as I would have likely not to noticed
this.) This bridge was move to the west roughly 30’ (9.14m). The
outbound track B1 through the station platform to the south side
of M Street NE is on a retained fill roughly where railroad spur
use to be. Outbound track B1 crossing over Florida Avenue NE is
roughly where the inbound track B2 use to be.
Adjacent to the southbound inbound track B2 from the north side
Florida Avenue NE to the south side of M Street NE is a bridge
that carries the Capitol Crescent Bicycle Trail. The spans over
both Florida Avenue NE and of M Street NE are steel box beams, the
remainder of the bridge is series of arched cast in place concrete
box beams similar to the structure that carries track B2 along the
station platform. Just north of the north entrance (major
mezzanine) is an elevator and a set of stairs from the ground up to
the bicycle trail bridge. The elevator is not in service yet and
the stairs were blocked off. On the south side of M Street NE is a
switch back ramp to allow trail user to get down from the bicycle
trail bridge to street level.
The M Street interlocking (B03) that use to be just south of M
Street NE was moved to the south in the tangent section directly
over K Street NE. The old outbound track B1 was abandon and left
in place. It runs from roughly 400’ (121.92m) south of the south
end of platform to roughly 400’ (121.92m) north of the north end
of the platform. The original plans for the station called for
this track to connect to new outbound track B1 forming a passing/
storage track. I have no idea if this track might be connected to
the main track at some time in the future.
John took 55 pictures of the station and surrounding areas adjacent
to the station along with 21 pictures of the future on G Route Blue
line out at beginning of the extension east of Addison Road (G03),
along with Morgan Boulevard (G04) and Largo Town Center (G05).
Uploading of the images coming soon.

Pictures can be viewed at;

http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/b-route/index11-20-2004.htm

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by John R Cambron
John took 55 pictures of the station and surrounding areas adjacent
to the station along with 21 pictures of the future on G Route Blue
line out at beginning of the extension east of Addison Road (G03),
along with Morgan Boulevard (G04) and Largo Town Center (G05).
Uploading of the images coming soon.

Pictures can be viewed at;
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/b-route/index11-20-2004.htm

Thanks for the info and the photos, John!

[Capn Stinxy]

Post by John R Cambron
My observations;
The canapé is a variation of the concrete gull wing design made
of steel that is painted. The under side of the canapé is
finished with painted sheet metal channels that run lengthwise.
The canapé is roughly 400? (121.92m) long and offset such that
the center of the canapé is 50? (15.24m) south of the center of
the platform.

My observation:

You are a 24-karat ignoramus. A "canapé" is a hors d'oeuvre, usually
cheese or some other spread on a cracker. One inserts a canapé into
the hole in one's face, as is typical with all forms of comestibles.
A "canopy" is is the structure above one's head. One typically seeks
shelter from the elements under it. One can insert it into one's face
with only the greatest of difficulty. Similarly, a canapé provides
little shelter from the elements.

Hey brainbox...next time, proofread what the spelling checker does to
your text.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Capn Stinxy

Post by John R Cambron
My observations;
The canapé is a variation of the concrete gull wing design made
of steel that is painted. The under side of the canapé is
finished with painted sheet metal channels that run lengthwise.
The canapé is roughly 400? (121.92m) long and offset such that
the center of the canapé is 50? (15.24m) south of the center of
the platform.

You are a 24-karat ignoramus. A "canapé" is a hors d'oeuvre, usually
cheese or some other spread on a cracker. One inserts a canapé into
the hole in one's face, as is typical with all forms of comestibles.
A "canopy" is is the structure above one's head. One typically seeks
shelter from the elements under it. One can insert it into one's face
with only the greatest of difficulty. Similarly, a canapé provides
little shelter from the elements.
Hey brainbox...next time, proofread what the spelling checker does to
your text.

Setting aside all of the unneeded insults, I stand corrected

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14-2004Nov20.html
'Norton called the New York Avenue stop a "win-win-win" for nearby
businesses, the city and the federal government, ...

But a (small) lose-lose-lose for everyone traveling through it, since
every additional station adds a couple minutes to every trip.

I liked the clever way that instead of building the new station
directly on the operating line, it was slightly to one side. That way
they wouldn't have to interfere with the operating line. They'd just
switch over once the new station was complete.

But somehow, that didn't work out. At all. They single-tracked
through that area for whole weekends at a time, weekend after weekend.

And they did so much more slowly than they could have. They could
have had a train going one way or the other on that single track at
all times. Instead, it was empty most of the time, and people were
often delayed for over an hour.

And they sometimes even compltely closed that whole section of the
line. A bomb would have been less disruptive.

Post by Scott M. Kozel
But Robert J. Smith, chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, said the new stop will bring "entire new
neighborhoods into the Metro family."'

What a bunch of crap. The new station is a short walk from both Union
Station and Rhode Island Avenue. There are plenty of stations *much*
further apart they could have put a new station between. For instance
Vienna and Dunn Loring.

In fact, they can add neighborhoods without building *any* new
station, simply by building a new exit on the *north* side of the West
Falls Church station. Currently, some people living close enough to
West Falls Church to hear the doors closing chimes can more easily
walk to East Falls Church than to the adjacent station. And East
Falls Church is further from them than the Rhode Island Avenue station
is from Union Station!

Post by Scott M. Kozel
'The New York Avenue stop is Metrorail's first new station in four
years, since Metro added five stops to the Green Line in 2001, ...

They can't count, either. 2001 was not four years ago.

Post by Scott M. Kozel
'Blue Line riders are scheduled to get two new stops in Prince
George's County, the Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center
stations, on Dec. 18. That $456-million, three-mile extension
of the Blue Line is expected to attract 9,300 new Metro riders.'

They should concentrate on getting the existing system working right
before adding to it. And they should concentrate on getting enough
trains that people can sit down, at least during non-rush-hours,
before attracting new riders.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

'But Robert J. Smith, chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, said the new stop will bring "entire new
neighborhoods into the Metro family."'

What a bunch of crap. The new station is a short walk from both Union
Station and Rhode Island Avenue.

But isn't the new station over a mile from either of those stations?

Post by Keith F. Lynch

'Blue Line riders are scheduled to get two new stops in Prince
George's County, the Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center
stations, on Dec. 18. That $456-million, three-mile extension
of the Blue Line is expected to attract 9,300 new Metro riders.'

They should concentrate on getting the existing system working right
before adding to it. And they should concentrate on getting enough
trains that people can sit down, at least during non-rush-hours,
before attracting new riders.

I agree that the existing system has huge needs for maintenance and
rehabilitation, and adding rail cars sufficient to run the 8-car
2-minute rush hour service as was in the original design; that billions
of dollars are needed for that, and that it is hard to justify major
system expansion at this point.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Keith F. Lynch

'But Robert J. Smith, chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, said the new stop will bring "entire new
neighborhoods into the Metro family."'

What a bunch of crap. The new station is a short walk from both Union
Station and Rhode Island Avenue.

But isn't the new station over a mile from either of those stations?

Post by Keith F. Lynch

'Blue Line riders are scheduled to get two new stops in Prince
George's County, the Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center
stations, on Dec. 18. That $456-million, three-mile extension
of the Blue Line is expected to attract 9,300 new Metro riders.'

They should concentrate on getting the existing system working right
before adding to it. And they should concentrate on getting enough
trains that people can sit down, at least during non-rush-hours,
before attracting new riders.

I agree that the existing system has huge needs for maintenance and
rehabilitation, and adding rail cars sufficient to run the 8-car
2-minute rush hour service as was in the original design; that billions
of dollars are needed for that, and that it is hard to justify major
system expansion at this point.

It's not just the cars but the power sub-stations that need to be added
in order to run 8 car consists.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Keith F. Lynch

'But Robert J. Smith, chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, said the new stop will bring "entire new
neighborhoods into the Metro family."'

What a bunch of crap. The new station is a short walk from both Union
Station and Rhode Island Avenue.

But isn't the new station over a mile from either of those stations?

Post by Keith F. Lynch

'Blue Line riders are scheduled to get two new stops in Prince
George's County, the Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center
stations, on Dec. 18. That $456-million, three-mile extension
of the Blue Line is expected to attract 9,300 new Metro riders.'

They should concentrate on getting the existing system working right
before adding to it. And they should concentrate on getting enough
trains that people can sit down, at least during non-rush-hours,
before attracting new riders.

I agree that the existing system has huge needs for maintenance and
rehabilitation, and adding rail cars sufficient to run the 8-car
2-minute rush hour service as was in the original design; that billions
of dollars are needed for that, and that it is hard to justify major
system expansion at this point.

It's not just the cars but the power sub-stations that need to be added
in order to run 8 car consists.

Some of the traction power substation have already be upgraded.
The section that were built after Glenmont opened took in to
consideration what was believed to be less then adequate power
and were built with higher capacity substation that are closer
together.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Keith F. Lynch

'But Robert J. Smith, chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, said the new stop will bring "entire new
neighborhoods into the Metro family."'

What a bunch of crap. The new station is a short walk from both Union
Station and Rhode Island Avenue.

But isn't the new station over a mile from either of those stations?

Actually its not that far from the north entrance to Union
Station, three and a half blocks up First Street NE and most of
one block east. If you walk on city street it's a good distance
up to Rhode Island Avenue. It's still further apart then the Metro
Center, Gallery Place pair and the Farragut West, McPherson
Square pair.

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Keith F. Lynch

'Blue Line riders are scheduled to get two new stops in Prince
George's County, the Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center
stations, on Dec. 18. That $456-million, three-mile extension
of the Blue Line is expected to attract 9,300 new Metro riders.'

They should concentrate on getting the existing system working right
before adding to it. And they should concentrate on getting enough
trains that people can sit down, at least during non-rush-hours,
before attracting new riders.

I agree that the existing system has huge needs for maintenance and
rehabilitation, and adding rail cars sufficient to run the 8-car
2-minute rush hour service as was in the original design; that billions
of dollars are needed for that, and that it is hard to justify major
system expansion at this point.

I did not respond to Keiths post originally because some of
the text of his response was basically the same as he what
he has been complaining about somewhat justifiably over the
last three years.

[The Robinsons]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I agree that the existing system has huge needs for maintenance and
rehabilitation, and adding rail cars sufficient to run the 8-car
2-minute rush hour service as was in the original design; that billions
of dollars are needed for that, and that it is hard to justify major
system expansion at this point.

I did not respond to Keiths post originally because some of
the text of his response was basically the same as he what
he has been complaining about somewhat justifiably over the
last three years.

And he doesn't understand that most Americans do not and will
never see it that way, the new Eckington station ("New York Ave" whatever)
is a mile walk to neighborhoods that are nowhere NEAR the other stations.
Spoken as one who visits that area frequently on foot, via Metro, before
the station opened Kieth doesn't know what he's talking about in this
instance.

Eckington (most of which is a mile from the New York Ave station anyhow)
NEEDS a station. Saying all stations should be 1.5 miles apart because
that is how it is in Fairfax County is nonsense. Should the new station
have been built further from Union Station, on the north side of Florida
Ave, within much easier walk of residential areas? YES. Who pressured them
to put it as far south as possible? Corporate landowners. It's even
described as "development-oriented transit" by the president of XM Radio --
screw the majority of local residents, apparently they are drug dealers.

--BER

[Keith F. Lynch]

And he doesn't understand that most Americans do not and will never
see it that way, the new Eckington station ("New York Ave" whatever)
is a mile walk to neighborhoods that are nowhere NEAR the other
stations. Spoken as one who visits that area frequently on foot,
via Metro, before the station opened Kieth doesn't know what he's
talking about in this instance.

Excuse me? I've been there many times. The new station is just 1200
yards from Union Station. Nothing can be a one mile walk from one
station and yet "nowhere near" the other.

Eckington (most of which is a mile from the New York Ave station
anyhow) NEEDS a station.

And how much of the region is much further than that from any station?
Is placing a station between two stations that were 1.7 miles apart
really the best use of taxpayer money? King Street and Van Dorn are
3.8 miles apart. (And yes, I had to walk to somewhere roughly halfway
between the two earlier this month.) Dunn Loring to Vienna is 2.5
miles -- and I live between those two stations.

Saying all stations should be 1.5 miles apart because that is how it
is in Fairfax County is nonsense.

Ok, forget Fairfax. In Montgomery County, Medical Center to
Grosvernor is 3.3 miles. In PG, College Park to Greenbelt is 2.5.
In Alexandria, National Airport to Braddock Road is 3.0 miles -- and
the Potomac Yards shopping mall is halfway between them. Wouldn't an
in-fill station make more sense between two stations that are further
than 1.7 miles apart? I count *fifteen* such spans. Including one in
DC: Fort Totten to Takoma, 1.9 miles.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

And he doesn't understand that most Americans do not and will never
see it that way, the new Eckington station ("New York Ave" whatever)
is a mile walk to neighborhoods that are nowhere NEAR the other
stations. Spoken as one who visits that area frequently on foot,
via Metro, before the station opened Kieth doesn't know what he's
talking about in this instance.

Excuse me? I've been there many times. The new station is just 1200
yards from Union Station. Nothing can be a one mile walk from one
station and yet "nowhere near" the other.

Eckington (most of which is a mile from the New York Ave station
anyhow) NEEDS a station.

And how much of the region is much further than that from any station?
Is placing a station between two stations that were 1.7 miles apart
really the best use of taxpayer money? King Street and Van Dorn are
3.8 miles apart. (And yes, I had to walk to somewhere roughly halfway
between the two earlier this month.) Dunn Loring to Vienna is 2.5
miles -- and I live between those two stations.

What you may not know, in some of the early planning documents
their were plans to allow for a future station at the west end of
Alexandra Yard (C99) at the foot of Quaker Lane. As far as I know
WMATA built the line through this area to accommodate this infill
station. I know for a fact that this section of line has it own
train control section to accommodate the construction of a station
at this location Quaker Lane (J01).

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Saying all stations should be 1.5 miles apart because that is how it
is in Fairfax County is nonsense.

Ok, forget Fairfax. In Montgomery County, Medical Center to
Grosvernor is 3.3 miles. In PG, College Park to Greenbelt is 2.5.
In Alexandria, National Airport to Braddock Road is 3.0 miles -- and
the Potomac Yards shopping mall is halfway between them. Wouldn't an
in-fill station make more sense between two stations that are further
than 1.7 miles apart? I count *fifteen* such spans. Including one in
DC: Fort Totten to Takoma, 1.9 miles.

The foot traffic volumes generated alone would not justify
stations between these station pairs and their are no high
traffic facilities along these sections with the exception of
the shopping center at Potomac Yard.

When plans were drawn up to redevelop the former CSX Potomac Yard
property plans called for the constuction of an infill station at
this location. One of the reasons it has yet to be built is
because the parties did not come to an agreement on funding the
project.

[David Lesher]

Should the new station have been built further from Union Station,
on the north side of Florida Ave, within much easier walk of
residential areas? YES. Who pressured them to put it as far south
as possible? Corporate landowners.

That said; it would not have been built farther north; it could not.
As it is, it's butting right into Brentwood Yard's trackage.

[Keith F. Lynch]

It's still further apart then the Metro Center, Gallery Place pair ...

That's not saying much. Those really should be combined into one
station. You can easily see into either station from the other.
Due to the lack of a pedestrian connection, people traveling from
Vienna to Greenbelt, have the choice of:

* Riding through six stations to travel a couple hundred yards.
* Exiting Metro Center then immediately entering Gallery Place,
turning a $3.90 trip into a $6.60 trip.
* Doing *two* transfers -- Orange to Red, then Red to Green.

and the Farragut West, McPherson Square pair.

Yes, plenty of stations are absurdly close together. That's a good
reason to put infill stations between stations that are 1.7 miles apart
rather than between stations that are more than twice as far apart?

John in the sand box of Marylands eastern shore.

If you're on the eastern shore, why do you even care about Metro?
It's not likely to even reach the western shore before the year 2100,
much less the eastern.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by John R Cambron
John in the sand box of Marylands eastern shore.

If you're on the eastern shore, why do you even care about Metro?
It's not likely to even reach the western shore before the year 2100,
much less the eastern.

John (like myself) is a charter member Metro fan, and he (like myself)
has lived in the D.C. area within the Metro service area.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

It's still further apart then the Metro Center, Gallery Place pair ...

That's not saying much. Those really should be combined into one
station. You can easily see into either station from the other.
Due to the lack of a pedestrian connection, people traveling from
* Riding through six stations to travel a couple hundred yards.

That would be transfer at L'Enfant Plaza.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
* Exiting Metro Center then immediately entering Gallery Place,
turning a $3.90 trip into a $6.60 trip.
* Doing *two* transfers -- Orange to Red, then Red to Green.

and the Farragut West, McPherson Square pair.

Yes, plenty of stations are absurdly close together. That's a good
reason to put infill stations between stations that are 1.7 miles apart
rather than between stations that are more than twice as far apart?

John in the sand box of Marylands eastern shore.

If you're on the eastern shore, why do you even care about Metro?
It's not likely to even reach the western shore before the year 2100,
much less the eastern.

Because I use to live in DC and in three different location in
suburban Maryland. like Scott, I have been following WMATA sense
its inception. Just because I moved to a location that is closer
to where I now work doesn't mean I should detach myself from the
activities happening in and around Washington DC

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Keith F. Lynch
What a bunch of crap. The new station is a short walk from both
Union Station and Rhode Island Avenue.

But isn't the new station over a mile from either of those stations?

No. It is 1.0 mile from the Rhode Island Avenue station, and 0.7
miles from Union Station. They infilled the 16th-largest gap between
stations in the system. There are gaps more than twice as long.

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I agree that the existing system has huge needs for maintenance and
rehabilitation, and adding rail cars sufficient to run the 8-car
2-minute rush hour service as was in the original design;

Not two minutes -- ninety seconds.

And how come first they tell us that 8-car trains will require vast
changes, including new power substations, and then they tell us that
they're temporarily running 8-car trains on the Red Line? Can it be
done without major upgrades or not?

Post by Scott M. Kozel
that billions of dollars are needed for that, ...

No, only millions. For the lack of those millions, most of Metro's
ridership is likely to abandon Metro and get cars -- which will then
require not billions, but *tens* of billions of dollars of highway
upgrades to bring traffic congestion back down to present-day levels.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Scott M. Kozel
But isn't the new station over a mile from either of those stations?

No. It is 1.0 mile from the Rhode Island Avenue station, and 0.7
miles from Union Station. They infilled the 16th-largest gap between
stations in the system. There are gaps more than twice as long.

Most of those "gaps" are nowhere near as urbanized as the area around
the New York Avenue station.

Also, consider the funding for the new station. The D.C. city
government kicked in about 50% and private concerns kicked in about 25%,
of the cost to build the station.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I agree that the existing system has huge needs for maintenance and
rehabilitation, and adding rail cars sufficient to run the 8-car
2-minute rush hour service as was in the original design;

Not two minutes -- ninety seconds.

I have WMATA brochures from the 1970s that say 2 minutes.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
And how come first they tell us that 8-car trains will require vast
changes, including new power substations, and then they tell us that
they're temporarily running 8-car trains on the Red Line? Can it be
done without major upgrades or not?

Apparently not more than on a spot basis.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Scott M. Kozel
that billions of dollars are needed for that, ...

No, only millions.

No, WMATA says at least $5 billion is needed in the next 6 years for
maintenance and rehabilitation and adding rail cars sufficient to run
the 8-car 2-minute rush hour service as was in the original design.

[David Lesher]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
And how come first they tell us that 8-car trains will require vast
changes, including new power substations, and then they tell us that
they're temporarily running 8-car trains on the Red Line? Can it be
done without major upgrades or not?

Simple...

They were running less-frequent 8-car trains than 6. In other words,
at any time, they had fewer cars on a given section of trackage than
normally. Fewer cars, less current drain.

They were also stopping in manual mode, not automatic. Without the
greater spacing, this would have slowed things down considerably.

[Omari Norman]

I wonder when Metro will change all the signs and maps in the system
and how long this typically takes. All the lighted maps inside
stations that I have seen have been changed already. Most Red Line
cars I have seen have also have had their maps changed, though I rode
in one Red car within the last couple of days whose maps were not
changed. Metro started changing maps at least a couple of days before
the station actually opened.

The new maps also have new names for two stations: "Rhode Island
Avenue - Brentwood," and "Archives - Navy Memorial - Penn Quarter."
Wait, I suppose I should not forget that the controversial "Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport" is now fully identified, and its
location is given as "Opposite N Terminal" rather than "Opposite
Terminal." I have always wondered why Rhode Island Ave was not named
simply "Brentwood" to begin with...operators I have heard are not
using the new name for Rhode Island Avenue - Brentwood.

New maps reflect the two new Blue Line stations: Morgan Boulevard and
Largo Town Center. There is a small blue sticker to cover these
stations, reading that the stations open in December (I forget which
day exactly.) This is a smart move, as when the stations open next
month there will only be a need to remove thousands of stickers.
Sometimes this sticker is misplaced slightly.

The new maps for the center of the cars (next to the emergency door)
feature greatly expanded directions for opening the emergency door and
evacuating the train. These directions now occupy so much space that
the map itself is now about the size of a letter-size sheet of paper.

New maps finally get rid of the old "Convention Center Information"
box in the lower right corner. Metro's customer service phone numbers
are now in the upper left corner, and the lower left corner tells us
that "Metro is Accessible" (at least when the elevators are
functioning.)

I have seen no other signage in the system changed at all, such as the
signs on the pylons listing the Red Line stations or the fares and
travel times signs on station manager booths (these still say simply
"Planned" for the New York Avenue station.) I wonder how long that
will take?

Most shocking to me is that the Metro map on the Web site is still out
of date, indicating "Under Construction" for New York Avenue. One
would think this map would be the easiest to change and one of the
more important ones. However, New York Avenue is listed in the list of
stations and within the past couple of days a photograph was posted.
Oh, there is no bike parking at New York Avenue.

Does anyone know if I can get an old map? Great tacky wall art.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Omari Norman
Does anyone know if I can get an old map? Great tacky wall art.

More reasent map can be directly had from WMATA;

http://www.wmata.com/bus2bus/surplus/surplus_sl_mme.cfm

Last time I was in the warehouse Adrian Sclawy had the maps
that were changed out for the midcity Green line and southern
Green line openings.

I have all of the map the were changed out for the Glenmont
opening.

http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/

[Keith F. Lynch]

The new maps also have new names for two stations: "Rhode Island
Avenue - Brentwood," and "Archives - Navy Memorial - Penn Quarter."

Who decided that this name inflation was a good idea?

The only one that I really object to is GMU being added to the name of
the Vienna station (which isn't in Vienna, any more than either Falls
Church station is in Falls Church). They're referring to the main
GMU campus, which is six miles from the station. By that standard,
"Georgetown" can be appended to the name of 39 stations!

...operators I have heard are not using the new name for Rhode
Island Avenue - Brentwood.

If they make the station names any longer, and the infill stations any
closer together, they'll have to drive the trains more slowly to give
the driver time to say the full name of each station.

Most shocking to me is that the Metro map on the Web site is still
out of date, indicating "Under Construction" for New York Avenue.

I can't look at the map, since I have a text-only account, but I
noticed that the web page for the station came to life two days early.
It's http://wmata.com/metrorail/Stations/station.cfm?station=108
I didn't check to see if there was a link to it.

In the summer of 2002, Metro put all their station pages' URLs in that
form, varying only in the number at the end, from 1 for Metro Center
to 107 for Southern Avenue, with lots of gaps. Instead of filling a
gap, the new station was placed at the end.

I just checked the gaps -- and the end -- once again, to see if next
month's Blue Line stations are up yet. They aren't.

Can anyone find a pattern to the numbering?

0 ?
1 Metro Center
2 ?
3 ?
4 Farragut North
5 ?
6 Dupont Circle
7 Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan
8 Cleveland Park
9 Van Ness-UDC
10 Tenleytown-AU
11 Friendship Heights
12 Bethesda
13 Medical Center
14 Grosvenor-Strathmore
15 White Flint
16 Twinbrook
17 Rockville
18 Shady Grove
19 ?
20 ?
21 Gallery Pl-Chinatown
22 ?
23 Judiciary Square
24 ?
25 Union Station
26 Rhode Island Ave
27 Brookland-CUA
28 Fort Totten
29 Takoma
30 ?
31 Silver Spring
32 Forest Glen
33 Wheaton
34 Glenmont
35 ?
36 McPherson Square
37 ?
38 Farragut West
39 ?
40 Foggy Bottom-GWU
41 Rosslyn
42 Arlington Cemetery
43 Pentagon
44 Pentagon City
45 Crystal City
46 ?
47 Braddock Road
48 King Street
49 Eisenhower Avenue
50 Huntington
51 ?
52 ?
53 Federal Triangle
54 Smithsonian
55 ?
56 ?
57 ?
58 Federal Center SW
59 Capitol South
60 Eastern Market
61 Potomac Ave
62 ?
63 Stadium-Armory
64 Minnesota Ave
65 Deanwood
66 Cheverly
67 Landover
68 New Carrollton
69 ?
70 Mount Vernon Square-UDC
71 ?
72 Shaw-Howard University
73 U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo
74 ?
75 Columbia Heights
76 Georgia Ave-Petworth
77 West Hyattsville
78 Prince George's Plaza
79 College Park-U of MD
80 Greenbelt
81 Archives-Navy Memorial
82 L'Enfant Plaza
83 Waterfront-SEU
84 Navy Yard
85 Anacostia
86 Congress Heights
87 Naylor Road
88 Suitland
89 Branch Ave
90 Benning Road
91 Capitol Heights
92 Addison Road-Seat Pleasant
93 National Airport
94 Van Dorn Street
95 Franconia-Springfield
96 Court House
97 Clarendon
98 Virginia Square-GMU
99 Ballston-MU
100 East Falls Church
101 West Falls Church-VT/UVA
102 Dunn Loring-Merrifield
103 Vienna/Fairfax-GMU
104 ?
105 ?
106 ?
107 Southern Avenue
108 New York Ave-Florida Ave-Gallaudet U
109 ?
110 ?
111 ?
112 ?

[John R Cambron]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

The new maps also have new names for two stations: "Rhode Island
Avenue - Brentwood," and "Archives - Navy Memorial - Penn Quarter."

Who decided that this name inflation was a good idea?

Politicians, I happen to think it's a bad idea.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
The only one that I really object to is GMU being added to the name of
the Vienna station (which isn't in Vienna, any more than either Falls
Church station is in Falls Church). They're referring to the main
GMU campus, which is six miles from the station. By that standard,
"Georgetown" can be appended to the name of 39 stations!

...operators I have heard are not using the new name for Rhode
Island Avenue - Brentwood.

If they make the station names any longer, and the infill stations any
closer together, they'll have to drive the trains more slowly to give
the driver time to say the full name of each station.

Most shocking to me is that the Metro map on the Web site is still
out of date, indicating "Under Construction" for New York Avenue.

I can't look at the map, since I have a text-only account, but I
noticed that the web page for the station came to life two days early.
It's http://wmata.com/metrorail/Stations/station.cfm?station=108
I didn't check to see if there was a link to it.
In the summer of 2002, Metro put all their station pages' URLs in that
form, varying only in the number at the end, from 1 for Metro Center
to 107 for Southern Avenue, with lots of gaps. Instead of filling a
gap, the new station was placed at the end.
I just checked the gaps -- and the end -- once again, to see if next
month's Blue Line stations are up yet. They aren't.
Can anyone find a pattern to the numbering?
0 ?
1 Metro Center
2 ?
3 ?
4 Farragut North
5 ?
6 Dupont Circle
7 Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan
8 Cleveland Park
9 Van Ness-UDC
10 Tenleytown-AU
11 Friendship Heights
12 Bethesda
13 Medical Center
14 Grosvenor-Strathmore
15 White Flint
16 Twinbrook
17 Rockville
18 Shady Grove
19 ?
20 ?
21 Gallery Pl-Chinatown
22 ?
23 Judiciary Square
24 ?
25 Union Station
26 Rhode Island Ave
27 Brookland-CUA
28 Fort Totten
29 Takoma
30 ?
31 Silver Spring
32 Forest Glen
33 Wheaton
34 Glenmont
35 ?
36 McPherson Square
37 ?
38 Farragut West
39 ?
40 Foggy Bottom-GWU
41 Rosslyn
42 Arlington Cemetery
43 Pentagon
44 Pentagon City
45 Crystal City
46 ?
47 Braddock Road
48 King Street
49 Eisenhower Avenue
50 Huntington
51 ?
52 ?
53 Federal Triangle
54 Smithsonian
55 ?
56 ?
57 ?
58 Federal Center SW
59 Capitol South
60 Eastern Market
61 Potomac Ave
62 ?
63 Stadium-Armory
64 Minnesota Ave
65 Deanwood
66 Cheverly
67 Landover
68 New Carrollton
69 ?
70 Mount Vernon Square-UDC
71 ?
72 Shaw-Howard University
73 U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo
74 ?
75 Columbia Heights
76 Georgia Ave-Petworth
77 West Hyattsville
78 Prince George's Plaza
79 College Park-U of MD
80 Greenbelt
81 Archives-Navy Memorial
82 L'Enfant Plaza
83 Waterfront-SEU
84 Navy Yard
85 Anacostia
86 Congress Heights
87 Naylor Road
88 Suitland
89 Branch Ave
90 Benning Road
91 Capitol Heights
92 Addison Road-Seat Pleasant
93 National Airport
94 Van Dorn Street
95 Franconia-Springfield
96 Court House
97 Clarendon
98 Virginia Square-GMU
99 Ballston-MU
100 East Falls Church
101 West Falls Church-VT/UVA
102 Dunn Loring-Merrifield
103 Vienna/Fairfax-GMU
104 ?
105 ?
106 ?
107 Southern Avenue
108 New York Ave-Florida Ave-Gallaudet U
109 ?
110 ?
111 ?
112 ?

With the excption of Southern Avenue, New York Avenue and
National Airport the order is based on the route letter the
station is on in accesend from Metro Center and Gallery
Place, A Route comming first then B Route, C Route, D Route,
E Route, F Route, G Route, J Route and K Route.

[m***@search26.com]

http://www.ardice.com/Regional/North_America/United_States/Washington,_DC/Neighborhoods/Adams_Morgan/

[The Robinsons]

It is possible and desirable to build an Adams Morgan/Kalorama station
under Connecticut Avenue; however it would require alot of engineering
and lots of Cash, (not the Man in Black kind, although sometimes you
need that too). The S-curve in front of the Hinckley Hilton would have
to be shifted south and tightened up, and the tunnels elevated to create
a level station hall between Columbia Road and Wyoming Ave. Still, the
station would be sufficiently deep that the primary entrance would be
two blocks east at 19th and Columbia Road in central Adams Morgan.

(Sound of Kieth Lynch having a stroke, I know, I know! However, please
note that such an addition could not be accomplished until a Red Line spur
was created on or near Wisconsin Avenue to connect the Red Line to
Georgetown, M Street and Rosslyn and allow service on the Red line
to continue. In other words you'd have to build an M Street Subway
first, starting with the Tenleytown/Rosslyn connection.)

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by The Robinsons
It is possible and desirable to build an Adams Morgan/Kalorama
station ...

Adams Morgan already has a station.
http://wmata.com/metrorail/Stations/station.cfm?station=7

Post by The Robinsons
Sound of Kieth Lynch having a stroke, I know, I know!

I seldom react that badly to my name being misspelled.

Post by The Robinsons
... to connect the Red Line to Georgetown, ...

Georgetown is already pretty close to two stations.

Lots of neightborhoods aren't near any station. Or are near a station
they can't get to, e.g. the area just nort of the West Falls Church
station, which has no entrance to its north.

[John Mara]

Post by The Robinsons
It is possible and desirable to build an Adams Morgan/Kalorama station
under Connecticut Avenue; however it would require alot of engineering
and lots of Cash, (not the Man in Black kind, although sometimes you
need that too). The S-curve in front of the Hinckley Hilton would have
to be shifted south and tightened up, and the tunnels elevated to create
a level station hall between Columbia Road and Wyoming Ave.

There is no reason a station can't be located on a curve or a grade. New
York has them.

John Mara

[John R Cambron]

Post by John Mara

Post by The Robinsons
It is possible and desirable to build an Adams Morgan/Kalorama station
under Connecticut Avenue; however it would require alot of engineering
and lots of Cash, (not the Man in Black kind, although sometimes you
need that too). The S-curve in front of the Hinckley Hilton would have
to be shifted south and tightened up, and the tunnels elevated to create
a level station hall between Columbia Road and Wyoming Ave.

There is no reason a station can't be located on a curve or a grade. New
York has them.

WMATA doesn't have any stations on compound curves and never
will. WMATA has a maximum grade specification of .035 percent
for station platforms. They do have two stations on curves.
Both stations are on the surface and have curves with
continuous radius of less then 1 degree. Neither of these
station are on compound curves like curves under Connecticut
Avenue in front of the Washington Hilton.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by John R Cambron
WMATA doesn't have any stations on compound curves and never
will. ... They do have two stations on curves. Both stations
are on the surface and have curves with continuous radius of
less then 1 degree.

Right. The concern is that the driver be able to see all the doors
before closing them. If the tracks are significantly curved at the
platform, this won't be possible for one direction or the other.

[The Robinsons]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by John R Cambron
WMATA doesn't have any stations on compound curves and never
will. ... They do have two stations on curves. Both stations
are on the surface and have curves with continuous radius of
less then 1 degree.

Right. The concern is that the driver be able to see all the doors
before closing them. If the tracks are significantly curved at the
platform, this won't be possible for one direction or the other.

And if a "Kalorama-Adams Morgan" station were ever to be built
(with entrances on Columbia Road at Connecticut and escalator
drift shaft at Columbia and Wyoming) and elevator shaft at
Connecticut and Wyoming, the excavation required would give the
engineers ample opportunity to tighten up the curve in front of
the Hilton by shifting it southwards and elevating the trackbed
(the tracks rise up above the McMillan Aqueduct tunnel before
falling just below Rock Creek, which apparently passes directly
over the roof of the train tunnel.) No excavation would be required
north of Wyoming Ave; tracks are level in both directions at
that point in the existing tunnel.

All this is not gonna happen until or unless the Red Line were first
connected to the Silver Line somehow, presumably via Georgetown and/or
Rosslyn, down Wisconsin Ave. in DC -- without which the Red Line would
have to be shut down completely for 3 years. But I think it'd be worth
it. Most drunks in Adams Morgan don't want to walk all the way across
Rock Creek, and they clog up the area with cars (and parking garages)
increasing its reputation as a traffic-clogged place where people only
go to get drunk. The densest residential area in DC should have a
station within its confines, and its already been gentrified so no
further harm is possible with respect to that.

Yes, there are many other infill projects that can happen first.
I'd suggest adding a couple stations to the outer end of the
Dulles line -- chiefly at Sully Road -- and maybe reroute the
Dulles Line north of Old Ox Road to terminate somewhere in the
vicinity of the mall. This would take it within actual walking
distance of the hideous corporate office complexes out there.

--BER

[John R Cambron]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by John R Cambron
WMATA doesn't have any stations on compound curves and never
will. ... They do have two stations on curves. Both stations
are on the surface and have curves with continuous radius of
less then 1 degree.

Right. The concern is that the driver be able to see all the doors
before closing them. If the tracks are significantly curved at the
platform, this won't be possible for one direction or the other.

And if a "Kalorama-Adams Morgan" station were ever to be built
(with entrances on Columbia Road at Connecticut and escalator
drift shaft at Columbia and Wyoming) and elevator shaft at
Connecticut and Wyoming, the excavation required would give the
engineers ample opportunity to tighten up the curve in front of
the Hilton by shifting it southwards and elevating the trackbed
(the tracks rise up above the McMillan Aqueduct tunnel before
falling just below Rock Creek, which apparently passes directly
over the roof of the train tunnel.) No excavation would be required
north of Wyoming Ave; tracks are level in both directions at
that point in the existing tunnel.

We have been through this before. The existing tunnel consists
of a number of both vertical and horizontal compond curves and
short sections of tangent with grades in excess of 2.5 percent.
The high point of the WMATA Red line A Route tunnel between
Dupont Circle and Rock Creek pass above the Lydecker Aqueduct.

There is about 10' (3.04m) of soil between the bottom of Rock
Creek and the top of the tunnel box. That put the creek bottom
about 28' (8.53m) above the top of rail in the WMATA tunnel.

Post by The Robinsons
All this is not gonna happen until or unless the Red Line were first
connected to the Silver Line somehow, presumably via Georgetown and/or
Rosslyn, down Wisconsin Ave. in DC -- without which the Red Line would
have to be shut down completely for 3 years. But I think it'd be worth
it. Most drunks in Adams Morgan don't want to walk all the way across
Rock Creek, and they clog up the area with cars (and parking garages)
increasing its reputation as a traffic-clogged place where people only
go to get drunk. The densest residential area in DC should have a
station within its confines, and its already been gentrified so no
further harm is possible with respect to that.
Yes, there are many other infill projects that can happen first.
I'd suggest adding a couple stations to the outer end of the
Dulles line -- chiefly at Sully Road -- and maybe reroute the
Dulles Line north of Old Ox Road to terminate somewhere in the
vicinity of the mall. This would take it within actual walking
distance of the hideous corporate office complexes out there.

[The Robinsons]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by The Robinsons
And if a "Kalorama-Adams Morgan" station were ever to be built
(with entrances on Columbia Road at Connecticut and escalator
drift shaft at Columbia and Wyoming) and elevator shaft at
Connecticut and Wyoming, the excavation required would give the
engineers ample opportunity to tighten up the curve in front of
the Hilton by shifting it southwards and elevating the trackbed
(the tracks rise up above the McMillan Aqueduct tunnel before
falling just below Rock Creek, which apparently passes directly
over the roof of the train tunnel.) No excavation would be required
north of Wyoming Ave; tracks are level in both directions at
that point in the existing tunnel.

We have been through this before. The existing tunnel consists
of a number of both vertical and horizontal compond curves and
short sections of tangent with grades in excess of 2.5 percent.
The high point of the WMATA Red line A Route tunnel between
Dupont Circle and Rock Creek pass above the Lydecker Aqueduct.
There is about 10' (3.04m) of soil between the bottom of Rock
Creek and the top of the tunnel box. That put the creek bottom
about 28' (8.53m) above the top of rail in the WMATA tunnel.

John,
Geez.
What is with your snippy messages. I SHOWED it was possible
to build a station. You sent me the blueprints for the track and
tunnels between Dupont Circle and Rock Creek, remember? And I
sent you revised blueprints showing feasible station configuration
consisting of elevating the SOUTHERN S.CURVE.

NO CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION WOULD OCCUR ON THE LINE NORTH OF
WYOMING AVENUE. THE NORTH END OF THE STATION HALL WOULD FEED
INTO THE HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY LEVEL EXISTING SECTION OF
RACK AT WYOMING AVENUE, ABOVE THE LYDECKER AQUEDUCT. NORTH OF
THERE, EXISTING TUNNELS WOULD BE USED. THE STATION HALL WOULD
END AT WYOMING AVE. on the NORTH side.

THE SOUTHERN CURVE would be tightened up to extend the VERTICALLY GRADED
section of STRAIGHT track between Wyoming Ave. and Columbia Road.

Excavation would be done to RAISE THE TUNNEL in the aforementioned
section of STRAIGHT TRACK so it was no longer vertically graded
between Wyoming Ave. and Columbia Road.

The entire vertical grade falling down to Dupont Circle from
Wyoming Ave. (the high point where the track passes above the
Lydecker Aqueduct) would be shifted south into the southern
compound curve, which would be tightened considerably and
speed restrictions imposed. That curve was designed to
accomodate high-speed between Dupont Circle and Woodley Park
with no intervening station. No excavation would be done on
the tracks or curves north of Wyoming. Thru operation would
have to be suspended (assuming the Red Line had interoperability
prior to the construction time frame, meaning trains have somewhere
else to go), so operational constraints would not affect
excavation requirements. A substantial drift shaft would be
construced under Wyoming Ave. Between Connecticut and 19th Street
in Adams Morgan (primary station exit.)

Engineers SAID an Adams Morgan station was possible but expensive.
We've BEEN thru this. DC did a study back in the 90s, for heavens sake.

--Brian

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by The Robinsons
Engineers SAID an Adams Morgan station was possible but expensive.

Is there anywhere that a station *isn't* possible but expensive?

Adams Morgan already has a station, shared with Woodley Park and the
National Zoo. Why should people who have to walk two, five, or even
ten miles to get to the nearest station be taxed hundreds of millions
of dollars because some Adams Morgan residents are too lazy to walk
a few blocks?

[John R Cambron]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by The Robinsons
Engineers SAID an Adams Morgan station was possible but expensive.

Is there anywhere that a station *isn't* possible but expensive?
Adams Morgan already has a station, shared with Woodley Park and the
National Zoo. Why should people who have to walk two, five, or even
ten miles to get to the nearest station be taxed hundreds of millions
of dollars because some Adams Morgan residents are too lazy to walk
a few blocks?

Thank You.

[The Robinsons]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by The Robinsons
Engineers SAID an Adams Morgan station was possible but expensive.

Is there anywhere that a station *isn't* possible but expensive?
Adams Morgan already has a station, shared with Woodley Park and the
National Zoo. Why should people who have to walk two, five, or even
ten miles to get to the nearest station be taxed hundreds of millions
of dollars because some Adams Morgan residents are too lazy to walk
a few blocks?

Thank You.

John, I'm a bit unclear why you are so upset about this. If you'll
recall you sent me the schematics out of curiousity about this issue.

I have a problem with people who idealize planning problems like this.
It doesn't matter what people who have to walk (like me or Keith)
think. Few people use the metro to get to or from Adams Morgan because
they don't appreciate walking as much as you or Keith seem to do.

This is a planning concern. The best way to promote walking in dense
urban environments that attract large numbers of nighttime visitors
almost exclusively in cabs and cars is to locate stations intelligently.
It is the height of idiocy to assert the station spacing in DC should
be the same as in Fairfax.

Keith was being facetious about the station name, BTW -- it is
ridiculous. Woodley-Park Zoo station is just that. The zoo is
in comfortable walking distance from the perspective of the
TARGET AUDIENCE. Adams Morgan, save for the section along
Calvert Road immediately east of Rock Creek, is NOT. Try inviting
anyone who has "a life" to dine with you in Adams Morgan via Metro.

--Brian R.

[The Robinsons]

Try inviting anyone who has "a life" to dine with you
in Adams Morgan via Metro.

Mind you, I would, seeing as I don't have a vehicle. but
it's awfully inconvenient even for me to double back on
foot, so I rarely visit Adams Morgan except on foot (from
downtoen) and once I purchase a new bike, that's it.

What I'm saying is, nobody you or I know IRL would use Metro
for this purpose if they had any kind of access to a vehicle.

That is a simple FACT. Hell, even Miguel Cruz didn't like
Metro to Adams Morgan, he recommended the bus or walking from
downtown. There is absolutely no point in taking the Metro to
Woodley Park to get to Adams Morgan. Columbia Heights, maybe.
if your destination is on the east side of 18th street.

--BER

[John R Cambron]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by The Robinsons
Engineers SAID an Adams Morgan station was possible but expensive.

Is there anywhere that a station *isn't* possible but expensive?
Adams Morgan already has a station, shared with Woodley Park and the
National Zoo. Why should people who have to walk two, five, or even
ten miles to get to the nearest station be taxed hundreds of millions
of dollars because some Adams Morgan residents are too lazy to walk
a few blocks?

Thank You.

John, I'm a bit unclear why you are so upset about this. If you'll
recall you sent me the schematics out of curiousity about this issue.

The discussion we had on the build an infill station in the area
of Wyoming Street and Connecticut Avenue was based totally on the
technical issues involved in such a project.

Post by The Robinsons
I have a problem with people who idealize planning problems like this.
It doesn't matter what people who have to walk (like me or Keith)
think. Few people use the metro to get to or from Adams Morgan because
they don't appreciate walking as much as you or Keith seem to do.

The problem I have, and the preconceived hostility you think I am
showing is totally based on the cost of building a station at that
location.

Oh, and by the way I don't do a lot of walking. However when push
come to shove I am willing to walk a few extra block to save capitol
construction tax dollars that could better spent elsewhere.

Post by The Robinsons
This is a planning concern. The best way to promote walking in dense
urban environments that attract large numbers of nighttime visitors
almost exclusively in cabs and cars is to locate stations intelligently.
It is the height of idiocy to assert the station spacing in DC should
be the same as in Fairfax.
Keith was being facetious about the station name, BTW -- it is
ridiculous. Woodley-Park Zoo station is just that. The zoo is
in comfortable walking distance from the perspective of the
TARGET AUDIENCE. Adams Morgan, save for the section along
Calvert Road immediately east of Rock Creek, is NOT. Try inviting
anyone who has "a life" to dine with you in Adams Morgan via Metro.
--Brian R.

[The Robinsons]

Post by John R Cambron
The problem I have, and the preconceived hostility you think I am
showing is totally based on the cost of building a station at that
location.
Oh, and by the way I don't do a lot of walking. However when push
come to shove I am willing to walk a few extra block to save capitol
construction tax dollars that could better spent elsewhere.

Well obviously it goes without saying an Adams Morgan station
could not be built unless the M Street Subway (connecting to
the Red Line at either Georgetown or Rosslyn) were built first.

This would allow Red Line trains to get downtown via some other
route, otherwise, construction of an in-fill station would be
impossible. But if a Georgetown and/or Wisconsin Avenue line
got built, then the Metro system would already be complete,
so I am assuming an Adams Morgan station would not be built
until long after the rest of the system was fully built-out
with all the other extensions on the books (Brown Line, Purple Line,
Red line extension, Orange Line extension, Green Line extension
will all get built before we see an M Street subway, although
the Green Line could be folded in with the Purple Line north of
Beltsville assuming it ever gets built out towards White Oak.)

Extensions that can afford to wait indefinitely include Blue Line,
Yellow Line southbound (which I doubt will ever get extended
south of Groveton since a light rail line is planned for Route 1)
Yellow Line northbound (which could be folded in with the Purple
Line or the Red line so there is no suburban constituency) and
Orange eastbound/Green line southbound (would do nothing but
promote sprawl, and the Orange Line runs on a 4-trak Amtrak line
that is capable of providing adequate commuter service) and the
Adams Morgan station.

So I am just thinking ahead here.

[David Lesher]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

The new maps also have new names for two stations: "Rhode Island
Avenue - Brentwood," and "Archives - Navy Memorial - Penn Quarter."

Who decided that this name inflation was a good idea?

Bob Barr, who forced Metro to waste $400,000 on the Ronny Raygun
Airport renaming.

But I have to admit the New York Ave name is wrong anyhow. It
should be "Florida Ave."

[Tim Kynerd]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

The new maps also have new names for two stations: "Rhode Island
Avenue - Brentwood," and "Archives - Navy Memorial - Penn Quarter."

Who decided that this name inflation was a good idea?

Bob Barr, who forced Metro to waste $400,000 on the Ronny Raygun Airport
renaming.
But I have to admit the New York Ave name is wrong anyhow. It should be
"Florida Ave."

At least for those who already know where Gallaudet is, that would also
have the advantage of rendering "Gallaudet Univ." in the name redundant.
And I'd guess that most people who need to get to Gallaudet know that the
big front entrance is on Florida Avenue.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by David Lesher

Post by Keith F. Lynch

The new maps also have new names for two stations: "Rhode Island
Avenue - Brentwood," and "Archives - Navy Memorial - Penn Quarter."

Who decided that this name inflation was a good idea?

Bob Barr, who forced Metro to waste $400,000 on the Ronny Raygun
Airport renaming.

He didn't make them turn Vienna into Vienna-Fairfax, and then
Vienna-Fairfax-GMU. Nor did he add Merifield to Dunn Loring.

Speaking of Dunn Loring, I noticed at the recent WMATA open house
that they had a big map on the wall that labels that station "Gallows
Road". I think that map is at least twenty years old. Presumably
it wasn't part of the open house, but a permanent exhibit. Not that
there was any easy way to tell if you hadn't been there before.

Speaking of Archives-Navy Memorial, that station has a significant
role in the movie I saw today -- "National Treasure".

[John R Cambron]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by David Lesher

Post by Keith F. Lynch

The new maps also have new names for two stations: "Rhode Island
Avenue - Brentwood," and "Archives - Navy Memorial - Penn Quarter."

Who decided that this name inflation was a good idea?

Bob Barr, who forced Metro to waste $400,000 on the Ronny Raygun
Airport renaming.

He didn't make them turn Vienna into Vienna-Fairfax, and then
Vienna-Fairfax-GMU. Nor did he add Merifield to Dunn Loring.
Speaking of Dunn Loring, I noticed at the recent WMATA open house
that they had a big map on the wall that labels that station "Gallows
Road". I think that map is at least twenty years old. Presumably
it wasn't part of the open house, but a permanent exhibit. Not that
there was any easy way to tell if you hadn't been there before.

If you are speaking of the backlit map on the lower lobby level
in the Jackson Graham building at 600 5th Street NW, Yes that
map is old. It is a map of the first Area Regional System (ARS)
adopted 03 01 1968. It was installed when the building was
opened in the early 1970s. I recall seeing it in the background
of photos of various WMATA officials in the WMATA photo archives
when WMATA had their offices down at L'Enfant Plaza before
moving to 600 5th.

You may have also noticed that there was no Shady Grove,
Backlick Road or Springfield-Franconia stations, different
names on at least a half dozen other stations along with
significant differences in the alignments of both ends of
Green Line E and F routes.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Speaking of Archives-Navy Memorial, that station has a significant
role in the movie I saw today -- "National Treasure".

[Omari Norman]

Post by John R Cambron
You may have also noticed that there was no Shady Grove,
Backlick Road or Springfield-Franconia stations, different
names on at least a half dozen other stations along with
significant differences in the alignments of both ends of
Green Line E and F routes.

One of the different names on that old ARS map was "Zoological Park."
Just today I noticed a sign on a pylon in the Farragut North station
which read "Zoological Park." I did not know that the station ever
operated under that name. Sometimes it is funny to see signs that have
not been updated. There are signs at Forest Glen that show the Yellow
Line stopping at Fort Totten.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Omari Norman

Post by John R Cambron
You may have also noticed that there was no Shady Grove,
Backlick Road or Springfield-Franconia stations, different
names on at least a half dozen other stations along with
significant differences in the alignments of both ends of
Green Line E and F routes.

One of the different names on that old ARS map was "Zoological Park."
Just today I noticed a sign on a pylon in the Farragut North station
which read "Zoological Park." I did not know that the station ever
operated under that name. Sometimes it is funny to see signs that have
not been updated. There are signs at Forest Glen that show the Yellow
Line stopping at Fort Totten.

If you look closely at the pylons in most of the oldest
stations in the system (New Carrollton to Ballston and National
Airport, Silver Spring to Van Ness) you will notice that
station name lists have some of the names painted over and have
different names printed on top of the original baked on enamel
graphics. You can read the old name under the paint. Vandals
have scratched the paint off some of these pylons to reveal the
original baked on enamel graphics.

All of the pylons on the platform at Union Station have
Visitor Center painted over from the time when Union Station
was used as the National Visitor Center by the National Park
Service back in the 1970s.

The original configuration of the system called for both the
Green and Yellow lines to terminate at Greenbelt.

WMATA plans to do some reconfigurations of the routing of some
Blue, Yellow and Orange line trains to accommodate the trains
that will be coming off the future Silver line from Tyson,
Dulles and Loudoun county.

The electronic destanation signs on the trains have allready
been configured to accommodate these rerouting.

[The Robinsons]

Post by Omari Norman

Post by John R Cambron
You may have also noticed that there was no Shady Grove,
Backlick Road or Springfield-Franconia stations, different
names on at least a half dozen other stations along with
significant differences in the alignments of both ends of
Green Line E and F routes.

One of the different names on that old ARS map was "Zoological Park."
Just today I noticed a sign on a pylon in the Farragut North station
which read "Zoological Park." I did not know that the station ever
operated under that name. Sometimes it is funny to see signs that have
not been updated. There are signs at Forest Glen that show the Yellow
Line stopping at Fort Totten.

Hey Omari, welcome to dc.urban.planning! :-)

-Brian Robinson in takoma park MD

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Speaking of Dunn Loring, I noticed at the recent WMATA open house
that they had a big map on the wall that labels that station "Gallows
Road". I think that map is at least twenty years old. Presumably
it wasn't part of the open house, but a permanent exhibit. Not that
there was any easy way to tell if you hadn't been there before.

If you are speaking of the backlit map on the lower lobby level in
the Jackson Graham building at 600 5th Street NW, Yes that map is
old. It is a map of the first Area Regional System (ARS) adopted 03
01 1968.

Yes. Thanks. During the open house lots of people were looking at
it, along with all the other exhibits. As far as I could tell, nobody
but me noticed that it was seriously out of date.

You may have also noticed that there was no Shady Grove, Backlick
Road or Springfield-Franconia stations, different names on at least
a half dozen other stations along with significant differences in
the alignments of both ends of Green Line E and F routes.

Yes. Or rather there were separate Springfield and Franconia
stations. It looked much like my 1977 map. Except that I now see
that my 1977 map has "Dunn Loring".

[The Robinsons]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Speaking of Archives-Navy Memorial, that station has a significant
role in the movie I saw today -- "National Treasure".

As well it should, that intersection is a major Nexus in the
presumptive Masonic plan that National Treasure draws on for
inspiration. Tell me, did they draw on Klaatu as a consultant? :-)

So where is the secret intrance to the DUCC -- under Market Square
or under the Masonic Lodge HQ on 16th st? Was that in the movie? :-)

-Brian R.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Speaking of Archives-Navy Memorial, that station has a significant
role in the movie I saw today -- "National Treasure".

Tell me, did they draw on Klaatu as a consultant? :-)

I've only seen one movie that involved Klaatu. It was set about a
mile west of that station.

Post by The Robinsons
So where is the secret intrance to the DUCC -- under Market Square
or under the Masonic Lodge HQ on 16th st? Was that in the movie? :-)

The movie implied that that station gives access to wiring in the
Archives building.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by The Robinsons

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Speaking of Archives-Navy Memorial, that station has a significant
role in the movie I saw today -- "National Treasure".

Tell me, did they draw on Klaatu as a consultant? :-)

I've only seen one movie that involved Klaatu. It was set about a
mile west of that station.

Post by The Robinsons
So where is the secret intrance to the DUCC -- under Market Square
or under the Masonic Lodge HQ on 16th st? Was that in the movie? :-)

The movie implied that that station gives access to wiring in the
Archives building.

Nice bit fiction. Being that I have been all over the station
during construction I can say that it is total fiction.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
The movie implied that that station gives access to wiring in
the Archives building.

Nice bit fiction. Being that I have been all over the station
during construction I can say that it is total fiction.

Of course that movie is fiction. However, I'm not convinced that
you explored that station so thoroughly that you can be certain that
there's no access to the Archives building's wiring via a *pipe*
passing through the station, which is what I should have said.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Keith F. Lynch
The movie implied that that station gives access to wiring in
the Archives building.

Nice bit fiction. Being that I have been all over the station
during construction I can say that it is total fiction.

Of course that movie is fiction. However, I'm not convinced that
you explored that station so thoroughly that you can be certain that
there's no access to the Archives building's wiring via a *pipe*
passing through the station, which is what I should have said.

You may not be convinced, and I will let you be skeptical about
the statement I made. However I know what I saw when I went
through ever service and mechanical room in the station along
with the vent and fan shafts along the line from Gallery Place
to Waterfront back in the 1970s during construction.

The only conduits that enter the station are the conduits
for the phone lines for the pay phones and the two sets
of three phase power that go to the AC switch board room at
each end of the station.

I bet you didn't know that their are provision built into the
Archives station at the south end for a second entrance that
would give access to the station with surface escalators on one
or both sides of 7th street south of Constitution Avenue.

[The Robinsons]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Keith F. Lynch
The movie implied that that station gives access to wiring in
the Archives building.

Nice bit fiction. Being that I have been all over the station
during construction I can say that it is total fiction.

Of course that movie is fiction. However, I'm not convinced that
you explored that station so thoroughly that you can be certain that
there's no access to the Archives building's wiring via a *pipe*
passing through the station, which is what I should have said.

You may not be convinced, and I will let you be skeptical about
the statement I made. However I know what I saw when I went
through ever service and mechanical room in the station along
with the vent and fan shafts along the line from Gallery Place
to Waterfront back in the 1970s during construction.
The only conduits that enter the station are the conduits
for the phone lines for the pay phones and the two sets
of three phase power that go to the AC switch board room at
each end of the station.
I bet you didn't know that their are provision built into the
Archives station at the south end for a second entrance that
would give access to the station with surface escalators on one
or both sides of 7th street south of Constitution Avenue.

I guessed. How do they deal with flooding problems putting the
south end station hall under Constitution given that Constitution
is a former canal and almost at sea level?

[John R Cambron]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Keith F. Lynch
The movie implied that that station gives access to wiring in
the Archives building.

Nice bit fiction. Being that I have been all over the station
during construction I can say that it is total fiction.

Of course that movie is fiction. However, I'm not convinced that
you explored that station so thoroughly that you can be certain that
there's no access to the Archives building's wiring via a *pipe*
passing through the station, which is what I should have said.

You may not be convinced, and I will let you be skeptical about
the statement I made. However I know what I saw when I went
through ever service and mechanical room in the station along
with the vent and fan shafts along the line from Gallery Place
to Waterfront back in the 1970s during construction.
The only conduits that enter the station are the conduits
for the phone lines for the pay phones and the two sets
of three phase power that go to the AC switch board room at
each end of the station.
I bet you didn't know that their are provision built into the
Archives station at the south end for a second entrance that
would give access to the station with surface escalators on one
or both sides of 7th street south of Constitution Avenue.

I guessed. How do they deal with flooding problems putting the
south end station hall under Constitution given that Constitution
is a former canal and almost at sea level?

What flooding problems? The platform is I believe below sea level
like many station in the system, however Constitution Avenue is
well above sea level. The tops of the surface entrance escalators
would be above the elevation of the street and the ground around
the surface entrance would be graded such that water would would
be diverted to the existing storm drains in the street much the
same way surface entrances at other station are designed.

[The Robinsons]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by The Robinsons

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Speaking of Archives-Navy Memorial, that station has a significant
role in the movie I saw today -- "National Treasure".

Tell me, did they draw on Klaatu as a consultant? :-)

I've only seen one movie that involved Klaatu. It was set about a
mile west of that station.

(I was referring to "our" klaatu -- ***@ear..ops.org who has,
or used to have, an extensive and entertaining discussion of the
"secret Masonic theory" of DC mapmaking on his website. :-)

Other sites reference the "DUCC" a popular urban myth that there
is a "secret complex" deep under the city for use as a bomb shelter
that was funded by the Kennedy administration. The theory goes,
"Why else do you think the DC Metro was funded to such an extent?"
I for one, prefer to think of these things as occurring naturally...
the same way Tyson's naturally sprung up adjacent to certain
unheralded federal installations. :-)

[The Robinsons]

Post by David Lesher

Post by Keith F. Lynch

The new maps also have new names for two stations: "Rhode Island
Avenue - Brentwood," and "Archives - Navy Memorial - Penn Quarter."

Who decided that this name inflation was a good idea?

Bob Barr, who forced Metro to waste $400,000 on the Ronny Raygun
Airport renaming.
But I have to admit the New York Ave name is wrong anyhow. It
should be "Florida Ave."

It should be "Eckington" and it should have been built on the
north side of Florida Avenue, between the underpass and the
overpass. There was ample room for a station there. Eckington
is the name of the area where actual DC residents live nearby,
as opposed to the "NoMa" wasteland of XM Radio's imaginings.

[Mayer Samuels]

***@spamgourmet.com (Omari Norman) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
I have always wondered why Rhode Island Ave was not named

Post by Omari Norman
simply "Brentwood" to begin with...operators I have heard are not
using the new name for Rhode Island Avenue - Brentwood.

I believe that when they were originally planning the system, the
WMATA did not want to use the name Brentwood, because that was also
the name for a community in PG County along Rhode Island Avenue that
was about 5 miles away from the Metro station. They decided to name
the station Rhode Island Avenue.

Recently, the neighborhood around the station has gained notoriety
during the anthrax scare for the Brentwood postal facility (for which
there is a walkway that connects to the station). More and more
people are now familiar with that neighborhood as Brentwood, so they
added it to the station name.

[The Robinsons]

Excellent observations.

I have a HUGE beef with the fact that the new maps do not depict the
Wiehle Avenue extension as a "planned" extension, despite the fact
that it has passed all tests for inclusion on the official WMATA map.

This means either WMATA will be advertising itself as a complete
system from now on -- and never again depict planned extensions
on the official map -- or else they plan on wasting hundreds of
thousands of dollars replacing the maps they just made.

FYI, the Wiehle Ave. extension is the first five stations of the
multi-BILLION dollar Dulles line, and recieved all necessary fnding
approval prior to the completion of the current map, which shows
Metro as a completed system with no extensions planned!

The Dulles line will probably be listed as Orange prior to its
completion past Wiehle Avenue in Reston, since there's no point
in creating a separate color or a separate turnback at Stadium
prior to 2016.

Questions, comments? --BER

Post by Omari Norman
I wonder when Metro will change all the signs and maps in the system
and how long this typically takes. All the lighted maps inside
stations that I have seen have been changed already. Most Red Line
cars I have seen have also have had their maps changed, though I rode
in one Red car within the last couple of days whose maps were not
changed. Metro started changing maps at least a couple of days before
the station actually opened.
The new maps also have new names for two stations: "Rhode Island
Avenue - Brentwood," and "Archives - Navy Memorial - Penn Quarter."
Wait, I suppose I should not forget that the controversial "Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport" is now fully identified, and its
location is given as "Opposite N Terminal" rather than "Opposite
Terminal." I have always wondered why Rhode Island Ave was not named
simply "Brentwood" to begin with...operators I have heard are not
using the new name for Rhode Island Avenue - Brentwood.
New maps reflect the two new Blue Line stations: Morgan Boulevard and
Largo Town Center. There is a small blue sticker to cover these
stations, reading that the stations open in December (I forget which
day exactly.) This is a smart move, as when the stations open next
month there will only be a need to remove thousands of stickers.
Sometimes this sticker is misplaced slightly.
The new maps for the center of the cars (next to the emergency door)
feature greatly expanded directions for opening the emergency door and
evacuating the train. These directions now occupy so much space that
the map itself is now about the size of a letter-size sheet of paper.
New maps finally get rid of the old "Convention Center Information"
box in the lower right corner. Metro's customer service phone numbers
are now in the upper left corner, and the lower left corner tells us
that "Metro is Accessible" (at least when the elevators are
functioning.)
I have seen no other signage in the system changed at all, such as the
signs on the pylons listing the Red Line stations or the fares and
travel times signs on station manager booths (these still say simply
"Planned" for the New York Avenue station.) I wonder how long that
will take?
Most shocking to me is that the Metro map on the Web site is still out
of date, indicating "Under Construction" for New York Avenue. One
would think this map would be the easiest to change and one of the
more important ones. However, New York Avenue is listed in the list of
stations and within the past couple of days a photograph was posted.
Oh, there is no bike parking at New York Avenue.
Does anyone know if I can get an old map? Great tacky wall art.

[Tim Kynerd]

Post by The Robinsons
Excellent observations.
I have a HUGE beef with the fact that the new maps do not depict the
Wiehle Avenue extension as a "planned" extension, despite the fact that it
has passed all tests for inclusion on the official WMATA map.
This means either WMATA will be advertising itself as a complete system
from now on -- and never again depict planned extensions on the official
map -- or else they plan on wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars
replacing the maps they just made.
FYI, the Wiehle Ave. extension is the first five stations of the
multi-BILLION dollar Dulles line, and recieved all necessary fnding
approval prior to the completion of the current map, which shows Metro as
a completed system with no extensions planned!
The Dulles line will probably be listed as Orange prior to its completion
past Wiehle Avenue in Reston, since there's no point in creating a
separate color or a separate turnback at Stadium prior to 2016.
Questions, comments? --BER

The only excuse for this that I can think of is that WMATA wanted to
highlight the completion of the ARS and FINALLY, for once, have a map that
shows a fully completed system. I'm not saying that's a GOOD excuse; I'm
just saying it's the only one I can think of.

I agree with you that not showing a fully funded extension is a bad idea,
although if it's just this once I might be willing to forgive them for it.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Tim Kynerd

Post by The Robinsons
Excellent observations.
I have a HUGE beef with the fact that the new maps do not depict the
Wiehle Avenue extension as a "planned" extension, despite the fact that it
has passed all tests for inclusion on the official WMATA map.
This means either WMATA will be advertising itself as a complete system
from now on -- and never again depict planned extensions on the official
map -- or else they plan on wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars
replacing the maps they just made.
FYI, the Wiehle Ave. extension is the first five stations of the
multi-BILLION dollar Dulles line, and recieved all necessary fnding
approval prior to the completion of the current map, which shows Metro as
a completed system with no extensions planned!
The Dulles line will probably be listed as Orange prior to its completion
past Wiehle Avenue in Reston, since there's no point in creating a
separate color or a separate turnback at Stadium prior to 2016.
Questions, comments? --BER

The only excuse for this that I can think of is that WMATA wanted to
highlight the completion of the ARS and FINALLY, for once, have a map that
shows a fully completed system. I'm not saying that's a GOOD excuse; I'm
just saying it's the only one I can think of.

Acutely Tim, the maps published and posted after the southern
Green Line F route opened showed the two new stations that will
open next weekend on the G Route extension and the New York
Avenue station that opened last month as future. WMATA never
published and posted system maps of the completed 103 mile
system.

I personaly would liked to have seen a 103 mile system maps
without the G Route extension and the New York Avenue station
on it.

Post by Tim Kynerd
I agree with you that not showing a fully funded extension is a bad idea,
although if it's just this once I might be willing to forgive them for it.

My best guess we don't have the M Route Silver line shown as
future on the existing published and posted system maps is
because the station names and descriptions of locations have
not been totally finalized. Do you really think WMATA is going
to use Virginia highway route numbers as station name as they
are shown now in the planning and EIS documents?

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Tim Kynerd
I agree with you that not showing a fully funded extension is a bad idea,
although if it's just this once I might be willing to forgive them for it.

My best guess we don't have the M Route Silver line shown as
future on the existing published and posted system maps is
because the station names and descriptions of locations have
not been totally finalized. Do you really think WMATA is going
to use Virginia highway route numbers as station name as they
are shown now in the planning and EIS documents?

Dulles Rail is nowhere yet near being "fully funded".

[The Robinsons]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Tim Kynerd
I agree with you that not showing a fully funded extension is a bad idea,
although if it's just this once I might be willing to forgive them for it.

My best guess we don't have the M Route Silver line shown as
future on the existing published and posted system maps is
because the station names and descriptions of locations have
not been totally finalized. Do you really think WMATA is going
to use Virginia highway route numbers as station name as they
are shown now in the planning and EIS documents?

Dulles Rail is nowhere yet near being "fully funded".

The Wiehle Ave. segment is essentially funded from the perspective
of WMATA's rules for declaring something to be a planned extension
from a mapping perspective. I thought I was clear about this in my
previous note. That is the segment I'm referring to.

Those are WMATA's standards for inclusion on the map, not vague
political concerns about future cost overruns or what-not. As
john mentioned, there is one I forgot, and that is finalization
of station names. However, it should have been WMATA's
responsibility to see to it that these names were taken care of
ages ago. I mean, how long have these station locations been
under consideration?

For all the money that's been spent to date, We deserve to see
the names of the first five stations on the map by now -- don't
forget, WMATA still has an opportunity to muck about with the
actual station names after the line has been completed -- much
to our recent dismay. :-)

Delay in station naming means an extra $200,000 and an extra map
replacement between now and 2009. I would think you, Scott, of
all people, would be concerned about such a big waste of money
due to delay in getting info to the mapmakers who just produced
a similarly costly map change in time for the Blue Line opening.

The FRA has forwarded the matter to Congress for appropriations,
it's in engineering, and the local share is fully appropriated
(including a substantial tax overlay district requested by the
businesses themselves -- the first time I can recall landowners
lobbying State and Federal Gov'ts to pay for such a large share
of a non-freight rail facility). Barring confusion over station
naming, what else is there in WMATA's rulebook to prevent the
Phase I stations (Wiehle-West Falls Church) from being shown?

If they move around the Potomac River a bit they can even
fit all 11 stations on the existing map, by depicting the
outer end of the Dulles line as north-south. (I checked.)

--BER

[John R Cambron]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Tim Kynerd
I agree with you that not showing a fully funded extension is a bad idea,
although if it's just this once I might be willing to forgive them for it.

My best guess we don't have the M Route Silver line shown as
future on the existing published and posted system maps is
because the station names and descriptions of locations have
not been totally finalized. Do you really think WMATA is going
to use Virginia highway route numbers as station name as they
are shown now in the planning and EIS documents?

Dulles Rail is nowhere yet near being "fully funded".

The Wiehle Ave. segment is essentially funded from the perspective
of WMATA's rules for declaring something to be a planned extension
from a mapping perspective. I thought I was clear about this in my
previous note. That is the segment I'm referring to.

The only federal funding in the pipe line up to now is
preliminary engineer. No construction funding has been
appropriated from any source.

Post by The Robinsons
Those are WMATA's standards for inclusion on the map, not vague
political concerns about future cost overruns or what-not. As
john mentioned, there is one I forgot, and that is finalization
of station names. However, it should have been WMATA's
responsibility to see to it that these names were taken care of
ages ago. I mean, how long have these station locations been
under consideration?
For all the money that's been spent to date, We deserve to see
the names of the first five stations on the map by now -- don't
forget, WMATA still has an opportunity to muck about with the
actual station names after the line has been completed -- much
to our recent dismay. :-)
Delay in station naming means an extra $200,000 and an extra map
replacement between now and 2009. I would think you, Scott, of
all people, would be concerned about such a big waste of money
due to delay in getting info to the mapmakers who just produced
a similarly costly map change in time for the Blue Line opening.
The FRA has forwarded the matter to Congress for appropriations,
it's in engineering, and the local share is fully appropriated
(including a substantial tax overlay district requested by the
businesses themselves -- the first time I can recall landowners
lobbying State and Federal Gov'ts to pay for such a large share
of a non-freight rail facility). Barring confusion over station
naming, what else is there in WMATA's rulebook to prevent the
Phase I stations (Wiehle-West Falls Church) from being shown?
If they move around the Potomac River a bit they can even
fit all 11 stations on the existing map, by depicting the
outer end of the Dulles line as north-south. (I checked.)
--BER

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by The Robinsons

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Dulles Rail is nowhere yet near being "fully funded".

The Wiehle Ave. segment is essentially funded from the perspective
of WMATA's rules for declaring something to be a planned extension
from a mapping perspective. I thought I was clear about this in my
previous note. That is the segment I'm referring to.

The only federal funding in the pipe line up to now is
preliminary engineer. No construction funding has been
appropriated from any source.

State funding would make up about 25% of the whole, and local funding
would make up about 25% of the whole, and none of that construction
funding has yet been approved.

[The Robinsons]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by John R Cambron

Post by The Robinsons

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Dulles Rail is nowhere yet near being "fully funded".

The Wiehle Ave. segment is essentially funded from the perspective
of WMATA's rules for declaring something to be a planned extension
from a mapping perspective. I thought I was clear about this in my
previous note. That is the segment I'm referring to.

The only federal funding in the pipe line up to now is
preliminary engineer. No construction funding has been
appropriated from any source.

State funding would make up about 25% of the whole, and local funding
would make up about 25% of the whole, and none of that construction
funding has yet been approved.

Sure it has. The tax district (for the Wiehle Ave. segment)
has already been approved. And the State is obliged to raise
tolls on Dulles Toll Road to fund the other 25%, as it has
repeatedly promised FRA. They have to identify where the
money is coming from, y'know.

But feel free to continue believing the Washington Post's pap
about how the line "may not get built", because it doesn't appear
on the map. That's why it's not on the map, so transit opponents
in DC can continue to pretend nothing is definite. It is a very
insidious strategy leaving things off the map at the cost of
HUNDRED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in map making costs. Unlike the ICC,
the Dulles line has already completed planning. Engineering and
construction are the second stage it is in now.

--Brian

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by John R Cambron

Post by The Robinsons

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Dulles Rail is nowhere yet near being "fully funded".

The Wiehle Ave. segment is essentially funded from the perspective
of WMATA's rules for declaring something to be a planned extension
from a mapping perspective. I thought I was clear about this in my
previous note. That is the segment I'm referring to.

The only federal funding in the pipe line up to now is
preliminary engineer. No construction funding has been
appropriated from any source.

State funding would make up about 25% of the whole, and local funding
would make up about 25% of the whole, and none of that construction
funding has yet been approved.

Sure it has. The tax district (for the Wiehle Ave. segment)
has already been approved. And the State is obliged to raise
tolls on Dulles Toll Road to fund the other 25%, as it has
repeatedly promised FRA. They have to identify where the
money is coming from, y'know.

You posting bullcrap. None of that construction funding has yet been
approved, not for local, not for state, and not for federal. The
"Wiehle Ave. segment" would cost at least $1.8 billion for construction,
and such funding has NOT been allocated.

[The Robinsons]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
You posting bullcrap. None of that construction funding has yet been
approved, not for local, not for state, and not for federal. The
"Wiehle Ave. segment" would cost at least $1.8 billion for construction,
and such funding has NOT been allocated.

You don't know what you're talking about. Tysons/Reston businesses
voted to TAX THEMSELVES to the tune of $500 million dollars for the
entire 25% share of local funding. This tax district was APPROVED
OVER 6 MONTHS AGO. Virginia is already committed to raise the Dulles
tolls to provide their 25%. THE ONLY ARGUMENT IS HOW HIGH IT WOULD
GO -- HIGH ENOUGH TO PAY THEIR SHARE, or an EVEN MORE substantial
increase in tolls which got voted down. The status of the Herndon
tax district will not affect the outcome of the Phase I. Officials
know that the FRA's opinion about the Herndon line and hence the
viability of Phase II and availability of Herndon tax money will not
need to be issued until 2009 at the earliest -- after Bush has left
office.

This tax district would expire if the federal government do not
approve funding for their 50% share by 2006. The state of Virginia
is fully committed to spending the money that is already being raised
by two DEDICATED SOURCES OF FUNDING, CONTINGENT ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PONYING UP THEIR SHARE OF THE MONEY which they are compelled to do
since the FRA gave it a recommended rating. THEY ARE WAITING FOR MONEY
THAT IS HELD UP IN NATIONAL POLITICAL OMNIIBUS BILL LOGROLLING -- the
entire country is waiting for this money to be disbursed. Of course,
you can keep crossing your fingers and hope the Republicans oust the
Warner administration and sabotage the whole deal at the last minute.

--BER

[Scott M. Kozel]

You're posting bullcrap. None of that construction funding has yet been
approved, not for local, not for state, and not for federal. The
"Wiehle Ave. segment" would cost at least $1.8 billion for construction,
and such funding has NOT been allocated.

You don't know what you're talking about. Tysons/Reston businesses
voted to TAX THEMSELVES to the tune of $500 million dollars for the
entire 25% share of local funding.

Wrong.

This tax district was APPROVED OVER 6 MONTHS AGO.

Wrong.

Virginia is already committed to raise the Dulles
tolls to provide their 25%.

Wrong.

(Remaining belligerent incorrectness snipped)

[The Robinsons]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

You're posting bullcrap. None of that construction funding has yet been
approved, not for local, not for state, and not for federal. The
"Wiehle Ave. segment" would cost at least $1.8 billion for construction,
and such funding has NOT been allocated.

You don't know what you're talking about. Tysons/Reston businesses
voted to TAX THEMSELVES to the tune of $500 million dollars for the
entire 25% share of local funding.

Wrong.

Cite, please. Fairfax County voted to approve the Phase I tax district
with revised boundaries that did not include Herndon. The Phase II tax
district does not matter since federal funding for Phase I is not
contingent on the viability of Phase II. In fact, FRA under the current
administration is actively in favor of separating the two and making
Phase II optional and contingent on the success of Phase I. The Phase I
tax district covers the entire 25% local share of Phase I. No further
action is needed since businesses are allowed to petition local gov'ts
under state law to create special tax districts for infrastructure, and
that is what they did so.

Post by Scott M. Kozel

This tax district was APPROVED OVER 6 MONTHS AGO.

Wrong.

Cite, please.

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Virginia is already committed to raise the Dulles
tolls to provide their 25%.

Wrong.

That's a subjective opinion, isn't it? The State asked
people to consider raising the tolls by a huge amount.
They have asked for the stars and area drivers and
local politicians have told them to settle for the moon.
Nobody living in the Dulles corridor is lobbying to kill
the deal to fund the State share with toll increases.

Apparently you are asserting the Dulles line is dead,
since the funding plan I have described is the only one
that's ever been on the table. The only thing that changed
is they removed two stations in Tysons (making the line
MORE expensive to satisfy anti-transit zealots, since
combining the two tracks and eliminating the single-track loop
caused businesses to insist it be placed underground)
and Phase II got separated from Phase I to make it easier
for the Federal Government to fund Phase I.

FRA committed to recommend Phase I if the State took
Phase II out of the funding request, and the State did so.
To the best of my knowledge, FRA has already sent it on to
Appropriations with a recommended label. It's a line item
in one of the un-approved omnibus transportation bills.

These negotiations happened over a year ago. All the delay
is at the federal level due to national political gridlock
over the entire federal transportation budget. Phase I of
the Dulles Toll Road line is NOT one of the projects which
will be eliminated from the omnibus bill. Don't forget
Tom Davis III position in the Republican party.

Post by Scott M. Kozel
(Remaining belligerent incorrectness snipped)

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Scott M. Kozel
None of that construction funding has yet been
approved, not for local, not for state, and not for federal. The
"Wiehle Ave. segment" would cost at least $1.8 billion for construction,
and such funding has NOT been allocated.

You don't know what you're talking about. Tysons/Reston businesses
voted to TAX THEMSELVES to the tune of $500 million dollars for the
entire 25% share of local funding.

Wrong.

Cite, please. Fairfax County voted to approve the Phase I tax district
with revised boundaries that did not include Herndon. The Phase II tax

The local funding components have not received a final approval as in
"begin the taxing now".

The state funding components have not received a final approval as in
"begin the taxing now".

Also --

"No federal funding commitment for 50% or more exists. No member of the
area’s congressional delegation has expressed optimism of securing a 50%
federal commitment. If the federal government does not agree to this
letter, the region’s ability and willingness to fund a project of this
magnitude is in doubt".

"The public is being told that the federal government will pay 50% of
this project’s cost. Yet no such federal commitment exists. Few
consider it likely. No member of our congressional delegation has
expressed optimism that such levels are available".

Dulles Corridor Transit (Alliance Priority) - Profile
http://www.nvta.org/dulles.html

Also, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has not given final
approval to the project --

{begin quote from NVTA)

CTB Preferred Dulles Rapid Transit Option - A Clarification

On December 19, 2002 Virginia’s Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)
unanimously endorsed a resolution defining a locally preferred rapid
transit option for the Dulles Corridor. Headlines cried, “CTB endorses
Dulles Rail Project.”

In truth, the CTB did and it didn’t.

As adopted the resolution did support a Metrorail Alternative with the
T6 Alignment through Tysons Corner and Yard Site Y15 in Loudoun County.

At the same time, in the briefing before the vote, Department of Rail
and Public Transportation (DRPT) staff made clear that the resolution
supported BRT/express bus during the time in which rail evolves. Staff
also noted that:

* CTB selection of a locally preferred option is a necessary part of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process. Completion of the
DEIS with a designated locally preferred option is necessary for any
corridor transit project to be eligible for federal funding.
* Staff will continue to support further study/consideration/use of bus
options but does not want to preclude the rail option.
* CTB endorsement does not commit or imply CTB support for any final
project or price tag that evolves out of this process.
* The CTB will have additional opportunities to review and decide upon
this project and what constitutes a reasonable cost before any final
decision is made.

{end quote from NVTA)

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by The Robinsons
The Wiehle Ave. segment is essentially funded from the perspective
of WMATA's rules for declaring something to be a planned extension
from a mapping perspective.

It is? That's well past Tysons. Last I heard, not only was the
Tysons segment not fully funded, but they hadn't even agreed on how
many stations there would be, or where. And there was still talk of
perhaps using light rain or "bus rapid transit" instead.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by The Robinsons
The Wiehle Ave. segment is essentially funded from the perspective
of WMATA's rules for declaring something to be a planned extension
from a mapping perspective.

It is? That's well past Tysons. Last I heard, not only was the
Tysons segment not fully funded, but they hadn't even agreed on how
many stations there would be, or where. And there was still talk of
perhaps using light rain or "bus rapid transit" instead.

From;

http://dullestransit.com/

Here is the map of the line as it stands now;

http://dullestransit.com/htm/es/sdeis/rev-lpa.html

[The Robinsons]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by The Robinsons
The Wiehle Ave. segment is essentially funded from the perspective
of WMATA's rules for declaring something to be a planned extension
from a mapping perspective.

It is? That's well past Tysons. Last I heard, not only was the
Tysons segment not fully funded, but they hadn't even agreed on how
many stations there would be, or where. And there was still talk of
perhaps using light rain or "bus rapid transit" instead.

Well, you should stay up on things more. The "loop route" was eliminated.
A specific route was selected. Tysons Corner businesses voted to
TAX THEMSELVES FOR A SPECIFIC ROUTE EXTENDING TO WIEHLE AVE. That's what
the whole Herndon nonsense was about over a YEAR ago. The only reason it
hasn't been funded in the past YEAR is because of the Bush administration.

Post by John R Cambron
From;
http://dullestransit.com/
Here is the map of the line as it stands now;
http://dullestransit.com/htm/es/sdeis/rev-lpa.html

Where is the FEIS John?? They've had at least 9 months since the
Phase I tax district was approved (after Herndon threw a wrench into
things with the combined tax district, which really would not have
caused any delay if public officials didn't want it to.)

IIRC we have passed this stage and FRA has issued a recommended ruling
for the first phase of a TWO PHASE plan for Dulles Rail. This is all
set in stone people. Why are you guys being so vague about it like you
think it won't happen?? With Warner in office and this may be the only
project VA can afford at the moment.

No wonder you guys don't share my outrage that this isn't on the map.

--BER

[John R Cambron]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by The Robinsons
The Wiehle Ave. segment is essentially funded from the perspective
of WMATA's rules for declaring something to be a planned extension
from a mapping perspective.

It is? That's well past Tysons. Last I heard, not only was the
Tysons segment not fully funded, but they hadn't even agreed on how
many stations there would be, or where. And there was still talk of
perhaps using light rain or "bus rapid transit" instead.

Well, you should stay up on things more. The "loop route" was eliminated.
A specific route was selected. Tysons Corner businesses voted to
TAX THEMSELVES FOR A SPECIFIC ROUTE EXTENDING TO WIEHLE AVE. That's what
the whole Herndon nonsense was about over a YEAR ago. The only reason it
hasn't been funded in the past YEAR is because of the Bush administration.

Post by John R Cambron
From;
http://dullestransit.com/
Here is the map of the line as it stands now;
http://dullestransit.com/htm/es/sdeis/rev-lpa.html

Where is the FEIS John?? They've had at least 9 months since the
Phase I tax district was approved (after Herndon threw a wrench into
things with the combined tax district, which really would not have
caused any delay if public officials didn't want it to.)
IIRC we have passed this stage and FRA has issued a recommended ruling
for the first phase of a TWO PHASE plan for Dulles Rail. This is all
set in stone people. Why are you guys being so vague about it like you
think it won't happen?? With Warner in office and this may be the only
project VA can afford at the moment.
No wonder you guys don't share my outrage that this isn't on the map.

The various planning documents and various EIS document are available
for inspection at Farfax County Libraries in the study area.

As to the staus of the funding I will defer to others.

[Omari Norman]

Post by The Robinsons
Delay in station naming means an extra $200,000 and an extra map
replacement between now and 2009.

How would there be an extra map change? Assuming the new line opens
between now and 2009 (a big assumption) Metro will have to change the
maps at least once anyway: when the stations open. There is no need to
change them beforehand merely to indicate that the stations are
"planned" or "under construction." (Indeed, the three new stations to
open recently were shown as "Planned" on the maps in the system right
up until NY Ave opened; maps were not changed merely to reflect "under
construction.")

Regarding WMATA's eagerness to rename stations: if anything it seems to
me that WMATA gets dragged kicking and screaming into renaming
stations. The renames I can think of offhand (Rhode Island Ave,
Archives, National Airport, Grosvenor) have been at the behest of
elected officials, not Metro. Of course the National Airport
controversy is particularly notable.

[The Robinsons]

Because for political reasons, public officials are trying to shut down
WMATA's building program permanently, by contracting out and possibly
cutting in half the construction of the Dulles Line, and delaying it
till 2011. Washington Post's SPLASH ARTICLE on the Blue Line extension
says that Largo Ave. is the "end of the line for Metro expansion" (!!!)

and goes on to imply no one knows if the Tysons line will get built.
This is the political tenor we're working with. I guess "moral values"
mean we were wrong about the Dulles line (it had to get built ASAP in
2001, remember?) and wrong about transit. And you don't simply open
a line without putting it on the map as planned first, no transit agency
ever does that. It's TERRIBLE marketing. The fact our elected officials
are trying to pretend the Dulles line won't happen and encouraging the
dissilusion of Metro's capital building program is TERRIBLE planning.

The Bush Admin has spent 4 years stonewalling this line despite the
inevitability it would get built at least as far as Wiehle. The loss
of 2 stations, while regrettable, got taken care of back in 2002. I am
not surprised Kieth Lynch is not familiar that the end point of Phase I
got moved to Wiehle. I would have suggested Wolf Trap to save money,
but whatever. People need to care about Metro expansion capability
or it will lose that capability. Phase I was always, ALWAYS gonna end
with a station in the Toll Road median.

--Brian

Post by Omari Norman

Post by The Robinsons
Delay in station naming means an extra $200,000 and an extra map
replacement between now and 2009.

How would there be an extra map change? Assuming the new line opens
between now and 2009 (a big assumption) Metro will have to change the
maps at least once anyway: when the stations open. There is no need to
change them beforehand merely to indicate that the stations are
"planned" or "under construction." (Indeed, the three new stations to
open recently were shown as "Planned" on the maps in the system right
up until NY Ave opened; maps were not changed merely to reflect "under
construction.")
Regarding WMATA's eagerness to rename stations: if anything it seems to
me that WMATA gets dragged kicking and screaming into renaming
stations. The renames I can think of offhand (Rhode Island Ave,
Archives, National Airport, Grosvenor) have been at the behest of
elected officials, not Metro. Of course the National Airport
controversy is particularly notable.

[Peter Schleifer]

Post by The Robinsons
And you don't simply open
a line without putting it on the map as planned first, no transit agency
ever does that. It's TERRIBLE marketing.

The NYC MTA opened two subway segments in the 80's (Archer Ave, 1988
and 63rd St, 1989) that were not indicated on any map until the day
they opened. In 2001, when the 63rd St connection to the Queens Blvd
line was opened, it was shown on maps, but only because some service
was being diverted to the new segment during construction.

[slake]

Heres an idea...

maybe the maps will change before 2011 and the new line could be shown
on one of the newer maps. Assuming the Metro Center-Gallery Place
connector (06-08) and the F-North - F-West connector (07-09) are built
they will have to be placed on the map. At this time small changes can
also be made, new Ballston Entrance, New navy yard entrance..

Also will the new light rail project be on the map? How intergrated is
that going to be with the metro?

sl

[The Robinsons]

Post by slake
Heres an idea...
maybe the maps will change before 2011 and the new line could be shown
on one of the newer maps. Assuming the Metro Center-Gallery Place
connector (06-08) and the F-North - F-West connector (07-09) are built
they will have to be placed on the map. At this time small changes can
also be made, new Ballston Entrance, New navy yard entrance..
Also will the new light rail project be on the map? How intergrated is
that going to be with the metro?

Depends which one.

** The Purple Line -- is essentially going to be a Metro line, and
shown as such on the map. since trains would pull in parallel to
existing Metro trains at Silver Spring and New Carrollton (which
would become transfer stations) and the rest of the line would be
underground or elevated/excavated right of way. however,
proponents insist on using a non-compatible technology ("light" rail)
because they... well, they do not like Metro, feel it's a boondoggle,
and are opposed to system expansion. They started working on the project back in the 80's, when Metro was considered a failure by all right-thinking
policymakers. The whole thing is stupid since the Purple line would
run mostly either deep underground, box cut-n-cover under narrow streets,
or in a dedicated old railroad grade. It would parallel existing transfer
stations at several key points, so redundand, non-cross-platform transfers
would have to be built if it uses non-Metrorail technology, and it would
have essentially no on-street running, not to mention require a whole new
fleet of cars to complete the 3-mile jorney from Silver Spring to Bethesda
when dozens of Metro cars stop and turn back at the existing Silver Spring
station. WMATA just completed a 3-mile underground Metro extension for
the same price Maryland is quoting on a 3-mile non-metro compatible
shuttle between Silver Spring (existing terminus for half of all Red Line
trains) and Bethesda, MD on an old single-track railroad grade. Which is
all the Purple line would be, since nobodys gonna pay to put a light-rail
line underground, and there are no feasible surface routes east of
Silver Spring.

** The DC Streetcar -- this has been scaled back to a line that
makes relative sense, but would be very, very low traffic,
essentially a waterfront streetcar -- along the east side of the
Anacostia River using an old freight line. It would be very cheap
to build and only intersect with two (non-central) Metro stations:
Minnesota Avenue and Anacostia. and possibly far in the future it
would cross the river at 11th St SE and run on the surface
directly above the Green Line into downtown DC on 7th and M Street SW,
past the putative new ballpark, although this would not add any new
stations to the system and would require massive surface disruption,
so that's not going to happen.

** There's talk of BRT on K Street; this is all that remains of the
desperately needed Blue Line M Street (NW) / H St (NE) subway line
from Georgetown to Union Station to Benning Road (untangling the
Blue and Orange Lines) which is estimated to cost $$ billions...
Georgetown opposes light rail on M St NW and lobbied for the
subway proposal, which would certainly entail a massive increase
in system capacity and downtown redevelopment. Instead it got
scaled back to a mere rearranging of the bus lanes on K St which
is 2 blocks south of M St.

--BER

[slake]

I am aware of all the projects, my point was that there will probably
be plenty of projects in the future, prior to the silver line that
could require updating the metro maps.

sl

Post by The Robinsons

Post by slake
Heres an idea...
maybe the maps will change before 2011 and the new line could be shown
on one of the newer maps. Assuming the Metro Center-Gallery Place
connector (06-08) and the F-North - F-West connector (07-09) are built
they will have to be placed on the map. At this time small changes can
also be made, new Ballston Entrance, New navy yard entrance..
Also will the new light rail project be on the map? How intergrated is
that going to be with the metro?

Depends which one.
** The Purple Line -- is essentially going to be a Metro line, and
shown as such on the map. since trains would pull in parallel to
existing Metro trains at Silver Spring and New Carrollton (which
would become transfer stations) and the rest of the line would be
underground or elevated/excavated right of way. however,
proponents insist on using a non-compatible technology ("light" rail)
because they... well, they do not like Metro, feel it's a boondoggle,
and are opposed to system expansion. They started working on the

project back in the 80's, when Metro was considered a failure by all
right-thinking

Post by The Robinsons
policymakers. The whole thing is stupid since the Purple line would
run mostly either deep underground, box cut-n-cover under narrow streets,
or in a dedicated old railroad grade. It would parallel existing transfer
stations at several key points, so redundand, non-cross-platform transfers
would have to be built if it uses non-Metrorail technology, and it would
have essentially no on-street running, not to mention require a whole new
fleet of cars to complete the 3-mile jorney from Silver Spring to Bethesda
when dozens of Metro cars stop and turn back at the existing Silver Spring
station. WMATA just completed a 3-mile underground Metro extension for
the same price Maryland is quoting on a 3-mile non-metro compatible
shuttle between Silver Spring (existing terminus for half of all Red Line
trains) and Bethesda, MD on an old single-track railroad grade.

Which is

Post by The Robinsons
all the Purple line would be, since nobodys gonna pay to put a

light-rail

Post by The Robinsons
line underground, and there are no feasible surface routes east of
Silver Spring.
** The DC Streetcar -- this has been scaled back to a line that
makes relative sense, but would be very, very low traffic,
essentially a waterfront streetcar -- along the east side of the
Anacostia River using an old freight line. It would be very cheap
Minnesota Avenue and Anacostia. and possibly far in the future it
would cross the river at 11th St SE and run on the surface
directly above the Green Line into downtown DC on 7th and M Street SW,
past the putative new ballpark, although this would not add any new
stations to the system and would require massive surface disruption,
so that's not going to happen.
** There's talk of BRT on K Street; this is all that remains of the
desperately needed Blue Line M Street (NW) / H St (NE) subway line
from Georgetown to Union Station to Benning Road (untangling the
Blue and Orange Lines) which is estimated to cost $$ billions...
Georgetown opposes light rail on M St NW and lobbied for the
subway proposal, which would certainly entail a massive increase
in system capacity and downtown redevelopment. Instead it got
scaled back to a mere rearranging of the bus lanes on K St which
is 2 blocks south of M St.
--BER

[The Robinsons]

Post by slake
I am aware of all the projects, my point was that there will probably
be plenty of projects in the future, prior to the silver line that
could require updating the metro maps.

You asked me how integrated they would be with the Metro (i.e. enough
to be considered part of the Metrorail system and shown on the map)?
I answered. :-) OK, my answer was pretty long, though. Sorry.

Unfortunately, given all the dithering and hamstringing of rail
(especially new rapid rail, which has few friends in Washington)
projects which could be under construction now will not even be
FUNDED until after at least Phase I of the Dulles line is complete,
as far as Reston.

This does not apply to the cheap, quickie starter trolley DC wants
to build in Anacostia, but I'm not sure that would fit on the map
as anything other than a transfer icon (ie. Amtrak, VRE, trollwy).

That answer your concerns? :-) It might help explain why I am
concerned about this as I do not see any natural impetus for a
map revision, barring another Federal requirement that another
station in the system be named for a Republican President between
now and 2011. :-)

--Brian R.

[Omari Norman]

Hmm...on the Purple Line, what sort of traffic are they anticipating on
it? The current Metrorail system has immense capacity (most of which
goes unused most of the time) and I would be surprised if this sort of
immense capacity would ever be utilized on a New Carrollton-SS-Bethesda
route. Even if the current price tag for a SS-Bethesda light rail route
equals the cost of the Largo heavy rail extension, I'm not sure it
would make sense to build the immense infrastructure that would be
necessary to have fully compatible technology (especially because this
could only make the Purple Line even more expensive--and for what?)

Post by The Robinsons
** The Purple Line -- is essentially going to be a Metro line, and
shown as such on the map. since trains would pull in parallel to
existing Metro trains at Silver Spring and New Carrollton (which
would become transfer stations) and the rest of the line would be
underground or elevated/excavated right of way. however,
proponents insist on using a non-compatible technology ("light" rail)
because they... well, they do not like Metro, feel it's a boondoggle,
and are opposed to system expansion. They started working on the

project back in the 80's, when Metro was considered a failure by all
right-thinking

Post by The Robinsons
policymakers. The whole thing is stupid since the Purple line would
run mostly either deep underground, box cut-n-cover under narrow streets,
or in a dedicated old railroad grade. It would parallel existing transfer
stations at several key points, so redundand, non-cross-platform transfers
would have to be built if it uses non-Metrorail technology, and it would
have essentially no on-street running, not to mention require a whole new
fleet of cars to complete the 3-mile jorney from Silver Spring to Bethesda
when dozens of Metro cars stop and turn back at the existing Silver Spring
station. WMATA just completed a 3-mile underground Metro extension for
the same price Maryland is quoting on a 3-mile non-metro compatible
shuttle between Silver Spring (existing terminus for half of all Red Line
trains) and Bethesda, MD on an old single-track railroad grade.

Which is

Post by The Robinsons
all the Purple line would be, since nobodys gonna pay to put a

light-rail

Post by The Robinsons
line underground, and there are no feasible surface routes east of
Silver Spring.

[The Robinsons]

Post by Omari Norman
Hmm...on the Purple Line, what sort of traffic are they anticipating on
it? The current Metrorail system has immense capacity (most of which
goes unused most of the time) and I would be surprised if this sort of
immense capacity would ever be utilized on a New Carrollton-SS-Bethesda
route. Even if the current price tag for a SS-Bethesda light rail route
equals the cost of the Largo heavy rail extension, I'm not sure it
would make sense to build the immense infrastructure that would be
necessary to have fully compatible technology (especially because this
could only make the Purple Line even more expensive--and for what?)

No, it would not. Let me reiterate:

* WMATA just built a 3-mile, mostly-underground (cut-fill) suburban
extension for $400 million dollars -- less than the currently
quoted price for the 3-mile first leg of the Purple Line.

* The first leg of the Purple Line will be ENTIRELY grade separated.

* O & M Yards and trolley vehicles cost hundreds of millions of
dollars. The existing "unused" capacity on the Red line -- where
is it? The only unused capacity on the Red line is the following:
Half of all Red Line trains (3 min headways) TERMINATE at Silver
Spring where the Purple Line also terminates. Think about that
for a moment when you question the "needless expense" of making
the Purple Line compatible with existing Red Line infrastructure.

*

* There is nothing "massive" about the capacity proposed for the
Purple Line "trolley". Assuming it is not built as an ENTIRELY
grade separated train line (which would cost MORE than building
it as a metro line, since catenary is more expensive than 3rd rail),
it will be "built" as an on-street "busway" along narrow, winding
roads with 12 minute headways between buses or rail vehicles --
less than half of the rush hour capacity of existing bus lines on
the same narrow streets, which would ordinarily be eliminated.
IF YOU DON'T BUILD THE CAPACITY, PEOPLE WON'T COME.

* The Purple Line would run along and in some cases under a busy
rail-trail that is heavily forested. Us Metro-dependent, non-
car owning people are very familiar with the benefits of having
this trail. The only way to avoid completely deforesting the
right-of-way from beginning to end and rendering the trail
worthless for recreation or bikes is to put the rail line
directly under the trail, which runs along an old railroad
grade, as is done in Boston (Davis Squere) and presumably
Morgan Boulevard on the Blue Line extension that JUST OPENED.

* You may argue we can no longer afford subways in the suburbs
because the federal government is no longer paying for
anything beyond the ARS. The Blue Line extension that just
opened is not in the ARS. Furthermore, most of the remaining
Purple Line is already underground, even the College Park
section, despite the fact it's completely unnecessary to run
the trains underground through the wide-open College Park campus.

* The sections of Tysons, Silver Spring, Bethesda, Langley Park
and the College Park campus are more urban than large swaths of the
District and other areas currently served by Metro. Furthermore,
the bulk of Metro ridership comes from the suburbs. The whole
argument against Metro expansion from both Republicans and
Democrats is that suburb-suburb travel is where all the demand
is. They are right. These are concentrated destination points
and there's no good way to get from one point to the other for
those of us without a car. Take away the DC border and you
begin to realize these areas are part of the core urban complex.

I would appreciate your feedback on these points...

Thanks,

Brian R.

[Jack May]

You may argue we can no longer afford subways in the suburbs

Post by The Robinsons
because the federal government is no longer paying for
anything beyond the ARS. The Blue Line extension that just
opened is not in the ARS.

What does ARS stand for?

[John R Cambron]

Post by The Robinsons
You may argue we can no longer afford subways in the suburbs

Post by The Robinsons
because the federal government is no longer paying for
anything beyond the ARS. The Blue Line extension that just
opened is not in the ARS.

What does ARS stand for?

Area Regional System

[The Robinsons]

Post by The Robinsons
You may argue we can no longer afford subways in the suburbs

Post by The Robinsons
because the federal government is no longer paying for
anything beyond the ARS. The Blue Line extension that just
opened is not in the ARS.

What does ARS stand for?

ARS stands for the federally Approved Regional System that the
Johnson/Nixon Administration agreed to pay most of the cost for.

E.g. the Lincolnia Line out I-395 and Columbia Pike in Virginia
was planned as far back as the 1960s, and the areas around the
line were upzoned for Metro (high rise apartments and shopping
centers) around the same time as Rosslyn, and tail track provisions
exist for that line (the "Brown Line") west of the Pentagon station,
but was removed from the ARS at the last minute due to expense
of tunneling required over the short segment under Columbia Pike.

Whereas the feds paid for a very deep tunnel under Wheaton, MD,
in a much more suburban area, as late as 1990 because the
Red line extension to Glenmont was covered in the ARS. YMMV
(Your Mileage May Vary).

The object of my original post was to establish that Metro spent
less money building a recent subway extension that was not in the
ARS, meaning Maryland had to pay most of the cost, than Maryland
intends to spend on a much less practical trolley line connecing
the suburbas of Bethesda and Silver Spring, MD where infrastructure
already exists (built and paid for by federal taxpayers) to use
Metro instead, at less expense (no O&M yards, no additional vehicles,
no additional tunneling beyond what environmental impact will require
of any segregated rail facility, no catenary, no separate power source.)

And the Blue line extension is a very suburban area where frankly,
tunneling was not needed and the only reason it even needed Metro
in the first place was pure political reasons. IOW we could have
spent the same money on Metro between Bethesda and Silver Spring,
or some other purpose.

--BER

[George Conklin]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by The Robinsons
You may argue we can no longer afford subways in the suburbs

Post by The Robinsons
because the federal government is no longer paying for
anything beyond the ARS. The Blue Line extension that just
opened is not in the ARS.

What does ARS stand for?

ARS stands for the federally Approved Regional System that the
Johnson/Nixon Administration agreed to pay most of the cost for.
E.g. the Lincolnia Line out I-395 and Columbia Pike in Virginia
was planned as far back as the 1960s, and the areas around the
line were upzoned for Metro (high rise apartments and shopping
centers) around the same time as Rosslyn, and tail track provisions
exist for that line (the "Brown Line") west of the Pentagon station,
but was removed from the ARS at the last minute due to expense
of tunneling required over the short segment under Columbia Pike.
Whereas the feds paid for a very deep tunnel under Wheaton, MD,
in a much more suburban area, as late as 1990 because the
Red line extension to Glenmont was covered in the ARS. YMMV
(Your Mileage May Vary).
The object of my original post was to establish that Metro spent
less money building a recent subway extension that was not in the
ARS, meaning Maryland had to pay most of the cost, than Maryland
intends to spend on a much less practical trolley line connecing
the suburbas of Bethesda and Silver Spring, MD where infrastructure
already exists (built and paid for by federal taxpayers) to use
Metro instead, at less expense (no O&M yards, no additional vehicles,
no additional tunneling beyond what environmental impact will require
of any segregated rail facility, no catenary, no separate power source.)
And the Blue line extension is a very suburban area where frankly,
tunneling was not needed and the only reason it even needed Metro
in the first place was pure political reasons. IOW we could have
spent the same money on Metro between Bethesda and Silver Spring,
or some other purpose.
--BER

In the 1970s economists were claiming that the payback for the DC would be
200 years. Has that changed, according to the economists?

[John R Cambron]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by The Robinsons
You may argue we can no longer afford subways in the suburbs

Post by The Robinsons
because the federal government is no longer paying for
anything beyond the ARS. The Blue Line extension that just
opened is not in the ARS.

What does ARS stand for?

ARS stands for the federally Approved Regional System that the
Johnson/Nixon Administration agreed to pay most of the cost for.

Brian, ARS is Area Regional System.

Post by The Robinsons
E.g. the Lincolnia Line out I-395 and Columbia Pike in Virginia
was planned as far back as the 1960s, and the areas around the
line were upzoned for Metro (high rise apartments and shopping
centers) around the same time as Rosslyn, and tail track provisions
exist for that line (the "Brown Line") west of the Pentagon station,
but was removed from the ARS at the last minute due to expense
of tunneling required over the short segment under Columbia Pike.

This line was not part of the ARS and was not planed, and is
still not part of the ARS or planed. It was shown on the ARS
maps as "future", in those days along with the now open G Route
Largo extension, and the other future extensions and branches
on those maps.

Post by The Robinsons
Whereas the feds paid for a very deep tunnel under Wheaton, MD,
in a much more suburban area, as late as 1990 because the
Red line extension to Glenmont was covered in the ARS. YMMV
(Your Mileage May Vary).
The object of my original post was to establish that Metro spent
less money building a recent subway extension that was not in the
ARS, meaning Maryland had to pay most of the cost, than Maryland
intends to spend on a much less practical trolley line connecing
the suburbas of Bethesda and Silver Spring, MD where infrastructure
already exists (built and paid for by federal taxpayers) to use
Metro instead, at less expense (no O&M yards, no additional vehicles,
no additional tunneling beyond what environmental impact will require
of any segregated rail facility, no catenary, no separate power source.)
And the Blue line extension is a very suburban area where frankly,
tunneling was not needed and the only reason it even needed Metro
in the first place was pure political reasons. IOW we could have
spent the same money on Metro between Bethesda and Silver Spring,
or some other purpose.
--BER

[David Lesher]

Post by The Robinsons
Whereas the feds paid for a very deep tunnel under Wheaton, MD,
in a much more suburban area, as late as 1990 because the
Red line extension to Glenmont was covered in the ARS. YMMV
(Your Mileage May Vary).

Note deep tunnels do not necessarly cost more than less-deep ones.

That part of the Red Line is deep because that's where the bedrock
is; and it is far safer and easier to tunnel in bedrock than
less stable material....

[Jack May]

Post by David Lesher
Note deep tunnels do not necessarly cost more than less-deep ones.

But they do block the view according to one group at a transportation public
input meeting I once attended.

A group of women at the meeting lobbying for trains across the San Francisco
bay objected that a tunnel 70 ft underground to carry traffic from the
Dumbarton bridge would block access and the view of the SF Bay.

I was so stunned at the stupidity I was speechless. Just didn't realize how
far the train fetish people could descend into insanity.

[The Robinsons]

Post by David Lesher

Post by The Robinsons
Whereas the feds paid for a very deep tunnel under Wheaton, MD,
in a much more suburban area, as late as 1990 because the
Red line extension to Glenmont was covered in the ARS. YMMV
(Your Mileage May Vary).

Note deep tunnels do not necessarly cost more than less-deep ones.
That part of the Red Line is deep because that's where the bedrock
is; and it is far safer and easier to tunnel in bedrock than
less stable material....

David, you are stealing my argument. Of course the objection to having
to tunnel the first four miles of any line to Baileys Crossroads and
Lincolnia, is purely political, and perception-based. If the first 4
miles to Baileys were elevated and successful, they would gladly tunnel
the last 4 miles of the line even if they didn't need to. That is why
my website proposes building the middle section of the line first, and
temporarily tying it into the light rail line that is already in study.

Meanwhile, I hope you are having a nice holiday.

--BER

[The Robinsons]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by The Robinsons

Post by The Robinsons
You may argue we can no longer afford subways in the suburbs

Post by The Robinsons
because the federal government is no longer paying for
anything beyond the ARS. The Blue Line extension that just
opened is not in the ARS.

What does ARS stand for?

ARS stands for the federally Approved Regional System that the
Johnson/Nixon Administration agreed to pay most of the cost for.

Brian, ARS is Area Regional System.

Post by The Robinsons
E.g. the Lincolnia Line out I-395 and Columbia Pike in Virginia
was planned as far back as the 1960s, and the areas around the
line were upzoned for Metro (high rise apartments and shopping
centers) around the same time as Rosslyn, and tail track provisions
exist for that line (the "Brown Line") west of the Pentagon station,
but was removed from the ARS at the last minute due to expense
of tunneling required over the short segment under Columbia Pike.

This line was not part of the ARS and was not planed, and is
still not part of the ARS or planed.

I just said that. According to Zachary Schrag's website, the line
was planned (and the areas around the line were upzoned for Metro,
in case y'all didn't notice) but was removed from the DRAFT before
the ARS existed. In other words: it didn't make the final cut.

Although, John... I must say You have an odd way of advocating for
Metro expansion, since whenever I mention that a line has been on
the books in some form or another for the past forty years, you go
out of your way to point out that it was never officially planned
and therefore the average usenet reader must assume that this is
nothing more than a day-dream on the part of a few Metro-buffs.
Just wondering why you are so particular about trying to establish
that these lines were NEVER PLANNED, etc. It may not be the best
way of making a case that they should BE on the books, since it
kinda implies that planners have not explored the option of these
additional lines in great detail (down to including provision
for knockouts and up-zoning station areas along the route), or it
implies that the lines were considered and rejected very early on.

Post by John R Cambron
It was shown on the ARS
maps as "future", in those days along with the now open G Route
Largo extension, and the other future extensions and branches
on those maps.

Meaning it WAS planned, just like the G Route extension was planned,
even though it was never on the ARS (which is why, although PG did
a CRUMMY job of up-zoning around the stations, which didn't even
get developed until recently and yet STILL bear no relationship to
the new Metro stations, they DID preserve the right of way, meaning
the extension was planned, just not included in the ARS.
Same applies to the "Brown" line.)

BTW, what do you think of the (literal) Whitewashing of Metro's
color scheme on the three new stations? Brown pylons and brown
in general have been eliminated completely in favor of white.

I find it all very... symbolic of the shallow aesthetic (and
social) sense of a new generation of Washington planners.

And of course, this is the season of charity so I will not mention
the new canopy design.

Hope you are having a merry Christmas.

--Brian Robinson

[John R Cambron]

Post by The Robinsons

Post by John R Cambron

Post by The Robinsons

Post by The Robinsons
You may argue we can no longer afford subways in the suburbs

Post by The Robinsons
because the federal government is no longer paying for
anything beyond the ARS. The Blue Line extension that just
opened is not in the ARS.

What does ARS stand for?

ARS stands for the federally Approved Regional System that the
Johnson/Nixon Administration agreed to pay most of the cost for.

Brian, ARS is Area Regional System.

Post by The Robinsons
E.g. the Lincolnia Line out I-395 and Columbia Pike in Virginia
was planned as far back as the 1960s, and the areas around the
line were upzoned for Metro (high rise apartments and shopping
centers) around the same time as Rosslyn, and tail track provisions
exist for that line (the "Brown Line") west of the Pentagon station,
but was removed from the ARS at the last minute due to expense
of tunneling required over the short segment under Columbia Pike.

This line was not part of the ARS and was not planed, and is
still not part of the ARS or planed.

I just said that. According to Zachary Schrag's website, the line
was planned (and the areas around the line were upzoned for Metro,
in case y'all didn't notice) but was removed from the DRAFT before
the ARS existed. In other words: it didn't make the final cut.

Therefor it was not planed.

Post by The Robinsons
Although, John... I must say You have an odd way of advocating for
Metro expansion, since whenever I mention that a line has been on
the books in some form or another for the past forty years, you go
out of your way to point out that it was never officially planned
and therefore the average usenet reader must assume that this is
nothing more than a day-dream on the part of a few Metro-buffs.
Just wondering why you are so particular about trying to establish
that these lines were NEVER PLANNED, etc. It may not be the best
way of making a case that they should BE on the books, since it
kinda implies that planners have not explored the option of these
additional lines in great detail (down to including provision
for knockouts and up-zoning station areas along the route), or it
implies that the lines were considered and rejected very early on.

At this time I am neutral as far as expansion goes, with the
exception of the full Dulles project. As to advocating I call
the facts the way I see them. I will give kudos to the WMATA
planning people for looking long term 30, 50 and 75 years out
in providing provision for future line extensions, branch
routes and station entrances.

Post by The Robinsons

Post by John R Cambron
It was shown on the ARS
maps as "future", in those days along with the now open G Route
Largo extension, and the other future extensions and branches
on those maps.

Meaning it WAS planned, just like the G Route extension was planned,
even though it was never on the ARS (which is why, although PG did
a CRUMMY job of up-zoning around the stations, which didn't even
get developed until recently and yet STILL bear no relationship to
the new Metro stations, they DID preserve the right of way, meaning
the extension was planned, just not included in the ARS.
Same applies to the "Brown" line.)

Future in my dictionary does not translate in to planed. I
defined planed as a project that has a defined timetable when
a project well be started. None of these extensions had any
such timetable when shown in the ARS map published in the late
1960s and early 1970s.

Post by The Robinsons
BTW, what do you think of the (literal) Whitewashing of Metro's
color scheme on the three new stations? Brown pylons and brown
in general have been eliminated completely in favor of white.

I would not go as far as calling them Whitewashed. The graphic
pylons are pretty much a part of WMATAs designing past for
conveying directional information and station names. I will
predict that graphic pylons will start disappearing from other
station in the future starting with surface station platforms.
They have allready disappeared from a number of twin platform
subway stations.

Post by The Robinsons
I find it all very... symbolic of the shallow aesthetic (and
social) sense of a new generation of Washington planners.

I get the impression they are looking more at the bottom line
before putting forward grand designs.

Post by The Robinsons
And of course, this is the season of charity so I will not mention
the new canopy design.

Hey, When I saw the renderings for the first time I was
somewhat disappointed in the design. However I have grown
to except its simplicity and attempt to carry on the same
basic concept of the original cast in place concrete gull
wing canopy. Besides WMATA claims the new canopy design
is cheaper to build then the cast in place concrete. Better
to spent what little money WMATA can squeeze out of congress
and the state legislators on more track and tunnels then on
platform canopies.

Post by The Robinsons
Hope you are having a merry Christmas.

Yes, Thank you, and merry Christmas to and you family.

I gave myself and my mother a $144,000 Christmas present.
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/new-house/

[Omari Norman]

Post by The Robinsons
* WMATA just built a 3-mile, mostly-underground (cut-fill) suburban
extension for $400 million dollars -- less than the currently
quoted price for the 3-mile first leg of the Purple Line.

I'm still not sure this proves anything with regard to the cost of the
Purple Line segment. Just because Blue to Largo cost $400 million does
not mean that a segment of similar length elsewhere should also cost
$400 million only because it would be the same length. It is possible
that the engineering considerations for Purple would be entirely
different than those for Blue. Watershed conditions might be different,
more stations might be planned for Purple, different construction
techniques might be needed, etc. At any rate, I do not understand how
it would somehow make the Purple Line less expensive if you make the
platforms hundreds of feet longer and make the curve radii larger (most
light rail vehicles bend in the middle, unlike heavy Metro cars.) These
modifications could only make Purple *more* expensive, not less so.

Post by The Robinsons
* O & M Yards and trolley vehicles cost hundreds of millions of
dollars. The existing "unused" capacity on the Red line -- where
Half of all Red Line trains (3 min headways) TERMINATE at Silver
Spring where the Purple Line also terminates. Think about that
for a moment when you question the "needless expense" of making
the Purple Line compatible with existing Red Line infrastructure.

There is a great deal of unused capacity on the Red Line, even between
Grosvenor and Silver Spring, because WMATA runs only 6-car trains. The
platforms are long enough for eight cars, as we all learned during
cleanup from the Woodley Park crash. Further, you seem to be suggesting
that less capital investment in rolling stock would be necessary if
Purple could share equipment with the rest of Metro. I don't understand
why this would be the case because Metro currently uses all its
available equipment during rush hour service. There is no extra
equipment that could be used to run Purple service during rush hour.

Post by The Robinsons
* There is nothing "massive" about the capacity proposed for the
Purple Line "trolley". Assuming it is not built as an ENTIRELY
grade separated train line (which would cost MORE than building
it as a metro line, since catenary is more expensive than 3rd rail),
it will be "built" as an on-street "busway" along narrow, winding
roads with 12 minute headways between buses or rail vehicles --
less than half of the rush hour capacity of existing bus lines on
the same narrow streets, which would ordinarily be eliminated.
IF YOU DON'T BUILD THE CAPACITY, PEOPLE WON'T COME.

I understand that there is nothing "massive" about the capacity
proposed for the light-rail line; instead I was suggesting that
constructing a system that is compatible with current Metrorail would
involve the installation of massive capacity on Purple--capacity I am
not sure would be utilized.

I agree with you in that there would be little point in constructing a
non-grade-separated system. That would be a bus on tracks.

Post by The Robinsons
* The Purple Line would run along and in some cases under a busy
rail-trail that is heavily forested. Us Metro-dependent, non-
car owning people are very familiar with the benefits of having
this trail. The only way to avoid completely deforesting the
right-of-way from beginning to end and rendering the trail
worthless for recreation or bikes is to put the rail line
directly under the trail, which runs along an old railroad
grade, as is done in Boston (Davis Squere) and presumably
Morgan Boulevard on the Blue Line extension that JUST OPENED.

I don't care about the trail. The land was purchased for a transit
line, not a trail. Transit would serve many more people than does a
trail. Destroy the trail if that's necessary.

Post by The Robinsons
* You may argue we can no longer afford subways in the suburbs
because the federal government is no longer paying for
anything beyond the ARS. The Blue Line extension that just
opened is not in the ARS. Furthermore, most of the remaining
Purple Line is already underground, even the College Park
section, despite the fact it's completely unnecessary to run
the trains underground through the wide-open College Park campus.

I think aesthetics are worth something, but that's a value judgment
upon which rational people may disagree...

Post by The Robinsons
* The sections of Tysons, Silver Spring, Bethesda, Langley Park
and the College Park campus are more urban than large swaths of the
District and other areas currently served by Metro. Furthermore,
the bulk of Metro ridership comes from the suburbs. The whole
argument against Metro expansion from both Republicans and
Democrats is that suburb-suburb travel is where all the demand
is. They are right. These are concentrated destination points
and there's no good way to get from one point to the other for
those of us without a car. Take away the DC border and you
begin to realize these areas are part of the core urban complex.

I agree...connecting these areas with transit is an excellent idea.

[The Robinsons]

Post by Omari Norman

Post by The Robinsons
* WMATA just built a 3-mile, mostly-underground (cut-fill) suburban
extension for $400 million dollars -- less than the currently
quoted price for the 3-mile first leg of the Purple Line.

I'm still not sure this proves anything with regard to the cost of the
Purple Line segment. Just because Blue to Largo cost $400 million does
not mean that a segment of similar length elsewhere should also cost
$400 million only because it would be the same length. It is possible
that the engineering considerations for Purple would be entirely
different than those for Blue. Watershed conditions might be different,
more stations might be planned for Purple,

Not on the starter segment. I'm intimately familiar with the debacle
that is the Purple Line, unfortunately.

Post by Omari Norman
different construction
techniques might be needed, etc.

It's a very simple trench dug into a gravel railroad embankment.
The route is already graded and everything. Add extra cost for
a bridge over rock creek that would have to be built anyway.
The rest of the line should be UNDER the trail and cross streets,
which it will be anyway, in large part, if it is built as a trolley.
(Check the maps.)

Post by Omari Norman
At any rate, I do not understand how
it would somehow make the Purple Line less expensive if you make the
platforms hundreds of feet longer and make the curve radii larger (most
light rail vehicles bend in the middle, unlike heavy Metro cars.) These
modifications could only make Purple *more* expensive, not less so.

The curve radius is dependent on the route selected, which is a
freight railroad grade with very wide curve radius. Where were
you in opposition when Maryland planners decided to put the
College Park campus section of the Purple Line underground?
Not to mention the entire Silver Spring and Bethesda sections
of the line would be DEEP underground (hard rock tunnel) if the
line were extended towards White Oak or Langley Park, as the
State has promised it would be. Otherwise it's nothing more
than a real estate venture connecting SS and Bethesda central
business districts allowing them to build taller buildings
(which the law says can only be built if the Purple Line is built).

Post by Omari Norman

Post by The Robinsons
* O & M Yards and trolley vehicles cost hundreds of millions of
dollars. The existing "unused" capacity on the Red line -- where
Half of all Red Line trains (3 min headways) TERMINATE at Silver
Spring where the Purple Line also terminates. Think about that
for a moment when you question the "needless expense" of making
the Purple Line compatible with existing Red Line infrastructure.

There is a great deal of unused capacity on the Red Line, even between
Grosvenor and Silver Spring, because WMATA runs only 6-car trains. The
platforms are long enough for eight cars, as we all learned during
cleanup from the Woodley Park crash. Further, you seem to be suggesting
that less capital investment in rolling stock would be necessary if
Purple could share equipment with the rest of Metro. I don't understand
why this would be the case because Metro currently uses all its
available equipment during rush hour service. There is no extra
equipment that could be used to run Purple service during rush hour.

Huh? You are saying that Metro is overbuilt because it has capacity
for 8-car trains that it does not use, and would not use in the suburbs.
In point of fact, Metro has a severe car shortage and severe overcrowding
on most of its lines due to $$$ needed for 8-car trainsets, and the
8-car trains will be put into service on long-haul routes serving all the
suburban stations.

As for capital equipment, I don't think I've ever really clarified this
on this forum or elsewhere because I don't think it's ever been discussed.
I think people haven't really considered this:

Half of all Red Line Trains terminate every 6 mins. at Silver Spring
in the NORTHBOUND direction.

All Purple Line trains would terminate every 12 min at Silver Spring
on an ADJACENT PARALLEL TRACK in the SOUTHBOUND direction.

In addition to requiring new trainsets and new O & M technology,
which would need to be made compatible with a proposed conduit-based
DC streetcar fleet that is unlikely to be (re)built in our lifetimes,

The current proposal would require a separate station to be built at
Silver Spring, creating three parallel stations that have no direct
transfer (Metro, MARC and trolley!) The cost of the additional
station alone could be used to buy the Metro trains required to
make the Purple Line a Metro line (although it would not pay for
putting it under the trail for most of its length, which is not
technically necessary, since it is grade separated anyway --
although it will already be under the trail for at least part
of its length under the current proposal.)

This means riders like me -- few of whom are likely to do so in
point of fact -- must leave the system and walk practically around
the block on a vertical rise to catch a trolley which has 1/2 the
frequency/headways of the train they just got off, which entered the
Silver Spring station from the same direction as the trolley departs,
which is no more convenient than catching a bus from Silver Spring
to Bethesda (the J12 Bus, which I sometimes use). In other words,
I suspect there will be very few transfers under the current plan.

Making the initial leg of the Purple Line an OPERATIONAL EXTENSION
of the RED LINE FROM SILVER SPRING TO GROSVENOR would require at most,
one extra train out of a pre-existing Metrorail fleet that has
(or will have) dedicated capital funding for maintenance and acquisition
that has massive, dedicated O & M yards all across the metropolitan area.

Making it a trolley requires siezing all the land around one of the only
two stations on the line for an O & M Yard at Lyttonsville Road, serving
an entirely new fleet of vehicles, with separate mechanics and operators,
rendering the surrounding station area in West Silver Spring (flat, mostly
empty commercially zoned land near the Walter Reed annex) undevelopable.

Post by Omari Norman

Post by The Robinsons
* There is nothing "massive" about the capacity proposed for the
Purple Line "trolley". Assuming it is not built as an ENTIRELY
grade separated train line (which would cost MORE than building
it as a metro line, since catenary is more expensive than 3rdrail),
it will be "built" as an on-street "busway" along narrow, winding
roads with 12 minute headways between buses or rail vehicles --
less than half of the rush hour capacity of existing bus lines on
the same narrow streets, which would ordinarily be eliminated.
IF YOU DON'T BUILD THE CAPACITY, PEOPLE WON'T COME.

I understand that there is nothing "massive" about the capacity
proposed for the light-rail line; instead I was suggesting that
constructing a system that is compatible with current Metrorail would
involve the installation of massive capacity on Purple--capacity I am
not sure would be utilized.

Well, put it this way, whatever excess capacity exists on the turnback
Red Line trains once all the people depart from them at Silver Spring,
leaving them empty as they perform their 5-minute turnback maneuver,
should be sufficient to provide space for... whatever ridership there is
on the Purple Line, which a trolley at 1/2 the frequency and 1/4 its size
would be maxed out on, before it was ever extended, IF it was ever
extended (and it would cost alot more to put a 16-foot light rail tunnel
deep underground through East Silver Spring, than a 10-foot Metro tunnel).

This is a principle in Metro circles that there is such a thing as
unused turnback capacity. For instance, the Green Line north of
Mount Vernon Square has massive unused capacity in the form of the
existing Yellow Line trains that turn back at Mount Vernon Square.

Unfortunately, all the crowding on the Green Line is in the south
end where the Yellow Line can't serve, and the Yellow Line has few
trains. Even so, WMATA plans on extending half of the existing
Blue line trains to Greenbelt when the Silver Line goes into service
on the Orange/Blue line to take advantage of this unused capacity.

Same principle exists at Silver Spring. Same principle exists at
Grosvenor, in fact; if WMATA wanted, they could build a Red Line
spur to Montgomery Mall along the I-270 Spur without any change to
current operations.

Similarly, MD officials determined that there is "unused turnback
capacity" north of Shady Grove (assuming additional trains are added)
which would make Metro expansion to Germantown much preferable to a
light-rail shuttle from Germantown to Shady Grove in terms of cost
and populsrity. The same sort of determination could be applied here,
methinks. certainly the area around the Purple line is far more urban
than Germantown so is more likely to use the extra capacity. In any
case, Metro to Germantown is a lower priority because they want to
build a light rail line connecting Shady Grove to the office parks
along I-270 south of Gaithersburg. That's a place where light rail
makes sense (wide surface streets, low-density, no existing rapid
transit infrastruture).

Post by Omari Norman
I agree with you in that there would be little point in constructing
a non-grade-separated system. That would be a bus on tracks.

I hear you, unfortunately Action Committee for Transit (ACT),
the only transit advocacy group we have in these parts, wants
the Purple Line to be as trolley-like as possible. They actually
objected to increasing the speeds and eliminating grade crossings.

Methinks we need an additional transit advocacy group in DC.

Post by Omari Norman

Post by The Robinsons
* The Purple Line would run along and in some cases under a busy
rail-trail that is heavily forested. Us Metro-dependent, non-
car owning people are very familiar with the benefits of having
this trail. The only way to avoid completely deforesting the
right-of-way from beginning to end and rendering the trail
worthless for recreation or bikes is to put the rail line
directly under the trail, which runs along an old railroad
grade, as is done in Boston (Davis Squere) and presumably
Morgan Boulevard on the Blue Line extension that JUST OPENED.

I don't care about the trail. The land was purchased for a transit
line, not a trail. Transit would serve many more people than does a
trail. Destroy the trail if that's necessary.

I care about the trail because (a) it makes the rail line feasible
to walk or bike to, and (b) it is an important tree preserve which
is just about the only forested area in the subdivisions it passes
through. It's the only woodland those communities have left.

There's no reason they can't preseve as much as possible by trenching
the rail line under the trail bed, at least in the 1-mile section
between Jones Bridge and East West Highway, like they did in Boston's
Davis Square (although I suspect the problem there was buildings, not
trees). They built a gigantic new trail trestle over Rock Creek
without damaging too many trees by backing in all the earth movers
using the trail as a road.

In any case, if it's going to be grade separated either way,
it does not have to be put underground simply to make it an
operational spur of the RED line.

It could be made into a Metro spur simply by removing the
separate platforms (at Silver Spring) and catenary (along
its entire length) from the current design and removing the
one remaining grade crossing (a driveway). Therefore there
is really no extra cost involved. Putting it in a trench
under the trail bed is purely an environmental measure I am
suggesting, that has nothing to do with what type of trains
are needed (Metro or light rail.)

Post by Omari Norman

Post by The Robinsons
* You may argue we can no longer afford subways in the suburbs
because the federal government is no longer paying for
anything beyond the ARS. The Blue Line extension that just
opened is not in the ARS. Furthermore, most of the remaining
Purple Line is already underground, even the College Park
section, despite the fact it's completely unnecessary to run
the trains underground through the wide-open College Park campus.

I think aesthetics are worth something, but that's a value judgment
upon which rational people may disagree...

My question is,
what's wrong with an elevated track running along the north side
of campus between Comcast Center and Byrd Stadium (north side of
the Student Center complex curving around the campus). That is
what I assumed. Instead they want a subway running directly under
narrow, winding Campus Drive for 2 miles... That's as much subway
as they're proposing *not* to build on the trail portion, which is
heavily wooded. So I propose we scrap the tunnel in College Park,
which is a wide-open institutional campus suitable for elevated
tracks, even the Paint Branch Parkway portion is suitable for
elevated tracks, and use the savings to do environmental mitigation
(i.e. sinking portions in heavily wooded areas of the rail route).
I care more about the trees than the actual property values.

Post by Omari Norman

Post by The Robinsons
* The sections of Tysons, Silver Spring, Bethesda, Langley Park
and the College Park campus are more urban than large swaths of the
District and other areas currently served by Metro. Furthermore,
the bulk of Metro ridership comes from the suburbs. The whole
argument against Metro expansion from both Republicans and
Democrats is that suburb-suburb travel is where all the demand
is. They are right. These are concentrated destination points
and there's no good way to get from one point to the other for
those of us without a car. Take away the DC border and you
begin to realize these areas are part of the core urban complex.

I agree...connecting these areas with transit is an excellent idea.

The ideal scenario (regardless of whether it's light rail or heavy rail
although Metro would be more feasible) is a straight shot from Tysons
to Laurel via the Capital Crescent trail --> Burtonsville Road -->
Capital Beltway (between Forest Glen and Four Corners) --> Colesville
Road --> White Oak --> Calverton/Beltsville --> through the massive
new development proposed north of Beltsville on currently empty land -->
CSX "green line" route serving Laurel. This would be a 20-mile
straight shot, serviceable at high speeds.

--Brian

[Keith F. Lynch]

I am not surprised Kieth Lynch is ...

I've corrected your spelling of my name before, so I can only assume
your are misspelling it deliberately. Someone who thinks that's a
valid debating tactic is not someone worth debating with.

*Plonk*

[The Robinsons]

Wow, what's your problem? There was nothing hostile about my
earlier message. Your name is easy to misspell accidentally.
I before E and all that.

I am sorry you feel the need to close your ears, especially
since I seem to be the only person on this forum who agrees
with even half of what you have to say.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

I am not surprised Kieth Lynch is ...

I've corrected your spelling of my name before, so I can only assume
your are misspelling it deliberately. Someone who thinks that's a
valid debating tactic is not someone worth debating with.
*Plonk*
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by The Robinsons
Wow, what's your problem? There was nothing hostile about my
earlier message. Your name is easy to misspell accidentally.
I before E and all that.

Ok, I'll take you at your word, and unplonk you. (I saw your message
since I frequently do Google Groups searches for my name. This isn't
affected by any killfile.) I assumed it was deliberate since you had
done it before, and since, according to Google Groups, nobody else has
misspelled it in the past four years. In those four years, it's been
spelled correctly 85,300 times.

Post by The Robinsons
... I seem to be the only person on this forum who agrees with even
half of what you have to say.

Not true.

[The Robinsons]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by The Robinsons
Wow, what's your problem? There was nothing hostile about my
earlier message. Your name is easy to misspell accidentally.
I before E and all that.

Ok, I'll take you at your word, and unplonk you. (I saw your message
since I frequently do Google Groups searches for my name. This isn't
affected by any killfile.) I assumed it was deliberate since you had
done it before, and since, according to Google Groups, nobody else has
misspelled it in the past four years. In those four years, it's been
spelled correctly 85,300 times.

Post by The Robinsons
... I seem to be the only person on this forum who agrees with even
half of what you have to say.

Not true.

Well, there isn't alot of interest in pedestrian areas generally, as
illustrated by the greenfields development around Morgan Blvd. And MD
state highway association is trying to fence in the medians in Langley
Park, MD due to high numbers of pedestrians to force them to use the
crosswalks under the explicit assumption there are "too many pedestrians
who are not used to the American way of life". We are simply fortunate
to live in an older urbanized area as opposed to, say, Fort Lauderdale.
None of the new road construction outside the District is pedestrian
friendly in the slightest.