Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with this. Not having an express track is really causing problems now that Metro is being used more heavily by more people.
Honestly, Metro does not need the type of Express track NYC has. A NYC style express track would require two new tunnels per line. So basically building the entire system a second time. That is way too expensive to ever happen.
I think a more realistic approach for Metro would be a "rush hour" 3rd track where trains can pass each other going into the city.. then move back to the normal track on their way out. For evening rush hour they would do the opposite. So we would be looking at one new tunnel per line. However, the Blue, Silver, Green and Yellow lines will eventually share their express tunnel once they get closer to the city.
An even cheaper alternative to that would be pocket tunnels around stations where express trains can just by-pass certain stations. This would also help when a train breaks down at a station because some idiot jammed the doors. The trains behind can simply by-pass that station and not be delayed.
I would imagine building a 3rd track in the above ground sections of the system would not be that expensive depending on the approach.
Logistically I don't think that can be done. There definitely isn't room for express tracks on the orange or silver lines since they're in the middle of a highway. I also doubt that Metro would be able to manage having trains constantly changing tracks -- the control center barely can manage the two tracks we have now.
The best way to add capacity is just to separate the lines so they're not sharing tracks. Building a new Potomac River crossing with a separated blue line would add capacity for 25 more trains per hour. WMATA also studied and recommended separating the yellow and green lines with a new tunnel down like 9th Street. Of course this all costs tons of money so we might all be dead before any of this ever got built.
LOL. The Purple Line will not relieve congestion anymore than.....any new rail line somewhere will relieve congestion. It won't really remove it that much though, as people are going to be inclined to drive up until they would be connecting into a safe, viable, reasonably priced Metro system. Which they're not.
To call this point of yours "silly" would be charitable - it's outright fiction. I support a lot of money being spent on area transit. Just not on ridiculous over-priced projects like this - a suburban E-W connector that is slower than the average speed of local buses..........and is a route better served by buses. Particularly given a $2.1 billion (before over-runs) price tag.
The transit corridors most traveled and needing improvement run into DC. The money should be spent to get more car commuters to use those....BY SPENDING MONEY TO IMPROVE THEM.
One certainly can compare cost over-runs on same-region multi-billion dollar rail projects, and one should. The driving factor on cost over-runs is that local politicians purposely under-estimate the costs in the first place - just look at how Hogan magically eliminated appx $2250 million from the cost of the Purple Line supposedly without compromising efficiency.
Or wait.....maybe you possess some crucial database on heavy-rail project over-runs vs. light-rail project over-runs ? Please present that, if so. Otherwise admit that this "point" you make is totally specious.
People like you were trying hard back in the 1960's to stop Metro from being build so that (you guessed it) buses could be used instead to save $$$. Thank God the more sensible people won.
I know you're concerned about the stock prices of whatever bus manufacturing company you work for. Don't worry, buses are not going anywhere. But they are not the answer to every traffic or congestion problem. There is a reason cities like DC, NYC, Chicago and Philly can provide walkable, car-free living in a way places like LA and Houston cannot. The latter cities were built around cars and buses. Just look at LA. See how great buses are working for them. WHY does everyone have a car? Because buses are too slow. Look at NYC. Why do so many people NOT have cars? Because of the Subway system. This is a fact by the way not my opinion.
LA is also trying to expand rail to fix their congestion problems.
[quote]To sink to your level of discourse and use your type of language; as usual you don't understand the issue and have once again posted pure crap. At best.
The Purple Line will be composed of 2-car trains, which have smaller cars than a metro trains. Hardly a significantly larger amount of capacity than buses, which could more cheaply be increased anyways.
Do you actually know anything about that which you babble about ? [\quote]
Nevermind, I'm not even going to respond. You are like trying to have a debate with Donald Trump. Facts just don't matter.
Based on the Google maps traffic maps, the commute looks normal. If everyone went to work then we would see how valuable Metro is.
But he next question would be, did the people go to work? If all the subway riders stay home, of course the commute will look normal. Plus this type of thing can scare off car commuters too, who might decide to just stay home.
Transit shutdowns have been known to even improve traffic conditions for a short time. More people car pooling and staying home will of course improve traffic conditions. But the local economy takes a big hit from it, and at some point people have to go back to work. Then the commutes get worse.
Logistically I don't think that can be done. There definitely isn't room for express tracks on the orange or silver lines since they're in the middle of a highway. I also doubt that Metro would be able to manage having trains constantly changing tracks -- the control center barely can manage the two tracks we have now.
The best way to add capacity is just to separate the lines so they're not sharing tracks. Building a new Potomac River crossing with a separated blue line would add capacity for 25 more trains per hour. WMATA also studied and recommended separating the yellow and green lines with a new tunnel down like 9th Street. Of course this all costs tons of money so we might all be dead before any of this ever got built.
I agree. Making the lines more independent would be a huge improvement and probably the cheapest option. I think the most likely project to actually happen is re-routing of the Blue line to ease the congestion at Rosslyn. I really believe it will happen in the next 20-30 years. I know Metro is also building a new Potomac Yard station.
I'm very optimistic now that Paul Wiedefeld is in charge. I think he wants "fixing metro" to be his legacy. He seems to care about improving the system on a level that past GM's did not. His bold moves and communication will help metro get more funding and be taken more seriously. Not to mention the fact that population boom in the area is not slowing down and all those new people mean more tax $$$ flowing in to provide more funding for more projects.
I'm not bothering to quote it, but someone said that there is no rode the follows the Purple line route. I don't think that's entirely true. MD-410 is close to following the route.
To sink to your level of discourse and use your type of language; as usual you don't understand the issue and have once again posted pure crap. At best.
The Purple Line will be composed of 2-car trains, which have smaller cars than a metro trains. Hardly a significantly larger amount of capacity than buses, which could more cheaply be increased anyways.
Do you actually know anything about that which you babble about ?
I ignore because the point is pure crap. (To use your words again. )
Buses in this area travel, on average, faster than the 17 mph Purple Line will.
Again, do you know anything about this subject ? Please learn.
Also, the Purple Line will be above ground and thus subject to weather conditions. Quite possibly, moreso as it could be more difficult to clear rail lines than roads.
Quite easily solved through additional bus lines that will be FAR cheaper than a $2.1 (before over-runs) rail line.
Make buses (and Metro) more economically viable with lower pricing. That would cost a lot less than sinking billions into a light-rail line.
Yes, we should invest in a Purple Line if and when we need it, and it is a cost-effective improvement. We clearly don't, and it clearly is not.
People like you are just happy to slurp a little bit at the federal trough.
Parochial thinking that has resulted in the current debacle known as Metro. Nice to see you subscribe to that also.
A lot of your arguments are based on assumptions about the Purple Line. For instance.. 2-car trains. Does that mean it won't be able to expand to 4 or 6 car trains later? Metro started out with only 4-car trains. Now they run only 6-car and 8-car trains. So things change and improve over time. For some reason you cannot grasp this.
The bottom line is: Rail > Buses. Nothing you say will change that.
Buses have their place. However, they are best for SHORT commutes that are only a few miles. Rail has abilities and advantages that buses cannot compete with. Nothing you say will change that.
Me and others on this forum can explain to you why you are wrong. However, we can't make you believe it. Either way.. the Purple Line is happening whether you like it or not. So you have already lost this argument. Clearly your arguments were not strong enough to stop the project. And I think that is because your arguments are impotent and short sighted.
Me too. Verrrrrrrrry optimistic.........that we hired an airport guy to be in charge of our mass transit system and have no plan whatsoever to raise the revenue to rehabilitate the system.
Right.. because he wasn't something else before he was an "airport" guy. Its not like people EVER change careers lol. I was doing something else before my current job. So what? I'm still very successful in my current job.
Nope - what "won" the Purple Line argument was the desire for the state of Maryland and a couple counties to slurp at the federal trough, even though they knew the project was bad. (See Hogan's long-standing opposition.)
That and the developers desire to build up a section of Chevy Chase along Connecticut Ave. But you probably don't even know anything about that.
And what is wrong with building up a section of Chevy Chase along Connecticut Ave? You do realize the population of the area is growing and expected to eventually double right?
All these new people will need homes, jobs, transportation, etc.
This goes back to my earlier point about how you have no ability to see beyond 2016. This is some real lizard brain stuff. I'm finished. Continue if you want.
Sigh.. I realize asking you to respect each other even if you disagree is pointless at this .. well, point. So here's the deal: despite the war some of you seem to be waging at each other, I won't close this - the discussion is on point and potentially constructive. All I ask for is that you don't cross the line as that will force me to close this and/or issue infractions. And I don't think I'd be mistaken if I said no one wants that.
Yac.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Otherwise admit that this "point" you make is totally specious.
[\quote]
If all the subway riders stay home, of course the commute will look normal. Plus this type of thing can scare off car commuters too, who might decide to just stay home. 
