The Streetcar Is Dead. Now What?

[mstone]

@AFHokie 100538 wrote:

Based on my balcony observations, I feel a large percentage of Pike traffic is transient headed to the Pentagon, downtown etc. The argument against a another Metro line citing a lack of population on the route ignores this traffic. If people in Fairfax Station, Burke, Annandale, etc had commuter lot/Metro options would it take a significant portion of vehicular traffic off the Pike? Out of curiosity, was the population density along the Orange greater than what the Pike density is today when it was first conceived?[/quote]

Columbia Pike doesn’t actually have all that many vehicles per day (less than 30k, IIRC, compared to something like 170k for 66). (Its transit share is actually phenomonally high, which is one of the reasons that increasing transit capacity was so attractive.) So it’s doubtful that a change in transit options would significantly affect traffic volumes due to long distance commuters as those people are mostly using other routes anyway. The pike streetcar project was intended to be mostly local and spur increased density along the pike, not provide for people in Burke. As to your question about densities, current levels are irrelevant–the question is what the expected density is over the long-term. When the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor was being planned, the expectation was that there would be significant density in the future to justify the heavy rail investment (with the increased tax revenue paying for it). Columbia Pike was considered for a metro line but Arlington specifically did not want to zone that corridor for 10+ story buildings and so it didn’t move forward. I am not aware of any movement in Arlington to change the zoning that much, to turn Columbia Pike into another Wilson Blvd. (Nor do I think Arlington has any ability to fill that much new development even if the community did a 180 and bought into the idea.) The projections were that increased mid-density development would generate something like $800M over 30 years–enough to justify a $300M investment, even without the benefits for existing transit riders, but not nearly enough to justify a $4000M heavy rail line.

Side note: this is what’s so frustrating about the plan being canceled. There were detailed analyses of the available options, but there are so many people ignoring those analyses and talking about things that simply aren’t practical. I understand that people in your building wanted a dedicated lane, but there is no way for that to happen. So excluding the non-existent option, is there a plan that provides more of a capacity & usability increase than the streetcar? I think the people who are pro-transit and anti-streetcar are going to be sorely disappointed in what that leaves on the table.

[chris_s]

@mstone 100544 wrote:

So excluding the non-existent option, is there a plan that provides more of a capacity & usability increase than the streetcar? I think the people who are pro-transit and anti-streetcar are going to be sorely disappointed in what that leaves on the table.

Expect stop consolidation (fewer stops, so the buses can move faster), off-board fare collection (so people can get on an off through ALL doors instead of having to line up single file going into a SINGLE door and waiting while each person tries to put their farecard through the machine), signal priority (if the light is about to turn red but senses a bus approaching it will hold the light green for a few seconds longer to let the bus through). Beyond that, you’re looking at maybe route simplification (because the current service is confusing) and hopefully some additional express service.

[mstone]

@chris_s 100574 wrote:

Expect stop consolidation (fewer stops, so the buses can move faster), off-board fare collection (so people can get on an off through ALL doors instead of having to line up single file going into a SINGLE door and waiting while each person tries to put their farecard through the machine), signal priority (if the light is about to turn red but senses a bus approaching it will hold the light green for a few seconds longer to let the bus through). Beyond that, you’re looking at maybe route simplification (because the current service is confusing) and hopefully some additional express service.

Honestly, I don’t even expect that. Who’s going to champion any of it and who’s going to pay for it?

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 100575 wrote:

Honestly, I don’t even expect that. Who’s going to champion any of it and who’s going to pay for it?

Just FYI, the Metroway stations on the CCPY dedicated transitway in Alexandria currently do not have offboard fare collection or all door boarding, but that (along with real time bus info) is supposed to be implemented in 2015 – maybe timed for the opening of the Arlington dedicated lanes.

[chris_s]

@mstone 100575 wrote:

Honestly, I don’t even expect that. Who’s going to champion any of it and who’s going to pay for it?

Every single board member is saying that they are for transit improvements on the Pike and there is a long line of people ready to shout it to the rooftops if they start to waffle on it.

I expect the $65 million for “fixed guideway transit” that the State came up with is as good as gone, but the rest of the State money (formula funds) should still be applicable to bus improvements. The local TCF money is still available as well. I think the regional money is now a harder sell, but is still within the realm of possibility.

[mstone]

@chris_s 100582 wrote:

Every single board member is saying that they are for transit improvements on the Pike and there is a long line of people ready to shout it to the rooftops if they start to waffle on it.

I guess we’ll see.

[AFHokie]

@mstone 100544 wrote:

Columbia Pike doesn’t actually have all that many vehicles per day (less than 30k, IIRC, compared to something like 170k for 66). (Its transit share is actually phenomonally high, which is one of the reasons that increasing transit capacity was so attractive.) So it’s doubtful that a change in transit options would significantly affect traffic volumes due to long distance commuters as those people are mostly using other routes anyway. The pike streetcar project was intended to be mostly local and spur increased density along the pike, not provide for people in Burke. As to your question about densities, current levels are irrelevant–the question is what the expected density is over the long-term. When the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor was being planned, the expectation was that there would be significant density in the future to justify the heavy rail investment (with the increased tax revenue paying for it). Columbia Pike was considered for a metro line but Arlington specifically did not want to zone that corridor for 10+ story buildings and so it didn’t move forward. I am not aware of any movement in Arlington to change the zoning that much, to turn Columbia Pike into another Wilson Blvd. (Nor do I think Arlington has any ability to fill that much new development even if the community did a 180 and bought into the idea.) The projections were that increased mid-density development would generate something like $800M over 30 years–enough to justify a $300M investment, even without the benefits for existing transit riders, but not nearly enough to justify a $4000M heavy rail line.

Side note: this is what’s so frustrating about the plan being canceled. There were detailed analyses of the available options, but there are so many people ignoring those analyses and talking about things that simply aren’t practical. I understand that people in your building wanted a dedicated lane, but there is no way for that to happen. So excluding the non-existent option, is there a plan that provides more of a capacity & usability increase than the streetcar? I think the people who are pro-transit and anti-streetcar are going to be sorely disappointed in what that leaves on the table.

Technically, expanding the Pike is possible, but it is not practical and I doubt it could get finished in a completely ethical manner. It would be akin to the original 1950’s construction of Boston’s Central Artery. However, I’m not looking at the Pike in a vacuum. A Metro line would also take a significant portion of the 60k vehicles off of Rt 50 as well as traffic off of Rt 1, 7, 236& 95/395/495. If it makes more sense, run a line along Rt 50 or elsewhere. Personally, I think under the Pike makes the most sense as stations would be walkable, but likely cheaper to build along Rt 50.

I think current density levels are quite relevant. The linked ArcGIS map from ESRI shows census Bureau population density data with Metro lines/stops overlaid. Density along the Pike is similar to the Wilson Blvd and Crystal City areas; what’s missing? A Metro line. 395 and Glebe east of 395 are similar. That’s why I suggest rerouting the Blue to follow 395. They have some of the highest densities without Metro access in VA. The Mark Center, the new NGA building and the new medical center on Ft. Belvoir north bring significant amounts of traffic to and through these locations as well. Why aren’t we looking at options for these locations? Its not Arlington’s problem to solve alone, but it is a problem that needs addressed.
WMATA lines and stations with population density

[dasgeh]

@AFHokie 100604 wrote:

WMATA lines and stations with population density

Cool map. Makes me think the Silver line should head up 16th St NW then on to Takoma Park/Aldelphi. After heading down Lee Hwy, across the Potomac at a new Three Sisters Bridge and through Georgetown, of course.

[lordofthemark]

@AFHokie 100604 wrote:

Technically, expanding the Pike is possible, but it is not practical and I doubt it could get finished in a completely ethical manner. It would be akin to the original 1950’s construction of Boston’s Central Artery. However, I’m not looking at the Pike in a vacuum. A Metro line would also take a significant portion of the 60k vehicles off of Rt 50 as well as traffic off of Rt 1, 7, 236& 95/395/495. If it makes more sense, run a line along Rt 50 or elsewhere. Personally, I think under the Pike makes the most sense as stations would be walkable, but likely cheaper to build along Rt 50.

I think current density levels are quite relevant. The linked ArcGIS map from ESRI shows census Bureau population density data with Metro lines/stops overlaid. Density along the Pike is similar to the Wilson Blvd and Crystal City areas; what’s missing? A Metro line. 395 and Glebe east of 395 are similar. That’s why I suggest rerouting the Blue to follow 395. They have some of the highest densities without Metro access in VA. The Mark Center, the new NGA building and the new medical center on Ft. Belvoir north bring significant amounts of traffic to and through these locations as well. Why aren’t we looking at options for these locations? Its not Arlington’s problem to solve alone, but it is a problem that needs addressed.
WMATA lines and stations with population density

Looks to me like many block groups in the RB corridor quite a bit denser than any on Columbia Pike, and quite a few along Columbia Pike that are much less dense than any on the RB corridor.

As for Crystal City, that is (despite its office vacancy rate) mostly an employment center, and the metro was built there mostly to serve offices, not residential density. Plus of course to reach National Airport and beyond.

So no, Columbia Pike’s current density (and its planned density under current zoning) is not sufficient to justify a heavy rail metro line. A heavy rail line would require rezoning beyond what was already done under the form based code. Mstone is correct.

[mstone]

@AFHokie 100604 wrote:

I think current density levels are quite relevant. The linked ArcGIS map from ESRI shows census Bureau population density data with Metro lines/stops overlaid. Density along the Pike is similar to the Wilson Blvd and Crystal City areas; what’s missing? A Metro line

You’re missing the point: Arlington chose not to zone for increased density along that corridor. It’s something that could theoretically change by simply updating the master plan and rezoning, but that would require a political will to build 10+ story towers along Columbia Pike and I don’t see any sign that Arlington wants that. (You’re also skipping the question of whether Arlington can actually fill another Rosslyn-Ballston corridor given the current vacancy rates there & in Crystal City.) The increased density in R-B also brought a lot more people driving into R-B than there’d be if it were still strip malls. You need to account for that in any plan to dramatically increase Columbia Pike density, and again I don’t see a political will in south Arlington to beef up the road network (Glebe & Four Mile Run) to account for all the new car traffic. (R-B is conveniently close to 66, which means relatively less traffic on neighborhood streets than you’d see with a supersize Columbia Pike.)

If you want to take traffic off 50 for people going to DC without a massive increase in density in South Arlington the right answer is commuter rail, not metro. If you had a streetcar, you could take it to the nearest commuter rail station. I don’t think the money exists for that, either, but I’d love to see a conversation about transit in DC that had options other than “metro”.

FWIW, it’s unlikely that any option will “take cars off of” 50 or 7 or 123. The benefit to increased transit capacity is to allow for future growth that wouldn’t be possible if everyone had to take a car; at least for the foreseeable future, those roads are going to be at capacity, and if some people shift to transit that just makes room for others to drive.

[scoot]

@mstone 100619 wrote:

at least for the foreseeable future, those roads are going to be at capacity, and if some people shift to transit that just makes room for others to drive.

As always… induced demand FTW.

[cyclingfool]

@scoot 100624 wrote:

As always… induced demand FTW.

Perhaps, but I’d still take demand induced by the addition of transit options to a corridor over its widening or expansion any day.

[baiskeli]

@scoot 100624 wrote:

As always… induced demand FTW.

Well, not quite, because transit also induces demand–for transit-oriented development that doesn’t put as many new cars on the road.

[cyclingfool]

@baiskeli 100633 wrote:

Well, not quite, because transit also induces demand–for transit-oriented development that doesn’t put as many new cars on the road.

Wait. Why weren’t you working on my masters capstone paper this weekend?! (It’s related to TOD)

[napes]

TLDR summary: Cheap bus fares increased bus ridership on Columbia Pike.

Riders make rational economic and time-based decisions and rider data should underscore that cheap buses are generally more popular for those who care about money (ie: do not receive wonderful government Metrochek subsidies). A big part of why the current Columbia Pike ridership is high and increasing is that the present bus costs of riding along that route are set differently than the parallel and faster 395 alternative. I don’t remember the source, but I recall reading somewhere that the 16 A/B/D Local buses along Columbia Pike were typically among the fullest buses around. I certainly have been on it when it was standing-room only. Much of the Columbia Pike bus traffic does not head to Annandale, but my guess is that the ridership to Annandale is a reasonable proportion of the overall bus rider pool.

Annandale may have a minor, but as far as I know, unreported local story on how bus ticket prices affect ridership, and ultimately, maybe, even the political decision to build new infrastructure, like the Columbia Pike streetcar. This is a subset of the bigger story of how government Metrochek subsidies distort local market decisions, just as parking subsidies distort choices for car users. From what I remember, government employees receive Metrochek vouchers without tax implications and are, thereby, frequently more insensitive to paying Express bus costs at $3.65 a trip.

Bus riders between the Pentagon and Annandale can presently take:
1. Cheap slower very crowded Local buses that run on Columbia Pike. (16 A/B/D/L series). Costs are $1.60 using a SmarTrip card or $1.80 using cash.
2. Cheap slower Local buses that run on 395 and exit at Seminary Road (16L and 7X). Then one of the occasional 29K and 29N local buses which run along Duke Street and Little River Turnpike.
3. Expensive usually uncrowded and generally faster Express buses that run on 395 and exit at Little River Turnpike. (29 C/E/G/H series and some 17 series) Occasionally 29 series buses are delayed and end up full, but generally they have rarely been crowded, in my experience. The fare for express routes is $3.65 using a SmarTrip card or $4 using cash. (http://www.wmata.com/fares/)

My prediction is you will find an Express bus is full of English-speaking government employees with Metrochek plans. They are relatively immune to fare prices and just want to return home quickly. A local bus is more ethnically and linguistically diverse, more cost-conscious, with more cash-payers, and few recipients of Metrocheks.

The high ridership number along Columbia Pike has been one of the fundamental arguments for the Columbia Pike streetcar effort. Personally, I would have welcomed a good streetcar line along Columbia Pike to reduce single occupancy vehicles. Bus ticket prices, however, intentionally or accidentally, also appear to drive ridership numbers along Columbia Pike in favor of an argument for a streetcar line. If someone would change some Express 395 bus fares to Local fares, my guess is that the pressure on Columbia Pike bus service would diminish somewhat. I’m sure it is a challenging issue to calculate fares and appropriate subsidies on these bus lines, but as far as I can tell it is an opaque process, with limited opportunity for public input.

[Author]

Posts