More proof that the City of Washington needs a real transportation plan (and real neighborhood planning)

Flickr photo by Ultra-K.

Today's Examiner has an article, "GW development passes on a needed second Metro entrance," about the need for a second entrance at the Foggy Bottom Metro, but how there are no plans to bring about a second entrance. From the article:

The Foggy Bottom station is the eighth-busiest one in the system and handles more than 40,800 passengers per day -- more than Baltimore's entire light rail system. Yet it's the only one of those eight that is served by a single entrance, creating problems of safety and efficiency that a Metro study said will only get worse over time. ...

Metro's study in 2007 recommended a second station entrance at the intersection of 22nd and I streets, one block east of the existing entrance. The university plans to break ground on that block next year on a $275 million science and engineering complex. But a new station entrance would cost an estimated $21.2 million -- and the city and school are passing the buck.

Metro spokeswoman Angela Gates said funding a station improvement is typically up to the station's surrounding jurisdiction. A spokesman for the District Department of Transportation said while the agency would likely support a second entrance, it's not footing the bill. "As far as I know, we're not proposing it," said John Lisle. He said it is up to the university or developer Boston Properties to raise the issue.

That's pathetic. This should be covered in a Master Transportation Plan. That's what Arlington County does, which is how they were able to identify the need for a second entrance at Rosslyn, found money to do it (in part through development impact fees), and are now constructing the additional entrance.

The closest DC has to a transportation plan that is distributed to the public is the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, although DDOT has also published an action agenda.

Section T2 of the Transportation Element covers Multi Modal Transportation Choices. T2.1 covers Transit Accessibility, which encourages use of and access to transit.

One of the biggest problems with regard to heavy rail (subway) transit planning in DC is that in 2003, WMATA devolved responsibility for transit expansion planning to the jurisdictions. So that means if DC wants to improve the subway system in the city, it needs to step up and take responsibility for doing so.

The problem is that DC decided it cost too much money to improve the subway system, and instead of stepping up and figuring out that a robust subway system is essential to the city's economic competitiveness and attractiveness as a place to live, in paragraph 407.6, they punt about the need to expand the subway, and focus on other strategies such as circulator bus services and streetcars.

I am not knocking either a circulator bus (really a high frequency transit subnetwork) service or streetcars as part of a robust, but hierarchical transit network. But DC hasn't figured out a solid framework for such planning (I offer one here: Metropolitan Transit Planning: Towards a Hierarchical and Conceptual Framework) and certainly isn't giving the fact that the subway system will reach capacity and this could have significant deleterious impact on DC the attention that it deserves.

Goal Number 2 of the DDOT Action Agenda is to "Prioritize expansion and enhancement of transit services." At the text states:

In the District, 37% of households do not have a private automobile and therefore rely on public transportation to meet their daily needs. More people travel by bus rather than Metro rail. Improving transit services will improve not only travel for these residents, but also the overall quality of life for the city community as a whole.

Not one of the 8 actions identified in the report addresses the subway system generally, nor are needs for improvements at specific stations addressed or identified. (Although DC has initiated a big transit improvement project at Union Station, although it has been underway for a number of years.)

Here are the 8 actions:

• Construct the initial two line segments of the streetcar system.
• Identify funding for and design a 37-mile streetcar network.
• Develop a five-year growth plan for increasing Circulator service.
• Work with WMATA to develop improved service plans for high ridership routes in the District, consolidating a minimum of 100 bus stops.
• With stakeholders, finalize engineering design for the K Street Center Way and identify funds for construction.
• Implement improvements and enhanced traveler conveniences at the top 10 bus transfer locations in the city (excluding Metro stations).
• Work with WMATA to improve at least four bus plazas at District Metro stations.
• Elevate the streetcar to “megaproject” with a dedicated team.

Now, I understand the necessity of improving bus services in many ways, and I have advocated for this for years, as well as for improvements in the subway service, including bringing back plans for a separated blue line, which would add a significant amount of capacity and redundancy to the center city, as well as add high frequency service to other areas of the city, and bringing to those areas the kinds of improvements that this type of access usually brings when it is accompanied by the right density and proximity to activity centers.

Proposed changes for the WMATA system, 2001 (separated blue line). These plans were dropped in 2003 due to a local economic downturn and downsizing of the engineering and construction capabilities of WMATA. Washington Post graphic.

Getting back to Foggy Bottom Metro and a second entrance, clearly DC doesn't have an action plan for the subway service in terms of how DC is served, with a set of consensus priority improvements if necessary for all the stations. That should be in a transportation plan, in the transit element.

Furthermore, if we did true neighborhood or community plans, there would be various elements, including, ideally, one on sustainable transportation, with an evaluation and action plan outlining necessary improvements for walking, biking, and transit, with an implementation program to bring them about.

Also, wrt neighborhood plans, when these kinds of needs are identified (second entrance for a Metro Station), when community benefits are negotiated as part of development projects, monies can be directed to fulfilling priority needs that have been previously identified.