WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 5: Making a better transit network | Connecting heavy rail + light rail + railroad -- a concept for New York City

This last entry in the series was prompted by a recent Substack post (below)

-- "Reprint with editing: Today WMATA Metrorail's 50th anniversary from the start of service | Part 1: many lessons can be found, if you look"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 2a | The Original Approved Metrorail System (1968-1970)"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 2b | Lessons learned: Proposed expansions and the Metrorail system we don't have"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 3 | Stations"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 4 | Buses"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 5: Making a better transit network | Connecting heavy rail + light rail + railroad -- a concept for New York City"

Benjamin Schneider, in his "The Urban Condition" Substack, has a two part series on how the original proposal for a TriboroRX by the Regional Plan Association in 1996--now separated into two projects, one a Metro North rail project called Penn Station Access, adding four stations in the Bronx and a connection of the Harlem Line to Grand Central Station, and the Interborough Express (IBX) for Queens and Brooklyn--could still come to a kind of fruition, through making better connections between the various modes.

In "Unlocking the full potential of the IBX" he makes the point that network connection planning doesn't happen very well, because planning tends to be mode specific (in silos).

These two projects, the IBX and Penn Station Access, were once envisioned by the RPA as a single line within a grand regional rail system. Now, they are on totally separate tracks, literally and figuratively. Though these two services come within about a mile of one another, passengers will not be able to transfer between them. This outcome is a reflection of the region’s siloed approach to transit network planning, and its limited ambitions with each individual transit project it pursues.

In the first piece in this series, I did make the point about creating a regional transport association and using transit infrastructure projects as a way to drive improvements across the transit network.

And in the stations piece, I discuss planning and implementing for access before a station/line is opened, not afterwards, to put transit's best foot or visage forward, from the start, rather than sometime far after the opening.

Past entries on the Purple Line, Silver Line, and Blue Line make similar kinds of points, not just about access but driving necessary improvements forward, leveraging the power of new infrastructure, etc.

-- "Codifying the complementary transit network improvements and planning initiatives recommended in the Purple Line writings," (2022) 
-- Setting the stage for the Purple Line light rail line to be an overwhelming success: Part 1 | simultaneously introduce improvements to other elements of the transit network (2017)
-- Part 2 |   the program (macro changes) (2017)
-- Part 3 |   influences (2017)
-- Part 4 |   Making over New Carrollton as a transit-centric urban center and Prince George's County's "New Downtown" (2017, originally 2014)
-- PL #5: Creating a Silver Spring "Sustainable Mobility District"
-- Part 6 |  Creating a transportation development authority in Montgomery and Prince George's County to effectuate placemaking, retail development, and housing programs in association with the Purple Line (2017)
-- Part 7 | Using the Purple Line to rebrand Montgomery and Prince George's Counties as Design Forward (2017)
-- Revisiting the Purple Line article series after one year: Part 1 | a couple of baby steps (2018)
-- Revisiting the Purple Line (series) and a more complete program of complementary improvements to the transit network (2019)

-- "Using the Silver Line as the priming event, what would a transit network improvement program look like for NoVA?," (2017)

-- "A "Transformational Projects Action Plan" for the Metrorail Blue Line," (2020)

Schneider offers a number of recommendations for connection.

As I wrote in part one of this piece, the IBX will have a transformative impact on mobility in Brooklyn and Queens from the day that it opens, largely because of transfers to express subways that will quickly get riders to popular destinations like Midtown, Downtown Brooklyn, and the JFK Airtrain at Jamaica.

With a few complimentary transit projects, the mobility benefits of the IBX could be extended to the Bronx and beyond, as envisioned by the RPA thirty years ago. With a handful of more ambitious initiatives, the benefits of the IBX could reach even further, to Long Island and New Jersey; as well as to air travelers landing at LaGuardia and intercity train passengers on the Northeast Corridor.

This piece lists those projects in order of difficulty and expense. Most of the following ideas are speculative and have not been formally proposed by a government agency. However, they follow transit planning best practices as reflected in white papers from advocacy groups like the RPA.

The central premise of these conceptual projects is to better integrate the IBX and the rest of the New York City subway system with what is now called the “commuter rail” system. These projects seek to make the most of existing infrastructure as much as possible, rather than building expensive new lines. And they embody the notion that travel to and from the downtown core is no longer the central, overriding purpose of transit planning.

More connections, more access, faster trips.

His list:

• Add high-frequency ferry service between Brooklyn Army Terminal, Staten Island and New Jersey
• Make the LIRR Atlantic Avenue Branch a super-express subway line
• Extend the G Subway, which serves Queens and Brooklyn exclusively, on the north and south to connect to the IBX
• Build an IBX-LIRR infill transfer station near 51st Ave. in Queens
• Extend the IBX one mile to connect with Metro North’s Penn Station Access project, providing a link to the Bronx, Westchester and Connecticut
• Extend the IBX to LaGuardia Airport
• Upgrade the IBX-Metro North transfer station into an intermodal Northeast Corridor rail-air hub
• Build the Harbor Tunnel for passengers and freight

I've written a piece like this about Baltimore ("More remonstration about the molasses of change: Transit planning, Baltimore County, Maryland and Towson," "Transit agenda for Greater Baltimore"), merging the VRE and MARC "commuter railroads" into a 24/7 passenger rail system like the S-Bahn ("One big idea: Getting MARC and Metrorail to integrate fares, stations, and marketing systems, using London Overground as an example," "A new backbone for the regional transit system: merging the MARC Penn and VRE Fredericksburg Lines,"  and leveraging the once proposed, since cancelled Maglev system ("DC, Transformational Projects Action Planning, and the Baltimore-Washington Maglev project ).

The second entry in this series:

-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 2a | The Original Approved Metrorail System (1968-1970)"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 2b | Lessons learned: Proposed expansions and the Metrorail system we don't have"

provides a framework for the heavy rail part.  Some of the recommendations in the Purple Line series do for Maryland-side commuter rail:

• Integrate MARC and VRE fare payment into the SmarTrip/ CharmCard fare media system (note that with their regular tickets, MARC and VRE provide reciprocity, and include free rides on Baltimore local transit)
• Introduce bi-directional passenger rail service between DC and Frederick on the MARC Brunswick Line
• Consider charging DC-Montgomery County trips on a bi-directional Brunswick Line using the Metrorail/Purple Line tolling/fare schedule. That would treat mileage from railroad trips in the context of a complete (linked) trip on railroad+subway+light rail as a single fare
• The White Flint Sector Plan calls for an infill MARC station. Plans to build that station should be accelerated as part of this proposal.
• Build an infill train station in DC on the Penn Line, serving the New York Avenue corridor
• Set the opening of the Purple Line as the deadline for the integration of the MARC Penn Line and VRE Fredericksburg Line into one combined railroad passenger service
• + the Baltimore area recommendations in "Transit agenda for Greater Baltimore"
• + the Eastern Shore ("Letter to the editor in the Washington Post about passenger railroad service to the Eastern Shore")

Dan Malouff's proposed passenger rail system.  He didn't include Southern Maryland because at the time they were planning a light rail line to Charles County.  It also doesn't have a line from Baltimore to Frederick, nor the Penn Line to Delaware.

I don't have a handle on what to recommend on the Virginia side.  

Many years ago, at the BeyondDC blog, Dan Malouff provided a couple of schematics of how an integrated passenger rail system could provide service deeper into Virginia, connections to Pennsylvania, and an extension of the Penn Line to Delaware.

His framework provides a pretty good agenda for Virginia.  It complements various rail passenger expansion efforts throughout Virginia by the State, through its Amtrak Virginia program, support of VRE and exploration of other rail service options, and acquisition of right of way from CSX ("Virginia to build Long Bridge and acquire CSX right of way to expand passenger train service," Washington Post). 

Networks as a commodity or differentiator: EV charging networks

There's an article ("There's An EASY Fix For Our EV Charging Network," CarBuzz) about how one of the problems with electric vehicles is the different standards for charging networks, and specifically how Tesla's system is incompatible with others.

The article suggests that it's in Tesla's interest to make its network compatible, because that will reduce reticence on the part of potential EV buyers.

As mentioned recently, cities have a real issue in providing access in rowhouse neighborhoods ("Earth Day 2022").  

In Seattle, the City Light utility instead of constructing buildings on lots, wants to put in EV chargers ("Seattle City Light Plans More Surface EV Charging Lots in Dense Neighborhoods," The Urbanist).  And there are real problems with chargers now in terms of them actually working, people blocking them, etc.

ATMs.  The story reminded me of how in the beginning of ATMs, banks saw them as a key differentiator and a way to get more customers.  So they didn't share their networks with other banks in their market, but were focused on adding affiliates in other markets.  

The classic example is the MAC network that started in Philadelphia with Philadelphia National Bank.  

When I moved to Washington in the late 1980s, MAC was a big thing.  When I worked on television about telecommunications and IT in the early 1990s, I came across this article about it ("MAC—Philadelphia National Bank’s Strategic Venture in Shared ATM Networks," Journal of Management Information Systems, 1990)

Today, it mostly doesn't matter, people don't think of particular banks and ATM networks, except when they want to avoid fees when they take money out standalone, at machines in networks in which your bank is not a member (best way to avoid this is to buy something at a pharmacy or grocery and take money out).

Gasoline too was once differentiated.  Back in the day, gasoline companies like Texaco, Gulf, Standard, Conoco, Shell, Esso, etc., invested a lot of money in branding, advertising, and points of differentiation--from clean restrooms at Texaco to "touring services," maps, and special blends of gasoline, etc.  

Mobil redesigned its stations to be particularly design forward, etc.

-- Mobil logo design

-- "The gas stations that Eliot Noyes designed for Mobil Oil," Domus

Now, gas is gas.  Do people really go out of their way to buy Chevron or Speedway gasoline?  Well, they might, especially if they participate in loyalty programs that provide discounts on the cost of gas, but other than that, no.

Tesla supercharger network.  It truly is a differentiator now.  It charges cars so much faster than a typical charger.  And at least in the beginning, Tesla offered "free charging for life" or other charger network access incentives as part of the car marketing and buying process.  People are bummed that these incentive programs are being eliminated.  

OTOH, there are complaints that even Tesla's branded supercharger network isn't always well maintained.

New competitive advantages, even with "commodities."  But, this article ("More On Tesla Opening Up Its Supercharger Network To Other EVs," InsideEVs) makes a very good point about access still providing the capacity for differentiation or at least competitive advantage, in that cars of competitor marques using the network would have to provide trackable information that Tesla could use for better understanding the market, as well as having the names and contact information on non-Tesla EV car owners.