A short alignment through Takoma Park...
View Takoma-Langley.kmz in a larger map
(cost, ridership) 1 = low; 5 = high
4, 4 - Takoma Park line
Length - 2.16 miles
Maintenance - None identified.
Southern continuity - Terminates at Takoma Metro.
Northern continuity - Continues as Purple Line to east.
(cost, ridership) 1 = low; 5 = high
4, 3 - Takoma Metro to Old Takoma
Starting off at the Metro station, we make our way east through the business district before heading up to what I called "Old Takoma". The truth is: I really don't quite know where Takoma Park started per se... so maybe my "Old" name might apply to that first business district down at the border. Actually, I'm pondering adding a station there... it's just that it's so close to the two other stations; but it really is a nice downtown sort of area.
Anyways, at the Old Takoma station is a transfer to the Beltway Prince George's line, which connects Silver Spring Metro all the way around to King Street in Alexandria. As I've mentioned before: this connection is really more a feeder than it is something that you'd take the full length.
(cost, ridership) 1 = low; 5 = high
5, 3 - Old Takoma to Adventist
One stop further is the Adventist hospital. In addition to serving an important medical facility, there are several scenic trails quite near to the station.
(cost, ridership) 1 = low; 5 = high
4, 5 - Adventist to Takoma/Langley
This is all one stop away from the major transit hub of the Takoma/Langley Transit Center.
This terminating station provides transfers to the Purple Line, my Beltway Montgomery line (linking Takoma/Langley to Westfield/Shoppingtown via Kensington), and my Cloverly line. It also includes a proposed Yellow Line Metrorail station. The alignment of the approach would be such that a railway could continue on along the Purple Line alignment.
Where we are thus far...
I can't embed Google Maps anymore showing the whole thing... now I've got to link to a Google Earth placemark. Hopefully it'll auto-update as I expand the placemark... I'll have to test it out with my next upload. Click here for the Google Earth placemark of all the alignments thus far. It's alignments-only at the moment... now that I've moved away from Google Maps, with my next update I'll see about restoring all the stations and maintenance facilities to the placemark.
In the next post...
I've gotten a couple emails now inquiring about my thoughts on the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), and also on anything I'm looking at in the Baltimore area. To address the latter: I have some lines out of Laurel which extend to Columbia as well as BWI; and I have some Columbia-centric lines which link to Security (the Red Line) and directly to BWI. That's as far into Baltimore as I delved so far... the truth is, I really don't know a terribly large amount about greater Baltimore. Nonetheless, it's on my radar...
As for the CCT: I think that with its current alignment it'll ultimately end up as a local bus line with fancy livery. It's alignment just meanders too much... like a local bus line. While I think the stations it serves are well-intentioned, its current alignment is more like someone playing connect-the-dots whilst ignoring the numberical order. Given the hype over the CCT and I-270 corridor recently, I'm going to return to a Red Line Shady Grove focus in my next posts: starting from the north and working my way south along an extended Red Line that includes Germantown & Gaithersburg.
ir a principal |
Ir a lateral
A place to share whatever transportation stuff is on my mind...
Search
What Is This?
These are some conceptual transit lines I thought up for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, located on the Maryland side of the Washington metropolitan region. They're intended to be at least moderately feasible & worth some serious thought; not just some zany pipedream that will never happen.
Everything I post here consists of little more than my own concepts & ideas. While I work in the transportation industry, that doesn't mean I have diddly-squat of power. If you don't like something here: don't fret, this isn't anything official. "Power" comes from those in charge of the agencies I work for; their power comes from elected officials; and their power comes from you. If you like something here, tell your elected officials.
The reason I post stuff here is to encourage feedback: what's right; what's wrong.
For the residents...
Did I just take your entire yard, bulldoze your house, or locate a maintenance yard on your family farm? Will this improve your commute, boost your home values, or help your kids reach leisure destinations without needing you to cart them around?
For the businesses...
Did I run your business to the ground, raze it entirely, or take away its parking spaces? Will your business see a boom from pedestrian traffic, a chance for redevelopment, or a savings from complying with parking requirements?
For the environmentally-oriented...
Did I flatten a cultural landmark, place rails on top of your favorite lazy-day hang-out, ravage a beloved forest, or transform a pristine stream into a major transportation route? Will the line be context-sensitive, discourage car usage, or provide eco-friendly access to outdoor activities?
For the transportation gurus...
Are curves or meandering routes wreaking havoc on travel times? Is there a frivilous station, or perhaps a forgotten generator in need of one? Is it all just too horrendously expensive? Will a junction or interlocking wreak havoc on operations? Is maintenance borderline impossible?
For everyone!
Let me know! But if you have disagreements, at least offer some alternatives. This isn't a "you're wrong" forum; this is a "here's another idea" forum. Of course, if I managed to get something right, I wouldn't mind similar feedback... The more I know what I'm doing right, the more I can hopefully replicate that.
Everything I post here consists of little more than my own concepts & ideas. While I work in the transportation industry, that doesn't mean I have diddly-squat of power. If you don't like something here: don't fret, this isn't anything official. "Power" comes from those in charge of the agencies I work for; their power comes from elected officials; and their power comes from you. If you like something here, tell your elected officials.
The reason I post stuff here is to encourage feedback: what's right; what's wrong.
For the residents...
Did I just take your entire yard, bulldoze your house, or locate a maintenance yard on your family farm? Will this improve your commute, boost your home values, or help your kids reach leisure destinations without needing you to cart them around?
For the businesses...
Did I run your business to the ground, raze it entirely, or take away its parking spaces? Will your business see a boom from pedestrian traffic, a chance for redevelopment, or a savings from complying with parking requirements?
For the environmentally-oriented...
Did I flatten a cultural landmark, place rails on top of your favorite lazy-day hang-out, ravage a beloved forest, or transform a pristine stream into a major transportation route? Will the line be context-sensitive, discourage car usage, or provide eco-friendly access to outdoor activities?
For the transportation gurus...
Are curves or meandering routes wreaking havoc on travel times? Is there a frivilous station, or perhaps a forgotten generator in need of one? Is it all just too horrendously expensive? Will a junction or interlocking wreak havoc on operations? Is maintenance borderline impossible?
For everyone!
Let me know! But if you have disagreements, at least offer some alternatives. This isn't a "you're wrong" forum; this is a "here's another idea" forum. Of course, if I managed to get something right, I wouldn't mind similar feedback... The more I know what I'm doing right, the more I can hopefully replicate that.
Who Am I?
I'm your typical idealistic 20-something with nothing better to do other than satiate an endless appetite for anything related to transportation. I'm a transportation engineer with a Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering with an emphasis on transportation as well as water resources, and I have a Masters of Engineering in Civil Engineering with an emphasis on transportation & urban planning.
As far as this site is concerned: that's only relevant in establishing that I at least know a thing or two about the subject. However, by no means do I assert that I know everything... far far from it. Engineering is an endless learning process, and transportation is an ever-evolving field (though the more it changes, the more it stays the same). Many of these alignments really just began as a test to see what sort of constraints I'd discover, with the intent of educating myself... so presenting them publicly only furthers that learning resource.
As far as this site is concerned: that's only relevant in establishing that I at least know a thing or two about the subject. However, by no means do I assert that I know everything... far far from it. Engineering is an endless learning process, and transportation is an ever-evolving field (though the more it changes, the more it stays the same). Many of these alignments really just began as a test to see what sort of constraints I'd discover, with the intent of educating myself... so presenting them publicly only furthers that learning resource.
What Comes Next?
I've been dabbling with several projects:
- A top-down transportation system of the United States starting at the national level, beginning with ports then rail (passenger as well as freight). My next step would be to take it down to a regional level with a focus on rail. Then to a local level such as this, focusing on both bus (BRT) and rail systems.
- I've also been working on a general land use / development plan for Montgomery & Prince George's Counties. This would reflect these transit alignments.
- Continuing this local transit project into Pennsylvania: first southeastern PA; then the rest.
- Any other suggestions... though other local transit projects would take a bit longer if they're not in the northeastern United States or Europe.
- A top-down transportation system of the United States starting at the national level, beginning with ports then rail (passenger as well as freight). My next step would be to take it down to a regional level with a focus on rail. Then to a local level such as this, focusing on both bus (BRT) and rail systems.
- I've also been working on a general land use / development plan for Montgomery & Prince George's Counties. This would reflect these transit alignments.
- Continuing this local transit project into Pennsylvania: first southeastern PA; then the rest.
- Any other suggestions... though other local transit projects would take a bit longer if they're not in the northeastern United States or Europe.
The Details...
GENERAL
I'm making approximately 1 post per station or 1 post per line; whichever is more convenient. I will then go back and edit those posts as new info becomes available, providing a changelog at the bottom of each post.
MODE
I generally designed these with LRT in mind. However, various design considerations may render BRT more beneficial -- particularly when consideration is given toward the situating of maintenance facilities for rail vehicles. With rail, maintenance facilities generally have to be in close proximity to the rail line, which can be difficult considering the railway is, inherently, often where all the development is.
Buses can skirt that limitation, as they can easily navigate to a far-removed maintenance/storage facility. Buses also tend to be a better fit when you have a variety of short, unconnected lines, as buses can be easily transferred to other lines (provided their paint scheme isn't line-specific). However, environmental impacts of buses tend to be higher, their passenger capacity is lower, and their speeds (both acceleration and sustained) are lower... so where feasible, rail is generally preferable.
To define acronyms...
LRT = Light Rail Transit. Also often known as trams: these are not large freight trains, nor are these even Amtrak trains. LRT vehicles handle much like a typical bus, albeit on rail instead of being rubber-tired. They are often electric and most frequently use overhead gantries as a power source. If you've been to Europe, you've likely seen the array of wires strung across buildings at around the 2nd floor -- that's what these are for.
BRT = Bus Rapid Transit. These are not your local buses, which stop incessantly, meander about neighborhoods you don't want to go to in the first place, and change routes at the drop of a hat. These are not even express buses, which are often stuck in the traffic that one would have hoped to avoid. These buses are sort of like trains... a fixed route, defined station platforms at larger intervals, and often more political support with regards to maintaining funding. While they can be electrically powered just like LRT, they are more often fueled by diesel engines.
COST & RIDERSHIP
Cost & ridership are each presented on a scale of 1-5... 1 being either low-cost or low ridership; 5 being high-cost or ridership. So ideally you want a cost of 1 and a ridership of 5. Very scientific, I know :) Cost considers environmental impacts (terrain, wetlands, parkland, forest) and facility impacts (right-of-way, maintenance of traffic, utilities, other). Ridership considers densities within a 0.25 and 0.50 mile radius, and also gives consideration of proximity & scale of park & rides, transit centers, special events, and recreational destinations. Ridership also considers transfers, albeit on a rudimentary level.
Ultimately, I think it'd be neat to set up a tool similar to what Portland released in early 2009. That is, the user has a set budget & "draws" the transit lines they want... depleting the budget as they do so. For example, let's say you have $10 and each point costs $1. You can then draw two expensive lines of 5 point each... or 10 cheap lines of 1 point each, and then sum your ridership between alternatives. Not an exact science, but public outreach never is.
OTHER TRANSPORT LINES
These lines DO consider the presence of the officially-proposed Purple Line, but they DO NOT consider the presence of the officially-proposed Corridor Cities Transitway (which I believe to be a prime example of politics meddling way too much with transportation).
These alignments DO NOT consider Councilmember Elrich's BRT proposals, simply because there's too much overlap; and my interpretation is that Elrich's proposal is intended to be relatively temporary (in the timeframe of a couple decades).
DRAFT VERSIONS
My transitways come in several drafts...
- 1st Draft - Solely to plot general alignment & anticipated stations. No consideration of geometrics, terrain, operations, maintenance, or right-of-way.
- 2nd Draft - Gives consideration of geometrics and right-of-way. Does not consider terrain, operations, or maintenance.
- 3rd Draft - Gives consideration of maintenance. Does not consider terrain or operations.
...At this time I don't anticipate necessarily going beyond this stage. My attention span only lasts so long, and I'd rather get more locations up to 3rd draft before going any further into the details.
I'm making approximately 1 post per station or 1 post per line; whichever is more convenient. I will then go back and edit those posts as new info becomes available, providing a changelog at the bottom of each post.
MODE
I generally designed these with LRT in mind. However, various design considerations may render BRT more beneficial -- particularly when consideration is given toward the situating of maintenance facilities for rail vehicles. With rail, maintenance facilities generally have to be in close proximity to the rail line, which can be difficult considering the railway is, inherently, often where all the development is.
Buses can skirt that limitation, as they can easily navigate to a far-removed maintenance/storage facility. Buses also tend to be a better fit when you have a variety of short, unconnected lines, as buses can be easily transferred to other lines (provided their paint scheme isn't line-specific). However, environmental impacts of buses tend to be higher, their passenger capacity is lower, and their speeds (both acceleration and sustained) are lower... so where feasible, rail is generally preferable.
To define acronyms...
LRT = Light Rail Transit. Also often known as trams: these are not large freight trains, nor are these even Amtrak trains. LRT vehicles handle much like a typical bus, albeit on rail instead of being rubber-tired. They are often electric and most frequently use overhead gantries as a power source. If you've been to Europe, you've likely seen the array of wires strung across buildings at around the 2nd floor -- that's what these are for.
BRT = Bus Rapid Transit. These are not your local buses, which stop incessantly, meander about neighborhoods you don't want to go to in the first place, and change routes at the drop of a hat. These are not even express buses, which are often stuck in the traffic that one would have hoped to avoid. These buses are sort of like trains... a fixed route, defined station platforms at larger intervals, and often more political support with regards to maintaining funding. While they can be electrically powered just like LRT, they are more often fueled by diesel engines.
COST & RIDERSHIP
Cost & ridership are each presented on a scale of 1-5... 1 being either low-cost or low ridership; 5 being high-cost or ridership. So ideally you want a cost of 1 and a ridership of 5. Very scientific, I know :) Cost considers environmental impacts (terrain, wetlands, parkland, forest) and facility impacts (right-of-way, maintenance of traffic, utilities, other). Ridership considers densities within a 0.25 and 0.50 mile radius, and also gives consideration of proximity & scale of park & rides, transit centers, special events, and recreational destinations. Ridership also considers transfers, albeit on a rudimentary level.
Ultimately, I think it'd be neat to set up a tool similar to what Portland released in early 2009. That is, the user has a set budget & "draws" the transit lines they want... depleting the budget as they do so. For example, let's say you have $10 and each point costs $1. You can then draw two expensive lines of 5 point each... or 10 cheap lines of 1 point each, and then sum your ridership between alternatives. Not an exact science, but public outreach never is.
OTHER TRANSPORT LINES
These lines DO consider the presence of the officially-proposed Purple Line, but they DO NOT consider the presence of the officially-proposed Corridor Cities Transitway (which I believe to be a prime example of politics meddling way too much with transportation).
These alignments DO NOT consider Councilmember Elrich's BRT proposals, simply because there's too much overlap; and my interpretation is that Elrich's proposal is intended to be relatively temporary (in the timeframe of a couple decades).
DRAFT VERSIONS
My transitways come in several drafts...
- 1st Draft - Solely to plot general alignment & anticipated stations. No consideration of geometrics, terrain, operations, maintenance, or right-of-way.
- 2nd Draft - Gives consideration of geometrics and right-of-way. Does not consider terrain, operations, or maintenance.
- 3rd Draft - Gives consideration of maintenance. Does not consider terrain or operations.
...At this time I don't anticipate necessarily going beyond this stage. My attention span only lasts so long, and I'd rather get more locations up to 3rd draft before going any further into the details.
Copyright © 2009 Philatransport
Design by Design Disease for Smashing Magazine | Blogger Templates by Blog and Web
0 comments:
Post a Comment