Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
How much of the physical density of the DC area is due to Metro's presence, though? In 1950, with DC at a higher population than today and, due to the fixed boundaries, a higher density than today, the city managed just fine with streetcars (albeit ones with a few underground portions, e.g. Dupont Circle, Capitol Hill).
Metro's crush-loads could probably be accommodated just as easily on a dense network of streetcar lines as on a system of widely spaced subways. According to this (PowerPoint warning) the number of jobs in DC has remained relatively constant since the 1950s. If we accept this as a rough proxy for downtown DC employment, and you take into account that the majority of Metro riders are making a traditional downtown commute, I'd say the former streetcar system could easily take the role of Metro within the district.
Of course, that also raises a whole host of other questions... assuming the streetcars still existed and Metro had not been built, would downtown DC have been able to remain the huge regional employment center that it is, or would it just be the highest levels of government rubbing shoulders with tumbleweeds and shuttered storefronts, while the millions of suburban workers, both Federal and private, commuted to suburban office parks on the (much larger) DC-area freeway system? This is why I hate hypotheticals. Metro was undoubtedly a big factor in creating the dense and dynamic capital region that exists today, but there were innumerable other factors as well, whose effect may have benefited DC even without Metro. |
I think what you describe in your second paragraph is likely. There are factors besides metro, but it mostly has to do w/ gov't expanding and more competitive suburbs from a business standpoint relative to the city. But most of our development has been dictated by the presence of metro in one form or another.
I agree w/ Cirrus. Only with a high-quality commuter rail, the traditional streetcar system inside the city on important corridors would be acceptable. What you see every morning on all the lines, but especially the Red, Orange, Blue and Yellow lines wouldn't be possible w/o some heavier form of rail than a dinky streetcar. The fact that the population is substantially less than 1950 and that the number of jobs is slightly higher illustrates the importance of a sturdier, higher-capacity vehicle with a higher rate of travel and longer optimal range to get commuters into the city and people to their jobs in the immediate suburbs. That powerpoint is from 2002, and while that's not a long time ago, the jobs have only increased inside the city and suburbs since then, as has the population. And I know Cirrus has said this before plenty of times, and I agree, that metro is not optimal for what it does currently towards the end of its lines, but light rail wouldn't be the answer, commuter rail is.
Another thing is that while light rail is more permanent than bus, I don't know of any form of transit that we see is more permanent than heavy rail.