Anacostia Streetcar narrowed to 2 options, one with a bike trail

When originally proposed way back in the Williams administration, the Anacostia Streetcar was to use the old CSX ROW - abandoned after 9/11 - to run the streetcar on. That ROW would leave enough space for a parallel trail. But then CSX asked for an incredible amount of money and there was some legal concerns about whether or not they could even sell it. So the streetcar was moved to streets and the trail was dropped. Then, DDOT came out with 10 alternatives for the streetcar - one of which retained the CSX ROW. 

Recently DDOT pared that list down to 2 alternatives, one of which would use the CSX ROW and include the parallel bike path. In addition to the path, that alternative (a Beatles-worthy number 9) seems to be better across the board - but for the current ownership by CSX and the conclusion that it is less accessible to the service area.

You can see the route and a cross-section here. 

I'm not sure how much of a change this represents. Everyone I've ever talked to at DDOT about this has always said they would rather use the CSX ROW, but they're prepared to move forward without it. Perhaps identifying this option as one of two preferred options will create greater impetus. We'll see.

Even if the streetcar doesn't use the ROW, a trail could still be built along it later, but like the Purple Line one has to wonder when the political will would exist. If DDOT can't make the deal work with the streetcar and trail on the table, it seems unlikely they'd do more to get just the trail. On the otherhand, getting the Anacostia section of the old ROW turned into a trail, might spur (see what I did there?) DDOT to extend it all the way to C and 33rd Street SE. 

Comments

[Mike]

does it have to come with creepy floating people?

[MLD]

Alternative 4 is better. Using the CSX ROW is tempting, but then you've put the transit 2 blocks away from all of the actual stuff that people want to get to. That will have a negative impact on ridership. Also alt 9 may be closer to Poplar Point but there is a giant at-grade freeway in the way.

[washcycle]

MLD, but it removes 84 parking spaces. Why must you support the war on cars?

[SJE]

@wash: spending any money on bikes or transit is already a war on cars. removing parking spaces is just part of the perfidious evil.

[JeffB]

"spending any money on bikes or transit is already a war on cars. removing parking spaces is just part of the perfidious evil"

I prefer to just think of it as collateral damage.

[Will]

MLD is right, the CSX option is the best one only if your goal is to get the ROW with fewest conflicts. If you want to actually get economic development, then the Shannon place option is the one you need.

Nevertheless, the trail concept has legs whether streetcar is next to it or not. It could probably get traction if the residents of Barry Farm, Anacostia, and Randall Circle all got together and organized for it, but if it's just a bunch of bike nerds asking for it, it's not going to fly.

[oboe]

"Does it have to come with creepy floating people?"

Was going to make a snarky comment about the lack of a gang of wilding teens in the mock-up. Thought better of it.

[washcycle]

Well, the CSX option is also much cheaper. There are two philosophies on this.

1. Build transit where the density is. This is expensive and difficult, but maximizes the system quickly.

2. Build transit where it is easy and then build density where the transit is. This is easier, but it takes decades for development to catch up.

As to which is better, that's above my paygrade - but the second one is how we built most of the Metro system. I might view all the empty land NE of Shannon as an opportunity rather than a liability.

Still, #9 is absolutely the better option for cyclists.