Has WMATA Considered Underground?

Submitted by Cooking_with_MREs t3_10l2r4j in washingtondc

I'm new to the area, and not that familiar with the history and development of Metro so bear with me.

Has WMATA ever considered more underground stations? It seems like so many of the stations farther from downtown are above ground.

I'm thinking about NoMa -- when that was built was there ever talk of putting it below ground? or any of the newer Silver Line stations for that matter.

Also, as locals -- what do you prefer? Above or below ground stations?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

giscard78 t1_j5u8ly7 wrote

Yes. It’s expensive af. There’s no reason to put Silver Line stations underground because digging tunnels is very expensive and the land wasn’t developed like downtown DC.

I prefer above ground stations. Having the tunnels above ground is also much more stimulating to actually see the landscape change rather than not seeing anything but the sidewalks (there used to be moving ads in the tunnels, too).

38

RaTerrier t1_j5ubu2b wrote

The problem with the above ground alignment is that there’s a long walk to get to anything from the station, because you have to cross the width of the highway + buffer before you get to anything.

11

giscard78 t1_j5uecyp wrote

laughs in Wheaton/Dupont/wherever escalator

10

keyjan t1_j5uhl5a wrote

Forest Glen is the worst. At least when an escalator screeches to a halt, you can keep using it. Elevators? Not so much...

7

way2gimpy t1_j5uz34m wrote

That has nothing to do with whether the station is above or below ground. Most of the suburban stations are built in the middle of a highway. Noma is above ground and it’s right in the middle of the neighborhood. You’d be walking the same distance from the reston station to anywhere if the station was above or below ground.

10

Oldbayistheshit t1_j5yhs43 wrote

My commute is all underground and I love it! Fuck standing out in the cold

1

keyjan t1_j5u88zk wrote

NoMa is the old New York Avenue station which was built fairly recently. They just rearranged some tracks and slapped a platform on it. It was an easy build.

As for above ground vs underground--I'm going to hazard a guess that they'd go above ground as much as possible, since any tunneling process (boring or cut and cover) is going to be hugely disruptive and expensive. (Hell, I remember the mayhem that was the Petworth station construction job, and I didn't even live here at the time.)

For example, the Purple line in MD is hung up for another 7 months because of...utilities. The power etc utilities didn't get moved in time, and that's an entirely above ground line. Imagine if they were trying to tunnel?

Not to mention other tunnels they'd have to go around.

https://www.washingtontunnels.com/

37

dcmcg t1_j5u9syw wrote

There were massive battles in the 2000s about whether the Silver line should be above ground or below ground. The Bush Admin wanted the elevated line to reduce costs, and threatened to pull funding otherwise.

NOMA and a lot of the Red Line is built on an existing rail ROW so it was never going to be underground. Same for the ends of some of the other lines. WMATA is certainly not "considering" more underground stations in the sense of moving above ground stations to below ground.

23

PalpitationNo3106 t1_j5us88m wrote

That was really just through Tyson’s corner. Where an underground makes total sense, since the land is so valuable. They were never going underground any farther than that, iirc.

3

Cooking_with_MREs OP t1_j5uf4bu wrote

Oh yeah, for sure, I meant "considering" in the sense of whether new stations could be build below ground.

1

moonbunnychan t1_j5xj78r wrote

The fighting over the silver line delayed the project by years. It was so incredibly frustrating to watch.

1

StarBabyDreamChild t1_j5ud558 wrote

I hate being underground - much worse than at least seeing some light and air when you’re stuck in a delay (which happens often).

8

justmahl t1_j5udpfb wrote

Nothing worse that being stuck on a train that isn't moving underground. Much prefer the above ground stations.

7

jez007007 t1_j5z9iol wrote

Very true. Got stuck under the Rosslyn tunnel for 35-45 minutes one time and was miserable. Got stuck above ground during one storm where a tree fell on the tracks and it took over an hour to get a replacement train. It was better because there was light and I could see more of what was going on. You know the train conductors never provide an estimate so you are stuck for an unknown amount of time.

1

meditation_account t1_j5ue13c wrote

We had a vote in Virginia to put the Silver line above ground or below ground. I remember voting for it to go underground but it lost. Tysons Corner is ruined in my opinion because the above ground metro there is a monstrosity.

6

frankie_fudgepop t1_j5vnqoa wrote

I’ve seen some lovely sunsets from the Spring Hill station. Tysons was fugly long before the metro came.

10

ekkidee t1_j5ufl2c wrote

On a rainy night, you can easily imagine Decker hunting replicants.

5

EC_dwtn t1_j5vgk74 wrote

That doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that would be left to a referendum.

2

meditation_account t1_j5vj273 wrote

It was. I remember it being a huge deal at the time with many people not in favor of underground because it would cost more.

1

NorseTikiBar t1_j5uby41 wrote

I like below ground just because of the summer and winter weather, but that also costs more. So above ground whenever they can, I guess.

5

Drunk_PI t1_j5ue5j9 wrote

Below ground in DC and above ground (or below, I don't care) beyond the city. I feel that makes the most sense as someone who has no idea how infrastructure and public transit works.

5

9throwaway2 t1_j5wh7f3 wrote

which with some exceptions is mostly how it is done.

2

Soggy-Yogurt6906 t1_j5upzzd wrote

Another issue is that because of the geography and topography of the area, if you decide to go below ground you end up having to go REALLY deep. You have to remember we are in a swamp, so you can't just go under the buildings and utility lines. You have to go deep enough that the earth won't slide or loosen due to rainfall or erosion. DC is an area where metro systems are practical, but will always be expensive to build. You also have to zone for your tunnel entry and exit assuming your previous or next station isn't underground. This is why we typically have all the underground stations in the highest density, highest property value areas along one particular line. At a certain point they become above ground because it's cheaper and not worth the cost.

5

202reddit t1_j5vqfsh wrote

NoMa station was a backfill station that opened in November 2004. As you (may) know the station is built on existing above ground tracks; why put it underground just to have to go right back up when the next stop (Rhode Island) is above ground? Plus, the Amtrak tracks are already above ground and so there's already a RR bridge there, so why bother?

There was MUCH debate about where to put the silver line (above/below). One of my favorite things ever was the public testimony from people who argued that there was no cost increase to going underground. They said that in public with a straight face!

4

Existing365Chocolate t1_j61pyxr wrote

The only reason to build below ground is when the above ground is already developed land in a dense urban area

1

alhambra_noches t1_j6e4heb wrote

cars should be forced to drive underground, not everyone else.

1