# Why is there no good Light Rail to Subway connection in BAL?



## steamtrain6868 (Apr 4, 2011)

Why unlike Newark and other places is there no Subway to Light Rail Connection in Baltimore....Unless you know better you end up walking quit a few blocks to make the transfer...having a duel heavy rail and Light rail system also seems to be a waste as well since you have to have 2 separate shops for this equipment.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 4, 2011)

What are you talking about? You can transfer at Lexington Market, the two stops are MAYBE 100 yards apart.

Two different systems for two different uses.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 4, 2011)

steamtrain6868 said:


> Why unlike Newark and other places is there no Subway to Light Rail Connection in Baltimore....Unless you know better you end up walking quit a few blocks to make the transfer...having a duel heavy rail and Light rail system also seems to be a waste as well since you have to have 2 separate shops for this equipment.


You mean the fact that Newark's single mass transit line, the so called City Subway and the so-called Newark Light Rail that is so slow, you can walk faster in many cases, that is essentially one line that NJT is too damned inefficient to simply run through all the time?


----------



## steamtrain6868 (Apr 4, 2011)

Single Indoor connection. as a a matter of fact for years I was told to Walk to Charles Center by MTA bus and light rail drivers.....I had no Idea till last year about the Lexington Connection Baltimore could have run a light rail subway and as a matter of fact a subway was not even needed for this Midsized city. Ever try walking up Lexington in rail(what Baltimore in known for) and slush with heavy luggage? Despite the Market which is nice yes in instresting way this is not Portland OR or San Franssico Public Market...It is nowhere as nice as Phillys Reading Terminal Market.

and hot heat and humidity. It would not be so bad if there were intresting stores but all there is is guetto pawn shops and a bombed out Hechs Store....If transit was supposed to have "Transit Orenited Development" The retail situation Baltimore is a lousy example. Whatever is left of retail main street on North Howard is a bombed out mess.


----------



## JAChooChoo (Apr 5, 2011)

steamtrain6868 said:


> Single Indoor connection. as a a matter of fact for years I was told to Walk to Charles Center by MTA bus and light rail drivers.....I had no Idea till last year about the Lexington Connection Baltimore could have run a light rail subway and as a matter of fact a subway was not even needed for this Midsized city. Ever try walking up Lexington in rail(what Baltimore in known for) and slush with heavy luggage? Despite the Market which is nice yes in instresting way this is not Portland OR or San Franssico Public Market...It is nowhere as nice as Phillys Reading Terminal Market.
> 
> and hot heat and humidity. It would not be so bad if there were intresting stores but all there is is guetto pawn shops and a bombed out Hechs Store....If transit was supposed to have "Transit Orenited Development" The retail situation Baltimore is a lousy example. Whatever is left of retail main street on North Howard is a bombed out mess.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 5, 2011)

steamtrain6868 said:


> Single Indoor connection. as a a matter of fact for years I was told to Walk to Charles Center by MTA bus and light rail drivers.....I had no Idea till last year about the Lexington Connection Baltimore could have run a light rail subway and as a matter of fact a subway was not even needed for this Midsized city. Ever try walking up Lexington in rail(what Baltimore in known for) and slush with heavy luggage? Despite the Market which is nice yes in instresting way this is not Portland OR or San Franssico Public Market...It is nowhere as nice as Phillys Reading Terminal Market.
> 
> and hot heat and humidity. It would not be so bad if there were intresting stores but all there is is guetto pawn shops and a bombed out Hechs Store....If transit was supposed to have "Transit Orenited Development" The retail situation Baltimore is a lousy example. Whatever is left of retail main street on North Howard is a bombed out mess.


You shouldn't believe everything that you see on TV.

That's probably the most inaccurate description of Baltimore I've ever read.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 6, 2011)

First of all, I am not responding to the imbecile OP. I'm just rambling about transportation methods for the 3 people on this board who don't already know, understand, and agree with what I'm about to say.

A subway and a lightrail and busses are three different transportation methods used for different things. Subways are for rapid, high density, and relatively long distance transportation through areas where ground space is too valuable to take it up with a grade separated above ground rail line. Lightrail is for lower density, and much more frequent stops. Lightrail is generally used to describe what we used to think of as an interurban. It can fit into the current infrastructure, does not require expensive tunnel construction, but runs at lower speeds because it has to share space with other vehicles. A light rail line is done where you need something a little faster and a little larger than a bus.

Busses, likewise, make tons of sense for much lower density routes, or routes where the density of space usage is too high for any kind of even mildly separated right of way to rob space, but not high enough, or too geologically unstable, to handle a subway.

Whether it makes sense to spend money to make them interconnect depends on usage, traffic flow, and all kinds of other things. I am not a Baltimore resident, and haven't even made a cursory examination of its traffic patterns, so I won't even try to form an opinion of how well or how badly the system works for its normal users.

While connections between modes make sense, if it costs, lets say, $350 million to create that connection, and estimates suggest that perhaps 30 people a day will make that connection, the connection is pointless. Especially if the advantage of connection for those 30 people is not having to walk 100 yards out of doors.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Apr 7, 2011)

Maybe if they had finished the Subway to White Marsh it would get used more and make sense on a Map.....


----------



## rrdude (Apr 7, 2011)

Ryan said:


> What are you talking about? You can transfer at Lexington Market, the two stops are MAYBE 100 yards apart.
> 
> Two different systems for two different uses.


*SINGING* "Con-sider the source.............lalallalalalla"


----------



## rrdude (Apr 7, 2011)

Ryan said:


> steamtrain6868 said:
> 
> 
> > Single Indoor connection. as a a matter of fact for years I was told to Walk to Charles Center by MTA bus and light rail drivers.....I had no Idea till last year about the Lexington Connection Baltimore could have run a light rail subway and as a matter of fact a subway was not even needed for this Midsized city. Ever try walking up Lexington in rail(what Baltimore in known for) and slush with heavy luggage? Despite the Market which is nice yes in instresting way this is not Portland OR or San Franssico Public Market...It is nowhere as nice as Phillys Reading Terminal Market.
> ...


*SINGING* "la, la, la, la, lalalalala, la, la, la, la"


----------



## steamtrain6868 (Apr 8, 2011)

Different Types of Traffic? No its the same working poor minorities who ride the Light Rail to Work at the BWI Airport or to Hunt Valley as there kids who ride the Subway to school and to from Mondowin Mall....Now if there kids would just behave I could take the subway two stations over to Johns Hopkins without a temporary shutdown because of fights at 300 PM every day which cause the MTA Police to swoop in. Matter of fact we should turn these half abandoned malls everywhere and make them into high schools see Dead Malls.com


----------



## steamtrain6868 (Apr 8, 2011)

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.292575,-76.619639&spn=0.001667,0.003055&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.292828,-76.619655&panoid=bOFStX7iNaw55oHB2G8RSw&cbp=12,147.42,,0,3.91

Take a tour yourself of Baltimore in Google Maps Streetview and see what I mean


----------



## steamtrain6868 (Apr 8, 2011)

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=39.295117,-76.619818&panoid=M934HWsZXIK4FjvPhyRqhw&cbp=12,280.1,,0,12.35&ll=39.295117,-76.619818&spn=0.001667,0.003055&z=19

More Boarded up buildings on Howard Street


----------



## Ryan (Apr 8, 2011)

I live 20 minutes from downtown, I don't need some cherry picked Google images to convince me that you're wrong.

Although you're starting to let your true colors show through. Baltimore (or any other city) would be a much better place it it wasn't for those working poor minorities, amirite?


----------



## rrdude (Apr 8, 2011)

Ryan said:


> I live 20 minutes from downtown, I don't need some cherry picked Google images to convince me that you're wrong.
> 
> Although you're starting to let your true colors show through. Baltimore (or any other city) would be a much better place it it wasn't for those working poor minorities, amirite?


'Ya got sucked in Ryan, call for a lifeline...........


----------



## steamtrain6868 (Apr 8, 2011)

> [Although you're starting to let your true colors show through. Baltimore (or any other city) would be a much better place it it wasn't for those working poor minorities, amirite?


No because were else but in Baltimore can I get fried oysters,Fry's and a 40 ounce of Hurricane Malt Liquor for 5.00.....


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 8, 2011)

I wouldn't say that Baltimore is the safest city on planet earth (because it's not, yay murder captial!). However, like city on the face of the earth there are good places in the city, and bad places. I would say though if you get mugged or robbed in the one block from Lexington Street to Lexington Market, you've probably done something incredibly wrong. That area is by no stretch of the mind the "rough" part of Baltimore. I've lived in Baltimore, and I've been to the hood in Baltimore, but if you're aware of your surroundings, and can read a map, that's a hard connection to screw up. And part of the reason why you'd be hard pressed to see a single indoor connection between the two is Light Rail runs at street level pretty much the entire route, while the subway in that area is below grade. Makes it a bit challenging to create an indoor connection...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 8, 2011)

He/Her/It has no true colors, Ryan. His/Her/Its purpose in life is to create responses. Please refrain from allowing him completion of his purpose. Then he'll be Jeremy Hilary Boob, PhD. But less funny.


----------



## steamtrain6868 (Apr 9, 2011)

It is done in Boston with a elevator and long underground walkway between (red line heavy rail) and green line(light rail)


----------



## AlanB (Apr 9, 2011)

steamtrain6868 said:


> It is done in Boston with a elevator and long underground walkway between (red line heavy rail) and green line(light rail)


In Boston at that point where the Red & Green lines connect, the Green line is underground and running similar to a subway. In fact, that underground portion claims the title of the first subway in the US, beating NY City by a year or two.

So again, it's vastly different connecting two underground trains as opposed to trying to connect one underground train and another train that runs in the middle of the street.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Apr 9, 2011)

The Hudson Bergen Light Rail has a Few above or non indoor connections @ Hoboken , Newport , Port Imperial , and Exchange Place. The Riverline also has a few current and future no indoor / outside connections. Connecting services don't have to be indoors all the time , look overseas at Europe and Asian.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Apr 18, 2011)

It should be pointed out that there were complex planning/funding issues surrounding the construction of the light rail and Metro systems.

The Baltimore Metro Subway, a heavy rail line, was intended to be the first section of a larger region-wide rail system. It was constructed in the early 1980s, and opened its first segment in 1983. The primary hub of the system was intended to be Charles Center.

When the Metro opened, federal funding for transit was already falling. Building grade-separated transit was (and is) very expensive. At the same time, residents in Anne Arundel County were opposing the southern radial Metro line, and it got canned.

Fast forward a few years. With little federal funding available, and the long delay associated with just getting those dollars, Maryland decided to do something smart. They built the Light Rail _without federal funding_. This got the project started more quickly, but it came with trade-offs. It opened in 1992.

Among those trade-offs were long portions of single-track right-of-way, almost no grade separation, and street-running in Downtown Baltimore. In the late 1990s, sections of the Light Rail were closed for long periods to enable double-tracking, and ridership never fully recovered from those closures.

Since the Metro had already been built, stations were not optimally located to provide for a direct connection. The Light Rail was using Howard Street because it proved to be the best alternative. Howard Street met the abandoned trolley right-of-way used for the Light Rail on the south side of Downtown. It also provided a level, straight route directly through Downtown and met the freight line used north of the city. Eutaw Street, which the Metro runs under on the west side of Downtown, did not meet the right-of-way on either side of Downtown. That means using Eutaw for the LRT would have required a diversion.

A Downtown subway for the LRT was out of the cards because Maryland built the project using 100% local dollars. That meant that a nice underground connection and station couldn't be afforded at Lexington Market for the LRT.

Over at Charles Center, the only way to provide a direct connection to the Metro would be to run underground (not affordable) or on the surface of Charles Street, which was a non-starter because the alignment just doesn't work.

I agree that the lack of a direct connection is a problem, though it is not a major one. A block walk is not a huge hurdle, though it probably discourages some riders from making it. And it reinforces the notion that Baltimore doesn't have one transit system, but two.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 18, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Among those trade-offs were long portions of single-track right-of-way, almost no grade separation, and street-running in Downtown Baltimore. In the late 1990s, sections of the Light Rail were closed for long periods to enable double-tracking, and ridership never fully recovered from those closures.


That double tracking project was basically approved in late 1999, as noted in this FTA document; construction started a few years later IIRC. However ridership has more than recovered from the project. Here's a quick rundown of the numbers from the National Transit Database:

1996 - 6.287 million rides taken.

1999 - 7.78 million rides.

2009 - 8.838 million rides.


----------



## fairviewroad (Apr 20, 2011)

In Chicago the CTA has 2 different underground/above ground connections:

1. Roosevelt station btw Red Line (underground) and Green/Orange lines (el structure)

2. Clark station between Blue Line (underground) and Loop el trains

I know that the Chicago example is not the same as BAL since all the Chicago routes are heavy-rail

but I think the heavy/light rail distinction is lost on the general public. In BAL's case they are both rail lines that

would offer logical connections if it were convenient. The point is, underground/above ground connections

are indeed possible.

The issue, IMHO, is not whether the current connection is convenient enough...that's subjective...but whether the

connection is obvious and clear. Riders, even first-time riders, should not have to "figure it out" but should instead

be better guided on how to make the connection.

In terms of how useful an indoor connection would be...I'd bet that people living in the northwest suburbs of BAL

would be more likely to utilize transit to get to BWI airport if they had a more convenient connection between the

subway and the light rail. Would that alone justify the spending it would require to build a better connection? Probably

not, but I don't think you can just write these two lines off as "different systems for different uses."


----------



## Eric S (Apr 20, 2011)

fairviewroad said:


> In Chicago the CTA has 2 different underground/above ground connections:
> 
> 1. Roosevelt station btw Red Line (underground) and Green/Orange lines (el structure)
> 
> ...


The connection between Baltimore metro and light rail is probably more comparable to the transfer between the State/Lake Loop 'L' station and the Lake/State Red Line subway station on the CTA.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 20, 2011)

Having a connection between the Chicago subway and the elevated L is vastly different than having a connection between a subway and a light rail train running on rails embedded in the street and co-mingling with traffic.


----------



## DET63 (Apr 20, 2011)

I think maybe more valid comparisons could be made between the Muni Metro and BART in San Francisco, though that is also a unique case. Muni Metro, for example, has both surface light-rail and subway components, whereas BART in San Francisco is primarily subway and exclusively heavy-rail. A number of stations serve both BART and Muni Metro subways, though they have separate faregates.


----------



## fairviewroad (Apr 21, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Having a connection between the Chicago subway and the elevated L is vastly different than having a connection between a subway and a light rail train running on rails embedded in the street and co-mingling with traffic.


Yeah but I think the light rail being on the street and co-mingling with traffic was not an act of God but

rather an act of man, i.e. designed that way on purpose. The OP's point is that it was not originally planned

in a way as to facilitate a more convenient connections between the two services. The only good answer I've

seen to that is *tracktwentynine's* post which basically says it was a lack of money and political will. So yes,

retroactively building such a connection would be prohibitively expensive (though certainly not impossible).

But there's no particularly good reason why it wasn't made in the first place.


----------



## jis (Apr 21, 2011)

fairviewroad said:


> Yeah but I think the light rail being on the street and co-mingling with traffic was not an act of God but
> 
> rather an act of man, i.e. designed that way on purpose. The OP's point is that it was not originally planned
> 
> ...


Actually we are arguing about a point based on the false assumption that there is something wrong with an over ground connection. That assumption is simply untrue. Look at any city with a significant light rail network e.g. Amsterdam or South London. The attraction of light rail is that it is on the street and easily accessible. Where it connects with heavy rail if there is space available it could be brought into the station or curbside by the station, or it could be a block over if traffic flows better that way. What exactly would be the ROI of digging a short tunnel to get the light rail to the heavy rail station? More or less none in terms of additional ridership!


----------



## George Harris (Apr 30, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Fast forward a few years. With little federal funding available, and the long delay associated with just getting those dollars, Maryland decided to do something smart. They built the Light Rail _without federal funding_. This got the project started more quickly, but it came with trade-offs. It opened in 1992.
> Among those trade-offs were long portions of single-track right-of-way, almost no grade separation, and street-running in Downtown Baltimore. In the late 1990s, sections of the Light Rail were closed for long periods to enable double-tracking, and ridership never fully recovered from those closures.


It was not really something smart. It was a political promise fulfilled, after a fashion. The original design was for the system to be double tracked throughout, but to built as cheaply as possible. Everything about it had a fixed timeline and a fixed budget. Thus the design time was really short. As reality sank in, the budget was simply insufficient to build a double track system. Double track in Howard Street was a given, but for the rest of the system, the second track kept being subtracted until the cost got down to budget. Both north and south, once out of the downtown area, the line follows pre-existing railroad lines, and I do not mean parallel to, but occupies. These were Conrail's (or was it still Penn Central) ex Pennsylvania RR line to Harrisburg that no longer went through to the north and The Baltimore and Annapolis line to the south. All bridges were reused. Fortunately, the line north had been double tracked at one time. All bridges both ways needed a good deal of work due to deferred maintenance. Provision to permit continued freight operation was part of the package. It was considerably slower in run time than originally promoted, but again, that was reality sinking in. The route north was not really where the demand for transportation was located. It was simply by far the cheapest to build. It was known from the beginning that if reasonably good ridership developed that a second track would be needed. Some provisions were made to reduce the cost and difficulty to adding the second track, and some that should have been were not, again due to money.

Ever putting the downtown section undergroud is not possible without moving to another street. Why? The line is over the top of the CSX (ex B&O) tunnel.

Don't know what the state of the lines concerning freight service is now. I have heard that the B&A has quit, so the line south should now be light rail only. At one point the freight on the north in was increasing, but I have heard recently that it has also quit, or at least gone way down.



AlanB said:


> That double tracking project was basically approved in late 1999, as noted in this FTA document; construction started a few years later IIRC. However ridership has more than recovered from the project. Here's a quick rundown of the numbers from the National Transit Database:
> 1996 - 6.287 million rides taken.
> 
> 1999 - 7.78 million rides.
> ...


The second track should have improved both elapsed run time and reliability.



AlanB said:


> Having a connection between the Chicago subway and the elevated L is vastly different than having a connection between a subway and a light rail train running on rails embedded in the street and co-mingling with traffic.





DET63 said:


> I think maybe more valid comparisons could be made between the Muni Metro and BART in San Francisco, though that is also a unique case. Muni Metro, for example, has both surface light-rail and subway components, whereas BART in San Francisco is primarily subway and exclusively heavy-rail. A number of stations serve both BART and Muni Metro subways, though they have separate faregates.


Muni was in Market Street before BART was built. The Muni subway under Market Street and BART were built as a common unit.



fairviewroad said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Having a connection between the Chicago subway and the elevated L is vastly different than having a connection between a subway and a light rail train running on rails embedded in the street and co-mingling with traffic.
> ...


If you are talking about Baltimore, you are absolutely correct. The light rail line was absolutely a political promise.

A peculiarity of Maryland politics: If Baltimore City and the suburban couties around it and Washington DC are sufficiently on board with any issue, the rest of the state can be completely ignored as a legislative majority on any issue can be obtained without them. One of the best reasons I can think of for our national government house-senate set-up.



jis said:


> Actually we are arguing about a point based on the false assumption that there is something wrong with an over ground connection. That assumption is simply untrue. Look at any city with a significant light rail network e.g. Amsterdam or South London. The attraction of light rail is that it is on the street and easily accessible. Where it connects with heavy rail if there is space available it could be brought into the station or curbside by the station, or it could be a block over if traffic flows better that way. What exactly would be the ROI of digging a short tunnel to get the light rail to the heavy rail station? More or less none in terms of additional ridership!


A protected from the elements passageway would be a nice to have, but a covered walkway on the surface should be sufficient, and definitely a whole lot cheaper that an underground passageway.


----------



## Kevin L. (May 9, 2011)

A better question would be why is MD transportation a joke?

With the exception of the terminal stations of the DC metro, we really have nothing remarkable. The MARC trains are nice, but they're beyond capacity, and only run for DC commuters. They're a mercurial extension of the metro; they are the rail equivalent to buses: Ephemeral transit that is great when it works, but able to vanish overnight. (In Baltimore, several areas have been targeted for revitalization, and bus routes were promised to drive customers to the area. The community response--we're not spending one red cent unless you give us permanent--rail--transit.)

Where's the extension of the metro to Baltimore? (We have a viable corridor.) Where's the extension to Annapolis? (We have most of a viable corridor.) Where's a station that can allow commuters to get to DC without having to drive so close to the city as so to be IN it? When your closest metro station is _witihin_ the Capitol Beltway, it's almost better to drive a bit further in and just park. Speaking of the Metro, where is the National Harbor Service & where is the "grey line" (or was it purple?) which was supposed to connect all of the terminal stations in MD to one another, making the DC metro usable for cross-rail-line intra-MD transit?

Where's our light rail transit for B'more & Annapolis? All we have are sporadic buses, and several bus routes are either in danger of being shut down, or are shut down now.

The Baltimore Light Rail is a joke, it can take 3 hours for it to run from terminal to terminal, and that's normal. There is no fare enforcement of which to speak, so most who ride don't pay a red cent, and to make up the slack, the "honest citizen" has to pay more and more for his pass. Power fluctuation (lights dimming/going out) on a train ride is the norm, and occasional full power outages are to be expected. These are ESPECIALLY fun when you're on the bridge over the Patapsco (under the Sky Bridge of I-95). There is still no east-west transit. Part of the reasoning behind stopping the development of viable routes to drive into Baltimore was that there would be real public intra-city transit. There isn't any, and hasn't been since GM killed the streetcars.

The light rail is a minor convenience for suburbanites to make the occasional (Ravens/Orioles game) trip to the city. It is not an essential convenience for commuters which alleviates traffic backup.

So the light rail fails within the city, it fails outside of the city...it's Schaefer's personal project (as was the Subway) and it went nowhere.

Speaking of the Subway, it at least functions half-decently as a commuter conveyor, but I have never lost my disappointment from riding it the first time. The train runs parallel to the interstate. The train is passed by cars on the interstate as though it were standing still. The train can go 70 mph, yet limits itself to 55 mph or below. When it gets to any appreciable speed, it is time for it to make one of its many stops. The train takes entirely too long, and has only one track. Once it finally gets you into the city, the stops are few & inconvenient. Lexington Market's lack of a flush meeting between the 2 trains isn't so bad in my eyes; what is bad is the decay of Lexington Market station. The last time I was there, only one exit operated. The place looked like a decrepit fallout shelter. Maybe the subway could have wound its way to Fells Point, like the canceled I-83 extension was supposed to do? I guess that would have been functionally convenient.

Maryland--our roads suck, and our public transit sucks. At least our airport is halfway decent...wait, I take that back; it isn't.


----------



## Ryan (May 9, 2011)

It all boils down to the dollars. Any of those projects are on the table with the right funding, but instead we got the ICC.


----------



## rrdude (May 9, 2011)

And what a *NICE ICC* that is, (or will be). (*I*nter-*C*ounty-*C*onnector, it will be/is a demand-based toll road. Think of it as another ring, incomplete, around the DC Beltway)

I make the car commute daily on I-95 between Catsonville (SW Balt Suburb) and Silver Spring, (just, I mean _just,_ outside the DC Beltway)

I-95 is already a mess from the DC Beltway interchange, up to Columbia. My fear of course is that when the new extension of the ICC dumps into I-95 just north of Powder Mill Rd., how much WORSE will the I-95 traffic be? Ugh.

If I could take any form of public transit to my office I would, but it would require at least two/three modes (bus, rail, Metro) and the trip would go from 25-30 minutes (non-rush hour) to over two hours...... ahhhhh.."No" would be my answer.

I'd say that Maryland's transit does indeed suck. But there are areas that are FAR worse. Metro Detroit comes to mind, I'm sure there are others.

Granted, Maryland Commuter Rail doesn't run on weekends, (how stoopid is that?) *some* Oriole's games have MARC service, but at least when it does run M-F, the schedules are pretty good, and hey, remember not too many years ago, they added Frederick, Maryland as a terminus.

My letter grade for MD Transit? C or C-.


----------



## Ryan (May 9, 2011)

rrdude said:


> I make the car commute daily on I-95 between Catsonville (SW Balt Suburb) and Silver Spring, (just, I mean _just,_ outside the DC Beltway)


Wow. That sounds like an absolutely MISERABLE commute. 


> Granted, Maryland Commuter Rail doesn't run on weekends, (how stoopid is that?)


Again, $$$ - MARC has had a plan (and I think concurrence from Amtrak) to run at least the Penn Line on the weekends, but then the State budget went into the can and yeah... I've been told that a fare increase that would actually help make some of those enhancements would be DOA, which is a shame - I know that it's been at least 5 years (and likely quite longer) since fares have been increased on the MARC train.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (May 9, 2011)

Kevin L. said:


> A better question would be why is MD transportation a joke?


*Short answer:*

As Ryan already pointed out, the main reason that Maryland doesn't have better transportation is money. As a Marylander myself, I support doing more to fund transit, and that includes higher taxes, if necessary.

*Longer answer:*

I don't think Maryland transportation is a joke. I'm one of those fortunate Marylanders who is not wedded to a car. And despite living in the Washington suburbs, I never have a problem getting around. The bus network is decent, the Metro has excellent coverage, and the bike infrastructure is very good. We even have a sliver of one of America's better infrastructure assets - the Northeast Corridor.

I certainly wouldn't rank Maryland at the top of the list when it comes to the state of our transportation infrastructure, but it's not at the bottom of the pack, either.



Kevin L. said:


> With the exception of the terminal stations of the DC metro, we really have nothing remarkable. The MARC trains are nice, but they're beyond capacity, and only run for DC commuters. They're a mercurial extension of the metro; they are the rail equivalent to buses: Ephemeral transit that is great when it works, but able to vanish overnight. (In Baltimore, several areas have been targeted for revitalization, and bus routes were promised to drive customers to the area. The community response--we're not spending one red cent unless you give us permanent--rail--transit.)


Actually, I think we have a good bit of transit that is remarkable. The second busiest subway in the country, the Washington Metro, runs significant service into Maryland. Both branches of the busiest line run to Maryland. I'm not sure how you can sneeze at an inbound Red Line train leaving Silver Spring every 3 minutes. Even the Green Line's paltry 6 minute headways are pretty good.

And MARC is remarkable too. Sure, service doesn't compare to SEPTA or LIRR, but the Penn Line is the fastest commuter rail line in the country. Service operates all day each weekday in _both_ directions. And at $7 fares between Washington and Baltimore are a pittance. It would be great to have more trains and to have weekend trains. And in fact, that was the plan. Then the recession happened. And not only did transit ridership drop, so did tax revenues.

Paradoxically, much of Maryland's transit funding comes from things like the ad valorem tax on new car sales. And for some strange reason during recessions, people stop buying new cars.

With the drop in revenue, MTA had to decide what to cut. One of the first causalities was the last roundtrip of the evening from Baltimore to Washington. But I'd rather them cut a train that runs with only 20% of the seats taken rather than one that runs standing room only. When revenues start to come back, we'll likely see more trains. The Governor has publicly stated that MARC is a priority, and even released a plan on how to improve service over the next 3 decades.

When Maryland gets the money to do these projects, we'll see improvements.

Regarding your allegation that MARC trains are DC-centric: They are run mainly for Maryland commuters. While most service does operate in the direction of Washington, that's where most commuters are bound. However, both the Penn and Camden lines operate service into Baltimore. And many people only travel partway down the line. Many people in my office in Silver Spring take the MARC Brunswick Line from further out, and alight before getting to DC. Some Perryville passengers only go to Baltimore. Some go to Odenton, some to New Carrollton.

And MTA has been taking steps to deal with the crowding. About 2 months ago, they revised the Penn Line schedule to deal with some of that. The strategy was more trains, though they'd be a little shorter. And over the past several months, MTA has been in the process of replacing all their diesel locomotives, which should result in longer trains, better reliability, and better air quality.



Kevin L. said:


> Where's the extension of the metro to Baltimore? (We have a viable corridor.) Where's the extension to Annapolis? (We have most of a viable corridor.) Where's a station that can allow commuters to get to DC without having to drive so close to the city as so to be IN it? When your closest metro station is _witihin_ the Capitol Beltway, it's almost better to drive a bit further in and just park.


Are you suggesting extending the DC Metro to Baltimore? That's not a feasible mode. Rapid rail is not designed to be inter-city transit. The appropriate mode for that market is commuter rail. The Penn Line train #408 departs Washington at 7:20A and gets into Baltimore 37 minutes later. And that's with no intermediate stops. Metro would take and hour and a half, at least. And it would likely cost 3 or 4 times as much as the cost of adding SEPTA-like service on the Northeast Corridor.

The Washington Metro is run by WMATA, which is not part of MTA. Their mission is not to serve all of Maryland, it's to serve the Washington region. And the governance structure is not suited to serving ever larger swaths of Maryland. It's a 3-state agency that has enough problems balancing regional priorities as it is.

The fact that the rail lines end at the Capti*a*l Beltway is not some thing to be scoffed at. It's pretty standard. Most commuters on rapid rail aren't willing to commute beyond a certain distance. In just about every region of the city with a modern rail system (of WMATA vintage), the lines all end about 10-15 miles from the city center, which is about the distance the Beltway is from central Washington.

_National Harbor and the Bi-County Transitway_:

There's no plan that I'm aware of to serve National Harbor. Part of the problem there is that National Harbor was put in a place where there was no transit. Maybe we should have built it somewhere where the infrastructure already existed. It's not like there's a shortage of Metro-accessible land in Prince George's County.

The Purple Line is in planning. It will run from New Carrollton to Bethesda. If everything goes according to plan, it could open as early as 2016, though that might be a bit optimistic. It's in the preliminary engineering phase at the moment, which means they're figuring out exactly how to build it. Unfortunately, it takes time to plan, design, and build transit projects. Nothing happens overnight.

One of the biggest obstacles to the Purple Line is the ICC. Even though it's a toll road, it still uses Maryland's bonding capacity. The highway is so expensive, that the state doesn't have the ability to borrow large sums of money for transportation at the moment. Think of it this way, Maryland has a credit limit. And Governor Elrich bought a really nice Christmas present. It will take some time to pay if off, and until that happens, we're not going to be able to afford big transportation projects.

One of the projects that is in planning is the Red Line. That project will bring an east-west light rail line across Baltimore. It's a very good project, and it's also in preliminary engineering. Unfortunately, that means it will likely compete with the Purple Line for federal funding. And there's not much of that either.



Kevin L. said:


> The Baltimore Light Rail is a joke, it can take 3 hours for it to run from terminal to terminal, and that's normal.


No, it's not normal. The scheduled run time from BWI to Hunt Valley is 80 minutes. From Cromwell to Timonium it's 62 minutes. Headways do leave a bit to be desired. On weekdays, the light rail runs every 20 minutes on the individual branches, though that means better headways where multiple lines run together.



Kevin L. said:


> There is no fare enforcement of which to speak, so most who ride don't pay a red cent, and to make up the slack, the "honest citizen" has to pay more and more for his pass. Power fluctuation (lights dimming/going out) on a train ride is the norm, and occasional full power outages are to be expected. These are ESPECIALLY fun when you're on the bridge over the Patapsco (under the Sky Bridge of I-95). There is still no east-west transit. Part of the reasoning behind stopping the development of viable routes to drive into Baltimore was that there would be real public intra-city transit. There isn't any, and hasn't been since GM killed the streetcars.
> 
> The light rail is a minor convenience for suburbanites to make the occasional (Ravens/Orioles game) trip to the city. It is not an essential convenience for commuters which alleviates traffic backup.
> 
> So the light rail fails within the city, it fails outside of the city...it's Schaefer's personal project (as was the Subway) and it went nowhere.


Proof-of-payment systems are pretty standard across the country. Fare enforcement on the Light Rail is not omnipresent, but it's far from non-existent. The real question (and this is a real question) is whether the salaries of all those fare inspectors would cost more than the revenue they'd bring in from lower fare evasion rates.

The Light Rail serves plenty of commuters and intra-city riders. There's certainly room for improvement. But its ridership is decent for its length, and people use it for reasons other than going to see a baseball game.

I will give you the point that the Light Rail is due primarily to Governor Schaffer. Without him, Baltimore would likely only have the Metro. I suppose you think that would be preferable? This thread has already discussed several reasons why the Light Rail goes where it goes and why it's not better. I'm not going to rehash those arguments.

The Metro, on the other hand, is not due to Schaffer. It opened 4 years before he took office as Governor. Now, it's true that he was Mayor of Baltimore while it was being planned and constructed, and I'm sure he was a major force behind it. But he's not the sole reason it got built, and its genesis predates him.



Kevin L. said:


> Speaking of the Subway, it at least functions half-decently as a commuter conveyor, but I have never lost my disappointment from riding it the first time. The train runs parallel to the interstate. The train is passed by cars on the interstate as though it were standing still. The train can go 70 mph, yet limits itself to 55 mph or below. When it gets to any appreciable speed, it is time for it to make one of its many stops. The train takes entirely too long, and has only one track. Once it finally gets you into the city, the stops are few & inconvenient. Lexington Market's lack of a flush meeting between the 2 trains isn't so bad in my eyes; what is bad is the decay of Lexington Market station. The last time I was there, only one exit operated. The place looked like a decrepit fallout shelter. Maybe the subway could have wound its way to Fells Point, like the canceled I-83 extension was supposed to do? I guess that would have been functionally convenient.


Maybe the problem is that the speed limit on I-795 is too high?

The average speed of rapid transit isn't all that high, when you consider stops. The fastest heavy rail line in the country is the PATCO Speedline outside Philadelphia. It has an average scheduled speed of *34.1 mph*. Baltimore's Metro is actually in third place, after BART and ahead of the DC Metro. The average schedule speed (how long it takes to go from end-of-line to end-of-line divided by the distance) for the Baltimore Metro is *31.5 mph*. And despite getting passed by cars along the short section of freeway in which it runs, those cars don't have a freeway to downtown, so the train probably beats them all anyway.



 (click for more info)

So, in summation, I disagree with you. Maryland doesn't suck. Neither does its transportation. But it could certainly improve. However, if you want Maryland's transportation to suck _less_, I'd suggest contacting your elected officials and encouraging them to find the money. Please let them know that you're not opposed to higher taxes if it means better transportation.


----------



## Kevin L. (May 9, 2011)

> And what a NICE ICC that is, (or will be). (Inter-County-Connector, it will be/is a demand-based toll road. Think of it as another ring, incomplete, around the DC Beltway)


All the ICC does, and will do once it is finally complete, is allow drivers to leap-frog other drivers on the "backroads" which lead away from DC, the roads that are not able to support such traffic.

In theory, a shorter method of going from I-270 to I-95 is great. In reality, both I-270 & I-95 will be (and are) backed up during rush hours, so drivers will exit onto the other, smaller, roads which have exits on the ICC. These roads are 2-lane roads with schools and houses located directly on them. Roads like MD route 97 (Georgia ave) aren't designed to handle DC rush hour traffic.

It seems that the state of MD has spent millions on a boondoggle which just allows drivers to pay a few bucks to get further up in the traffic jam over their more fugal brethren. It's not the first time MD has done such a thing.

These "backroads" don't directly lead to the homes of most commuters, however. They mainly go to I-70, which is backed up at the Baltimore Beltway due to the utter failing that is that road (due in part to the unfulfilled extension plans of I-70. If that road linked directly with I-95, backup at the I-70 & 695 junction would be reduced), MD Route 32 which is still a 2 lane road--and often backed up--and MD Route 100 which bogs down in several sections during rush hour.

Sadly, no improvement to MD's transportation can be made in the foreseeable future as the current administration diverted (ie: legally stole) the 800 million dollar transportation fund into other projects which are irrelevant to transit, the money's purpose. Now the administration tells us that they have no money for road maintenance, among other things, and need to raise the gas tax & raise tolls by 56% in order to recoup the "transportation budget deficit". Once again, a government spends money it doesn't have, steals the money that it does have to cover it, and the citizens who live under that government suffer.



> And despite living in the Washington suburbs, I never have a problem getting around. The bus network is decent, the Metro has excellent coverage, and the bike infrastructure is very good.


Sorry to say that living in such an area puts you out of touch with the transit woes of the rest of the state. Since you mention bikes, I figure I should mention something on that: Anne Arundel County has a renown bike trail...which has become decrepit due to lack of maintenance, it isn't practical for many people living near it due to a lack of safe access, and on key parts of the trail crime has rendered it less than desirable to use.
On the Baltimore Metro's slow speed, you said:



> Maybe the problem is that the speed limit on I-795 is too high?


That makes no sense, and I hope it is sarcasm. That sounds like the rhetoric of one who has a grudge against cars, and your background & language easily suggest that you are in that camp.

Perhaps if _the train_ would go at the speed it is capable of, this would assuage issues. There are fairly long lengths of track between the last few stops, and going 70 mph would help. Seeing the cars outpace the train also has a psychological impact on riders, either realized riders or potential riders. The propaganda along I-795 tells you to take the metro, but why would you if driving is faster? Have you ever tried to commute using the Metro? I have, and I had to revert to driving into the city back then. Shudder.

Oh, your chart of alleged average speeds proves nothing, and is worth nothing. Speed itself doesn't redeem a transit line, and your chart is not one of ACTUAL averages, but of theoretical averaged speeds. Anyone who has experienced outages on the Light Rail would question the validity of your chart. After years of light rail ridership--yes, even as an aborted attempt to commute into B'more--I am one of those people. Also, in years of riding the Light Rail, I have NEVER had my ticket checked. After a recent suburban crime spree, which was attributed to the Light Rail, police beats at a selected stop of the light rail (Linthicum) were ramped up temporarily. Even then I rode through without an inspection. As to your claims about "normal" transit times, I have to ask how often you've ridden the beast of the light rail. Issues with traffic and passengers as well as equipment have regularly slowed the light rail down to far longer than 80 minutes on its terminal to terminal commute in my experience.



> Maryland doesn't suck. Neither does its transportation. But it could certainly improve. However, if you want Maryland's transportation to suck less, I'd suggest contacting your elected officials and encouraging them to find the money. Please let them know that you're not opposed to higher taxes if it means better transportation.


Wait, you claim that MD's transit does NOT suck, yet then you admit that it does. In response to this, I refer you to my previous statement on the mismanagement of the transportation fund by our esteemed governor (Sales Tax, a tax which was supposed to be discontinued decades ago). I am opposed to higher taxes--the government has so many pork projects that need to be cut before I concede to paying more taxes. Oh, and as you might recall, we _have_ had a tax increase under the current governor, and transit has not been improved on any front. (Plane, Train, Bus, or Car) If anything, it has worsened.



> One of the projects that is in planning is the Red Line. That project will bring an east-west light rail line across Baltimore. It's a very good project, and it's also in preliminary engineering. Unfortunately, that means it will likely compete with the Purple Line for federal funding. And there's not much of that either.


Here's a thought--if our government had responsible spending habits, we would not need to beg on bended knee for federal funding, we could do the project with our own money. Like the original Light Rail--for all its flaws, at least it is our accomplishment. Remember when our state, which is the wealthiest state in the Union (by median household income), actually had money in its coffers? Higher taxes have been tried, and if they didn't work the first several times, they certainly won't work now.


----------



## Ryan (May 9, 2011)

Great response, Matt - I completely agree with everything that you've said but this:



Tracktwentynine said:


> Maybe the problem is that the speed limit on I-795 is too high?


I don't think that's really a problem, the problem (as you alluded to later in your response) is people's expectations and perceptions. As far as the interstates go, the speed limits nearly universally aren't high enough. Driving 55 on the Beltway is just asking for trouble and increases the speed differential between the slowest and fastest drivers, which is really what causes accidents.



Kevin L. said:


> These roads are 2-lane roads with schools and houses located directly on them. Roads like MD route 97 (Georgia ave) aren't designed to handle DC rush hour traffic.


These roads are already clogged and utilized heavily by the DC rush hour traffic. The ICC isn't going to have that much of an impact on them at all. If anything, it'll allow some commuters to get off of those roads and onto a highway more quickly. Other than the gaping hole in the transportation budget, I don't see the ICC having much of an impact at all on mobility around the region (positive or negative).


----------



## Ryan (May 9, 2011)

Kevin L. said:


> Perhaps if _the train_ would go at the speed it is capable of, this would assuage issues. There are fairly long lengths of track between the last few stops, and going 70 mph would help.


Prove it. Do the math and figure out how much time a 15 MPH change in speed would save. I think that you might be surprised.


> Seeing the cars outpace the train also has a psychological impact on riders, either realized riders or potential riders. The propaganda along I-795 tells you to take the metro, but why would you if driving is faster?


Even if the train ran 70 MPH, drivers would still pass it. The fact that drivers pass the train along one segment means absolutely nothing about overall trip times. You can just handwave actual facts away like this:


> Oh, your chart of alleged average speeds proves nothing, and is worth nothing. Speed itself doesn't redeem a transit line, and your chart is not one of ACTUAL averages, but of theoretical averaged speeds.






> Also, in years of riding the Light Rail, I have NEVER had my ticket checked. After a recent suburban crime spree, which was attributed to the Light Rail, police beats at a selected stop of the light rail (Linthicum) were ramped up temporarily. Even then I rode through without an inspection. As to your claims about "normal" transit times, I have to ask how often you've ridden the beast of the light rail. Issues with traffic and passengers as well as equipment have regularly slowed the light rail down to far longer than 80 minutes on its terminal to terminal commute in my experience.


Anecdotes != Data. If you've got the data to show that it would be cost effective to step up enforcement, I'd be all for it.


> I am opposed to higher taxes--the government has so many pork projects that need to be cut before I concede to paying more taxes.


I'd love to see the list of projects that you'd cut and what you think the budgetary impact of those cuts would be.


----------



## Kevin L. (May 9, 2011)

On the National Harbor, please show me some land which is along the Potomac which is suitable for the construction of a harbor as well as large edifices, has easy automotive access, and already has metro access.

If you can't find one, don't despair, as you're in the same boat as the planners for the National Harbor as it stands today 

This is supposed to be the _national_ harbor, a prestigious site. Yet all the public transit it gets is a shoddy bus line, which has provoked ire with the managers of the establishments at the harbor. This bus line is not cheap, it apparently costs the MD state government 312,000 USD per year.

There exists a private transit option other than personal car--the water taxi--but that expensive endeavor does not work well for 2 large reasons. The first being that the Virginia terminus of the taxi does not connect with any public transit directly; the closest metro stop is the Alexandria metro stop, which is several blocks away (There is a shuttle, a shuttle which costs Alexandria 800,000 dollars to run). The second reason is that the water taxi is expensive. One of the largest complaints heard from proprietors at the National Harbor is that their employees are perpetually tardy in their arrival due to the shoddy nature of the bus line. These are not people who make 6 figures working in DC, so even if the water taxi were convenient to wherever they may reside (I doubt it is old town Alexandria) at its current prices it would not be affordable. Surely you can empathize with that?


----------



## Tracktwentynine (May 9, 2011)

Yes. I was being facetious about the speed limit on I-795. Lowering it would not likely change driver behavior anyway.

I decided to run the numbers on speed. Since there are no intermediate stops on the Metro in the median of the freeway between Owings Mills station and the Beltway (where the Freeway ends), the math is pretty simple. We'll assume no acceleration/deceleration times. The distance from the midpoint of Owings Mills Station to the Beltway is 3.2 miles.

If the Metro were to travel at 55 mph, it would cover that distance in 3 minutes 29 seconds.

At 60 mph, 3m12.

At 65 mph, 2m57.

At 70 mph, 2m44.

So, increasing the speed to the design speed of the vehicle (which is not the same as the maximum speed based on track geometry) would save riders 45 seconds.


----------



## Kevin L. (May 9, 2011)

> Anecdotes != Data. If you've got the data to show that it would be cost effective to step up enforcement, I'd be all for it.


You don't even have pertinent data, and you are engaging in selective argument. If we continue down this path, I won't be surprised to see the straw man fallacy be employed.

BTW, public transit isn't even designed to recoup its own costs. As I recollect, intracity buses in B'more are only expected to recoup 30% of operating costs at their fare box. I have not directly argued that enforcement should be ramped up to recoup additional funds. That argument is your invention. I mention the lack of enforcement as a display of the lack of dedication the state has to maintaining and preserving its own enterprise.

You rail against my employ of anecdotal experience, but you seemingly have none to compare. You argue ideas against a harsh reality, ideas "corroborated" by worthless statistics.

By not acknowledging and countering points, are you conceding them?

I don't fault you directly--you're not the first person who lives in Maryland's "Ivory Tower" areas who cannot fathom that the vast majority of the state is not as idyllic as your surroundings. 

On the ICC,



> If anything, it'll allow some commuters to get off of those roads and onto a highway more quickly.


You mean those same highways which are parking lots at rush hour? Only in combination with less-crowded North-South roads will the new East-West route of the ICC be useful. What does it matter if I can go from a backed-up Route 97 to a backed-up I-95? Absolutely nothing in my eyes. Outside of rush hour traffic, I see several minor advantages the ICC could bestow (though they aren't worth paying for). However, the purpose of the ICC was to relieve rush-hour congestion, so those advantages aren't germane.

EDIT:I see what is arguably a straw man argument presented by you on the speed vs travel time of the Baltimore metro.



> I'd love to see the list of projects that you'd cut and what you think the budgetary impact of those cuts would be.


I'd love to see the list of public good projects (the sole purpose of government) that the government is excelling at, and is improving with our steadily-increasing taxes. Our libraries are failing, our schools (supposedly the best in the country) are strapped for cash, our roads are antiquated and decrepit, our transit system has been stagnant for decades, our police have funding issues...we could rattle these off all day, yet never find a counter-example. My personal favorite is the Bay cleanup, or lack thereof.


----------



## Ryan (May 9, 2011)

I'm not sure why you expect that developers can just plop down something like National Harbor in the middle of nowhere and then assume that transit is going to flock to its doors.

The developers clearly were interested in designing somewhere to be accessible by car and they accomplished exactly that.


----------



## Ryan (May 9, 2011)

Kevin L. said:


> BTW, public transit isn't even designed to recoup its own costs. As I recollect, intracity buses in B'more are only expected to recoup 30% of operating costs at their fare box. I have not directly argued that enforcement should be ramped up to recoup additional funds. That argument is your invention. I mention the lack of enforcement as a display of the lack of dedication the state has to maintaining and preserving its own enterprise.


OK, fine. How exactly does the lack of enforcement display the lack of dedication? If its not economical to pay more people to enforce the fares, what sense does it make to throw money away in an attempt to convince Kevin L that Maryland is "Dedicated to Transit"?


> You rail against my employ of anecdotal experience, but you seemingly have none to compare. You argue ideas against a harsh reality, ideas "corroborated" by worthless statistics.


You're the one trying to make a point, the onus is on you to provide the supporting data.


> I don't fault you directly--you're not the first person who lives in Maryland's "Ivory Tower" areas who cannot fathom that the vast majority of the state is not as idyllic as your surroundings.


Where exactly is this "Ivory Tower" again?


> On the ICC,
> 
> 
> > If anything, it'll allow some commuters to get off of those roads and onto a highway more quickly.
> ...


I think that we're in violent agreement on the utility (or lack thereof) of the ICC.


> EDIT:I see what is arguably a straw man argument presented by you on the speed vs travel time of the Baltimore metro.
> 
> 
> > I'd love to see the list of projects that you'd cut and what you think the budgetary impact of those cuts would be.
> ...


See my comments above. You made the comment, the onus is on you to back it up or retract it.


----------



## Kevin L. (May 9, 2011)

> I'm not sure why you expect that developers can just plop down something like National Harbor in the middle of nowhere and then assume that transit is going to flock to its doors.
> The developers clearly were interested in designing somewhere to be accessible by car and they accomplished exactly that.


Friend, that is simply not true, and you evaded my question. A question which arose from _your_ assertion that there existed suitable land for the National Harbor that was already Metro accessible in PG county.

All I did was ask you to point it out, and now you evade by railing against the developers? The developers & proprietors want mass transit, they've pleaded for it. One of the reasons National Harbor construction was allowed was that the developers & state agreed that there would be real access to public transit. If you happen to have forgotten all of this from when it happened, Wikipedia's blurb on the harbor can refresh your memory.

BTW, we built DC hundreds of years before the Metro existed, and mass transit flocked to its doors. New York City, DC, & Boston clearly predate rail mass transit, yet both intra-city and inter-city mass transit have flocked to its doors. What's that old adage, "If you build it, they will come"?

EDIT:



> See my comments above. You made the comment, the onus is on you to back it up or retract it.


Hey, look at the irony, as you've done what you state in this quote already, but you've done it *multiple times*. Glad to see that you acknowledge that it is wrong.

As to the location of what I've termed MD's "Ivory Tower"?



> I'm one of those fortunate Marylanders who is not wedded to a car. And despite living in the Washington suburbs, I never have a problem getting around. The bus network is decent, the Metro has excellent coverage, and the bike infrastructure is very good


As before, you live in it. The "Ivory Tower" in this context is where public transit & personal (non-auto) transit structure is so developed that residents are able to live in the area without a car and not be negatively affected by this lacking.


----------



## Ryan (May 9, 2011)

Kevin L. said:


> > I'm not sure why you expect that developers can just plop down something like National Harbor in the middle of nowhere and then assume that transit is going to flock to its doors.
> > The developers clearly were interested in designing somewhere to be accessible by car and they accomplished exactly that.
> 
> 
> Friend, that is simply not true, and you evaded my question. A question which arose from _your_ assertion that there existed suitable land for the National Harbor that was already Metro accessible in PG county.


I have made no such assertion.


> All I did was ask you to point it out, and now you evade by railing against the developers? The developers & proprietors want mass transit, they've pleaded for it. One of the reasons National Harbor construction was allowed was that the developers & state agreed that there would be real access to public transit. If you happen to have forgotten all of this from when it happened, Wikipedia's blurb on the harbor can refresh your memory.


If the developers wanted real Mass Transit, they could have put forth the money to make it happen.


> EDIT:
> 
> 
> > See my comments above. You made the comment, the onus is on you to back it up or retract it.
> ...


I challenge you to point out a single instance of that. All you've done is continue on the attack without backing up any of the points that you've tried to make. Spend more time defending your own ideas and less time attacking others, and perhaps you'll be met with more success.


----------



## Kevin L. (May 9, 2011)

> I'm not sure why you expect that developers can just plop down something like National Harbor in the middle of nowhere and then assume that transit is going to flock to its doors.
> The developers clearly were interested in designing somewhere to be accessible by car and they accomplished exactly that.


Ryan, you said the above.



> Friend, that is simply not true, and you evaded my question. A question which arose from your assertion that there existed suitable land for the National Harbor that was already Metro accessible in PG county.


Then I said this, and I also asked you to show me land that would have been better used for the National Harbor, land that you claimed existed.

In challenge to my claims, you said this:



> I have made no such assertion.


However, Ryan also said this:



> Part of the problem there is that National Harbor was put in a place where there was no transit. Maybe we should have built it somewhere where the infrastructure already existed. It's not like there's a shortage of Metro-accessible land in Prince George's County.


Please explain the discrepancy between what you say now, and said before.

EDIT:



> All you've done is continue on the attack without backing up any of the points that you've tried to make.


 All of my statements have either been anecdotes, or are commonly known to MD residents. You are a Maryland resident, I am shocked that I mentioned anything which was not anecdotal that was also not common knowledge. What points of mine do you need corroboration for? I believe I can arrange it.
Also, you put the burden on me to demonstrate where you made comments which need corroboration to be accepted. I have already named one, but I will restate it. Also, in the post where you issued the challenge, you made another.



> If the developers wanted real Mass Transit, they could have put forth the money to make it happen.


Do you know that they did not attempt to? Additionally, on this very forum it was recently put up that Walt Disney was more than willing to construct a public monorail to facilitate transit to Disney Land. He was even willing to allow it to stop at competing locales, if need be. However, the issues which prevented its construction were greater than mere funding. Was the situation here similar? Regardless, it shows that you can't simply throw private money at a public transit problem and have it solved.



> I'm not sure why you expect that developers can just plop down something like National Harbor in the middle of nowhere and then assume that transit is going to flock to its doors.


Again, most all of our areas on the East Coast which have public transit predate the invention of public transit, particularly rail transit. So rail transit does flock to the doors of what is "in the middle of nowhere". (BTW, if the National Harbor is in the middle of nowhere, so is DC)


----------



## Ryan (May 9, 2011)

Kevin L. said:


> However, Ryan also said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's quite simple, really. I never said that. You should try rereading the thread and try to keep track of who has said what. You might even want to draw yourself a picture or something to lessen your confusion.


> All of my statements have either been anecdotes, or are commonly known to MD residents. You are a Maryland resident, I am shocked that I mentioned anything which was not anecdotal that was also not common knowledge. What points of mine do you need corroboration for? I believe I can arrange it.


They've been clearly indicated in my posts. When you go back and reread the thread I'm sure that you can manage to tease them out.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (May 9, 2011)

Kevin L. said:


> On the Baltimore Metro's slow speed, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I was being sarcastic about I-795. I don't have a grudge against cars, though I don't own one.

The speed the train is capable of in this particular case is apparently 55mph (I trust that you are correct that that is the speed it travels). The Acela, for example, has a top speed greater than 150, but it never goes that fast. That's because things like the signaling system, track geometry, and catenary require it to travel more slowly. I don't know why the Baltimore Metro doesn't go faster than 55 on that section of track, but I'm sure the engineers who designed it had a good reason.

I agree that it would be a positive benefit for drivers to see the train speeding past. But the increase in speed would actually only save riders 45 seconds (slightly less, in reality, since there is deceleration to consider on approach to Owings Mills).

People don't merely take transit because it's faster. People employ a mental calculus that varies from person to person, but which almost always considers more than one factor. Speed may be the primary factor for many. But other factors that play a role can include stress reduction, fuel/parking cost, ability to find parking at work, environmental stewardship, and other reasons. I'm a daily transit user. And even if I had a car (I have had access to a car in the past), I would still likely commute to work on transit. For me, stress is probably the largest factor. Though the ability to do something else while moving is pretty high. I generally get though the Washington Post every day, plus a chapter or two in a book. It's quite relaxing.

I think the same argument could be made for Amtrak (which I assume you support, given your presence on this board). Getting there fastest is not the only reason transportation exists.

I have not ever been a regular commuter on the Baltimore Metro. I have never worked in Baltimore, though I occasionally have to travel to Baltimore for work. In almost every case, I have taken transit to get there. However, I have ridden every heavy rail system in the United States, and I have also been a daily transit rider in several cities for almost a decade.



Kevin L. said:


> Oh, your chart of alleged average speeds proves nothing, and is worth nothing. Speed itself doesn't redeem a transit line, and your chart is not one of ACTUAL averages, but of theoretical averaged speeds. Anyone who has experienced outages on the Light Rail would question the validity of your chart. After years of light rail ridership--yes, even as an aborted attempt to commute into B'more--I am one of those people. Also, in years of riding the Light Rail, I have NEVER had my ticket checked. After a recent suburban crime spree, which was attributed to the Light Rail, police beats at a selected stop of the light rail (Linthicum) were ramped up temporarily. Even then I rode through without an inspection. As to your claims about "normal" transit times, I have to ask how often you've ridden the beast of the light rail. Issues with traffic and passengers as well as equipment have regularly slowed the light rail down to far longer than 80 minutes on its terminal to terminal commute in my experience.


My chart _is_ one of actual averages. The system averages of the scheduled speeds of every heavy rail line in the country. The scheduled speed is not a theoretical speed. It's the speed the train is scheduled to run. Are trains sometimes late? Yes. Are trains usually late? Probably not. If there is some problem that causes trains to be consistently late, the transit agency will revise the schedule to reflect that. Otherwise their on-time performance will suffer.

At any rate, the analysis was uniform, so if you think my analysis is off, it should be off at a uniform scale.

I didn't cite the chart to prove that heavy rail is the fastest way to go somewhere. I posted it to show that Baltimore compares very well to the other systems. And it does, at least in terms of speed.

In regards to the Light Rail, the chart I posted doesn't have anything to do with it. It only considers the Baltimore Metro Subway, since that's Baltimore's only heavy rail line. I'm sure trains are sometimes delayed and take longer than 80 minutes to travel end-to-end for a variety of reasons. But most trains run withing the scheduled window. Your allegation was that the Light Rail _normally_ takes 3 hours to travel end-to-end. That's 180 minutes, or more than twice as long as the schedule. I know for a fact that MTA's on-time performance is not that bad.



Kevin L. said:


> > Maryland doesn't suck. Neither does its transportation. But it could certainly improve. However, if you want Maryland's transportation to suck less, I'd suggest contacting your elected officials and encouraging them to find the money. Please let them know that you're not opposed to higher taxes if it means better transportation.
> 
> 
> Wait, you claim that MD's transit does NOT suck, yet then you admit that it does.


No, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. _I _don't think Maryland's transportation sucks. _You_ do think it sucks. So if _you_ want it to suck less, I'd suggest contacting your elected officials. Even if one doesn't think it sucks, one can still think it could be improved. I _don't _think it sucks. I _do_ think it can improve. I have contacted my elected officials to communicate that to them.


----------



## Kevin L. (May 9, 2011)

Firstly, I apologize. In this 2-fronted (3 fronted?) "war" of sorts I grew confused between who said what. Again, mea culpa.



> No, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I don't think Maryland's transportation sucks. You do think it sucks. So if you want it to suck less, I'd suggest contacting your elected officials. Even if one doesn't think it sucks, one can still think it could be improved. I don't think it sucks. I do think it can improve. I have contacted my elected officials to communicate that to them.


Well now, if you had simply said that in the first place, we wouldn't be in this predicament :wink:

BTW, I have most certainly contacted my elected (and non-elected) officials.



> The scheduled speed is not a theoretical speed. It's the speed the train is scheduled to run.


...which is what I meant by "theoretical speed". I believe I should be afforded the same privileges as you on post-rebuttal elucidating statements, 'tis only fair.

My argument on the light rail was not intended to reference your chart. On the light rail, it is still much too slow.



> I posted it to show that Baltimore compares very well to the other systems. And it does, at least in terms of speed.


To which I said that speed alone does not a good rail transit system make.

I still fervently believe that MD's public transit is lacking, a sentiment which, to save on syllables, I used the colloquialism of "sucks" to describe. To corroborate, I ask you--could you live in a MD county which lacks metro access, have a job in DC/B'more to which you have to commute, and be able to do it reliably and reasonably without a car? To clarify, this excludes living in Baltimore itself. I doubt this is possible, and until it is, MD's transit will continue to suck. Furthermore, I would maintain that the incredibly lengthy travel time of bus travel coupled with the uncertain arrival times of buses & the lack of longevity of their routes makes it unreasonable. EDIT: Perhaps living in immediate vicinity of a MARC station would allow this, but it would have to be very close. I have several friends who live within 5 miles of the Odenton station (just off MD 170 in fact) and they are compelled to drive to the station. Biking via safer routes is a very timely proposition. I suppose that it is possible to also live along the Light Rail's route. I know people who live within 2 miles of the Linthicum light rail stop. It's still more convenient for us to drive to the North Linthicum stop than to walk to the Linthicum one. (Not because we don't love walking, we do. We know the MD state park system, particularly Patapsco, like our own back yards. If you don't, I tell you truly that it is an awesome locale.) It is also possible to live along the Subway's route, but I have both lived & worked in Reisterstown, one of the "better" locales along the subway, and I wouldn't want to live there again.

In the end, I see my taxes go up, and the quality of my public goods go down. This vexes me greatly.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (May 9, 2011)

Kevin L. said:


> To corroborate, I ask you--could you live in a MD county which lacks metro access, have a job in DC/B'more to which you have to commute, and be able to do it reliably and reasonably without a car? To clarify, this excludes living in Baltimore itself. I doubt this is possible, and until it is, MD's transit will continue to suck. Furthermore, I would maintain that the incredibly lengthy travel time of bus travel coupled with the uncertain arrival times of buses & the lack of longevity of their routes makes it unreasonable. EDIT: Perhaps living in immediate vicinity of a MARC station would allow this, but it would have to be very close. I have several friends who live within 5 miles of the Odenton station (just off MD 170 in fact) and they are compelled to drive to the station. Biking via safer routes is a very timely proposition. I suppose that it is possible to also live along the Light Rail's route. I know people who live within 2 miles of the Linthicum light rail stop. It's still more convenient for us to drive to the North Linthicum stop than to walk to the Linthicum one. (Not because we don't love walking, we do. We know the MD state park system, particularly Patapsco, like our own back yards. If you don't, I tell you truly that it is an awesome locale.) It is also possible to live along the Subway's route, but I have both lived & worked in Reisterstown, one of the "better" locales along the subway, and I wouldn't want to live there again.


I understand. And I agree with you. Living outside of the suburban counties would be extremely difficult to do without a car. And that's why I live where I do. I specifically chose to live in an area that had decent bus service and was bike friendly.

I'm in Prince George's County, which arguably has the worst transit service int the WMATA service area. But it enables me to get where I need to go. I just wish there were Sunday buses. But then, that's what the bike's good for.


----------



## Kevin L. (May 9, 2011)

> Living outside of the suburban counties would be extremely difficult to do without a car.


Though as I recall, Anne Arundel County is considered a suburban county, especially the northern quarter. AA Co has its share of commuters, great is the number of AA co commuters going down Route 50 to New Carrollton every morning. A suburban commuter county, a county containing not only the State's capital, but also the Bay Bridge, gateway to the bedroom communities of the Eastern Shore. AA Co is a prime candidate for increased rail transit. Anything south of the Odenton MARC station (the vast majority of the county) has no rail transit save for the distant New Carrollton. Much of the county consists of peninsulas, and these are sufficiently east of any rail transit (especially for Balitmore) as so that it becomes unobtainable.

One thing I forgot about is that people in other counties have buses which have provisions for carrying a normal bicycle. AA County did not get such provisions until very recently, and not all buses have them. Several buses serving the "famed" B&A bike trail have lacked them until very recent history, which makes no sense.

I understand that at one time there existed a Baltimore-Annapolis train, and that it went out of business. Reopening one along the preserved former corridor would be folly, and was vetoed when the light rail was constructed all those years ago. (Which might have been a good thing, some rather momentous engineering would have been compensate for the massive height difference between the former corridor & the light rail's terminus @ Cromwell. Semi-convenient is the fact that the preserved corridor literally ends across the street from Cromwell.)

Instead of the ICC, which is a transit venture only half-complete without the addition of more capable north-south roads, I would prefer the proposed Greenbelt metro extension to B'more up the 295 corridor. Sure it would be ridiculously costly, but so is the ICC. I'd wager it could even be completed in less time than the still-incomplete ICC will be. Just decide on a place in B'more for the northern terminus, and have at it. Better a functional train than a greater boondoggle like the Ocean City wind farm.

I've used New Carrollton many a time, and while the track may be jostling and the going not the fastest in the world, it is still fun and infinitely (literally) better than what 2 counties neighboring PG get


----------



## AlanB (May 9, 2011)

Kevin L. said:


> There is no fare enforcement of which to speak, *so most who ride don't pay a red cent, and to make up the slack, the "honest citizen" has to pay more and more for his pass*.


I'm sorry but the bold part of your statement simply isn't correct. I cannot speak to the enforcement side of things specifically, but it can't be all that bad based upon the numbers. The fare box recovery rate for light rail in 2009 was 21.46% only a bit off the national average at 28.17%. And ahead of LA at 20.71%, NJ at 17.97%, Charlotte at 18.96%, and way ahead of Dallas at 12.94% for example. And it’s not like the MTA is keeping its expenses super low, they’re actually a bit higher than comparable systems. So again, fare evasion rates cannot be all that bad.

And it's not pass riders making it up either as the Baltimore MTA monthly pass is $64, NY $104, Boston $59, Chicago $86, LA $75, Dallas $65.

Now on the other hand, fare box recovery rates for the subway and commuter rail are horrible as compared to the national averages. The subway only hits 21.26% and commuter 32.29%. The national averages are 60.23% and 47.96% respectively.



Kevin L. said:


> New York City, DC, & Boston clearly predate rail mass transit, yet both intra-city and inter-city mass transit have flocked to its doors. What's that old adage, "If you build it, they will come"?


While NYC officially pre-dates rail transit, it is not the NYC that we know today. NYC pre-rail consisted of the southern tip of what today we call Manhattan. Above 42nd Street it was pretty much all farm land, and even down to Houston Street there really wasn't much in the way of a "city". You had to get south of Canal Street to really be in the city. A bit of the Brooklyn waterfront also existed pre-rail.

Otherwise, NYC grew up around its subway system and the old El's, many of which are now gone. The LIRR and its predecessors also contributed to making NYC the city it is today and that predated the subway, although back then you needed a ferry to reach Manhattan as the tracks ended in Queens & Brooklyn.


----------

