Sun's Erroneous Transit Comparisons

[Gerald Neily]

Today's Sun's umpteenth editorial promoting the multi-billion dollar Red Line versus buses uses faulty logic on just about every possible level.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-bus-versus-rail-20100823,0,4819886.story

The Red Line was devised by a task force over a decade ago, and just about everything the MTA has done since then has been for the sole purpose of propping it up rather than actually studying alternatives in any kind of logical deductive manner.

Comparing the Red Line with a bus rapid transit alternative in the exact same corridor and on virtually the same right of way is a false choice. That's like saying Ravens' running back Ray Rice is a worse athlete from Shaquille O'Neill because at 5'9", he wouldn't make a good NBA center (or a sumo wrestler for that matter).

If one were to really consider modes other than the MTA's odd cobbled streetcar-on-steroids, one would have to start over with a blank sheet of paper and evaluate each to take maximum advantage of its own merits. 

If Baltimore was to build a good new bus-centric transit system, it would need to look totally different from the Red Line. As a matter of fact, if we were to build any kind of logical system instead of blindly and steadfastly defending what a task force came up with a decade ago, we would never build the Red Line.

The Red Line and bus rapid transit are both bad choices for Baltimore, because we already have a very good trunk heavy rail line, which can well serve as the backbone for a complete system.

Michael Dresser uses the correct logic to defend conventional intercity rail over MagLev in his column today, but this logic applies perfectly and FAR MORE in defending using the excellent heavy rail we already have over the MTA's proposed underdesigned overpriced cobbled-up Red Line.

--
Gerald Neily
www.BaltimoreInnerSpace.blogspot.com

[James Hunt]

What's interesting (to me) is that the editorial didn't even attempt to defend the Red Line as proposed on its merits. It simply argued that (1) a good transit system is important for economic development; (2) BRT can be more expensive than light rail in certain circumstances and (3) the GBC thinks it's a good idea (based on a study the MTA did, or something). Now, (1) and (2) are reasonable points, but they don't argue for or against what's proposed. (3) is the wisdom of a (fine, hardworking, and decent) herd of folks that has decided it's now or never for mass transit in Baltimore, so it's best to ride the inertia rather than asking: "What do we really need and where are the opportunities in Baltimore to create the density that mass transit needs to succeed?"

Nor are our Calvert Street colleagues even mentioning the _de_-merits: (1) greatly reduced vehicular capacity on Edmondson and Boston Streets (2) a blown opportunity in the F-M ditch as the line is currently configured there and (3) the complete clusterfarg this will make in the "old" downtown (as opposed to Harbor East/Harbor Point, the "new" downtown) for several years while a redundant tunnel is created along Lombard Street and the transit "link" to the subway is run up Light Street. Watch as more businesses flee the mess.
 

[Youssef Mahmoud]

Are there other examples of two parallel tunnels a city block away from each other serving the same transit system in a city as small as ours?  Heck, do bigger cities even have examples of this?

[James Hunt]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Youssef Mahmoud <humana...@gmail.com> wrote:

Are there other examples of two parallel tunnels a city block away from each other serving the same transit system in a city as small as ours?  Heck, do bigger cities even have examples of this?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Unless I've completely failed at map reading (a possibility, to be sure), I'm pretty certain NYC, the sine qua non of American transit systems, does _not_. They get maximum use out of all of their tunnels.

[Richard Chambers]

I noted this on EnvisionBalt a long time ago, but Ed Cohen from TRAC, has said many times that there is no way that you can enter the existing Metro tunnel from the West with a train coming out of the Route 40 ditch.  Why this is, I can't say.

[Youssef Mahmoud]

I thought the problem was that one system is heavy rail and the other is light.

[James Hunt]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Richard Chambers <richard...@earthlink.net> wrote:

I noted this on EnvisionBalt a long time ago, but Ed Cohen from TRAC, has said many times that there is no way that you can enter the existing Metro tunnel from the West with a train coming out of the Route 40 ditch.  Why this is, I can't say.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right. I do recall that. Kinda hazy on the details, but am pretty sure Ed's point was not so much that it couldn't be done from an engineering standpoint, but that it would require shutting down the existing line for some period.

Or maybe the engineering was, like the Big Dig, fraught with budget-busting complications. Hard to imagine it would be worse than tunneling under the length of Lombard Street downtown, but that's why they pay actual engineers the big bucks.

Incidentally, was in Boston Saturday and the parks atop the BD (officially, the Rose Kennedy Greenway) are looking quite beautiful. In an odd convergence, my old boss at the now-defunct City Life Museums, Nancy Brennan, is executive director of the Greenway, charged with keeping it looking beautiful.

[Richard Chambers]

Yes. But Ed's point was that is was impossible to break into the Metro tunnel from the Ditch for engineering reasons. Apparently it had something to do with the existing tunnel's alignment between Lex Market and Charles Center stations. In other words, regardless of whether the Red Line is heavy or light, using the Ditch and the Metro tunnel for the same line was impossible. Once again, this is what Ed says. I am not a transportation engineer, so I have no clue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Youssef Mahmoud
Sent: Aug 23, 2010 10:30 AM
To: balto...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [BALTOmorrow] Sun's Erroneous Transit Comparisons

I thought the problem was that one system is heavy rail and the other is light.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Richard Chambers <richard...@earthlink.net> wrote:

I noted this on EnvisionBalt a long time ago, but Ed Cohen from TRAC, has said many times that there is no way that you can enter the existing Metro tunnel from the West with a train coming out of the Route 40 ditch.  Why this is, I can't say.

[James Hunt]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Richard Chambers <richard...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Yes. But Ed's point was that is was impossible to break into the Metro tunnel from the Ditch for engineering reasons. Apparently it had something to do with the existing tunnel's alignment between Lex Market and Charles Center stations. In other words, regardless of whether the Red Line is heavy or light, using the Ditch and the Metro tunnel for the same line was impossible. Once again, this is what Ed says. I am not a transportation engineer, so I have no clue.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Okay, I see Ed's point. According to the map below, if the line from the ditch went straight across Mulberry, it would make a have to make a hard right directly into the Lexington Market Station, which probably isn't feasible.

http://www.godowntownbaltimore.com/publications/maps/2010_Development_map.pdf

Perhaps if it ran across Franklin (with a stop at Heritage Crossing) the turn would be do-able.

Anyway, this underscores the need to do some thoughtful planning about the F-M ditch. Simply covering it over is another expensive folly.

[Gerald Neily]

The MTA did get their engineering consultants to look at the alignment of a junction of the west Red Line and the existing subway, and they found that it was feasible, with "precision engineering" and the closure of the existing subway in that area for 6 to 8 months.

The junction would take place NORTH of Lexington Market, not south. The west line would curve slightly to the north of Franklin Street to provide a better alignment. It would be heavy rail.

Building it as a "flyover" rather than a simple junction in order to avoid a left turn conflict point was also possible, but at greater cost and disruption.

To maintain the maximum degree of subway operation during the construction, Ed and TRAC recommended building the northeast extension beyond Hopkins first, with a rail yard that would allow trains to shuttle into Charles Center from the east, and then have a temporary light rail or bus shuttle between State Center and Lex Market.

New York has various places where there are parallel subway lines close together, but not for very far.

Chicago also has parallel subways only a block apart in "the Loop" on State and Dearborn Streets, with a nasty pedestrian tunnel in between, but these subways go in totally opposite directions away from the "Loop". I can't think of any other cities that do it.

--
Gerald Neily
www.BaltimoreInnerSpace.blogspot.com

[Nate]

Yeah, Ed and everyone knew one couldn't merge between Lexington Market
and Charles Center, but we were unsure about north of Lexington Market
until a few years ago--then we learned it was possible but swept under
the rug from a planning perspective, b/c it would up-end the reason we
MUST build the LPA-type Red Line.

> >http://www.godowntownbaltimore.com/publications/maps/2010_Development...

>
> > Perhaps if it ran across Franklin (with a stop at Heritage Crossing) the
> > turn would be do-able.
>
> > Anyway, this underscores the need to do some thoughtful planning about the
> > F-M ditch. Simply covering it over is another expensive folly.
>
> --

> Gerald Neilywww.BaltimoreInnerSpace.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Nate]

I also posted on The Sun's Second Opinion blog, which is basically the
on-deck circle for the editorials. I made a comment to Michael Cross-
Barnet's post, basically saying that because BRT doesn't make sense,
doesn't mean that LRT does.

On Aug 23, 1:40 pm, Gerald Neily <geraldne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://www.godowntownbaltimore.com/publications/maps/2010_Development...

>
> > Perhaps if it ran across Franklin (with a stop at Heritage Crossing) the
> > turn would be do-able.
>
> > Anyway, this underscores the need to do some thoughtful planning about the
> > F-M ditch. Simply covering it over is another expensive folly.
>
> --

[Jed Weeks]

So that would have made two direct-transfer stations, including a Lex Market one with (hopefully) direct access to the CLR as well through the Hutzler building?

[James Hunt]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Nate <geto...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, Ed and everyone knew one couldn't merge between Lexington Market
and Charles Center, but we were unsure about north of Lexington Market
until a few years ago--then we learned it was possible but swept under
the rug from a planning perspective, b/c it would up-end the reason we
MUST build the LPA-type Red Line.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The more I read commentary from people like Gerry, Nate, et al who've been following this for years, the more it boggles the mind. And, yeah, I get that federal funding formulas can have a distorting effect on planning, but the Red Line is a boondoggle too far. I've ridden Boston's Green Line between Kenmore Square and Boston College--roughly analogous to the proposed Red Line ride between downtown and Social Security--enough to be glad I don't have to do it everyday.