I was pretty confident this was coming...it's good news for the Red Line. HRT and new alignments now have a chance. Purple Line might get HRT studied, too.

Get it done right, even if it takes longer, TRAC and I say.

Three mass transit projects delayed

By Michael Dresser
Sun reporter
Originally published February 23, 2007

[emphasis mine]

Maryland's acting transportation secretary, John D. Porcari, told lawmakers yesterday that three big mass transit projects - including an east-west Red Line through Baltimore - will not go forward to public hearings this year as previously planned.

Porcari said the projects, including two in suburban Washington, will be delayed about a year so that officials can develop more accurate and specific projections of ridership when the state seeks federal funding for the transit lines.




"We are going to get this right. You get only one shot with the Federal Transit Administration," he told the state House Appropriations subcommittee.

The schedule revision is a concession by the Maryland Transit Administration that its schedule for the projects during the Ehrlich administration was overly ambitious. Previously, the MTA had said that it expected to complete a draft environmental impact statement and hold hearings on the projects in the spring or summer of this year.

The three projects are:

• The Red Line from Woodlawn to the Fells Point-Canton area. The state has been studying rapid bus and light rail alternatives, but transit activists are urging the O'Malley administration to include heavy rail in the study.

• The 14-mile Purple Line connecting New Carrollton with Bethesda. Light rail and rapid bus alternatives are being studied.

• The Corridor Cities Transitway in Montgomery County's Interstate 270 corridor. It would extend transit service past the Shady Grove Metro station into northern Montgomery, near the Frederick County line. Light rail and rapid bus service are under study.

The need to develop more accurate information could also push back two proposals that are in earlier stages of consideration: connecting Baltimore's Metro to Morgan State University and extending the Washington Metro's Green Line from Greenbelt to BWI Marshall Airport.

Porcari said the expected one-year delays are an estimate and that the projects could be pushed back more. "I'm not taking the 12 months at face value," he said.

Porcari is awaiting confirmation as transportation secretary, a post he held under Gov. Parris N. Glendening. He said he learned about the flawed data from the MTA staff under what he described as a "30-day amnesty" for department employees to bring him bad news after he took office last month.

He said the agency had been relying on ridership projections extrapolated from general data developed by the Baltimore Metropolitan Council and Washington's Council of Governments. The MTA needs time, he said, to develop more accurate data particular to the three transit corridors.

As an example, MTA planning chief Simon Taylor pointed to Council of Governments projections of ridership at the Shady Grove Metro station that fall short of the current numbers. He said federal transit officials previously accepted state ridership projections at face value but are under pressure from Congress to verify such numbers.

Ed Cohen, president of the Transit Riders Action Council of Metropolitan Baltimore, said he was not surprised that Porcari revised the schedule.

"This is a good thing because it would allow a review of what's gone on so far," Cohen said. "The new administration coming in has seen the degree of difficulty the previous administration faced."
michael.dresser@baltsun.com

--

This is also a way to defer having to spend too much money we don't have in too short a period of time. Let's spend this extra time doing good planning. :yes:

Nate

I hope this is good news. I just have this feeling Baltimore will always get the shaft when it comes to transit.

Hate to have more delays, but maybe heavy rail will find itself back on the table.

^^ I agree. I find this news bittersweet, but in reality it really is the best thing that could have happened. It was a huge mistake to not include HRT in the initial studies, and hopefully this is a first step in correcting that misstep.
I share your same feelings, sdeclue, that it almost feels like this is simply going to turn out to be a one year delay before they unveil the plans for the original BRT line or decide not to build anything at all. There is hope, however, with the transit bills of which Nate has made us aware. Nevertheless, I really think all the pieces will have to fall perfectly for this decision to really be a victory.

A lot of hard work remians, for sure. :)

I was pretty sure this was coming, but didn't want to generate a bigger rumor mill. The entire 2002regional transit plan (fatally flawed) and state wide transportation projects (no plan) may be revisited. This would be very good news. Right now we have a list of uncoordinated projects. That could mean the Red Line being redefined or another corridor altogether, we just don't know.

As much as I'd like to see things move forward quickly, the Red Line plan is/was wrong, wrong, wrong and dead as a doornail. That much I did know and said as much.

It's much more sensible to plan long-term, integrated projects. This can lower overall costs and increase cost-effectiveness as well as benefits, esp. with transit.

Lack of money is certainly an issue, but planning now, setting up well-funded transit accounts now (or not later than next year) could really put us on strong footing. Even if construction is pushed back 5 years, but we do the above, we can get something good and probably get funded by the Feds. :yes: :cheers:

Nate

You have to educate the public about the advantages of transit. Right now Baltimore is very car-centric. But if the city is to grow, the mentality has to change. Washington has become more transit orientated - that has to happen in Balt.

When people in Wash. talk about location they frequently refer to a Metro stop. Baltimoreans moan about parking and traffic. When a building is proposed - car related issues are at the fore-front.

^Certainly, compared to DC, we're car-centric. But, you know, compared to the nation as a whole, our city is pretty transit oriented and friendly (despite the MTA). Baltimore and its inner suburbs don't need the kind of teeth-pulling convincing to build rail transit, like other places (check out the rail transit thread for Milkwaukee in the Midwest forum). We're close enough to DC to have experienced high-quality service.

The problem is 2 systems (one of them HUGE) in a state that's not that big. Funding our match is going to be the challenge over the next few years. We're in the process of restructuturing our tax system and making transit funding bills. The old arguments of "heavy rail isn't built anymore/too hard to build/or not justifiable for Baltimore" are fading.

We've got to convince the greater tax paying public how important all this is, like I said in the sales tax thread.

We've also got to have a fair, open process and study, unlike under the last admin's Red Line (and seemingly DC Purple). We've got to look at more logical, fundable alignments, too. It's worth it it start honest and fresh. I think the state is more serious about transit needs than ever, esp. with BRAC on the way.

Nate

Well, I’d love to see a unified metro system in Baltimore (heck, if merely a new line) but, as far as I’m concerned, it’s more than a pipedream.

Perhaps the basis for an expanded system in Baltimore could mirror Washington? In Washington, should there be a need to evacuate the city in the event of an emergency, Metro would be used. Maybe a lobby could (somehow) impress the same need in Baltimore? Maybe federal funding could be secured to complete the Red Line, if not an entire sin Baltimore? Conceivably federal funding could be secured to complete the Red Line, if not an entire system?

Ah, perhaps a wish, but, it’s always wonderful to dream…

While another topic altogether – BRAC -- I just wanted to point out that while BRAC will have an impact on the metropolitan area, I think there is a bit of too much hype at play here. Certainly Harford County and Anne Arundel will gain the most jobs, but I doubt many of those will use mass transit. How can they? And as for any residential boom inside the beltway, I think that too will be minimal. If you look at the BRAC commission numbers, I think you’ll see a more sobering picture. A lot of what we’ve been seeing in the news has been (was) election year state politics.

A lot of the BRAC development will occur near near MARC. The zoning in Harford is heavily favored now for the Rt40/I-95/NEC corridor. Many of those who would be moving to Maryland are used to New Jersey (more extensive) transit, they said we need to get serious, because what we've got now doesn't cut it. TRAC's VP Kevin Racine is a Havre de Grace resident working with the BRAC team and politicians regularly and closely.

It's not a pipedream if we muster the will of the people. You can do it without the will if you manage to push through the taxes/fees/whatever and choose an alignment and mode that's not objectionable--that works too. Other cities have done expensive projects in recent years with and without federal funding (Denver, St. Louis, Seattle).

If we build the right segments first, the rest will be much easier to fund federally, based on FTA guidelines. It really is that simple, as I've said previously. I've spent WAY too much time studying this.:nuts: I've probably studied this more than anyone outside the MTA, save :nuts: Ed Cohen:nuts:--and the MTA's only studied what they've been told to.

Nate

A lot of the BRAC development will occur near near MARC. The zoning in Harford is heavily favored now for the Rt40/I-95/NEC corridor. Many of those who would be moving to Maryland are used to New Jersey (more extensive) transit, they said we need to get serious, because what we've got now doesn't cut it. TRAC's VP Kevin Racine is a Havre de Grace resident working with the BRAC team and politicians regularly and closely.

It's not a pipedream if we muster the will of the people. You can do it without the will if you manage to push through the taxes/fees/whatever and choose an alignment and mode that's not objectionable--that works too. Other cities have done expensive projects in recent years with and without federal funding (Denver, St. Louis, Seattle).

If we build the right segments first, the rest will be much easier to fund federally, based on FTA guidelines. It really is that simple, as I've said previously. I've spent WAY too much time studying this.:nuts: I've probably studied this more than anyone outside the MTA, save :nuts: Ed Cohen:nuts:--and the MTA's only studied what they've been told to.

Nate

You’re not seriously suggesting BRAC will bring people to live in Baltimore…and commute to work in the suburbs!? Very unlikely. Maybe a handful, but very unlikely.

As for transit funding, I don’t agree with your statement, “You can do it without the will [of the people] if you manage to push through the taxes/fees/whatever and choose an alignment and mode that's not objectionable.”

Mass transit, or any government-funded project MUST be made by the resolve of the community. Last I checked, to do otherwise is illegal…

It's not a pipedream if we muster the will of the people. You can do it without the will if you manage to push through the taxes/fees/whatever and choose an alignment and mode that's not objectionable--that works too. Other cities have done expensive projects in recent years with and without federal funding (Denver, St. Louis, Seattle).

I'm still amazed by this paragraph and your comment about taxation, but I have another question. What “expensive projects” are you referring to in other cities? Denver, St. Louis and Seattle have definitely secured huge federal monies for transit systems. Even the smaller projects, as in the case of Seattle, via advocates like U.S. Senator Patty Murray, have gained large government funds. What mass transit systems have not been funded by the fed?

This might be a baby step in the right direction. I usually seem like the pessimist on Baltimore transit, but it is mainly because of the budgetary problems. The State has an overall looming operating deficit and a deficit in the transportation fund. The only way to make spending billions on transit work will be if they can also find a revenue stream. It will have to be something that is applied regionally rather than statewide.

The baby step here was admitting that the current projects are making promises that can't be paid for, regardless of whether the feds kick in money or not. Will it mean that they upgrade the Red line to subway? I'm still pretty pessimistic on that but the way things were, we probably couldn't even afford BRT. I guess this is the "time out" where they reassess what has been done. One of the articles I read said the the MDOT Secretary, Porcari, gave everybody in the dept 30 days of amnesty to admit that they were working on unrealistic projects. Let's hope that something good comes out of all this organizational disarray.

I'm still amazed by this paragraph and your comment about taxation, but I have another question. What “expensive projects” are you referring to in other cities? Denver, St. Louis and Seattle have definitely secured huge federal monies for transit systems. Even the smaller projects, as in the case of Seattle, via advocates like U.S. Senator Patty Murray, have gained large government funds. What mass transit systems have not been funded by the fed?

St. Louis funded a spur extension without federal funds.

Seattle is building a system primarily from their own local/state funds versus federal.

Denver has a tax plan for a $12 billion LRT and commuter rail system.

Nate

double post

You’re not seriously suggesting BRAC will bring people to live in Baltimore…and commute to work in the suburbs!? Very unlikely. Maybe a handful, but very unlikely.

As for transit funding, I don’t agree with your statement, “You can do it without the will [of the people] if you manage to push through the taxes/fees/whatever and choose an alignment and mode that's not objectionable.”

Mass transit, or any government-funded project MUST be made by the resolve of the community. Last I checked, to do otherwise is illegal…

What I mean to say is that if the money's there, people won't have to jump up and down to the politicians to make it happen if the all technical aspects aren't objectionable.

Yes, I'm saying BRAC will bring people to live in Baltimore. BRAC will generate some Baltimore based jobs. Reverse commutes are very common these days. Housing in Baltimore is generally less expensive than the rest of the metro area. Why is this so hard to believe? Many BRAC jobs will be accessible by transit. Baltimore is between APG and Ft. Meade, therefore the traffic density between those places will increase, thereby making the cost-effectiveness of future transit projects more viable. :)

Nate

Scando/Eerik,

If your rationale is what is reality, there is no reason to expect our current systems to survive. They will whither and crumble.

Your outlook serves no purpose. It is the outlook of things not happening. Well, it is easy to do that. But there's nothing I've suggested that isn't impossible, implausible, or judging by other regions, remote.

It may well happen that we don't get funded..... I presented some numbers. I can present some more. (I usually try to avoid too many--not most people's interest I've found.) Scando, you make suppositions are though they are fact and don't back them up.

Tell me why what I'm suggesting doesn't work? Not rhetoric.

Have you had a chance to look at the Transit Funding Steering Committee Final Report?

Nate :)

Again, transportation projects in Seattle, Denver and St. Louis have included or are including significant federal funds to construct their systems. I would say it is almost impossible for any of these cities to do it alone: with or without state help.

As in the case with the St. Louis spur, I’m certain Baltimore and Maryland would be able to construct a spur; we’ve done so on several occasions in the past: the Light Rail spur to BWI and Penn Station. But when you want to build the main line, fed funds are needed.

In the case of St. Louis, the capital cost to construct their initial segment was $464 million, of which the Federal Transit Administration funded $348 million. Even their subsequent extensions like the one out to Southwestern Illinois College cost $339 million, with the Federal Government picking up 72% of the cost at $244 million and St. Clair taking on $95 million. More info at:
http://www.metrostlouis.org/InsideMetro/QuickFacts/metrolink.asp

In Seattle, wasn’t it just a few weeks ago the Federal Transit Administration had announced it was going ahead with a $750 million dollar grant for King County Metro Transit, in addition to the $1.6 billion three-mile rail tunnel from Westlake Center to Husky Stadium? I think I read this comprised more than 79% of the cost.

As for Denver, I would point out their system is being planned and coordinated by FasTracks, which is funded with federal appropriations. True, private contributions along with a regional sales tax are helping that project happen, but I think the Denver plan received noteriety (unfairly) with a national announcement their system was to be built with local funds, even though it covers only the initial planning, not construction, which was paid for by the regional sales tax. Huge fed funds to be used here too. More info at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Transportation_District

The problem for Maryland (and yes, I have read the study) is not only are we trying to establish new service, but also expand existing service. As the same report made clear, for us there are three preexisting obstacles to address before any major capital investment for new construction of expansion: operations and general maintenance, system preservation, and system enhancements.

As Scando has pointed out previously, the state budget is projected to face significant shortfalls in the coming years. How can we justify such expenditures? In some ways, I think the worse thing that could happen now would be for the federal government to say, sure, we’ll pay our share of a system for Baltimore. The problem would be the state wouldn’t have the money. We’d go broke!

The problem I have with most mass transit advocacy groups is they live in some sort of isolated bubble, thinking money grows on trees, or worse, the answer is to lobby for tax increases to fund projects the vast majority aren’t interest in…

Certainly, a subway in Baltimore would be great, but the associated costs aren’t justified. Not yet at least. Maybe when gasoline reaches $10 a gallon, or traffic congestion pisses people off to the point where they demand faster and more reliable transportation options. But as I see it now, most are happy with the transportation options they have available to them now…

I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is…

Why the heck aren't they studying a HRT Purple Line option?!?!?!? :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:

The Duncan Line is where it's at.

This is a question I have asked before, but no one answered. Why Can't the MARC system be upgraded to a seven day operation with a more frequent headway? This would resolve some of the transportation issues in the Balt-Wash corridor. This would eleminate the pressing need to extend the Green Line to BWI and ease some of the burdens posed by BRAC. In fact the line coul better serve Harford County as well.

I have heard there are issues with Conrail, but no one seems to want to explore this option. Even if an additional track is required, that is cheaper than acquiring a new right-of-way.

Eeirk,

I'll try not to take offense that TRAC lives in a bubble, we certainly do not. We've looked at the situation and looked at funding revenue schemes and believe a quality system is possible to fund. We gotta few individuals, one who is not an adult, who watches C-SPAN, does homework, while composing TRAC testimony. We hash and rehash again in long arguments (fights), then vote. :lol:

The last time I checked, one of St. Louis rail projects (one of the extensions was not constructed with federal funds). I remeber reading this several times. I could be mistaken. I'll go back and reresearch. The others were or are being funded by feds, but that match is low in proporation to the total project and/or the local/states are kicking in big time.

Again, I'd rather not spar too much here, but you didn't back up your justification that subway is not justified. Well, as I've said, I've given, evidence, precendent and numbers why it is, and to my recollection, you haven't. I don't think anyone should accept you statement as is. If your opinion differs that's fine, but I think it would be a better discussion (esp w/ long posts) if we all tried to back it up a little more. I've just heard too many "subway" and "can't/won't" pronouncments without good evidence or reasoning. But, to keep things friendly (god knows there are certain individuals who have NO CONCEPT here ;)), I think we can agree to disagree again here if nothing else comes up. :)

Nate

This is a question I have asked before, but no one answered. Why Can't the MARC system be upgraded to a seven day operation with a more frequent headway? This would resolve some of the transportation issues in the Balt-Wash corridor. This would eleminate the pressing need to extend the Green Line to BWI and ease some of the burdens posed by BRAC. In fact the line coul better serve Harford County as well.

I have heard there are issues with Conrail, but no one seems to want to explore this option. Even if an additional track is required, that is cheaper than acquiring a new right-of-way.

We are working on this this very weekend!! We've finalizing a list of short, mid- and long term needs and wants for MARC, too.

We are pushing (and specifically at the request of a Baltimore delegate) to fund MARC service for weekends.

Nate

.....Also, I mentioned, if we can create a mass transit account we can place money into several years before hand, so that when it comes time to construct, we've got a considerable chuck of change (we just need to make sure it's not raidable!!!:bash: ) that might be viable.

Remember, the Gen Assem is going to restructure the tax code to get more money. They really have no choice, and people won't notice politically as much as other direct taxes and fees....

Nate

Again, I'd rather not spar too much here, but you didn't back up your justification that subway is not justified. Well, as I've said, I've given, evidence, precendent and numbers why it is, and to my recollection, you haven't. I don't think anyone should accept you statement as is. If your opinion differs that's fine, but I think it would be a better discussion (esp w/ long posts) if we all tried to back it up a little more. I've just heard too many "subway" and "can't/won't" pronouncments without good evidence or reasoning. But, to keep things friendly (god knows there are certain individuals who have NO CONCEPT here ;)), I think we can agree to disagree again here if nothing else comes up. :)
Nate

Please, just stop and think about it for a moment:

I’m not saying it’s unjustified, simply that when a majority of the people in the region are not interested in a regional subway, then why are we attempting to allocate such massive funds for such a project?

What numbers do you need? What studies and statistics? When people demand something, especially a majority…they let it be known. When is the last time you saw a rally of a hundred thousand show up in Annapolis demanding a subway? A thousand? Maybe a hundred, if most?

With the exception of an occasional MTA bus rerouting (that ends up on page two of the local paper) or a special interest story about “commuter camaraderie” on the MARC train, people in this region are simply not interested in mass transit. Unfortunate, but true.

Good or bad, right or wrong…if the people don’t want it, then who are we to dictate to them? Use the resources for other opportunities instead.

The people along the Red Line want heavy rail studied.

Most everybody else doens't have it on their radar because, the previous admin didn't want transit on the radar and The Sun just didn't cover it much for a few reasons I mentioned earlier.

The examples you site are of operations that already exist. We're talking about those that don't, so people tend not to get excited or involved on non-existant services. (People in general are not interested in mass transit as a subject to dissect. I can only talk for so long about it to most people, and I'm trying to keep it short from the get-go).

Look, TRAC and myself are around to build the best transit for Baltimore. If I listen to you, we should not do anything and have the status quo. Well, we're not satisfied and we are working the difficult road ahead.
Most people I talk to LOVE the idea of more subway service for Baltimore. If they knew of an actual project that might deliver it, large scale, vocal support could happen. Most people excited by more subways in Baltimore have never even heard of the Red Line project (reasons above). I think that will change at least some under O'Malley.

I think not doing what we're doing is NOT beneficial. Even if everything you say is true, it is not a reason for us not to push onward. Thank you.

It's a tough, uphill job, but SOMEBODY's gotta do it. Let's start sooner, rather than later. By the time the subway would get built, gas prices WOULD be $10/gallon :D

Nate

Why the heck aren't they studying a HRT Purple Line option?!?!?!? :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:

The Duncan Line is where it's at.

In part, ACT feels that HRT is not justifiable in that corridor, funding, and so on.....

TRAC supports ACT's desires for their transit (if that's what they want, we're not going to argue, it's their baby, in their region).

Personally, I think HRT's very justifiable, given the numbers I've heard. As I've said, I don't see how LRT can physically operate if this 70,000 riders per day number is true--some one at ACT mentioned that number at one of their monthly meetings. They may be limited to 2-car trains.

I bet a lot of people who are passingly aware of the Purple Line, heard its LRT, but think they'll get Metro-like service. Boy, will they be sorely dissappionted!!!

I'd bet a 3 figure number, the cost-effectiveness of HRT beats LRT in the FTA formulas for that line. The ridership density of the entire Metrorail system is simply too high!

I'm for an Inner Purple Line, but I think there were some proposals for spurs off the Red Line so that it can be built as an extension (and possibly in segments :)). I haven't examined it closely enough yet. I can't remember where the links are.

Nate

I strongly disagree with the contention that most people don't care about better transit. Since when do people get riled up for any infrastructural improvement? Just because people aren't strongly passionate about the issue doesn't mean they don't think it's important. The government does things all the time that are against the will of the majority, though I sincerely believe the will of the majority supports better transit in this case. If not, why do traffic and growth / sprawl consistently rank as the most important issues in the suburbs? And what about the 1/3rd of Baltimoreans who are carless? That's the second highest rate in the country, behind only New York (though obviously for very different reasons), don't they deserve better service?

I can understand people in other regions of the state not caring about Baltimore-Washington area transit, but we can pass regional taxes. I bet if we came up with a feasible long-term plan that included all forms of transit (aka not the Baltimore Region Rail Plan) and sold it to people and asked them to vote on a referendum for a tax to fund it, they would pass it. Obviously that's very speculative and subjective, but I know very few people who don't want better transit infrastructure, including conservatives and suburbanites. Just my two cents..

GSOL: I agree strongly about improving MARC. Simply improving the Penn Line would service APG, Meade, and improve links between Baltimore and DC. A green line extension would probably be more costly, take longer and only serve Meade with slower trains.

Nate: If you wouldn't mind, what exactly are TRAC's goals concerning MARC? I've been curious about the future of this service because despite its relative popularity we hear so little about it. Is anything going on in regards to improving / expanding service? I remember O'Malley in his transportation plan said he wanted to expand the service to include weekends and longer hours, which would be a good start IMO.

We've expressed our concerns and issues in various contexts over the past 2 years, but haven't really consolidatd them into an easy to remember and understand presentation. Hopefully, by next week I'll be able to post them on here, (hopefully our website, too).

I'll try to run off the top of my head what they are, not necessarily in order.

--more cars

--more storage space

--extension to Elkton (much later Newark [SEPTA])

--extra trackage on certain parts of Penn

--repair of locomotives (already happening)

--significant track capacity on Camden line where possible

--rebuild some stations/platforms (some of this is Fed mandated anyway)

--"Great Circle" Passenger tunnel under W. Baltimore to replace B&P tunnel

...there's a few more. Penn Line capacity is critical. We're already overcapacity. This could effect those wanting to live in Baltimore with a DC job.

Everyone's heard my opinion of the WMATA Green Line.

TRAC feels that any studies of a WMATA extension to BWI should include Orange Line extension or significant investments in MARC as a possibly more cost-effective and beneficial alternative (paraphrased).

Nate

The government does things all the time that are against the will of the majority...

I can’t believe what I’m reading on this board! Do you really believe this? Do you actually endorse this? Geez…very depressing. Funny, I was taught in elementary school civics that our government is empowered by the people.

^The majority will of the people were really behind The Highway to Nowhere....:ohno:

My take on Drew's comment was different than Eerik's....

Nate

The people along the Red Line want heavy rail studied.
I’m certain they want it studied; if I might have a train running past or under my house, I’d want it considered too!

Most everybody else doens't have it on their radar because, the previous admin didn't want transit on the radar and The Sun just didn't cover it much for a few reasons I mentioned earlier.
But the subway isn’t a new conversation: it’s been ongoing for years. It’s amazing how every five to ten years we go through this cycle over, and over again! Take a look back in the public record on (subway) transportation funding during tenure of Gov. Mandel: what was debated then, nearly 30 years ago still stands true today. It’s all about economics…

The examples you site are of operations that already exist. We're talking about those that don't, so people tend not to get excited or involved on non-existant services. (People in general are not interested in mass transit as a subject to dissect. I can only talk for so long about it to most people, and I'm trying to keep it short from the get-go).
If by operations that exist, you mean the examples you cited: Seattle, Denver and St. Louis, then I’m not sure why you used them as examples of transit systems that do not rely on federal funding?

Look, TRAC and myself are around to build the best transit for Baltimore. If I listen to you, we should not do anything and have the status quo. Well, we're not satisfied and we are working the difficult road ahead.
Most people I talk to LOVE the idea of more subway service for Baltimore. If they knew of an actual project that might deliver it, large scale, vocal support could happen. Most people excited by more subways in Baltimore have never even heard of the Red Line project (reasons above). I think that will change at least some under O'Malley.
I’m also for public transportation: but at a reasonable cost. Subway for Baltimore, at the present, is not a reasonable option. Economically, it doesn’t work. We simply do not have the shear number of commuters to use such an expensive system. To say we do is laughable! Just look 40 miles down I-95 at WMATA and the problems they are facing. An expansive system that is barely running. If WMATA didn’t continue to receive federal funding, that system would have shut down years ago. It’s not just building a system, it’s maintaining it too.

As for O’Malley, he won’t be able to get appropriation for such a system, for all the same reasons I’ve been ranting about. I can’t believe I’m the only one here who sees it…

I think not doing what we're doing is NOT beneficial. Even if everything you say is true, it is not a reason for us not to push onward. Thank you.
Granted, it’s always a good idea to keep the bigger picture in perspective, but at the moment, we have a transportation system in place that does not operate at capacity.

Now I predict your response will be that it would operate at capacity if we spent more money to expand operations, but then again I come back to my same old question: where will the money come from? And of course even if we did spend more money on the system, ridership wouldn’t necessarily increase. (Makes me think of the city schools: for years we heard if the state only spent more money on the system, scores would increase. Well, they didn’t…)

It's a tough, uphill job, but SOMEBODY's gotta do it. Let's start sooner, rather than later. By the time the subway would get built, gas prices WOULD be $10/gallon :D

Nate
I agree that planning for the future is important. But taking such a risk to bankrupt ourselves isn’t planning…it’s called gambling.

Eeirk,

You don't back up your numbers, so I don't think we should continue this discussion. You are handwaving. You keep saying something doesn't work doesn't make it so. Show me some empiricism. Otherwise, please let this go. You don't agree with me, fine. This capacity argument you are using is flat out wrong. A system does not need to be at capacity to operate economically compared to lesser modes. Our subway operates more efficiently than our buses, and you say economically a subway is laughable. Well, again put up some numbers. If you don't have numbers, you don't have anything on this subway argument. I can go over some of my empirical evidence and support if you'd like, but let's tone this down. You've been using a heavy dose of inductive reasoning to conclude that the past in Maryland necessarily dictates the future. Well, that's a bad use of induction in my mind, because many things in the world, nation and state are changing.

I'd be willing to continue to debate the "subway justifiable (reasonable) or not" discussion, but not if your going to continue on like this. You've dismissed my position as laughable with an (!) without evidence and I think that is rather condescending.


--

I've never suggested doing anything to bankrupt the state, or going into debt. Other states pay for this stuff. The more people who use the system, the less they spent on cars. One can delve into all sorts of issues....
--

Discussions about subways have occured over the years, but there wasn't much of a greater plan since the early 70s until the 2002 plan.

--

I was not refering to the other cities, I was refering to your local examples of citizen activism. Apologies, if that wasn't clear.

--

Myself and others at TRAC have spent a lot of time examining issues from as many perspectives as we can. We are not rail-happy zealots who are not aware of state politics. We are very keenly aware. We are choosing to take the path we believe is right for transit and the region. If you think that is wrong, okay.

We've got individuals with specialties in relevant fields (ones that could make one useful as a transportation planner), and some have been studying transit for QUITE a while. (None of us have been transportation planners, but we've worked and discussed with many planners in the past and have incoporated their knowledge into some of our positions). We don't feel and east-west subway is fundable or economical, but we do find the Red Line CAC to be, and we explain why.

Is there anything else new to say here? I don't want this to be a mud slinging match, because I won't go beyond this.

Thanks,
Nate :)

Eeirk,

You don't back up your numbers, so I don't think we should continue this discussion. You are handwaving. You keep saying something doesn't work doesn't make it so. Show me some empiricism. Otherwise, please let this go. You don't agree with me, fine. This capacity argument you are using is flat out wrong. A system does not need to be at capacity to operate economically compared to lesser modes. Our subway operates more efficiently than our buses, and you say economically a subway is laughable. Well, again put up some numbers. If you don't have numbers, you don't have anything on this subway argument. I can go over some of my empirical evidence and support if you'd like, but let's tone this down. You've been using a heavy dose of inductive reasoning to conclude that the past in Maryland necessarily dictates the future. Well, that's a bad use of induction in my mind, because many things in the world, nation and state are changing.

I'd be willing to continue to debate the "subway justifiable (reasonable) or not" discussion, but not if your going to continue on like this. You've dismissed my position as laughable with an (!) without evidence and I think that is rather condescending.


--

I've never suggested doing anything to bankrupt the state, or going into debt. Other states pay for this stuff. The more people who use the system, the less they spent on cars. One can delve into all sorts of issues....
--

Discussions about subways have occured over the years, but there wasn't much of a greater plan since the early 70s until the 2002 plan.

--

I was not refering to the other cities, I was refering to your local examples of citizen activism. Apologies, if that wasn't clear.

--

Myself and others at TRAC have spent a lot of time examining issues from as many perspectives as we can. We are not rail-happy zealots who are not aware of state politics. We are very keenly aware. We are choosing to take the path we believe is right for transit and the region. If you think that is wrong, okay.

We've got individuals with specialties in relevant fields (ones that could make one useful as a transportation planner), and some have been studying transit for QUITE a while. (None of us have been transportation planners, but we've worked and discussed with many planners in the past and have incoporated their knowledge into some of our positions). We don't feel and east-west subway is fundable or economical, but we do find the Red Line CAC to be, and we explain why.

Is there anything else new to say here? I don't want this to be a mud slinging match, because I won't go beyond this.

Thanks,
Nate :)

I think the empirical evidence is called history: subway has been advocated for a long time in the region. Each and every time we came back with the same verdict: too costly. I have three office shelves filled with studies and reports to prove it. I’m certain you have read a fair share of those as well…

It appears when you disagree with something I say, even though it is well documented, your response is that I’m merely hand waving. But that’s all you do when the question of funding comes to play; I haven’t seen or heard one reasonable account of how to pay for this system, except that the state and city can manage to pick up the tab. But how?

One estimate cited each and every citizen of the state – every man, woman and child – would need to contribute $3600 each to build the system. Are you willing to write a check right now for that amount? There are plenty of people that can’t…

Well, since you say I’m not backing my statements with facts, and as far as I see it, neither are you…so I agree…let’s end the conversation.

The last thing I want to do is have a "last word" conversation, but "too costly" is a very broad phrase. And there's certainly a lot of political smeared into the empirical.

I've suggested some ways in the sales tax thread. We can spread out these projects, save money ahead of time and so forth. TRAC realizes you can't have everything at once all the time. You act as if the answer is already determined--no possibility. We're seeking many options. The Feds may change their caps toward transit funding. We're planning for the long term, building as funds become available.

If you have the time, interest, and energy, I would be interested in each and every shelf of your "too costly" writings. My sources and investigations reveal otherwise. I'm open to expanding my breadth of reseach materials.

I've backed up my statements in the past. As much as I like to participate, I don't like transcribing too much info at once, it's tiresome (esp. with my bad arm), and ususally do it only upon request for a second showing.

I'm still rather bewildered by your "capacity" reasoning. I respect that you once worked transportation, but requiring a system to be built "at capacity" is simply false. Before, we end this for good and all (unless something new is revealed, please), can you tell me what source did that reasoning come from?
Private message if you care to.

Just tell me you don't think surface LRT and BRT are a good, beneficial idea for B-more :D

Thank You,
Nate :)

FWIW, I understand this to mean that St. Louis' Cross-County Metro extension was not funded federally. Emphasis mine.

-----

Construction
Connecting Communities

Facts about the Cross County MetroLink Extension


Background: The Cross County MetroLink Project is an eight-mile long extension from the existing Forest Park-DeBaliviere station to Shrewsbury. Along the way it connects the cities of St. Louis, University City, Clayton, Richmond Heights, Brentwood, Maplewood, and Shrewsbury.

Funding: This $550.3 million project is funded 100% locally from the Proposition M sales tax passed in both St. Louis City and St. Louis County in August of 1994.
Design: The Cross County Extension contains nine new stations and two park-ride facilities. At least twenty-two new light rail vehicles will be added to existing stock to serve the projected ridership of 18,000 additional daily riders.

Stations: New passenger stations will be located at:

Skinker Boulevard and Forest Park Parkway
Big Bend Boulevard and Forest Park Parkway
Forsyth Boulevard and Forest Park Parkway
Central Avenue and Forest Park Parkway
Galleria Parkway near I-170
Eager Road, just west of Hanley
Manchester Road, just east of Hanley
Sunnen Drive and Laclede Station Road
Lansdowne, west of River Des Peres
Alignment Description: Beginning at the existing Forest Park-DeBaliviere station, the alignment heads west and tunnels under Forest Park Parkway and surfaces on the south side of the Parkway to run at street level toward Skinker Boulevard. The alignment descends into a new tunnel and passes under Skinker and then surfaces on the north side of the Parkway heading toward Big Bend Boulevard.

East of Big Bend the alignment descends into a new tunnel under the Parkway, passes under Big Bend, and remains underground until it surfaces west of Forsyth Boulevard. The alignment surfaces between the east and westbound lanes and continues west in a new median of the Parkway and bridges over Hanley Road and Brentwood Boulevard.

West of Brentwood the alignment rises up and bridges over the eastbound lanes of the Parkway and turns to the south to run along the east side of Interstate 170, on the former Terminal Railroad right-of-way. The alignment continues south and bridges over Brentwood Boulevard again, Clayton Road and Linden Avenue. The alignment transitions to a new underpass beneath l-64 and Eager Road. Continuing south, the alignment bridges over Hanley Road and Manchester Road and continues to the Sunnen Business Park area.

South of the Sunnen station, the alignment rises up and bridges over the Union Pacific Railroad, then curves to the east and southeast to bridge over Oxford Boulevard and Big Bend Boulevard. The line then curves to the south, bridges over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and Interstate 44, and ends at the Shrewsbury-Lansdowne I-44 station just north of Lansdowne Avenue and west of the River Des Peres channel.

Revenue Operating Date: After a period allocated for system safety testing and operation preparation, Metro intends to start revenue service on the Cross County Extension in 2006.

For More Information: www.crosscounty.org

For Construction Questions: crosscountyconstruction@metrostlouis.org
Or call our construction hotline at (314) 923-3050

---

Nate

FWIW, I understand this to mean that St. Louis' Cross-County Metro extension was not funded federally. Emphasis mine.

Revenue Operating Date: After a period allocated for system safety testing and operation preparation, Metro intends to start revenue service on the Cross County Extension in 2006.
Nate

The St. Louis expansion has become an expensive boondoogle for St. Louis, with corruption and mismanagement and is only half finished.

Denver had received far more federal money for a Light rail, but decided to use it on a highway. When later on they decided they really did want a light rail, the feds told them to shove it, we gave you money and you didn't use it.

I think frankly that if we want a subway anytime soon, we need to get a proposal to the feds quickly.

We have a senor member of the new senate from Baltimore, this is our best chance to get funds. Mikulski can push it through.

The arguments about capacity and cost will be rendered moot if she can push it through. Unfortunetly thats how politics work. Look at what Byrd does for WVA.

The Cross-County "spur" extension is completed and doing quite well with ridership, but, indeed they're are still working out ways to fund it's continued operation, IIRC.

What you're suggesting sounds like earmarking, which the Dems are trying to eliminate. I'd like it to be eliminated, too. Really, all these projects should get funded on there merits. In that case cost and capacity really do matter.

We can't rush this through, the modeling isn't right. It was designed for an overall metropolitan transportation complex, not for transit for a specific corridor. The current (new) model can't give accurate results that way. We've already seen examples of it. It drastically underestimated current Metro ridership and slightly overestimated CLR ridership.

Nate

Nate

I was wondering what, if anything, happened at your Getontrack meeting regarding increasing MARC train service? In reply to my post on Saturday you said you were taking up the matter. What influence does your group have?

Earlier it was mentioned that spurs can be added to exisiting lines with less or minimal hassel. Could the Light Rail Line easily be extended through Penn Sta to the eastside of the CBD? Aren't there some abandoned rights-of-way along the JFX corridor? Could even put it in the median or below the highway. This extension would provide better access to the business area as well as support the flegling Harbor East area.

^We're still working on it. It's the middle of session right now, so many of us are busy working on testimony. We just need to edit down the MARC needs and goals list. I would say we have a fair amount of influence, it has certainly risen since our inception and our legitamacy in Annapolis this year is much better than last, and much more than the year before.

With regards to you second question, the Light Rail is already a hassle and there are many problems with extending it, though the ROW you mention along the JFX is indeed used in the MTA CAC Red Line alternative. The alternative you metioned was part of a "Light Rail Loop" idea that was dropped (thankfully in my mind) before the regional plan was adopted. Message or e-mail me if you want more specifics.

Nate