Feedback

Lombard Street: tear it up, rebuild, repeat

  • Story Link
  • 9

Categories

By GERALD NEILY
If you’ve mentally adjusted to the idea of a year of construction for a Lombard Street makeover starting next month, as the Sun reports, you might want to re-adjust. If city officials have their way, they’re going to tear this brand-new street to pieces right after they finish it and plunge Lombard into another four years of construction hell. Why? For the Red Line.

The City government and Greater Baltimore Committee business group have both chosen the Red Line underneath Lombard Street as their preferred downtown transit alternative. If all goes according to schedule, this construction would begin in 2012 and be completed by 2016.
 
Many may recall the construction disruption for the existing subway under Baltimore Street which took place over three decades – the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Construction in the late 1970s and early 1980s was centered upon a Charles Center station between Calvert and Hanover Streets, while construction for a Shot Tower station from Gay Street to east of President Street took place in the mid 1990s.
 
In contrast, the Red Line is projected to have four stations under downtown, to be built in a single four year phase – at the University of Maryland near Greene Street, near Howard Street for transfers to light rail, near Light Street to link to a new pedestrian tunnel to the existing Baltimore Street subway, and near Gay Street. The Red Line alignment under Lombard Street is considered a half-way location – close enough to the existing subway two blocks to the north for transfers, and yet close enough to the Inner Harbor to the south serve tourists and conventioneers.
 
Other alternatives to build the Red Line under Fayette Street or on the surface streets are also being considered by the Maryland Transit Administration. Surface alternatives could be built much more quickly and with less expensive construction.

Baltimore Brew is a moderated site that encourages the free and open exchange of ideas in a climate of mutual respect. We reserve the right - but do not assume any obligation - to delete or withhold the publication of comments that violate our standards. Comments that are obscene, libelous or defamatory, or include vicious personal attacks will not be published. Racist remarks, sexist remarks, disgusting stuff, blatant commercial self-promotion – you get the idea – if it crosses our line, we’re not going to run it.

  • Paul

    While I will object to the disruption of my commute through the city as a city resident and taxpayer I am furious at the waste of money this represents.

  • http://joshreads.com jfruh

    Red Line on surface streets would also be a much less useful transit line (see for instance Light Rail on Howard Street). Honestly, I know years of construction will be a pain, but this is a piece of infrastructure that will serve the city for a century or more. Though it would be nice if they coordinated it with the work they’re planning for later this year…

  • http://changebaltimore.blogspot.com Patapsco Jones

    I’m not so sure why Red Line construction needs to disrupt traffic on Lombard Street. Are you sure this is part of the Red Line proposal? The Second Avenue subway in Manhattan doesn’t close down anything during its tunneling and it’s directly under the street.

    Your insistence on an above ground Red Line downtown misses the whole point of Rapid Transit. Part of the selling point of this train is that it gets you around the city quicker than a car or a city Bus. What exactly is the point of the Red Line if it has to wait for traffic, just like cars and buses do? And more importantly, how will it ever develop a ridership if it presents no clear advantage over previously existing transit methods? I’ve read your advocacy of street cars in the city, and I think there can be some merits to them, particularly in less congested areas of town, but Downtown is an entirely different story.

    What I think needs to be done with Red Line is to design the tunneling for downtown so that other, future lines can access it. The Muni in San Francisco and most of the U-Bahn systems in Germany, Munich, Berlin, Hamburg etc, use this method. Using the same tunnel for multiple lines in the future will save the MTA a ton of money, and actually demonstrate, for once, some foresight in building a comprehensive transit system for the city.

  • Jamie Hunt

    Patapsco Jones says:
    April 3, 2009 at 9:13 am

    “… Using the same tunnel for multiple lines in the future will save the MTA a ton of money, and actually demonstrate, for once, some foresight in building a comprehensive transit system for the city. …”

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

    I hear ya, but if that were the case, the MTA would have figured out how to use the existing tunnel through downtown on Baltimore Street. (I know: heavy rail v. not-so-heavy rail, yada yada) Let’s face it: how many people from West Baltimore are looking to go all the way through downtown to Fells Point and Canton, and vice versa? Not nearly enough to justify this expensive mess, that’s for certain.

  • http://www.baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot.com Gerald Neily

    Jones and Hunt, you’re both right about the MTA. IF (the key word) the MTA could “demonstrate some foresight, for once, in building a comprehensive transit system”, as Jones said, they could combine transit lines in either the existing tunnel (per Hunt) or a new tunnel (per Jones). But they’re not. Each of the two subway tunnels would house only one line each, as per the 2002 long range plan, and never the twain would meet. Yes, MUNI and BART in San Francisco are excellent examples of combining lines. I don’t know of any other system in the world that does it the MTA way.

    The key would be to build a north-south tunnel, so that it would actually intersect the existing subway, and to make the new tunnel as short as possible, so that lines in various directions could feed into it. I’ve given ideas for various tunnel and non-tunnel concepts on my blog: baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot.com

    Given the MTA’s poor inefficient tunnel options, no new tunnel at all is the best of their choices. Then it would be up to good design and traffic engineering to make it work. The City also wants to spend $100 million to remake Pratt Street, so that would be an excellent opportunity to do it right, at the front door of the Inner Harbor, instead of redoing Lombard twice.

    Manhattan is made out of rock, so it is not a good comparison for subway construction techniques. Lombard Street is built on top of harbor muck, and was underwater when Baltimore was originaly settled. Our MTA also wants four stations in less than a mile, much closer together than under Second Avenue.

  • sf4fun66

    The San Francisco MUNI Market Street tunnel is a disaster. 5 surface lines feed into it causing numerous delays on a daily basis. Since there are no sidings and few track crossings, the system shuts down if a train breaks down. Can’t tell you how many times I had the pleasure of creeping along the tunnel at 2 mph.

  • http://www.baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot.com Gerald Neily

    Thanks SF4fun, but what do you want to do? Build five separate tunnels for each of the 5 MUNI lines, with long pedestrian passageways to connect between them? Then more extra tunnels for each BART line under the bay? That would be the Baltimore MTA way. Instead of having easy transfers where the entire rail transit system converges at Market Street, you’d have your version of the Baltimore mess.

    To my knowledge, disabled trains are towed out the same way everywhere. The main issue in San Francisco is probably that most people actually patronize the system, leading to congestion due to heavy use when a train breaks down. We certainly don’t have that problem here in Baltimore.

  • Greg Hinchliffe

    A few notes:
    The Lombard tunnel would be constructed by boring, not cut and cover, therefore much less disruptive. The difference is that between the construction of the downtown section of the subway, which was a mess, and that of the Hopkins extension, which hardly anybody noticed.

    Many transit systems run multiple lines on the same tracks (and in the same tunnel) with no problems. SF’s problem was with the horrendous unreliability of their light rail vehicles, built by Boeing back in the day when it was thought to be a good idea for defense contractors to turn to building transit. Operations in SF should improve now that they have better vehicles.

    BTW, has anyone noticed how much more squeal and flange noise our light rails cars make compared to other cities? The trucks were made by local defense contractor AAI. Hmmmm.

  • geraldneily

    Greg, the Red Line is supposed to have four stations within a 12 block stretch underneath Lombard, which would be a gigantic mess regardless. The Hopkins Metro extension also created a gigantic disruption between Calvert and President Streets, and under Broadway, even though the tunnel was bored between the stations as you said. The City finally realized what The Brew realized about Lombard Street when they decided to resurface it instead of rebuilding.

More of the Daily Drip »

Below the Fold

    • Yesterday, when Baltimore web developer and Ignite Baltimore co-founder Mike Subelsky tweeted that he was about to witness Nik Wallenda’s tightrope walk across the Inner Harbor, my ears perked up. Pix to come, Subelsky promised. Oooh, send them along I said! Recognizing his citizen journalist moment, Subelsky kindly agreed and sent along some great photos. [...]

Twitter

Facebook