Feedback

New federal rules are actually bad news for the MTA Red Line

  • Story Link
  • 7

Categories

By GERALD NEILY

Contrary to Tuesday’s Sun editorial following up on a recent article, there is no good news for the MTA Red Line in U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s recent change in the federal rules for awarding transit projects. The rule changes would elevate livability issues, economic development, environmental benefits and congestion relief – factors on which the MTA Red Line is very vulnerable.

The MTA Red Line would make congestion worse, not better, because it would arguably take away lanes, squeezing more traffic into fewer lanes. And it could only be said to improve “economic development” and “livability” in the vague sense that anyone would use in a sell job.

In two of the communities the Red Line traverses, in fact, Edmondson Village and Canton, many residents do not see it as a boon to livability. The expensive underground segments through Downtown, Fells Point and Cooks Lane were chosen to avoid impacts, not to enhance livability or the environment.

The real indicator that the changed criteria would not help the Red Line is that Maryland Transportation Secretary Beverly Swaim-Staley reportedly will now take a “second look” at more expensive tunneling under Cooks Lane to eliminate the need for a single reversible track.

Such a change would be made to improve safety and operations, which are essential of course, but would do nothing to enhance livability, economic development or relieve congestion. As far as the community is concerned, it would simply mean more disruptive digging and less threat of a disastrous collision. Since the MTA has previously said that the proposed single-track tunnel would not result in any sacrifice of safety, ridership or travel time, this latest admission only reduces the State’s credibility.

But the biggest problem with the new rules is that competition for federal transit funding is already intense. Major transit systems around the country, such as Philadelphia and Camden NJ, are already looking at the new rules to see how they can benefit from them. But money has not been increased. Any change which advances one system will necessarily derail another. Those systems which are not dealing with fundamental safety and operations issues or neighborhood impacts will get the advantage, not the MTA Red Line.

  • Mark R. Brown

    The premise that reducing the number of lanes will increase congestion and reduce livability is inaccurate. One of many examples is the new bus/bike lane on Pratt Street which was put in for the Charm City Circulator. Congestion has not increased noticeably since this lane has been removed for non-transit vehicles, and livability has improved since downtown employment and tourist destinations are much more accessible by shuttle than by car. Also, keep in mind that Pratt Street has one of the highest average daily traffic volumes of any city street. These types of livability benefits will be multiplied with the Red Line.

    Likewise, NYC-DOT has removed many traffic lanes on city streets and converted them into outdoor pedestrian spaces. Somehow, traffic finds its way around these new public spaces without a problem. The result; more active, livable streets, calmed traffic, and public right-of-way reclaimed for people instead of speeding cars. The idea that wider streets and more lanes increases livability and reduces congestion has been challenged across the country with innovative, neighborhood-oriented street designs which reduce the number of auto lanes in exchange for improved level of service for transit, bicycles and pedestrians.

    Replacing automobile trips with transit, new transit-oriented development possibilities, better accessibility to jobs across socio-economic groups, and a connection between some of our best neighborhoods- I think the Red Line will do fine with FTA’s revised rules.

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

    Thank you, Mark Brown, for explaining how “somehow” more traffic can be carried in fewer lanes with less congestion when lanes are taken away from one of the city’s highest traffic volume streets. And thank you for using your full name.

    In a letter to the Sun on January 14th, Shalin Mody gives a contrary opinion regarding the new bus lane on Pratt Street: “My commute this morning took an additional 10-15 minutes as a result of the additional traffic from having one fewer lane.”

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bal-busletter0114,0,4666094.story

  • Nate Payer

    The Red Line DEIS confirms that the Red Line will increase congestion and increase travel times in the aforementioned areas. Many of the (not so) parallel routes into the City are already heavily trafficked (e.g. Windsor Mill Rd, Frederick Ave, Wilkins Ave, Eastern Ave, Orleans St).

    None of which mentions the engineering issues which force the Red Line into the narrowest allowable constraints, unprecedented nationwide. The MTA Red Line is an exercise in making transit “better” by making all other traffic worse, including bus traffic.

    The promotion of the project rely on the “free lunch” fallacy. The Red Line, and some other mixed traffic LRT projects, are attempting to get something for nothing. The side effects of attempting to route the Red Line through at high speeds are dismissed. There is only so much space on Baltiimore’s arterial streets, and our traffic engineers have succeeded in moving large numbers through at the expense of “livability”, yet have avoided chronic congestion.

    For the Red Line to work, it must move swiftly and reliably through it’s route. Where it has reduced road capacity, the remaining space must allow auto traffic to move more quickly. Consequently, US 40 will become more of a highway than its current state. To not do allow the traffic to move more quickly results in more congestion and more pollution (and more time loss). The Red Line would not improve livability, because there is no free lunch.

  • Brooks Bage

    I am a electrician working on upgrades to the Baltimore Metro. As gas prices creep toward the 3.00 per gal.mark, I can’t help but remember the ridership on Metro and Light Rail at the 4.00 per gal.period. The trains were packed at peak hours, standing room only. I get to see daily the impact of the Metro on peoples lives. The proposed Red Line will go underground At MLK Blvd, run underground through the heart of downtown, and surface on boston street, thus eliminating congestion downtown.I, for one, hope the new rules dont hurt our chances for a more intergrated transit system.Baltimore could use it.

  • Nate Payer

    Brooks, the point you raise about gas prices and patronage is one of the points at the heart of the matter. High popularity and patronage due to ever increasing energy prices, often cited by governments officials and planners as reasons to build new transit systems, would have the paradoxical effect of rendering the Red Line LPA obsolete.

    Due to spatial constraints above ground and high cost below ground, the Red Line would have very short station platforms and narrow vehicles. This would effectively limit its practical weekday load to about 2/3rds of the current load our Metro carries at peak rush hour.

  • Klaus H Philipsen

    Fixation on automotive congestion is outdated transportation policy. Mark Brown spoke about qualitative issues not just congestion. It is easy to see how a narrower roadway with permanent parking lanes and a dedicated transit way such as on Edmondson would make it better and easier to live along this street (same on Boston). It is true that many residents don’t see this yet because the red herring of congestion is constantly waved in front everybody’s nose. I congratulate the City which has the foresight to plan a better Pratt Street where the quality of this boulevard is not measured by the numbers of lanes for the motorist.

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

    Just a clarification: This “fixation” on congestion which Klaus Philipsen refers to is being done by the U.S. Department of Transportation. They are the ones who are now waving this “red herring” in front of our noses, and apparently prefer to fund transit projects that don’t make congestion worse over projects that do.

More of the Daily Drip »

Below the Fold

  • January 27, 2012

    • Catching up on a slew of interesting things to do and read this weekend that we almost lost track of in the Kickstarter hub-bub. Here are just a few: SATURDAY (1/28/12) New Mercury Non-fiction Reading – Check out tell-it-like-it-is education blogger Edit Barry (see below) and a pack of other feisty non-fictional characters from the [...]

Twitter

Facebook