Red Line - Baltimore Region Transit Plan

Frequently Asked Questions

Alternatives

32. What types of transit are being considered for the Red Line?

There are three transit alternatives under consideration for the Red Line: Transportation System Management (TSM); Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and Light Rail Transit (LRT).

Transportation System Management (TSM) represents the best that can be done for mobility in the corridor without constructing a new transit guideway. This alternative emphasizes upgrades to existing transit service through operational and minor physical improvements and could also include selected street upgrades such as intersection improvements, minor widenings and other focused traffic engineering.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a versatile, rubber-tired rapid transit mode designed and operated like rail transit. BRT operates with steerable, rubber-tire vehicles capable of operating on or off a guideway. This gives it greater operating flexibility than fixed rail transit. When buses operate in a combination of dedicated right-of-way, median reservation, bus lanes or protected right-of-way, with on-line stops, the service is similar to rail rapid transit.

Light Rail Transit (LRT) is an electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along right-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures and in tunnels. Light Rail can operate on fixed rails in existing roads or on a separated guideway.

33. What is Transportation System Management (TSM)?

With TSM, no new transit guideway needs to be built. The TSM Alternative emphasizes upgrades in transit service through operational and small physical improvements. It could also include selected road upgrades through intersection improvements, minor widening, and other traffic engineering actions. Examples of features that could be included the TSM alternative:

Expanded routing and availability of MTA buses
Improved quality of transit service with more frequency and traffic signal preemption
Better transit coordination, support facilities and marketing
Improved accessibility with complimentary modes such as bicycles and walking
More parking and bus lanes

For the Red Line Study, the TSM is identified as Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would generally provide bus operations along existing roadways in dedicated curb lanes marked for buses and right-turning traffic only. In some places where right-of-way is constrained, the buses would operate in shared lanes with vehicular traffic.

34. What is BRT?

BRT stands for Bus Rapid Transit. This alternative incorporates versatile, rubber-tired buses designed and operated like rail transit. BRT buses operate with rubber tires and can run on or off a guideway, giving them greater operating flexibility than fixed rail transit. When these buses use a combination of dedicated right-of-way, median reservation, bus lanes or protected right-of-way, with on-line stops, the service is similar to rail rapid transit. Some examples of operating BRT service in other U.S. cities are shown below. For the Red Line Study, BRT is identified as Alternative 3.

35. What is LRT?

LRT stands for Light Rail Transit. It is an electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along a right-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures and in tunnels. Light rail can operate on fixed rails on existing roads or on a separated guideway or transitway. Some examples of LRT service are shown below. For the Red Line Study, LRT is identified as Alternative 4.

36. Will the systems be all BRT, all LRT or a combination of both?

The current alternatives for the Red Line Study under consideration are all bus rapid transit or all light rail transit throughout the corridor. This is consistent with other U.S. cities that currently operate BRT or LRT service.

If the system were to change modes in the corridor a forced transfer would be required. That would affect the Red Line's quality of service. Travel time, convenience and reliability of service would be compromised.

Each alternative, except the No-Build Alternative, includes a local bus plan with service routes that tie into the Red Line alignment. Depending on the alternative selected, the local bus plan could include a simplified route structure, limited stops or routes that terminate at Red Line stations. The final operating plan for the Red Line and the accompanying local bus service will be part of the Locally Preferred Alternative Package used by federal and state decision-makers.

37. Will the project be constructed underground, on aerial structures or on surface streets?

The Red Line could be a combination of suface, aerial, or underground tunnel alignments.

The alternatives under consideration for the Red Line study have varying lengths of surface and tunnel alignments.

38. Why isn't Metro being studied for the Red Line?

Metro, or heavy rail transit, must be physically separated from its surrounding environment because of its power source, the electrified "third rail." For the Red Line corridor, Metro would require significant tunnels or bridges for total separation from the surrounding environment, since at-grade rights-of-way do not generally exist except at I-70 and U.S. 40, east of the West Baltimore MARC Station.

A Metro alternative from CMS to Patterson Park for the Red Line is estimated to cost between $2.2 billion and $2.6 billion, including construction of the alignment, stations, vehicles, maintenance and storage yard and other associated costs. To be competitive nationally for federal funding, a project of this magnitude would generally need to have 130,000 to150,000 trips per day. Currently Metro from Owings Mills to Johns Hopkins Hospital carries about 45,000 trips per day. Even if the project received federal funds, historically most projects have been capped at $500 million in appropriations to optimize the number of eligible projects funded. Given this restriction, the State of Maryland would not be able to afford the $1.7 billion to $2.1 billion local share.

A more expansive discussion of the justification for not studying Metro for the Red Line can be found here.

39. What specific alternatives are being considered for the Red Line?

The transit modes under consideration are:

Alternative 1: No-Build

Alternative 2: TSM

Alternative 3: BRT

Alternative 4: LRT

The LRT and BRT alternatives include a broad range of options. These options can be viewed here.

40. Can the Red Line share the existing Metro tunnel downtown, thereby eliminating the need to build a new tunnel downtown?

A thorough investigation was performed to see if the Red Line could share the existing Metro tunnel downtown. It does not appear worthwhile. Here's why. The existing Metro tunnel runs in a north-south direction under Eutaw Street, then east-west under Baltimore Street turning in a northeast direction again toward Johns Hopkins Hospital. The east-west portion under Baltimore Street that could be shared with the Red Line is about 4,000 feet long. Another 6,000 feet of tunnel would be needed to reach the Red Line portals to the east and west of downtown (4,000 feet to the west of the Metro tunnel and 2,000 feet to the east of the Metro tunnel). The connections to break into the existing tunnel at either end require detailed, precise work that is more costly compared to the machine boring that would otherwise be used for a new Red Line tunnel. In addition, because light rail vehicles are narrower than the heavy-rail Metro vehicles, and the Metro vehicles are much too large to run on city streets, the Red Line cars would need to be configured differently. This would require substantial modifications within the existing Metro tunnel:

Platforms would need to be modified to account for the difference in floor height and vehicle width
Power systems would need to be reconfigured since there is not enough headroom at the Metro Stations to accommodate a catenary system for the Red Line
Current Metro vehicles would need to be modified for the reconfigured power systems
Train control and communications would need to be substantially reworked to accommodate the Metro and Red Line

The cost of all of these modifications is estimated to add up to over $100 million. Additionally, it would cost another $100 million for the detailed, precise work needed to break into the existing Metro tunnel. All that substantially reduces expected savings from a shared downtown tunnel.

Operations along both the Metro and Red Line also would be affected. Constructing the connections into the existing tunnel would take several years. During this time, the Metro system would operate about 30 percent less frequently so construction can take place in a safe manner. That would lead to crowded trains during the morning and evening rush. It would also require a few periods when the Metro is completely shut down for several weeks while tracks and power systems are modified. After construction, both systems would need to operate on the same time frequencies so the vehicles can be safely staggered through the shared tunnel. This creates an inflexible system where neither the Metro or Red Line can be adjusted to meet passenger demand. Furthermore, any delays on one line would have a ripple effect along the other line.

Although a shared downtown tunnel initially appears to save money during Red Line construction, the savings are not nearly as significant after factoring in the cost of converting the existing tunnel to handle both the Metro and Red Line. What savings remain don't justify the operational problems caused by joint use.

41. Can both Light Rail and buses share a new tunnel downtown?

Potentially yes. With proper safeguards and specially designed stations, light rail and buses could share the downtown tunnel.

There are two methods of sharing. First, a tunnel could provide separate lanes, two each for buses and light rail vehicles. The widths for such a tunnel would not typically fit under Baltimore streets. If such a tunnel would not fit under streets, then the tunnel would have to be very deep to be below the foundations of major buildings. Tunnels of this width will therefore be difficult to implement in Baltimore.

A second approach would entail a narrower tunnel where buses and light rail share the same lane in each direction. At the entrance to both ends of the tunnel, a signal system would be placed to maintain a safe distance between the two modes. This separation is necessary to meet national safety codes. If a light rail vehicle enters the tunnel and a bus pulls up to the entrance right behind it, the signal displays a red light to keep the bus from entering until the light rail vehicle exits the first station. Similarly, a light rail vehicle can only enter the tunnel when a bus, or platoon of buses, exits the first station. Inside, the tunnel would be divided into blocks or sections. A bus, or platoon of buses, cannot be in the same block as a light rail vehicle at any point in the tunnel. A signal system inside the tunnel would maintain the proper separation.

Stations inside the tunnel would function differently for light rail vehicles and buses. Light rail passengers would board or alight at any point along the train. For bus passengers, a special electronic message sign system would be needed to advise them where to stand on the platform to board the right bus, since buses normally enter the tunnel in randomly-ordered platoons.

The station platform would be divided into multiple segments, and each segment would have an alphanumeric designation. The same bus would not stop at the same segment of the platform on every trip through the tunnel. The message signs would advise waiting passengers which buses are arriving in the next few minutes and on which platform segments.

42. Where will the Red Line connect with other transit lines such as the Metro, Light Rail and MARC?

The approach for planning the Red Line alignments and station locations has been to optimize connections to existing MTA transit stations.

Proposed station locations vary slightly by mode and alignment but three key sites for the Red Line stops in the Central Business District are listed below. Three of the stations at Howard St., Charles Center, and Government Center/Inner Harbor would provide connections to the existing CLRT and Metro lines.

1. Howard Street Station - in the vicinity of Howard Street providing a direct connection to the Light Rail at the University Center/Baltimore Street Station.

2. Charles Center Station - in the vicinity of Charles Street/Light Street, which would provide a transfer point to the Charles Center Metro Station.

3. Government Center/Inner Harbor Station - in the vicinity of Gay and Market Streets, which would provide a transfer point with the Shot Tower/Market Place Metro Station.

The Red Line would connect to MARC at the West Baltimore MARC station and the proposed Bayview MARC station.

43. What is a one-way couplet?

A one-way couplet is a pair of one-way streets directing vehicles in opposite directions. In downtown Baltimore, Charles Street (which is only northbound) forms a one-way couplet with St. Paul Street (which is only southbound). Often in a downtown street grid, each one-way street in a couplet is a block away from the other street. One-way streets are used primarily to improve traffic flow in densely developed areas.

The same principle can be used for a transit line. Where space is limited, trains heading east could be located on one street with trains heading west on a nearby street. One-way transit couplets are options at several points in the Red Line study area: along Baltimore and Lombard Streets, Eastern and Fleet Streets, and Fleet and Aliceanna Streets. For the Baltimore-Lombard one-way couplet, the Red Line eastbound train (or busway) would be located on Baltimore Street, traveling in the same direction as other traffic on Baltimore Street. Similarly, the Red Line westbound train (or busway) would be located a block south, on Lombard Street, traveling in the same direction as other traffic on that street.

44. Why are you looking at Franklin/Mulberry Streets when "the ditch" already has a designated area for future transit?

The section of U.S. 40 between Martin Luther King Boulevard and Pulaski Street was built in the 1970s as an expressway and as part of a planned I-170 spur. The design anticipated a later Metro extension in the median of the freeway. Today, the median could be used for a Red Line mode of light rail or rapid transit. The advantage of the alignment in the median of the lowered freeway is obvious: Not much additional infrastructure would have to be built and transit would run in its own "guideway" without interfering with traffic. This alignment, however, has some disadvantages:

A Red Line station built in the area between Martin Luther King Boulevard and the West Baltimore MARC station would be located in the median of the freeway. Users of the Red Line would have to cross Franklin or Mulberry Streets to get to the Red Line station and descend to the lower level. Platforms would be adjacent to the freeway lanes. In short: Such a station would be difficult to access, waiting for trains on platforms so close to a high-speed freeway might not be considered attractive, and a "sunken" station might be viewed as a safety issue for waiting passengers.
The freeway, which is perceived by many as a scar separating neighborhoods, would be validated by placing transit on it, making any planned removal more difficult.

For these reasons surface alignments along Mulberry or Franklin Streets, or a combination of the two, have been added to the options under study. The disadvantage of slower surface transit due to intersections and traffic signals is obvious, but the surface options also have advantages:

Better access from communities, no need for escalators and elevators, stations are level with the adjacent areas and more visible, i.e. presumably safer.
Mulberry and Franklin could be rebuilt as neighborhood arteries with transit and new development on the green strips backing up to the sunken expressway. This way the freeway would be less disruptive and the "scar" would be partially redeveloped and healed.
The freeway could be partially covered or even filled in future planning initiatives, depending on redevelopment plans pursued for the area.

After discussions with the communities, Baltimore City planners and transit experts, the Red Line design team believes that all options discussed above, including surface alternatives, should be fully evaluated before a preferred route is selected. The evaluation will include ridership forecasts, transit speeds, trip times and traffic impacts, among other considerations.

45. What process have you used to eliminate alignments?

Before any alignment is eliminated, MTA performs a technical analysis, which varies in intensity depending on the alignment's location and the strengths and weaknesses of alternative alignments. If the analysis concludes an alignment should be eliminated from the study, MTA makes a recommendation to its Baltimore City and Baltimore County partners. If the City and County staff concur with the recommendation, it is then presented to the public at workshops. MTA considers public reaction before formally eliminating an alignment from further study. A document of all options considered will be provided in the DEIS and Technical Reports that accompany the DEIS.

46. Why do some alignments still remain, especially if citizens say they don't want them?

Planning for the Red Line has included a large number of different routes and alignments that have been evaluated after studying transportation data, environmental data and input received from the public. Many alignments have been eliminated for both technical reasons and strong opposition from the public. Examples are the Cooks-Stamford couplet, the Brookwood tunnel, the Oldstone Road alignment and the Rolling Road alignment. However, none of these alignments was eliminated solely on the basis of community input or technical input.

The remaining options represent a range of alternatives in terms of cost, travel times, community impact, environmental impact and how well they may improve transit in the Red Line corridor. The study team will continue to solicit public input on the alternatives and refine them so they are more acceptable to communities, institutions and businesses. The study team is responsible for presenting a broad range of alternatives in the DEIS and thus cannot eliminate an alternative based only on public comments.

47. How does the Red Line relate to the "gondola" study that appeared in the newspaper?

The following is excerpted from a Baltimore Sun article published on December 31, 2006:

"The $35 million, privately funded (gondola) system would carry eight-passenger cable cars from the Baltimore Convention Center to the western edge of Fells Point, with two stops along the way - one at the World Trade Center and the other at Pier Six. At 12 mph, the trip would take about seven minutes. A day pass would cost $7."

The purpose of this system is to connect major tourist attractions on both sides of the Inner Harbor and is likely to be a tourist attraction itself. It does not aim to solve or address regional transportation issues. The two systems would not compete for passengers and could complement each other because they serve different parts of the downtown market. For example, a Red Line passenger may get off at the Inner Harbor East station and take the gondola to the World Trade Center or the Convention Center.

48. How does the Red Line relate to the idea of a streetcar serving Fells Point?

A Fells Point streetcar has been proposed as a local circulator system with fixed rail vehicles operating on tracks that run in lanes shared with other traffic, similar to Baltimore's old streetcars. The system would run between downtown and the east end of Fells Point near Chester Street. These trolley vehicles would be similar to those running on the modern streetcar system in Portland, Oregon.

Red Line vehicles would run in a lane dedicated to transit vehicles so that service would be more predictable and reliable. The Red Line would be used for short trips, as the trolley would, but it also would be used for longer trips within the region, giving its Fells Point patrons the opportunity to travel to destinations such as the Social Security complex in Woodlawn that are difficult to reach today without using an automobile.

The two systems are mutually exclusive: You could build one or the other but likely not both.