Put Light Rail on Baltimore's FS Key Bridge Replacement?

https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-06- ... -proposals

Proposals for the rebuild of the Francis Scott Key Bridge are due Monday. But the Baltimore Transit Equity Coalition (BTEC) and its allies “urgently request the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) to accept designs that include light rail transit for the rebuilding,” in an official statement released Thursday.

In their statement, advocates argue that a light rail option would increase work opportunities and improve air quality while reducing commute times. “The mantra in the industry is, development follows rail,” said Samuel Jordan, president of BTEC. “So why shouldn't we extend that opportunity for expanded development that's going to occur, and is occurring in East Baltimore County, across the bridge?” he asked.

In short, they want to put a Light Rail line on the bridge.

To borrow a phrase from the YouTube channel JaguarGator9 (covering football sports history): I'm sorry, what?

The linked statement itself is light on details or any actual proposed routing outside of a destination. Given that previous Red Line studies would run through Canton and up to Bayview, it wouldn't be a stretch to just branch off the Red Line to go down to the Marine terminals, Dundalk, and Sparrows Point -- connecting the center of Baltimore with the Ports.

But no! They want it along side I-695, which would require keeping it along I-695 to connect to the main Light Rail line in... North Linthicum. Which is no where near Baltimore and would take more time and money to pull off and operate, and it wouldn't be a straight-ish shot into Baltimore itself. You'd have more opportunities for infill stations going up Broening Highway than over the *!)@#( bay, and you don't risk having another ship shut the whole line down! It doesn't make a whole lot of sense!

Lets not get into their earlier idea of making the entire Red Line powered by solar, without even digging into power requirements and that Light Rail has to run AT NIGHT and would require an entire solar farm that can't fit in Maryland right now.

In other words, stupid.

Would the new FSK be cable stayed much like the Tappan Zee replacement? That had provisions for rail, but
removed in final design.

The problem here seems to be that the most common function of light rail is to move local traffic between city centers and their surrounding areas, and now some people want to put it on the Key Bridge, whose purpose is to keep long-haul traffic away from Baltimore. I don't think they've thought thie through.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 10:10 pm The Key Bridge, whose purpose is to keep long-haul traffic away from Baltimore.

This was the final segment of the 695 Beltway completed and was not originally intended as a heavy truck bypass, but was planned as a single tube 2-lane tunnel. Only after a 4-lane bridge ended up with similar or lower costs than a single tube, was the plan changed.

I can't say it's a bad idea to incorporate a single track of light rail into the design.... whether or not it ever materializes is another story, but having the provisions for it are a lot easier to do with the initial construction. Much harder to bolt on later.

The only downside is that the approaches and "ruling grade" of the bridge could be problematic. Light rail can tackle some of an incline, but I saw firsthand how the Tucson "Modern Streetcar" couldn't manage the underpass under the UPRR....

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 2:10 am I can't say it's a bad idea to incorporate a single track of light rail into the design.... whether or not it ever materializes is another story, but having the provisions for it are a lot easier to do with the initial construction. Much harder to bolt on later.

The only downside is that the approaches and "ruling grade" of the bridge could be problematic. Light rail can tackle some of an incline, but I saw firsthand how the Tucson "Modern Streetcar" couldn't manage the underpass under the UPRR....

There's "hey, lets see about putting light rail on it" but if you pull the focus out to include the light rail system, light rail as it's designed is to get folks into and out of the city center. From a transit design standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense as I highlighted earlier.

Context, people!

Break the box once in a while.

Using light rail for a ring route is happening in Dallas with a line running from Plano to DFW Airport. Doesn't go anywhere near the city center. Running light rail around Chicago has also been considered with the Metra "Star Line" that would use the EJ&E and hit the western and northern suburbs.

I also seem to recall a route near Ontario, CA that wasn't a traditional "big downtown" route but more of a regional collector/feeder to Metrolink.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 6:47 pm Break the box once in a while.

Using light rail for a ring route is happening in Dallas with a line running from Plano to DFW Airport. Doesn't go anywhere near the city center. Running light rail around Chicago has also been considered with the Metra "Star Line" that would use the EJ&E and hit the western and northern suburbs.

I also seem to recall a route near Ontario, CA that wasn't a traditional "big downtown" route but more of a regional collector/feeder to Metrolink.

Yes, but those have a purpose. The light rail between Plano and DFW Airport is going to speed up connections TO DFW (as you're not going through Dallas and it's a straighter shot). The Metra STAR line is going to be similar (although it's going to be DMUs) and connect to the CTA Rosemount station, which makes it a short trip into... Chicago O'Hare Airport. And you have the feeders.

I don't see that here. Take the idea of running Light Rail over the new Key bridge in Baltimore and actually flesh it out. Sure, you'll connect Dundalk but where would it go to on the other end? If the provision is to get it over the bridge, you would need to largely follow I-695 over to MD 170 and the Light Rail line there. The only stops you'll really have is Hawkins Point, Glen Burnie at MVA... and that's it. I see little value on it's own.

The only value is if it goes down, bypassing Dundalk, to Sparrows Point, so that folks in Cherry Hill can get to a ton of distribution centers and Tradepoint... and it won't be much value there. It's going to be express service no matter how you slice it.

Now take the Red Line that Gov. Moore says will be light rail. Branch that off in Canton and send it down Boening Highway and Dundalk Avenue, through Dundalk to Sparrows Point. Bang, you have just shortened the commutes of folks living in Dundalk who work at Sparrows Point. Everything at Sparrows Point is shuttle service. Everything north of Dundalk will get you to Canton and city center, and walking distance to Camden Yards. Because birds. Much more value there.

(BTW you want express service on Light Rail as is? Put in pocket tracks at minor stations.)

Whether or not makes sense really isn't the question at this point. If designing the extra 10 ft of right away doesn't really add a whole lot to the design, do it.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

eolesen wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 4:58 pm Whether or not makes sense really isn't the question at this point. If designing the extra 10 ft of right away doesn't really add a whole lot to the design, do it.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

To be honest, an extra 12 feet of right-of-way for freight makes a hell of a lot more sense than light rail.

So my Bostonian friend (who I talked about a few years back) mentioned the idea of putting Light Rail on a new Key Bridge and I said "oh no, that won't work here." She replied with "I bet I can make it work."

She just got home, pulled up a copy of Nimby Rails, and tried to model it... and couldn't. It wasn't practical.
She also modeled the Red Line and some branches on existing Light Rail... as well as my proposed extension down to Dundalk (although I'd go further to Sparrow's Point to get the warehouse and Tradepoint Atlantic commuter traffic).

Any changes in the replacement that goes beyond what was there before the motor ship Dali collided with it would require an extensive National Environmental Policy Act study that would push the beginning of construction of the replacement bridge beyond 2030.

Being that the replacement is going the be the same capacity (4 lanes) in the same alignment with the same foot print no National Environmental Policy Act study is necessary.

The Maryland Transportation Authority is presently reviewing various design build proposals and will award a contract before September of 2024 with construction to begin in 2025.

Sand Box John wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 8:28 am Any changes in the replacement that goes beyond what was there before the motor ship Dali collided with it would require an extensive National Environmental Policy Act study that would push the beginning of construction of the replacement bridge beyond 2030.

Being that the replacement is going the be the same capacity (4 lanes) in the same alignment with the same foot print no National Environmental Policy Act study is necessary.

The Maryland Transportation Authority is presently reviewing various design build proposals and will award a contract before September of 2024 with construction to begin in 2025.

That said, a bike lane would be nice.

Everyone - I have been following this FSK Bridge topic - and will ask:
"Why not include at least a single track for freight rail?"

This could create a new detour route around Baltimore and perhaps lead to some less emphasis
on using the infamous "Howeird Street Tunnel" bottleneck...

But - as SBJ mentions any change to the FSK Bridge reconstruction plan is going to have complications...
Including future provisions that adds a new rail routing should at least be looked into...MACTRAXX

I'm not an engineer, but I think adding two-mile-long freight trains would require a complete redesign from the bottom up.