Transit
MARC’s new Brunswick schedule worsens service for many
On Thursday, MARC announced a new schedule on the Brunswick Line, to go into effect on January 30. For riders at the far end of the line, it will mean a faster trip. But for riders in Frederick and closer-in Montgomery County, it will mean fewer trains and longer waits.
Photo by tracktwentynine on Flickr.
MARC says the rationale for the change is the reduction of delays, something every Brunswick Line rider naturally supports. But not only does this schedule fails to address the major causes of the Brunswick Line's many delays, it will actually make things worse for many Brunswick Line riders. The schedule is a failure, and MARC should reconsider it.
As Brunswick Line riders were reminded only last Friday, mechanical problems, communications problems, and CSX responses are major causes of delays. Other causes include trackwork, signal problems, freight train interference, and freight congestion. There are also heat orders when it's hot, and flash flood orders when it rains. And sometimes there are fatalities or other unusual events.
But these delays are not caused by the current schedule, and this new schedule will not solve the problems.
The winners in the new schedule are riders who board at the Brunswick and Point of Rocks stations. They will have more limited-stop trains and comparatively shorter trips. Of the 12 trains that serve Brunswick, 5 will have fewer stops under the plan and just 1 will be making more stops. Even with the schedule's increased time for loading passengers, 5 trains will still have travel times that are up to 10% shorter than in the current schedule.
MARC's Brunswick Line. Map from MTA Maryland.
There are two likely reasons for MARC's decision to benefit these riders. First, Brunswick and Point of Rocks are two of MARC's busiest Brunswick Line stations, with riders from Virginia and West Virginia as well as Maryland. Second, MARC places primary importance on "overall speed of service", i.e., getting the trains from origin to final destination as fast as possible.
Meanwhile, the losers in the new schedule are riders boarding at stations in Montgomery County and at the Monocacy and Frederick stops. They will face reduced train access and longer train rides in return for the improvements at Brunswick and Point of Rocks.
In Montgomery County, Kensington will lose 1 train in each direction. Garrett Park will lose 2 outbound trains. Barnesville will lose 1 inbound train. Metropolitan Grove will lose 2 inbound trains and 1 outbound train. And Boyds and Dickerson will have gaps of 90 minutes between trains.
The most probable reason for this worsening of service is, again, MARC's belief that access to service is less important than speed of service.
Service at most of these stations is already marginal. For many current riders, losing service will mean that taking the train is no longer a viable option. This will lead to a death spiral of lower ridership and reduced service, ending finally in closing the stations altogether.
The decision to reduce service at Metropolitan Grove is especially baffling. Metropolitan Grove is one of the few stations in Montgomery County with a lot of unused parking. And, because the parking lots at Germantown are full, Montgomery County has actually been encouraging riders to board at Metropolitan Grove, the next stop.
As for the Frederick branch, there will be fewer limited-stops trains and longer trips While Frederick and Monocacy currently serve fewer riders than Brunswick and Point of Rocks, this is surely related to the fact that the Frederick service has less than half the number of trains.
In addition, MARC's decision to favor riders from Brunswick and Point of Rocks over riders from Frederick and Monocacy is at odds with state transportation policy. Congestion on I-270 is so bad that in 2009, the state of Maryland proposed spending up to $3.8 billion on highway widening between Germantown and Frederick. Improving MARC service to Frederick is an obvious way of reducing traffic on I-270. But instead, the new MARC schedule worsens it.
Service to West Virginia also has its winners and losers. Earlier commuters will gain a morning train, leaving Martinsburg at 5:00 am, and an extension of the first daily afternoon train to West Virginia. But later commuters are clear losers, with West Virginia service for the last evening train canceled, and departure of West Virginia's new last train delayed from 5:40 pm to 6:15 pm at Union Station.
Do the majority of West Virginia riders want these changes? Who knows? Certainly not MARC, which is only now asking for information from West Virginia riders, after announcing the new schedule.
So what happens next?
MARC has decided not to hold public hearings or to create a public record.
Instead, they will have a series of "Meet-the-MARC-Management" events at selected MARC stations in the afternoon. The first of these meetings will be tonight at the Rockville station.
Meetings will follow at other stations over the next few weeks: Silver Spring on December 7, Monocacy on December 8, Union Station on December 13, Brunswick on December 14, Germantown on December 20, and Barnesville on January 4.
Given that the first event comes only 5 days after MARC's announcement, this is an ambitious timetable.
It also remains to be seen whether MARC commuters on their way home, during the holiday season, will have the time or inclination to stop and tell the MARC managers their opinion of the new schedule. And MARC riders who dislike the schedule may doubt that their feedback will change the minds of the very people who came up with the schedule in the first place.
MARC will hold further "town hall" events in Brunswick on January 3, Kensington on January 5, and Charles Town, West Virginia, on January 7. These meetings are supposed to provide an opportunity for community members, interest groups, government officials, and elected representatives to have their say.
If you can't attend one of these events, there are other ways to provide your feedback. MARC is hosting an online comment form. You can also e-mail comments to the general MARC address of marc@mta.maryland.gov, and CC your local officials.
Yes, the Brunswick Line contends with substantial operational and fiscal constraints. And its true that no public transit schedule can make everybody happy. But this is no excuse for a schedule that's practically guaranteed to make things worse, not better, for large numbers of the riders it's meant to serve. MARC should honor its commitments to all Brunswick Line riders by withdrawing this schedule.Miriam Schoenbaum lives in Montgomery County's Agricultural Reserve. She serves on the MARC Riders' Advisory Council and is a Vice-President of the Action Committee for Transit. 
Comments
@ggwash
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- DC's divide need not be black and white
- Preservationists ask to shrink 3rd Church replacement
- Live chat: Matt Yglesias, Wednesday at noon
- Half-hour Metro headways are not acceptable
- "Degree density" maps show region's east-west divide
Sounds like a short-sighted move, which (I agree with the author here) will likely lead to a downward spiral in ridership and service. Haven't they learned from the mistakes made by Philadelphia's SEPTA Regional Rail over the past couple decades?
by native dc on Dec 5, 2011 10:53 am
Frederick is a different story, perhaps the Frederick-bound trains should get a different line designation, and more attention, because that is such an obvious market for MARC. Reducing service there is just ridiculous.
by Joe in SS on Dec 5, 2011 11:02 am
by BeyondDC on Dec 5, 2011 11:11 am
by Miriam on Dec 5, 2011 12:10 pm
90 minutes between trains is a killer.
At a time when the reasons for encouraging people to ride transit have never been more compelling, this happens. It makes no sense on any level.
by Capt. Hilts on Dec 5, 2011 2:32 pm
by Redline SOS on Dec 5, 2011 3:34 pm
Everyone: the problem with using commuter rail with inner-suburban service is that the entire paradigm of how it works in the US is all about the outer-suburban sprawl. Even stations that serve historic towns are surrounded by parking rather than by high-intensity development - and that's when stations serve towns; I don't know if it's the case for MARC, but the MBTA has placed some stations right outside the towns they serve for easier automobile access.
In addition, the frequency sucks (and the shorter the trip is, the more important frequency is), and the connection to Metro and any intersecting bus route requires paying a separate fare. Who wants to take a train like that?
by Alon Levy on Dec 5, 2011 4:40 pm
I would disagree on this. Kensington already has frequent Ride-On and WMATA bus service (and is reasonably close to rail as well). It makes sense to speed commuter service like they are (because it's a pretty long ride already)
...and guys, seriously? MARC service to Harpers Ferry and Martinsburg induces sprawl? Seriously? Do you understand how long service to Harpers Ferry has been around, and that it goes into the historic core of both cities?
by as on Dec 5, 2011 4:53 pm
A complaint about a change whose opposite she was complaining about earlier in the article. I think she just likes complaining.
"Service to West Virginia also has its winners and losers. Earlier commuters will gain a morning train, leaving Martinsburg at 5:00 am, and an extension of the first daily afternoon train to West Virginia. But later commuters are clear losers, with West Virginia service for the last evening train canceled, and departure of West Virginia's new last train delayed from 5:40 pm to 6:15 pm at Union Station.
Do the majority of West Virginia riders want these changes? Who knows? Certainly not MARC, which is only now asking forinformation from West Virginia riders, afterannouncing the new schedule."
Why doesn't SHE ask one? To me, it's a fair trade, to be honest. Less reason to drive into MD and park in Brunswick.
by Mike Pulsifer on Dec 5, 2011 5:19 pm
At the same time, I'm in agreement with some of the comments above in that I think the author is a little over the top in her criticism, and instead of a concise piece which pinpoints the shortcomings and strong points of the new schedule, her post amounts to an overly long rant. Unrealistic predictions such as: "...a death spiral of lower ridership and reduced service, ending finally in closing the stations altogether" don't really help the situation and only hurts her credibility.
GGW contributors in general need to realize that we don't live in a utopia and everything won't always be exactly how we want it to be...
by King Terrapin on Dec 6, 2011 12:55 am
The MTA sent out that e-mail about the changes trumpeting them as "the first significant change since 2001", but I don't see significant change here. Martinsburg gets a new round trip, every station between Silver Spring and Point of Rocks not named Rockville loses at least one train at some point during the day, spacing of trains turns absolutely silly, and the last train of the evening still leaves at 7:15 PM. I'm not quite sure what the point is of these "changes", but they really seem to just be change for the sake of change, not change for the sake of making better commutes.
Also, couldn't the first two trains (870 from Brunswick, 890 from Frederick in the AM; 873 to Brunswick (Martinsburg in new sched), 891 to Frederick) be run back out as a reverse-commute trip? That'd add a later trip from each location in the morning, a later trip to each location in the evening, and, of course, reverse-commute trips.
by Justin..... on Dec 6, 2011 4:07 am
1. MARC has actually recently tried to close stations due to low ridership.
2. One typical reaction to any post or article about the Brunswick Line, regardless of subject, is "Close [fill-in-the-blank smaller station], nobody rides from there anyway." See, for example, the second, third, and fifth comments on this post.
Or do you think that reduced service at a station won't lead to lower ridership from that station?
by Miriam on Dec 6, 2011 6:36 am
Take the Dickerson station From a simple review it is a small city with with few potential riders. However if your remove your blinders you quickly realize that the station is located directly on Rte 28 with thousand of commuters driving directly by the station every day. Do you think you could attract riders by more stops at this station and a larger parking area. Not our MTA they think that Barnesville is a better spot tucked in the countryside. Riders come to frequencies and high levels of service. MTA is not in step with Montgomery or Frederick County. Let's clean house and get some MTA official who want to increase levels of service and stop hiding behind the excuse the CSX will not let us do it. Time for a change.
by Jonathan Warner on Dec 6, 2011 7:48 am
"... MARC tried to close Boyds and Dickerson. At the time, each station cost MARC less than $100 per year."
Do you actually believe that? $100 per year??? How much do you think it costs to remove the snow from the platforms/parking for just one storm at those stations? While I do not think these stations should be closed, their ridership should not expect the same service as the bigger stations.
Other comments provided good ideas. Inner ring stations, while having historic service, now have many other public transportation alternatives. MARC should be about reaching those further out--not all of us can afford to live in the 'inner sanctum' of DC or even Monty Co.
And West Virginia gets improved service before others? Isn't this MARC, a Maryland State sponsored program? While I realize WV riders pay more, their state should be coughing up money to improve this service (i.e. more trains at their stations), and not at the expense of service to Maryland riders.
And Pulsifer don't be so smug...
by disgruntled on Dec 6, 2011 7:58 am
by Miriam on Dec 6, 2011 10:14 am
Overall I tend to agree with many comments here: MARC service on the Brunswick line is all about long distance commute, not about small/medium distances. As such it is better to speed up the line for long distance commuters and introduce better public transportation for the Gaithesburg area to the metro.
by Vincent on Dec 6, 2011 11:30 am
by Mike Pulsifer on Dec 6, 2011 5:31 pm
All 3 of those stations were built by the B&O over 100 years ago (the Brunswick Line is one of the oldest passenger rail lines in the country), when rail was the only practical method of passenger transportation for most. Now it *may* be more efficient to close Boyds/Dickerson improve the Barnesville station and have all trains stop there.
As for $100 a month? Remember they're putting up those new LED signs for the automated announcements at all the Brunswick Line stations and while the feds are paying for it the MTA will have to maintain them.
by King Terrapin on Dec 6, 2011 6:57 pm
First, $100 per year, not $100 per month. Also, while I don't know for sure, I would not expect the marginal cost of maintaining the LED sign at a station to add up to a lot of money.
Second, efficiency. Efficiency is a concern for moving trains, not for moving people. (Of course you'd achieve maximum efficiency by eliminating all stops between Brunswick and Union Station.) For moving people, you also have to consider access. So there's Dickerson, right on Route 28, as @Jonathan Warner points out. There's Barnesville, where the parking lots are already full, and nobody I know has figured out how to expand either parking or non-car access. And there's Boyds, the closest MARC station to the houses and future jobs in Clarksburg. Then keep in mind the unlikelihood of CSX allowing MARC to re-open a stop, once it's closed. The problem with Boyds and Dickerson is not that they're inefficient, but rather that they have a lot of potential that the county and state are not making good use.
by Miriam on Dec 7, 2011 10:15 am
by Miriam on Dec 7, 2011 7:16 pm
MARC already has a very lousy schedule with regards to people who live in Frederick County and the surrounding areas. The new schedule will not fix any problems but introduce new ones.
by MoonDragn on Mar 15, 2012 4:44 pm
by IHateStinkBugs on Apr 25, 2012 5:30 pm
Add a Comment