Transit
Through-running isn't so easy for MARC and VRE, part 2
If MARC trains at Union Station became VRE trains to Virginia and vice versa, riders could reach more stations and we could use Union Station's limited tracks more efficiently. Unfortunately, there are several reasons this isn't as easy as it sounds. That doesn't mean trains can't run through, but a number of changes have to happen first, which cost money.
Photo by tracktwentynine on Flickr.
Previously, we talked about the biggest obstacle, high and low platforms. MARC has some high platforms and some low platforms, and wants one car type that can serve both, across all lines. But using those cars on VRE would slow down boarding considerably.
Still, is that a deal-breaker? The Brunswick Line has all low platforms today, which could accommodate VRE trains. What about just running VRE trains onto the Brunswick Line and vice versa to start with? Or just have some MARC trains go at least to Alexandria?
Unfortunately, the track layout at Union Station, insufficient space for reverse-direction trains on most lines, and limited platforms at L'Enfant and Crystal City all pose obstacles.
Union Station's tracks don't line up VRE and the Brunswick MARC
At Union Station, VRE trains coming from the south enter the station from the First Street Tunnel, at the far eastern end of the station. But the Brunswick Line's tracks come into the station at its far western end.
A Brunswick train crossing from the CSX Metropolitan Subdivision tracks on the west side of the station to the through tracks on the east side would have to cross all the tracks at Union Station, blocking trains on the other MARC, Amtrak and VRE lines.
That doesn't mean crossing over is impossible. It just makes scheduling more difficult. If in the future, for example, Acelas leave (and arrive) every 30 minutes and Regionals leave/arrive every 30 minutes, and MARC Penn trains leave and arrive every 20, there aren't many gaps for trains to cross over, and doing so can cause delays.
The Penn Line trains wouldn't face this problem, and as the highest-ridership line, that is the most logical one for through-running. But this is also the line with the most high platforms and thus the greatest incompatibility between MARC and VRE.
There isn't enough reverse-direction capacity
The Penn Line tracks do line up with the First Street tunnel; that's what Amtrak trains use to get to Virginia. Those trains could continue south to Alexandria, or even farther south. This could be a great asset for Penn Line riders, who could stay on the train to L'Enfant Plaza if they want the Metro Orange, Blue, Yellow or Green Lines, or ride to Crystal City or Alexandria if they work at jobs in Virginia.
Unfortunately, this would run into a second problem. There isn't enough track capacity south of Union Station. Right now, there are 2 tracks across the Potomac on the Long Bridge, and 3 through the L'Enfant Plaza area. CSX controls these tracks, and doesn't let VRE use all of the tracks.
Right now, VRE trains run almost entirely one-way. The trains head into DC on one track in the morning, and back out to Virginia on one track in the afternoon; in between, the trains sit at a yard near Ivy City in DC. The VRE schedule lists just one reverse-direction train, on the Manassas Line each morning and evening. Amtrak's trains go both ways all day, but there are only a few of those and mainly not at rush hours.
The bottom line is, if Virginia and Maryland wanted to have all or even some Penn Line trains continue past Union Station at least to Alexandria, there wouldn't be enough track space.
A similar problem applies to letting VRE trains continue north of Union Station. CSX has resisted letting Maryland's MTA add more MARC trains on the Brunswick and Camden Lines without also demanding Maryland invest some money into improvements along the route.
Stations are limited
Another issue with through-running is the design of the VRE stations at L'Enfant and Crystal City. These stations each have just one platform on one side of the tracks. That means trains can only serve the stations in one direction at a time.
This means the reverse peak direction trains on the Manassas Line each morning and afternoon can't stop at Crystal City or L'Enfant, because the trains running in the peak direction are using the platform track.
If Brunswick (or other MARC) trains could run south of Union Station today, they couldn't stop at L'Enfant or Crystal City, which is where most of the MARC riders would likely want to go.
Most of the other stops on the Manassas Line have the same configuration, with platforms only on one side as well. This will prove to be an obstacle for additional reverse peak direction trains, whether they're MARC or VRE.
Maryland Ave plan and Long Bridge study could fix this
There is hope on the horizon. The recent Maryland Avenue study recommended building a fourth track at L'Enfant Plaza. CSX could then let passenger trains travel in both directions at high frequency in that area. It would also transform the station from just one platform to 3, with a combination of high and low platforms for both types of trains.
Proposed L'Enfant commuter rail station layout. Image from the DC Office of Planning.
The next bottleneck would be the 2-track Long Bridge across the Potomac, and there's another study going on for that. VRE's 2004 strategic plan recommended adding a 3rd track from the Long Bridge to Crystal City, where the line widens to 3 tracks, and giving the Crystal City station an island platform to serve trains in both directions.
Combined with needed improvements at Union Station, we might one day see a truly regional rail system, at least from Baltimore and maybe Frederick to Alexandria, alongside more frequent service from Fredericksburg and Manassas to DC. To make this happen, however, Maryland and Virginia will have to make it a priority. With an 8-year-old VRE plan and a 5-year-old MARC plan mostly collecting dust, riders will need to push their leaders to put resources into commuter rail.
 | Matt Johnson has lived in the Washington region since mid-2007. He has a Master's degree in Community Planning from the University of Maryland and a BS in Public Policy from Georgia Tech. He has worked in the planning field since 2006 and lives in Greenbelt, where he serves on the city's Advisory Planning Board.    |
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
1) if the VRE goes to the yard, couldn't the MARC lines meeet at the yard for two way?
2) what prevents VRE/MARC from using the WMATA bridge?
by charlie on Aug 22, 2012 10:59 am • link • report
by Davin Peterson on Aug 22, 2012 11:09 am • link • report
I understand if the graphic is wrong...
by charlie on Aug 22, 2012 11:14 am • link • report
The reverse-direction MARC trains on Penn, which are the only reverse-direction trains of any meaningful number, are on the line with mostly high platforms, and VRE equipment can't go there.
VRE equipment could go on Brunswick, but there aren't reverse-peak trains on Brunswick, and CSX won't allow them, and plus going to Brunswick requires a crossover that would jam up other lines.
So through-running trains is only partly about the logistics of through-running trains; it's also largely about having reverse-direction trains at all.
The spot with the most value for reverse-direction trains is Union Station to L'Enfant, Crystal City, and Alexandria in the morning, for MARC riders commuting to jobs in SW DC, Arlington, and Alexandria and to give them access to lines besides Red. Unfortunately, that section of the commuter rail network is one of the most severely constrained of all.
In short, the places that are easier to through-run don't have any reverse-direction service, and the places that are most valuable to do it are the hardest.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't through-run, but that it's not a no-brainer and not cost-free. But if you look at the long-term plan for both railroads, substantial through-running absolutely makes sense, once they add space and platforms to the tracks and stations which they need to add onto anyway.
by David Alpert on Aug 22, 2012 11:19 am • link • report
A whole ton of FRA/FTA regulations, as well as the design of the two systems. Also there's a big safety issue as commuter rail vehicles are much heavier than Metro vehicles.
by MLD on Aug 22, 2012 11:23 am • link • report
Yes, some of the trains on the Penn Line are running behind the diesel locomotives, but it would be just one more scheduling concern and loss of operating flexibility that increase the degree of difficulty for anything coming off the Penn Line and going into VA.
by Ryan S on Aug 22, 2012 11:31 am • link • report
Long Bridge really needs some love shown to it. It looks like crap from lack of any maintenance. I think its piers could be reused to support a three or four track configuration.
by NikolasM on Aug 22, 2012 11:48 am • link • report
I know that SEHSR was one of the justifications for advancing the Quantico bridge project. (see link below for aerial view)
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=quantico,va&hl=en&ll=38.52993,-77.286962&spn=0.00475,0.008165&sll=35.170517,-79.860994&sspn=5.082019,8.360596&t=h&hnear=Quantico,+Prince+William,+Virginia&z=17
by CityBeautiful21 on Aug 22, 2012 1:04 pm • link • report
- Change rolling stock for VRE
- Gauntlet tracks or a third track to allow freight/commuter compatibility
- Get a better deal with CSX allowing two-way traffic along all lines in the system
- High boarding platforms for all stations
- Boarding platforms that access tracks going in both directions
- Upgrade the Long Bridge
- Implement the Maryland Avenue track improvements
- Redesign the tracks around Union Station to allow through-running on the MARC lines
- Something else I missed?
Does a $500 million pricetag sound reasonable for all that?
by OctaviusIII on Aug 22, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Aug 22, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report
Looking back at my list - yeah, I definitely low-balled it. An extremely rough estimate I just typed up would get us more in the $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion range, with most of the costs coming from Maryland Avenue and the Long Bridge.
by OctaviusIII on Aug 22, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report
by Alex B. on Aug 22, 2012 2:34 pm • link • report
by ah on Aug 22, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report
Running to Crystal City and Alex will require at least a third track on Long Bridge, plus platform improvements at crystal city.
The Long Bridge changes are coming anyway. Looks to me like MARC to Lenfant, Crystal, and Alex captures 80% of the benefits of through running for 20% or less of the incremental costs.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 22, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report
After that, I'd guess MARC to Crystal City or King Street, where there are many jobs right by the stations; then maybe VRE to Silver Spring, also many jobs, and one day New Carrollton.
VRE riders whose defense agencies got BRAC-ed from Crystal City to Fort Meade could take the train there, and same for MARC riders going to Fort Belvoir.
The VRE report also mentions getting Virginians to BWI airport as a benefit. And let's not forget that some people from Virginia will want to go to Baltimore.
by David Alpert on Aug 22, 2012 2:43 pm • link • report
only if you need VRE trains to through run, probably a lower priority than MARC to VRE
"- Gauntlet tracks or a third track to allow freight/commuter compatibility"
Probably coming anyway as part of VRE capacity improvements.
- Get a better deal with CSX allowing two-way traffic along all lines in the system
See above
"- High boarding platforms for all stations"
No, only for at least one track at those stations where MARC trains need to go. why do we need MARC trains stopping at, say, Backlick road?
"- Boarding platforms that access tracks going in both directions"
Yes.
"- Upgrade the Long Bridge"
yes, coming anyway for VRE/SEHSR capacity
"- Implement the Maryland Avenue track improvements"
yes
"- Redesign the tracks around Union Station to allow through-running on the MARC lines"
is that needed for Penn Line? I think Penn Line is definitely the priority over Camden and even Brunswick.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 22, 2012 2:46 pm • link • report
If MARC turns around at L'Enfant that will mean more dwell time there, so there will need to be enough track space for a MARC train to go there, unload & load, then back up on the same track for a while to get back where it was. That's somewhat limiting and even harder if other railroads want to use that track too sometimes.
It seems it'd be a lot easier if the trains can go all the way to Alexandria because there is more room, yards, etc. past there.
I haven't seen a formal study of this stuff though. We need an inter-agency task force or something to actually hammer out exactly what the railroads would like to do and what it would take. Presumably they'd need to hire a consultant to do the work. There's the VRE plan and a MARC plan but no similar "MARC to Virginia" plan.
by David Alpert on Aug 22, 2012 2:48 pm • link • report
An upgraded Long Bridge benefits everyone, CSX probably wouldn't mind having more double-tracked sections, and Amtrak probably wants to see more through-running capacity at Union Station as well.
by andrew on Aug 22, 2012 2:48 pm • link • report
okay, maybe extension to L'enfant alone as a phase 1 doesnt make sense. Similarly, once you deal with the locomotive issue and the Long Bridge, there would be no reason to stop at Crystal City. But is it fair to say MARC Penn line to Alexandria King Street takes priority over A. any extension beyond Alexandria and B. The camden and brunswick lines?
by AWalkerinTheCity on Aug 22, 2012 3:00 pm • link • report
The rolling stock issue is to allow interoperability between VRE trains and MARC high platforms without hurting performance. VRE needs high boarding to go to MARC territory, but implementing high boarding means slower loading at existing low-platform stations in VRE territory. That would would mean slower travel times and therefore lower capacity.
Hence: high platforms and gauntlet tracks in VRE territory. It's probably not necessary at every stop, but it's a cost for high-use stops even if MARC will never use them.
by OctaviusIII on Aug 22, 2012 3:15 pm • link • report
as you may have gathered, I think MARC into VRE territory is a much higher priority than VRE into MARC territory. A single line can give you access to L'enfant, Crystal City, and Alexandria. Thats a LOT of potential riders. While VRE to Penn Line gives you only New Carrolton and, much less conveniently, Fort Meade, and Brunswick line mostly just gives you Silver Spring. I would be astounded if Penn Line area to L'enfant/Crystal City/OldTownAlex wasnt overwhelmingly more existing trips than either VRE corridor to New Carroton/Ft Meade/BWI/Baltimore, or either VRE corridor to SilverSpring/Rockville.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 22, 2012 3:31 pm • link • report
True, but those high-demand stops for MARC will have lower capacity for MARC riders because of the platform/train mismatch. Now, high-boarding platforms at those new MARC stops are likely only a nice-to-have rather than a need-to-have, but it's a consideration to keep in mind.
by OctaviusIII on Aug 22, 2012 3:50 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Aug 22, 2012 4:04 pm • link • report
Why would CSX need more than 2 tracks through L'Enfant? If they're not making any stops, and the commuter platforms are on sidings or separate tracks, don't the trains just plow straight through DC anyway?
Also: Does the Capitol Power Plant still use its freight siding?
by andrew on Aug 22, 2012 4:48 pm • link • report
One question I have: is it possible to at least start having more Amtrak trains stop at L'Enfant, and put that on Amtrak's timetables? I know you wouldn't have Acelas stop there, but maybe if Regional Trains started stopping at L'Enfant that would a) increase Amtrak ridership, b) increase options for Virginians, and c) decrease some of the overcrowding in the halls of Union Station and the crush of crowds trying to transfer from the rail tracks to the Red Line?
by Marc on Aug 22, 2012 5:01 pm • link • report
So for $50M we could get a basic diesel MARC run-through capability; for $100M we could run-through electric service.
This doesn't seem totally unaffordable.
@Marc: the early Amtrak train from Richmond does already stop at L'Enfant. A fair number of passengers alight there.
by jim on Aug 22, 2012 5:21 pm • link • report
VRE trains running through to MARC lines is also very impractical. Besides the problems with high-platforms and clearance issues in the Baltimore tunnels on the Camden/Penn Lines, there would be no demand to any MARC station except maybe to Silver Spring where CSX would never let VRE run through to, plus it's an easy one-seat ride on the Red Line on literally the exact same route as the Brunswick Line.
The only sensible through-running is MARC Brunswick Line trains to Alexandria, but as you mention there are serious capacity issues south of WAS (crossing the tracks at Union Station is hardly a serious issue). Until this becomes feasible the MARC/VRE ticket cross-honoring on reverse flow trains is a pretty good system.
by King Terrapin on Aug 22, 2012 6:48 pm • link • report
The eventual point of through-routing isn't to just get VRE or MARC to serve a few more stations, it's to mesh the two together into a regional S-bahn like system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Bahn
The goal should be full through-routing service, off peak service, bi-directional service, etc.
You might still have a MARC or a VRE operator, but the passenger experience should be seamless.
This would allow for the commuter rail network to become a true transit network. It would add value to TOD around outlying stations, since those developments would not solely be an origin point for commutes into the city, but could also potentially be an anchor to reverse trips.
Operationally, you'd also save storage space by through-routing. You'll deadhead trains out of the city, yes, but if you use those trips for useful passenger flows, that's a win-win.
by Alex B. on Aug 22, 2012 7:13 pm • link • report
2 Is it possible to build one or two more tunnels from Union Station going south to future proof the station ?
3 Would it be possible under any circumstances to build a tunnel/bridge from the rail yard north of Union Station to act as a crossover between different tracks.
4 Where are the rail yards of VRE, MARC, Amtrak within 20 miles from DC
by kk on Aug 22, 2012 9:56 pm • link • report
Of course that would be wonderful, but considering the current situation creating a unified system would be extremely cost prohibitive and impractical.
Out of all the major cities with large commuter rail systems in this country only SEPTA (Philadelphia) has an effective through-running commuter rail system. Just look at New York, which has the largest and most efficient transit system in the country, but the three large commuter rail systems serving Manhattan (NJ Transit, LIRR, Metro-North) don't through-run trains (except for MNR/NJT Giants' game specials from CT). Chicago's Metra system has four different terminals in the city with no through running. Finally, Boston's MBTA Commuter Rail system has two terminals with no connection between the two, although one was long planned but the Big Dig was built instead.
@kk
1 I don't think there's much room for a yard anywhere near Alexandria and it wouldn't be cost effective. It would be better for MARC trains just to backtrack to Union Station.
2 Extremely cost prohibitive and would never even be considered
3 Again extremely cost prohibitive and not nearly worth the investment.
4 Apart from the Ivy City yards north of Union Station there are none, although VRE has a storage track at L'Enfant that they haven't even used yet.
by King Terrapin on Aug 22, 2012 10:14 pm • link • report
by Al Carr on Aug 22, 2012 11:37 pm • link • report
by Scott on Aug 23, 2012 12:52 am • link • report
We need a unified system for regional commuter rail. It will cost lots of money but so would another highway bridge across the Potomac, which we will probably have to built in the next 30 - 40 years if we do nothing.
The people who built the national highway system didn't think small. Metrorail is not a small idea that cost a few hundred dollars. Going cheap will only buy you something off of a McDonald's dollar menu. Why are we scared to dream about building big and think asking for big non automotive transportation projects is a nightmare?
Thinking big:
- Bury the line from Union Station to the long bridge - 4 tracks from a new underground L'enfant station.
- Rebuild the Long Bridge, also 4 tracks, so that it look like something worthy of the capital city of the free world and not something you'd find in North Korea. While we're at it, blow it up, make a tunnel.
- Electrify the system. Diesel isn't going to last forever.
- Purchase unified rolling stock.
- Rebuild stations to accommodate high platforms.
- Build and Alexandria Yard along the Eisenhower corridor.
- Come up with a nifty name.
Will this cost billions, absolutely. It has to get done.
by Randall M. on Aug 23, 2012 7:26 am • link • report
by KG on Aug 23, 2012 10:17 am • link • report
I think most of us are looking for something scaleable, than can start on the cheap, prove the concept and then grow from there.
Its worth noting that through running isn't the only, or necessarily even the most important, aspect of converting local commuter rail to Sbahn like service. More important are increasing frequency, increasing speeds, reverse service, etc. Given the particular complexities of through running, what I think many of us are looking for is places where through running can piggy back on improvements that will need to be made anyway to improve frequency and create through running - and to put a lower priority on improvements that need to be made ONLY to enable through running, EXCEPT where those have a very high bang for the buck. IMO MARC through running to Alexandria comes first, along with the improvements to Long Bridge, and to L'Enfant. As we move to SEHSR, we can move to electrification, at least on the Fredericksburg line. Maybe extend the MARC service from Alexandria to Franconia-Springfield and Fort Belvoir. Then eventually to Fredericksburg, but skipping the lower ridership stops, to avoid platform investments. Then at some point build platforms at all the stops on the Fredericksburg line, and convert the VRE rolling stock. THEN look at VRE trains to MARC territory and converting the Manassas line to high platforms. THEN, down the road, convert to complete through running.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 23, 2012 11:55 am • link • report
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwJDEJdZmrHpU1IycnZyYmRueEE
by Al Carr on Aug 23, 2012 12:06 pm • link • report
But where will those billions come from? There a lot more projects, including those not even transit-related, with a much better net societal benefit. Before building tunnels, replacing brand new passenger coach fleets, and electrifying south of DC, there are thousands of projects that take higher priority.
Just looking at Maryland, there are three unfunded light rail lines in the pipeline (Purple Line, Red Line, and S. MD. Light Rail), a BWI station expansion, 100 year old tunnels in Baltimore, and the similarly ancient Gunpowder and Susquehanna bridges. Then there's the $17 billion Union Station project that isn't nearly as radical as what you suggest.
by King Terrapin on Aug 23, 2012 1:01 pm • link • report
Can't do it. You'd run into some problems with existing Metro tunnels.
- Rebuild the Long Bridge, also 4 tracks, so that it look like something worthy of the capital city of the free world and not something you'd find in North Korea. While we're at it, blow it up, make a tunnel.
There's nothing wrong with the Long Bridge. Its a wonderful example of a specific sort of bridge architecture. Could use a coat of paint though. Tunnel wouldn't work either. The east end would need to occupy the same physical space as the Yellow line.
- Electrify the system. Diesel isn't going to last forever.
This is a tougher sell. I'm not sure when the last time someone strung wire over tracks in the US. Of all the stuff on the list, its the only one I'd go for right now. Running wire down to Richmond would end the 45 to 75 minute layover at Union Station for (some of) the NERs.
- Purchase unified rolling stock.
There's nothing particularly wrong or difficult with this. You could even have it happen naturally as equipment is retired. If I recall, those VRE coaches are ex-METRA and CNW. They can't have more than a few decades left in them.
- Rebuild stations to accommodate high platforms.
This makes me sad because it would mean the end of Alexandria Union Station.
- Build and Alexandria Yard along the Eisenhower corridor.
Not really any space to do it. The last good spot was where the DASH facility is now. I think that used to be where the FGE plant was. The only other place you could have wedged one in is at the old SOU intermodal terminal (which I believe is now used for unloading tank cars), but its west of the NS-CSX junction.
- Come up with a nifty name.
Potomac Area Rail
by Another Nick on Aug 23, 2012 5:07 pm • link • report
Probably VRE service north isn't necessary.
A combined system, as I advocate for, doesn't have to mean through running either, just integrated and consolidated service.
by Richard Layman on Aug 23, 2012 6:04 pm • link • report
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2012/08/dual-powered-diesel-electric-locomotive.html
by Richard Layman on Aug 23, 2012 6:11 pm • link • report
"- Electrify the system. Diesel isn't going to last forever.
This is a tougher sell. I'm not sure when the last time someone strung wire over tracks in the US. Of all the stuff on the list, its the only one I'd go for right now. Running wire down to Richmond would end the 45 to 75 minute layover at Union Station for (some of) the NERs."
Caltrain (San Fran.) is the only American rail system planning to electrify. There's only a single line, but with ridership equal to that of MARC (double VRE) so it makes some sense. Electrification south of DC is never gonna happen, unless the Southeast Rail Corridor is built (which will probably never happen either given the politics of the South).
- Purchase unified rolling stock.
There's nothing particularly wrong or difficult with this. You could even have it happen naturally as equipment is retired. If I recall, those VRE coaches are ex-METRA and CNW. They can't have more than a few decades left in them."
VRE retired nearly all of their ex-Metra coaches. Almost all of their current coaches (71 @ about $1.5m a piece), which have the same low-level boarding config. as the old gallery cars, are virtually brand new and have multiple decades of life left.
by King Terrapin on Aug 23, 2012 7:27 pm • link • report
I believe NJ Transit also has re-electrified some lines recently, in addition to also converting some existing electrified lines to 25kv, 60Hz.
by Alex B. on Aug 23, 2012 7:31 pm • link • report
I don't know of any NJ transit lines that were previously electrified, then de-electrified, then re-electrified. However, the Lackawanna lines from Hoboken to Montclair, Dover and Gladstone were converted from 3000 V DC to 25 kV 60 Hz AC in 1984, and then, following the opening of the connection to the old Erie line at Montclair in 2002, extended to Great Notch.
by Frank IBC on Aug 23, 2012 8:36 pm • link • report
by Richard Layman on Aug 23, 2012 8:41 pm • link • report
by Alex B. on Aug 23, 2012 9:02 pm • link • report
For example.
One aircraft carrier costs anywhere from $4.5 to $9.0 billion.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_an_aircraft_carrier_cost
The U.S. has 11 operational carriers. The rest of the world has 10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country
Not suggesting we scuttle the Navy, not saying build a more reliable transportation system tomorrow, I'm talking about a horizon of 20 or 30 years. All I know is when it comes to a road, which is a great invention by the way, we find billions. When it comes to an airport, we find billions. When it comes to building a blue line tunnel from RFK to Rosalyn, everybody cries broke.
Neither Rome nor Metro were built in a day and both of them cost more than a loaf of bread. Honestly, I'm tired of the excuses. I'm tired of complaining about Metro falling apart and trying to find the least offensive or expensive way to ask for things that the region needs.
I'm open for compromise and discussion but seriously, what sort catastrophe will it take for us to invest in our infrastructure? We have to think about the future instead of ourselves. If it means we all pay more in taxes and stop planning for a WW2 style pacific war, count me in. Maybe we could build something big. Here.
by Randall M. on Aug 24, 2012 1:48 am • link • report
1. The MBTA and Metro-North both have high platforms on active freight lines. On the Worcester Line, the high platform edges are equipped with retracting plates to allow oversize freight through; on Metro-North and the Providence Line there is no oversize freight. I do not know whether CSX runs oversize freight in Virginia, but even if it does, high platforms are possible, at higher cost.
2. High platforms, without retracting plates, cost $6.5 million per full-length double-track, two-platform station on the MBTA. This is Morton Street on the Fairmount Line, the only one for which I can find numbers. Outside the US it's much cheaper to raise platforms, but of course Virginia is in the US.
3. Electrification can be done for about $3 million per double-track kilometer. This was the cost of Northeast Corridor electrification north of New Haven in the 1990s. Caltrain's project is about $10 million per km excluding rolling stock, but Caltrain is the outlier; NEC costs are only slightly higher than British and French electrification costs per track-km.
4. I do not know the cost of multi-tracking in the US. In suburban Berlin, a recent double-tracking project cost $4 million per km.
5. It is possible to set up a schedule such that everything crosses the tracks at Union Station without conflict, allowing 24 tph north of the station of which 12 or 18 continue south. I do not know the cost of the required signaling, though ERTMS 2, which is probably good enough for this, is about $2-3 million per route-km in Europe and budgeted at a similar level on California HSR; ACSES, which is an ERTMS-like overlay, should be similar.
6. New rolling stock is about $2.5 million per car. Either piggyback on the M8 or Silverliner V or yell at the FRA until it lets you run something less overweight. Both railroads need it, since both run locomotive-hauled, narrow-door cars and commuter service needs wide-door EMUs to reduce the time penalty of a station stop. With a top speed of 130 km/h, a late-model EMU with wide enough doors for 20-to-30-second dwells at minor stations loses about a minute to each stop. With a top speed of 200 km/h, make it about a minute and a half.
7. A modern RER/S-Bahn/Metro operation has crews operate back and forth, rather than do one roundtrip to the CBD and back per day. Caltrain improved its finances in the 2000s by requiring some crews to do two roundtrips a day (still only about 4 to 6 revenue hours a day, hardly overworking), which the union fought bitterly; together with the introduction of the faster Baby Bullet, this allowed Caltrain to provide more service for the same operating cost. In addition, as CBD space is the most expensive, trains should be parked near the outer termini as much as possible rather than at near-downtown yards. It's possible technically, though very difficult politically, to get commuter rail operating costs per hour or per km down to the same level of Metro. This makes things like a 2 tph baseline service on each line all day 7 days a week feasible.
by Alon Levy on Aug 24, 2012 10:10 am • link • report
Some double-track projects in the US I've researched come in at about $3.1 million per kilometer, though that doesn't include electrification, right-of-way acquisition, and assumes few or no bridges. I've also seen it go as high as $5.6 million per kilometer in California, but haven't seen it higher. However, I'm very surprised Berlin costs are more expensive than this, so something may be off with one of our numbers.
by OctaviusIII on Aug 24, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report
by OctaviusIII on Aug 24, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report
by john l tucker on Aug 26, 2012 12:27 pm • link • report
And they are even less tightly constricting them now than they did in the 1950s. The rate structures were heavily controlled by the government. Pre-Staggers railroading after the 1930s was a money losing venture. For instance, in the early 50s, they developed containerization, but the ICC said that it was a special service and that you had to charge extra. Thirty years later, Staggers declares that concept dead and we get the surge in piggyback traffic that turned into today's intermodal system.
by Another Nick on Aug 27, 2012 1:00 pm • link • report
1. what is the weight of freight (when coal is in hopper cars, or cargo is double-stacked) compared to the heaviest passenger cars on conventional rails?
2. Could a low-platform track be added at New Carrollton to allow VRE to go there with existing equipment as the proposed Federal center there develops?
3. What is the cost, in dollars, travel time, and inconvenience that would be among the calculations for allowing MARC to get to L'Enfant such that the costs of adding transfer capacity from WMATA's Red Line to its Green/Yellow (and v/v) at Gallery Place would not have to be "given" to WMATA and its funders to "accommodate"?
by Lindsley Williams on Aug 28, 2012 9:55 pm • link • report
Those tracks should simply be owned by a public agency, or Amtrak, keeping CSX on the "other" tracks.
The hardest part of this is the Long Bridge. L'Enfant Plaza is relatively easy except that CSX is causing trouble.
by Nathanael on Aug 31, 2012 11:21 pm • link • report
by Nathanael on Aug 31, 2012 11:23 pm • link • report
by Nathanael on Aug 31, 2012 11:27 pm • link • report
Top priority should be getting two passenger-priority tracks from Union Station to Alexandria.
by Nathanael on Aug 31, 2012 11:30 pm • link • report
Add a Comment