Greater Greater Washington

Posts about Commuter Rail

Transit


Maryland's MARC and Virginia's VRE talk about integrating commuter rail service

Officials from the MARC and VRE commuter rail systems started discussing how to run trains from one state to the other through DC, instead of stopping all trains at Union Station, NBC reports. This is an important step on a long road (or track?) toward a better regional transit system.


Photo by Matt' Johnson on Flickr.

In the segment, reporter Adam Tuss explains that while there are a lot of obstacles, there are also big benefits. "Those improvements could mean as much as two lanes of rush hour traffic on Interstate 95 or 66 could be shifted to the rails," he says.

Commuters from Maryland could ride past Union Station to Crystal City, Alexandria, Fort Belvoir, or other job centers. Or they could transfer at L'Enfant Plaza to the Orange, Blue, Yellow, and Green lines to reach jobs in many parts of Virginia, DC, and Maryland. Meanwhile, Virginia commuters could ride to Rockville, Fort Meade, Baltimore, and more.

As Tuss also notes, a lot of obstacles remain. Matt Johnson outlined some of the hurdles in two posts. They include:

The railcars and platforms aren't compatible. VRE uses low platforms and its cars can only access low platforms. MARC has a lot of high platforms and cars that can access both. Over time, VRE could buy compatible equipment, but until then, the only through-running possible is for MARC to send trains to Virginia, and maybe VRE could run on the Brunswick Line. Which is a good start.

The tracks don't line up. The problem with VRE on the Brunswick Line (the one that goes to Frederick) is that the Brunswick Line tracks come into Union Station on the west end, while the tunnel to Virginia is on the east end. Trains can cross over, but they would block all of the other lines as they do, delaying other trains.

There aren't enough tracks. There are 2 tracks on the Long Bridge across the Potomac, and 3 through L'Enfant Plaza. CSX controls the tracks, and lets VRE use some space on them, but only a limited amount. Except for one reverse-direction VRE train and a few Amtrak trains, all of the passenger trains go north in the morning on one track, and south in the evening. There are plans to add tracks (and platforms) at L'Enfant and a study going on for the Long Bridge, but more tracks are years and many dollars away.

There aren't enough platforms. The L'Enfant and Crystal City stations have just one platform, on one side of the tracks. These stations would have to be rebuilt with platforms for both directions for MARC trains to usefully go to Virginia.

But all of these are engineering obstacles which just require some time and money to solve. If the project can substitute for widening I-95 or I-66 and one or more Potomac River bridges by two lanes, that's a huge gain, and the equivalent highway project would be very expensive as well.

With through-running and more trains on MARC and VRE lines, the commuter rail lines could even act as a sort of express train alternative for Metro. Add in some of the new transit projects being proposed, the region's heavy rail system could conceivably one day look something like this map I made five years ago:

While it might take years, it's worth starting now. MARC and VRE (and DC, and Amtrak, and the federal government) should be talking regularly to develop a comprehensive plan for how to make this happen. Then the jurisdictions can start working to fund and design them piece by piece.

MARC and VRE are now stepping up. DC Councilmember Mary Cheh also put $500,000 from the District budget to help develop a regional commuter rail plan. This is a good time, because CSX wants permission to enlarge its Virginia Avenue tunnel through DC; that gives the public leverage to demand CSX also cooperate with projects to add commuter rail service.

It can be extremely hard to get multiple states to coordinate transit plans, but if officials in the various jurisdictions can agree on a way forward, we can all start pushing to make an intergrated commuter rail system a reality.

Budget


Cheh funds 11th Street Bridge Park, trees and recreation for Ivy City, and an Upper Northwest pool

Transportation chair Mary Cheh has released her serious budget proposals today, and has added funding to design and build a park on the piers of the old 11th Street Bridge, give the neglected Ivy City neighborhood new trees and a recreation center, and more.


Artist's rendering of the 11th Street Bridge Park.

Tomorrow, Cheh will propose that her committee amend Mayor Gray's proposed transportation capital budget to add $2 million to design the bridge park in Fiscal Year 2015, followed by $12.5 million across FY2016 and FY2017 to build it. That will cover half the cost; bridge supporters plan to raise the other half from private sources.

Under Cheh's plan, $300,000 will go to fix up streetscapes at Eastern Market, while $1 million over two years will pay to extend Ivy City's sidewalks and include treeboxes. That neighborhood, in an industrial part of the city, has no tree boxes on most of its streets, and therefore no street trees.

Instead of a tour bus parking lot, as the Gray administration proposed last year, Cheh's budget will fund a recreation center on that site (which costs almost $9 million). Rec centers in Chevy Chase, Edgewood, Hardy (in Foxhall Village) and Hillcrest get more money as well, as does the Therapeutic Recreation Center in Ward 7's Randle Circle.

The budget includes $500,000 to finish design for Franklin Square (but funding to actually help build the new park is yet to come in the future).

Roads will also get more money: repaving and repairs to roadways get a boost of $321,000 for each of the eight wards in FY2015. That's in addition to the mayor's capital budget which gave each ward's road projects about $5.2 million over six years. Ward 8 also got an extra $1.3 million from Gray, and Cheh's amendment moves it from the operating budget to the capital budget.

Finally, Cheh is funding a new outdoor pool to go somewhere in Ward 3, which residents have been campaigning for. Critics note that Ward 3 has one of the top public indoor swimming facilities in the city, at Wilson High School, but proponents say that indoor swimming isn't the same, and besides, the ward should have more pools.

Cheh's proposal also will fund some Ward 3 school and library projects: the Cleveland Park library, Palisades Library, Murch Elementary and Watkins Elementary renovations, and also the Capitol View library in Ward 7. It's not unusual for each ward councilmember to pop a few ward-based projects into their respective committees' budgets.

Where does this money come from?

A lot of the money comes from the South Capitol Street Bridge project. It current includes a swing span so that ships can access the Washington Navy Yard, but that was only opened 4 times in the last 8 years.

The Coast Guard has reportedly told DDOT that it is probably fine with not replacing the swing span. And, according to Cheh's committee director Drew Newman, they feel that if the federal government really wants a swing span anyway, then federal money should fund it. (DC is building the South Capitol bridge with local dollars, not federal transportation funds.) The change will save up to $140 million.

Cheh is also moving some streetcar money to later years, because DDOT has built up a surplus of almost $100 million in its streetcar accounts, and won't need some money in the capital plan until later on, according to Cheh's staff's analysis.

Circulator fares freeze, and commuter rail gets a plan

In the operating budget, not much is changing from Mayor Gray's very pro-transit budget. Cheh will freeze Circulator fares at their current level of $1 for at least one year, so that DDOT can engage with the public about whether the fares have to rise.

Another $500,000 will pay to create a Comprehensive Rail Plan. DC does not control MARC, VRE, Amtrak, or CSX, but there needs to be a unified plan about how to help grow commuter rail service in, out, and through DC. The tracks and stations at Union Station, L'Enfant Plaza, and the Long Bridge over the Potomac will need changes to make this possible, and since those facilities are in DC, the District can play a leadership role. The Committee of 100's Monte Edwards has been lobbying for planning around commuter rail, and he's absolutely right. Cheh agrees.

The Committee on Transportation and the Environment will hold its mark-up tomorrow. The other members, David Grosso, Kenyan McDuffie, Jim Graham, and Tommy Wells, could seek to introduce other amendments as well, though typically these budget proposals already reflect requests and negotiations between the councilmembers.

Transit


MARC's chief engineer wants to allow bikes on some weekend trains

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is seriously looking at how to let passengers bring ordinary bicycles aboard MARC trains. A background briefing by top MARC officials last week left bicycle advocates with the distinct impression that they want to allow bikes on some weekend trains within the next year or so.


A cyclist boarding a train in Germany (not Maryland). Photo by Steven Vance on Flickr.

MTA officials have long said that the combination of high speeds and full trains prevented allowing bikes. At a meeting three years ago, advocates pressed the matter with Simon Taylor, the Assistant Administrator of MTA, and John Hovatter, Director of MARC and Maryland Commuter Bus Operations.

Taylor and Hovatter made it clear that there was no real prospect for bikes on trains anytime soon. But they also said that MARC was planning for weekend service, and that bikes "should" be allowed if that service started.

At the time, weekend trains seemed like a remote possibility. Now they are a reality, and MARC officials are evaluating options for allowing bikes aboard some weekend trains.

Why MARC does not allow bikes on trains

Taylor and Hovatter explained their reluctance to allow bikes on trains to several advocates at the 2011 meeting. Federal safety rules require bicycles to be securely tied down on trains running faster than 70 mph, lest they become projectiles in a crash, the officials said.

On the Penn Line, trains exceed 70 mph along most segments except in Baltimore. On some stretches, the trains exceed 110 mph when pulled by electric locomotives. MTA engineers have been unable to devise a way to quickly secure bikes without permanently removing 3 to 5 seats from the car for every pair of bikes. With full trains, that is not a tradeoff that MARC is willing to make.

The Camden and Brunswick Line trains are not so full, so removing a few seats in favor of bike racks might be reasonable for those trains. But MARC rotates all train sets (except for the electric locomotives) between the three lines, so modifying cars for those two CSX lines would make Penn Line trains even more crowded.

Could MARC allow bikes on the Camden and Brunswick lines with the existing train configuration? Given that WMATA allows bikes on off-peak Metrorail trains, it might seem safe to do so. But Taylor and Hovatter countered that the CSX track is much poorer, generating side-to-side jostling which can cause bikes to slip out of the hands of the owner and strike another passenger. The low platforms at almost every station are another obstacle.

None of these problems is insurmountable, but in MTA officials' minds, they seemed to all add up to make bikes more trouble than they are worth.

A possible breakthrough emerges

Last year's gas tax increase provided additional funds for transportation, making it possible to finally add weekend service. Last summer, I reminded Hovatter that he had said "bikes should be allowed" when weekend service starts, because the trains will not be crowded. I asked if he could provide us with an update of his thinking.

He responded:

I would suggest we wait a few months to see how it is working and how many passengers we will be hauling. We are only running 3 car train sets to start off. If the trains are packed, and we hope they are, I doubt we will be able to handle any bikes, except the folding ones that we allow right now. Check back with us when it starts.
I was not encouraged by that response, but other members of Maryland's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (MBPAC) were more optimistic. Greg Hinchliffe, who represents Baltimore on the committee, pressed MDOT's Michael Jackson to set up a meeting with MARC officials and MBPAC.

As soon as the meeting began, it was clear that something had changed. Rather than listen to cyclist pleas for better service, the MDOT officials decided to have Erich Kolig, MARC's Chief Mechanical Officer, start the meeting with a presentation that gently lampooned MARC's existing policy. With a perfect deadpan, Kolig showed the MARC website:

Here is our bicycle policy: "Due to safety concerns, MARC's bicycle policy allows for the transportation of folding bicycles only... However, folding bikes are no longer restricted to those carried in a case." You see, we do have a bicycle policy.
All the advocates, and Jackson, laughed loudly.

Kolig then explained that he thinks the weekend service and MARC's capital equipment upgrades provide an opportunity to start carrying bikes on some trains. While the trains have attracted more passengers than expected, they still carry fewer people than the weekday trains. His presentation included illustrations depicting how bikes can be safely stored aboard the trains. He had clearly thought through how to do it, and how to keep the cost low enough to make it economically feasible.

Kolig and Hovatter asked the advocates to not reveal any details of the proposal.

Hovatter seemed favorably disposed to the proposal, although he did not promise that MARC will actually implement it. The decision to go forward is a few steps above his pay grade. And some unanticipated problems may arise, since railroads are highly regulated and MARC owns neither the track nor the largest stations on the Penn Line.

Hopefully, the Maryland Department of Transportation will approve Kolig's recommendation and at least start a pilot project with bikes on weekend trains, as soon as practicable. The Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) has offered to help MTA officials get cyclist feedback on any draft plan.

Cross-posted at WABA Quick Release.

Transit


CSG explains Metro Momentum in new video

The Coalition for Smarter Growth has just released a video supporting Metro Momentum, WMATA's plan to increase Metrorail and Metrobus capacity, and a web tool to contact your local elected officials in support of funding Momentum.

Momentum is WMATA's strategic plan to increase capacity in the Metro system to keep pace with job and population growth in coming decades. The Momentum plan has two partsMetro 2025 and Metro 2040.

Metro 2025, which is the core of the plan, calls for upgrades to all facets of our existing transit systems including running all 8-car trains at rush hour, restoring service on the Blue Line to pre-Rush Plus levels, and running more Red Line trains all the way to the end of the line to leverage as much as we can from a system that is already very popular. There are 7 main components of Metro 2025:

  1. 8-car trains: Metro will run all 8-car trains during rush hour, making room for 35,000 more rides per hour through the system's core.
  2. Station improvements: Metro will build pedestrian walkways between Gallery Place and Metro Center, and between Farragut North and Farragut West to ease transfers and reduce platform crowding. Metro will also integrate new station entrances and changes to elevators and escalators in high-ridership stations.
  3. Metrobus Priority Corridor Network: Metro will improve bus service, travel speeds, and reliability on 24 regional bus corridorswhich serve half of Metrobus riders.
  4. New Blue Line Connections: Metro will work to unclog the bottleneck at Rosslyn station to restore Blue Line service to pre-Rush Plus levels.
  5. Rider Communications: Metro will install a new PA system, better real-time information for riders, and more.
  6. More Buses: Metro will expand its bus fleet, putting 400 more buses on the streets.
  7. Pocket Tracks: More crossover and pocket tracks throughout the system will make it easier to turn trains around, making more flexible service possible.
Sexier improvements, like the "Metro Loop" and a new station in Rosslyn, are pieces of the Metro 2040 part of Momentum.

These are all good things for the region and many of the proposals are familiar to public transportation advocates, but now it's time for those advocates to begin educating others, and for the public to contact their elected officials to tell them that in order for DC region to grow more sustainably we must expand transportation options to all of the region's commuters and travelers.

Transit


VRE's future could include off-peak and weekend service

Faced with growing ridership but limited capacity, VRE has released a plan to significantly expand commuter rail service in Northern Virginia, including reverse-commute, off-peak, and weekend services and an extension to Gainesville and Haymarket.


Photo by DearEdward on Flickr.

The $2.68 billion, 25-year capital improvement plan is split into three phases with modest capacity improvements through 2020. By 2030, it proposes major infrastructure projects including a new Long Bridge over the Potomac River, with further improvements in its last decade through 2040. It is the first new strategic plan for the railroad since 2004.

VRE planners say their vision is delivers a lot for a relatively low cost. "Significant capacity increases can take place almost entirely within the existing right of way, at a cost, and in a time frame competitive with highway and heavy rail construction projects in the region," the plan says.

Expansion is sorely needed. CSX and Norfolk-Southern own the tracks VRE's two lines use, and provide few slots for the commuter rail, limiting its schedule. Chokepoints in the region's rail network, most notably the Long Bridge, restrict the number of trains VRE can run. They also share track with Amtrak regional and long-distance trains.

During the railroad's 2013 fiscal year, which ended in June, VRE's average daily ridership was 18,878, though it regularly spikes above 20,000, according to recent comments by VRE Chief Executive Doug Allen. Capacity is about 19,000 passengers per day.

Under the plan, capacity on the commuter railroad would increase to about 43,000 passengers per day on weekdays, a 24,000 passenger increase. It also allows for about 6,000 passengers per day on weekends.

VRE would not cover the entire cost of the plan. The railroad, local, and regional jurisdictions would only be on the hook for about $1.19 billion under the plan, with the rest coming from project partners, for example CSX or Amtrak, and the federal government.

The VRE operations board unanimously approved the plan during its meeting January 17.

Plan proposes new Long Bridge, through-running with MARC

The first phase of VRE's plan, between 2015 and 2020, includes longer trains, an additional round-trip on both the Fredericksburg and Manassas lines, expanded parking at stations, and improved station facilities. These would cost the railroad $285 million. VRE says that these are cost-effective plans that can occur under its existing agreements with CSX and Norfolk-Southern.

The second phase, between 2021 and 2030, includes arguably the largest, and most important, project in VRE's plan: the Long Bridge replacement. Budgeted at about $1.1 billion, this could involve replacing the existing two-track structure with a new four-track bridge, as well as adding new tracks for four from L'Enfant Plaza to Alexandria.

VRE is participating in the Long Bridge replacement study, which the DC Department of Transportation is leading. The commuter railroad estimates that it would only need to contribute up to $111 million to the project under the plan.

A new bridge and additional tracks would also enable through-running with MARC. According to the plan, VRE says that it would work with its Maryland sibling, which is planning to do the same thing.

Other projects during phase two include the $295 million extension to Gainesville and Haymarket, initial investments in a third tr

Transit


Can we build up around MARC stations?

It's not surprising that corporate offices and sprawling suburbs are consuming the green fields between DC's and Baltimore's beltways. What is surprising is there's no real alternative: no urban places are being built at all of the MARC stations in the same corridor.


Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.

My wife and I live in Baltimore. Each morning, we splash cold water on our faces before heading to Penn Station in the dark. There, I drop my wife to catch the 5:50 MARC train to Union Station, where she will then transfer to the Metro and arrive at work by 7:30. This is a better choice than driving through morning and evening rush hour in two cities, which she has tried before.

I work in Baltimore, but have meetings in the suburbs between there and DC. By being in the middle, families and businesses can access the employment, cultural, airport, and other benefits of both regions. But the traffic is terrible, and there is pressure to use taxpayer dollars to widen roads or create new ones, like the Intercounty Connector.

The status quo development between Baltimore and DC is comprised of both commercial and residential sprawl, some of which is very close to MARC stations. But the way it's designed and sited makes it inaccessible to train passengers.

The US Green Building Council (USGBC) and its LEED rating system need to play a role. USGBC should not be giving isolated, land-gobbling sprawl producers green credentials for energy efficiency when these same buildings require inefficient commuting.

By contrast, all seven Penn Line stations, and most of the Camden Line stations between Baltimore and DC lie in a desert of surface parking lots (there's actually a garage at BWI Airport station). It's difficult to even get a cup of coffee at most of these outposts. But the train service offered there can deliver a passenger to the center of Washington or Baltimore roughly as fast and as comfortably as the Metro or a car.

Can we encourage transit-oriented development around MARC stations, the way we have around places like Arlington, Rockville, Bethesda, and Silver Spring, which have grown up around Metro stations? Kaid Benfield has covered Arlington's success in revitalizing neighborhoods without increasing traffic. And Chris Leinberger has described the growth of what he calls "WalkUP" development that is becoming so prevalent in the DC area.

While I advocate for infill development inside the beltways, there's still demand for development in between. It is time to start urban, mixed-use development along the MARC Penn and Camden lines.

The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) proclaims they are open for business partnerships at MARC stations, and have a transit-oriented development (TOD) underway at Odenton. Private sector developers have made lots of money building urban neighborhoods at Metro stations, particularly in Montgomery and Fairfax counties. There is potential for similar opportunity adjacent to MARC stations.

So why has scattered growth continued between Baltimore and DC while MARC stations remain constellations of barren surface parking? I speculate the issue is the cost of structured parking, which frees up room for urban development. With cheap available greenfields to build lots on, why spend the money?

The frequency of MARC service also affects the prospects for development around stations. Headways on the Penn Line are close to an hour outside of rush hour, while the Camden Line is even less frequent, and offers no trains in the middle of the day or on weekends.

More frequent MARC trains help overcome one advantage the Metro has over Maryland's commuter lines. Increased service, like weekend service on the Penn Line that started this December, makes TOD more viable because the people who live and work there can rely on it.

There are an increasingly large number of people who travel between Baltimore and Washington that may prefer a hassle-free train ride to a drive in traffic. Especially if there's a cosmopolitan urban environment where they get on and off the train. There is a premium for this in Bethesda and Arlington, and there could be at MARC stations as well.

To get on a roll at MARC stations, the public sector may have to help build and finance structured parking to open up land adjacent to stations for development. Stu Sirota, principal of TND Planning Group, says there needs to be an overarching vision coupled with marketing. "A real regional planning effort or charrette will show how all these station areas could become cool transit villages (or bigger)," he says, "and what an incredible impact that could have on the Baltimore-Washington corridor."

Once there are a few hot spots along the Penn and Camden lines, the areas around MARC stations will become coveted real estate. It is time to get started.

Transit


All northeast US passenger rail on one awesome map

This map shows every Amtrak, commuter rail, metro, light rail, and tourist rail line from Maine to North Carolina, to scale.

It comes from NortheastRailMap.com, and you can even download it in a fully-editable Adobe Illustrator format.


Image from NortheastRailMap.com.


Image from NortheastRailMap.com.

Cross-posted to BeyondDC.

Update: The map's author has requested that you "like" their page on Facebook. Please help them out and do that!

Transit


CSX explains slower train speeds in heat or heavy rain

Why do trains on MARC's Camden and Brunswick Lines sometimes run slowly? One reason is the weather: CSX, which owns the tracks, orders MARC trains to slow down for safety when it's hot or very rainy.


Photo by Don Shall on Flickr.

That's what CSX Vice President for Passenger Operations Jay Westbrook told the MARC Riders Advisory Council last week. High temperatures can make the rails buckle. If a train goes over a buckle or sun kink, the train may derail, as Amtrak's Capitol Limited did near Kensington in 2002. Meanwhile, a lot of rain can wash out the track bed, causing the tracks to collapse.

Heat is a problem because modern railroads use continuous welded rail, rather than jointed track. Continuous welded rail is sections of rail that are 1/4-mile long, with the ends welded to the next section of rail. Unlike jointed track, there are no gaps between the sections of rail to accommodate expansion when the rail gets hot. Instead, the rail spikes, tie plates, rail anchors, and track ballast are supposed to keep the rail in place.

The Federal Railroad Adminstration requires track owners to have a plan for continuous welded rail. The plan must include procedures governing train speed on continuous welded rail track when "the difference between the average rail temperature and the average rail neutral temperature is in a range that causes buckling-prone conditions to be present at a specific location."

CSX owns the tracks on MARC's Brunswick and Camden Lines. CSX issues a heat order for operations between 1 pm and 7 pm if the predicted high temperature for the day is 90 degrees or higher, or if there is a large predicted change in temperature (e.g., 25 degrees or more), especially if the predicted high temperature is higher than 85 degrees. Large predicted changes in temperature are usually the reason for heat orders in the fall or spring.

If CSX issues a heat order, passenger trains must go 20 miles per hour below the maximum authorized speed, but not less than 40 miles per hour. Freight trains must go at least 10 miles per hour below the speed limit, but not less than 30 miles per hour. On the Brunswick and Camden Line tracks, under normal operations, the maximum authorized speed is 79 miles per hour for passenger trains and 60 miles per hour for freight trains.

Thus, for example, the usual maximum speed for a passenger train with a heat order would be 59 miles per hour. However, if the maximum authorized speed for a particular section of track were 45 miles per hour, then under a heat order, the passenger train would go 40 miles per hour, not 25 miles per hour.

The slower speeds not only help the engineers look out for buckles but also prevent buckling in the first place, because a slower train puts less stress on the track, Westbrook said.

For rain, said Westbrook, CSX currently uses Accuweather's Skyguard service, which provides weather information for specific locations. Skyguard issues flash flood warnings based on recent rainfall, the predicted hourly rainfall rate (more than 1 inch per hour or 3 inches per 3 hours), the total predicted rainfall, and local conditions, such as elevation and soil. Under flash flood warnings, the maximum speed is 40 miles per hour.

Transit


DMU trains are the DC region's missing transit mode

In the DC region we have Metro and commuter rail trains, with light rail, streetcars, and BRT all in the works. And of course, regular buses. But one common mode we don't have is DMU trains, which bridge the gap between light rail and commuter rail.


DMU train in San Diego. Photo by mrpeachum on flickr.

DMU stands for Diesel Multiple Unit. DMU trains are intended to operate on routes that look like commuter rail, but at almost light rail frequency. They go over long distances, with infrequent stations, usually on or adjacent to freight tracks. But instead of coming only at rush hour, trains come all day long, as often as every 15-20 minutes.

That's a great service model for suburban corridors that need something better than rush-hour MARC or VRE service, but are too far away for light rail and don't have the density to justify the costs of Metrorail.

DMUs, and their electric cousin EMUs, are used in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Portland, San Diego, Dallas, and Austin. They're proposed in even more cities.

One big advantage of DMUs over traditional commuter trains is that DMUs can operate on-street, like light rail. That makes integrating them with downtown areas much easier, because it frees DMUs to go anywhere, rather than only to a city's main rail hub.


Austin DMU on-street. Photo by paulkimo90 on flickr.

All MARC and VRE trains to DC must go to Union Station, because all the long distance tracks through DC go to Union Station. Not only does that constrain route planning, it's also a limit on capacity, because there are only so many platforms at Union Station. But a DMU could go anywhere.

There are not currently any plans for DMU lines in the DC region, but there could be. DMU would be a great solution for Maryland's proposed Charles County corridor or Fairfax's Route 28. Officials are looking at light rail for those corridors, but they're far out in the suburbs and wouldn't have very frequent stops, so DMU might be more appropriate.

In the long term it might also make sense to convert some of MARC and VRE's existing lines to DMU, or to supplement them with more DMU trains. That would give them more operational flexibility, and could increase service. But MARC and VRE are established as traditional commuter rail, and may be uncomfortable with anything else.

MARC and VRE also have to use tracks owned by freight companies. DMUs can be used in mixed company with freight, although that requires federal approval. But if the freight lines are already using their tracks to capacity, which is common in the DC area, then there's no room for more trains no matter what they look like.

DMU isn't Metro, and it isn't light rail. DMU trains can't do all the things those modes can do. It's not an appropriate mode where frequent stops are necessary. But for long corridors with infrequent stops and moderate capacity needs, it's ideal. We should keep in mind as we continue to advocate for new transit lines.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

Support Us

How can our region be greater?

DC Maryland Virginia Arlington Alexandria Montgomery Prince George's Fairfax Charles Prince William Loudoun Howard Anne Arundel Frederick Tysons Corner Baltimore Falls Church Fairfax City
CC BY-NC