DOCSLIB.ORG

MARC Riders Advisory Council Meeting June 20, 2019 4:30Pm‐6:00Pm

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MARC Riders Advisory Council Meeting June 20, 2019 4:30Pm‐6:00Pm MARC Riders Advisory Council Meeting June 20, 2019 4:30pm‐6:00pm Phone: 1‐888‐407‐4198 Code: 77713445# **PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOUR PHONE IS ON MUTE WHEN YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING** I. Call meeting to order Steve Chan, Chair II. Introductions III. Review of May minutes Brian Love, Acting RAC Secretary for May meeting IV. Review of May performance data Katherine Read, MARC Assistant Chief Transportation Officer V. MARC Train preparation for summer high heat/weather David Johnson (DJ), MARC Chief Transportation Officer Amtrak and Bombardier Management VI. August 5 Penn Line schedule change and 2019 Penn Line Amtrak trackwork update DJ and Amtrak Commuter Operations management VII. Old Business VIII. New Business, including questions and comments from guests Upcoming meetings (all Thursdays, 4:30‐6:00pm) July 18, 2019 (in person) August 15, 2019 (teleconference) September 19, 2019 (in person) Reminder: E‐mail rail car or station defects to Katherine Read – [email protected] MARC Train Service On-Time Performance May 2019 Same Month Month Year to Date 2018 Brunswick Line Brunswick 94.16% 96.26% 85.95% Frederick 90.15% 95.00% 87.50% West Virginia 89.39% 93.88% 81.82% Total Brunswick 91.27% 95.06% 85.08% Camden Line Camden 77.06% 87.79% 88.29% BTS OTP 83.66% 91.15% 86.88% Penn Line Baltimore 91.36% 91.76% 84.33% Perryville 86.47% 83.36% 85.09% Amtrak OTP 89.81% 89.08% 84.57% MARC SYSTEM TOTAL OTP 87.44% 89.87% 85.43% MARC On Time Performance Summary May 2019 Penn Line Weekday 89.23% Month 88.46% Year to Date 91.29% AM Southbound (Trains 401‐423) 89.77% PM Northbound (Trains 426‐448) 87.37% AM Northbound (Trains 400‐412) 88.31% PM Southbound (Trains 537‐449) Trains below 90% (late more than twice, red‐bold lower than 80%): 410 (73% month, 84% YTD) 517 (86% month, 89% YTD) 412 (82% month, 90% YTD) 520 (59% month, 73% YTD) 414 (82% month, 90% YTD) 532 (77% month, 65% YTD) 415 (86% month, 95% YTD) 537 (77% month, 75% YTD) 419 (86% month, 91% YTD) 544 (77% month, 78% YTD) 421 (82% month, 90% YTD) 548 (82% month, 74% YTD) 422 (86% month, 92% YTD) 579 (86% month, 60% YTD) 435 (64% month, 79% YTD) 610 (82% month, 75% YTD) 443 (86% month, 85% YTD) 612 (86% month, 93% YTD) 446 (86% month, 88% YTD) 634 (82% month, 77% YTD) 447 (82% month, 81% YTD) 641 (87% month, 88% YTD) 451 (86% month, 88% YTD) 642 (86% month, 88% YTD) 453 (86% month, 85% YTD) 100% for month: 418, 424, 427, 431, 433, 440, 449, 554 Penn Line Weekend 95.83% Month 96.48% Year to Date (continued) MARC On Time Performance Summary May 2019 Bombardier Transportation Services OTP (Brunswick and Camden Lines): 83.66% Month 91.15% Year to Date Brunswick Line 91.27% Month 95.06% Year to Date 92.42% AM Eastbound 90.15% PM Westbound Trains below 90% (late more than twice, red‐bold lower than 80%): 873 (86% month, 95% YTD) 891 (82% month, 95% YTD) 877 (82% month, 93% YTD) 894 (86% month, 93% YTD) 878 (82% month, 89% YTD) 100% for month: 870, 871, 880, 883 Camden Line 77.06% Month 87.79% Year to Date 83.33% AM Westbound 75.97% PM Eastbound Trains below 90% (late more than twice, red‐bold lower than 80%): 840 (82% month, 90% YTD) 852 (64% month, 89% YTD) 842 (77% month, 85% YTD) 853 (59% month, 83% YTD) 844 (73% month, 80% YTD) 854 (64% month, 86% YTD) 845 (77% month, 82% YTD) 856 (77% month, 90% YTD) 846 (68% month, 82% YTD) 857 (77% month, 87% YTD) 849 (77% month, 86% YTD) 858 (86% month, 92% YTD) 850 (73% month, 92% YTD) 859 (55% month, 85% YTD) 851 (68% month, 78% YTD) 860 (77% month, 90% YTD) 100% for month: None MARC On Time Performance – Discussion May 2019 Penn Line performance continues to be impacted by Amtrak trackwork between New Carrollton and Odenton. We have seen improvement in several trains, specifically Trains 634 and 536, which both benefited from a schedule change to the Amtrak train that departs Washington right ahead of 634. There are chronic problems with some trains, namely 520, 537, 532, 579 and 544, which will be addressed with the next schedule change. To that point, Amtrak has notified us that the existing schedule (March 4, 2019) will remain in effect until Sunday, August 4. A new schedule will take effect August 5 and we are developing that at this time. The above‐listed chronically late trains will be addressed. Other trains, such as 435, 449, are being impacted as they are the first and last trains to operate on the opposite track during evening rush hour and are the proverbial “salmon swimming upstream”. The performance of these trains ‐ along with northbound off peak service ‐ will improve once the trackwork is completed. Penn Line weekend service experienced no significant issues. Camden Line service was at its poorest level in many years. Delays caused by CSX accounted for over 50% of delays: % By % By Minutes Delays Delays within MTA's control 4.3% 4.0% Delays within CSX's control 44.5% 53.2% Acts of God/outside forces 17.5% 18.5% Other (includes PTC) 33.7% 24.3% Weather and PTC‐related delays were up compared to previous months, but the major issue continues to be CSX dispatcher/interference. MARC Train management will continue to work with CSX to improve performance and will elevate this issue to senior MTA and MDOT leadership if there is not improvement in performance. Brunswick Line service was also impacted by a greater than usual number of weather and PTC delays. While weather is a factor outside of our control, MARC continues to work with Bombardier, CSX, and our PTC supplier team to make improvements to the system to reduce the number of delays – specifically, maintaining the PTC system’s GPS signal throughout the trip. MARC Train Service Breakdown by Delays and Minutes: May 2019 Brunswick Line Camden Line Penn Line Minutes Delays % By % By Minutes Delays % By % By Minutes Delays % By % By Minutes Delays Minutes Delays Minutes Delays ACCIDENT 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 192 3 5.9% 1.4% COMMUNICATION/SIGNALS 40 7 4.4% 12.7% 56 7 2.1% 4.0% 73 7 2.2% 3.3% CREW 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 58 4 1.8% 1.9% DISPATCHER/INTERFERENCE 277 16 30.7% 29.1% 785 63 30.1% 36.4% 1233 133 37.6% 63.3% MECHANICAL-EQUIP. 6 1 0.7% 1.8% 68 3 2.6% 1.7% 267 9 8.1% 4.3% MECHANICAL-HUMAN ERR. 23 1 2.5% 1.8% 10 1 0.4% 0.6% 60 1 1.8% 0.5% PASSENGER 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 33 3 1.3% 1.7% 48 4 1.5% 1.9% POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL 133 10 14.7% 18.2% 295 23 11.3% 13.3% 6 1 0.2% 0.5% SECONDARY DELAY 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 584 19 22.4% 11.0% 512 17 15.6% 8.1% SECURITY 40 1 4.4% 1.8% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 598 8 18.2% 3.8% TRACK/CATENARY 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 322 22 12.3% 12.7% 216 21 6.6% 10.0% WEATHER 384 19 42.5% 34.5% 458 32 17.5% 18.5% 18 2 0.5% 1.0% 903 55 2611 173 3281 210 00 MARC Train Cancellations, Terminations and 60+ minute Delays May 2019 Date Line Train Cause Synopsis of Situation 5/8/2019 P 548 Mechanical‐Equipment Train 548 delayed one hour departing Washington due to electric locomotive failure. Locomotive replaced and train departed. 5/16/2019 P 413, 415, Accident / Security Train 413 struck a person walking on the tracks south 517, 419, of Odenton. Individual was transported from scene 408, 410, with life threatening injuries, but since it was not a 412 fatality, law enforcement released the scene faster than a typical incident of this nauture. Delays ranged from 30‐90 min. 5/16/2019 P 610, 612, Secondary Delay Cancelled due to above incident involving Train 413 ‐ 421, 423, crews and equipment out of position. 641 5/16/2019 P 422 Mechanical ‐ Human Error Cancelled due to droping HEP (lights/climate control) after departing Washington. Investigation found improperly connected electrical cables. Passengers accomodated on Train 424. 5/16/2019 P 435 Secondary Delay Cancelled due to cancellation of Train 422. Passeners accomodated on Train 537 and 439. 537 added a stop at Odenton. 5/28/2019 P 401 Mechanical ‐ Equipment Terminated at Bowie State University due to leased Amtrak electric locomotive failure. Passengers transferred to Train 403. 5/28/2019 P 400, 415 Secondary Delay Cancelled due to termination of Train 401. Passengers accomodated on Train 502 and 517, respectively. 5/28/2019 C 852 Positive Train Control Cancelled due to Positive Train Control failure. Passengers accomodated on Trains 850 and 854. 5/29/2019 C 850 Mechanical‐Equipment Cancelled due to cab car failure. Passengers accomodated on Trains 852 and 854. 5/29/2019 P 536 Accident Delayed 90 minutes due to striking trees and other debris that fell on the tracks after a severe thunderstorm. 5/29/2019 P 579, 451 Weather, Secondary Delay Train 579 held at Edgewood for 90 minutes due to above‐discussed delay to Train 536 and trees across the tracks.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CSX Baltimore Division Timetable
    NORTHERN REGION BALTIMORE DIVISION TIMETABLE NO. 4 EFFECTIVE SATURDAY, JANUARY 1, 2005 AT 0001 HOURS CSX STANDARD TIME C. M. Sanborn Division Manager BALTIMORE DIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DESCRIPTION PAGE INST DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 Instructions Relating to CSX Operating Table of Contents Rules Timetable Legend 2 Instructions Relating to Safety Rules Legend – Sample Subdivision 3 Instructions Relating to Company Policies Region and Division Officers And Procedures Emergency Telephone Numbers 4 Instructions Relating to Equipment Train Dispatchers Handling Rules 5 Instructions Relating to Air Brake and Train SUBDIVISIONS Handling Rules 6 Instructions Relating to Equipment NAME CODE DISP PAGE Restrictions Baltimore Terminal BZ AV 7 Miscellaneous Bergen BG NJ Capital WS AU Cumberland CU CM Cumberland Terminal C3 CM Hanover HV AV Harrisburg HR NI Herbert HB NI Keystone MH CM Landover L0 NI Lurgan LR AV Metropolitan ME AU Mon M4 AS Old Main Line OM AU P&W PW AS Philadelphia PA AV Pittsburgh PI AS.AT Popes Creek P0 NI RF&P RR CQ S&C SC CN Shenandoah SJ CN Trenton TN NI W&P WP AT CSX Transportation Effective January 1, 2005 Albany Division Timetable No. 5 © Copyright 2005 TIMETABLE LEGEND GENERAL F. AUTH FOR MOVE (AUTHORITY FOR MOVEMENT) Unless otherwise indicated on subdivision pages, the The authority for movement rules applicable to the track segment Train Dispatcher controls all Main Tracks, Sidings, of the subdivision. Interlockings, Controlled Points and Yard Limits. G. NOTES STATION LISTING AND DIAGRAM PAGES Where station page information may need to be further defined, a note will refer to “STATION PAGE NOTES” 1– HEADING listed at the end of the diagram.
    [Show full text]
  • MARC Train Service On-Time Performance November 2018
    MARC Train Service On-Time Performance November 2018 Same Month Month Year to Date 2017 Brunswick Line Brunswick 85.00% 93.56% 95.76% Frederick 89.66% 93.37% 94.83% West Virginia 89.74% 92.22% 92.31% Total Brunswick 88.10% 93.05% 94.30% Camden Line Camden 91.63% 90.48% 97.54% BTS OTP 89.99% 91.67% 96.04% Penn Line Baltimore 86.81% 83.93% 90.01% Perryville 81.62% 84.40% 85.09% Amtrak OTP 85.12% 84.08% 88.41% MARC SYSTEM TOTAL OTP 86.95% 86.97% 91.27% MARC On Time Performance Summary November 2018 Penn Line Weekday 84.26% Month 83.22% Year to Date 90.34% AM Southbound (Trains 401‐423) 83.20% PM Northbound (Trains 426‐448) 80.23% AM Northbound (Trains 400‐412) 80.85% PM Southbound (Trains 537‐449) Trains below 89% (late more than twice, red‐bold lower than 79%): 400 (73% month, 91% YTD) 453 (84% month, 72% YTD) 404 (74% month, 85% YTD) 511 (66% month, 82% YTD) 412 (63% month, 65% YTD) 517 (81% month, 79% YTD) 414 (79% month, 89% YTD) 520 (81% month, 89% YTD) 424 (71% month, 76% YTD) 525 (66% month, 79% YTD) 426 (81% month, 85% YTD) 532 (81% month, 80% YTD) 430 (79% month, 83% YTD) 536 (85% month, 82% YTD) 431 (85% month, 86% YTD) 537 (76% month, 81% YTD) 433 (63% month, 79% YTD) 544 (85% month, 75% YTD) 438 (84% month, 87% YTD) 579 (68% month, 71% YTD) 439 (84% month, 87% YTD) 610 (47% month, 88% YTD) 446 (68% month, 85% YTD) 634 (76% month, 74% YTD) 447 (68% month, 63% YTD) 641 (86% month, 85% YTD) 448 (85% month, 88% YTD) 642 (81% month, 85% YTD) 449 (71% month, 77% YTD) 100% for month: 407, 409, 451 Penn Line Weekend 93.33% Month 92.32%
    [Show full text]
  • Mcfrs Community Risk Analysis and Standards of Cover
    MCFRS COMMUNITY RISK ANALYSIS AND STANDARDS OF COVER Fire Station 20 Battalion 2 Bethesda Station 9041 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda Description – Ownership: Volunteer – Employees: 3 Shift Work – Apparatus Housed: Engine – Specialty Team: Hazmat – First Due Area: 4.05 mi2 – Volunteers: totaled in with the sister company Fire Station 6 Overview Bethesda, Station 20, is surrounded by important institutions, not only for their medical breakthroughs and clandestine facilities but for the employment opportunities given to the area. The businesses and institutions bring a large number of people into Station 20’s first due area during rush hour but also the two federal hospitals and research facilities bring people from all over the world. Scattered around the different facilities are quiet residential communities that have been settled for the most part since WWII. Because it is a hazmat house, two certified hazmat technicians must comprise at least two of the three-person staffing on the engine. The engine responds to hazmat incidents for additional staffing for the Hazmat Team, and Station 20 personnel certify annually by completing NFPA 472 competencies which is completed as a monthly drill . Station 20 also houses the scheduling office for the operations of Montgomery County Fire Rescue. 218 MCFRS COMMUNITY RISK ANALYSIS AND STANDARDS OF COVER High Risk Areas – Including Hazards Station 20 has METRO tracks through their first due area and it services two METRO stations: Grosvenor and Medical Center – just miles apart. The Grosvenor station serves a heavily-populated residential area and the Medical Center station services two large federal properties: NIH and the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Guide to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Records
    Preliminary Guide to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Records NMAH.AC.1086 Alison Oswald January 2010 Archives Center, National Museum of American History P.O. Box 37012 Suite 1100, MRC 601 Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 [email protected] http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 Biographical / Historical.................................................................................................... 2 Scope and Contents........................................................................................................ 3 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 3 Names and Subjects ...................................................................................................... 6 Container Listing ............................................................................................................. 7 Series 1: Historical Background, 1827-1987............................................................ 7 Series 2: Bridge Histories, 1867-1966..................................................................... 8 Series 3: President's Office, 1826-1880................................................................... 9 Series 4: Correspondence, 1826-1859.................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Department of Transportation Priority Letter
    DocuSign Envelope ID: A63418AA-F04D-4B01-8D54-0688B997F52E Frederick County, Maryland Staff Report Concurrence Form To: Office of the County Executive Date: 02/19/2021____________________ Division Director: Steve__________________ Horn __ Approved: __________________________ From: Mark________________ Mishler _____________ Division: ___Planning______________ & Permitting __________ Phone #: ____________________ Staff Report Topic: 2021 Maryland Department of Transportation Priority Letter Time Sensitive? Yes □ (if yes, deadline for approval: ____________________) No □X Action Requested by Executive’s Office: Signature Requested □X OR Information Only □ Staff Report Review: This staff report has been thoroughly reviewed first by the appropriate divisions/agencies noted on Page 2 followed by those outlined below: Name Signature Date Budget Office Kelly Weaver 2/22/2021 Finance Division Erin White 2/22/2021 County Attorney’s Office Kathy L Mitchell 2/22/2021 Refer to County Council? Yes □ No □X (County Attorney’s Office to complete) Chief Administrative Rick Harcum 2/22/2021 Officer County Executive Jan Gardner 2/22/2021 Forward to Council? Yes □X No □ (County Executive to complete) Page 1 of 2 May 2020 DocuSign Envelope ID: A63418AA-F04D-4B01-8D54-0688B997F52E Frederick County, Maryland Staff Report Concurrence Form Other Reviewers: Title Name Signature Date 3. Traffic Engineer Mark Mishler 2/19/2021 4. Director, Government Affairs Joy Schaefer 2/22/2021 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Comments: From Date Comment Page 2 of 2 May 2020 DocuSign Envelope ID:
    [Show full text]
  • R-5Ha Cslal4jajai€? a I.` ` I.\Eb Revieweffice of Preservation Services 1 1 LOD]T,E€
    MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST NR Eligible: yes DETERMINATION 0F ELIGIBILITY FORM Property Name: Gaithersburg wye/The wood Lot Inventory Number: M: 21-166 Address: North comer ofs. Frederick Avenue and Fulks corner Avenue Historicdistrict: _yes X no City : Gaithersb urg Zipcode: 20877 County : Montgomery USGS Quadrangle(s): Gaithersburg Property owner: City ofGaithersburg Tax Account ID Number: 09-00817800 Tax Map parcel Number(s): Multiple TaxMapNumber: FT561 Project: MD 355 Bus Rapid Transit Improvements project Agency: Montgomery county Dept. of Transportation Agency prepared By: VIIB Preparer's Name: George Rounds Date prepared : 7/31 /2018 Documentation is presented in: Maryland Inventory of Historic places (MIHP) Forin Preparer's Eligibility Recommendation: Eligibility recommended X Eligibility not recommended Criteria: A 8 C D Considerations: A 8 C D E F G Complete if the property is a contributing or non-contributing resource to a NR district/property.. Name of the District/Property: Inventory Number: Eligible: yes Listed: yes Site visit byMHT staff yes X no Name: Date: Description of property and Justification: rp/eczse c!ffczc7z mc7p cr#dpfoo/o/ Introduction/Location: Gaithersburg Wye/The Wood Lot (Gaithersburg Wye) is a rail spur located between the Metropolitan Branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (8&0) to the noilh, Fulks Comer Avenue to the southeast, and S. Frederick Avenue (also known as MD 355) to the west in Gaithersburg, Montgomery County, Maryland. Originally constructed in 1888 and expanded in 1906, the wye provided locomotives with the capability to turn around in Gaithersburg, resulting in the city's emergence as an important point of origin and terminus along the rail line and contributed directly to the city's commercial and residential growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 33, Number 2 Second Quarter 2011
    ISSN 1053-4415 A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE PUBLISHED BY THE BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD HISTORICAL SOCIETY $8.00 VOLUME 33, NUMBER 2 SECOND QUARTER 2011 Letter from the Editor When I was fewer than a dozen years Lincoln, the raids by “Stonewall” Jackson, old, the centennial of the Civil War was cel- the massive transport of Union troops The official publication of THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO ebrated. It became a centerpiece of life, in southward, the defense of the railroad and RAILROAD HISTORICAL SOCIETY school and in the newspapers, along with the attacks launched against it. P. O. Box 24225 dozens of events to commemorate 100 Indeed, one worthy task—volunteers, Baltimore, Maryland 21227-0725 e-mail: [email protected] years after this and that battle or happen- please!—is to compile a timetable of website: www.borhs.org ing. It actually began with the centennial these wartime events so that they can be Missing Sentinel: [email protected] of the Harpers Ferry raid, which, of course, properly commemorated as their anni- The Baltimore and Ohio Historical Society is a involved the B&O as a central factor. versaries roll around. A bibliography of non-profit corporation dedicated to preserving and disseminating historical information about At precisely the same time, I began my the B&O story during the Civil War is The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. lifelong fascination with model railroading also a good and easy project for someone Copyright ©2011 ISSN 1053-4415 and railroad history. So there it all is: today so inclined. SOCIETY OFFICERS I’m a B&O modeler, an amateur railroad There should be photo exhibitions Bob Hubler, President Bob Weston, VP Operations historian, a Civil War re-enactor, and the and research material published on the George Stant, VP Finance owner of a Civil War-era B&O layout.
    [Show full text]
  • Pa R K & R Id E
    800.745.RIDE commuterconnections.org !"a$!"a$ 800.745.RIDE !"a$ ImIm!"a$Im A} !"a$!"a$ !"`$ ?Ï!"a$ !"a$ !"a$ !"a$!"a$ !"a$Im Im!"a$Im!"a$ !"a$Im !"a$Im )" !"a$ FINKSBURG 14 6 A| !(6 Iq (!10 !"a$!"a$Im !"b$ CASCADE Im HYDES EMMITSBURG HUNT VALLEY A¡ !"a$ MAUGANSVILLE GLYNDON Im !"a$ !"a$)"5 W A S H I N G T O N !(23 !"a$Im18 !"a$ImIm!"a$!"a$Im ?ç Iu I¥ (!7 ImIm !"a$Im FORK Ix CLEAR SPRING ?è Aø Im 4 !( !(14 Io RISING SUN REISTERSTOWN AÇ ?þ !"c$ BIG POOL Iy SMITHSBURG LITTLE ORLEANS BERKELEY SPRINGS ?ë TANEYTOWN !(5 ?Ë CONOWINGO COLORA ?Î B A L T I M O R E 17 KINGSVILLE GREAT CACAPON ?¾ !"a$ ?ï ?ó LUTHERVILLE TIMONIUM (! Iq ?Ó THURMONT C A R R O L L !(24 DARLINGTON GLEN ARM JOPPA !(2 1 8 ROCKY RIDGE ?Í (! 15 (!8 ")!( KEYMAR !(3 JARRETTSVILLE !(10 !(4 OWINGS MILLS ?¾ !(7 Iu A{ ?Ï AÓ !"d$ 5 STEVENSON 25 M O R G A N ?Ë PORT DEPOSIT ELKTON (!3 (! ?¾ !(9 Io Aw NORTH EAST "5 AÃ Ig ?ï WESTMINSTER Ay !(1 TOWSON ) HEDGESVILLE 4 PAW PAW FALLING WATERS ?Å UNION BRIDGE ?ù (!2 (! !"d$ MONKTON !"d$ Iy ?¿ ?Ó 9 ?Î UPPERCO ") %&l( 7 !( CHARLESTOWN WHITE MARSH Ix !"e$ FAIRPLAY !"a$ %&l( Io CHURCHVILLE ?ñ !"c$ ")12 ")2 NEW WINDSOR C E C I L PIKESVILLE PARKVILLE LEVELS ")8 (!7 13 (!27 AÇ SPARKS GLENCOE !(4 RANDALLSTOWN (!2 6 NOTTINGHAM • SYKESVILLE !(3 1 Highways/Major Roads Highways/Major 11 H A R F O R D !( CHESAPEAKE CITY WOODBINE (! (!1 !(1 Iu B A L T I M O R E ")3 Iy KEEDYSVILLE ")9 ?Ï A} 10 13 MARRIOTTSVILLE (!2 ?Ò FINKSBURG !"d$ ") (! ROSEDALE !(15 LIBERTYTOWN !(10 14 ")6 • 3 !"c$ (! HOV/Express Lanes Access Lanes HOV/Express )"5 ")1 A¡ HYDES LISBON )"21 B E R K E L E Y F R E D E R I C K 15 4 ?Ð SHARPSBURG 5 ") WINDSOR MILL (! ?Õ !(2 !(7 18 ") ?Ì COOKSVILLE 19 MIDDLE RIVER FORK GWYNN OAK Baltimore (! MIDDLETOWN • ?Û ROHRERSVILLE 4 WOODSTOCK Free vs.
    [Show full text]
  • I-270 Monorail Feasibility Study
    I-270 MONORAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY FEBRUARY 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapters Tables Executive Summary ................................................................................1 ES.1 Design Criteria ................................................................................2 Chapter 1 Introduction ..........................................................................9 ES.2 Potential Environmental Resource Impacts .....................................4 Chapter 2 Analysis ..............................................................................15 ES.3 Total Project Costs ..........................................................................5 Chapter 3 Impacts and Costs ...............................................................53 ES.4 Total Routine Operating Costs ........................................................5 Chapter 4 Findings ...............................................................................63 ES.5 Projected Changes in Daily Boardings for Major Transit Routes .....6 References ES.6 Projected Changes in Daily Trips Between Build and No Build........7 Appendices 2.1 Design Capacity – Number of Passengers ......................................20 2.2 I-270 Feasibility Study Monorail Design Criteria ............................22 Figures 2.3 Standard Station Dimensions .........................................................30 ES.1 Feasibility Study Monorail Alignment .............................................3 2.4 Metrorail Montgomery County Station Analysis .............................32
    [Show full text]
  • Frederick County, Maryland
    Frederick County, Maryland Annual Transportation Priorities Review – 2015 February 11, 2015 Prepared by: Frederick County Community Development Division Introduction The Transportation Priorities Review is conducted annually to, for the most part; address the State primary and secondary highway project priorities as well as a review of other transportation needs and priorities. A focus of the priorities is to provide guidance for the County’s preparation of the FY 2016 to FY 2021 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and to the Maryland Department of Transportation’s preparation of next year’s draft Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP), which is released in the fall. The priorities review provides a multi-modal approach to identifying transportation needs and priorities, including: State primary and secondary highway projects Bus, rail and bicycle/pedestrian projects The Frederick Municipal Airport The Transportation Priorities Review is formally presented for review to the County Planning Commission, Transportation Services Advisory Council (TSAC), and the County Council. Comments and recommendations from these groups and the municipalities in Frederick County will be forwarded to the County Executive and the Maryland State Delegation for their consideration and final approval. All of the above mentioned presentations are open to the public. County staff also coordinates with individual MDOT agencies as appropriate to review opportunities for consistency in project priorities. The priority listing for State projects are then transmitted to the Maryland Department of Transportation in early April. Table of Contents County Transportation Funding p. 3 Public-Private Partnerships p. 4 State Highway Priorities p. 5 Local Transit p. 9 Regional Transit p. 9 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities p.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR BULLETIN RESULTS OF SPIRIT LEVELING IN . DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA 1896 TO 1909, INCLUSIVE R. B. MARSHALL, CHIEF GEOGRAPHER WORK DONE IN COOPERATION WITH THE STATE OP MARYLAND DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD AND WITH THE STATE OF VIRGINIA IN PART OF 1908 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1910 Q £ 1 er CONTENTS. Page. Introduction... ..........^................................... ^.'........... 5 Scope of the work..................................................... 5 Bench marks......................................................'... 6 Cooperation and personnel............................................. 7 Classification.......................................................... 7 Delaware................................................................. 7 Primary leveling...................................................... 7 Westchester and Wilmington quadrangles (Newcastle County)........ 7 Dover (300, Ellendale, Frankford, Georgetown, Harrington, Seaford, and Selbyville quadrangles (Kent, Newcastle, and Sussex counties). 9 District of Columbia...................................................... 33 Maryland.................................................................. 15 Barclay, Betterton, Cecilton, Chestertown, Choptank (300, Crapo, Cris- field, Deal Island, Denton, Dover (3(K), Drum Point, Harrington, Hur- lock, Nanticoke, Ocean City, Oxford, Pittsville, Princess Anne, Salis­ bury, Seaford, Snow Hill, St. Michaels,
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Overview
    Transportation Overview The bedrock of a city’s functionality is its transportation infrastructure. How people move dictates whether a city needs a redundant system of roadways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, transit service, or parking, and the relationship to land uses and the built environment. As a result, a well-planned transportation system is critical to a local as well as regional economic stability and growth. [pop-out box] Transportation and land-use: Two sides of the same coin… The City of Frederick and this Plan describe transportation and land-use in separate chapters, but on the ground they are inseparable. Each decision about what sort of land-use the City should have, and each dollar spent on a given transportation mode influences how people travel and what sorts of places thrive and grow. The basic link of density and travel A place that has a dense mix of homes, businesses, and services works best when people move slowly through it on foot or bike, and those places can only form when there is significant investment in walking and bicycling. A place that is low-density and has little or no mixing of homes, businesses, and services works best when people move fast through it in a car, and those places can only function when there is significant investment in roads and parking. What about transit? Public transit moves people much faster than walking to places where they need to get around on foot. Transit, then, best serves those dense places that thrive best with foot traffic. MARC trains and MTA buses function well in bringing people from Frederick to Rockville, Silver Spring, and downtown Washington.
    [Show full text]