DOCSLIB.ORG

Travel Demand Forecasting Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Travel Demand Forecasting Technical Report Travel Demand Forecasting Technical Report September 2008 Table of Contents 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Background and Project Location ................................................................................. 1-2 1.1.1. Corridor Setting..................................................................................................... 1-2 2. Travel Forecasts for Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1. Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study...................................................................... 2-1 2.2. No Build Alternative ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3. TSM Alternative............................................................................................................2-5 2.4. Build Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 2-6 2.4.1. Alternative 3 - Low Investment BRT ................................................................... 2-7 2.4.2. Alternative 4 - Medium Investment BRT ............................................................. 2-7 2.4.3. Alternative 5 - High Investment BRT................................................................... 2-7 2.4.4. Alternative 6 - Low Investment LRT.................................................................... 2-7 2.4.5. Alternative 7 - Medium Investment LRT ............................................................. 2-8 2.4.6. Alternative 8 - High Investment LRT ................................................................... 2-8 2.5. Build Alternatives Operations ....................................................................................... 2-8 2.5.1. Reliability..............................................................................................................2-9 2.5.2. Ridership ............................................................................................................. 2-11 2.5.3. Total and New Transit Trips ............................................................................... 2-11 2.5.4. District–to-District Travel Patterns..................................................................... 2-11 2.5.5. Daily Line Haul Boardings ................................................................................. 2-14 2.5.6. Daily Station Boardings ...................................................................................... 2-15 2.5.7. Station Mode of Access ...................................................................................... 2-15 2.5.8. University of Maryland Student Travel .............................................................. 2-17 2.5.9. Special Event and Special Generators Trips ....................................................... 2-17 2.5.10. Transportation System User Benefits.................................................................. 2-18 2.5.11. Farebox Revenue................................................................................................. 2-19 3. Supplemental Forecast Input and Results by Alternative .............................................. 3-1 3.1. No Build........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1. Assumptions.......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. TSM............................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3. Low Investment BRT .................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4. Medium Investment BRT.............................................................................................. 3-9 3.5. High Investment BRT.................................................................................................. 3-13 3.6. Low Investment LRT .................................................................................................. 3-17 3.7. Medium Investment LRT ............................................................................................ 3-21 Travel Demand Forecasting Technical Report • Page i 3.8. High Investment LRT.................................................................................................. 3-25 3.9. Comparative Summary................................................................................................ 3-29 3.10. Background Bus Assumptions .................................................................................... 3-29 3.11. Non-Included (Mode Specific) Attributes................................................................... 3-32 List of Tables Table 2-1: Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................ 2-3 Table 2-2: Year 2030 Bus Headways within the Corridor (minutes)..................................... 2-4 Table 2-3: Year 2030 TSM Bus Headways (minutes) ........................................................... 2-6 Table 2-4: Year 2030 Span of Service.................................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-5: Year 2030 Build Alternatives Headways (minutes).............................................. 2-9 Table 2-6: Year 2030 End-to-End Travel Times.................................................................... 2-9 Table 2-7: Year 2030 Average Station-to-Station Travel Times (minutes) ......................... 2-10 Table 2-8: Year 2030 Total Daily Linked Transit Trips....................................................... 2-12 Table 2-9: Year 2030 Daily Purple Line Ridership.............................................................. 2-15 Table 2-10: Year 2030 Build Alternatives Daily Boardings .................................................. 2-16 Table 2-11: Year 2030 Daily Transportation System User Benefits with Mode Specific Attributes............................................................................................................. 2-19 Table 2-12: Year 2030 Annual Change in Systemwide Farebox Revenues by Alternative Relative to No Build ........................................................................ 2-19 Table 3-1: Year 2030 Trips (Linked) by Transit Mode – No Build ....................................... 3-1 Table 3-2: Year 2030 Background Buses (Total Boardings) – No Build............................... 3-2 Table 3-3: Year 2030 Metrorail (Boardings in Corridor Stations) – No Build ...................... 3-2 Table 3-4: Year 2030 Commuter Rail (Boardings in Corridor Stations) – No Build............. 3-2 Table 3-5: Coding Assumptions - TSM ................................................................................. 3-3 Table 3-6: Year 2030 Trips (Linked) by Transit Mode – TSM.............................................. 3-3 Table 3-7: User Benefits - TSM ............................................................................................. 3-4 Table 3-8: Year 2030 Background Buses (Total Boardings) - TSM...................................... 3-4 Table 3-9: Year 2030 Metrorail (Boardings in Corridor Stations) - TSM ............................. 3-4 Table 3-10: Year 2030 Commuter Rail (Boardings in Corridor Stations) - TSM.................... 3-4 Table 3-11: Coding Assumptions - Low Investment BRT....................................................... 3-5 Table 3-12: Year 2030 Trips (Linked) by Transit Mode - Low Investment BRT.................... 3-6 Table 3-13: Year 2030 Boardings (Station to Station) - Low Investment BRT....................... 3-7 Table 3-14: Year 2030 User Benefits - Low Investment BRT................................................. 3-8 Page ii • Travel Demand Forecasting Technical Report Table 3-15: Year 2030 Background Buses (Total Boardings) – Low Investment BRT .......... 3-8 Table 3-16: Year 2030 Metrorail (Boardings in Corridor Stations) – Low Investment BRT....................................................................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-17: Year 2030 Commuter Rail (Boardings in Corridor Stations) – Low Investment BRT............................................................................................ 3-8 Table 3-18: Coding Assumptions - Medium Investment BRT................................................. 3-9 Table 3-19: Year 2030 Trips (Linked) by Transit Mode - Medium Investment BRT ........... 3-10 Table 3-20: Year 2030 Boardings (Station to Station) - Medium Investment BRT............... 3-11 Table 3-21: Year 2030 User Benefits - Medium Investment BRT......................................... 3-12 Table 3-22: Year 2030 Background Buses (Total Boardings) – Medium Investment BRT..................................................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-23: Year 2030 Metrorail (Boardings in Corridor Stations) – Medium Investment BRT.................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-24: Year 2030 Commuter Rail (Boardings in Corridor Stations) - Medium Investment BRT .................................................................................................. 3-12 Table 3-25: Coding Assumptions - High Investment BRT ...................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Staff Presentation October 1, 2013 Meeting Agenda
    Adhoc Planning Commission Committee Review of the Virginia Square Sector Plan Virginia Square Site Staff Presentation October 1, 2013 Meeting Agenda • Introductions • Analysis of Office Uses in Virginia Square • Arts/Cultural Facilities in Virginia Square • Discussion of Transportation Concerns • Draft Matrix of Sector Plan Guidance • Discussion & Next steps Analysis of Office Use on Virginia Square Site • Determination that Virginia Square Site is not a critical office location • From a market perspective, Virginia Square neighborhood not a primary office cluster • Residential/mixed-use character • Large institutional presence • In between two existing/emerging primary office clusters – Ballston and Clarendon/Courthouse Analysis of Office Use on Virginia Square Site Analysis of Office Use on Virginia Square Site Analysis of Office Use on Virginia Square Site • Determination that Virginia Square Site is not a critical office location • Sufficient site capacity exists to support future expansion of primary demand driver – large institutions Analysis of Office Use on Virginia Square Site • Determination that Virginia Square Site is not a critical office location • Sector plan use guidance for this site driven in some part by assumption that office use more compatible with potential theater/cultural use • Significant cultural facility that would benefit from office use above accomplished at 3901 N Fairfax • Building form of office building would limit ability to meet other sector plan goals, as compared to a residential building • Plaza size and connectivity • Affordable housing Consideration of Office Use on Virginia Square Site Did Not Consider Short- Term Market Conditions Projections based on known vacancies and deliveries. Source: AED; CoStar Impact of Longer Term Trends for Office Market Demand • Changing Nature of Federal Presence • Off Shoring • Changing Nature of How We Work • Teleworking, Hoteling, Etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The I-270 Transit Plan – Planning Board Briefing
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MCPB Item No. 8 Date: 07-29-21 Corridor Forward: The I-270 Transit Plan – Planning Board Briefing Jesse Cohn McGowan, Planner Coordinator, Countywide Planning, [email protected], 301.495.2197 Patrick Reed, Planner Coordinator, Mid-County Planning, [email protected], 301.495.4538 Jessica McVary, Master Planner Supervisor, Mid-County Planning, [email protected], 301.495.4723 Jason Sartori, Chief, Countywide Planning, [email protected], 301.495.2172 Carrie Sanders, Chief, Mid-County Planning, [email protected], 301.495.4653 Completed: 07-23-21 SUMMARY Work on Corridor Forward: The I-270 Transit Plan (Corridor Forward) has progressed since the February 2021 briefing in which staff summarized conceptual transit options, presented an overview of the Plan’s pre-screening process, and recommended six transit options to advance for detailed study. Over the last several months, staff has refined the six transit options and completed preliminary analysis of those options, including an evaluation of their strategic merits, an initial assessment of their economic and financial outlook, and a review of each option’s potential implementation challenges and risks. CONTENTS Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Briefing ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded and Analyzed the Vehicle Monitoring Data for This Event
    WMSC Commissioner Brief: W-0034 – Fatality at Farragut West Station December 9, February201 2019 Prepared for Washington Metrorail Safety Commission meeting on August 4, 2020 Safety event summary: A customer jumped from the Farragut West platform to the track bed as outbound Blue Line Train 406 entered the station on Track 2 on December 9, 2019 at approximately 12:53 p.m. Upon report of the collision, Metro Transit Police and D.C. Fire EMS were called and third rail power was de- energized on Track 2 at 12:55 p.m. Power was de-energized to Track 1 at 1:07 p.m. Service resumed after 3 p.m. Probable Cause: The customer intentionally placed themselves in front of oncoming train. Corrective Actions: None planned in specific response to this event. Train 3166 broken TWC antenna repaired. Staff recommendation: Adopt final report. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Department of Safety & Environmental Management FINAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION A&I E19675 SMS 20191209#84904 Date of Event: 12/09/2019 Type of Event: Collision (Fatality) Incident Time: 12:54 hrs. Location: Farragut West Station, Track 2 Time and How received by SAFE: 12/09/2019 - 12:55 hrs. - SAFE on-call phone WMSC Notification: 12/09/2019 - 13:09 hrs. WMSC on-call phone Responding Safety officers: WMATA SAFE: Yes, SAFE 203 WMSC: No Other: N/A Rail Vehicle: (L) 3166.3167 x 3114.3115 x 3156.3157 Injuries: Fatal Injury Damage: Car 3166 Broken TWC Antenna Emergency Responders: Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD), Office of Car Maintenance (CMNT), Office of Rail Transportation (RTRA), DC Fire and EMS (DCFD), Safety and Environmental Management (SAFE), Track and Structure (TRST).
    [Show full text]
  • A. Purple Line Light Rail, Mandatory Referral No
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MCPB Item No. 2 Date: 03/20/14 A. Purple Line Light Rail, Mandatory Referral No. MR2014033 B. Bethesda Metro Station South Entrance, Mandatory Referral No. MR2014034, CIP Project 500929 C. Capital Crescent Trail, Mandatory Referral No. MR2014035, CIP Project 501316 D. Silver Spring Green Trail, Mandatory Referral No. MR2014036, CIP Project 509975 David Anspacher, Planner/Coordinator, [email protected], (301) 495-2191 Mary Dolan, Chief, [email protected], (301) 495-4552 Tom Autrey, Supervisor, [email protected], (301) 495-4533 Robert Kronenberg, Chief, [email protected], (301) 495-2187 Marc DeOcampo, Supervisor, [email protected], (301) 495-4556 Elza Hisel-McCoy, Planner/Coordinator, [email protected], (301) 495-2115 Tina Schneider, Senior Planner, [email protected], (301) 495-2101 Mike Riley, Deputy Director (Parks), [email protected], (301) 495-2500 John Hench, Division Chief, [email protected], (301) 650-4364 Brooke Farquhar, Section Chief, [email protected], (301) 650-4388 Chuck Kines, Park Planner/Coordinator, [email protected], (301) 495-2184 Mitra Pedoeem, Division Chief, [email protected], (301) 495-2554 Andy Frank, Section Chief, [email protected], (301) 650-2886 Jai Cole, Natural Resources Manager, [email protected], (301) 650-4366 Completed: 03/13/2014 Jai Cole, Natural Resources Manager, [email protected], (301) 650-XXXX Description The subject of this staff report is four mandatory referrals for the Purple Line (the portion in Montgomery County only), the Bethesda Metro Station South Entrance, an extension of the Capital Crescent Trail, and an extension of the Silver Spring Green Trail.
    [Show full text]
  • MDOT MTA Purple Line Celebrates Winners of Elementary School Art Contest First-Place Selections to Be Displayed on Banners Along 16-Mile Purple Line Corridor
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACTS: Gary Witherspoon Brittany Marshall Office: 240-825-4629 Office: 410-767-8367 Cell: 443-801-4318 Cell: 443-970-0424 [email protected] [email protected] MDOT MTA Purple Line Celebrates Winners of Elementary School Art Contest First-Place Selections to be Displayed on Banners Along 16-Mile Purple Line Corridor RIVERDALE, MD (January 21, 2020) – Students from four elementary schools who turned images of the Purple Line rail project into award-winning art will have their work reproduced on banners displayed at project sites near their schools, the Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Transit Administration (MDOT MTA) announced. “There are many talented, young artists in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, and it’s exciting to see the project through their eyes,” said Jeff Ensor, director of the $5.6 billion Purple Line project for MDOT MTA. “It was difficult to select the winners because of the quality of all the entries.” This past fall, third graders from seven elementary schools along the Purple Line’s 16-mile corridor were invited to participate in the art contest. Students were asked to draw either a colorful picture of themselves and their families on the light rail or what they saw during Purple Line construction. Four schools took part and produced 140 pieces of art. Purple Line staff reviewed and selected the first-place artwork, one from each of the schools: http://bit.ly/38og1Y0. Glenridge, Langley Park-McCormick, Riverdale and Woodlin elementary schools participated in the contest. Lesli Leath, a senior community liaison with the Purple Line project and contest organizer, said the winners were selected based on “originality, vibrancy and authenticity.” “Clearly, there’s real artistic talent in schools along the Purple Line corridor,” she said.
    [Show full text]
  • Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011
    Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011 Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning August 2011 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning Jim Hamre, Director of Bus Planning Krys Ochia, Branch Manager 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Parsons Brinckerhoff Brian Laverty, AICP, Project Manager Nicholas Schmidt, Task Manager 1401 K Street NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20005 Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Existing Conditions ES-1 Policies and Procedures ES-2 Future Demand ES-3 Recommendations ES-4 Introduction 1 Study Process 3 Coordination 3 On-Site Observations 3 Operating Issues 3 Future Demand 4 Permitting and Enforcement 4 Existing Conditions 7 Key Observations 8 Operating Issues 9 Policies and Procedures 17 Permitting 17 Enforcement 19 Future Demand 25 Methodology 25 Results 28 Recommendations 33 Facility Design 34 Demand Management 37 Permitting 39 Enforcement 42 Contents | i Figures Figure ES-1: Future Shuttle Demand Estimate ES-4 Figure 1: Location of Peer U.S. Transit Agencies 4 Figure 2: Study Stations 7 Figure 3: Vehicles in Tight Turning Areas May Block Bus Bay Entrances (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 4: Long Kiss & Ride Queue (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 5: Pedestrian Shortcut (Southern Avenue Station) 11 Figure 6: Shuttle Blocking Kiss & Ride Travel Lane (King Street Station) 12 Figure 7: Shuttle Blocking Bus Stop (Anacostia Station) 13 Figure 8: Typical Signs Prohibiting Non-Authorized Access to Station Bus Bays
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Report
    Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Report of the Advisory Committee August 2002 Advisory Committee Imagine the possibilities. In September 2001, Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari appointed 23 a system of fast, convenient and elected, civic, business, transit and community leaders from throughout the Baltimore region to reliable rail lines running throughout serve on The Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Advisory Committee. He asked them to recommend the region, connecting all of life's a Regional Rail System long-term plan and to identify priority projects to begin the Plan's implemen- important activities. tation. This report summarizes the Advisory Committee's work. Imagine being able to go just about everywhere you really need to go…on the train. 21 colleges, 18 hospitals, Co-Chairs 16 museums, 13 malls, 8 theatres, 8 parks, 2 stadiums, and one fabulous Inner Harbor. You name it, you can get there. Fast. Just imagine the possibilities of Red, Mr. John A. Agro, Jr. Ms. Anne S. Perkins Green, Blue, Yellow, Purple, and Orange – six lines, 109 Senior Vice President Former Member We can get there. Together. miles, 122 stations. One great transit system. EarthTech, Inc. Maryland House of Delegates Building a system of rail lines for the Baltimore region will be a challenge; no doubt about it. But look at Members Atlanta, Boston, and just down the parkway in Washington, D.C. They did it. So can we. Mr. Mark Behm The Honorable Mr. Joseph H. Necker, Jr., P.E. Vice President for Finance & Dean L. Johnson Vice President and Director of It won't happen overnight.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessible Transportation Options for People with Disabilities and Senior Citizens
    Accessible Transportation Options for People with Disabilities and Senior Citizens In the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area JANUARY 2017 Transfer Station Station Features Red Line • Glenmont / Shady Grove Bus to Airport System Orange Line • New Carrollton / Vienna Parking Station Legend Blue Line • Franconia-Springfield / Largo Town Center in Service Map Hospital Under Construction Green Line • Branch Ave / Greenbelt Airport Full-Time Service wmata.com Yellow Line • Huntington / Fort Totten Customer Information Service: 202-637-7000 Connecting Rail Systems Rush-Only Service: Monday-Friday Silver Line • Wiehle-Reston East / Largo Town Center TTY Phone: 202-962-2033 6:30am - 9:00am 3:30pm - 6:00pm Metro Transit Police: 202-962-2121 Glenmont Wheaton Montgomery Co Prince George’s Co Shady Grove Forest Glen Rockville Silver Spring Twinbrook B30 to Greenbelt BWI White Flint Montgomery Co District of Columbia College Park-U of Md Grosvenor - Strathmore Georgia Ave-Petworth Takoma Prince George’s Plaza Medical Center West Hyattsville Bethesda Fort Totten Friendship Heights Tenleytown-AU Prince George’s Co Van Ness-UDC District of Columbia Cleveland Park Columbia Heights Woodley Park Zoo/Adams Morgan U St Brookland-CUA African-Amer Civil Dupont Circle War Mem’l/Cardozo Farragut North Shaw-Howard U Rhode Island Ave Brentwood Wiehle-Reston East Spring Hill McPherson Mt Vernon Sq NoMa-Gallaudet U New Carrollton Sq 7th St-Convention Center Greensboro Fairfax Co Landover Arlington Co Tysons Corner Gallery Place Union Station Chinatown Cheverly 5A to
    [Show full text]
  • New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment
    New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment May 2011 New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment Final Report Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Department of Planning and Joint Development Office of Station Area Planning and Asset Management May 2011 Lead Agency: Consultant: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Parsons Brinckerhoff Authority Dudley Whitney, AICP, Project Manager Station Area Planning and Asset Management 1401 K Street NW Steven E. Goldin, Director Suite 701 Robin McElhenny, Manager of Station Area Planning Washington, DC 20005 John Magarelli, PE, Project Manager 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Assessment of Existing Conditions ES-1 Future Bus Bay Requirements ES-3 Introduction 1 Existing Conditions 7 Station Characteristics 7 Rail Service 9 Bus Service 10 Assessment of Existing Conditions at New Carrollton Metro Station and Recommended Short-Term Improvements 15 Estimate of Future Bus Bay Requirements 25 Future Land-Use 26 Methodology 29 Bus Bay Requirements 30 Future Estimates 31 Appendix A: Calculation of Future Bus Bay Requirements 35 New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment List of Figures Figure ES-1: Passenger Queues on the East Side ES-2 Figure 1: New Carrollton Metrorail Station Surrounding Area 1 Figure 2: Overview of the New Carrollton Bus Bays 7 Figure 3: Overview
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Metropolitan Region Transportation Demand
    Item #3 [Type text] Page 1 FY15 Washington Reg. TDM Resource Guide & Strategic Mktg Plan Final Report 12-16-14 Page 2 FY15 Washington Reg. TDM Resource Guide & Strategic Mktg Plan Final Report 12-16-14 Page 3 BACKGROUND The Washington metropolitan region initiated its first formal transportation demand management efforts in the early 1970s with Commuter Club, which was established by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG), the General Services Administration, and the Greater Washington Board of Trade to provide basic ridematching for carpools and vanpools. In subsequent years, the program grew into a COG-coordinated network of local rideshare agencies, and in 1989, it became the Ride Finders Network which provided free information and computerized ride matching services to area residents seeking to join car or vanpools or locate appropriate transit arrangements and park-and-ride locations. In 1996, the regional network was renamed Commuter Connections. In 1997, Commuter Connections expanded its services to include regional telework assistance and resources, its first website, a regional Guaranteed Ride Home program, information on bicycling to work, InfoExpress commuter information kiosks, and free assistance to employers for the development and implementation of alternative commute programs and benefits. In 1998 Commuter Connections began to honor employers in the region through the Employer Recognition Awards program. In 2000, Commuter Connections rolled out Bike to Work Day as a regional entity, initially started as a DC based event by the Washington Area Bicyclist Association. In 2003, Commuter Connections expanded its marketing efforts through the implementation of a regional mass marketing measure. The purpose of the measure was to brand the Commuter Connections name as the umbrella organization for commuter transportation information in the Washington Metropolitan area and to subsequently increase the use of alternative forms of commuting.
    [Show full text]
  • MARC TRAIN SERVICE OVERVIEW Frederick Co
    MARC TRAIN SERVICE OVERVIEW Frederick Co. Transportation Services Advisory Council MARC Today .202 Route-miles of commuter rail services .46 locomotives and 177 commuter rail coaches .42 Stations, MD, DC & WV .96 Trains per weekday • 18 Brunswick Line (+ 1/Fri.) • 21 Camden Line • 57 Penn Line .18 Saturday, 12 Sunday .(Penn only) .Weekday passengers .~38,000 .Weekend passengers .~3,000-6,000 or more Andrea Farmer Dep. Chief Op. Officer – Contracted Services Dean Del Peschio Director Paul Brian Amos David Johnson Matt Mitchell Josh Wolf Krysowaty Chief Chief Budget and Contract Chief Facilities Mechanical Transportation Finance Compliance Officer Officer (Acting) Officer Manager Manager Katherine Read Asst. Chief Transportation Officer PENN LINEMARC Today Avg. Daily Boardings Maryland Department of Transportation. (2019). Marc Cornerstone Plan. Baltimore, MD. CAMDEN MARCLINE Today Avg. Daily Boardings Maryland Department of Transportation. (2019). Marc Cornerstone Plan. Baltimore, MD. MARC Today BRUNSWICK LINE Avg. Daily Boardings Maryland Department of Transportation. (2019). Marc Cornerstone Plan. Baltimore, MD. MARC Train 101 A Camden Unlike other commuter Line Train departs railroads, MARC is a “virtual Riverside Yard in the railroad” 1990’s. .MTA- MARC does not own any track, except for 3.2 mile Frederick Branch .MTA- MARC does not employee any train or mechanical crews .MTA- MARC does not dispatch or A Penn Line control any trains Train discharges passengers at Perryville .How is this possible? Station .Contracted Partners Linking 13 Great States, with the Nation History of MARC traces to the beginning of railroads in the United States, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (1830)… A B&O Train bound for Washington passes Relay, Maryland in the 1940’s The B&O railroads original station in Washington on New Jersey Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION from Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network
    Report CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION From Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network DECEMBER 2020 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXISTING REGIONAL RAIL NETWORK 10 THE VISION 26 BIDIRECTIONAL RUN-THROUGH SERVICE 28 EXPANDED SERVICE 29 SEAMLESS RIDER EXPERIENCE 30 SUPERIOR OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION 30 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 31 VISION ANALYSIS 32 IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS 47 KEY STAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION ROLES 48 NEXT STEPS 51 APPENDICES 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The decisions that we as a region make in the next five years will determine whether a more coordinated, integrated regional rail network continues as a viable possibility or remains a missed opportunity. The Capital Region’s economic and global Railway Express (VRE) and Amtrak—leaves us far from CAPITAL REGION RAIL NETWORK competitiveness hinges on the ability for residents of all incomes to have easy and Perryville Martinsburg reliable access to superb transit—a key factor Baltimore Frederick Penn Station in attracting and retaining talent pre- and Camden post-pandemic, as well as employers’ location Yards decisions. While expansive, the regional rail network represents an untapped resource. Washington The Capital Region Rail Vision charts a course Union Station to transform the regional rail network into a globally competitive asset that enables a more Broad Run / Airport inclusive and equitable region where all can be proud to live, work, grow a family and build a business. Spotsylvania to Richmond Main Street Station Relative to most domestic peer regions, our rail network is superior in terms of both distance covered and scope of service, with over 335 total miles of rail lines1 and more world-class service.
    [Show full text]