I scoured through it 2 weeks ago. It is a very telling document.

Nate
TRAC
(The views expressed here do not necessarily represent TRAC.)

The Red Line and 4C form the cornerstone for an integrated regional transit system. If we want to stop being DC poor relation we have to stop thinking and acting like it.

There are better options than anything seen with Red Line planning, but at this point, I'm a convert. Let's just get the freaking thing built so I can go visit my friends in Canton.

How about we fix the roads, underground water pipes, killings, and other still open issues before we tackle transportation and before we look at spending millions on something that the government will need to continue to subsidize. If the government subsidize's it, it will come out of yours and my taxes. Heck, maybe we'll get 7% sales tax in Maryland, wouldn't that be great!

Heavy rail

The comments largely seem to be a response to what was given to them,
hence
most didn't mention heavy rail. Unfortunately, as much as we've (TRAC) tried, most
people who aren't transit advocates or enthusiasts don't understand or
recognize the differences between rail modes, but most understand the
difference between street-surface and tunnel.

My take:

--those supporting Alt 4C are large institutions or regional
businesses/business groups; or they are located outside the corridor or
are
located in the corridor where the route is grade-seperated, or otherwise
congruent with Alt 4D (the “maximum tunnel” alt). The ONLY exceptions that I have found to this are
First Mariner/Ed Hale: he obviously has a large development stake in Canton;
and a BDC (read: City) incubator also in Canton.

--I don't consider wanting the project in tunnel to be NIMBY. Not
wanting
it at all would be. Many of those communities have stated this since the
beginning of the project in 2003. There are NO community groups who
suppport 4C where the route is not congruent with 4D. An outlying opinion: the Westgate
community near, though not on, the western section of the alignment
endorsed the all-surface
4A.

--Even Fells Point businesses/residents who support 4C or simply an area
tunnel want the alignment under Fleet or Eastern instead of Aliceanna
St.
If the intent is to arrive on Boston St and come to the surface as in 4C, I'm not
certain that such an alignment can even be engineered without an
extremely
sharp cut-and-cover turn and possible demolition of some structures near
the Boston St/Fleet intersection/merge area.

--Essentially, the GBC promoted fellow businesses to endorse 4C, the businesses
often
did, where the businesses' address got the tunnel and where the project was not
different than 4D.

There seems to be very little anti-transit sentiment here. If this were
a
Metro system proposal, we'd have great community support. It's not like
the
old days, 20+ years ago.

Where the elevations of 4C and 4D are different, there is strong opposition; where the elevations are the same (in tunnel) many supported 4C. The summary results, if
accurately presented by the MTA, are quite clear.

Nate Payer
TRAC
(The views expressed here are not necessarily those of TRAC)

Phillip,

We subsidize roads, which lead to congestion and health problems for those dealing with vehicle emissions. The gas tax pays for only a small sliver of road useage. Transit is necessary and the way of the future. Yes the Red Line is flawed, but something like it is absolutely vital for economic development in the city, which, in turn, might help solve the problems you speak of.

Not investing in public transportation would be the nail in the coffin for the city.

I really don't see how they can make the portal around the Fleet/Boston/Aliceanna area without impacting the whole intersection. The best bet might be to keep it underground a bit further. If MTA really want this to be "rapid" transit, the line needs to be able to move people faster. The only option is putting it mostly underground.

chris,

A alternative retained for study, but not part of the specifically labeled "end to end" alternatives, was a variation of the east side where the tunnel was extended to about Montford Ave. This is about 0.3 miles. (FWIW, Alternative 4C has 3.3 miles tunnel.)

This variation has the result of tunneling directly beneath the recent houses on water side of Boston St. However, I believe the tunnel is about 80 below street level at that point and then sharply rises (I mean very sharply) to the surface on Boston St.

Tunneling beneath houses is not a problem per se. The existing Metro tunnels beneath houses on a diagonal path across W. Baltimore between Upton Station and State Center Stn. Here the tunnel is deep and the houses on solid ground. Heavy rail alternatives TRAC has presented sought to avoid potential problem tunnel locations, and therefore mid-block tunnels are few.

In Little Italy the tunnels the MTA proposed cut directly beneath about 2 blocks of houses on Albemarle St, coming to within 50 ft of the surface. This area is not so solid and the houses very old with more primitive architectural construction. I've heard some are only 1 brick thick. This is a point most would only know if they examined the tunnel plans from the DEIS. Most of the basic maps show the tunnel under President St, but it's not. Tunneling boring technology can't cut a turn that tight off of Lombard St.

Back to Boston St: I've heard that because of a river below ground between the current portal location and Canton Crossing, a proposed tunnel would have to come up as I described above or basically continue through to Canton Crossing.

Nate Payer
TRAC
(The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of TRAC)

Everyone who supports 4C and many who don't (people against surface in Edmondson and Canton) would clearly support heavy rail as it would be tunneled, its faster and will attract more riders. MTA can't honestly think this isn't the alternative most people want. However, we also know it wouldn't be built due to the Feds wanting slow public transit and wondering why its not heavily used. Heavy Rail = Heavy Use, Light Rail = Light use.
Everyone preferes a tunnel, we all know this, it has AC and Heat and you don't get wet from the rain. The excuse for cover MTA currently has at light rail stations does little to help you from getting wet.
Clearly, light rail wil never get as heavy use as heavy rail does; however, do small things fo rus, give us decent cover at stations, have signs for when the next train is arriving. This will improve the experience and get more people to ride once they see how nice it is going to O's and Ravens games.