Mike- there's a huge hole in your logic here. You say Della's letter "glides over the most obvious problem -- that a tunnel all the way through Canton would have pushed the project over the limit for federal funding."

That presumes that it SHOULD be funded, no matter what.

You say Della only endorses a "gold-plated Red Line that couldn't be built." Does that mean we should fund a rust-plated one that can be built? Why spend vast dollars on a crappy system?

Don't look now Mike, but your bias is showing.

Somebody needs to tell Senator Della that the number of people in the 46th District who support this project outnumber the NIMBY's in Canton.

Even though I'm a Democrat, I voted for Della's Republican opponent in 2006 and I will do so again in 2010 if he is the nominee. Della is a relic of the old East Baltimore political machine who doesn't do what's in the best interests of his constituents. He's also a bully- just ask the person who had the audacity to run for the House of Delegates against Della's three hand picked nominees in 2006.

Marty,

We know that cost overruns are par for the course. And this sort-of-boondoggle Red Line will certainly have it's share of that.

There is no way to sell it to the feds with tunnels in Canton. Period. The MTA was just working with what they had, even if flawed.

Nobody is getting beautiful buried heavy rail. Get with the program--we aren't in the 70s anymore. I wish we were, but we aren't.

I don't like this proposal at all. But it's what has been chosen, and I don't think any of the Canton arguments are valid against it. Yes, we could do better. No, none of the reasons argued Canton are worthwhile.

But that's just my 29 cents.

Jed,

All the reasons Canton lists are valid. Some are more significant and serious than others.

You're right in that, at least in the near term, the feds won't be sold on tunnel in Canton or SW Balto. However, Alt 4C is a boondoggle.

This whole mentality that we've come this far and have to continue with a white elephant is succumbing to sunk cost fallacy.

If we go back with a supplemental AA, yeah were going to lose 18-24 months. So what? The City will make it. It's better to get have open process and build good faith than to ram through something, alienate thousands, and make the Red Line look like the pork it now is. We could extend the Metro to Bayview/Greektown, Travel Plaza/I-95, and then to Dundulk. This might only cost $1 billion--but it's the lowest-hanging fruit we've got for cost-effectiveness. There's less than 1 mile of tunneling with that.

As a follow-up project we can build the westside to and extend the eastside to Middle River with less than 3.5 miles of tunnel. There's no salvaging the LPA, but we might be able to salvage the Red Line if we can shake-off preconceived notions of the project.

Nate Payer
TRAC

I agree with Jed. I think Canton's arguments are silly.
I went to Boston University with trains going right through the middle of the street, and they do quite well. I rode them every day, but how often can I ride mass transit in Baltimore? It sucks.
Canton residents may love to drive their cars everywhere, but not me.

Rich,

The Red Line will not be like Boston at all. (I repeat myself to inform newer visitors, please pardon my seemingly repetitive nature here...)

Boston's system was built in concert with the local development on wide boulevards. The Green Line LRT system currently has 4 legs. The Riverside branch operates on an exclusive right-of-way before it feeds into the trunk tunnel. This was added most recently in the 1950's. Two of the other 3 lines are on roads MUCH wider than Edmondson Ave. I think Commonwealth is over 100 feet wide. The remaining (Heath St, I think) is narrow in some places than Boston St, but operates in shared lanes.

The biggest point is that the Green Line operated in a purely "streetcar-style" operation--becasue it IS a streetcar. It simply has its own streetcar tunnel downtown. This system doesn't have signal priority or preemption or any of the traffic impacts that would be forced on Edmondson Ave or Boston St. The Green Line system is slow as molasses. Its average operating speed is 6 to 10 mph at rush hour on the on street segments. It doesn't have the negative environmental impacts (or safety impacts) because it's not trying to be rapid transit outside the tunnel, whereas the Red Line is trying to do that.

We can't build a Boston-style systems for at least a few reasons. But one reason is that these federal New Starts projects are about improving mobility--and that means saving time. The Feds don't want to spend tax dollars from across the nation on a cosmetic change for one area, and rightly so.

Attempting to build modern LRT down Edmondson Ave and Boston St WILL create a divided highway scenario. And frankly, it just doesn't help current transit riders that much either. It won't save much time, and many might lose time with their connecting buses stuck in traffic induced by the lanes reductions necessitated by the Red Line. The origin and destination pairing are also weak as validated by the ridership boardings of the official rail alternatives against the Southeast "Bob Keith" alternative. Sorry, no silly arguments to be found.

We can do this so much better and in some respects, cheaper by the scenario described above, amongst others.

Nate Payer
TRAC

I can't believe anyone would be so foolish as to oppose the Red Line. Baltimore is so desperately behind in expanding its rail system. This is our big chance.

I am tired of all these opponents who wallow in their own selfish negativity and who don't believe in Baltimore's future. How can they even look at themselves in the mirror every morning?

Thank God for the Red Line decision!