Baltimore Red Line alternatives all come up short | READER COMMENTARY

While I support expanding transit in Baltimore, the current Red Line alternatives will probably not offer the long-term solution to Baltimore’s transit challenges. The proposal has basically three alternatives and all are pretty bad and will likely not stand the test of time (“Dan Rodricks: Hogan, Alsobrooks and the politics of Red Line revival,” June 14).

Alternates 1 and 3 put light rail in a tunnel under Pratt Street right next to the harbor. Such a route will likely have challenges and cost overruns during construction. It is the fastest of the alternatives, but since the plan uses light rail cars it will have limited capacity, and since it uses tunnels it will have few stations. The map shows it ending near Fells Point. If the tunnel has expensive leaking problems once constructed or if it has the sort of cost overruns that a tunnel going through a site that was originally swamp, then the city and its taxpayers will really regret this option. It can be done, but it will be gambling with the taxpayer’s money.

Alternates 2A and 4A use a surface route through downtown, possibly with a tunnel on the west side. This is the least expensive solution. But for people familiar with these roads adding Bus Rapid Transit or BRT means either losing a lane of traffic or having the bus not be “rapid” at all — just another bus route in a city full of bus routes that are slower than a kid on a scooter or skateboard can travel during peak travel times. And since it will clog already clogged streets, there will be lots of unhappy people.

Alternates 2B and 4B are similar to 2A and 4A. Using light rail instead of buses could make for slightly higher speed and capacity, but can also lead to clogging some of the city’s most congested roads. I suspect that any of the surface options will be abandoned within 20 years unless someone invents inexpensive flying cars.

The original Red Line plan expanded the subway system under Baltimore Street. It added a branch splitting off to the southeast past downtown and a branch headed west to make an X layout. That would allow the current subway riders to have a choice of destinations and get there fairly quickly. As a true subway rather than a light rail car in a tunnel, it would have much more capacity. And since there already is a maintenance facility on the subway line would not need another one.

Such an option would be far more expensive since subway cars are more expensive than light rail cars and it would disrupt the subway system during construction. But such a system would likely be far more enduring than a plan to mess up traffic or build right next to water.

— William Hettchen, Ellicott City

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.