A MARC Brunswick line train.

Steve Eldridge’s recent Sprawl and Crawl op/ed makes the claim that low ridership on MARC’s Brunswick commuter rail line is reason to reconsider the usefulness of the Corridor Cities Transitway, the proposed light rail or BRT line running through west Gaithesburg.

BeyondDC felt the need to respond:

Steve,

Your recent op/ed concerning the MARC Brunswick line and its poor ridership as argument against the Corridor Cities Transitway was, respectfully, way off the mark. You understandably missed several important but difference-making subtleties.

1. The MARC Brunswick line and the Corridor Cities Transitway are totally different lines with totally different purposes serving totally different markets. Comparing them is an apples-to-oranges exercise. Using one as reason to build or not-build the other is like using a highway in Harper’s Ferry as an argument in a discussion about a local service road in Gaithersburg. In the interests of brevity I won’t point out every difference between a long-distance commuter rail line and a light rail line connecting nearby neighborhoods (there are many), but if those differences are not clear then please write back and I will be more than happy to clarify.

2. Even compared to other commuter rail lines (much less light rail), MARC’s Brunswick route provides very low frequency service. It runs a handful of trains into DC in the morning and a handful out in the evening. Some destinations are served by as few as two trains in the morning commute. This is because the track is owned by the freight rail lines, who will only allow a handful of passenger train runs per day, lest their freight services be affected. But regardless of the reason, Brunswick line’s infrequent service makes it totally unusable for anyone who doesn’t fit an extremely narrow niche of working hours. This is compared to the Penn line, which runs approximately three times as many daily trains – frequently enough for riders to schedule their day around their own needs and take whichever train is most convenient, rather than scheduling their day around one or two train options.

3. Most people who live in the 270 corridor work in the Shady Grove area, Bethesda, the Rockville Pike area, the northwest portion of downtown Washington, or Tysons Corner. MARC’s Brunswick line does not serve any of those locations. By comparison, in addition to its Union Station terminus, the VRE runs by the Pentagon, Crystal City, Alexandria and Springfield – most of the major employment destinations for people living south along I-395. This means that even compared to the VRE (never mind a light rail or Metro line), the pool of potential riders for MARC’s Brunswick route is quite small.

4. The stations being considered for closing, which you cite as proof of the Brunswick line’s failure, were/are being considered for closing because they are in extremely rural locations where few potential riders live, and are thus a detriment to the vast majority of riders, for whom trips take a longer time thanks to the extra and unnecessary stops. The removal of those stops would have made the service better, and was in absolutely no way related to the relative success or failure of the line as a whole to attract riders.

5. Metro’s Red line, which primarily serves the 270 corridor, is the most heavily ridden in the WMATA system. This fact clearly debunks your implied claim that riders in the 270 corridor are inherently less likely to use transit than their peers elsewhere in the region.

The fact of the matter is, the Brunswick line is a very poor excuse for a transit service. It is not well used because of specific shortcomings, not because transit is undesirable or riders in the 270 corridor are overly attached to their cars. The conclusions you have drawn are in opposition to the facts on the ground, and what you cite as proof belies either a willing bias against public transportation and a desire to make it look bad however possible, or an ignorance of the facts. In good faith I can only assume the latter, but either way your argument is invalid and does a disservice to the ongoing public discussion about transit’s place in the Washington region.

Sincerely,
BeyondDC.com

We feel the need to preemptively reassure readers that what you are about to read is actually true. We’re not making a belated April Fool’s joke. We’re not teasing you by linking to yet another in what has been a long succession of “almost” and “not quite” articles. The deal is done. Signed, sealed and delivered.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has a transportation funding agreement.

Really.

On Wednesday, April 4, both chambers of Virginia’s legislature accepted Governor Tim Kaine’s proposed bill amendments, capping years of disagreement in Richmond and so many news articles that BeyondDC long ago stopped covering most of them. The adopted package makes $600 million available in state-wide funding for transportation, gives Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads the ability to generate $440 million and $215 million each year for their own use, and provides a further $3 billion in bonds, to be paid back over time using money from an existing tax on car insurance premiums.

How the money is to be spent exactly remains to be seen, but the Commonwealth is pledging to give transit its fair share. The only remaining question is how many bad projects got funded as well (Tri County Parkway, anyone?)