BWI to be rebuilt/reconfigured

[Jeff Smith]

Federal Railroad Administration

FRA Gives Green Light to Rebuild BWI Rail Station, Increase Service and Reliability

04 FEB 2016
PRESS RELEASE NUMBER: 03-16
CONTACT: FRA Public Affairs
PHONE: 202-493-6024
SUBJECT: Environmental Protection, High-Speed Passenger Rail
ABSTRACT: Completed environmental review allows Maryland to secure funds for final design and construction

WASHINGTON – The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the new Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI) rail station. The project includes adding a fourth track to nine miles of the Northeast Corridor surrounding BWI and reconfiguring the platforms to allow boarding from all four tracks.

“The current rail station and infrastructure at BWI was built more than 30 years ago and does not support today’s needs or the region’s expected growth,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “The completion of the environmental review for this project brings BWI one step closer to a safer rail station, reduced rail congestion and increased reliability.”

Beyond Traffic, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s draft framework for the future, projects a population growth of 70 million more Americans over the next 30 years. The Northeast megaregion, which includes the area of Baltimore, among others, is projected to add an additional 18.4 million people during this time, a 35.2 percent growth from 2010.

FRA completed the environmental assessment and preliminary engineering, which will allow final design and then construction to begin. Funding for final design and construction has not yet been identified.

Both Amtrak and Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) trains provide passenger rail service at the station, which has seen increased ridership by daily commuters and airline passengers. The station is Amtrak’s thirteenth busiest station in the country.

Currently, there are only three tracks between the Grove Interlocking to the south near Odenton, Md. and the Winans Interlocking to the north near Halethorpe, Md. The addition of a fourth track would increase rail capacity and reliability.

“A new BWI rail station will allow both airline and rail passengers to get to their destinations safely, reliably and efficiently,” said FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg. “Today’s announcement is a significant step toward achieving that goal.”

In Fiscal Year 2010, FRA awarded a $9.4 million High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to the Maryland Department of Transportation to fund the environmental analysis and conduct preliminary engineering work.

[gprimr1]

Meanwhile the B&P tunnels will collapse and the new station will only serve DC.

[Gilbert B Norman]

Lest we forget Mr. Primrose, voters "see", and pols get photo ops, at a site such as BWI; not the case with B&P tunnels (same for North River; same for all too many rail unrelated infrastructure projects).

[electricron]

Lest we forget Mr. Primrose, voters "see", and pols get photo ops, at a site such as BWI; not the case with B&P tunnels (same for North River; same for all too many rail unrelated infrastructure projects).

And improvements to be the BWI station will be far less than either of the $Multi-Billion$ tunnel projects.
The much smaller cost will be view by most taxpayers as more cost effective.

[Gilbert B Norman]

Ron et al, I don't claim to know the answer to this one, but how say we think back to the major infrastructure projects of both the Depression era as well as the '50's, and just how concerned were they about visibility.

We are sort of looking at "cost-benefit" v. "cost-visibility".

[YamaOfParadise]

Well, this admittedly will help operations; at least the B&P project is moving along (albeit at the steady bureaucratic rate).

[Woody]

Well, this admittedly will help operations; at least the B&P project is moving along (albeit at the steady bureaucratic rate).

Yes. The whole dayum NEC rebuild seems pretty steady, actually, just too damn slow. It puts me in mind of Obama's rueful observation some months after ARRA was passed, "There weren't any shovel-ready projects."

By the time the Baltimore or Hudson Tunnels get to their Finding of No Significant Impact, we could be in another decade. Then this lousy 9 miles of fourth track and the additional use of the boarding platforms etc. will be finished and forgotten. Meanwhile, it could help things a bit.

Oh, yeah. I'm agreeing with Mr Norman, the Congressional sun will shine on this project. It has to do with an airport, for heaven's sake, almost sacred ground to those who hate rail. It's small enuff that the CongressCritters can hope that the more extreme haters don't notice it. But it's big enuff that when constituents say, "Why don't you do something about speeding up the trains?" the Critters can point to this project.

Anyway, it doesn't seem like they chose this project over another bigger, better, or more ready one, so there's no harm in doing it. Not even the Portal Bridge, which I believe has the paperwork in order, is really ready to go, barring a sudden need to spend Stimulus money again (and that could happen). So meanwhile improve the BWI station and 9 miles of the NEC.

[Jeff Smith]

Vis-à-vis the stimulus, $800 or so Billion we could have had a couple dozen or so NEC futures. Certainly they should have found enough for a "State of Good Repair". Or we could have had HSR on the entire east coast.

No one can blame that on the GOP.

Anyway, regarding the EIS, I believe for Gateway they're using the NJ ARC EIS as a baseline, so most of the work won't have to be repeated. No idea on the B&P tunnels.

I used the BWI station in the distant past (late 90's). It seems to me a better plan for adding a fourth track would be to leave one side platform, and add an island platform. Three tracks would platform; one would be freight/Acela.

[strench707]

It seems to me a better plan for adding a fourth track would be to leave one side platform, and add an island platform. Three tracks would platform; one would be freight/Acela.

I say just do it up right with platform access to all 4 tracks. Many Acelas stop at BWI and the ones that don't can speed by next to a platform no problem.

Freight should be almost a non-factor. All this track sees is a nighttime NS Local that serves a very small and quickly evaporating customer base. Put in one gauntlet if necessary but they likely wouldn't even need that. They removed the gauntlet at New Carrollton and freight occasionally will have to run Track 2 and they haven't had an issue using the straight-rail.

Davis

[STrRedWolf]

If you read the EIS off MTA Maryland's project page, this is exactly what they're doing: Four tracks, platform access to all four. It was well known that having northbound trains switch tracks at Grove to serve BWI was a real pain in the transmission. It was why before Halethorpe got the high platforms that track A (as it's called there, the most eastward track) was only lightly used, and usually by MARC trains that were stopping. Having the high platform and making MARC trains switch off of track 1 helped Amtrak trains get by.

If you want to know the plan on doing the widening, let me summarize Appendix C of the EIS (using the same track naming as by Halethorpe, track 3 most western track to most eastern track A):

• Build a new station house north of the existing one, moving buses to the north side of the garages and taxis to between the garages.
• Build a new bridge to the north of the existing bridge, with entryways for two new platforms, a permanent stair/elevator on track 3's existing platform, and half of the new Track A platform with it's stair/elevator.
• Demolish the old station building.
• Build the new track A with proper drainage and such between existing Track 1 platform and the old station house. Bridge the track for access to the old platform until done.
• Place Track A and it's platform in service. Demolish the old Track 1 platform.
• Move Track 1 over next to Track A.
• Build the new Track 1/Track 2 platform, elevator, and stairway.
• Rename the tracks west to east as Track 4 to 1, between Grove and Bridge.
• Open the new platform for service.

[STrRedWolf]

(On a minor note, stretching four-tracking down to BOWIE will mean some minor reconstruction to Odenton and Bowie State stations. Odenton's northbound platform will need to move back a good train car width and change, but won't need any tunnel alterations. It'll be considerably cheaper than Bowie State, which will require extending the tunnel to handle the extra track.)

[scratchy]

[*]Place Track A and it's platform in service. Demolish the old Track 1 platform.

Is this the Track 1 platform they just finished rebuilding?

[STrRedWolf]

[*]Place Track A and it's platform in service. Demolish the old Track 1 platform.

Is this the Track 1 platform they just finished rebuilding?

Within the past five years, yes!

[TheOneKEA]

This will be Avery welcome improvement at BWI and it will certainly be a great first step towards a four-track NEC between LANDOVER and FULTON. However, the full scope of this improvement won't be realized until the condition of Track A north of Halethorpe is improved back to its original line speed of 80mph.

Are there any diagrams available that show the changes that will be made to GROVE and the realignments of the existing three tracks? This area of the NEC has the tracks move around the formation with varying widths and I am curious to know which tracks will be slewed and in which direction to provide the space for the fourth track. Also, I am interested in how much expansion will be needed at Loudon Ave Sub and Severn Sub to provide the necessary catenary connectivity for the interlocking and the track.

Finally, it bugs me slightly that the tracks will be labeled 3-2-1-A instead of 4-3-2-1. Was any track south of FULTON ever labeled as Track 4?

[strench707]

...However, the full scope of this improvement won't be realized until the condition of Track A north of Halethorpe is improved back to its original line speed of 80mph.

I was also wondering if work on Track A north of the new 4th main was a part of this project. I would suspect they would have mentioned that in the project outline but maybe since it would be an upgrade of existing track infrastructure, there would be no need and/or it come from a different budget.

Davis