Jump to content

Triangle Regional Transit


monsoon

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Wow, at least you've thought about it...

I thought HOV type lanes might factor in but what about the currently undeveloped corridors TTA has purchased? Weren't some of them "track free"? If so, since they have to be prepared for the LRT option, wouldn't paving them now for BRT be a cheaper option? Seems like you could get away with a secondary street level of quality at far less than laying track.

As far as being strategic, seems like BRT scales easier/cheaper than rail, at least initially. I see from various studies that the incremental cost of expanding rolling stock for LRT is quite low up to the carrying capacity of the track (the thrust being railcars, per passenger, are cheaper and last longer than buses) . Of course, you have to build the whole rail infrastructure before you deliver one passenger - and reap the benefit from this low cost of incremental improvement.

Is it settled that the LRT tech is electric-based? If not, wouldn't BRT offer more flexibity in choosing "greener" engines/fuels as they are developed.

BRT, then, might be a tactical approach to building out the greater system. I googled the TTA website - either they've made it hard to get at their BRT related research or not much has been done.

Some references:

http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agend...050912/10-1.pdf - Notes on that BRT conference I spoke of....

http://www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/...uaa-6-19-03.pdf - Airport Authority reference to some evaluations (which I haven't put my fingers on yet)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "$40 million for the fleet + station build out" plan *was* TTA's initial $100 million plan in 1996-97. It too thought "hey, the state/NCRR owns the rail, we can use it for free!" Until they found out they couldn't. Existing deals with freight operators gives them the power to determine who can use the rail and when. This "two thirds of the battle" held the TTA's plans back for years. But they spent the time reasonably well, starting work on the DMUs, scheduling, stations, etc.

To get the freigh operator's blessing/permission/whatever, construction costs went through the roof. TTA was willing to settle for the Kia, but the demands of the CSX, etc. made the rail Maseratti only. For whatever reason, NCRR declined to intervene on TTA's behalf.

Another pitfall of the inital low price tag was the low amount of money collected to fund it. TTA though a rental car tax and vehicle ownership fee would be enough to cover costs. Even the FTA at the time agreed. Fast forward a few years and now the FTA says the local funding isn't enough.

Amtrak can't or won't provide more service than the current once daily in each direction through the Triangle's corridor. Right now, they charge $5 for a ride on the Piedmont from Raleigh (departing at 7 am) to Durham for $5. The return trip costs $8 and departs at 4:50 pm. Riders would have to be at the station at 4:50 and pay $13 round trip. Riders also have to provide their own transportation to and from the stations.

Starting with a small scale system will provide real numbers the FTA will really laugh at on the existing corridor. Ridership numbers will be a slight bump above existing bus ridership, and the bump won't be big enough to justify a fraction of the costs involved.

Raleigh had its "humble beginnings" operation in the early part of the 20th century. The trolley network connected Hillsborugh Street, Glenwood Avenue, and other areas to downtown. If that system continued, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But the freedom and status symbol promised by automobile ownership, coupled with the mismanagment of existing systems, made rail transit bankrupt. Further proof that starting small does not guarantee future growth.

Is Cherokee a "giveaway"? No. They are taking on the risks of implementing the system. If it fails, they lose. They have more of an incentive to make rail work than TTA or any government entitiy. If Cherokee had the negotiation and eminent domain power the governement does, they might have been able to pull it off on their own.

I'm not plugged in, but to me, BRT won't work in the Triangle because of the R -- Rapid. There is no "rapid" way to bus people from Raleigh to RTP during the moring or afternoon commute. Building exclusive lanes puts construction costs close to rail. Operation costs per passenger would be higher. Lower income people, the folks most likely to ride the system, already think the $2 fare for non-express buses is expensive, to say nothing of $4. I don't see why/how buses can take advantage of greener fuels but trains could not.

Chapel Hill is pro-BRT because there is no rail in downtown Chapel Hill and no easy/cheap way to get it there. BRT is a better solution for them, but not the rest of the Triangle. Also, they already have a bus fleet and have demonstrated no desire to play nice with anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought HOV type lanes might factor in but what about the currently undeveloped corridors TTA has purchased? Weren't some of them "track free"? If so, since they have to be prepared for the LRT option, wouldn't paving them now for BRT be a cheaper option? Seems like you could get away with a secondary street level of quality at far less than laying track.

As far as being strategic, seems like BRT scales easier/cheaper than rail, at least initially. I see from various studies that the incremental cost of expanding rolling stock for LRT is quite low up to the carrying capacity of the track (the thrust being railcars, per passenger, are cheaper and last longer than buses) . Of course, you have to build the whole rail infrastructure before you deliver one passenger - and reap the benefit from this low cost of incremental improvement.

Is it settled that the LRT tech is electric-based? If not, wouldn't BRT offer more flexibity in choosing "greener" engines/fuels as they are developed.

BRT, then, might be a tactical approach to building out the greater system. I googled the TTA website - either they've made it hard to get at their BRT related research or not much has been done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought HOV type lanes might factor in but what about the currently undeveloped corridors TTA has purchased? Weren't some of them "track free"? If so, since they have to be prepared for the LRT option, wouldn't paving them now for BRT be a cheaper option? Seems like you could get away with a secondary street level of quality at far less than laying track.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chapel Hill is pro-BRT because there is no rail in downtown Chapel Hill and no easy/cheap way to get it there. BRT is a better solution for them, but not the rest of the Triangle. Also, they already have a bus fleet and have demonstrated no desire to play nice with anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... The current owner continues to own that property until such a date as TTA decides to develop the transit line, at which point the easement will be trasferred to TTA. Not sure if the owner is compensated for the transit R-O-W or not. If the property remains undeveloped, then the right-of-way will be taken, whether through negotiated purchase or through condemnation and eminent domain. This is similar to the case where a developer building a subdivision in the future path of a highway is required to leave space for the highway. (This is my understanding of how it works - if I'm wrong, correct me!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. I see.

So, for example, if a developer requests a rezoning, the board (county commission, city council, planning board) hearing the request could make it a condition of the rezoning request that the developer dedicate & donate the right-of-way for the transit line as well as for the roads in their development. But barring a zoning change, the property owner can build whatever they were previously allowed to build. Makes sense.

I'm pretty sure that TTA has indeed been granted the power of eminent domain, in much the same way as the state legislature granted the North Carolina Railroad Company the same power back in the 1850s when the NCRR corridor was first assembled. The alignment must first be approved by the government; after that, the railroads could force property owners to sell. It would be nigh impossible for any entity, public or private, to assemble a transportation corridor over privately-owned property without said power of ED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barring the donation of the easement to the govermnent, the owner would be owed compensation for the loss of the land if there is no present easement there. In addition, until an easement is put in force on the deed, he is free to sell it to a developer who is free to develop it as they choose and the local governments can't stop it unless the owners ask for a rezoning.

The goverment can't use the power of eminent domain until the govenment makes an offer to buy the property and the owner turns it down. It's not clear to me the TTA even has this kind of authority under NC Law.

What this really means is this land is not protected from development that would stop rail unless they are going to go ahead and purchase the ROW and/or the local municipality is on board with these plans and chooses to reserve the easement through their zoning authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest difference between the NCDOT and the TTA is that in the DOT's case, they have a much easier time getting funding in place that allows them to move to take over property. It's a question of credibility and funding and if the TTA tried to stop the developer from developing his land as long as it met current zoning requirements, I think it would be almost impossible for them to stop it. A case could be made in court for them to buy the land at market prices or back off. Given that the TTA can't give dates for building that line or even if it will be built, they would most likely lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Again, the big trump card that most local govts can use is development ordinances that require ROW reservation for trnsportation corridors. It take all of the legal and other guess work our of the equation. Either the prperty owner dedicates the ROW or he can't develop it, plain and simple.

I guess the difference in a TTA case would be local govts like Chapel hill and Raleigh would be the acting governing body for land in the corridor, versus say in CATS case, they are already part of the Govt of the City of Charlotte. Slight difference, but it can work equally effectively.

Either way, sa was mentioned above, 99% of the TTA Phase I corridor is already owned by the State of NC, via the NCRR Company, which as vitaviatic said, is a gift from the transit gods.

Bob Geary's (Indy's) latest on transit planning...

Since he [TTA Chief David King] took the job, he says, he's been moving around, talking to local elected officials in our many, many jurisdictions, and to business folk, too. He expected to find many rejoicing at the TTA's comeuppance. No such thing. With the single exception of Wake County Commissioner Paul Coble, who told him he'd bury the TTA if he could, they all realize that the region can't grow without transit, even if they doubted the wisdom of "the TTA project."

Which was the project's other problem, in King's view. It was so ambitious, and thus took so long to push through the federal funding hoops, that it was easy for local officialdom to forget that it was their project, and the TTA their creation (or their predecessors'.)

...

The rail corridor's still a candidate. But maybe, instead of start-up service from Raleigh-to-Durham, the cars could start in Raleigh or in Durham and, instead of frequent, daylong trains on their own set of tracks, they could run-at the start-on the freight lines' tracks, with less-frequent service and the freight lines, Norfolk Southern and CSX, paid to run them.

The main challenge for the committee, King says, is to think regionally, not parochially, and while imagining a fully developed regional transit system, come together on a plan to get it started somewhere specific and soon.

Soon? That means five years from now.

I guess vitaviatic's idea is gaining some steam, huh? I absolutely do not like the idea of having to wait 5 years though. I'm sure there's a way to execute a cheap starter plan within a couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "$40 million for the fleet + station build out" plan *was* TTA's initial $100 million plan in 1996-97.  It too thought "hey, the state/NCRR owns the rail, we can use it for free!"  Until they found out they couldn't.  Existing deals with freight operators gives them the power to determine who can use the rail and when.  This "two thirds of the battle" held the TTA's plans back for years.  But they spent the time reasonably well, starting work on the DMUs, scheduling, stations, etc.


To get the freight operator's blessing/permission/whatever, construction costs went through the roof.  TTA was willing to settle for the Kia, but the demands of the CSX, etc. made the rail Maseratti only.  For whatever reason, NCRR declined to intervene on TTA's behalf...

I'm not privvy to the exact proposals or claims that TTA originally made, nor would it be worth my time at this point to even care. No one here is even suggesting that TTA would use the corridor for free. However, among the last of the packages submitted to FTA for approval was, correct me if I'm wrong, around $300 million in subsidy from the state for the plan. If this same amount were incorporated into the plant improvements needed for TTA (and HSR), then it would take the anvil off of TTA's back (assuming that TTA remains the transit player for commuter rail in the Triangle), and put state investment into state property, which is more logical than the "giveaway" strategy proposed earlier. Once the system is in place, reasonable user fees for TTA could certainly be implemented to offset maintenance costs and such.

Now, whether CSX will allow the state of North Carolina to accomodate TTA (I'm laughing as I write this), that's another problem that would have to be solved or it kills the deal anyway. That CSX would "demand" exhorbitant improvements or restrictions on somebody else's property for its "approval" is the stuff of railroad lore. But frankly, I see it as a power play. CSX doesn't have a large enough interest in this corridor to risk facing possible political brass knuckles being carried down to Jacksonville. Long-term, the entire NCRR corridor, with the possible exception of the Selma-Morehead City segment, is way more valuable as a transit corridor than for freight. The problem is that no local, state, or federal politician has really bothered to carry this project on his or her back to date -- probably, and understandably, because of its lame strategic planning and financial structure. Once a new strategy is come by, this will have to change as well.

So, if CSX does manage to stop the world, the flagship could always start in North Raleigh. I don't think the numbers would be as great up there, and the development possibilities are a bit more limited because of the already built-out landscape. But this one is dicier because of the track rehab that would be required, and the fact that only two local entities might be involved -- Raleigh and Wake County -- thus your assistance level from the Feds goes down by eliminating Cary, RTP, Durham, and Durham County (big population change there).

If one is referencing the NCRR corridor, forget LRT altogether. You need a 25-foot buffer between light-rail and heavy rail (freight) in order to be FRA compliant. Orlando's LYNX project was killed by this requirement. It's FRA-compliant DMU, a traditional locomotive-coach configuration, or nothing. If one really believes that LRT is the answer (and I don't), then US-70 is the only choice for that. Good luck. And most of the action is down in Cary, Morrisville, and RTP. It will continue to be because the interstate is there. I still don't think 70 makes sense.

70 is also the only logical choice for a BRT system. But, once flyovers and other improvements are made to elminate grade conflicts and cross-traffic, the cost becomes substantial. Part of that could get written into NCDOT's budget, with the legal advantages that entails, but I think all of us realize that NCDOT has much bigger things to do, and not enough money to do them. A shared project budget between TTA and NCDOT is possible, but not likely for that kind of thing. My biggest concern would be that if TTA commits itself to BRT, it will commit itself pretty much long-term to it, and later choices will be difficult to come by.

Back to CSX for a moment. CSX already operates the NCRR corridor, and performs all dispatching and maintenance functions therein. If what CSX is seeking is extra money to pay for upgraded dispatching and maintenance functions, I don't think that unreasonable at all. I do think however, that if as I said, plans were made to utilize the entire Piedmont trackage, including Charlotte, the Triad, and the Triangle, I think at that point you have the operational volume there to justify: 1) bringing the management of the Piedmont under direct state control, subbing the crew operations out to Amtrak; 2) NCRR or maybe NCDOT directly taking over track management functions (dispatching and maintenance) for all NCRR rail operations statewide, passenger and freight; 3) eliminating the need for CSX to provide these functions, while at the same time allowing them operating rights over the territory. This type of arrangement is not unprecendented. SCRRA/Metrolink bought up several Southern Pacific corridors in the LA Basin, took over the dispatching and maintenance functions (some of it subbed out), and UP still operates significant local traffic in the area. Furthermore, the state can come by supplemental fed funding for the corridor through the HSR initiatives. If substantial money is already being spent at the state level to improve what will eventually be the HSR route through NC, then I would place strong bets that federal money would piggyback upon that -- no matter what the initial use would be, as long as HSR were planned into it. That way you separate the fed funding away from the relatively small TTA and to the state of North Carolina, with more clout and more security built into the financing, but with TTA receiving essentially the same benefit as it would have had before -- use of the NCRR. And, with HSR in the mix, CSX is far less likely to play spoiler, if indeed that was its intention in the first place.

At this point in time, the first thing would be to figure out who's driving the car, whether it's a Kia or a Maseratti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one is referencing the NCRR corridor, forget LRT altogether. You need a 25-foot buffer between light-rail and heavy rail (freight) in order to be FRA compliant. Orlando's LYNX project was killed by this requirement. It's FRA-compliant DMU, a traditional locomotive-coach configuration, or nothing. If one really believes that LRT is the answer (and I don't), then US-70 is the only choice for that. Good luck. And most of the action is down in Cary, Morrisville, and RTP. It will continue to be because the interstate is there. I still don't think 70 makes sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that when I was in Japan, which has an extremely busy train system, freight trains would share the same tracks as passenger rails and we would even see freight being pulled right through the train stations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the main issue with LRT is the 25-foot buffer, is it possible to avoid that complication by elevating the tracks?

Considering the amount of money that is required for the various possibilities, would it really be so much worse to go this route? What are the regulatory implications of elevating the tracks? Maybe elevating the tracks in some areas and not in others (where it's possible to get that 25-foot buffer)?

Elevated tracks might even make construction of a monorail a real possibility - and presumably that's attractive when you consider how much noise we would otherwise be talking about. It's also faster, and has that "modern" feel to it.

In addition, would it not open up the system to a wider variety of routes? Right now we're limited to a rail corridor that already exists. But if we start talking about building a whole new ROW that's elevated, then those limitations are thrown out the window.

Food for thought (if unrealistic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the main issue with LRT is the 25-foot buffer, is it possible to avoid that complication by elevating the tracks?

Considering the amount of money that is required for the various possibilities, would it really be so much worse to go this route? What are the regulatory implications of elevating the tracks? Maybe elevating the tracks in some areas and not in others (where it's possible to get that 25-foot buffer)?

Elevated tracks might even make construction of a monorail a real possibility - and presumably that's attractive when you consider how much noise we would otherwise be talking about. It's also faster, and has that "modern" feel to it.

In addition, would it not open up the system to a wider variety of routes? Right now we're limited to a rail corridor that already exists. But if we start talking about building a whole new ROW that's elevated, then those limitations are thrown out the window.

Food for thought (if unrealistic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do any of the freight trains actually stop within the segments of track that the TTA wants to use?

If not, then perhaps a lot of the difficulties you're describing could be avoided altogether by building some new tracks around the city for those freight trains. Expensive, yes, but perhaps worth the cost to avoid these other headaches. Might even get the track owners to agree if it allows them to modernize and thereby increase the speed of their trains through the area.

Once again, though, an extremely unlikely idea....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just dig a big ole hole, insert premade tunnel sections, and bury the existing tracks. This then frees up the land above for commercial use. Really you only need to bury the western line section running from South Boylan, tunnel under Morgan, and then to West Morgan. The other lines running from Boylan to Morgan are far enough east that they wouldn't really be a bother to developers.

Doing this would free pretty much the entire block enclosed by Boylan, Hargett, Morgan, and the eastern track lines.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&...mp;t=h&om=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freight trains in Japan are much shorter and much lighter than trains in the US, and they're electrically powered as well. The trains can stop and start much more easily than trains in the US because of the lower weight and greater power. In addition, freights in Japan run on a schedule. As in, depart the yard at 15:30:30; stop at station X from 15:55:15 to 15:59:00 while passenger trains pass; take siding Y at 16:20:30.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do any of the freight trains actually stop within the segments of track that the TTA wants to use?

If not, then perhaps a lot of the difficulties you're describing could be avoided altogether by building some new tracks around the city for those freight trains. Expensive, yes, but perhaps worth the cost to avoid these other headaches. Might even get the track owners to agree if it allows them to modernize and thereby increase the speed of their trains through the area.

Once again, though, an extremely unlikely idea....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it's quite a bit more complicated than that. Not sure if it affects your argument, but:

CSX maintains ONE of the TWO tracks between Boylan (Raleigh) and Fetner (Cary).

CSX dispatches BOTH tracks between Boylan and Fetner.

Norfolk Southern maintains all tracks from Charlotte to Fetner, one track from Fetner to Boylan, and all tracks from Boylan to Morehead City.

Norfolk Southern dispatches the NCRR corridor from Charlotte to Fetner and from Boylan to Morehead City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant to say that CSX dispatches the Triangle segment of NCRR (but I am to understand that the division split is somewhere around RTP or Durham? Wow! That would definitely have to be solved before any kind of transit scheme gets done on the NCRR. If the NCRR were to take over dispatching its own road, agreeing to operate it without prejudice, I doubt either NS or CSX would have that much of a problem with it. I don't see that much conflictory traffic in the first place between the two. I can't imagine where NCRR has made an irrevocable lease agreement whereby dispatching and maintenance functions can't be modified at the pleasure of the owner. If so, the legislature needs to get involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone provide an example of another area that has, or is building, a non-centralized system around mostly non-urban areas such as the one TTA and many forumers trumpet?

Not sure how this would compare, but looking through the Wikipedia's Dallas Area Rapid Transit page I found it interesting that there was 160 miles (!) of rail in the original plan. Makes DRAT (Durham-Raleigh-Area-Transit) look like peanuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.