CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[dubone]

BRT was non-viable first causing them to redo how they were building the Albemarle to Idlewild section.   It was studied for a report, and ultimately they opted to stop building the protect transit corridor, put the jersey barrier in the middle.  

http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US74WideningImprovements/download/EnglishBoardsFinal.pdf

 

 

At the time, the leadership didn't have the appetite to bother with creating any momentum around the alternatives, they just wanted to not have to design Independence to support the plan, so that is what they did.

 

 

The consultants pitched streetcar along Monroe Road, which is far better for TOD-support than the parcels that face Independence.   

 

 

 

Plus almost no one likes BRT except policymakers trying to build crap for cheap.     HOT lanes will support fast express buses from Matthews, Mint Hill, Monroe, etc, so it does a better job at bringing exurban commuters into town than one with ridiculous stations in the middle of an expressway.      The HOT lanes are needed to fund the second half of 74 any time this decade anyway, so BRT would be waiting for decades anyway.  

[orulz]

I think the powerline easement is a great plan, and noticed when I looked at it again.   Also the area west of Park Road is not actually that wealthy of neighborhoods, so it would not likely have the level of NIMBYism you could expect elsewhere.   

 

We don't have room for anything unless we make it.  The whole idea that we have to have some magical reserved space already on the ground now is a fallacy.   

 

Even the whole North Tryon median wasn't big enough, so we had to rebuilt half of that road.   I think rail corridors are by far the easiest to build in as long as the areas the line would go would be supportive of growth near that freight line.   But for the SouthPark plan, that is not available, but we have a large publicly owned space, an already wide Tyvola that could be reconfigured, and the powerline route that all look quite reasonable.  

 

The power line route does look interesting.

 

I mentioned in another thread that widening Tyvola to a 120ft right-of-way, plenty to accommodate light rail, from South to Farmbrook wouldn't be that difficult. 13 property acquisitions/teardowns, and 4 partial acquisitions where the lot is deep enough to move the house further back on the lot if it makes sense to do so.

 

Tyvola seems pretty narrow through that stretch for how busy it is, kind of like Wade Avenue in Raleigh where I live. This would be an improvement in that respect too.

[southslider]

Easement is for overhead utilities. On the ground is private property, multiple single-family residential backyards at that.

[dubone]

Fair enough.  I think it would be a hard sell to go back through the single family homes anyway, but much more of an obvious choice to just widen the thoroughfare.  

 

I have always been intrigued by an airport to SouthPark line.   It would make the SouthPark component an almost perpendicular line, allowing transfers to the Blue Line at Tyvola.     It would allow for commuting transfers to all the offices in the West Tyvola district as well as South Park, but also serve a lot of apartment communities in the southwest on the way to the airport.  

 

It is also, to me, the best shot at an airport line where the area in between could actually get solid redevelopment prospects.  The West Tyvola area is far more developable for high density and less industrial in character than Wilkinson and has a very large office space and open space base around which to densify.     

 

 

The uptown to airport path would be a bit longer, but still only 11 miles total (~30 minutes + transfer time) but it would be feasible to build because of all the non-airport ridership, while enhanced bus remains on Wilkinson for the uptown to airport market.   

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zFzxexr7Xo7I.k6Z2wkLSZZB8

[cltbwimob]

Fair enough.  I think it would be a hard sell to go back through the single family homes anyway, but much more of an obvious choice to just widen the thoroughfare.  

 

I have always been intrigued by an airport to SouthPark line.   It would make the SouthPark component an almost perpendicular line, allowing transfers to the Blue Line at Tyvola.     It would allow for commuting transfers to all the offices in the West Tyvola district as well as South Park, but also serve a lot of apartment communities in the southwest on the way to the airport.  

 

It is also, to me, the best shot at an airport line where the area in between could actually get solid redevelopment prospects.  The West Tyvola area is far more developable for high density and less industrial in character than Wilkinson and has a very large office space and open space base around which to densify.     

 

 

The uptown to airport path would be a bit longer, but still only 11 miles total (~30 minutes + transfer time) but it would be feasible to build because of all the non-airport ridership, while enhanced bus remains on Wilkinson for the uptown to airport market.   

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zFzxexr7Xo7I.k6Z2wkLSZZB8

Here are some guiding principles for transit...(Part 1 of a 2 part post)

 

1.  Transit should always be more about transportation than redevelopment.  In fact, if transportation projects are undertaken purely for development purposes then its likely they will not meet its stated objective.  Part of transit's ability to attract new development is the ability to provide connections to other markets within a region.

 

2.  In a Centers and Corridors framework, connections between centers along major arterial corridors drives transit ridership.  The most important center is the CBD; if the connection to the CBD becomes an afterthought (as it is in this hypothetical Airport-Southpark line) ridership will most likely be severely limited.

 

3.  Ridership is driven more by the commuter than the local patron.  There was an article in the Charlotte observer detailing this a couple of months ago.  According to the article 5 of every 8 passengers on the Blue Line are commuters, and graphics show that most ridership on Lynx comes from the Park and Ride stations by a significant margin...

 

In part two, I will use these concepts to explain why the Airport-Southpark line is infeasible, especially if viewed as a replacement for a Wilkinson line.

[15895]

I disagree with Transportation shouldn't be used as a redevelopment tool. That's what Nearly all transportation is meant for. To spur development whether it's for retail malls or arenas or Job expansions, etc.

How many commercials do you hear "Convenient to 85/77/485"? How many times have we heard economic leaders tout our interstate systems for distribution/logistics companies?

What would Ballantyne be without 485.

Where there is infrastructure, people will follow. So we should plan our transportation also on growth patterns. Which we already do with highways, really.

[RugbyPike#11]

2. In a Centers and Corridors framework, connections between centers along major arterial corridors drives transit ridership. The most important center is the CBD; if the connection to the CBD becomes an afterthought (as it is in this hypothetical Airport-Southpark line) ridership will most likely be severely limited.

Couldn't we make an argument that Southpark is a CBD? So that a line connecting in or through Southpark is likely to be successful, even if Southpark is not THE CBD?

[cltbwimob]

I disagree with Transportation shouldn't be used as a redevelopment tool. That's what Nearly all transportation is meant for. To spur development whether it's for retail malls or arenas or Job expansions, etc.

How many commercials do you hear "Convenient to 85/77/485"? How many times have we heard economic leaders tout our interstate systems for distribution/logistics companies?

What would Ballantyne be without 485.

Where there is infrastructure, people will follow. So we should plan our transportation also on growth patterns. Which we already do with highways, really.

 

I think you took my post out of context.  I said that transit projects should be viewed first and foremost as transportation.  If they are evaluated on their merits merely as economic development tools, and little or no consideration is given to their primary function, then it will likely fall short both as an economic development tool and a transportation tool.  The value of transportation is often not in the line itself, but in the points the line connects.  As such, transportation projects that move people [and goods] between two important points quickly and efficiently will result in a greater economic benefits than those where the focus is more on the line itself and less on the importance of what it connects. This is not to say that I believe that transportation projects should never be used with economic development in mind, but that economic development should be the secondary concern.  Moving people and goods should be the primary concern, for it is in the movement of people and goods that the greatest economic benefits are realized.  Thinking about this in reverse is to proverbially put the cart before the horse.

 

I think it's pretty easy to see the pitfalls of using transportation dollars purely for economic reasons...i.e. urban loops for every 20K population town in eastern NC while major metros such as Charlotte are stuck with overcapacity interstates designed for 1970s traffic levels. 

Couldn't we make an argument that Southpark is a CBD? So that a line connecting in or through Southpark is likely to be successful, even if Southpark is not THE CBD?

Southpark is a "Center" in the Centers, Corridors, and Wedges Framework, however it is not nearly as important as downtown.  As such, it is more important that a transit line provide a direct connection between downtown and the airport than a direct line between the airport and Southpark with connections to downtown.  For the same reason a direct flight between Charlotte and Europe is more important than a connecting flight say through Dallas, so is a direct transit line between the airport more important than a roundabout connection between uptown and the airport via Tyvola station.

 

Of course Southpark is a good destination for transit, but Uptown is better.  A line between Uptown and the airport will likely have more riders and cost less than a line between Uptown and Southpark.  If the powers that be were to choose a airport-Southpark line over an airport-uptown line, then there would be even more reason to question their stewardship of scarce resources.  A better proposal (and likely cheaper too) for connecting the airport to Southpark via LRT is an airport-downtown line along Wilkinson or parallel to the NS ROW, and a branch line from the blue line to Southpark such that the connections are routed through downtown.

Edited November 26, 2014 by cltbwimob

[dubone]

Well, the reason that the direct uptown to airport will never happen is that the train has little ridership (the business travelers needing that route are on expenses and are not going to favor a transit line even if it is perfect).   My Airport-SouthPark route still serves the uptown to airport market with one transfer, but also adds other transportation-most-important priorities such as DAILY commute options for the West Tyvola office market, the SouthPark office market, as well as the airport.  

 

The airport does not have enough ridership in and of itself to warrant a full transit line, but if you bundle it with office centers, and areas of residential density which the Tyvola-Fairview corridor has, it will likely be a very solid line.    Then with many routing options such as the wide corridors of Tyvola, Billy Graham, and the rail corridor to connect as I have shown or multiple alternatives.

 

 

The Wilkinson corridor will never happen because a bus takes almost the same amount of time, and it can't be supported with other ancillary benefits like redevelopment.     So keep the Sprinter shuttle for Wilkinson for a fast commute, but enhance the system as a whole by putting rail where transit-oriented density is forming already and can be accelerated. 

[cltbwimob]

Well, the reason that the direct uptown to airport will never happen is that the train has little ridership (the business travelers needing that route are on expenses and are not going to favor a transit line even if it is perfect).   My Airport-SouthPark route still serves the uptown to airport market with one transfer, but also adds other transportation-most-important priorities such as DAILY commute options for the West Tyvola office market, the SouthPark office market, as well as the airport.  

 

The airport does not have enough ridership in and of itself to warrant a full transit line, but if you bundle it with office centers, and areas of residential density which the Tyvola-Fairview corridor has, it will likely be a very solid line.    Then with many routing options such as the wide corridors of Tyvola, Billy Graham, and the rail corridor to connect as I have shown or multiple alternatives.

 

 

The Wilkinson corridor will never happen because a bus takes almost the same amount of time, and it can't be supported with other ancillary benefits like redevelopment.     So keep the Sprinter shuttle for Wilkinson for a fast commute, but enhance the system as a whole by putting rail where transit-oriented density is forming already and can be accelerated. 

Business travelers will absolutely use a transit line if one is in place.  Just because they are on expenses does not mean that they will immediately favor auto transportation vis-a-vis rail transit, but they will likely not favor bus transit such as the Sprinter over auto based transit.  While your hypothetical line does serve the uptown-airport market, it is not a logical connection (see quote from Jarrett Walker).  It actually travels away from uptown by a distance farther than a direct connection between uptown and the airport.  This means that it would take a hypothetical rider longer just to reach the transfer point than it would to go straight to downtown.  Under a hypothetical direct line, it would take 15-20 minutes for a passenger to reach downtown from the airport.  Under a hypothetical scenario in which the rider would travel to Tyvola Station and then transfer to the Blue Line, it would take the rider longer just to get from the airport to Tyvola Station than it would to get from the airport to downtown.  When you factor in connection times and the time it takes to ride the Blue Line from Tyvola to downtown, you are looking at a 45 minute total trip easily.  The line would be devoid of uptown-airport travelers under such a scenario, even if they both are technically connected.  Furthermore, such a line would hardly be beneficial to in-commuters from other counties.  I know it is a favorite hobby of UPers to shun suburbanites, but in reality, their patronage often  drives rail lines to be successful in the first place.  This is why in a previous post why I made mention of the fact that data suggest much of the ridership along the Blue Line is driven by the commuter, not the local riders.  If you negate their effect, then it becomes increasingly difficult to make the case that the money should be spent on a project in the first place.

 

Furthermore, there is very little office density along the Tyvola corridor with the exception of a small office park and almost zero residential density along the Tyvola/Billy Graham Corridor west of I-77.  Wilkinson has a higher population base from which to draw than Tyvola (with the exception of Tyvola east to Southpark).  Also, looking strictly at the markets, Uptown alone has more workers than the submarkets of Southpark and Tyvola combined...by a significant margin.  As such, a logical connection between the airport and uptown is more important than a connection to secondary business markets.  Additionally, the Tyvola business parks are predominantly suburban meaning they are less likely to generate transit ridership in the first place because of "last mile" problems.

 

Finally, there is little need to redevelop a corridor in which the development already in place is decent (even though Tyvola is predominantly suburban).  Wilkinson on the other hand is languishing, and is in need of a shot in the arm, however it is perfect for redevelopment...I do not know why you insist it is not.  Recall Southend was a blighted industrial area prior to its redevelopment.   There are large tracts of blighted land that would be free for high density mixed use development; bring a light rail line to this corridor along with the requisite street improvements, and the corridor would flourish.  With the right planning, this could be the coolest redevelopment corridor in Charlotte because there are so many available parcels fronting the boulevard.  As an aside, the Wilkinson corridor is wide enough to accept LRT.  

 

The hypothetical Southpark-airport line would allow the Wilkinson corridor to continue to wither.

 

Below is a quote from Jarrett Walker which I believe sums up why an airport-Southpark line is a bad idea if it is to replace an airport-uptown line.  This is not to say that it is a terrible idea altogether, just a terrible idea if you intend for an airport-Southpark line to replace an airport-uptown line.  Long term, I believe a line connecting the airport and Southpark would work, perhaps as a BRT line, however it could never be justified prior to a direct connection between airport and uptown.

 

"If I could put one sentence about transit in the mind of every developer, every land use planner, indeed anyone who makes a decision about where to locate anything, the sentence would be this:  Be on the Way!  If you want to be sure you'll have good transit, be on the way from one transit destination to another.

 

An efficient transit line -- and hence one that will support good service -- connects multiple points but is also reasonably straight so that it's perceived as a direct route between any two points on the line.  For that reason, good transit geography is any geography in which good transit destinations are on a direct path between other good transit destinations.  (Obviously, this is not always a geometrically straight line; it may be a path defined by existing roads or rail corridors that everyone perceives as reasonably direct given the terrain.)"

Edited November 26, 2014 by cltbwimob

[southslider]

Saying that LRT must be on Wilkinson for redevelopment's sake is a shortsighted as saying the same for Independence. Choose the corridor that is best for transit, then let redevelopment follow.

[ajfunder]

^Agreed, look at Denver's Fastracks, the reason why it has been so successful in gaining funding and popularity is that it puts transportation and the best routes first. Than development follows. That is a model Charlotte should really follow.

[cltbwimob]

Saying that LRT must be on Wilkinson for redevelopment's sake is a shortsighted as saying the same for Independence. Choose the corridor that is best for transit, then let redevelopment follow.

You are taking my post way out of context. Please reread the first 2/3 of my above post and also my posts from last night. I talk far more about the Transit piece than I do the redevelopment piece.

Wilkinson is the best corridor for transit on the west side (or parallel to the NS ROW) because it is the most efficient route between the airport and downtown. I was merely saying Wilkinson is also a good corridor for redevelopment because it is more or less a blank canvass corridor between two of the most important business centers in the city, plus it is the only logical corridor to capture in-commuters. Saying a LRT line should follow Tyvola (or Freedom for that matter) because that corridor is the best for redevelopment Is a shortsighted notion because it will be unsuccessful at capturing the largest portion of riders. Plus since Wilkinson is the most direct corridor it will likely be the least costly.

Edited November 26, 2014 by cltbwimob

[cltbwimob]

Here are some guiding principles for transit...(Part 1 of a 2 part post)

1. Transit should always be more about transportation than redevelopment. In fact, if transportation projects are undertaken purely for development purposes then its likely they will not meet its stated objective. Part of transit's ability to attract new development is the ability to provide connections to other markets within a region.

2. In a Centers and Corridors framework, connections between centers along major arterial corridors drives transit ridership. The most important center is the CBD; if the connection to the CBD becomes an afterthought (as it is in this hypothetical Airport-Southpark line) ridership will most likely be severely limited.

3. Ridership is driven more by the commuter than the local patron. There was an article in the Charlotte observer detailing this a couple of months ago. According to the article 5 of every 8 passengers on the Blue Line are commuters, and graphics show that most ridership on Lynx comes from the Park and Ride stations by a significant margin...

In part two, I will use these concepts to explain why the Airport-Southpark line is infeasible, especially if viewed as a replacement for a Wilkinson line.

^Agreed, look at Denver's Fastracks, the reason why it has been so successful in gaining funding and popularity is that it puts transportation and the best routes first. Than development follows. That is a model Charlotte should really follow.

Uggghhh....

This exactly what I am saying. Put the corridors where they make the most sense as transportation tools then the redevelopment will necessarily follow. You are all making the same arguments I made from the start last night. My point is once again that Wilkinson is not only a more logical choice in a transport sense, but it has the added benefit of being a good candidate for redevelopment. Tyvola is not a good candidate for either...I was merely making points about Wilkinson being a candidate for redevelopment because Dubone said it was unfeasible due to the industrial nature of Wilkinson. I believe claims such as this are false because some of the best candidate areas for redevelopment are old blighted industrial areas.

But still, transit should be first and foremost about transportation.

Edited November 26, 2014 by cltbwimob

[dcharlotte]

Tyvola as a transit corridor will never be successful, despite it bringing together multiple employment areas. The proposed corridor as discussed goes form one employment center to another suburban employment center with no concentration around any potential stops, to another employment center. Folks would have to have a two-seat ride, which does not gather choice riders in a suburban market.

 

Additionally, folks that work work along Tyvola are currently traveling to the corridor from a current interstate corridor. Thus, your best option would be to parallel the current transportation corridors that are established to provide additional capacity to the overall corridor. This is what the blue line is doing for I-85 and has successfully done for I-77.

 

The corridor on Independence is a great CORRIDOR. The actual placement can be tweaked to increase the amount of TOD. Obviously if the ROW is next to the existing NS ROW there can be additional opportunities for development beyond placing transit on a surface highway. If US-74 were to be converted fully to a freeway and placed into a ditch to hide noise, reduce the impact on the landscape, and development were built on top of the freeway (even a park to the station), then that may attract development. That is clearly way more expensive and the alternative should be pursued.

[ah59396]

I'm not a fan of the Silver Line as proposed running down the gut of Independence.  That said, the east is the best option for the next line.  It has the most justifiable densities and can assist in pulling commuters from Union county into Uptown.

 

 

http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=18d61798a9f046b693572127e9eb3ee4&extent=-81.3567,34.8707,-79.9422,35.5305

Edited November 26, 2014 by ah59396

[tozmervo]

I'm not a fan of anything that would enable Bill James to get closer to my house.

[tozmervo]

So in the NCDOT STIP posted by wilhelm over in the traffic thread, this little diddy was buried inside:

 

C-4951 INTEGRATE CAT'S AUTOMATIC VEHICLE

LOCATION (AVL) SYSTEM AND CITY OF

CHARLOTT'S DOT SIGNAL SYSTEM. CMAQ

FUNDS TRANSFERRED TO FTA.

 

Broadly, that sounds like the signal system could know where buses are. (...and perhaps streetcars)

[dubone]

Yes!  I have seen it before but hadn't looked lately.   It is a brilliant idea and allows for the computers to favor green lights for transit by perfect choreography without even really hurting drivers.  

[southslider]

^Right, signal priority, not preemption, the latter used only for Blue Line.

[dubone]

Yes.   Signal priority is the most prudent to not cause much other traffic.   Not a big deal if the bus stops at a few lights, but the more lights that can be coordinated, the better.   

 

It would be great too if the system could recommend a lower speed to the bus driver to somewhat hypermile and reduce stops.  So a bus might go 5 mph slower in order to arrive at the light when it would be green.   

[km1789]

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2014/12/08/charlotte-transit-chief-carolyn-flowers-leaving.html

CATS CEO leaving for federal appointment

 

[kermit]

^ I really hope she is not fleeing ahead of bad BLE news (guess I am kinda pessimistic today)

[pgsinger]

Is this really a loss?  I ask out of genuine curiosity as I have no idea.  I have not been a fan of our mass transit systems under her or her predecessor, but I also do not know much about mass transit.  I admit that these have been hard times to get infrastructure approvals, but certain aspects of the current system still leave me vexed.  For example, why do we not have a bus pass that works for Express and Local buses?  If I live in an area served by both, why should have to do one or the other for a pass?  Also, if the 9 and 39 serve one of the busiest bus corridors, then why did they get rid of the express serving Central Ave?  Why are the bus stops on virtually all routes every two blocks?  Do we not expect people to walk a bit before they take public transit?

[teeg]

^ what express route served Central Ave?