CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[ah59396]

I'm strongly in favor of B, simply due to the integration with downtown Matthews, which I think would be excellent.  In order to save on costs, I do think they should cut the line prior to crossing 485, similar to what they did with the Blue Line.  Build the terminus at the Mecklenburg County Sports Complex where you've basically got tons of space and free land, then either run a small shuttle to CPCC or build a little pedestrian bridge/tunnel over 485.  I feel like you'd save $50 million that way.

[CLT704]

I don't particularly like either option. A will limited TOD and B is basically streetcar through Matthews, neither of which is very good. 

EDIT- Though, hopefully, option A will help to get rid of the car dealerships and derelict buildings along Independence. 

With regards to stopping the line before 485, wasn't it mentioned back a couple of pages that the project would get a higher rating from the FTA if it crossed county lines? 

Edited July 8, 2016 by CLT704

[southslider]

^I wouldn't call B "streetcar" since exclusive of traffic. 

[CLT704]

12 minutes ago, southslider said:

^I wouldn't call B "streetcar" since exclusive of traffic. 

B shares a lane with cars and other traffic through Matthews. I'm pretty sure we are all in agreement that a streetcar is a rail vehicle which runs in the same lanes as other traffic, hence B is essentially a streetcar through Matthews.

Edited July 8, 2016 by CLT704

[Third Strike]

20 minutes ago, CLT704 said:

I don't particularly like either option. A will limited TOD and B is basically streetcar through Matthews, neither of which is very good. 

EDIT- Though, hopefully, option A will help to get rid of the car dealerships and derelict buildings along Independence. 

With regards to stopping the line before 485, wasn't it mentioned back a couple of pages that the project would get a higher rating from the FTA if it crossed county lines? 

This alignment, and the original alignment from 2006, stop short of crossing over county lines to Union. Though, I'm in favor of extending it by like a mile into Indian Trial, near the future US 74/Monroe Bypass junction. Build a large park and ride, and I'm sure that would help greatly with ridership numbers.

[SgtCampsalot]

9 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/planning/silver-line/Pages/default.aspx

The Silver Line has been officially narrowed down to two of the original four options Option A and Option B. 

I have to say... I expected higher-res maps than are on there.

Now, regarding a streetcar through Matthews: I'm not seeing either of these proposed routes going through the actual old downtown core, correct? Hard to tell.

Edited July 8, 2016 by SgtCampsalot

[kermit]

14 hours ago, CLT704 said:

With regards to stopping the line before 485, wasn't it mentioned back a couple of pages that the project would get a higher rating from the FTA if it crossed county lines? 

Higher ranking from NCDOT (not the FTA). Its kinda academic however, the current NCGA has made it clear they are unwilling to fund transit (no matter how well it ranks in their new objective criteria -- see Durham-Orange LRT). 

Extending the Silver Line into Union could trigger discussion about how to fund CATS regionally rather than solely from Mecklenbergers. Regional funding is how Denver pulled off their very impressive Fasttracks system.

Edited July 9, 2016 by kermit

[southslider]

5 hours ago, CLT704 said:

B shares a lane with cars and other traffic through Matthews. I'm pretty sure we are all in agreement that a streetcar is a rail vehicle which runs in the same lanes as other traffic, hence B is essentially a streetcar through Matthews.

A prior option did share lanes, but no longer.

[deleted]

 

13 hours ago, CLT704 said:

I don't particularly like either option. A will limited TOD and B is basically streetcar through Matthews, neither of which is very good. 

EDIT- Though, hopefully, option A will help to get rid of the car dealerships and derelict buildings along Independence. 

With regards to stopping the line before 485, wasn't it mentioned back a couple of pages that the project would get a higher rating from the FTA if it crossed county lines? 

Agree neither is great...definitely prefer A though.  The car dealers aren't going anywhere...

[CLT704]

14 hours ago, southslider said:

A prior option did share lanes, but no longer.

Then why does the map for option B say that the Silver Line would share a lane with traffic through Matthews (4th point of the summary)? 

 

Edited July 9, 2016 by CLT704

[southslider]

Well, the CATS project manager told me personally that an exclusive option would work in Matthews.  Can't recall how (single-tracking, widening, altered alignment). But this short stretch shouldn't be viewed as a fatal flaw.

[kermit]

Slightly OT but for those who think Charlotte is too far down the auto-oriented road to ever change there is a nice article in the Guardian on how Calgary has transitioned away from its pro-sprawl footing. Calgary makes a nice comparison to Charlotte since it is about the same size, is situated in a similar geographic context (e.g. plenty of room for outward expansion), battles against a pro-car provincial government, and is a place that has historically been politically dominated by developers. While many articles about Calgary begin and end with a discussion of their very successful LRT system, this one focuses on the city's focus on permitting accessory dwellings and other types on infill despite suburban/developer opposition. 

Money quote about the pro-infill mayor:

"in 2013 he was sued for comparing a prominent homebuilder to The Godfather."  

Its worth a read for planning nerds:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jul/08/calgary-versus-the-car-how-the-dallas-of-the-north-declared-war-on-urban-sprawl?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

 

Edited July 10, 2016 by kermit

[DEnd]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 9:41 AM, CLT704 said:

I don't particularly like either option. A will limited TOD and B is basically streetcar through Matthews, neither of which is very good. 

 

A streetcar in the Downtown core of Mathews isn't a bad idea.  I think I would prefer Option B.  Option B has an excellent connection in Downtown Mathews and allows for a future pretty darn good connection to the hospital.  Assuming I'm reading the map right the streetcar portion would be from the end of W Matthews St, crossing over N. Trade St. then following Matthews - Mint Hill Rd till it reaches the Powerline right of way.  This is only about 1.2 miles, with the only major must stop intersection at N. Trade St.  Allow for a couple of other future stops in that area and Matthews will be chock full of TOD.  They absolutely need to allow for a future stop at Matthews - Mint Hill and the hospital access rd./Matthews Business Center, they don't have to build it, but the tracks need to be placed so they don't have to be moved for the future stop, because that one will be a must have.  To me the connections with the Hospital and Downtown Matthews are more important than where the train runs. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by DEnd

[kermit]

No good thread for this (NCRR construction) so I'll stick it here:

Orr Rd at Old Concord is now closed for good (I believe) and it has been replaced by the new overpass connecting Old Concord to Orr via Grier (the new Grier connector is not shown on the map)

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2650277,-80.7525867,16z?hl=en

 

[Spartan]

Essentially the alignment is entirely up to Matthews at this point. If they don't want it going through downtown then the non-downtown option becomes the only viable route. IMO, it would be extremely shortsighted not to route the thing through downtown. Having good urban bones to start building on is much easier and will result in a better town sooner than retrofitting already successful shopping malls.

Selfishly, I've never been to Matthews on purpose, so having a light rail stop there might get me to go. The same can be said for Pineville for that matter. And yes, I'm willing to wait until the Silver Line is complete before I go to Matthews.

[kermit]

/rant/

So an increasing amount of ink is being spilled on the possibility of long-term economic stagnation (think eroding middle class, Japan, etc.) http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/15/needed-a-contingency-plan-for-secular-stagnation/ . It also seems likely that the approaching election may change the GOP's obstructionist attitudes. Given all this a very large federal stimulus (disguised as an infrastructure program) is possible in the next two years. If this happens the feds will want to put the money into 'shovel ready' programs and a large portion of the money will likely go to transit. Unfortunately we have absolutely nothing other than Gateway station that fits the description of shovel ready and the 2030 plan has clearly melted away. I know folks are working on a plan update, but gezzus, we need it sooner rather than later. I fear that the Silver Line is too far from engineering to be eligible for quick money and we have totally dropped the Red Line, even the gold plated version. 

/rant/

 

Edited July 16, 2016 by kermit

[RiverwoodCLT]

I have talk to the mayor of Matthews, sounds like they want it downtown.

[CLT704]

Whats the next step now for the Silver Line?

[southslider]

^Adopt preferred alignment, then preserve and protect corridor until more funding is identified. 

[kermit]

On July 15, 2016 at 6:54 PM, kermit said:

/rant/

So an increasing amount of ink is being spilled on the possibility of long-term economic stagnation (think eroding middle class, Japan, etc.) http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/15/needed-a-contingency-plan-for-secular-stagnation/ . It also seems likely that the approaching election may change the GOP's obstructionist attitudes. Given all this a very large federal stimulus (disguised as an infrastructure program) is possible in the next two years. If this happens the feds will want to put the money into 'shovel ready' programs and a large portion of the money will likely go to transit. Unfortunately we have absolutely nothing other than Gateway station that fits the description of shovel ready and the 2030 plan has clearly melted away. I know folks are working on a plan update, but gezzus, we need it sooner rather than later. I fear that the Silver Line is too far from engineering to be eligible for quick money and we have totally dropped the Red Line, even the gold plated version. 

/rant/

 

I am quoting myself so file this under Dead Horse:

Trumps spectacular implosion brings us to a point where it appears likely (but not certain) that Hillary will enter office with more governing ability than we have seen since before 2010. It also appears clear that Hillary wants to make a big statement early and infrastructure continues to be the big push that most analysts are pointing towards (see below). Current discussions suggest a $300 billionish federal infrastructure program. NC, being a swing state, is inline for more than its share of this cash and democrats being democrats, will hopefully push a large portion of this money to urban projects. Charlotte _really_ needs enough of a transit plan to have some projects to show the feds when they start wheelbarrowing money around, if CATS can't pull this together in the next three months we are going to miss a huge opportunity for transit expansion. The fact that we have essentially been long term planless for over a decade is indicative of poor leadership IMO.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/288740-clinton-maps-out-first-100-days

 

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by kermit

[michaelef]

CATS is installing the new fare systems on the buses! Moving up in the world. 

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/alerts/ridersalerts/Pages/082616a.aspx

 

[CLT704]

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2016/08/25/its-official-the-2030-transit-plan-is-going-to-get.html

2030 Plan will be updated! Subscriber only article, so I have no idea what it says! But good news none the less!

[tozmervo]

39 minutes ago, CLT704 said:

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2016/08/25/its-official-the-2030-transit-plan-is-going-to-get.html

2030 Plan will be updated! Subscriber only article, so I have no idea what it says! But good news none the less!

It's just a summary of where we're at today, there's nothing substantial otherwise (no schedule yet for a plan update).

[cjd5050]

Interesting video on what causes traffic.  I am sure we all know this but it's still a good 5 minute view.  

The reason I am posting it here is I think that while this video is about encouraging humans to drive smarter and does not accept that most humans are not too bright, automated driving will implement these changes in what I hope is the near future.  

What does this mean?  Well my inference is that automated driving will eventually for a very long time end the need for road expansion.  If cars are able to move much more efficiently through the existing system there is no need to expand the system from it's current bandwidth.  

What's most interesting to me is that I don't see this new technology being considered by transportation engineers to the extent that it should.  Transportation plans are done 15 or even 30 years out and it seems silly to me not to expect automated cars being the standard by then.   

 

Ya...it's a slow day at work.

Edited August 31, 2016 by cjd5050
formatting

[tozmervo]

8 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

Interesting video on what causes traffic.  I am sure we all know this but it's still a good 5 minute view.  

The reason I am posting it here is I think that while this video is about encouraging humans to drive smarter and does not accept that most humans are not too bright, automated driving will implement these changes in what I hope is the near future.  

What does this mean?  Well my inference is that automated driving will eventually for a very long time end the need for road expansion.  If cars are able to move much more efficiently through the existing system there is no need to expand the system from it's current bandwidth.  

What's most interesting to me is that I don't see this new technology being considered by transportation engineers to the extent that it should.  Transportation plans are done 15 or even 30 years out and it seems silly to me not to expect automated cars being the standard by then.   

Ya...it's a slow day at work.

I think CPG falls into the trap of envisioning a utopian future... for cars. That is, not people. You'll note that his "extended vision" of eliminating intersections conveniently eliminates crosswalks, too.