CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[cjd5050]

10 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

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. 

I took that as being a technical possibility not a desired probability.   I also don't think automated driving vehicles is a utopian item.  That would be 'jetsons' where traffic (both cars and humans) existed on multiple plains and moved unobstructed in singular paths.  I think it's a good emerging tool that can change things for the better and allow all modes of flow to work better with each other.  

For example, I could see a point in time were car traffic was controlled to the point where not only would it end the need for road expansion it would also allow for lanes to be reduced in width and create bike lanes on every foot of pavement.  That would be awesome as someone who is on a bike often.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by cjd5050
typo

[Spartan]

On 8/31/2016 at 11:11 AM, 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.

How should transportation engineers be considering this technology?

[cjd5050]

3 minutes ago, Spartan said:

How should transportation engineers be considering this technology?

Instead spending time planning to build more lanes on existing roads I think it would be more effective to start looking at making existing roads smarter through data collection and analysis in preparation for emerging technologies.  It seems to me that infrastructure is based on things like projected population, so why not add projected technologies to the mix?

[Spartan]

Interesting thoughts. What data should be collected? Aren't the current technologies based on the individual car and it's immediate environment? Are there standards for automated vehicle communications?

[Matthew.Brendan]

There's going to be some eventual convergence or reflection in design of roads as how data networks have evolved. Routers move individual data packets (cars) to their destinations. We are just at the very beginning of autonomous travel. We barely have cars talking to one another, responding to the environment around them on an individual basis. Eventually I can foresee the 'decision making' move away from individual cars and into the network brain (router) which will communicate with the car to merge into the flow of traffic and proceed to us destination. 

[cjd5050]

28 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Interesting thoughts. What data should be collected? Aren't the current technologies based on the individual car and it's immediate environment? Are there standards for automated vehicle communications?

Current tracking, to my understanding, is mostly based off cell phones and not the car.  But that's an interesting question.  If we can find a way to unlock the same data that Google uses to provide real time traffic updates and rerouting options for the public benefit....that would be huge.  My understanding is that data is currently not being analyzed to produce anything but an immediate output.  If we can not only improve this tracking but also store and analyze it I think massive improvements can be made on the existing road network.  

After all, if we can regulate things like safety and emissions, why not mandate that all new cars have some sort of short range anonymized traffic data output implemented by 2020?  Would have to deal with privacy issues but that's another conversation.  

 

[Spartan]

3 hours ago, Matthew.Brendan said:

There's going to be some eventual convergence or reflection in design of roads as how data networks have evolved. Routers move individual data packets (cars) to their destinations. We are just at the very beginning of autonomous travel. We barely have cars talking to one another, responding to the environment around them on an individual basis. Eventually I can foresee the 'decision making' move away from individual cars and into the network brain (router) which will communicate with the car to merge into the flow of traffic and proceed to us destination. 

I agree with that in the long term, but I think that's like a 50+ year conversion. People are going to have to get used to the idea of not driving themselves before they'll trust 'the internet' to drive them.

3 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

Current tracking, to my understanding, is mostly based off cell phones and not the car.  But that's an interesting question.  If we can find a way to unlock the same data that Google uses to provide real time traffic updates and rerouting options for the public benefit....that would be huge.  My understanding is that data is currently not being analyzed to produce anything but an immediate output.  If we can not only improve this tracking but also store and analyze it I think massive improvements can be made on the existing road network.  

After all, if we can regulate things like safety and emissions, why not mandate that all new cars have some sort of short range anonymized traffic data output implemented by 2020?  Would have to deal with privacy issues but that's another conversation.  

 

What do you mean by "tracking?" There is some amount of tracking of real-time conditions based on aggregated cell phone data (I think that's what Google uses). Knowing where there is congestion isn't an issue from a roadway planning standpoint. How do you see that data being used for roadway planning?

[cjd5050]

17 minutes ago, Spartan said:

What do you mean by "tracking?" There is some amount of tracking of real-time conditions based on aggregated cell phone data (I think that's what Google uses). Knowing where there is congestion isn't an issue from a roadway planning standpoint. How do you see that data being used for roadway planning?

Have not put too much thought into it or read up on it...   That said, I think real time traffic signal and lane manipulation based on trends and tracking can do a lot to remove congestion and in turn remove the need to build bigger roads.   I'd also like to see some way to coordinate bypasses of interstate traffic as it interacts with local traffic.  Would hope there would be some way to do this without building massive closed off lanes.  

What do you think? 

 

[kermit]

The latest CATS Quarterly Report to the FTA has been released. There is not much new information in it. The TLDR for you busy folks is:

• BLE is underbudget
• GoldLine modern vehicles have been rebid
• The Silver Line will NOT go to downtown Matthews
• 'temporary" BRT service planning is underway for the toll lanes on 77

CATS Quarterly Report September 8, 2016

 

The document is 180 pages, all pages listed here are pdf pages (which may not correspond to page numbers). http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/Documents/FTA%20Quarterly/FTA-Quarterly-Agenda-160908.pdf

Ridership:

 

Overall is down 9.4% from July 2015. Bus system ridership is down 10% and Blue Line ridership is down 6%. There were three fewer service days in 2016. Gold Line yoy ridership change is not meaningful due to its opening mid-month last July but was an average of 1,062 per day. Regional Express service is down an average of 22%

Blue Line Extension:

 

·       I can’t read a federal budget statement but a discussion of contingency amounts remaining the in BLE budget (p 17) says that 100% of contracts have been executed and the contingency funds are $162.7 million which is well above the planned $85 million contingency at this stage of the project. It appears to me that the BLE is under budget

 

·       All but five vehicles have arrived in Charlotte. Storage space is still a problem for the new vehicles, the non-revenue tracks for the Gold Line may be used for LRT storage (p27)

 

·       The news is less good with scheduling (p27): “The Revenue Service Date (RSD) slipped this update from August 1, 2017 to August 17, 2017. The delay is within the Track & Systems schedule and can be attributed to two areas; Segment B trackwork and OCS and Segment A2 (from Sugar Creek to Old Concord Road) trackwork and OCS.”

·       I glossed over most of the 90 pages of construction details

 

Blue Line Capacity Expansion:

·       TIGER funded project is 97% complete at the time of report (p93)

·       Project appears to be on budget but delayed from original schedule

Gold Line Phase 2:

·       Revenue service date current estimate is December 31, 2019 (p116)

·       Vehicle acquisition: The first “Best and Final Offers” (BAFO) process was unsuccessful, a second BAFO process was initiated in July and results were expected in August? (p 116) (p126 indicates that the second round of best and final offers involved manufacturers providing pricing for “a standard on-wire vehicle, a hybrid ready vehicle, and a hybrid vehicle.”  (the original request was for hybrid vehicles only)

·       LOTS of detail about construction schedules and contracts was provided

Blue Line Core Capacity Expansion project: (finishing the work to make all of the blue line compatible with three car vehicles)

·       A design contractor has been identified and scoping for project design is underway

·       No dates were provided regarding CCE grant submission timing

Silver Line: (p 158)

·       Provided a discussion of the two alternative routes – nothing that we have not already discussed here.

·       It appears that the town of Matthews does NOT want an LRT station in their downtown “A key takeaway was that the group wanted a near downtown station that did not impact the small town feel of the downtown core.  This meant that the town was leaning towards an alternative that utilized the Sam Newell Design Option.” (p160) Ugh, Pineville 2.0, how short sighted can you be?

·       Final recommendations on routing will be given at the September 28 MTC meeting and MTC will vote on the recommendation on October 26. (p161) and vote to update the 2030 plan (166)

·       Still no discussion of uptown alignments (waiting on west corridor study -- which is unmentioned elsewhere in the document)

Red Line:

·       “However, with no clear path to implement commuter rail service in this corridor, CATS needs to develop short and medium-term bus service operational strategies that will improve travel time, expand economic opportunity, create pathways to jobs, and build community partnerships.  “ (p167)

·       Some basic goals for BRT service were bulleted and a hope to begin BRT service in the region at the 2018 opening of the toll lanes was discussed.

·       One poorly worded remark made me wonder if Iredell may be more willing to be involved in transit discussions (p 168) “To illustrate the addition of a greater number of staff from Iredell County a map following this report has been included” --- wtf does that mean?

Gateway Station:

 

·       Closing on the main parcel is scheduled for November 2016

·       “high level” concepts for the station are being refined and will be discussed in October (171)

·       “The Project team has worked diligently to identify and compete for funds to close the [$55 million Tack and signals project funding] gap.” (They are planning on mostly state funding)

Edited September 11, 2016 by kermit

[cltbwimob]

On September 10, 2016 at 6:09 PM, kermit said:

Silver Line: (p 158)

·       Provided a discussion of the two alternative routes – nothing that we have not already discussed here.

·       It appears that the town of Matthews does NOT want an LRT station in their downtown “A key takeaway was that the group wanted a near downtown station that did not impact the small town feel of the downtown core.  This meant that the town was leaning towards an alternative that utilized the Sam Newell Design Option.” (p160) Ugh, Pineville 2.0, how short sighted can you be?

·       Final recommendations on routing will be given at the September 28 MTC meeting and MTC will vote on the recommendation on October 26. (p161) and vote to update the 2030 plan (166)

·       Still no discussion of uptown alignments (waiting on west corridor study -- which is unmentioned elsewhere in the document)

It looks as if the Silver Line "Option B" alignment  as defined on the CATS website will be the preferred alignment-with the one exception being the change to the downtown Matthews alignment.  I actually like the fact that they switched from the downtown alignment to the Sam Newell alignment.  It allows the Silver line to maintain fully dedicated ROW and the Sam Newell road alignment is still close enough to serve downtown Matthews which is not the case in Pineville.

[tozmervo]

I would hope that they could keep as much on Monroe as possible with the modification to Sam Newell. I think that would be far more beneficial to neighborhood development along the corridor, as opposed to serving car dealerships down Independence (as is the case in Option A)

[southslider]

^Yep, still on Monroe from Village Lake to almost Hwy 51.

[kermit]

No real news here but it appears that planners at the airport are considering the development of a commercial node (including office space) on Wilkinson that would be connected to the airport via people mover (they also mention the people mover connecting to a transit stop). While I am glad they are thinking about intentional commercial nodes around the airport I would much prefer to see the west corridor connect directly to the terminal rather than require a transfer. I would also prefer that the west corridor connects this commercial node with the proposed "Ballantyne West" that LH has discussed.

Long term planning, shrug...

www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article101462252.html

 

[southslider]

^Going directly into CLT with LRT means not going any farther west, say 485, River District, and/or Gastonia County.

Besides, the Silver Line would already involve a transfer in Uptown or at Carson from the Blue Line for University and South Charlotte riders, so what's one more transfer to a frequent people-mover?

[tozmervo]

Silver Line routing has been announced http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article101824817.html

[cltbwimob]

Another article on the Silver Line from the CBJ:

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2016/09/19/this-is-what-the-future-light-rail-to-matthews.html

This one doesn't add too much new info to the Observer article except that during the community meetings and information session, a recurring theme from the public was that the Silver Line should continue on to the airport.  As a result-at least based on Jason Lawrence's comments that were quoted in the article-it looks as if CATS is going to heed that recommendation and start planning for a Silver Line extension to the airport rather than the original streetcar plan.

[CLT704]

I really think the Silver Line (can we rename it the Red or Green Line?) should be prioritised over future phases of the Gold Line or commuter rail. After BLE opens, put the focus on the Silver Line. I'd prefer to see a full line from Matthews to the Airport built, but just getting light rail to Matthews would be a major step forward. 

It's amazing that from just over a year ago to within the next 10 years we (will) have a proper rail transit network with multiple lines!

[Matthew.Brendan]

So the Silver Line is going to built out in the next 10 years? My understanding is that it's not even funded yet...

[CLT704]

No, just wishful thinking on my behalf. 

[tozmervo]

CATS has an updated website for the recommended Silver Line routing http://charlottenc.gov/cats/transit-planning/Pages/silver-line.aspx. Says 15-20 year implementation timeline.

[CLT704]

Also "The LYNX Silver Line will be implemented in two phases." Two phases just to Matthews?

 

[tozmervo]

I read that as phases of "short term" (express buses) vs "long term." It seems bizarre that they would be planning on two construction phases for the silver line itself already

[cltbwimob]

1 hour ago, tozmervo said:

CATS has an updated website for the recommended Silver Line routing http://charlottenc.gov/cats/transit-planning/Pages/silver-line.aspx. Says 15-20 year implementation timeline.

I read recently that they had eliminated the Trade Street routing from consideration, but the map embedded in the link appears to show that the Trade Street routing through Uptown may be back.  Or perhaps they are looking into routing it along 4th Street just one block south.  In my opinion, a 4th Street routing would be optimal because it would only be a few blocks away from the Stonewall corridor and the Trade/Tryon corner so it could be useful for both of the major downtown areas.  Plus it can serve both CTC and Gateway without the  potential conflicts with the streetcar that would occur on Trade.

[tozmervo]

It's becoming increasingly clear that they need to figure out how they'd like to cross Uptown east-west because that really needs taken into account as the Stonewall end and 11th St ends of uptown begin developing rapidly. That's a sizable ROW required that isn't going to appear out of thin air

[CLT704]

It's probably a pipe dream, but I'd like to see Stonewall closed for a ROW light rail alignment. Based of Google My Maps, a ROW is about 32.8 feet across, with stations 62.3 feet, so could Stonewall even be used? If you didn't use the street, where would you put the alignment? 

 

It's expensive but I think we should tunnel under Uptown, get our own mini pseudo-metro system.