Jump to content

CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines


monsoon

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, cmwilson24 said:

Driverless technology and ride sharing should be a big part of this debate in general.  It is certain that getting around in a driverless taxi in the future (whether it's Uber/Tesla/Google/etc) will be far cheaper and more convenient than taxi's and Uber's today.  Given that should we be spending billions of dollars on other forms of transportation, or should we be spending the money to make our city adopt to the new technology instead?  I fear this huge spending will look like a big mistake 20 years from now when it is cheaper, faster and easier to hop in a driverless Uber than to take the light rail.  

Three things:

First, are driverless vehicles in the near term realistic when we can't even make touchless faucets work properly?

Second, if driverless cars are inevitable then the biggest current waste of money (by far) is on parking. Why is the public so reluctant to eliminate parking minimums if they are sure we will have a driverless future? 

Finally,  cars (driverless or not) are still 6'x12' metal boxes. Given their size you can't fit 120,000 of them into uptown all at once without creating gridlock (nor could you get 50,000 of them into Ballantyne). If density continues to exist (and I think it will based on reduced need for parking as well as the need for inter-firm knowledge exchange) then we will still need mass transit to serve these areas. 

Edited by kermit
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


35 minutes ago, kermit said:

And a fourth thing:

why did Amazon completely ignore the possibility of driverless cars (but explicitly mention transit) in its HQ2 RFP?

IMHO, I think the driverless cars take over is still decades away and at the end of the day, driverless cars or driven cars will still cause congestion. 

While driverless cars could reduce wrecks, delays and allow for faster, smoother, and high capacity on roads. This would take the removal of "driven" cars off the road. Which, I don't think will ever happen. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Popsickle said:

This would take the removal of "driven" cars off the road. Which, I don't think will ever happen. 

yup, completely agree. If we think debates about gun control get heated just wait until 'the government' starts to tell people they are no longer allowed to drive their F-150 on the highway.

The only good part about driving is _driving_. Once we take away the performative part of driving then you just have a bunch of people sitting in metal boxes. This is our best vision of the future??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kermit said:

Three things:

First, are driverless vehicles in the near term realistic when we can't even make touchless faucets work properly?

Second, if driverless cars are inevitable then the biggest current waste of money (by far) is on parking. Why is the public so reluctant to eliminate parking minimums if they are sure we will have a driverless future? 

Finally,  cars (driverless or not) are still 6'x12' metal boxes. Given their size you can't fit 120,000 of them into uptown all at once without creating gridlock (nor could you get 50,000 of them into Ballantyne). If density continues to exist (and I think it will based on reduced need for parking as well as the need for inter-firm knowledge exchange) then we will still need mass transit to serve these areas. 

Your final thought here is an inconvenient fact that driverless car promoters always seem to forget.  A three-car LRT train can carry up to 750 passengers. Assuming 1.2 passengers per car which is about the average for daily commuting in a city, it would take 625 driverless cars to match the capacity of 1 light rail train. Assuming those cars were spread evenly over three lanes of traffic, the platoon of cars needed to Cary the same amount of people as a light rail train would be approximately 1/2 mile long if the cars were literally bumper to bumper (12 ft/car x 208 cars/lane). Now say each car maintained a following distance of five car lengths, which is probably much closer than the distance that they will follow each  other at speed, and you now have a platoon of cars that is approximately three miles long and three lanes wide.  Another way of looking at it is that three Lynx Blue Line Trains (at three cars apiece) traveling northbound have the capacity to be moving as many people as all three I-77 northbound lanes between the SC line and Uptown at any given second.  And therein lies the problem with thinking that driverless cars will be able to render high capacity transit obsolete.  Cars, driverless or not, are highly inefficient from a geometric standpoint; they require loads of space.

I also think these scenarios that suggest that driverless cars are going to take over in the next 10-20 years are incredibly rosy.  I don't think they are even close to being advanced enough to go into mass production anytime soon.  Will they be on the road in the next 10-20 years, sure.  But I bet that they are less than 10% of the total vehicle market at that time (do people honestly think that Americans are going to give up driving their own personal cars that fast?).  That leaves a lot of people who will still be driving and a lot of people who will still need to take the train

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

Your final thought here is an inconvenient fact that driverless car promoters always seem to forget. 

I am not sure they 'forget' as much as they 'intentionally ignore' the problem of geometry. IMO this strategy is part of the common right-wing fantasy of eliminating cities via technologically-led decentralization. First it was telecommuting and now autonomous cars should (in their minds) allow for affluent people to live where they want (which almost always means a mcmansion in the burbs) and not have to endure an unpleasant commute to get to their offices.

In this fantasy world, offices are either remote (for the telecommuter) or dispersed throughout high-income suburban areas an insignificant distance away (for the rider in the Jetsons' mobile). The less affluent get left behind in the hollowed out city which is not devoid of employment and affluent consumers. This fantasy (like most right-wing delusions) continues despite the data which shows telecommuting never entering the mainstream, accelerating rates of  urbanization for professional jobs (and high-end retail), rising affluence in urban areas (and rising poverty in suburban ones) and declining crime rates.   

FWIW Richard Florida published a rant earlier this week on the geometry of autonomous vehicles increasing inequality and reinforcing urban growth. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/11/driverless-cars-wont-save-us/546344/

apologies for the rant and leaning into politics -- it was a tough thanksgiving.

Edited by kermit
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kermit said:

I am not sure they 'forget' as much as they 'intentionally ignore' the problem of geometry. IMO this strategy is part of the common right-wing fantasy of eliminating cities via technologically-led decentralization. First it was telecommuting and now autonomous cars should (in their minds) allow for affluent people to live where they want (which almost always means a mcmansion in the burbs) and not have to endure an unpleasant commute to get to their offices.

In this fantasy world, offices are either remote (for the telecommuter) or dispersed throughout high-income suburban areas an insignificant distance away (for the rider in the Jetsons' mobile). The less affluent get left behind in the hollowed out city which is not devoid of employment and affluent consumers. This fantasy (like most right-wing delusions) continues despite the data which shows telecommuting never entering the mainstream, accelerating rates of  urbanization for professional jobs (and high-end retail), rising affluence in urban areas (and rising poverty in suburban ones) and declining crime rates.   

FWIW Richard Florida published a rant earlier this week on the geometry of autonomous vehicles increasing inequality and reinforcing urban growth. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/11/driverless-cars-wont-save-us/546344/

apologies for the rant and leaning into politics -- it was a tough thanksgiving.

I fail to see how self driving cars or using telecommunication is a right wing fantasy/conspiracy against the poor. And pretty much just laughed my ass off at your entire post. 

If you look at the companies that are leading the research and development in the automated vehicle sector, they are predominantly companies that are headed by openly left leaning owners and boards. 

I don't see how this companies are related to the alleged right wing conspiracy which you speak of. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Popsickle said:

I fail to see how self driving cars or using telecommunication is a right wing fantasy/conspiracy against the poor. And pretty much just laughed my ass off at your entire post. 

If you look at the companies that are leading the research and development in the automated vehicle sector, they are predominantly companies that are headed by openly left leaning owners and boards. 

I don't see how this companies are related to the alleged right wing conspiracy which you speak of. 

 

Yea, I can see that, it was a rant.

I don't think tech companies are conspiring to destroy cities (although I have some questions about Elon Musk's intentions). I do think that there are large portions of society (mostly older folks) who would like a reason to completely detach themselves from cities -- and they latch onto the technology dujour to evangelize their perspective.

I do see strong parallels between people today who argue that the prospect of driverless cars justifies cutting off spending on transit and and the people who argued 30 years ago that the promise of telecommuting justifies halting infrastructure investments in cities -- its mostly the same demographic.  And this perspective (IMO) is just another permutation of the urban-rural divide we see in contemporary society.

Edited by kermit
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kermit said:

Yea, I can see that, it was a rant.

I don't think tech companies are conspiring to destroy cities (although I have some questions about Elon Musk's intentions). I do think that there are large portions of society (mostly older folks) who would like a reason to completely detach themselves from cities -- and they latch onto the technology dujour to evangelize their perspective.

I do see strong parallels between people today who argue that the prospect of driverless cars justifies cutting off spending on transit and and the people who argued 30 years ago that the promise of telecommuting justifies halting infrastructure investments in cities -- its mostly the same demographic.  And this perspective (IMO) is just another permutation of the urban-rural divide we see in contemporary society.

I'll be honest I love living in the city while I am young (early 30). But I do dream of moving out into the middle of the mountains with nobody around once I am older and have earned enough money and I am sure I'm not the only one. 

However, more on topic the possibility of driverless cars should not stop spending on mass transit in my opinion. Trying to save money now for a future technological advance that may or may not happen is ridiculous. 

Edited by Popsickle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Popsickle said:

I'll be honest I love living in the city while I am young (early 30). But I do dream of moving out into the middle of the mountains with nobody around once I am older and have earned enough money and I am sure I'm not the only one. 

Nothing wrong with that and you certainly are not the only person with those preferences. I would think that you (as a poster here) would probably not use your evolving preferences as evidence that we (as a nation) should stop investing in transit or other urban infrastructure. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, kermit said:

Nothing wrong with that and you certainly are not the only person with those preferences. I would think that you (as a poster here) would probably not use your evolving preferences as evidence that we (as a nation) should stop investing in transit or other urban infrastructure. 

Absolutely not, I'm all for mass investment in mass transit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KJHburg said:

Something to think about and especially in terms of future mass transit plans.  https://urbanland.uli.org/planning-design/ride-sharing-driverless-cars-game-changers-real-estate-cities/

I think the city needs to take some initiative and develop plans to facilitate the conversion of uptown parking decks and surface lots to office space.  Such a change is more likely to increase the need for transit than decrease it.

The article's example of Summit NJ subsidizing uber to get people to the train station rather than building a deck there was an illuminating one.

Finally, one of the panel participants said:

Quote

Reynolds argued that ride sharing and automation must work in conjunction with mass transit instead of working to replace it. She also said that automation, shared rides, and electrification must all progress together for wholesale transportation changes to work efficiently for cities. “If any one of those or any two of those things rise without the others, we’re in for quite a bit of negative consequences,” she said.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they can & should already do is talk of a 1¢  increased for the lines.

 

IMO that discussion needs to happen sooner rather than later.  If I had a magic wand, this is what I would do (being realistic)

 

*Focus on the Silver & Blue Line..... and.... the Gold Line...Forget the red Line for this coming up decade.

Silver Line:

- From 485 Matthews to underground in uptown, to the airport and underground and then to 485. 

Blue Line:

- Extend Northern portion to 485

- Extend Southern Portion to Ballantyne 

Gold Line:

 

- Extend Gold Line in the east further into Plaza Midwood. 

 

CATS should use part of the 1¢ tax (but not tell the public or play with the words) to extend the Gold line to Plaza-Midwood. I’m not sure we can vote on a 1¢ tax and THEN tell voters “oh. About that gold line.”  

We didn’t tear down Hawthorne bridge just to get one more stop at Sunnyside... I think a terminus at JCSU & Plaza Midwood would be all that’s needed for the gold Line. 

 

 

I think all of our lines (except A future SouthPark line) should really have a goal of hitting 485.

 

When all that is going on... create the new transit plan...

The Red Line and a South Park Line. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by AirNostrumMAD
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the pending passage of the GOP "tax cut" means that future federal funding for transit will almost certainly be eliminated or, at least, severely cut.  Long story short, Charlotte needs to find a way to generate about $6 billion for the new and improved transit plan on its own  That is roughly $6,000 per Mecklenburg resident (although my math may be wrong). 

Honestly over 10 (or 20 years) the amortized cost seems pretty reasonable, particularly in the context of a "massive middle-class tax cut".  #robpeterpaypaul

EDIT: For perspective, some analysts say that the typical household spends about $1,100 per year over and above user fees to subsidize other people's driving. Over 20 years this amounts to  $22,000 per household (and the number is increasing)

Edited by kermit
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, the $6 billion for everything Lewis listed in his "vision" is unrealistic, unless you start design+engineering today. I will be conservative and say it would be $12 billion for the "vision" to become reality.

Then take a family with 2.25 kids and your estimate (going from $6k to $12k per resident) that is $51k per family. (why families? because they are more likely to vote and pay attention to these 'mundane details' then single millennials)

Edited by Scribe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2017 at 9:41 PM, AirNostrumMAD said:

Focus on the Silver & Blue Line..... and.... the Gold Line...Forget the red Line for this coming up decade.

I guess it all depends on what problem you're trying to solve.

Agree on:

  • Extend Blue Line past I-485 on both ends (PNC Pavilion up north and Pineville downtown in the south)
  • Silver Line -
    • From Matthews - outside 485 (as currently planned)
    • Take it to the airport
    • at CLT airport - if possible
      • drop the line underground so that you do not have to have the people mover (save on yet another system and remove connections)
      • then you allow the line to cut through airport to the south and come out near West Blvd to serve the future River District
    • Make sure you allow for the line to cross into Belmont (and Gastonia if they pay for it) in the future.
      • basically plan for the line to terminate at a place where a bridge would be more feasible / easier to accomplish.

To me, it seems your plan just goes based on "what would be cool for Charlotte" -- "Oh, yeah a tunnel in uptown."

Additionally, I do not think your plan will help with traffic.

  • Red Line - is a must if you want to actually take care of a massive and important artery. And it is almost guaranteed to be self sustaining financially / profitable (expense of operations - not capex of the project).
  • I love the idea of a tunnel Uptown, but based on how much bedrock they had to blow up to drop 277, I think it is financially prohibitive.
  • The Gold Line does not solve "transit" problems either. The routes are already covered by good bus routes, so you're just paying a massive premium. 
    • Sure they can use the street car project as a tool to modernize city infrastructure (like they are doing right now with phase 2) -- but is that wise?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Except, the $6 billion for everything Lewis listed in his "vision" is unrealistic, unless you start design+engineering today. I will be conservative and say it would be $12 billion for the "vision" to become reality.

Then take a family with 2.25 kids and your estimate (going from $6k to $12k per resident) that is $51k per family. (why families? because they are more likely to vote and pay attention to these 'mundane details' then single millennials)

Yes, raw population includes children (~28% of Mecklenburg). People typically pay their taxes as a household. There are 362,212 households in Mecklenburg County. The average cost  would be closer to ~$16,500 per household. My guess is there won't be enough political appetite for the types of property tax increases needed to  generate this much revenue. 

Edited by CLT2014
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scribe said:

Except, the $6 billion for everything Lewis listed in his "vision" is unrealistic, unless you start design+engineering today.

I understand and don't completely disagree with your point but, to be fair, no one has any idea what is realistic until the projects have been routed, some rudimentary engineering has been completed and timelines and financing mechanism are in place.

4 hours ago, Scribe said:

Additionally, I do not think your plan will help with traffic.

No transit plan ever helps with traffic (just as road building never reduces congestion) -- the law of traffic generation is immutable.  The best transit can do is provide people with alternatives to congestion.

Ultimately the dollar amounts per person are irrelevant. These numbers could be double or half (a federal contribution somehow survives the current fiscal climate), residents would still squirm, beotch and whine about paying for the system. The problem is the easiest thing to do is whine about the costs of transit today and simply ignore the fact that our current growth rate is unsustainable and could lead to serious economic problems in the future. Charlotte's growth rate ensures that the city will choke on its success within our lifetimes and the current state government will just watch coldly as the city which is its primary economic engine becomes a huge taxpayer liability.  Charlotte's future irrelevance can be pretty easily avoided with some comparatively  small investments in transit. Charlotte's landowners and the NC Department of Revenue have the most to gain from transit in Charlotte -- these two entities really should see the need to invest.

Edited by kermit
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

I guess it all depends on what problem you're trying to solve.

Agree on:

  • Extend Blue Line past I-485 on both ends (PNC Pavilion up north and Pineville downtown in the south)
  • Silver Line -
    • From Matthews - outside 485 (as currently planned)
    • Take it to the airport
    • at CLT airport - if possible
      • drop the line underground so that you do not have to have the people mover (save on yet another system and remove connections)
      • then you allow the line to cut through airport to the south and come out near West Blvd to serve the future River District
    • Make sure you allow for the line to cross into Belmont (and Gastonia if they pay for it) in the future.
      • basically plan for the line to terminate at a place where a bridge would be more feasible / easier to accomplish.

To me, it seems your plan just goes based on "what would be cool for Charlotte" -- "Oh, yeah a tunnel in uptown."

Additionally, I do not think your plan will help with traffic.

  • Red Line - is a must if you want to actually take care of a massive and important artery. And it is almost guaranteed to be self sustaining financially / profitable (expense of operations - not capex of the project).
  • I love the idea of a tunnel Uptown, but based on how much bedrock they had to blow up to drop 277, I think it is financially prohibitive.
  • The Gold Line does not solve "transit" problems either. The routes are already covered by good bus routes, so you're just paying a massive premium. 
    • Sure they can use the street car project as a tool to modernize city infrastructure (like they are doing right now with phase 2) -- but is that wise?

 

 

A Tunnel because I think Stonewall is too busy to reduce it to 1 lane for the silver line. And Trade Street is one way on the Elizabeth avenue portion and the streetcar is a streetcar - it has more stops than necessary. If Uptown was the terminus, I wouldn't see as strong of a need to go under ground, but if the silver line is to go past uptown out west, I think anything above ground would not be as efficient.  The blue line goes pretty slow uptown and it has elevated tracks in a good portion of its uptown segment. Silver line wont bridge overany roads. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

A Tunnel because I think Stonewall is too busy to reduce it to 1 lane for the silver line.

That route is very unlikely. In the end it is cheaper to build an elevated light rail that hugs I-277 from US-74 to Gateway Station and out of Uptown then to dig a tunnel.

5 hours ago, kermit said:

The best transit can do is provide people with alternatives to congestion.

Alternatives, to sitting in traffic, are a solution! As in being more productive - reading/studying/meditating - with one's time.

5 hours ago, kermit said:

The problem is the easiest thing to do is whine about the costs of transit today and simply ignore the fact that our current growth rate is unsustainable and could lead to serious economic problems in the future.

Whining is guaranteed... but I gotta say you have a seriously pessimistic view of the world. Cheer up - after all we survived Y2K!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scribe said:

That route is very unlikely. In the end it is cheaper to build an elevated light rail that hugs I-277 from US-74 to Gateway Station and out of Uptown then to dig a tunnel.

 

 

I hope we aren't planning our transit system based on being cheap rather than being efficient.  I rather hold off on other lines and expansions to get a solid Silver Line that is efficient than hugging the Northern 277 Loop and going into Gateway.  

 

 If we were trying to avoid tunneling uptown, I would say make the Silver line hug 277, from the North, Merge with the blue line and share the tracks with the blue line uptown, then split off somewhere after it crosses 277 towards the airport possible onto Morehead serving the Panthers stadium and the Morehead area that has tons of potential.

 

I attached a picture with a green line of how I would do the silver line. It doesn't serve gateway, but I don't think it would be the end of the world.

 

 

up.PNG

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Belk freeway is so wide with so many collector/distributors that, by basically "finishing the job" of reconfiguring the interchanges and reclaiming excess land from the former right-of-way, they could probably build a fully grade separated line in the I-277 right of way AND build the cap over 277 that everybody keeps talking about - for less than the price of digging a new tunnel.

Sent from my LGL33L using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • 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.