CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[elrodvt]

Not sure of the right place to put this. Very interesting article though. https://t4america.org/2020/12/07/four-recommendations-to-undo-the-damage-of-urban-renewal/

[tozmervo]

58 minutes ago, LKN704 said:

Has the first batch of vehicles already reached its midlife?  
Portland has some light rail vehicles that are close to 40 years of age. 

It's the kind of overhaul to help get the vehicles to 40 years and more. Many of the oldest vehicles are well north of 600k miles at this point (remember that CATS bought more vehicles between '07 and the BLE). In lieu of continuing piecemeal part replacements, the "overhaul" literally ships a vehicle back to California where it is torn down and refurbished entirely. This was built into their budget and schedule from the beginning, but CATS does not have a deep bench. The normal non-covid schedule has 36 of their 42 cars in service. Unexpected malfunctions, riders getting sick on a train, etc take vehicles out of service (and is why we sometimes get 1-car trains at rush hour). 

[kermit]

I am betting that Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation may turn out well for Charlotte. Folks speak highly of some of his complete streets efforts in South Bend and I would bet that, as the "young guy" who will need the youth vote to support his future political ambitions he will want to push for some climate friendly initiatives for bikes and peds.  Hopefully as the former mayor of a rustbelt community he understands the need to realign/rebuild infrastructure to make cities more adaptable places -- hopefully someone can chat with him about the Belk River project!

He may not be the most rail-friendly choice, but if the GOP holds the Senate then there is no budget increase anyway. I would expect solid, but not spectacular support of rail while he is at the throttle.

[joenc]

20 minutes ago, kermit said:

I am betting that Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation may turn out well for Charlotte. Folks speak highly of some of his complete streets efforts in South Bend and I would bet that, as the "young guy" who will need the youth vote to support his future political ambitions he will want to push for some climate friendly initiatives for bikes and peds.  Hopefully as the former mayor of a rustbelt community he understands the need to realign/rebuild infrastructure to make cities more adaptable places -- hopefully someone can chat with him about the Belk River project!

He may not be the most rail-friendly choice, but if the GOP holds the Senate then there is no budget increase anyway. I would expect solid, but not spectacular support of rail while he is at the throttle.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/11/buttigieg-plan-a-national-vision-zero-plus-other-goodies/

• More public transportation. Buttigieg’s plan calls for “$150 billion to support cities and towns in providing equitable public transportation, including improved options for subway, light rail, bus rapid transit, and last mile service.” That’s an over 13-fold increase over the Federal Transit administration’s 2019 budget of $11.2 billion. The inclusion of “last mile service” under the transit umbrella is an intriguing departure from the status quo, too — and it might just give micro-mobility providers the public transit dollars they need to finally stabilize. 
• More public transportation — but in the country! Did you know that the majority of public transit system miles are in rural areas, but just 12 percent of FTA dollars last year were requested for rural systems? Now you do! Buttigieg would up rural transit spending from $659 million to a whopping $12 billion.
• Better connected intra-city rail. This one kinda goes with the last one, but seriously: we’d love to finally kill the argument that America can’t end autocentricity because we can’t get between far-flung cities without a car. Better national rail connectivity sure would help with that. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by joenc

[Blue_Devil]

1 hour ago, joenc said:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/11/buttigieg-plan-a-national-vision-zero-plus-other-goodies/

• More public transportation. Buttigieg’s plan calls for “$150 billion to support cities and towns in providing equitable public transportation, including improved options for subway, light rail, bus rapid transit, and last mile service.” That’s an over 13-fold increase over the Federal Transit administration’s 2019 budget of $11.2 billion. The inclusion of “last mile service” under the transit umbrella is an intriguing departure from the status quo, too — and it might just give micro-mobility providers the public transit dollars they need to finally stabilize. 
• More public transportation — but in the country! Did you know that the majority of public transit system miles are in rural areas, but just 12 percent of FTA dollars last year were requested for rural systems? Now you do! Buttigieg would up rural transit spending from $659 million to a whopping $12 billion.
• Better connected intra-city rail. This one kinda goes with the last one, but seriously: we’d love to finally kill the argument that America can’t end autocentricity because we can’t get between far-flung cities without a car. Better national rail connectivity sure would help with that. 

Rural Public transportation is one of the few public transportation concepts I think is extremely dumb and would not support. Yes, there are a few people it could help, but rural communities tend to be fiercely independent, and I cannot imagine public transportation would get used in a way that would support spending 12 billion dollars. Think of the mindset of people who live in rural communities. Independency is a large part of that. 

[joenc]

4 minutes ago, Blue_Devil said:

Rural Public transportation is one of the few public transportation concepts I think is extremely dumb and would not support. Yes, there are a few people it could help, but rural communities tend to be fiercely independent, and I cannot imagine public transportation would get used in a way that would support spending 12 billion dollars. Think of the mindset of people who live in rural communities. Independency is a large part of that. 

That's just a meme and even then depends where you are in the country. There are rural parts of the country that are historically more pro-social than the rural South is now.

[videtur quam contuor]

Buttigieg wanted a foreign policy position but he should take Transportation and use the many opportunities to visit mass transit in other countries and how they operate at far lower cost, better building schedules and bring these practices to the U. S.  He can speak Italian. What better use for such a skill?

 

[Blue_Devil]

2 minutes ago, joenc said:

That's just a meme and even then depends where you are in the country. There are rural parts of the country that are historically more pro-social than the rural South is now.

Even those parts are very independent. Rural Illinois for example would strongly balk at public transportation. Having worked in Marion and Steeleville a long time ago areas like that would not be very accepting. 

[elrodvt]

Of course half the GOP will refuse to meet with him for fear of being converted. ;-(

[ertley]

I was already thinking this yesterday, when reading the airport thread about route and hub consolidation--so another Cross Tab--but the obvious answer for both that and rural public transit are the same: Revitalization and expansion of passenger rail. 

My maternal grandmother was as hard right as one could get, except, ironically, her vestigal support for FDR's New Deal policies--the only time I can remember ever hearing her contradict contemporary Republican orthodoxy about anything was when some commentator criticized the "socialism" of FDR's policies, and she exclaimed, "People would have starved!!"

I will admit that my grandmother's rail evangelism probably underlies a lot of my support for it   She was ARDENTLY in favor of rail transportation, and if I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times, that "the country" had made a huuuge mistake in abandoning rail transportation. Truth be told, her grandfather was in the rail business, so she probably was raised in a particularly pro-rail household, but it wasn't just talk: Her father worked in Greensboro through the week and took the train to and from the tiny village of Kings Creek (in Cherokee County) every weekend, and when my grandmother finished school she worked in Gastonia, and took the train to and from daily. 

She talked over and over--virtually every time we were in the car for a trip longer than she could abide, as well as any time we crossed a railroad track or saw a train--about how the ability to take a train wherever one wanted to go was helpful to everyone, and was far easier, cheaper and more convenient than having to drive everywhere. Sadly, though, we've let too much time elapse in our efforts to revitalize passenger rail, and nearly everyone like her, who could recall the ease and glory of the rail days, are gone and can't be voice for the truly conservative argument of returning to early 20 century practice.  So, we're going to have to reinvent the proverbial wheel, in terms of rural passenger rail, if at all.

[videtur quam contuor]

This makes me recall (somehow) my mother's father. He was born 1872 in rural Kentucky and was a farmer most of his life. The rest was cotton mill work when his wife taught him to read and add and subtract so he could keep track of employee time records. Visiting him on the farm while a boy I recall him telling me that when electricity came life changed utterly. As an adult we can understand how electricity revolutionized life but it happened to him. In his telling Franklin Delano Roosevelt himself brought electricity to their farm and my image was FDR climbing a pole. My mental image was actually close to the emotional impact of grandpop's telling. Imagine my surprise when I learned at age 8-9 that FDR was a polio cripple. 

It was this project:

https://livingnewdeal.org/glossary/rural-electrification-administration-rea-1935/

Edited December 16, 2020 by tarhoosier

[jednc]

As far as the sales tax increase, this is not going to fly in North Meck...

“It’s offensive to so many people who live in my district who believed they would have a light rail more than 20 years ago,” she said Tuesday night. “It is offensive to the majority of the population to ask for an additional tax for us to pay for the rest of Mecklenburg County.” (District 1 Commissioner)

People here just aren't interested in paying more for broken promises.

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by jednc

[RANYC]

14 hours ago, jednc said:

As far as the sales tax increase, this is not going to fly in North Meck...

“It’s offensive to so many people who live in my district who believed they would have a light rail more than 20 years ago,” she said Tuesday night. “It is offensive to the majority of the population to ask for an additional tax for us to pay for the rest of Mecklenburg County.” (District 1 Commissioner)

People here just aren't interested in paying more for broken promises.

 

I want progress in Charlotte, but I'm also annoyed that we need a massive long-term capital improvement tax hike just to get "complete streets" everywhere in inner city Charlotte.   Should already have been done.  Why can't every street have wide sidewalks and protected bike lanes, and seamless integration with the ever-expanding greenway system.  How much would a plan just addressing pedestrians, cyclists, greenways, and entire roads dedicated to buses (not just dedicated lanes, but yes, dedicated bus-ROADS) cost?  Then you align land use and zoning to dedicated-bus avenues, encouraging density along such mass transit dedicated roads.  I'm guessing we'd spend a fraction of the cost.  Light rail is nice, but I think I'd rather get people out of tents before spending billions on it.

If we abandon light rail at this time, there's still plenty of opportunity for a "messaging campaign" on how progressive we are on mobility, including massive expansion of the greenway system, rolling out a greenway and bike path "GPS" solution that formulates carbon-neutral travel plans for locals...ensuring that every street in center city Charlotte looks like one you'd find in Berlin or Munich, complete with massive and activated sidewalks, protected bike paths, and more small street connections akin to what's happening in NODA.  

Edited December 18, 2020 by RANYC

[Nathan2]

10 hours ago, RANYC said:

I want progress in Charlotte, but I'm also annoyed that we need a massive long-term capital improvement tax hike just to get "complete streets" everywhere in inner city Charlotte.   Should already have been done.  Why can't every street have wide sidewalks and protected bike lanes, and seamless integration with the ever-expanding greenway system.  How much would a plan just addressing pedestrians, cyclists, greenways, and entire roads dedicated to buses (not just dedicated lanes, but yes, dedicated bus-ROADS) cost?  Then you align land use and zoning to dedicated-bus avenues, encouraging density along such mass transit dedicated roads.  I'm guessing we'd spend a fraction of the cost.  Light rail is nice, but I think I'd rather get people out of tents before spending billions on it.

If we abandon light rail at this time, there's still plenty of opportunity for a "messaging campaign" on how progressive we are on mobility, including massive expansion of the greenway system, rolling out a greenway and bike path "GPS" solution that formulates carbon-neutral travel plans for locals...ensuring that every street in center city Charlotte looks like one you'd find in Berlin or Munich, complete with massive and activated sidewalks, protected bike paths, and more small street connections akin to what's happening in NODA.  

Are we not already doing this with what will be the new UDO?

[RANYC]

11 hours ago, Nathan2 said:

Are we not already doing this with what will be the new UDO?

Let me clarify.  Say we establish the "Silver Line" route, but instead of laying tracks and buying rail cars, we simply build a two-lane road with adjacent greenway with one condition: this two-lane boulevard is only available to and accessible by mass transit vehicle (buses, or street cars, or light rail cars eventually, or perhaps even autonomous buses).  Then we build transit-oriented residential/commercial/retail projects all along this new "Silver Line" road for mass transit vehicles only.  Are we saving a substantial amount of money in this scenario?

[Guest]

Politics is the missing variable in this equation

[elrodvt]

24 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Let me clarify.  Say we establish the "Silver Line" route, but instead of laying tracks and buying rail cars, we simply build a two-lane road with adjacent greenway with one condition: this two-lane boulevard is only available to and accessible by mass transit vehicle (buses, or street cars, or light rail cars eventually, or perhaps even autonomous buses).  Then we build transit-oriented residential/commercial/retail projects all along this new "Silver Line" road for mass transit vehicles only.  Are we saving a substantial amount of money in this scenario?

Interesting proposal. But thinking outside the box isn't a Charlotte strength. To risky.

[#1Son]

On 12/18/2020 at 8:38 PM, RANYC said:

Let me clarify.  Say we establish the "Silver Line" route, but instead of laying tracks and buying rail cars, we simply build a two-lane road with adjacent greenway with one condition: this two-lane boulevard is only available to and accessible by mass transit vehicle (buses, or street cars, or light rail cars eventually, or perhaps even autonomous buses).  Then we build transit-oriented residential/commercial/retail projects all along this new "Silver Line" road for mass transit vehicles only.  Are we saving a substantial amount of money in this scenario?

Wasn't this the basic premise of the Independence bus lane which was supposed to be the right of way originally for the Silver line?  Not sure if TOD was approved at that time or not. Ironically CATS has abandoned the plan to use that right of way. 

[DEnd]

On 12/18/2020 at 8:38 PM, RANYC said:

Let me clarify.  Say we establish the "Silver Line" route, but instead of laying tracks and buying rail cars, we simply build a two-lane road with adjacent greenway with one condition: this two-lane boulevard is only available to and accessible by mass transit vehicle (buses, or street cars, or light rail cars eventually, or perhaps even autonomous buses).  Then we build transit-oriented residential/commercial/retail projects all along this new "Silver Line" road for mass transit vehicles only.  Are we saving a substantial amount of money in this scenario?

No.  The major cost is the right of way acquisition.  Per mile cost of rail and road are about the same, especially if you consider maintenance costs.  The two major cost factors above bus service outside of that is station costs and overhead electrification.  the BRT that you are proposing (which is what the silver line was supposed to be originally) still needs the stations, leaving the major cost differentiator as overhead electrification, since the proposal is to one day go to rail, why not just start off there, then there won't be a major service disruption when it's time to upgrade.

[DEnd]

4 hours ago, #1Son said:

Wasn't this the basic premise of the Independence bus lane which was supposed to be the right of way originally for the Silver line?  Not sure if TOD was approved at that time or not. Ironically CATS has abandoned the plan to use that right of way. 

CATS was forced out of that by the state.  The original BRT route would have saved quite a bit of money because the state was buying the ROW anyway (saving on legal fees) and the scope of work all being similar and done at the same time (it's cheaper to build a 4 lane road than two 2 lane roads).  But people in Matthews complained about not getting rail, state representatives heard this along with complaints from anti-transit people and got rid of the option, now everyone gets to pay more if we want viable transit to Matthews.     

[#1Son]

10 hours ago, DEnd said:

CATS was forced out of that by the state.  The original BRT route would have saved quite a bit of money because the state was buying the ROW anyway (saving on legal fees) and the scope of work all being similar and done at the same time (it's cheaper to build a 4 lane road than two 2 lane roads).  But people in Matthews complained about not getting rail, state representatives heard this along with complaints from anti-transit people and got rid of the option, now everyone gets to pay more if we want viable transit to Matthews.     

MUMPO tabled the Silver BRT option for 5 years to allow additional "evaluation of LRT" options by CATs. The sad part is the Silver line rider projections were double the Blue line for BRT and LRT, but NCDOT has taken 25 years to widen Independence to WT Harris who knows how long before they would have reached Matthews. Even sadder is the upgraded parts of Independence were widen with the original plan specifications so the new road has wider bridges to accommodate the originally planned LRT station locations.

[RANYC]

On 12/21/2020 at 12:22 AM, DEnd said:

No.  The major cost is the right of way acquisition.  Per mile cost of rail and road are about the same, especially if you consider maintenance costs.  The two major cost factors above bus service outside of that is station costs and overhead electrification.  the BRT that you are proposing (which is what the silver line was supposed to be originally) still needs the stations, leaving the major cost differentiator as overhead electrification, since the proposal is to one day go to rail, why not just start off there, then there won't be a major service disruption when it's time to upgrade.

I want to be clear here.  No material difference between per mile costs of light rail versus per mile costs of dedicated bus roadway?  Shocked to hear that.  Also, why would a dedicated bus road go to light rail one day, if the bus is already in a dedicated roadway?  Does light rail operate more effectively or have a longer useful life than a bus (or autonomous vehicle on wheels), or is it that light rail is less polluting?

[kermit]

On 12/22/2020 at 2:28 PM, RANYC said:

I want to be clear here.  No material difference between per mile costs of light rail versus per mile costs of dedicated bus roadway?  Shocked to hear that.  Also, why would a dedicated bus road go to light rail one day, if the bus is already in a dedicated roadway?  Does light rail operate more effectively or have a longer useful life than a bus (or autonomous vehicle on wheels), or is it that light rail is less polluting?

BRT can be built on the cheap (no electrification, no dedicated lanes, no crossing protections, no offboard payment, etc.) but then all you have is a normal bus route that runs at normal bus speeds. If you want dedicated ROW and all the other things that make BRT faster than normal buses then capital costs can approach those of LRT over a 40 year lifecycle (the BRT route will require repaving at least once in this span while the rail is still fine. BRT vehicles also have a much shorter lifespan than rail). 

The weak part of BRT is capacity. BRT vehicles are significantly smaller than an LRT vehicle and BRT cannot attach multiple units together. Your can’t ramp up BRT frequency to the point where these capacity differences don’t matter because of the protected crossings constantly blocking traffic (traffic is essentially stopped on the roads that must cross the BRT).  You can avoid this problem with LRT thanks to its ability to run multiple units together.  While this scenario sounds like an extreme case, it is exactly what is playing out on the Orange Line BRT in Los Angeles. They are currently planning to convert its dedicated ROW to LRT due to capacity limitations — they would have saved many hundreds of millions if it were just built as LRT from the start.

The second weak point in BRT is that it may be unable to generate the same high density development adjacent to station areas (developers perceive it to be less permanent). This reduces the revenue that transit bring in, effectively making it more costly. Admittedly good BRT is rare in the US so there is not much research supporting this point so take it with a grain of salt.

Edited December 24, 2020 by kermit

[Urban Cowboy]

On 12/17/2020 at 8:24 AM, jednc said:

As far as the sales tax increase, this is not going to fly in North Meck...

“It’s offensive to so many people who live in my district who believed they would have a light rail more than 20 years ago,” she said Tuesday night. “It is offensive to the majority of the population to ask for an additional tax for us to pay for the rest of Mecklenburg County.” (District 1 Commissioner)

People here just aren't interested in paying more for broken promises.

 

I personally have no sympathy for residents who CHOOSE to live in North Meck along the 77 corridor. They're such a whiny group. They choose to live there knowing the 77 artery is congested and they're 7+ miles away from uptown. They want more bang for their buck, but forget that being away from uptown does equate to access/convenience sacrifices. 

77 has always been congested... So they beotched about 77. The solution was toll lanes. They beotched about toll lanes. They're built now, and they're very nice. Yet the majority of folks are either too cheap or have too much contempt for them, so they opt to sit in traffic while toll lanes sit empty.

Maybe someone should inform the commissioner that if rail is ever provided to North Meck, that her constituents would have to PAY to use the transportation service. Because there's a pay-to-play solution in place currently that is underused. And let's not forget that Norfolk Southern has been the main block here, and a separate ROW through that area is becoming increasingly difficult because of suburban sprawl and development. 

[kermit]

Forgive the digression to federal policy (but it is relevant to Charlotte). Mayor Pete continues to say all the right things as he moves into the Sec of DOT position:

He has also made some very supportive remarks about urban freeway removal (Belk river!)

Charlotte needs to have enough of its crap together (e.g. plans ready) to make some big asks of this administration. 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by kermit