CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[Nathan2]

11 hours ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

Maybe we need to scrap the idea of the Silver Line and just do BRT from Matthews to the Airport and along some other Corridors like the long proposed Red Line and maybe Central Ave..  I still support extending the existing Blue Line to Ballantyne and upgrading to 3 Car Platforms.  These modest proposals as well as the planned Express Buses proposed for Future Toll Lanes (I-485, I-77 & Independence Blvd) would be a much more affordable alternative.

This does nothing for the city of charlotte though. All it does is continue the existing idea that our transit should only get people from suburbs into uptown and continues to leave people throughout charlotte with no options to actually take transit to where they want to go. 

[davidclt]

5 hours ago, kermit said:

I think Metro Rapid is an excellent plan, but it only works because of the toll lanes guaranteeing no traffic on the vast majority of its route. But since those lanes only exist in one place (thanks to the decision to get rid of the dedicated lanes on Independence) BRT in other parts of town is going to mean some very hard choices and either pissing off car commuters or building just another slow bus.

I think MetroRapid is a fatal-half-measure . . . If it ran on a 15-minutes headway throughout the day from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. I would be inclined to agree. Three morning runs and three afternoon runs isn't a service as much as "playing transit."

[tozmervo]

5 hours ago, kermit said:

North Meck BRT is currently in the design phase (CATS is calling it ‘MetroRapid’). It will run in the toll lanes and it serves as a replacement for the Red Line. Its express running pattern means that it will provide faster trips than the Red Line could have. I am not sure of construction start date for it.

I think Metro Rapid is an excellent plan, but it only works because of the toll lanes guaranteeing no traffic on the vast majority of its route. But since those lanes only exist in one place (thanks to the decision to get rid of the dedicated lanes on Independence) BRT in other parts of town is going to mean some very hard choices and either pissing off car commuters or building just another slow bus.

Many of us have forgotten that we have had an operating BRT line in town for 15 years, Sprinter service to the airport (CATS refers to it as ‘enhanced bus’). CATS made zero hard choices with this route so it runs in mixed traffic and, other than slightly wider stop spacing  is nearly as slow as regular buses. Unfortunately I fear the Sprinter represents what CATS is most likely to build for BRT (a branded bus, some crappy (but better than nothing) stop sheds and onboard payment). Sprinter shows us just how useless BRT can be when it is half assed, and I still maintain that even the best BRT is a waste since it is so easy to downgrade into regular bus service (see Cleveland Health Line for an example of vanishing BRT. It still exists on maps but it only runs every 20 minutes and now uses on board payment which really slows it down)

 

I thought Independence would still have dedicated express lanes? When did that change? 

[kermit]

11 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

I thought Independence would still have dedicated express lanes? When did that change? 

It may not have, but I thought they decided to remove the dedicated bus lanes from the inner portion of the freeway years ago and I assumed that meant the end of any kind of dedicated lanes on Independence.

27 minutes ago, davidclt said:

I think MetroRapid is a fatal-half-measure . . . If it ran on a 15-minutes headway throughout the day from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. I would be inclined to agree. Three morning runs and three afternoon runs isn't a service as much as "playing transit."

Damn, I had thought the express buses were planned for high frequency, all-day service.  I will admit I am not following this project very closely.

They are planning on pouring an awful lot of concrete for 3 runs a day.

Edited February 2, 2023 by kermit

[tozmervo]

3 minutes ago, kermit said:

It may not have, but I thought they decided to remove the dedicated bus lanes from the inner portion of the freeway years ago and I assumed that meant the end of any kind of dedicated lanes on Independence.

AFAIK, the plan is still to have a single express lane in each direction from 485 to 277. The existing bus lane between albemarle and 277 would be this express lane. 

Video linked from NCDOT: U.S. 74 Express Lanes: - I-277 to Idlewild Road Photos & Videos

 

[Reverie39]

BRT red line is exciting and absolutely what should be pursued right now. FWIW, under MetroRapid fast facts, CATS says it will be "all-day bus rapid transit service, including nights and weekends". That is something I can really get behind. 

It does make me sad that this means the Red Line commuter train is just an afterthought at this point. What wasted potential. I think if it's truly dead in the water, CATS should quickly turn its commuter rail attention to the existing Amtrak lines from Salisbury to Kings Mountain. Seems like a very obvious choice.

Side note, I kind of like the  "MetroRapid" name. Maybe CATS should start branding more things in that style. 

[ArchiCLT]

3 hours ago, tozmervo said:

AFAIK, the plan is still to have a single express lane in each direction from 485 to 277. The existing bus lane between albemarle and 277 would be this express lane. 

Video linked from NCDOT: U.S. 74 Express Lanes: - I-277 to Idlewild Road Photos & Videos

 

As an architect who has made videos of this nature before, the graphic alone is impressive. However, this illustrates that we'll all be in the ground before this project is completed.

[TheMightyBK]

I wonder how much the relatively soon-to-be technological advances in automobiles/busses/etc (self-driving cars, 5G -enabled autonomous caravans, etc), and current cultural non-public transit options like Uber/Lyft factor in on the “failure to plan” on LRT/BRT?  Or is really just a fundamental philosophical difference in the public’s role in providing transit?  Let’s face reality- cars do take us places fixed transit pathways never can, and people generally like to travel on their own terms.  Don’t get me wrong- I absolutely love using subways in DC, NYC, etc…I just wonder if the lack of any plan has something to do with future tech.

[kermit]

55 minutes ago, TheMightyBK said:

I wonder how much the relatively soon-to-be technological advances in automobiles/busses/etc (self-driving cars, 5G -enabled autonomous caravans, etc), and current cultural non-public transit options like Uber/Lyft factor in on the “failure to plan” on LRT/BRT?  Or is really just a fundamental philosophical difference in the public’s role in providing transit?  Let’s face reality- cars do take us places fixed transit pathways never can, and people generally like to travel on their own terms.  Don’t get me wrong- I absolutely love using subways in DC, NYC, etc…I just wonder if the lack of any plan has something to do with future tech.

Tariq’s naive technocratic leanings aside I really hope the rest of the council has heard nearly all of big-tech’s recent pronouncements that true level 5 autonomy for cars is unlikely to ever happen (although there are certainly some dissenters). Generally the promise of a Jetson’s future has been used as a stalling tactic to avoid transit investment rather than a genuine belief in the tech IMO.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/truly-autonomous-cars-may-be-impossible-without-helpful-human-touch-2022-09-12/

Edited February 2, 2023 by kermit

[15895]

1 hour ago, TheMightyBK said:

I wonder how much the relatively soon-to-be technological advances in automobiles/busses/etc (self-driving cars, 5G -enabled autonomous caravans, etc), and current cultural non-public transit options like Uber/Lyft factor in on the “failure to plan” on LRT/BRT?  Or is really just a fundamental philosophical difference in the public’s role in providing transit?  Let’s face reality- cars do take us places fixed transit pathways never can, and people generally like to travel on their own terms.  Don’t get me wrong- I absolutely love using subways in DC, NYC, etc…I just wonder if the lack of any plan has something to do with future tech.

Cars can’t get you around large dense urban cities and fixed mass transit can’t get you around sprawling low dense suburban cities without being annoying. Using mass transit to get around in Charlotte or Houston/Dallas/etc is as annoying as using a car to get around in NYC or DC. Next time you go to NYC. Give using only your car a try and try to go to a post office, a grocery store, a hardware store, and visit a university. Park at each place and get out. It’s not convenient and is costly if you use parking decks assuming they even have parking available which is hardly ever (it’s on street parking for lots of stuff). 

DC & NYC couldn’t exist if it had the mass transit of say Houston unless something drastic happened to the population of the cities.  

 

Future tech doesn’t effect the need of an all of the above approach to transit (with rail being the backbone) for dense cores.

You can’t have the below density without a lot of mass transit. So either Charlotte will remain low dense even as it swells to 7 million if ever with tons of highways, strip malls and low density or it could invest in mass transit & be walkable with smaller roads.

 

Seriously, some of you are going to be waiting like 40 years to become as “massive” as say Houston with the expectations of being like a Seattle. 

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[TheMightyBK]

I’m in full agreement the solution is multi-modal. Just spitballing with the tech angle- I know I’ve put off buying new cars, computers, phones, etc because the next year’s model will have features this year’s doesn’t.  And I do think politics plays a much larger role in NC than in other places.  I’m no longer in Charlotte, and I’m not intimately familiar with how money is appropriated for transportation projects- this forum is my classroom, really- but it sounds like Tariq is not holding the levers of power. Seems Raleigh has way too much.  Charlotte needs a much louder voice up there.

[Hushpuppy321]

How the hell is the Raleigh BRT phase 1 and future phases being financed?  I think they said 99 Miles of planned BRT Corridors could total 900+ Million.  Anyone know their funding source?  Just angry that NCGA could block/prevent this region from having a Referendum for potential Sales Tax Funding.

[southslider]

2 hours ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

How the hell is the Raleigh BRT phase 1 and future phases being financed?

On the local match side, Raleigh has a similar local sales tax funding source that Charlotte-Mecklenburg already has in place.  Similarly, CATS could pursue BRT in multiple corridors for way less than the now $9 Billion Silver Line,

[RANYC]

12 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

Cars can’t get you around large dense urban cities and fixed mass transit can’t get you around sprawling low dense suburban cities without being annoying. Using mass transit to get around in Charlotte or Houston/Dallas/etc is as annoying as using a car to get around in NYC or DC. Next time you go to NYC. Give using only your car a try and try to go to a post office, a grocery store, a hardware store, and visit a university. Park at each place and get out. It’s not convenient and is costly if you use parking decks assuming they even have parking available which is hardly ever (it’s on street parking for lots of stuff). 

DC & NYC couldn’t exist if it had the mass transit of say Houston unless something drastic happened to the population of the cities.  

 

Future tech doesn’t effect the need of an all of the above approach to transit (with rail being the backbone) for dense cores.

You can’t have the below density without a lot of mass transit. So either Charlotte will remain low dense even as it swells to 7 million if ever with tons of highways, strip malls and low density or it could invest in mass transit & be walkable with smaller roads.

 

Seriously, some of you are going to be waiting like 40 years to become as “massive” as say Houston with the expectations of being like a Seattle. 

 

I’d venture that most of the people of Charlotte do not want the density of the picture you’ve posted above.  It is a vision state that would be roundly rejected.

Charlotte growth forecasts will flatten out if infrastructure and policy don’t accommodate the increases. 

[kermit]

6 hours ago, RANYC said:

I’d venture that most of the people of Charlotte do not want the density of the picture you’ve posted above.  It is a vision state that would be roundly rejected.

Charlotte growth forecasts will flatten out if infrastructure and policy don’t accommodate the increases. 

I agree, most people don’t want that density where they live, but I think most would be happy to have tolerate it elsewhere in town. Fortunately for us we have pockets of town that are fine with allowing higher densities (Southend, West and East Morehead, Midtown, Northend). Although it helps that most of the new density is popping up in disused industrial space, so no one feels like it is changing ‘their’ neighborhood. [I say this as a resident of Dilworth who can see five Southend cranes from my window] Admittedly we have other in town pockets that seem to abhor higher densities, NoDa comes to mind. Perhaps its history as a mill village where residential and industrial were intentionally commingled explains their preference. 

I also agree that there is little hope of overcoming the  NIMBYism that will block density without transit provision. We are (IMO) frozen in amber if we don’t expand transit.

EDIT: I also think we are in the midst of localized, suburban decay  (much like the urban decay of the 60s-70s). This decay is being driven by maintenance cycles (not everyone is going to want to pay to replace the roof (or what ever else needs fixing on a 40 year old house) and may move out) and obsolescence  cycles (a smaller share of people will be willing to pay for auto dependence). Making matters worse is the loss of brick and mortar retail (we have overbuilt retail AND physical retail is declining).  This "dead mall phenomena" will spread the contagion of suburban decay. We have already seen this process play out in East Charlotte. The suburban areas that experienced this decay are also likely to welcome new density when they hit bottom.

Fortunately, since density is only going to be embraced in a handful of locations, connecting those nodes of density with transit should be easy...???...

Edited February 3, 2023 by kermit

[RANYC]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

I agree, most people don’t want that density where they live, but I think most would be happy to have it elsewhere in town. Fortunately for us we have pockets of town that are fine with the higher densities (Southend, West Morehead, Northend). Although it helps that most of the new density is popping up in disused industrial space, so no one feels like it is ‘their’ neighborhood. Admittedly we have other in town pockets that seem to abhor higher densities, NoDa comes to mind. Perhaps its history as a mill village where residential and industrial were intentionally commingled is the difference. 

I also agree that there is little hope of overcoming NIMBYism that would block density without transit provision. We are (IMO) frozen in amber if we don’t expand transit.

EDIT: I also think we are on the cusp of large scale suburban decay  (much like the urban decay of the 60s-70s). This decay is going to be driven by maintenance cycles (not everyone is going to want to pay to replace the roof again and will move out) and obsolescence  cycles (a smaller share of people will be willing to pay for auto dependence). The suburban equivalent of industrial decay will be the loss of brick and mortar retail. The dead mall phenomena will spread the contagion of decay for miles. All of this has played out already in East Charlotte.

The suburban areas that experienced this decay are also likely to welcome new density.

Fortunately, since density is only going to be embraced in a handful of locations, connecting those nodes with transit should be easy...???...

Honestly, I disagree with that too.  I'd venture that most Charlotteans don't care for or want Manhattan-like density even in Uptown or anywhere in Charlotte.  They may not block it, but I'd speculate they aren't desirous of it.  Sorry, but some of this density worship is strictly UP bubble talk.  I'd speculate that folks here would be fine with Munich-style or Hamburg-style density, in pockets, if they felt it created interesting spaces for the region, for tourists, and for growth in the professional/skilled classes.  We're far from Hamburg-style density and there's much to be done to even achieve that, but personally that's a vision-state I'd be in support of.

[15895]

1 hour ago, RANYC said:

Honestly, I disagree with that too.  I'd venture that most Charlotteans don't care for or want Manhattan-like density even in Uptown or anywhere in Charlotte.  They may not block it, but I'd speculate they aren't desirous of it.  Sorry, but some of this density worship is strictly UP bubble talk.  I'd speculate that folks here would be fine with Munich-style or Hamburg-style density, in pockets, if they felt it created interesting spaces for the region, for tourists, and for growth in the professional/skilled classes.  We're far from Hamburg-style density and there's much to be done to even achieve that, but personally that's a vision-state I'd be in support of.

I agree with you & your previous posts but where I disagree about “urban bubble talk” is when the merits of transit or merits of certain urban policies are questioned rather than the fact it’s just not the priority or will of the voters (gerrymandering or not) or their elected representatives. 
 

It devolves into “well light rail isn’t effective, most people drive, future technology” and gets twisted into denying certain things that would benefit Charlotte. Silver Line light rail, for example. it’s one thing to be against Seattle level  of density  and prefer growth that encourages places like Ballantyne, Indian Trail, future River District because a lot of people do like those neighborhoods. Big house, nice yards, great schools, shopping centers are cute with good materials, HOA’s, neighborhood swimming pool type culture, pretty exclusive usually income wise. Etc. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Charlottes definitely not going to be a dense city. But it can have corridors of high density & commercial space served by light rail. Instead of strip malls, make it more of an urban village with Multifamily TOD. The Nimbys get a nice little urban village with say Pottery Barn, a grocery store, a little mini town center or whatever gives them a slice of urbanity while maintaining their low dense neighborhoods. Put a Wegmans at a (future) light rail with apartments on top, safe sidewalks, TOD and I’m sure south Charlotte NIMBY’s would be fine & like it, urbanites would be fine & like it, etc. 

A strategy of making a couple of light rail lines in Charlotte and trying to make commercial retail stay around the light rail stations and serving urbanites at the station and the people who will never take mass transit and don’t ever go uptown would be a win-win. We can’t have those discussions though if the merit of light rail is denied in and of itself.
 

There are low density areas in the DC region dominated by people who prefer low dense neighborhoods. But almost all of their retail (including Walmart, wegmans. Whole Foods etc vertically integrated into Multifamily) around metro. A lot never want to go to DC or the dense suburbs because parking etc but I’ve never heard one person complain about these urban wegmans of Walmarts etc out there. They actually love town centers lol (or “urban villages” as usually called in Meck.)

The area below serve all the single family neighborhoods and are served be metro. Those suburbanites are fine with that TOD and most use it because there aren’t strip malls located throughout the area. 

For Example:

I think that portion of VA is a similar approach Charlotte should take and I think it would be good for all constituents and not just urban nerds. But even that like. If we don’t have light rail, it won’t help commuters, won’t encourage as much (TOD) density, etc so. The silver line is important. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[MarcoPolo]

Morning Kermit.  You're last observations are "on point".  There are substantial studies and much literature on the impact of the second generation suburban ring that squelched the "natural" expansion of the "urban-pre-car" portions of US cities.  Not the streetcar suburbs mind you (1st generation), but the wave just after that.   It typically stretches outward to the 3rd generation suburbia which developed based on HOA's, PUD zoning, and other legal mechanisms for "maintenance, use, and access", (elaborate legalize for locking in value and making places safe etc, but mostly just a means for masking racist behaviors).    These are the areas you accurately describe as "frozen in amber".    The birthplace of the NIMBY.   And in the long run these are the areas that are the most cancerous to a healthy and resilient city, not counterintuitively, the older 2nd ring that is most susceptible to decay.  Cities always molt as they grow.  The pressures of decay and growth in the second generation ring are most visible because they are not "frozen in amber" by legal mechanisms.  As an aside, your comment about malls has been used to verify the observations I describe.   As a rule of thumb (there are exceptions) think about the malls you know that have died and those that have become "fortress", a term used to describe successful, high performing malls.  Those that have or are dying most often are located in and around the 2nd generation suburban ring (Eastland) and along overbuilt, commercial highway corridors, and interstate rings that popped up to chase residential white flight, (Northlake and to some extent Carolina Place).   Fortress malls are most often in or adjacent to 3rd generation suburbia, (Southpark).  

Back to the 2nd ring discussion.   In most cities it  is here where urbanism can break out and expand beyond the historic central cores.   The territory covered becomes a hodgepodge of pro and anti development battle grounds using guerrilla warfare tactics, as younger and older retirees, more inclined to embrace higher density urbanism, clash with the yuppy/professional couples with kids at home, or newly "kidless", who move into these areas with suburban expectations of living, but voyeuristic tendencies to be close to, or in "the action".   These are the people that ruin everything with their entitled attitudes and money.   Fortunately, over time, urbanism does gain the upper hand in such places.   Not the case with the 3rd generation ring.  If you've studied southeast asian cities, you can get a preview of what happens when "enclaves" remain in the midst of an evolving and growing metropolitan area.  It is disastrous, and leads to the development of a 4th generation ring.   These places spell the end of civilization.  Here is where civil ward foment in countries with weaker or non existing institutions of governance.  They are greenfield "newtowns", the suburban model as fortress, faux village.  They began in late 60's in the US.  Columbia MD is a proto example.   They didn't really catch fire until the 2000's.   They leach off the success and vitality of the city they orbit and provide no value add in return.  You can guess what two areas in Charlotte I'm describing.  

So what does all this help to explain?   The development capacities and social attitudes of a city are decipherable by observing a transect across its geographic area, similar to how viewing a section along a tree trunk reveals tree rings that inform climatologists and arborists about the health, and climate context of a tree's life history.  You can gauge the thickness and color of the various development rings and determine quite quickly what type of city you are dealing with.   Even the type of development along the street patterns can further inform the job, income, and vitality of a place at the time they were laid out just as the color of tree rings impart key information about rainfall and disease.  Keep in mind, the term "ring" does not mean an actual physical ring, although it can manifest as one in some cities.   In many there are often wedges and corridors that skew the ring shapes, which ironically enough is also the case for actual tree rings.   Charlotte's tree ring study is very telling.  It reveals why the City is the way it is today, socially, developmentally, and where it will go and how quickly it will get there, successfully or unsuccessfully over time.  It lends understanding to why the rail transit is such a hot topic, why traffic will never be "fixed", and why the social political situation is what it is.  

The grid downtown is small owing to its small town status for most of its pre car history.  The core is surrounded by an interconnected network of streets further out that is significant in area,  but in no way the preponderance of the built up fabric of Charlotte.  It tells of moderate growth and some wealth creation up to the period of the great Wars.   These areas give way subtly to the 2nd generation ring, the post Wars development pattern.   The ring of decline.   This is the City's slow growth period.  It abruptly give way to the conventional suburban pattern of cul-de-sacs, single entry development pods, and DOT limited access thoroughfares that sprawl haphazardly across the "vegetal plain", a phrase Rem Koolhaas once used to describe suburban Atlanta from his airplane window!  This is well over half the City of Charlotte and shows the start of the City's big growth spurt.  It continues to this day.    This is the suffocating blanket that smoothers proper growth, and the most difficult to alter in any meaningful way without dramatic changes to HOA law, zoning, DOT practice, and lending/appraisal tendencies.  The last two are especially insidious.  Ever wonder why with each land appraisal update, the areas most impacted are poor, while those least impacted are wealthy?   For more on this, go to my friend and colleague's website Urban3.com.  Joe is fighting the good fight to peel back the curtain of crimes against cities perpetrated by so many institutions responsible for the mess they find themselves in today. 

One more general rule of thumb, cities with more than half their urban pattern of the 3rd generation type are in big trouble....most of the post war sunbelt cities for example.   Cities with a balance have hope.   Cities that boomed pre war have the upper hand.  So many books to read on the subject.  Urbanists and economists have been studying this since the late 1950's!  And so many still blindly stumble in the dark about what to do.   Another reason to lament the ignorance of so many who are responsible for overseeing the building of the places we live.   The politicians, developers, activists, and specialist professionals pandering to those who fear change as a means to make money and/or gain power.  

 

[southslider]

^Not only will cities with existing walkable fabric have the upper hand, but also those with existing rail systems.   Until transit building in the US can reign in costs, even super dense legacy cities will have a hard time expanding their systems, let alone a Silver Line of more than quadrupled costs over Blue Line.

[Reverie39]

6 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

I agree with you & your previous posts but where I disagree about “urban bubble talk” is when the merits of transit or merits of certain urban policies are questioned rather than the fact it’s just not the priority or will of the voters (gerrymandering or not) or their elected representatives. 
 

It devolves into “well light rail isn’t effective, most people drive, future technology” and gets twisted into denying certain things that would benefit Charlotte. Silver Line light rail, for example. it’s one thing to be against Seattle level  of density  and prefer growth that encourages places like Ballantyne, Indian Trail, future River District because a lot of people do like those neighborhoods. Big house, nice yards, great schools, shopping centers are cute with good materials, HOA’s, neighborhood swimming pool type culture, pretty exclusive usually income wise. Etc. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Charlottes definitely not going to be a dense city. But it can have corridors of high density & commercial space served by light rail. Instead of strip malls, make it more of an urban village with Multifamily TOD. The Nimbys get a nice little urban village with say Pottery Barn, a grocery store, a little mini town center or whatever gives them a slice of urbanity while maintaining their low dense neighborhoods. Put a Wegmans at a (future) light rail with apartments on top, safe sidewalks, TOD and I’m sure south Charlotte NIMBY’s would be fine & like it, urbanites would be fine & like it, etc. 

A strategy of making a couple of light rail lines in Charlotte and trying to make commercial retail stay around the light rail stations and serving urbanites at the station and the people who will never take mass transit and don’t ever go uptown would be a win-win. We can’t have those discussions though if the merit of light rail is denied in and of itself.
 

There are low density areas in the DC region dominated by people who prefer low dense neighborhoods. But almost all of their retail (including Walmart, wegmans. Whole Foods etc vertically integrated into Multifamily) around metro. A lot never want to go to DC or the dense suburbs because parking etc but I’ve never heard one person complain about these urban wegmans of Walmarts etc out there. They actually love town centers lol (or “urban villages” as usually called in Meck.)

The area below serve all the single family neighborhoods and are served be metro. Those suburbanites are fine with that TOD and most use it because there aren’t strip malls located throughout the area. 

For Example:

I think that portion of VA is a similar approach Charlotte should take and I think it would be good for all constituents and not just urban nerds. But even that like. If we don’t have light rail, it won’t help commuters, won’t encourage as much (TOD) density, etc so. The silver line is important. 

I was just thinking of DC as I read the above comments and couldn't agree with your point more. I think the DC area, particularly Northern Virginia, is a great model for how Charlotte could realistically strive to grow with a balance of low and high density, under the assumption that it will never transform itself into fully high-density city.

Northern Virginia is so unique because you can go from quiet wooded single family home neighborhoods to highly urbanized pockets in seconds. I really like the idea of just having these pockets erupt around transit in Charlotte. The Blue Line is already seeing this and I think it stresses the importance of the Silver Line too so it's not just all stuck in one corridor. I also think commuter rail would help this a lot because of how those railways go right through the downtowns of Charlotte suburbs. Could transform those little downtowns into dense commuter neighborhoods with plenty of local things to do too, like a Reston, Tysons, Rockville type situation in the DC area.

[MarcoPolo]

Very true Southslider.  For all its imperfections the Blue Line is a blessing to Charlotte.  If, through continued government and agency incompetence it remains the only line built, it will still work its magic over time to transform a good chunk of the City, a transformation that no BRT line running through a suburban setting has ever delivered anything comparable to.  So in that sense Charlotte does have a bit of an advantage over say a Raleigh, for example, which has had to settle, at least for now, with BRT as the backbone of its system because of the insane costs of fixed rail.   Why do I say "settle".    Here's why.

I've been involved with BRT planning and design in Australia and China.   Brisbane and Guangzhou to be exact...some of the best systems as rated by the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP).  Check their website out to learn more about this and other transit/mobility topics.   Brisbane had a bus system in place decades ago that had many of the traits now considered crucial to BRT styled systems, ie raised platforms, dedicated lanes, etc..  One could say Brisbane was a founder of what we call BRT today.   It runs extensively through the CBD and inner city high density neighborhoods, in the same fashion as the streetcars once did there, and it works wonderfully.  It does so because it came after development, and is structured as an accompaniment to and support service for the City's extensive urban rail network.  Guangzhou's is much newer and also an accessory to its extensive new rail network.  Important to emphasize the words "accessory" and "accompaniment".  In neither City does the BRT spur walkable development patterns in suburban settings.  In fact, in Brisbane the newer BRT corridor lines, akin to what Raleigh and Charlotte are contemplating, are criticized because they do not provide the same "curative" pedestrianization and walkability outcomes to the built environment through which they pass.  There are other critiques as well, but this is a big one for purposes of our discussions here.  The BRT's augment the mobility freedom for the residents of each city, but without the heavy lift fundamentals provided by fixed rail, their BRT systems would be a failure on their own.   The further away a BRT line from a fixed rail line, the less impactful the BRT line becomes, most importantly to mobility freedom, but also to changing development patterns.  The former is impacted by how BRT systems are necessarily structured, using fleets of buses that result in peak "dead running" to manage the delivery of buses during high usage along mostly suburban corridors.  This is necessitated by lengthy station spacing because of the suburban densities they pass through.   And because they do not influence the type of infill that would warrant adding new new stations over time, the system fails to deliver change to the mobility options, and development pattern of the city.  On their own they do not help transform a city like a Charlotte, or a Raleigh.  

BRT works wonderfully in the urban core and surrounding high density fabric of Brisbane, because it mimics the older street car system, and unsurprisingly not so well in the 2nd and 3rd generation suburban rings of that City.  Fortunately, Brisbane has less of these later rings, so the impact is not as underwhelming as it is here in the States where BRT's run through, or are planned to run through, vast tracts of predominantly 3rd ring suburbia.  Studies completed to parse through the impacts of one type of transit vs another have repeatedly shown significant differences between the performances of highly rated, real BRT systems (per ITDP standards), the many lesser hybrid bus transit versions, and fixed rail of all kinds.  The findings are clear, and the reasons behind them understood.  Fixed rail out preforms at all levels of measure.  Fixed rail accompanied by BRT service is a win-win for both, but the reverse is not true.  BRT without fixed rail is not a successful transit outcome.  Because BRT and regular Bus transit investment is not perceived as "permanent" like a fixed rail line, or even a major city street are, BRT's do not lend the level of assurance and predicability to investors and residents that the facility will stand the test of time.  In fact there are examples of BRT lines that have closed or moved after being built.  Very difficult to alter the social habits, and walkable development pattern around a transit investment not acknowledged as "infrastructure".   It does not carry a sense of permanence.   BRT's do not impose a heavy enough weight to anchor robust development patterns, and as such are more at the mercy of migrating markets and populations.   Oddly enough, this trait is an argument used by the uninformed and the apologists for their construction over that of fixed rail!  Their flawed logic goes something like this...why spend billions to develop a line that may succumb to changing markets, when BRT is cheaper and has the flexibility to relocate if required to "follow" changing growth patterns.   In other words, a BRT can follow uncontrolled sprawl, where as fixed rail cannot, and it's cheaper and quicker to build, so it must be superior!   My friends, fixed rail, fixes in place, the pedestrian, higher density urban development around it.  It changes lifestyle and mobility choices by offering high capacity, permanent mobility.  It and only it, can serve as the backbone for all other forms of transit in cities that reach the threshold to contemplate its provision.  If you think for a moment that a BRT along New Bern Ave in Raleigh, or in the median of the Independence Freeway is going to change both into Southend....I've got some land in the Everglades I can sell you that is sure to become the next Miami Lakes and make you rich, just you wait and see!  Have you ever seen the weight of a tree supported without its trunk.....its called a bush?   And that's what league your are in when you do not properly construct a transit system...the bush league!   BRT's are wonderful accessories to a robust transit system, but more akin to the lesser tree branches of a tree.  Fixed rail systems, light and heavy, are the trunk and main branches of the tree.  They feed ridership and create a greater number of mobility sheds that all other forms of transit rest upon.  

A quick reply to RANYC and AirNostrum's exchange.  I understand the gist of what each of you are each trying to say, however, both of you conflate observational points that contradict the direction of the argument you make.   RANYC, I believe the density you picture in  your mind, ie: hyper density, aka, Manhattan, is not one you even need to invoke as part of your commentary.  Almost all the residential and hip neighborhoods in NYC are Hamburg/Munich scaled in massing.  The visual bulk of Manhattan's skyline is not were many people live...it is where many people work.  The vast majority of the City's residents live in 2 to 7 story walkups in fantastically walkable mixed use neighborhoods.  The taller the built form, the less pleasing the walkable environment in  almost every case.  Midtown Manhattan does not hold the charm of any of the neighborhoods that surround it.  It's definitely a fun place to hang out in, but when you are in the hands of a New Yorker, or urban aficionado, leading you to the latest amazing restaurant, park, theater, boutique hotel, or even their home, you almost certainly are not doing so in midtown or downtown Manhattan.  The densities you should envision and support, and for that matter all UP'rs should have in their minds eye, when we speak of density, are places you rightly refer to, such as Hamburg.  I would add Paris, Barcelona, and Milan on the denser scale, and Bruges, Savannah and Charleston on the lower scale as bookends.  Yes, that's right Savannah and Charleston.  Did you know that Charleston south of Calhoun St averages 40 units to the acre, all at 2 and 3 floors max with beautiful tree canopies, deep courtyards and pedestrian scaled streets and blocks.  Try finding that in Charlotte over an equivalent area!  Density should never be thought of as how tall the buildings are.  It is not the normal living condition for most of the planet's population.  The high rise cores and districts of a select few cities on Earth are the aberration to the norm.  Density is best baked at 2 to 6 floors.  With that massing over a large area you can accommodate amazingly high residential densities in beautiful environments; and as described in my post about office square footage earlier, this scale also supports amazing concentrations of office space, aka DC.  These are the densities real urbanists talk about when addressing all things related to city building, from transit to open space, to housing.   Skyscrapers are urban elements to be dealt with and accommodated with special care, not a goal to be achieved.  As one off objects they are exciting to look at, but should never be fetishized as the building form for city development. 

AirNostrum, I know you posted your discussion after I posted mine.  All I would ask is that you go back and read what I wrote.  Pandering to the needs of those who want all the benefits of city living without any of the realities and needs to sustain urbanism is a loosing proposition for the city.  The type of lifestyle you argue many people desire, those who enjoy their large lots and would never need to go to downtown, but only require access to shopping is both framed incorrectly and not a factual description of how people use transit.  In proper urbanism people rarely hop on a train to go to the store...they walk down the street to a corner market, a luxury that properly scaled urbanism can deliver.   Just mentioning Wegmans and Walmart in the same sentence about shopping and transit negates your point.   The only people that benefit from those stores are those directly adjacent to them or a very short walk.  Definitely a stop in the right direction, pardon the pun, but not impactful at the scale of city level mobility.  Everyone else drives to another auto oriented strip shopping center or if they feel lucky with their chances to find on street parking or don't mind the deck, they go to urban Wegmans and Walmart.  Some of the northern Virginia and the Maryland suburbs exhibit good urban outcomes, as do the older commuter rail suburbs of NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and even Toronto.  The issue is not the character of the individual node of density, but the way they are distributed around enclaves of lower density and connected by weak transportation systems.  As any driver will tell you, the suburbs of DC are a traffic apocalypse every day and Sunday.  And unlike a NYC or Boston or Chicago, walking to and from nodes is not an option.  The pattern is unsustainable and will collapse in on itself without significant changes to HOA laws, zoning ordinances, DOT practices, and lending/appraisal tendencies, as I wrote above in a previous post.  A daunting battle to wage against the 3rd ring suburbia these nodes reside within.   Again, one only need to look at a few southeast asian cities to get a glimpse of the not so distant future of places like this.   

The World's return to building proper urbanism once again after having abandoned the practice for the last 80 years is a long term war, waged against the status quo, and all its providers, supporters, apologists, and fear mongers.  How to deliver good cities is a known technique with established principles and long running successful precedents that offer endlessly adaptive outcomes.  Many of you point these out in your posts on occasion, but then confuse the observation made with opinion and contradictory observations.  I am not stating this to demean any of you.  It's difficult to express tone in words.  I type all my replies with a happy smile on my face and an eagerness to share.   I'm impressed with the passion and thoughtfulness you display by being on the UP site in the first place.  I wish more people were as interested in the nuts and bolts of community!   Keep it up...I love the opportunity to break from a hectic work day and visit here.   I can tell many of you are very knowledgeable about the topic, and you are often more inquisitive than some of my clients !

 

[RANYC]

33 minutes ago, MarcoPolo said:

A quick reply to RANYC and AirNostrum's exchange.  I understand the gist of what each of you are each trying to say, however, both of you conflate observational points that contradict the direction of the argument you make.   RANYC, I believe the density you picture in  your mind, ie: hyper density, aka, Manhattan, is not one you even need to invoke as part of your commentary.  Almost all the residential and hip neighborhoods in NYC are Hamburg/Munich scaled in massing.  The visual bulk of Manhattan's skyline is not were many people live...it is where many people work.  The vast majority of the City's residents live in 2 to 7 story walkups in fantastically walkable mixed use neighborhoods.  The taller the built form, the less pleasing the walkable environment in  almost every case.  Midtown Manhattan does not hold the charm of any of the neighborhoods that surround it.  It's definitely a fun place to hang out in, but when you are in the hands of a New Yorker, or urban aficionado, leading you to the latest amazing restaurant, park, theater, boutique hotel, or even their home, you almost certainly are not doing so in midtown or downtown Manhattan.  The densities you should envision and support, and for that matter all UP'rs should have in their minds eye, when we speak of density, are places you rightly refer to, such as Hamburg.  I would add Paris, Barcelona, and Milan on the denser scale, and Bruges, Savannah and Charleston on the lower scale as bookends.  Yes, that's right Savannah and Charleston.  Did you know that Charleston south of Calhoun St averages 40 units to the acre, all at 2 and 3 floors max with beautiful tree canopies, deep courtyards and pedestrian scaled streets and blocks.  Try finding that in Charlotte over an equivalent area!  Density should never be thought of as how tall the buildings are.  It is not the normal living condition for most of the planet's population.  The high rise cores and districts of a select few cities on Earth are the aberration to the norm.  Density is best baked at 2 to 6 floors.  With that massing over a large area you can accommodate amazingly high residential densities in beautiful environments; and as described in my post about office square footage earlier, this scale also supports amazing concentrations of office space, aka DC.  These are the densities real urbanists talk about when addressing all things related to city building, from transit to open space, to housing.   Skyscrapers are urban elements to be dealt with and accommodated with special care, not a goal to be achieved.  As one off objects they are exciting to look at, but should never be fetishized as the building form for city development. 

Appreciate your posts, your attention to detail, and your reasoning.  Lived in multiple neighborhoods from 2004-2018, so know NYC quite well.  Yes, there are somewhat pleasant low-rise and mid-rise neighborhoods in NYC, particularly for the urban affluent, but from South Bronx to Jamaica Queens to even Brighton Beach, the high-rise human warehousing and tree-less concrete-scapes exist in so many parts outside of Manhattan and house so many, and I still believe are not a density objective that most Charlotteans would want or support, and I don't see anything contradictory in that assertion.  I also don't believe that NYC, even ex-Manhattan, is at all comparable to Hamburg based on my time spent in both places.  

Edited February 4, 2023 by RANYC

[southslider]

On 2/1/2023 at 9:35 AM, CLT2014 said:

The stars are just not aligning for this thing....

Amen to the full list. Focus on operations.  Rebuild public trust. Put riders and operators first. Rededicate resources to implement Envision My Ride, instead of the admittedly delayed 2030 Plan. Finish the Gateway Station through a private partner. There are so many other more cost-effective and long overdue needs to pursue instead of anything needing enabling state legislation and an area vote.

At this point,  Silver Line and Red Line are just energy-sucking, politically volatile distractions from core responsibilities and realistic opportunities.  Shelve these futile, big-ticket projects. And seriously get to work on what can be achieved more immediately. Return to ridership wins for a growing region.

[elrodvt]

And miss out on our share of a "once in a generation investment in transit"?

I don't disagree as i don't think they'll do anything effective anyway but we need to keep in mind that this means Charlotte falls another step behind competitors who actually have their act together. 

[JRCLT]

The equivalence of shelving the BLE