CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[kermit]

CBJ's Eric Steinberg talks to Anthony Foxx about the next steps for Charlotte transit (post BLE funding decision). Foxx says his transit priorites are:

1) East west streetcar

2) streetcar to airport

3) Red line to Mooresville (they should just start saying Davidson)

Funding strategies mentioned were special tax districts and general property taxes.

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/print-edition/2012/10/19/where-transit-goes-from-here.html?page=all

The article also suggests that the end of annexation will make transit the city's primary revenue growth strategy.

[thetrick]

2) streetcar to airport

This is the first I have heard about this, has there ever been a proposed alignment? I'm guessing this would go up the center of Wilkinson. I imagine this would be a lot cheaper than LRT given the lower impact to existing infrastructure.

I bet we will see more and more street car proposals as people realize that it may be quite a while till we can afford another large LRT project.

TH

[HopHead]

The thing I don't like about a streetcar to the airport is the inconsistent mode of transport (e.g. you'd go from a light rail car to a streetcar, which I assume is slower). I live south of uptown and would absolutely love to take the south line LYNX to a new East/West line to the airport. But I think the inconsistencies and slower speeds would frustrate travelers who just want to get to the airport. Especially business travelers who would use it. It would be interesting to see if there's a way to determine how many people travel from uptown to the airport (and vice versa) on a daily basis. I would assume that's a pretty good number during the week.

[kermit]

I agree a streetcar to the airport is unapealing to most. However it does seem like they could run down the side of Wilkenson in a dedicated lane (with lrt stop spacing) to get speeds up a good bit.

[ah59396]

If Streetcar had it's own lane on Wilkinson and only had to contend with traffic lights, I would be in favor of it. Especially if they built the system in a way that would allow the lights to change quickly as the streetcar approached. Maybe a 1/4 mile out, the light allows 15-20 more seconds then automatically changes to make sure the streetcar hits it on a green. It can't be that difficult.

[cltbwimob]

Streetcar to the airport is a waste.

LRT has a proven track record in the city and needs to be implemented in the West Corridor. I do not think it would be terribly expensive for the city to build a roughly 7 mile line to the airport. Norfolk's line is 7.6 miles long and cost $330ish million to build. I would imagine a line of about the same length in Charlotte would cost roughly the same. Furthermore Jerry Orr has said he could potentially procure FAA funds to help cover the cost. If a park and ride was implemented at 485 the roughly 2 of the seven miles would be on airport property.

I hope this love affair between the mayor and streetcar ends soon. If all proposed SC lines were implemented, the city would have 30+ miles of streetcar when all is said and done. It's absolutely ridiculous, and the mayor's justification line is that modern streetcars look a lot like light rail trains. The unmentioned counterpoint to that statement is modern streetcars function and operate a lot like a city bus...a very, very expensive city bus. Michael Gallis, the transit planner mentioned in the article, was right when he said this rush just to build something may prevent the city from building a system with true regional significance.

BRT's mantra: all the convenience of rail at bus-like prices, Streetcars: the convenience of a bus at the price of rail...

Rant over...

Edited October 19, 2012 by cltbwimob

[southslider]

The West Corridor has sometimes been talked about as a "rapid streetcar." Applying that concept, the Wilkinson portion of the alignment could have semi-exclusive routing largely separate from motor vehicle traffic. The only reason then to still use shorter modern streetcar vehicles (instead of LRT) is that those same vehicles need to also operate in Uptown and on West Morehead.

The biggest cost hurdle for doing "light rail" (semi-exclusive with longer vehicles) instead of "rapid streetcar" (runs like LRT only west of Wesley Heights) is finding a semi-exclusive guideway between the Blue Line and Wilkinson. Otherwise, it's the Trade-Cedar-Morehead routing between Uptown and Wilkinson that makes LRT expensive.

Edited October 19, 2012 by southslider

[thetrick]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a big LTR fan and would prefer it used in most situations.

That said the real issue is cost here. I work for a civil engineering firm that does lots of government work and let me just state that if we ever see the level of government spending on transit as we did before the recession it will take decades (BLE was safe because it was in the pipeline).

Street cars are cheaper by half. LRT is about $100m where Streetcar is about $50m a mile. The current Lynx line, and the BLE have about half of their route in an existing RR right of way. The Norfolk route is mostly in an old RR right of way. The our Wilkinson Blvd route to the airport is almost ALL in city streets, this may seem like a small distinction, but it is the main thing driving cost. LRT ROW needs are much more complicated and restrained, with dedicated ROW with bridges over any major streets, larger curve radius, and safety issues related to higher speeds.

I'm not saying that Streetcars are necessarily the right way to spend this money, but there is a very good reason the city is choosing Streetcar over LRT if it has to choose something.

Also modern Streetcars can be multiple units, and therefore carry more than busses, they have better acceleration and efficiency than busses. Given that the route is mostly in the midian and not in the flow of traffic they have a distinct speed advantage as they always the first and only vehicle at any light they may be stopped at. Also I imagine that there would be express trains skipping intermediate stops running from the city center to the airport in the morning and afternoon. Couple this with traffic lights that are timed well or anticipate the streetcar and you could have a very quick and effective route.

TH

[tozmervo]

even on the sprinter that trip is only about 25 minutes. most cities would kill to have an airport connection that short.

[Urbanity]

^^^ Props to that.

The West Corridor has sometimes been talked about as a "rapid streetcar." Applying that concept, the Wilkinson portion of the alignment could have semi-exclusive routing largely separate from motor vehicle traffic. The only reason then to still use shorter modern streetcar vehicles (instead of LRT) is that those same vehicles need to also operate in Uptown and on West Morehead.

I wasn't aware of the Rapid Streetcar aspect which when combined with the cost savings over light rail as mentioned by therick, I appreciate why they are doing this.

What I do wish though is that if they do pursue the Streetcar that they also combine it with the suggestion by the Urban Land Institute (I think?!) about a streetcar down Monroe so that you would have the streetcar run from the airport into downtown, share the same tracks with the Rosa Parks-Eastland streetcar through Elizabeth and then branch off down Monroe.

[cltbwimob]

I can not find any literature, article, brochure, or website that supports the notion that the West corridor would be rapid streetcar. In fact, although I read this some time ago, the talk was specifically that it would operate in mixed traffic, and the ridership numbers projected are abysmal.. roughly 4000 riders per day. The rapid streetcar idea is somewhat vague and is really only talked about in transit blogs and the like; as far as I know there, are no useful discussions at the city council level of implenting such an idea anywhere in the US and certainly those discussions are not taking place in Charlotte. Finally for those who support the idea of running a streetcar line from the airport all the way to Matthews I read a story just this morning about Melbourne and how it is having trouble attracting people to it's excessively long streetcar lines. I have not researched that topic thoroughly, yet it supports what I have been preaching on these threads (often to no avail) that streetcar should only be used in a dense urban core area and should not be used as a linear mode of transit. It is not the same thing as light rail, and most will admit that it's sole purpose is not to carry people but to attract development. Light rail does both. And once again, Jerry Orr specifically said he could potentially get FAA funds to cover part of the cost, however he is opposed to streetcar and will not likely try to help fund it at all. And there is no chance the feds will help cover the cost of streetcar. But there is still some chance the feds will dole out cash for light rail. Transit funding was not wholly eliminated from the proposed budget.

If your sole purpose is to attract development, why wouldn't you just take the $50 million per mile that they were going to spend on the project and just give it to a developer and tell them to go build something along these corridors. It would be much less of a hassle, and the end result would probably be a lot nicer. Or how about this take the $1.5 billion (50 million per mile x approx 30 miles for all proposed streetcars) and just give that to a couple of large companies and allow them to create tens of thousands of jobs and lower the unemployment rate. This 1.5 billion dollar streetcar system money would all come from the city, by the way, and as a result would be more of a burden to the Charlotte citizen than the the blue line, the blue line extension and the red line combined.

Michael Gallis said it best when he said that the rush to build something will prevent the city from building a true regional system... And he has worked on urban planning and transit not just in Charlotte, but across the nation.

[thetrick]

I think that there are 2 discussion to be had here. One being the technical comparison of streetcars VS Light rail, and a discussion of why we would fund either and to what end.

From a technical point of view there is really not that much different from a modern streetcar and a modern LRT vehicle, the biggest differences being how you board them and their max operating speed. What really sets them apart is how you design the system on which they run, and the amount of dedicated right of way VS median, VS mixed with traffic, and number of stations.

Streetcars and LRT spur development because they are a significant permanent improvement to corridor and therefore create demand and business are willing to invest do to the permanent nature of having tracks on the ground unlike busses. Buisness want to see that someone else has some chips in the game before they commit. To say that the only reason LTR is built is to spur growth is to ignore why the growth is spurred. If the LRT had no real value as a transportation system why do business spend millions to build near the stations? For the fun of it?

The suggestion that you could just give $1.5b to a company create jobs is incorrect because that is not what they do. A business purpose in life is to create value for the owner or shareholder and that does not necessarily create jobs, often that value is created by the loss of jobs. Business have no concern for the greater good, it's not their job, and that is why we need public investment to get the "good" where it might not grow on it's own.

[orulz]

There actually is some surprisingly significant technical difference between a modern LRV and a modern streetcar.

(1) LRVs are wider. As a product of this they have wider turning radii. They can't usually make a hard 90 degree turn from one city street to the next without at least cutting through the curb. They also don't fit quite as comfortably into existing traffic lanes. As such they require more extensive reconstruction of the street.

(2) LRVs are longer, and capable of operating in MU (multiple unit) mode with up to four vehicles linked together and operated as a train. On the downside, LRVs need longer platforms which are harder to shoehorn into dense urban environments and again require more extensive street reconstruction.

(3) LRVs have higher top speeds. Some can go 65mph. Streetcars seem to top out at around 40mph.

(4) Streetcars can be equipped with trolley poles and powered by a single electric line. LRVs have pantographs and require double-suspended catenary wire which is more visually obtrusive.

(5) Supposedly (according to this blogger) the Skoda-based modern streetcars that are becoming ubiquitous in the US ride poorly, are noisy, and accelerate slowly. At least compared with LRVs. This could potentially be overcome by getting streetcar vehicles from other manufacturers, but for whatever reason, nobody in the US seems inclined to do so.

[cltbwimob]

The suggestion that you could just give $1.5b to a company create jobs is incorrect because that is not what they do. A business purpose in life is to create value for the owner or shareholder and that does not necessarily create jobs, often that value is created by the loss of jobs. Business have no concern for the greater good, it's not their job, and that is why we need public investment to get the "good" where it might not grow on it's own.

I do agree that a business' purpose is to make profit and as a result create value for an owner or shareholder. My argument was from an incentives perspective...In other words, I was saying take the billions of dollars to be spent building proposed streetcar lines, repurpose it to incentive money for large corporate relocations, and set large job targets for those companies as a prerequisite for the money as a means for economic development. I was not as much advocating such a policy as I was explaining how misguided it is to create such a large streetcar system if the primary goal of said system is for economic development of an area or corridor. The better opption in this case is to create a light rail system which effectively accomplishes both the economic and the transit pieces of a well planned growth strategy vice using something such as streetcar whose primary purpose is to spur economic development. Even well known streetcar boosters will admit that the streetcar rennasaince is less about transportation than development. At any rate, light rail effectively accomplishes both, not to mention it's benefit to the environment due to the fact that it takes cars off the highways to larger extent than streetcars due to it's higher capacity. All of these arguments also fail to mention the attractivness of light rail from the consumer standpoint due to the fact that it gets commuters out of traffic whereas a streetcar puts those commuters back into the traffic, just as riders rather than drivers.

Edited October 22, 2012 by cltbwimob

[thetrick]

There actually is some surprisingly significant technical difference between a modern LRV and a modern streetcar.

(1) LRVs are wider. As a product of this they have wider turning radii. They can't usually make a hard 90 degree turn from one city street to the next without at least cutting through the curb. They also don't fit quite as comfortably into existing traffic lanes. As such they require more extensive reconstruction of the street.

(2) LRVs are longer, and capable of operating in MU (multiple unit) mode with up to four vehicles linked together and operated as a train. On the downside, LRVs need longer platforms which are harder to shoehorn into dense urban environments and again require more extensive street reconstruction.

(3) LRVs have higher top speeds. Some can go 65mph. Streetcars seem to top out at around 40mph.

(4) Streetcars can be equipped with trolley poles and powered by a single electric line. LRVs have pantographs and require double-suspended catenary wire which is more visually obtrusive.

(5) Supposedly (according to this blogger) the Skoda-based modern streetcars that are becoming ubiquitous in the US ride poorly, are noisy, and accelerate slowly. At least compared with LRVs. This could potentially be overcome by getting streetcar vehicles from other manufacturers, but for whatever reason, nobody in the US seems inclined to do so.

Good Points, but on #3 I would add that when you compare the actual average operating speed between the two on a short 7 mile segment (Up Town to the airport) I imagine your actual travel time would differ little. The average operating speed is the most important number and is more often dictated by the system design (number of stops, distance between, etc) than equipment maximums.

[southslider]

^Exactly, which is why light rail wouldn't provide much travel time savings over streetcar to the Airport, when following the system plan's constrained alignment (Trade-Cedar-Morehead-Wilkinson). In order to get better travel time, you need a more exclusive right-of-way on largely different alignment, but that comes at a much higher cost.

The West Corridor has never been officially called a "rapid streetcar" by CATS; it's just a good candidate. Wilkinson has few intersections already, but the corridor could also have less median or fewer lanes, in order to create a more exclusive right-of-way for any form of transit (even BRT). Such treatment along Wilkinson would also work for LRT, but elsewhere along the corridor (Trade, Cedar, Morehead), LRV's are too long and turn too wide. Hence, "rapid streetcar" is a cost-effective compromise.

Otherwise, if LRT is truly the desire, then an entirely new (and expensive) right-of-way is needed between Uptown and Wilkinson. And depending on NCDOT's acceptance of exclusive treatments along Wilkinson, maybe even an entirely different alignment, such as the Norfolk Southern or Billy Graham.

One idea is to follow the overly wide Carson and I-277/77 as exclusive rights-of-way between the Blue Line and Wilkinson (the median or restricted lanes) or the Norfolk Southern (parallel to or at edge of railroad right-of-way). Another idea is to follow Billy Graham, but how do you reach Billy Graham from the Blue Line, when Woodlawn Road is constrained? Billy Graham would have significantly more miles, but a station at City Park (Tyvola Coliseum) may offset the cost. And if Norfolk Southern would be harder (or more expensive) than NCDOT to deal with, then it may be worth it. Ultimately, either option would interline with the Blue Line, and going with LRT to the Airport is going to need a lot more riders to offset a much higher cost than streetcar.

[kermit]

The west line is likely to be an underachiever no matter what route is ultimately selected. A routing along either along Wilkinson or the NS will only recieve riders from the north side of the line. There is really nothing south of the NS tracks which will generate trips. While there is activity north of the tracks (anchored by Walmart) the neighborhoods surrounding the thin layer of commercial are lower density that the neighborhoods along South blvd (and I would bet lower density than the neighborhoods along N Tryon as well).

A billy graham route would have to be all about development potential, but I fear that airport proximity makes the area some of the least desirable for residential infill.

I would really like to have an airport connection, but when you look at the maps it is easy to understand why the route was given a low priority.

In fantasy world the west line might generate solid ridership by running past the airport to 1) a 485 park and ride stop; 2) cross 485 and the Catawba via some sort of magic carpet to a Gaston I-85 park and ride and finally; 3) run south along the P&N spur into downtown Belmont. However for this to work the line would need to run -fast- west of the airport -- this extension would make modern streetcars inpractical for the route.

[orulz]

Otherwise, if LRT is truly the desire, then an entirely new (and expensive) right-of-way is needed between Uptown and Wilkinson. And depending on NCDOT's acceptance of exclusive treatments along Wilkinson, maybe even an entirely different alignment, such as the Norfolk Southern or Billy Graham.

One idea is to follow the overly wide Carson and I-277/77 as exclusive rights-of-way between the Blue Line and Wilkinson (the median or restricted lanes) or the Norfolk Southern (parallel to or at edge of railroad right-of-way). Another idea is to follow Billy Graham, but how do you reach Billy Graham from the Blue Line, when Woodlawn Road is constrained? Billy Graham would have significantly more miles, but a station at City Park (Tyvola Coliseum) may offset the cost. And if Norfolk Southern would be harder (or more expensive) than NCDOT to deal with, then it may be worth it. Ultimately, either option would interline with the Blue Line, and going with LRT to the Airport is going to need a lot more riders to offset a much higher cost than streetcar.

There are some unused freight rail spur rights-of-way in the neighborhood near West Morehead that might take some of the sting out of an exclusive right of way in the area.

If it's at all possible, I think using the Norfolk Southern right of way is more desireable than Wilkinson. It's physically very close and parallel, but few grade crossings (all of which will be eliminated) and no stoplights to deal with.

[dubone]

I think the key to the airport line is to include it as one end of a line that is more than just the airport to downtown. For example, when the NE line was going to have a phase that was only 5 miles, from uptown to Sugar Creek Rd, it did not have nearly enough riders to justify it, but when you add a high traffic generator on the other end, it can work. The airport is equivalent of a generator than UNCC for riders, but I think that is only true if you connect it to a larger system with higher speed than streetcar. Obviously the old corridor plans are seriously flawed and warrant re-analysis from scratch. Obviously streetcar should not be considered, as that proved to have little ridership benefits over the current Sprinter high [quality] bus line. The only way to reach a new level of ridership is to go higher speed with light rail on a dedicated corridor, and the best way to do that, is plan a longer line that is more than just airport to downtown.

I know Norfolk-Southern is difficult, but I have come to believe that the freight corridors are absolutely the most appropriate corridors for at least some of the rapid transit corridors in town. They already run through neighborhoods that are dense and have major ridership generators along them. The problem with the Red Regional Rail line is that they want to use the same tracks as the N-S freight trains, which is a major long term hassle and expense for them. However, buying into their right of way and running parallel puts an asset of theirs that is unlikely to be used for a century into play, and is an expense for the transit system to avoid conflicts like they have done with the BLE.

I still believe strongly that an East-West corridor based on the freight corridors would be the best way to create a high speed light rail line that still serves the major traffic generators in the East-West: 485 in the west, CLT, Wilkinson Walmart, [Gateway Station], Blue Line transfers, Midwood, Grier Heights, Bo's Coliseum, Matthews.

Here are my theories of either East-West corridor or an airport to South Park corridor:

[15895]

I always dreamed of LRT down Tyvola connecting the airport to south park mall. And a blue line spur going through Carolina place to Ballantyne

Edited October 25, 2012 by AirNostrumMAD

[thetrick]

I think the key to the airport line is to include it as one end of a line that is more than just the airport to downtown. For example, when the NE line was going to have a phase that was only 5 miles, from uptown to Sugar Creek Rd, it did not have nearly enough riders to justify it, but when you add a high traffic generator on the other end, it can work. The airport is equivalent of a generator than UNCC for riders, but I think that is only true if you connect it to a larger system with higher speed than streetcar. Obviously the old corridor plans are seriously flawed and warrant re-analysis from scratch. Obviously streetcar should not be considered, as that proved to have little ridership benefits over the current Sprinter high [quality] bus line. The only way to reach a new level of ridership is to go higher speed with light rail on a dedicated corridor, and the best way to do that, is plan a longer line that is more than just airport to downtown.

I know Norfolk-Southern is difficult, but I have come to believe that the freight corridors are absolutely the most appropriate corridors for at least some of the rapid transit corridors in town. They already run through neighborhoods that are dense and have major ridership generators along them. The problem with the Red Regional Rail line is that they want to use the same tracks as the N-S freight trains, which is a major long term hassle and expense for them. However, buying into their right of way and running parallel puts an asset of theirs that is unlikely to be used for a century into play, and is an expense for the transit system to avoid conflicts like they have done with the BLE.

I still believe strongly that an East-West corridor based on the freight corridors would be the best way to create a high speed light rail line that still serves the major traffic generators in the East-West: 485 in the west, CLT, Wilkinson Walmart, [Gateway Station], Blue Line transfers, Midwood, Grier Heights, Bo's Coliseum, Matthews.

I agree 100% and to add to that both the NS and CSX have a 200ft right of way, and where NS is 3 tracks wide they are still only using 50ft and that includes access roads. You only need 30ft of right of way for light rail, there is plenty of room.

This would be a big change in the way cats looks at corridors, these kinds of institutions don't like change.

TH

[carolinagarnet]

I love the purple line idea. It pushes development north and east of Uptown where there is already some momentum. Over time you would likely see frequent travelers and people who work in 1st or 4th wards move along the purple line to avoid transferring trains. I'm sure the price would be cringe-worthy, but there is certainly a business case for such a route.

[dubone]

I totally think there is a viable case to follow the freight lines uptown past Gateway Station, Gateway Village, Panther's Stadium, NC Music Factory, Historic Fourth Ward, and the area just north of uptown. Certainly it could instead connect by Carson instead and then branch off, but I do like the idea of having the added station density uptown to saturate the area that is zoned for unlimited density.

That line that I've drawn also has very reasonable station locations for Park-n-rides and for transit supportive neighborhood connections. But also, they are spaces roughly in the larger station gap distances that the Blue Line has, so that means that the trains can go faster speeds, definitely beating any comparative bus or streetcar on Wilkinson for travel time.

Certainly these are not near term projects. But absolutely they ought to get on the books for the 2020s or 2030s as very reasonable long term plans when the transit tax revenue is back on track. The 2010s focused on the Blue line serving the NE and SW corridors, fine. The streetcar will end up as a city project roughly serving just Uptown, West End and Elizabeth as an economic development project. The Red line regional rail project will be the next priority because of the political power of the northern towns. But we need to have the next long term planning in place to create a real mass transit system in this city.

I am slowly being convinced that streetcars are not real answers for mass transit across the city, and only good for short lines where economic development is the concern. So be it. Then if the FTA is supporting billion dollar mass transit projects that have good dedicated rights of way, then the no brainer is to start planning for those, build-able at the point that we can afford them as a city.

We all know that Ballantyne, South Park, and the airport are major growth areas, all of which in the city of Charlotte. We should start planning for a time when they are going to be too difficult to grow in an auto-oriented way, and LRT to those destinations are very likely to generate the ridership to gain FTA funding.

[southslider]

I like Dubone's idea of following the CSX and NS railroads for an east-west line, but where the CSX crosses the BLE, there is no station or flat grade. If dreaming, remove the Brookshire Freeway between Graham Street and the Belk/Independence interchange. There appears to be room on the north side of Independence between the CSX underpass in Midwood/Chantilly and the removed Brookshire Freeway to reach Uptown more directly. Combined with Dubone's faint pink line for a connection via Carson, you could then interline the "Silver Line" with the Blue Line, sharing the same existing stations between Carson and 9th Street.

Edited October 25, 2012 by southslider

[tozmervo]

It appears CATS is making a much stronger push into the social media realm (previously prohibited by city policy). They've been populating their Facebook timeline with historical tidbits and whatnot. Also a new Twitter feed.