Where should HQ2 go?

[RALNATIVE]

7 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Mass transit (trains in particular) are appropriate for very densely populated cities.  Most residents of the DC suburbs drive to work and avoid the Metro.

Building a train line across the Triangle  would be a huge waste of money.

Like lightrail in Charlotte for the sake of saying they have one?

[Richhamleigh, DC]

1 hour ago, RALNATIVE said:

Like lightrail in Charlotte for the sake of saying they have one?

Rule #1 of urban growth.....development FOLLOWS transportation.  Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[SydneyCarton]

1 hour ago, RALNATIVE said:

Like lightrail in Charlotte for the sake of saying they have one?

Honestly, pretty much.  Massive apartment development occurred along the light rail line in SouthEnd, but it’s so close in that it was unnecessary for commuting purposes.    Very few people who live in Waxhaw drive to the South Blvd station at the end of the line and then board a train which is 15 stops to Uptown.  It would take forever and be far less comfortable than driving in your own car.

Edited May 14, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[RALNATIVE]

11 hours ago, Phillydog said:

Rule #1 of urban growth.....development FOLLOWS transportation.  Why is this so hard for people to understand?

For your information, historically transportation infrastructure has been expanded to address an existing need, not to spur future growth.

[DownEast]

21 minutes ago, RALNATIVE said:

For your information, historically transportation infrastructure has been expanded to address an existing need, not to spur future growth.

Literally every highway project in this state has been constructed to spur future growth. Why should other modes be any different? And why not spur development closer in where infrastructure is already in abundance/underused as oppose to tearing up the countryside. 

[jthomas]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You're an idiot who's on the bandwagon of wanting to be a "real city" by having mass transit.  Lots of my neighbors in CH work in Raleigh, but they're mostly in office parks near PNC.  No one would be riding light rail to those offices.  It simply would not be convenient.  Mass transit works for huge, dense cities like NY, London, Paris, etc.    Mass transit is not needed in a metro area that's as sparsely populated as the Triangle.

I think you are right, but only partially so. Mass transit will have a tough time serving today's Triangle well, but the point of building it today is to provide a backbone for the region's next 50+ years of growth. Car-based development only scales to a certain point, beyond which it quickly descends into gridlocked chaos. I have stated before that I think the Triangle is close to the point of no return. Your argument has been used before to delay projects that would have been useful today. When I was at NC State 20 years ago, TTA commuter rail was right around the corner. Imagine if that service was established now - perhaps the new Apple campus, along with many of the other new job announcements in that time frame, could have been built adjacent to a station. This in turn would drive residential demand near other stations. That is the virtuous cycle of transit investment.

Honestly, for all of the praise you lavish on Charlotte, I can't believe that you don't see that this is exactly what has happened with the Lynx there. The TTA could have opened around the same time that the original Blue Line did. Now South End is booming, as are the areas around the other stations. The same could be happening in the Triangle right now, but folks with your same arguments set the region back 20 years, and would set it back another 20 if they had their way. The cost of not investing in transit is not $0. The alternative is pouring the same billions into endless road and freeway widening, which only cements auto-dependence and all of its well-documented negative externalities. 

Like planting a tree, the best time to invest in transit is 20 years ago, but the second-best time is now.

[RALNATIVE]

3 hours ago, DownEast said:

Literally every highway project in this state has been constructed to spur future growth. Why should other modes be any different? And why not spur development closer in where infrastructure is already in abundance/underused as oppose to tearing up the countryside. 

Ah, really? Maybe you should consult the NCDOT and confirm that. Most are designed to make it easier on travelers to get from point A to point B. Also safety is a big factor. Spuring growth would simply be a benefit, not a driving factor in determining if the state will build a new highway system, unless projected growth models predict a future need.

 

You cannot compare the need for building a new highway to the need for building a light rail system. If the justifications were similar, you're see them in more metros than exists today.

Edited May 14, 2021 by RALNATIVE

[jthomas]

56 minutes ago, RALNATIVE said:

You cannot compare the need for building a new highway to the need for building a light rail system. If the justifications were similar If one major political party did not have a knee-jerk opposition to public transportation that ignores lived experience in other developed nations, you're see them in more metros than exists today.

*FTFY

[DownEast]

I understand that highways are needed. But, as cities get larger transit needs to carve away a portion of the transportation budget. It's just a far better investment for the health of the city. Highways are in a perpetual state of construction. It's difficult to have smart growth when all the growth is spined by only highways. The Triangle is already at a disadvantage with RTP being the job center of the region. It's not like Charlotte where uptown has the lion's share of jobs. Any mass transit attempted will be difficult and expensive. Look at all of our peer cities scrambling to build light rail right now. 

[DPK]

Some of ya'll need to put on your adult pants and stop going on tirades like children.  This community has historically been a place for light hearted discussion and more observational talk.  Today's the first time in near/over a decade that I signed in to read someone calling another user an idiot and other users bickering like they have the final word in a topic.  I don't know if we're suddenly getting an influx of new people on here or if it's something else, but grow up and control yourselves.

If you're going to have an opposing viewpoint, that's fine.  However back up your statements with facts and resources.  Everyone here should be humble enough to be tolerant of opposing viewpoints given that.

[nicholas]

On 5/13/2021 at 1:29 PM, SydneyCarton said:

Mass transit (trains in particular) are appropriate for very densely populated cities.  Most residents of the DC suburbs drive to work and avoid the Metro.

Building a train line across the Triangle  would be a huge waste of money.

Building a rail line in the Triangle might not have an immediate return, but if done competently would pay dividends down the line.  Look at South End in Charlotte, which 15 years ago was basically just a few residents and a bunch of abandoned industrial buildings.  Everything didn't change overnight, but now South End is one of the most desirable and vibrant areas of the state.  Would it have had the same success without the presence of the light rail?  Maybe eventually, but I think that the allure of being able to leave your apartment, hop on the Blue Line, and ride into uptown in a couple of minutes greatly accelerated the rate of growth there. 

A light rail system wouldn't transform the Triangle overnight, but it would lay the foundation for a more sustainable method of building.  Granted, there are ways to not design a light rail route (looking at you, Durham-Orange) but if light rail is done right AND run well (something that Charlotte's is lacking), it can be transformational.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

On 5/14/2021 at 9:50 AM, RALNATIVE said:

For your information, historically transportation infrastructure has been expanded to address an existing need, not to spur 

 We are talking about two different facts.  Roads are widened because they become congested and you say that's because there's more demand for roads.  True, but it's also true that development doesn't happen in the first place unless there's a way to access it.  Not one city, town, settlement, or Sheetz on the planet was started without there being a way to get to it...by footpath, cartpath, boat, railroad, roadway, air landing strip, etc..  You actually think an office park is built in the middle of a forest miles from a freeway and then they build the freeway because there's a need to get to the office park?  Or, that Walmart is locating in places with no roads?  Walmart and office parks are built where they are because the freeways and roads are already built.  The roads facilitated - promoted- development that would never have occurred if there wasn't a way to access it. That the roads are jammed is the result of investing in only one form of transportation and only one pattern  of development. 

The interstate highways weren't built because there were already automobile-dependent suburbs,  The first suburbs were created by railroad and streetcar companies to encourage growth where they built stations (land they usually owned).   Interstates were created to get vehicles from one city to another.  Limited access highways (aka freeways, interstates, etc.) were not intended to be local thoroughfares, with drivers using them to get from one cul-de-sacced road jam to big box retailer to office to school.  They were meant to get vehicular traffic from one city center to another.  The multitude of exits built on today's freeways is because of lobbying by towns and developers to access more land to develop.  I know, it's what I do.   Roads and cars make it possible to go wherever there are roads.  One pattern of development is concentrated, facilitated by fixed guideway transportation; the other pattern is sprawl.  More roads lead to more need for roads because more asphalt makes more development possible.   In our region, cars and roads are the only viable transportation options.  There's not more density in the Triangle because we don't have the transportation infrastructure and patterns of development to nurture and grow it the way we've done for cars and roads.   The Triangle, outside of what were not large urban areas to begin with, grew up in the 2nd half of the 20th Century when the only transportation infrastructure being built was for cars. 

That said, automobile-dependent development is also arguably the least fiscally and land use efficient pattern of development ever created.   We are literally wasting previous public (and private) investments by underutilizing areas where we've made investments in infrastructure and public services.  We need a balanced approach to mobility and access and fiscal spending in our towns and cities that starts with more transportation options.     Charlotte absolutely gets this.  The owners of the Hillsborough Street and Glenwood Avenue streetcar line absolutely got it.   The owners of gas stations, convenience stores, malls, office parks and cookie-cutter housing subdivisions understand it today.  

Your supposition about expanding capacity of existing infrastructure because there's demand for it isn't wrong, but it's contextually vacuous.   

Edited May 16, 2021 by Phillydog

[Blue_Devil]

On 5/13/2021 at 10:19 PM, SydneyCarton said:

Honestly, pretty much.  Massive apartment development occurred along the light rail line in SouthEnd, but it’s so close in that it was unnecessary for commuting purposes.    Very few people who live in Waxhaw drive to the South Blvd station at the end of the line and then board a train which is 15 stops to Uptown.  It would take forever and be far less comfortable than driving in your own car.

But as growth along the line continues, the line becomes a fulfilled prophesy, and Urban Sprawls (slightly) mitigated. I mean in SouthEnd, there looks to be possibly 3 20+ residential towers in the works just at East/West Station. Close to 1000 units. That wouldn't happen if there was no Blue Lines. Those units would be spread out across the city. The Blue line, and hopefully the silver line have really concentrated growth and created walkable communities, with little need for a car. 

[dmccall]

On 5/13/2021 at 10:12 PM, Phillydog said:

Rule #1 of urban growth.....development FOLLOWS transportation.  Why is this so hard for people to understand?

All one has to do is look at Northern Va. and Atlanta to refute that statement.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

On 5/21/2021 at 11:35 AM, dmccall said:

All one has to do is look at Northern Va. and Atlanta to refute that statement.

Ok, because development goes where there are no roads or anyway to access a building site.  How do they get building materials to a site?  Twitch their noses?  

On 5/18/2021 at 9:34 AM, Blue_Devil said:

But as growth along the line continues, the line becomes a fulfilled prophesy, and Urban Sprawls (slightly) mitigated. I mean in SouthEnd, there looks to be possibly 3 20+ residential towers in the works just at East/West Station. Close to 1000 units. That wouldn't happen if there was no Blue Lines. Those units would be spread out across the city. The Blue line, and hopefully the silver line have really concentrated growth and created walkable communities, with little need for a car. 

Thank you.

[Hushpuppy321]

Would the BRT planned for Wake County help any to direct/facilitate smarter more dense growth?  Has that been the case for Car Dependent Indianapolis?  That’s one place I can think of that’s similar to Raleigh-Durham

[Richhamleigh, DC]

13 hours ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

Would the BRT planned for Wake County help any to direct/facilitate smarter more dense growth?  Has that been the case for Car Dependent Indianapolis?  That’s one place I can think of that’s similar to Raleigh-Durham

Theoretically, it could be possible, but it has to be accompanied with land use and design standards that reward development that contributes to walkability, mixed use (vertical mixed used), etc..  The important thing is that it's dedicated, fixed routes with fixed stations.  I don't the similarities between Indianapolis, IN and RDU at all - one is old the other is new.  One has to fix mistakes of the past, RDU can still avoid the mistakes other places made.  

[Hushpuppy321]

On 5/23/2021 at 9:39 PM, Phillydog said:

Theoretically, it could be possible, but it has to be accompanied with land use and design standards that reward development that contributes to walkability, mixed use (vertical mixed used), etc..  The important thing is that it's dedicated, fixed routes with fixed stations.  I don't the similarities between Indianapolis, IN and RDU at all - one is old the other is new.  One has to fix mistakes of the past, RDU can still avoid the mistakes other places made.  

Just similar in the fact that they are very spread out\sprawling cities and tremendously car dependent even though Indy has a robust BRT.  I think you are correct with the Land Use\Design Standards thing that goes hand in hand with Mass Transit.  That's one thing that CLT got right when the Blueline was opened in 2007 and is only getter better with the adoption of TOD By-Right Dense Zoning Designations and the upcoming UDO Changes.  Does anyone know if Indy did those things and\or if Raleigh & Wake County are mulling options like those?

Edited May 26, 2021 by Hushpuppy321

[DCMetroRaleigh]

On 5/13/2021 at 9:00 PM, RALNATIVE said:

Like lightrail in Charlotte for the sake of saying they have one?

It turned out to be a brilliant decision. Glad CLT has big urban foresight and vision.

On 5/21/2021 at 11:35 AM, dmccall said:

All one has to do is look at Northern Va. and Atlanta to refute that statement.

Arlington, Rosslyn to Ballston confirms this.