Feds back out of TTA rail project

[avery]

One thing that gets me about many of the articles in the newspaper and what many folks say about the rail system is that they think the only reason for this rail line to exist is to reduce traffic on I-40. Then they say "Assuming that it meets its numbers, it will only take off a few percent of the peak-hour cars. So, it has no purpose."

Wrong. There's a lot more to this than reducing traffic on I-40. Traffic reduction on I-40 is something that is near and dear to everyone's heart, but the truth is, there's NOTHING that will reduce traffic on I-40. Adding more regular lanes will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and put us through half a decade of construction and more traffic jams; adding HOV lanes will cost over a billion dollars (present estimates) and put us through the same construction pains, or worse!

The key is reducing our dependancy on I-40. That means alternatives, both transit and highway-related. The rail system should be built (be it single track, double track, or whatever.) NC54 should be four-laned clear from Raleigh to Chapel Hill. The Durham East End Connector should be built. 540 has nothing to do with congestion mitigation; it's just framework for more suburban development.

Well said.

Traffic will always be bad. Rush hours will always be rush hours. I think a key point to bring up in this discussion should not revolve around peak-hours, but non-peak hours and our reliance on the automobile. Benefits of a more compact, urban environment have greater benefits than our commute to and from work. Cutting commutes during these non-peak hours can save municipalities millions on city services alone and billions on infrastrucutre. By scaling back on the roads, utilities lines, water mains, gas lines, traffic signals, signs, fuel for garbage trucks, police vehicles, police and fire stations, hospitals, etc. You can go on and on and it all adds up to tons of tax revenues saved that can be spent in areas that always fall short like education. These savings alone would pay for the $810 million price tag for the rail system.

[avery]

Is there any evidence of a fledgling New Urbanist movement in Raleigh which might begin to counter this thinking? My cousin in Charlotte lives in Dliworth now, but she once lived in a similar neighborhood.. The houses were well kept, but the place was.....depressing and isolated. This phenomenon is really more national in scale and certainly isn't unique to Charlotte, but it would seem that the Triangle might have the money and urban vitality to counterattack and demand something better. Which developments are approcahing even lip service to the tenets of New Urbanism?

This is happening and there are intentions out there to make it happen on a larger scale. There are just some transitional hurdles Raleigh is having to overcome with its tremendous growth. Every decision is being treated as a precedent for something to come and urbanism is being approached very methodically. Unfortunately, as this process takes place, the sprawl continues at a more rapid pace.

[monsoon]

I think local govenment has to have the political will to force the developers to build developments to build decent housing.

Some things that can be done via zoning:

• Require sidewalks

• Require multiple entrances and connections to adjacent neighborhoods

• No Snout houses and houses have to have front porches

• Limit the amount of land in a development that can be covered by houses

• No cul-de-sacs

• encourage mixed use, i.e. include retail or other non-residential housing in the development

None of these are that difficult to add and only marginally affect the developer's bottom line, in fact these features often make the neighborhoods more desirable. The only downside is this does affect starter home development.

The municipality where I live put these restrictions in place almost 10 years ago and the resulting development while not perfect is much better that what is still seen across the line in Charlotte. (which recently banned cul de sacs and now requires sidewalks too).

As a result we are seeing new development such as this, even though this rail line is not approved. Even if they don't built the rail line this is the type of community, while providing the benefits of living in the suburbs, does not have many of the negatives. However you don't see this unless local goverment gets involved and forces it. Building a train line on its own doesn't cause TOD as one only has to look at MARTA for examples of that. You have to have local interest and governmental support too. That is probably the biggest thing lacking in the TTA's plans.

[avery]

Building a train line on its own doesn't cause TOD as one only has to look at MARTA for examples of that. You have to have local interest and governmental support too. That is probably the biggest thing lacking in the TTA's plans.

And we will probably never have it. I sometimes think it would be best to not fight this battle and for the city of Raleigh to take it upon themselves to devise our own transportation plan. Develop light rail within the city and shift the focus here as opposed to RTP and the region.

[waynehead]

I agree, avery. If the city of Raleigh (or any other local city for that matter) wants to go ahead with a rail-line, let them do it. Eventually others will fall in line and we can connect them. But I have serious doubts about whether we can get this much done in one fell swoop with all of these squabbling cities and their independent needs/wishes etc.

[avery]

I agree, avery. If the city of Raleigh (or any other local city for that matter) wants to go ahead with a rail-line, let them do it. Eventually others will fall in line and we can connect them. But I have serious doubts about whether we can get this much done in one fell swoop with all of these squabbling cities and their independent needs/wishes etc.

There is just way too many hoops and political strongholds to overcome working with individual municipalities and the Feds. It will probably cost more developing independantly from one another, but it will never happen otherwise. I wish I were wrong...

[orulz]

Building a train line on its own doesn't cause TOD as one only has to look at MARTA for examples of that. You have to have local interest and governmental support too. That is probably the biggest thing lacking in the TTA's plans.

I don't think that was lacking in TTA's plans at all.

With the "master developer" concept, TTA is hoping to get the TOD engines started faster than anywhere else in the country. The idea is, to have a pleasant, urban, walkable district around EVERY station master planned well before revenue service, and at least partially complete by the time the trains started rolling.

This is like taking Charlotte's SCIP to the next level. And I think it's a great idea. But then again, it ain't gonna happen unless the rail line happens too.

[monsoon]

But are there any zoning restrictions on the books to force it now? That is what I meant by support. Governments make plans and pay for plans all the time, but rarely are they ever put into practice.

[Jones_]

Is there any evidence of a fledgling New Urbanist movement in Raleigh which might begin to counter this thinking? My cousin in Charlotte lives in Dliworth now, but she once lived in a similar neighborhood.. The houses were well kept, but the place was.....depressing and isolated. This phenomenon is really more national in scale and certainly isn't unique to Charlotte, but it would seem that the Triangle might have the money and urban vitality to counterattack and demand something better. Which developments are approcahing even lip service to the tenets of New Urbanism?

The closest things to "New Urbanism" would be Meadowmont and Southern Village both near Chapel Hill. They have the positives of being mixed-use site plans, have some mixed-use buildings around a town square type setting and varied density levels, but the negative of being located away fom any other municipal form i.e. they are outside of Chapel Hill proper...essentially subdivisions that function almost like independant towns. They are not well connected to anything other than themselves.

[avery]

But are there any zoning restrictions on the books to force it now? That is what I meant by support. Governments make plans and pay for plans all the time, but rarely are they ever put into practice.

I think there are only restrictions within the small area plans. I do beleive the support is in place in Raleigh. However, all of the area plans seem to work independently of one another.

[DanRNC]

The closest things to "New Urbanism" would be Meadowmont and Southern Village both near Chapel Hill. They have the positives of being mixed-use site plans, have some mixed-use buildings around a town square type setting and varied density levels, but the negative of being located away fom any other municipal form i.e. they are outside of Chapel Hill proper...essentially subdivisions that function almost like independant towns. They are not well connected to anything other than themselves.

These are both within Chapel Hill and are both less than 1-2 miles from campus. While not a big fan of this "New Urbanism" or either one of these developments I can say they function very well in the community. Southern Village has a Park and Ride lot and Meadowmont is across the street from a Park and Ride lot. Both have regular bus service within the developments as well.

[urbanesq]

I think there are only restrictions within the small area plans. I do beleive the support is in place in Raleigh. However, all of the area plans seem to work independently of one another.

Really? It was my understanding that Raleigh has been approving non-transit-supportive development in the corridor the entire time TTA has been planning the rail line. Maybe that's just the North Raleigh stations? I thought Durham was the first City to adopt small area zoning restrictions in the station areas. Cary's downtown plan does that, but I wasn't aware that Raleigh had anything on the books to protect/preserve those areas or promote dense, ped-friendly development.

[JDC]

A regional rail may not take a whole lot of people off of I-40 or 540 or what have you, but sustainability, I think, is the key reason. Sure, folks who have become acclimated to driving to and from work and everywhere in between probably won't use it. That's human nature.

But a lot of people from other states and cities are coming to the Triangle. Some transplants (and there's A LOT of us here) had regional rail systems at wherever they came from, and I think having region-wide trains is something that would make this place a little more attractive to people looking for a new city.

I'm not saying the Triangle needs regional rail so it can be like other metros or because all the newcomers like it; I believe it could help the Triangle become a more solidified metro area, more of a community. I'm preaching to the choir, aren't I?

[Tayfromcarolina]

Nope not at all. I agree totally. We must not fall behind with this one. We definetly need that rail. We could always add to it later as the area grows.

[avery]

Really? It was my understanding that Raleigh has been approving non-transit-supportive development in the corridor the entire time TTA has been planning the rail line. Maybe that's just the North Raleigh stations? I thought Durham was the first City to adopt small area zoning restrictions in the station areas. Cary's downtown plan does that, but I wasn't aware that Raleigh had anything on the books to protect/preserve those areas or promote dense, ped-friendly development.

I did say that "I think" this is the case and am not sure. My comment on Raleigh supporting this type of development is a generalization made based on the projects I've seen discussed here on this forum and other places. It seems that Meeker and many councilpersons share a similar view towards urbanism but I could be wrong. With Fayetteville Street Renaissance, Blount Street and the Livable Streets plans, it looks like we are trying to head in this direction. I thought all the lands around the TTA stations were pegged for dense development with retail incorporation. I am not sure which non-transit-supportive developments you are talking about in this corridor.

[ncwebguy]

In regard to devleopment around potential TTA stations, I know about three -- 9th street in Durham, and the two downtown Raleigh stations (Hargett Street and Government Complex)

Government Complex

Just about every parcel nearby has changed hands in the last couple of years. It seems the first shovel won't touch dirt until there is a yes or no on TTA. Glenwood South is nearby, so development can be targeted for that, but the main goals appear to be transit oriented development. Taking the train to and from the stops in Durham, Cary, NCSU and Glenwood South would reduce the need for parking in those areas, allowing for denser development. The Quorum Center is already well under construction a little south of this station. 510 Glenwood, Glenwood Tower, the Paramount, Boyland Flats, the Warren Distributing building, and whatever ends up at Raleigh Office Supply will all be walkable to this station and/or Hargett.

Again, some of this is not TTA dependent, but has shown there is an interest in a mixed use, 24/7 urban fabric for downtown in the rail corridor.

Hargett Street

TTA bought a block or two of land along the tracks so they could do whatever they need to. Three condo buildings (Martin Street, Park Devareaux, The Dawson on Morgan) have been built within a few blocks of the station, and there are tentativ plans for two more (intersection of Hargett and Boylan, Hargett and Dawson) and Dillion wants to do more with the rest of its property when the train project actually gets funding. RBC is building a new tower less than a mile away at Martin and Fayetville. The new Convention Center and hotels district will also be within the mile radius. Some of this is happening independently of TTA, but would all be well served by the train.

9th Street

The station is close to Duke University, and a low rise (3-5 stories?) condo/apartment complex is already under construction. Some units have already been moved into. 9th street itself already has a dense mix of shops, restaurants, and service providers. Not sure how much more could happen here to show "support" for TTA in this area.

For the stops in between (west to east):

- The NC State stop is right in the middle of campus -- what do they have to do to show they want the train? They already pay to get students and faculty free rides on TTA buses. The stop is within walking distance of Hillsborough Street, which may soon morph into a pedestrian friendly two lane street/socializing destination.

- Fairgrounds - help alivate congestion for RBC and Carter-Finley events (concerts, hockey, basketball, etc.) the state fair, and the flea market and other events on the fairgrounds the rest of the year. Another potential park and ride location, and maybe some development south of the station.

- West Raleigh - park and ride short term, huge potential for mixed use in a virtual blank slate of land.

- downtown Cary - the city of Cary has redone their city government complex right near the location of their train station, and downtown Cary is more vibrant than it has been for decades. A lot of that is "wait and see" as well.

- Northwest Cary - park and ride for Caryites going to work or downtown Raleigh and Durham. Potential for mixed use nearby?

- Triangle Metro center - the commuter stop for RTP workers, a quick shuttle ride to RDU airport, and home to a large mixed use center with residents a stones throw from work and can take the train to other stops for shopping, entertainment, etc.

- Other RTP stop - IBM *gave* land to get a stop there. If that isn't a sign of support, I don't know what is.

The land around this stop not owned by IBM could also see the mixed use treatment.

- Alston Ave stop would serve NCCU and Durham Tech. Not as big as NC State, but a lot of the same synergies (college students without cars able to see more of the area) would apply.

- Downtown Durham's stop would service the American Tobacco campus, the DBAP, and everything else that is happening in the Bull City's CBD. Again, some of this is train-independent, but a train would easily help efficiently move people in and out of this area.

This does not include the future stops at Duke Med and North Raleigh. Once the 10 stop line is started, work will be a lot easier to extend the then existing line vs. starting from scratch.

All of these stops serve areas where people already don't have a car due to their economic situation. It would be interesting to make the FTA and the naysayers who can afford $3/gallon gas to try to walk a mile in their shoes. Not having access to fast, reliable transportation serves to continue the vicious cycle of poverty.

To say the train "doesn't go anywhere useful" is a judgement call at best now, and will be a joke if the TTA actually implemented its plans. It is a shame that no one has been able to convey this to Senators Dole and Burr, but I'm sure they're too busy to listen to an area of 1.2 million plus of their constituents. I *hope* this memo is the kick in the pants David Price needed to rally behind this in addition to the pedestrian bridge over 40 near Southpoint.

To those who say "why don't we blame the Clinton and Hunt administrations", the TTA didn't need the money then, and was still undergoing design work until after Bush Jr. took the oath of office. Burr's rebuttal of "look at other alternatives" is not the same as "ha ha, your plan is dead" is roughly the equivalent of saying an NFL end zone dance is not unsportsmanlike taunting.

[avery]

To those who say "why don't we blame the Clinton and Hunt administrations", the TTA didn't need the money then, and was still undergoing design work until after Bush Jr. took the oath of office. Burr's rebuttal of "look at other alternatives" is not the same as "ha ha, your plan is dead" is roughly the equivalent of saying an NFL end zone dance is not unsportsmanlike taunting.

I don't know if you listen to talk radio, but the conservatives were really yucking it up yesterday with the TTA news. It is simply a political issue right now anyway you slice it. Insightful remarks, unthoughtful comments and ridiculous accusations are a given. The news yesterday brought out the taunting.

The political bashing of parties serves no purpose because it doesn't better the situation. Listen, I'll let you know that I am a registered republican who typically votes for democratic leaders at the local level. Having a party affiliation doesn't mean you have to participate in the groupthink and always side with a party. Our leaders should be siding for what is in the best interest of the people. What is best for us? Obviously, I think the TTA is best for us. I couldn't disagree more with many of the conservative's views on the TTA.

[orulz]

Okay guys, let's take the political debate elsewhere. To the Coffee House, perhaps. It doesn't belong in this thread. If you're gonna talk politics, talk politics as it directly relates to TTA. No broad, sweeping statements about conservatives or liberals here.

[avery]

Okay guys, let's take the political debate elsewhere. To the Coffee House, perhaps. It doesn't belong in this thread. If you're gonna talk politics, talk politics as it directly relates to TTA. No broad, sweeping statements about conservatives or liberals here.

Agreed.

[ncwebguy]

(self edited to remove off topic discussion about why i won't listen to talk radio and Winston Churchill's men over/under 30 quote)

I think the TTA rail project could go a long way towards merging John Edward's "two Americas". I would have a lot more respect for him if he used this as a way to show the benefits of the poverty center thing he has going on in Chapel Hill. Unfortuantely, certain people like to scream "social engineering" (to me, a thinly veiled reference to "desegregation") from the top of their lungs when it comes to any mass transportation issue. Equating mass transportation to socialism/communism, a la "if people don't work hard enough to buy a car, keep gas in it, and maintain it, (let alone raise a family) then that is a problem they need to fix" also rubs me the wrong way.

[sax184]

Urban sprawl is social engineering, perfected.

[JDC]

You hit the nail on the head, transitman.

[pack-man]

You hit the nail on the head, transitman.

This whole thing is a sign that there is a problem in this country. To make it so difficult to get mass transit in area of this size is rediculous. I've been to cities in Europe that don't come close to the size of the triangle that have superior transit systems by a longshot. People often comment that this is a stupid design. This is what you would call a "foot in the door" design that is based off of using existing rail lines to help reduce the cost and increase overall feasability. ONce this thing takes place, a lot will come to follow.

I would hate to think that politics has a large part in this whole thing, but I guess that I would be naive to believe that it doesn't. I would much rather ride a train somewhere than drive myself.

I remember a response on how a spur to the airport would get minimal use. I vowed to take a train to RDU if one ever existed after paying over $100 to park my car there for a week. I wonder if the airport would fight against having it there? They sure would hate to lose that great revenue from getting people to drive there.

I believe once people in such a "car proned" area realize how easy using mass transit is, people would really start getting behind this project. Also, if gas ever hit $3 and stayed there and didn't show signs of ever coming down, people would learn to ride this a lot faster. Scary if that ever happened and we didn't have that alternative.

I admire the TTA officials for putting together this plan and going forward with it. I believe that it will eventually get the numbers that they are projecting. It is simply a matter of training people the pros of using mass transit.

I hope this will eventually pass and grow into a great effective rail system that one day people will look back on and applaude those who helped push it through.

[monsoon]

Houston, San Diego, and NJ built systems without federal funding. I would say that if you cut the Feds out, the costs might actually fall some as the myriad of federal rules and regulations would disappear.

[urbanesq]

Houston, San Diego, and NJ built systems without federal funding. I would say that if you cut the Feds out, the costs might actually fall some as the myriad of federal rules and regulations would disappear.

I have long thought, and have posted previously, that the lack of a stronger local funding source was a big miscalculation by the previous TTA manager. I think it's nuts to think we couldn't fund it locally; but after years and years of negative press and a skeptical business community, I hope that's not an opportunity whose time has passed.

As to fed regs: wouldn't there be a score of them remaining since the trains would be run alongside freight?