Feds back out of TTA rail project

[DanRNC]

The TTA could use a portion of the money they received for PR and advertising to try to push for the project. Everyone I know thinks the regional rail is a great idea although these people are mainly graduate students and are from Europe, not representative of the greater population.

[urbanesq]

The TTA could use a portion of the money they received for PR and advertising to try to push for the project. Everyone I know thinks the regional rail is a great idea although these people are mainly graduate students and are from Europe, not representative of the greater population.

not a good rep population at all, sadly.

Most of the people I know in the business community roll their eyes and say the generally accepted vaguely negative comments about it not going to the airport and being, generally, a waste of money, and maybe something we should do at some point in the unspecified future, but that we're not ready for it now.

Not that this is a representative population either, but my guess is that it's closer.

Ugh.

[pack-man]

Unfortuanately, after all the bad press, I reel that the local support has really taken a beating. Everyone I talk to say that it is a waste of time and money. I hope that something happens to really get the local public back behind this problem.

[avery]

Unfortuanately, after all the bad press, I reel that the local support has really taken a beating. Everyone I talk to say that it is a waste of time and money. I hope that something happens to really get the local public back behind this problem.

Continued urban development and a greater number of residents in these areas will gain support for regional rail and/or improved mass transit. I just hope the city continues to urge developers to think this way.

http://www.newsobserver.com/858/story/379685.html

Meeker's comments are cause for concern IMO. The lack of a TTA proposal slowing down the type of growth we all like to see. Very interesting read because this article actually talks to developers. At least some see the TTA as a plus and not a necessity.

[JDC]

What we need is a good example where regional rail really brought a growing metro to another level. Anyone know of any other cities or metro areas that really blew up after a light rail or commuter rail was installed?

[monsoon]

Washington DC. It started building it's system in the 1970s and couldn't exist today in its present form without rail transit.

[urbanvb]

Washington DC. It started building it's system in the 1970s and couldn't exist today in its present form without rail transit.

I know this may sound absurd but I thought I heard the daily ridership was like 700k. I will have to check on those numbers though.

.. heavy rail Metro in Washington, D.C., which carries 643,000 riders per day...

link

[mattm]

What we need is a good example where regional rail really brought a growing metro to another level. Anyone know of any other cities or metro areas that really blew up after a light rail or commuter rail was installed?

San Diego, Portland, St. Louis, Atlanta, Denver, Salt Lake City all have had good success (light rail in all those places). Dallas started out with a regional rail-like setup and has been building light rail like mad since then. Pretty much every place built has greatly exceeded ridership estimates, usually blowing away the 30-year forecast in just a few years. In Dallas you have to board in the first couple of stops in order to get on the train at all.

[MR-2]

What we need is a good example where regional rail really brought a growing metro to another level. Anyone know of any other cities or metro areas that really blew up after a light rail or commuter rail was installed?

I think a better question would be which metro didn't ignite after a commuter rail was installed. Our politicians have proven they're not exactly economically minded though.

We have it really tricky, because for our rail to work, we need a certain minimum number of miles to get the RTP link. We need a Durham RTP link, and a Raleigh RTP link, and there's a fair distance of track that needs to be built to accomodate that, unless they plan on buying the right of way completely.

As I've been saying, we should start building it anyway. Later we can worry about connecting all the little dots. Find some way to pay for the interest now, and later the thing will pay for itself. The flexibility it'll add to commuting is invaluable. Nobody wants an hour drive to get anywhere.

[orulz]

Part of why TTA has run into local opposition is that, buried within the plan, is the insinuation that most of the metro area's sprawling, suburban growth since the 1950s is "wrong." The plan also insinuates that the only measure we can take to fix the problem is to link the pre-1950 cities with a rail line and start over with a nearly-blank slate between them. (Hence, the railroad corridor.)

Lots of people take exception to the idea that our present, ever-expanding suburban growth that leaves the center city to rot is a bad thing. Some folks expect that if we build TTA, we'll lose a lot of money for congestion mitigation on suburban roads. That's not really the case, but if it were, it would be an about face in which we strengthen the center cities while leaving the suburbs to choke on their own congestion. The folks out at Falls Lake and Holly Springs don't want to hear that.

[monsoon]

I think a better question would be which metro didn't ignite after a commuter rail was installed. Our politicians have proven they're not exactly economically minded though.

Well there are a few.

• Burlington VT, built a commuter rail system in the late 1990s. It was shutdown around 2001 or so due to very low ridership. It was open less than 3 years (maybe 2).

• The recently opened River View commuter rail line (very similar to the TTA proposal) in NJ opened after they spent $1.2B on construction. Ridership is somewhere around 1500-2500/day!

• The Jacksonville Skyway people mover is considered a failure as almost no one rides it and it even shuts down on the weekend.

• I'm not sure if the Miami heavy rail and commuter rail system has added much to South Fla. It has probably the lowest ridership of any heavy rail system in the world. Even Atlanta's MARTA carries about 10x the riders as that in Miami

• I think the jury is still out on the system in Houston. Because Tom Delay specifically refused to allow any federal funding of this system they had to take short cuts that hurt the system. Primairly the train runs at grade and is subject to traffic delays and accidents.

• The Red Line heavy rail subway line in Los Angeles was built using billions in funding but carries very few people. The Los Angeles area has decided that future projects will be light rail (if built) or bus rapid transit. This is a bit surprising given that LA is fairly densely populated. There was a lot of controversy surrounding the construction of the Red Line.

• The Detroit people mover has done nothing to revive its downtown. To be fair they did not expand this system and Detroit suffers from problems far beyond lack of transit, but the orginal claims of the benefits of building the people mover did not come true.

[yfreemark]

The River Line (not River View) system in New Jersey is a light rail system that, for much of its path, acts as a streetcar; as a result, it is not very similar to TTA's proposal. Second of all, it connects two economically depressed cities - Trenton and Camden - making development there difficult.

The Red Line in L.A. attracts many people - it has a ridership of over 100,000 people/weekday - I wouldn't exactly call that "very few people." Second of all, subway funding was cancelled because of a large scale controversy over underground methane gas, and increasing costs. New research into the problem and the increasing density of the city have changed most of the citizenry's mind. The new mayor of the city, Villarosa [sic] wants to extend the Red Line to the ocean and dramatically increase funding for subway lines, not just light rail.

[yfreemark]

Also, I just did a little research: River Line in New Jersey is actually attracting more like 5500 riders each weekday, and ridership has increased dramatically since service started.

[monsoon]

Also, I just did a little research: River Line in New Jersey is actually attracting more like 5500 riders each weekday, and ridership has increased dramatically since service started.

Check again as that is 5500 trips, not riders. Presumably a person will take 2 trips on this line so you get a number closer to 2500 people which is what I reported. In addition this is a diesel powered commuter rail line operated on an existing freight line. It is not light rail though the vehicles to resemble LRVs. This is exactly the same type of operation the TTA had in mind for the line in RDU. We had a discussion on this in the other thread. You are correct however in that it is the River line and not the River View line.

The Los Angeles red line at 100K riders can be deemed a failure because it was supposed to be carrying 300K riders at this point which was one of the justifications for the huge cost it took to build this line. For the same amount of money they could have built a number of LRT lines and served the public better.

[yfreemark]

Alright, a few things:

For one, Ridership on every line is calculated by trips, not riders. So when we say that TTA is supposed to have a ridership of 10,000 people/day, that means 10,000 trips, not 10,000 distinct riders. That's the important number.

Second of all, while in some parts the River Line runs in an old freight line, it is also much like a streetcar in other parts. Look at thise picture:

Second of all, in terms of the L.A. Red Line, yes, the ridership number is not as high as in New York subways, but on the other hand, the original network was never completed (but is now likely to be at least worked on under the new mayor). As a result, ridership is lower than it was supposed to be. Also, considering that the Red Line's ridership levels are more than any of the light rail lines, I have a hard time seeing a light rail solution as being a better use of money. I think many people in L.A. know that a light rail solution is not really working adequately for the city, because it's not nearly as fast as metro rail (in subways or not), nor as effective, and as a result, there's been a big push recently for more heavy rail construction.

Anyway, this discussion has gotten off topic, and I basically agree with your opinion that just building a rail system is not enough by itself to ensure development around the line or even to attract sufficient ridership to keep the line going; other measures and public support are needed.