Charlotte Center City Streetcar Network

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

Geez.

Cant believe DC is better than the rest because that streetcar is the most useless thing in the world (but it does look pretty....).

I say that as a person who only uses public transportation in DC. I want to like it, I would love to use it. But I’m not spending 30 minutes of my life waiting on a streetcar to go a mile or so. Especially when a bike lane can get me where I need in a few minutes. Or buses or Uber or even just walking. 

Back in Charlotte when I worked at BofA Corp., I’d take the streetcar when it first opened. Seeing it just leave the transit center, at 5pm. It was literally faster to walk nearly the entire thing. Streetcars need to have dedicated lanes. 

IMO, the only thing that may save this streetcar is students from CPCC. Especially if their tuition covers free rides. 

 

maybe useful for transporting inebriated revelers

[15895]

1 hour ago, RANYC said:

maybe useful for transporting inebriated revelers

To Novant? Lol. 

[Matthew.Brendan]

Charlotte: We will invest the time and money to design and build a streetcar but then hobble it by making it unappealing to anyone other than those who have no other choice. 
 

Sleek modern tram, sitting in traffic with cars at lights. Way to go CATS. 

[LKN704]

16 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

Geez.

Cant believe DC is better than the rest because that streetcar is the most useless thing in the world (but it does look pretty....).

I say that as a person who only uses public transportation in DC. I want to like it, I would love to use it. But I’m not spending 30 minutes of my life waiting on a streetcar to go a mile or so. Especially when a bike lane can get me where I need in a few minutes. Or buses or Uber or even just walking. 

Back in Charlotte when I worked at BofA Corp., I’d take the streetcar when it first opened. Seeing it just leave the transit center, at 5pm. It was literally faster to walk nearly the entire thing. Streetcars need to have dedicated lanes. 

IMO, the only thing that may save this streetcar is students from CPCC. Especially if their tuition covers free rides. 

 

I also expect that the streetcar will have a big impact on JCSU as well. I just realized that once the Gold Line opens, Johnson C Smith, UNCC, and Johnson and Wales will all be served by a form of rail transit. Having 3/4 of the city's largest colleges/universities served by a fixed guideway is a huge deal and something both CATS and the city should capitalize on (I highly doubt they will, however). 

Off the top of my head, very few systems in the US successfully serve all big colleges/universities in their network area. Washington Metro doesn't serve Georgetown, and AU is quite a ways away from the AU station (you have to take a shuttle bus or walk). MARTA doesn't directly serve any big universities IIRC. UCLA isn't linked to the Metro Rail system yet. Rail transit hasn't reached CU Boulder yet. 

The DC Streetcar is fine, but it's usually faster just to take the Metro to Union and then walk to wherever your going on H Street (or take the X2 bus, although I don't really like taking it at night because of too many "interesting" experiences I have had on it). The streetcar looks to run pretty fast on H Street in comparison to other streetcars I have seen. 

I think streetcars in the US all suffer from the same problems. The majority are launched as some grandiose system that covers several miles and usually has multiple lines. Lack of funding however usually:

1. Chops the "proposed" system into just one operating segment that does little to improve mobility or connectivity, and ultimately becomes a vanity project
2. Ultimately makes the system operate with such poor headways 

The DC streetcar was originally introduced as a 37 mile system to essentially supplement the Metro and provide for better crosstown connectivity. The network was announced in 2009, and officials expected that construction on the whole system could be completed by in ten years time. Today only the starter line has been built, and the network plans have been deleted from the DC Streetcar website, and district council members have officially declared most of the project dead, calling the build out of the system "unfeasible". 

 What could have been...

[jthomas]

2 hours ago, LKN704 said:

Metro and provide for better crosstown connectivity. The network was announced in 2009, and officials expected that construction on the whole system could be completed by in ten years time. Today only the starter line has been built, and the network plans have been deleted from the DC Streetcar website, and district council members have officially declared most of the project dead, calling the build out of the system "unfeasible". 

 What could have been...

Wow - what could have been, indeed. In Europe, this would have been done already, especially in a national capital. But here in the good old US of A, all levels of government are indifferent to transit, with one political party that is actively anti-urban, and another that pays lip service to it but is ineffective at delivering results, it's hard to see things changing soon. 

[elrodvt]

6 minutes ago, jthomas said:

Wow - what could have been, indeed. In Europe, this would have been done already, especially in a national capital. But here in the good old US of A, all levels of government are indifferent to transit, with one political party that is actively anti-urban, and another that pays lip service to it but is ineffective at delivering results, it's hard to see things changing soon. 

What are you a socialist or something? ;-)

[elrodvt]

Denver RTD serves DU and Metro State with LRT and CU with BRT. (actually I don't know if you can BRT to campus but it gets you close I believe. They added that after we left).

I am harsh in my assessment of Charlotte because I was really impressed by RTD and we aren't even close to having as good a system. Why?? Poor leadership both in transit and the city leaders. The later i have no idea how to fix. The former just hire someone more competent to a incentive based contract.

Hire the head of RTD. Give him or her a 25% bump to move here. Plus a chance to make up to 50% more if all incentives are met,

[JacksonH]

9 minutes ago, elrodvt said:

Denver RTD serves DU and Metro State with LRT and CU with BRT. (actually I don't know if you can BRT to campus but it gets you close I believe. They added that after we left).

And San Diego's lightrail system currently serves San Diego State University (as well as a couple small colleges downtown),  and by Q4 2021 a brand-new 11-mile extension will open that will serve the University of California San Diego.

[LKN704]

3 hours ago, jthomas said:

Wow - what could have been, indeed. In Europe, this would have been done already, especially in a national capital. But here in the good old US of A, all levels of government are indifferent to transit, with one political party that is actively anti-urban, and another that pays lip service to it but is ineffective at delivering results, it's hard to see things changing soon. 

Except there was 0% chance that DC government (or any government in the US) could have executed that correctly, with proper headways, signal priority, etc. 

I would much rather see cities embrace an expansion of limited-stop bus services featuring all-door boarding, signal priority, and enforced dedicated bus lanes. Cheaper, more efficient, and more cost-effective than streetcars. But again, buses ≠ sexy, so we will ultimately see the build out of pointless streetcars. Charlotte's system I guess makes sense in theory, but I wonder how many recently built streetcar systems in the US (especially in smaller cities) were simply designed as vanity projects for politicians, especially the system in Atlanta and Salt Lake, which both have a rough average of 1200 riders per day. 

The Salt Lake City Streetcar has an estimated daily ridership of 1087 people/day. It's in operation 16 hours/day, which makes out 67 riders per hour. Not sustainable. Even an extremely pro-transit democratic socialist like me recognizes how wasteful that is, geez louise. Put them on a bus. 

[southslider]

There won't be another phase of CityLYNX. What opens next year can at least be partially sustained by student fees from JCSU, J&WU, and CPCC.

[Hushpuppy321]

39 minutes ago, southslider said:

There won't be another phase of CityLYNX. What opens next year can at least be partially sustained by student fees from JCSU, J&WU, and CPCC.

Was that determined by CATS or City of Charlotte?  I would think they'll be interested completing a Phase III out to Eastland at some point.  A dedicated lane would be better than remaining mixed with vehicular traffic.

[LKN704]

I honestly don't know what building the streetcar out to Eastland accomplishes that buses today already don't. 

As part of the "Big Bang" (or however else they are going to market it) expansion tax, I fear that CATS may be forced to make promises to build/fund projects in areas of the county that make little sense for improving transit (at the expense of other projects that make more sense), but will be necessary to ensure widespread voter turnout and acceptance. LA County was forced to somewhat do this in recent years with their funding measures, and now they are constructing light rail miles and miles into the Foothill region all the way to the San Bernardino County line, at the expense of other projects that are warranted in both Downtown and LA city limits. 

I would much rather see funding for the Eastland expansion go into building the Ballantyne extension or look into the possibility of bringing a fixed guideway system to the Southpark area.

[SgtCampsalot]

On 12/12/2020 at 6:50 PM, LKN704 said:

Except there was 0% chance that DC government (or any government in the US) could have executed that correctly, with proper headways, signal priority, etc. 

I would much rather see cities embrace an expansion of limited-stop bus services featuring all-door boarding, signal priority, and enforced dedicated bus lanes. Cheaper, more efficient, and more cost-effective than streetcars. But again, buses ≠ sexy, so we will ultimately see the build out of pointless streetcars. Charlotte's system I guess makes sense in theory, but I wonder how many recently built streetcar systems in the US (especially in smaller cities) were simply designed as vanity projects for politicians, especially the system in Atlanta and Salt Lake, which both have a rough average of 1200 riders per day. 

The Salt Lake City Streetcar has an estimated daily ridership of 1087 people/day. It's in operation 16 hours/day, which makes out 67 riders per hour. Not sustainable. Even an extremely pro-transit democratic socialist like me recognizes how wasteful that is, geez louise. Put them on a bus. 

This Communist agrees with you   

I was in love with the Express buses when I used to take them as a teen. All it takes is committing to what you said: clean, quiet.  smooth interiors,, high frequency, make it feel like a train.

 

[CLT>]

15 hours ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

Was that determined by CATS or City of Charlotte?  I would think they'll be interested completing a Phase III out to Eastland at some point.  A dedicated lane would be better than remaining mixed with vehicular traffic.

Keep  in mind that CATS never wanted the streetcar. It is a City of Charlotte funded project that CATS operates (will operate) on their behalf, so the current transit funding  doesn't apply to CityLynx.

[archiham04]

Based on the most recent transportation masterplanning effort, it is my observation that the prospects of a full buildout of the streetcar line are much better than prior to that effort: The new plan does not really consider a lot of new (not previously conceived) mass transit lines.   It is heavy on new High Density Bus lines, and Bike/Greenway connections.  That makes me think that there will be increased pressure to make the sure that the currently planned Mass Transit lines are built in order to feed the special sauce for infill development that the city needs for their property tax coffers.

[CLT>]

On 12/15/2020 at 10:19 AM, archiham04 said:

Based on the most recent transportation masterplanning effort, it is my observation that the prospects of a full buildout of the streetcar line are much better than prior to that effort: The new plan does not really consider a lot of new (not previously conceived) mass transit lines.   It is heavy on new High Density Bus lines, and Bike/Greenway connections.  That makes me think that there will be increased pressure to make the sure that the currently planned Mass Transit lines are built in order to feed the special sauce for infill development that the city needs for their property tax coffers.

Charlotte has said multiple times that they see mass transit primarily as a development tool, and moving people is secondary. They know they can't add acreage, so gotta drive that revenue up somehow. Streetcar is gonna be the same, will be interesting because there are far fewer areas that can densify, they're either owned by nonprofits that are land banking, or cut through historic neighborhoods.

[Yeahdoug]

I can’t wait to ride on these half billion dollar busses. With no dedicated ROW this is pretty much an expensive bus right? 
 

The only way the street car makes any sense to me is if it was hop on/hop off free like the old one. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Yeahdoug

[JacksonH]

On 12/16/2020 at 10:40 PM, CLT> said:

Charlotte has said multiple times that they see mass transit primarily as a development tool, and moving people is secondary. They know they can't add acreage, so gotta drive that revenue up somehow. Streetcar is gonna be the same, will be interesting because there are far fewer areas that can densify, they're either owned by nonprofits that are land banking, or cut through historic neighborhoods.

Exactly what I was thinking.  This is about development and increasing the tax base, not about mobility.  This video gets to that point.  

 

[DEnd]

18 hours ago, JacksonH said:

Exactly what I was thinking.  This is about development and increasing the tax base, not about mobility.  

Mobility and development in this case are linked.  In order to increase mobility, frequency needs to increase.  To increase frequency the city needs to increase taxes and/or ridership.  To do that without greatly increasing the tax rate economic cost on the individual citizen the city needs to densify.  

Edited December 18, 2020 by DEnd

[kermit]

15 hours ago, DEnd said:

To do that without greatly increasing the tax rate on the individual citizen the city needs to densify.  

This!!!!

The city of Charlotte went 24 years (IIRC) without raising property tax rates thanks to reverse densification (annexing coupled with population growth in the outer portions of the city). The ability to expand outwards ended a few years ago when the legislature made it harder for cities to annex. So the only way Municipal and County governments can increase revenue without raising rates now is by increasing density. It also happens to be much more cost effective for cities to serve dense areas than sprawling ones.

Governments need to do a much better job of making it clear to every resident that rail transit has fiscal benefits to them, regardless of their ability or willingness to use transit.  

Edited December 19, 2020 by kermit

[JacksonH]

3 hours ago, DEnd said:

Mobility and development in this case are linked.  In order to increase mobility, frequency needs to increase.  To increase frequency the city needs to increase taxes and/or ridership.  To do that without greatly increasing the tax rate economic cost on the individual citizen the city needs to densify.  

I'm still agreeing with CLT's contention that Charlotte did this only with dense development in mind (and only having  to pay the mininum needed to incentivize that development), not so much mobility.  With no more suburbs to easily annex, density is Charlotte's only hope for increasing its tax base.  Developers see tracks in the ground as confirmation the city is committed to providing permanent transportation.  It's  a good visual whether or not it's an effective means of transportation.  Often that's enough for the developers.  And if those developers don't care whether it improves the commute -- they just want to see tracks -- then why spend more?  At 3:09 in the video:  "So if they're not improving the commute, why is there a push for more streetcars? . . . . they're almost entirely designed to support economic development and not increase mobility."  

[kermit]

42 minutes ago, JacksonH said:

I'm still agreeing with CLT's contention that Charlotte did this only with dense development in mind (and only having  to pay the mininum needed to incentivize that development), not so much mobility.  With no more suburbs to easily annex, density is Charlotte's only hope for increasing its tax base.  Developers see tracks in the ground as confirmation the city is committed to providing permanent transportation.  It's  a good visual whether or not it's an effective means of transportation.  Often that's enough for the developers.  And if those developers don't care whether it improves the commute -- they just want to see tracks -- then why spend more?  At 3:09 in the video:  "So if they're not improving the commute, why is there a push for more streetcars? . . . . they're almost entirely designed to support economic development and not increase mobility."  

We also saw a clear confirmation of the relationship between density and rail a few weeks ago in Charlotte. The NIMBYs who were protesting the zoning change necessary for the parking free apartments in Seversville had a go to statement that was "there is no rail, only a bus stop nearby." Based on that it seems clear that the public will be more tolerant of density where rail is present and this is an important political variable. 

I am not sure we are using the right yardstick to judge "effective means of transportation" (not picking on JacksonH). We have the knee jerk expectation that anything slower than cars is not effective, but I don't think it is so simple. There is a large (and growing) portion of the population who either can't afford, or does not want a car. In addition, a marginally slower trip will be fine (and much cheaper than driving) for many riders. Finally, there are environmental benefits associated with transit that should also be part of the equation. Having said all that, I do think transit should be as effective (and fast)  as possible, but I think we need to think fairly about what that means.

The other side of this issue is: why do we suddenly think its not desirable to build transit largely as a means of encouraging dense development? I am not sure we have found other reliable ways to do that yet and the financial returns to that are huge.

 

[JacksonH]

12 hours ago, kermit said:

We also saw a clear confirmation of the relationship between density and rail a few weeks ago in Charlotte. The NIMBYs who were protesting the zoning change necessary for the parking free apartments in Seversville had a go to statement that was "there is no rail, only a bus stop nearby." Based on that it seems clear that the public will be more tolerant of density where rail is present and this is an important political variable. 

I am not sure we are using the right yardstick to judge "effective means of transportation" (not picking on JacksonH). We have the knee jerk expectation that anything slower than cars is not effective, but I don't think it is so simple. There is a large (and growing) portion of the population who either can't afford, or does not want a car. In addition, a marginally slower trip will be fine (and much cheaper than driving) for many riders. Finally, there are environmental benefits associated with transit that should also be part of the equation. Having said all that, I do think transit should be as effective (and fast)  as possible, but I think we need to think fairly about what that means.

The other side of this issue is: why do we suddenly think its not desirable to build transit largely as a means of encouraging dense development? I am not sure we have found other reliable ways to do that yet and the financial returns to that are huge.

I don't disagree with any of this.  And I probably should have used a word like efficient or speedier instead of effective.

[kermit]

I guess this is how CATS announces that opening will be mid March (or later).

 

[sakami]

There is a neighborhood rumor that the Hawthorne bridge will open to vehicle traffic before Christmas  There was lots of activity on Hawthorne today so fingers crossed it happens.