Raleigh Union Station

[ncwebguy]

I think the trailways repair facility between Blount and Person was the trailways terminal for the city. When Greyhound and trailways merged, having two stations was redundant so the Greyhound terminal was kept for passengers and the other kept for maintenance. They have signs out to hire mechanics once in a while, so I know it is somewhat active.

That kind of facility is best kept out of the multi-modal station, but I wonder if there could be any cost savings if CAT (who has a parking (and maybe maintenance) facility between Blount and Wilmington), TTA, Laidlaw/Wolfline, and Greyhound/trailways merged maintenance facilities. Or are the different buses/carriers too dissimilar?

How much would a sale of the current Greyhound terminal and Moore Square generate? How much would the different entities involved contribute to make a nicer, connected facility?

[phoenixnc]

Any news on this topic? It sounds like a great idea.

[NcSc74]

I'm assuming all of this is connected with the 8 billion$ transportaion study that came out today. I saw the plan on WRAL. Looks like the high gas prices are doing what normal citizens couldn't. Lets hope the rail plan is truly comprehensive and not a bunch of loose talk.

[DPK]

I honestly hope prices keep going up to around $4/gallon. I'd be willing to pay a bit more if it meant that we'd be moving to better public transportation sooner.

[dmccall]

This is why Al Gore wanted $7/gallon gas. Of course, the gas prices are just doing ducky things for the overall economy.

[Gard]

They were talking to an oil industry expert on Fox News the other night and he said that its now plausable that gas could reach $10/gallon, but that would only happen if say, a war broke out in Iran and there were some crippling terrorist attacks on oil infrastructure. He also mention that gas was also at the equivalent of $9/gallon now in parts of Europe, BUT, its not so much a problem for them because they have the public transportation infrastructure in place that most of the US and Canada do not. I think $10/gallon is a bit extreme and its likely the government would step in somehow to prevent it. Letting it reach those heights would be political suicide for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Once again, all the more reason to push mass transit. I really think that if this can't done now, it will never get done. Rising gas prices is making all that much easier to push mass transit through as people's wallets are hit hard.

[Tayfromcarolina]

I agree, now is definetly the time. At least lay the preliminaries down and then in the future it will be easier to build upon it and modify it. It's as clear as day in my opinion.

[pack-man]

so far away from any of this happening if approved, who knows what kind of shape our economy will be in by then. scary thought

Edited April 30, 2008 by pack-man

[ERJ170]

I wonder how hard it would be to make it "Green". Perhaps putting some growing areas on some of the roofs, have a couple of roofs with solar panels. A couple of wind turbines on the area. I think that it could work if they really wanted to. And this system is something Raleigh needs to make it's downtown vital and the place to go. But, most important, is the need for a non-stop downtown-airport shuttle or train or something.. buses and cabs are nice but they still use the same highways as all the cars on the street.

Just a random though from a sick individual..

[ChiefJoJo]

The city is issuing a call for ideas for the MTC. Basically, if you have ideas for the MTC's form, what elements it should include, etc, this is for you. Here's a brief overview of the criteria for the MTC scheme to give you an idea of what they are looking for:

Building scale and arrangement

[JTsaysToYou]

To me, the best part about the multimodal center actually geting built would be that the space that the bus station currently takes up by moore square could be used for some really neat development, maybe even a cool sculpture garden or something, I dunno. But it is right by where edison will be, so it would be appropriate to have some density there in the future...

[Jones_]

After reading over the solicitation a few times, I still am not completely sure what is hoped to be gained from public input, or what things have definitely been decided. I can't tell exactly what portion of the wye is available, how it will be/was acquired, how movable the railroad is. I think no matter what teh thing looks like, you have to reconnect the West st and Davie St portions of the grid. On a wider scale, reconfiguring how West ties into Wade and Capital could facilitate how buses move out of the area. Dropping West fully south to South Saunders also should be considered. I would like to see the MMC fully address a street, whether with passenger facilities or complimentary commercial spaces...that Street is most likely West. Also what talks have taken place with TTA and have provisions for connecting to the downtown west station been provided? Anyway, a modern industrial design, that says "warehouse district" would be great, with some conferring with the CAM design folks so that the area reaches a nice level of cohesion stylistically.

[Jones_]

TBJ with more info on the center.

Sounds huge as one might expect. I bet Boylan Heights has traffic concerns and also won't want your typical bus patrons wandering up into their neighborhood.

[DPK]

Boylan Heights sure does seem to be getting the crap-stick lately. First the prison expansion and now a giant MTC. Although I really hope the MTC doesn't see much opposition.

[ChiefJoJo]

Boylan Heights sure does seem to be getting the crap-stick lately. First the prison expansion and now a giant MTC. Although I really hope the MTC doesn't see much opposition.

I guess you could look at it as a negative or a positive. The rail beds were there first, so it's a natural focal point for transportation activity in the city. I think it's a great asset to be located near a future transportation hub for the region.

Any ideas for the call? The deadline is Thursday, July 24. I have been thinking of a general concept of building on top of the wye area. It's such a huge space (30 acres?), it seems foolish to waste potentially valuable land. My transit concept has the MTC as the focal point for a number of transit lines, including a streetcar, which was mentioned in the call for ideas. I also recall an old proposal (in this thread, I think) where Glenwood extended into and over the wye area to access the station, parking, and surrounding development.

[RALNATIVE]

Although I really hope the MTC doesn't see much opposition.

Since I have a condo near the site in the Warehouse District, i'm hoping that property values will soar as a result of this development. I for one won't be opposing it, and i'm sure my neighbors will all agree.

[DanRNC]

By the time they get done with this thing it will be a hut with a vending machine. Combine the overall lack of vision from Raleigh's powers that be, a city manager from Mayberry, and a rabid contingent of Nimbys and you always end up with watered down crap (see F Street).

[RALNATIVE]

By the time they get done with this thing it will be a hut with a vending machine. Combine the overall lack of vision from Raleigh's powers that be, a city manager from Mayberry, and a rabid contingent of Nimbys and you always end up with watered down crap (see F Street).

...don't hate!

[serapis]

...don't hate!

He's probably right. Raleigh has to break out of the curse of mediocrity... The city is practically is 400,000 with a part time city government!

Can anyone tell me why we have a part time city government still!!!?

Edited July 23, 2008 by serapis

[RALNATIVE]

He's probably right. Raleigh has to break out of the curse of mediocrity... The city is practically is 400,000 with a part time city government!

Can anyone tell me why we have a part time city government still!!!?

I do agree with you on these points, because there hasn't been much evidence in the past that points to a city with a progressive and forward-thinking mentality. What I do see, however, is a desire and the ability of some of the new kids on the block like Mitchell Silver, Mary Ann Baldwin, David Diaz, etc. to change the paradigm, and so far it looks promising.

[Jones_]

^This crew is doing a good job. And all us as the folks taking the plunge to live downtown are their reward for a job well done.

[dmccall]

What I do see, however, is a desire and the ability of some of the new kids on the block like Mitchell Silver, Mary Ann Baldwin, David Diaz, etc. to change the paradigm, and so far it looks promising.

What I see is a desire to move to a tired, old, unpopular paradigm of spending vastly more per person to move people. What we need is a new paradigm, but that will probably come at the hands of people far away from here, given that the very wise School of Engineering at NCSU doesn't have any interest in creating new, cost-effective methods of moving people.

[orulz]

The most cost effective way of moving people is the most ancient: walking. Another extremely cost effective way of moving people is on a bicycle.

Transit as a means of moving people is actually only half the story. In the long term, if you look at transit as a simple mode of transportation, sure it's not that efficient. But you can't just look at transit in a vacuum. You have to consider its effect on development patterns (which affect transportatoin) to see the whole picture.

Effective transit encourages dense and walkable environments. In a dense and walkable city environment, the vast majority of trips are done on foot or bike. I think I've heard that the average person makes about a dozen trips per day. Even in New York, Tokyo, London, or Paris, people who use transit and don't use cars, still only make two to four of these trips on transit per day. The rest of their trips (from the office to lunch, from home to the grocery store, dry cleaners, etc) are done on foot or bike. Transit should exist to serve the trips that are too far to accomplish on foot or bike, by linking distant walkable areas together. If we start to build transit now, perhaps it will take 50 years before patterns of development like this to pervade our region, but starting now is better than putting it off for another 10 years.

dmccall, I have a feeling you're holding out for PRT, cable cars in power line right of ways, clear acrylic tubes that transport people or vehicles via suction (as in Futurama) or something like that. These are all non-existent technologies that would take hundreds of billions of dollars to develop and require massive amounts of extremely dense and extremely expensive, complicated infrastructure that is prone to breakdown. These methods try to serve 100% of all trips on transit, but that's a ridiculous goal. Sorry, we don't have that kind of cash and as more people populate the earth, and the cost of resources and construction continue to increase, it will become more and more expensive.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

The most cost effective way of moving people is the most ancient: walking. Another extremely cost effective way of moving people is on a bicycle.

Transit as a means of moving people is actually only half the story. In the long term, if you look at transit as a simple mode of transportation, sure it's not that efficient. But you can't just look at transit in a vacuum. You have to consider its effect on development patterns (which affect transportatoin) to see the whole picture.

Effective transit encourages dense and walkable environments. In a dense and walkable city environment, the vast majority of trips are done on foot or bike. I think I've heard that the average person makes about a dozen trips per day. Even in New York, Tokyo, London, or Paris, people who use transit and don't use cars, still only make two to four of these trips on transit per day. The rest of their trips (from the office to lunch, from home to the grocery store, dry cleaners, etc) are done on foot or bike. Transit should exist to serve the trips that are too far to accomplish on foot or bike, by linking distant walkable areas together. If we start to build transit now, perhaps it will take 50 years before patterns of development like this to pervade our region, but starting now is better than putting it off for another 10 years.

dmccall, I have a feeling you're holding out for PRT, cable cars in power line right of ways, clear acrylic tubes that transport people or vehicles via suction (as in Futurama) or something like that. These are all non-existent technologies that would take hundreds of billions of dollars to develop and require massive amounts of extremely dense and extremely expensive, complicated, infrastructure that is prone to breakdown. These methods try to serve 100% of all trips on transit, but that's a ridiculous goal. Sorry, we don't have that kind of cash and as more people populate the earth, and the cost of resources and construction continue to increase, it will become more and more expensive.

Yeah, Futurama! Now that's what I am talking about...Just kidding! I loved the show, so sorry it had to go.

But like you said most of the other technologies previously being referred to are a bit out there and not very realistic. Just fun! IMHO!

However, I am thrilled to see some of the possibilities for the Transit hub area.

[ERG]

given that the very wise School of Engineering at NCSU doesn't have any interest in creating new, cost-effective methods of moving people.

knives out.

jk, but they do have that whole dharpa thing.