Charlotte's Light Rail: Lynx Blue Line

[dubone]

Oh, thanks for pointing that out, I misread it earlier.

I'll look out for the presentation when they upload it. They still only have the files from the meeting last summer.

I am curious to see the bridge. That intersection is so massive, I am shocked that they chose a bridge over a tunnel. I'm also curious about the aesthetics, considering the UCP had tried to propose improvements to the aesthetics of this intersection to be their signature intersection. I'll stop there until I see the details.

Considering it is just a mile, I'm unclear on why they don't run the train on the right side of Tryon with the Harris Bridge getting them there and saving the need for that tunnel to cross under northbound Tryon to get onto UNCC's campus. Normally they avoid that so they don't hurt development on that side, but in this case it is just the university campus on the east side so they won't have the need for driveway cuts, etc.

[southslider]

They can't go under Harris, because the likely future (but unfunded) grade-separation of this soon-to-be busiest intersection lowers Harris under Tryon. Of course, that means a future tri-level interchange (not exactly pretty), but it also hopefully prevents service disruption of LYNX, given they have a better chance of being up and running before the future interchange is built.

As for why not just leaving Tryon sooner in the University area, I imagine the JW Clay station is the ideal location BETWEEN the shopping and hospital. And that way, patrons need only cross half of Tryon, rather than all of it, to reach a station.

Edited January 16, 2009 by southslider

[atlrvr]

It almost makes too much sense to instead just lower Tryon under Harris and have the the LRT continue in a viaduct north of the intersection while Tryon returns to grade.

[dubone]

Oh my gosh! Are they seriously planning a grade separation for Harris and Tryon!? Here's a follow up, Lynx goes over Harris while Tryon goes under Harris? Why not just coordinate that work and have Lynx go under Harris with Tryon and build it all at once.

The problems at this intersection are a symptom of the problem with University City where the focus is entirely on those two roads, and building them more as high capacity parkways is just more of the same.

[southslider]

As I understand it, Tryon stays at today's grade and will keep signals to ramps on/off Harris. Harris is the one changed and lowered to go under Tryon without stopping. That's why the LYNX can't go under Harris, or you'd really have to dig deep. It's a tri-level with Harris lowered, Tryon at grade, and LYNX in up and over it all. Given the LYNX spanning today's intesection, I imagine it works best if the interchange is a SPUI, keeping one signalized intersection on Tryon.

I'm not sure what happens then with McCullough-JW Clay at Harris, but my ideal would be to also lose that light on Harris, bridging over Harris, but possibly having ramps only to/from I-85 as auxilary lanes to/from that existing Interstate interchange, resulting in just a half-diamond for that signal, in addition to the likely SPUI at Harris/Tryon.

[tozmervo]

The website has been updated. The new alignment map and station plans are here: http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS/R...NE+Stations.htm

The presentation (which includes the argument against the Sugar Creek alignment) is here: http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS/R...ld+Meetings.htm

[Andyc545]

Wow the released drawings are so much more detailed.

[monsoon]

It's an interesting presentation.

• I notice that one of CATS assumptions listed for the project scope was to have "increased train frequency". Yet, as noted above, they are reducing frequency at peak times.
  
• They continue to use the expensive station canopies that provide no protection from the elements. This is no doubt a factor on their declining ridership. Maybe they don't listen to their customers.
  
• It's my opinion they picked the worst of the two alternatives with that Sugar Creek station. It would be much better if it was located on the Asian Mall property where there could be some opportunities for TOD. Where they plan to have it now, its going to turn into another Tyvola Station. Park and Ride only.
  

IMO, the complexity of the line North of Sugar Creek rivals anything they did on the South line.

[Charlotte_native]

[*]They continue to use the expensive station canopies that provide no protection from the elements.

Do they possibly do this so the stations don't become comfortable hang-outs for those that aren't really planning on going anywhere?

[staffer]

The city and state's list of ready to go economic stimulus items both include the Sugar Creek bridge. Wonder if this project gets underway soon how much prep they can do for the NE line there at the same time. The detailed drawings for the NE line show separate NCRR and Lynx bridges over Sugar Creek Rd.

[dubone]

There was no chance they'd use different station furniture and designs than the existing line, criticism notwithstanding. This will be the same line. Also, it is a minority opinion that those canopies are deficient. I have had lots of conversations with people about the line and have only heard of a couple of people on UP complain about that.

Southslider, is it possible that information is wrong or has changed? Just look at slide 7 of the presentation from last week's public meetings. If they truly plan to have Harris bridge over Tryon, it would need to be extremely tall. I suspect maybe that plan has been shelved if they wouldn't be designing the Lynx crossing this way. If you're right, then I am still horrified that they plan to continue the mistakes that has caused UC to be awful for traffic and walkability. Interchanges at major thoroughfare intersections are a symptom of the problems with the planning up there, with an utter lack of grid connectivity and options. The whole POINT of putting the Lynx up Tryon rather than the NCRR alternate all the way to 485 is that planners hoped N Tryon could become a more pedestrian oriented walkable corridor. An interchange nullifies that entire purpose, and seems to continue to try to every freaking city street in University City to act like a freeway (interchanges, minimal driveways, high speed limits, etc.) What a mess that would be. The Lynx is pointless if they don't have any effective surface streets other than a couple of shopping center roads.

As for closer to uptown, I love seeing the 9th Street Station showing the future Market Street and 10th Street extension across the tracks to Caldwell. Once those are built, it will be significant improvement to the grid connectivity of that part of First Ward. That 9th Street Station diagram also answers a question I have had for where they will store extra trains to support uptown events. Note that they have a third track for that just north of 10th Street taking advantage of the wider right of way and bridges under 277 and 11th streets to store the trains. I am little unclear what benefit a center station is here, maybe they did it to seperate the tracks to add that third track that I just mentioned, but a side platform would help integrate the station in with future development there like what was done with 7th St Station, rather than having people walk to 9th or 10th to get the station between the tracks. Also, a center platform with at grade crossings makes it weird because if you are trying to run to catch the train, you'd likely miss it because the gates would come down on you, but you would have made it if it were side platforms and could grab your ticket while the train goes that last block.

I have a significant problem with the naming of the 27th Street Station. The station is no where near a street named 27th Street. 28th there was renamed Jordan Place when they added the connector to Matheson, and 27th doesn't go east of Davidson. I think they should rename it 30th Street as it is just south of Matheson as that is a major thoroughfare. The DID surprise me by not retaining the 16th Street name for the station they moved up to Parkwood, but now that the 27th Street station has been moved and street names changed, that station should be renamed too.

[tozmervo]

I believe it is a minority opinion. They specifically cited the canopies as a successful element that they are bringing to the BLE. The design revisions that are being made are focused on removing excess columns/fixtures from the platforms to free up more space.

Re: Station naming, I got the impression that they were still settling on some of them, so 27th street may yet change (especially with feedback).

btw, the map is updated

Edited January 17, 2009 by tozmervo

[New Name]

My wish is that there would be a station on/around 11th St, or 12th St. I was always a bit confused about the need to have a station every 2 blocks in Uptown. I think anyone who would use 9th St would not notice if it were omitted. I am sure it has some sort of connection with proximity to the 1st Ward redevelopment though.

But imaging what a station on the 1 way section of 11th would do for that street. Or, imagine what a station just on the other side of 277 (on 12th would do for the area around Alpha Mill). There are a few houses behind Alpha Mill on Brevard and Belmont and the area has potential, but now anyone who would live there would have to walk across 2 high speed 1 way streets, 277, and into 1st ward to get a train ... or out to Parkwood. Just seems wasteful to have stations every 2 blocks uptown, but nothing really in this section. And it can't be because of the way the tracks go under 11th and 277, because they made it work over on Morehead.

[monsoon]

I believe it is a minority opinion. They specifically cited the canopies as a successful element that they are bringing to the BLE. ...

So you are going with the opinion of CATS they are successful? What was their criteria for success? i.e. "successful element" These canopies along with the ticketing machines were two of the major complaints we have seen against the South LRT. They don't offer any shelter from the elements which is supposed to be their purpose.

[tozmervo]

Apparently I missed all those complaints, apart from the periodic acknowledgment on this board. As a daily user, I've never had much reason to take issue with them. I stay dry when its wet, shady when the sun is burning hot, and the glass walls have provided protection from the wind when necessary. Would it be nicer if the canopies extended the length of the platforms? Sure, I guess, but its not something that seems necessary to me (again, a daily user).

And from my perspective, CATS is quite responsive to user feedback and usage patterns. Unlike so many government organizations I've had to deal with, they are constantly tweaking and changing to improve usability. If they were indeed getting a great deal of negative feedback, I am convinced that CATS is not so naive as to continue with the same failed design.

[Spartan]

Southslider, is it possible that information is wrong or has changed? Just look at slide 7 of the presentation from last week's public meetings. If they truly plan to have Harris bridge over Tryon, it would need to be extremely tall. I suspect maybe that plan has been shelved if they wouldn't be designing the Lynx crossing this way. If you're right, then I am still horrified that they plan to continue the mistakes that has caused UC to be awful for traffic and walkability. Interchanges at major thoroughfare intersections are a symptom of the problems with the planning up there, with an utter lack of grid connectivity and options. The whole POINT of putting the Lynx up Tryon rather than the NCRR alternate all the way to 485 is that planners hoped N Tryon could become a more pedestrian oriented walkable corridor. An interchange nullifies that entire purpose.

Why would it have to be extremely tall? If the LRT will be elevated, and Harris goes under Tryon St., then LRT bridge wouldn't need to be any taller than the ones on the South Corridor.

Regarding the Harris/Tryon intersection... thank NCDOT for that. They don't care about creating a grid, they don't care about building urban streets. Their only concern is traffic throughput, despite the fact that their policies indicate otherwise.

Regarding 27th St Station, I agree that the naming of it will be confusing. Its located where 27th Street would be located if it were extended to Brevard St, but thats an unlikely street connection due to the creek that is located where it would intersect with Brevard. Anyway, I think that Jordan Place needs to be renamed to 28th St, then the station could be called 28th St Station, which would be more intuitive since that street connects to Brevard. Naming it after anything other than a numbered street would cause confusion, IMO.

[monsoon]

...... thank NCDOT for that. They don't care about creating a grid, they don't care about building urban streets. Their only concern is traffic throughput, despite the fact that their policies indicate otherwise.....

This was not the NCDOT's fault. The original plan for that intersection was to be quite different than it is today. Remember Charlotte's first TOD new urbanist neighborhood, the actual University City, was built there in the early 80s with the intention of what you said. This would be the apartments, condos, stores and restaurants that surround the small lake there. One of the very few cluster home developments in the county is also there, but you have to look hard to actually see it. The idea was that people would be able to walk to go to work, school, shopping etc.

When this was happening, Harris was just a small road that only went from Hwy 29 to I-85.

When they proposed an intersection for that area, the NCDOT was involved, the design was going to be quite different. They were going to attempt a unique design that would have allowed for pedestrians. However it didn't happen. The reason it didn't is the property owners on that intersection didn't want it because it reduced the commercial aspects of their property and they lobbied to get it changed. These owners include Bank of America, Carolinas Medical Center, and there was a 3rd one that I don't remember now. So it was not the NCDOTs fault it was the local powers who always cave to these kinds of interests. I've have seen at least a 1/2 dozen different proposals for this area over the last 25 years and the city, which paid for these things, did not follow any of them. The approval of the IKEA/Super Walmart development is but yet the latest example of this.

The residents who bought into the original TOD as well as people of some of the other neighborhoods pleaded with the city and county to stick with the plans for that area. If they had it would have been a good place for a light rail station. Personally, at this point I think that putting anything but a park and ride anywhere in this area is just a waste of money and I am not convinced even that is worth it.

[Spartan]

I agree with that. However, NCDOT still gets the final say over what happens with these two roads. Ultimately it is their policies that prevent us from fixing the problems, and its debatable whether or not it can be fixed to start with.

[dubone]

My reading comprehension skills are tanking lately! I reread the original description and see now that he said Harris would go under. I still hate making this an interchange, and seems counter to what the city is doing with Harris in other places (like refusing to let Harris-Albermarle intersection be interchanged by NCDOT), but I at least see how it could be done later with the Lynx bridge spanning over the construction zone for building the Harris tunnel. Why NCDOT and CDOT doesn't see the long term benefit of building multiple redundant roads rather than monopoly high-capacity thorough fares is beyond be. I also still hold that this a symptom of a problem with University City that reduces the benefits that running the Lynx on Tryon was TRYING to create, a more walkable urban mixed mode corridor.

"27th Street Station" is not where 27th would be, it is north of where 28th is. Jordan Place was only changed from "28th Street" a few years ago when they added the connection to Matheson and built that massive truck-oriented intersection with Davidson Street and no longer aligned the section west of Davidson with 28th east of Davidson. Check out Google, and you'll see the lines from the old the configuration, but the aerial of the current configuration.

As for the station canopies, I will stay out of the debate on whether the current shelters are sufficient, although I still hold that there was no way they would change that design for a section that is intended to look and feel the same as the existing line. But one thing I noticed that they did for the Blue Line Extension is to heavily favor center platform stations like the current Tyvola Station. Only 4 of the 13 stations used separate platforms for NB and SB (Parkwood, Old Concord, UNCC and Mallard Creek Church) that would have the small canopies. So 9 of the 13 stations have the larger center platform canopies that were considered large enough to avoid the complaints that the smaller canopies get.

The University station ought to be considered for a full canopy like Trade Street has. It will be a major destination and centerpiece of the full line. The Trade Street canopy was privately funded and I think the university could muster the $500k - $1m or so to fund something like it (or unique) because it has the potential to be a symbol of the university as well as many people's first impression of the school. If not initially, hopefully it could be done eventually.

Lastly, in defence of 9th Street station, it is not only going to be the station most convenient to the current populations of Fourth Ward and most of First Ward, but it is also intended to help spur along development on the Hal Marshall tract and development on Levine's land which is inevitable although farther in the future. The most signifant reason for retaining 9th Street Station is that it is next to the UNCC Uptown building and the area where UNCC would add more space if they expanded uptown. Students going between classes in the uptown building and the main campus will be very good source of ridership for the Lynx. Uptown is one of the few places in the city that is zoned to be dense enough to have transit stations every 3 blocks. What is already there in First and Fourth Wards will probably make it a decently used station (it will be my station), but then adding in UNCC and the 30 acres of undeveloped land zoned with high density makes for a compelling case in my view.

[monsoon]

I agree with that. However, NCDOT still gets the final say over what happens with these two roads. Ultimately it is their policies that prevent us from fixing the problems, and its debatable whether or not it can be fixed to start with.

It is not that simple. The NCDOT is involved in the final signoff because they are the ones responsible for the safety of the road. But they are not sitting up there like kings telling the minions what to do.

It is not the NCDOT that determines local development policy nor do they have a mandate from the state to do this. Roads are designed and built based on local requests, prioritization, and plans. The NCDOT built that road based on local input from Charlotte. The city first suggested that unique design and they were fine with that. When the the city/county changed their mind they were fine with that too. Like I said, they are not in the business of determining local road development policy and if they even tried, there would be cries about the state telling the city how to do urban development. If you are looking for blame here, the NCDOT was not it.

The complete blame on the failure on how the University City area developed rests squarely on the heads of local government. They ignored every urban development plan they developed for the area and instead did whatever the developers wanted. It's my opinion that attempts to place a light rail line through here is going to cost so much for so little benefit that it is going to doom that line as currently designed unless there is a fundamental change in the way funds are allotted towards light rail.

[Spartan]

It is not that simple.

On State and Federal highway routes like Tryon and Harris, NCDOT gets to determine design. Local input via MUMPO and CDOT is considered and in many cases used. Policies and practices that determine things like lane width, signal spacing, intersections design, clear zones, vertical/horizontal curvature, accommodation of pedestrians and bicycles, and other issue of this nature on state-maintained roads are all from NCDOT. Local entities can push for better designs but, as we are all aware, it doesn't always happen that way. This is not to say that NCDOT completely ignores local government, infact, collaboration between local gov't and the state always occurs. However, as an agency, they are frequently inflexible when it comes to what they want.

I agree that local government has played a significant role in why University City is the way it is. However, to blame it entirely on the Planning Dept is inaccurate. The failure is because in the past, NCDOT, CDOT, and City Planning Dept failed to recognize the relationship between transportation and land use in addition to ignoring the plans that had been made for the area. Obviously ignoring the plans for that part of town and others is a major blunder, and I'm not suggesting that this mistake should be ignored.

I too am a little wary of how the light rail will impact the UC shopping area around McCollough and JW Clay. At the very least, JW Clay stands to benefit from its (relatively) pedestrian friendly internal area since it was designed as a mixed-use center. [as an aside, I found that bit of history very interesting, since I didn't realize it was supposed to be "mixed use."]

It will be interesting to see how UNCC and the hospital develop their respective areas in relation to the light rail and to the general road network in UC. It will also be interesting to see how the southern portion of UC (around the 29/49 connector) redevelops after those interchanges are realigned. I think there is some hope for UC, with the exception of Harris/Tryon. There is still a fair amount of undeveloped land in the area.

[southslider]

It's my opinion they picked the worst of the two alternatives with that Sugar Creek station. It would be much better if it was located on the Asian Mall property where there could be some opportunities for TOD. Where they plan to have it now, its going to turn into another Tyvola Station. Park and Ride only.

Except that the chosen location is still visible from Asian Corners, but more importantly closer to NoDa. So I disagree, I think the move (or tweaking the LPA) has a better chance at catalyzing both sides of the tracks.

[monsoon]

^The Asian Mall location would be closer to the people who need and who are using public transportation today. That is proven out by bus ridership today. Unless CATS is willing to spend a significant amount of money to add sidewalks and upgrade the Davidson street all the way back to Noda, I can't imagine there are going to be many people choosing to walk down that very busy road through that 1/2 mile of industrial buildings.

[New Name]

^The Asian Mall location would be closer to the people who need and who are using public transportation today. That is proven out by bus ridership today. Unless CATS is willing to spend a significant amount of money to add sidewalks and upgrade the Davidson street all the way back to Noda, I can't imagine there are going to be many people choosing to walk down that very busy road through that 1/2 mile of industrial buildings.

That is happening this spring. From Paterson to Sugar Creek.

[dubone]

Please take note as I have mentioned it multiple times: it was already deemed infeasible to use the original routing that went along the Asian corners land. Putting the line on the Asian Corners property as originally anticipated was ruled out because it would have made for expensive changes to the crossing of Sugar Creek Road, and would have impacted some historic buildings. Therefore, the alternative alignment that they just opted against was farther east and no longer would have served redevelopment of Asian Corners as well as the currently planned station.

Economic benefits were a wash, as Asian Corners was in the 1/4 mile station area for both station locations (although easier and more visible access is the selected location), and while this location is not as close to Tryon, it is close to the section of North Davidson Street just south of Sugar Creek, which people are referring to as 'NoDa'. That area has a grid and some very reusable brick warehouse buildings, but obviously will need some investment for sidewalks, as will many neighborhoods near this part of the line.

I am not sure how your opinion on this fits in with your general critiques of CATS. The analysis showed little difference in the economic benefits, and no difference to the functional service for Asian Corners, which everyone agrees is a a significant center for the area and land that will be important when it is redeveloped. How on earth would adding $60 million in costs for the line be justified? Even if it comes out of the City coffers, it would have affected the cost effectiveness for the line in general and could have resulted in failure to win federal money. In the public meetings, there was a signifant majority that preferred the NCRR routing, and after significant money spent analysizing the benefits with the intent to make a case to route the line along Tryon through here the results ended up pointing to the clear wisdom to route it as they did.

The current station will be 2/10 of a mile, a 4 minute walk, from Asian Corners and will be at the same grade and much more visible. So if near unanimity from the public and the quantitative analysis found no economic benefit for spending, what on earth would justify spending that $60m? You cannot criticize CATS for being wasteful and then complain that they chose a significantly cheaper route after the analysis showed no appreciable net economic benefits over the other alignment.