2035 Triangle Regional Transit Vision Plan

[Jones_]

The webpage has a questionnaire which asks for opinions on this among others things. I took the questionnaire and figured I'd point it out to ya'll if you feel like weighing in. Its a little tough to answer some things in that the modes are not known of course, but they did their best to tease out info regardless of the mode. 

[ctl]

Orulz, if you're in a position to influence the future outputs, tell them that they'll get more circulation of the PDF if they hold its size down to 10 MB max. Most of the bulk is in high-res photos that nobody online cares about. 

[Jones_]

That'd be nice....I'm pinging 183Mbps at work and it's still jamming up on me. Totally hopeless at home with TW and the 25 or so I get out of their promised 50. 

[Euphorius]

Looks like the transit planners are leaning toward expanded bus service.. Something tells me that a transit tax will fail if buses are the only thing the revenue will go to. http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/01/26/4507047/road-worrier-cost-conscious-wake.html

[DanRNC]

Back to the future. Raleigh's attitude towards transit is that it's for the poor mopes who can't afford a car. I don't think that perception will ever change. 

[orulz]

Go to Chicago, for example, and ask people if buses are just for poor mopes. Good transit attracts riders regardless of mode.

 

Looks like the transit planners are leaning toward expanded bus service.. Something tells me that a transit tax will fail if buses are the only thing the revenue will go to. http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/01/26/4507047/road-worrier-cost-conscious-wake.html

 

This is the biggest risk. People need to vote for the transit tax or else there will be no transit plan.

[DanRNC]

I live in a city where bus transit is good but it is because it's multimodal and integrated with rail. The development occurs around rail stations, not bus stops. And I didn't say it's for poor mopes-that's how Raleigh perceives it. 

[Jones_]

After having visited a bunch of places with rail in the last 24 months it seems like the places that have their act together use rail for maxing out ridership (in dense areas or to/through areas of otherwise high usage), and buses for coverage (obviously the cost is lower but the mode is slower)). This all seems logical, but doesn't seem to be a plain talking point around here. Integrating bus with rail by say, making a regional bus transit center at like every third rail station (roughly) seems ridiculously straightforward. I mean...it can even be presented in ways that rednecks might buy into such as "put dem liberals on dem trains, 'n let 'em pay der 'otel taxes fer it and it'll be more room fer yer F150 to smoke some Priuses."

[DanRNC]

^And it definitely epitomizes the "can't do" spirit that seems to abound in Raleigh. 

[orulz]

I live in a city where bus transit is good but it is because it's multimodal and integrated with rail. The development occurs around rail stations, not bus stops. And I didn't say it's for poor mopes-that's how Raleigh perceives it.

Development and densification actually does occur without rail. There is a lot of development along Wilshire in LA. There is a lot of development along Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. There is a lot of development along Broadway in Vancouver. There is a lot of development along 16th street in Washington, DC. All of these are extremely dense corridors and also very successful bus routes.

You are right, though; rail does have an impact on development - for several reasons:

1. It encourages more development and allows it to be even denser, because the transit is faster and higher capacity than buses.

2. It concentrates development around fewer, more specific nodes since there are usually fewer stops.

3. The permanence factor probably plays some role though it is difficult to quantify.

To me, though, back in 2005, I doubted whether dense, mixed use development would ever come to Raleigh. I thought that we really did need a rail line in order to encourage density.

But the past nine years since the first rail project was canceled in 2006, and particularly the last four years or so, have convinced me that mixed-use urban development will happen and will continue to happen in Raleigh even without light rail. People want to live in walkable areas, and developers absolutely will rise to the occasion to develop them because it can be very profitable. So, in my opinion, the most important component in encouraging this to happen turns out to be zoning, not transit.

 

But as for light rail, we will get there eventually. If the fastest scenario for building light rail has us putting away HALF of a transit sales tax and will get light rail up and running in 8 years, why not put away a third of it instead, and then have light rail running in 15 years. Maybe make some smaller infrastructure investments like BRT on New Bern or the Beltline, and signal priority/off-vehicle fare collection on other major corridors like Hillsborough and Capital in the intervening years.

Focus two-thirds of the revenue on improved bus service and make Raleigh more of a transit city. There may be a certain segment of the population that will never ride a bus no matter what. Even if that segment is literally 50% of the population, you will probably find that most of that 50% lives nowhere near the likely transit corridors anyway, and even so it still leaves 50% of the population as the target market for transit.

With buses running once an hour, the vast majority of the population will do whatever they can to stay off of transit, even if they can barely afford a car. I tried it for a while, it's a real pain in the ass. I caved and bought a car within six months. You have to plan your day around bus schedules, and the trips that you can make and the destinations you can get to and then actually get back home at all are very limited. The schedules, not the fact that the trips are slower than a car, are the limiting factor. However, if you have numerous routes running every 10 or 15 minutes all day, you have freedom to get around and get to many places on YOUR schedule, even if getting around takes longer than it would in a car. So you will start to see people who can barely afford a car deciding to put it off, or families deciding to have just one car instead of two.

I should also add that building light rail now will be harder than it would have been a few years ago. The state has capped their contribution to 10% which means we must pay 40% ($600 millon) out of local funds rather than 25% ($375 million). If the state were willing to pay 25% then we probably could get away with allocating a third of the revenue towards light rail and still get it built in eight years.

[DanRNC]

"There is a lot of development along Broadway in Vancouver."

 

Actually staring out on Broadway from work right now. We do have a Canada Line Skytrain station at Broadway and Cambie where the highest concentration of new retail and dense housing exists until you get out to Kitsilano. The highest priority SkyTrain addition right now is the route down Broadway to UBC due to frustration with long bus rides/crowded buses out to the University. 

[orulz]

So, Broadway is one of the corridors in all of North America that is the most primed for rail transit. There is literally no room for improvement with buses alone. 80,000 trips each day happen on the buses on Broadway. Adding parallel routes like 4th and 16th you probably have 150,000 bus trips per day in the corridor. Adding rail in this corridor would absolutely encourage and allow more / denser development since bus transit is so completely maxed out.

In contrast, all the bus routes in Wake County combined carry under 20,000 people per day. The three busiest corridors (Capital: Route 1, New Bern: Route 15, Hillsborough: Routes 4 and 12) currently each carry around 2,000 riders per day. We have a lot of room to grow before rail becomes really necessary, to the extent that it is necessary on Broadway.

Adding rail to a corridor will provide a jump in ridership and development because a rail line's faster speeds and higher capacity enable greater mobility. Estimates show that ridership on Broadway might climb as high as 250,000. Presumably most current bus riders on Broadway would change to the subway, and some of the increase would also be accounted for by diversions from parallel routes. Operating costs would decrease since the subway will be an automated extension of SkyTrain (no drivers) compared to the expense of paying drivers for the multitudes of buses. Also presumably, the improved mobility would generate a significant number of new trips as well. Certainly, that justifies a subway on Broadway.

That said, our light rail line won't be nearly as expensive as a subway on Broadway, so we don't need to wait until a single route carries 80,000 trips per day to justify rail. Pulling a nubmer out of thin air, let's say that 20,000 riders per day is the number that would justify a $1.5 billion light rail line. That might be a little high but it's in the right ballpark. I don't think we can't expect building light rail to magically result in a jump from 4,000 bus riders between Hillsborough and Capital, to 20,000 light rail riders overnight. So I would argue that, basically, if we build light rail too soon, without having done enough groundwork with buses first, we can certainly expect a light rail line to fall short of expectations. But if we can get bus ridership up to 10,000 per day in the Capital-Hillsborough corridor prior to light rail, we can expect the greater mobility brought by LRT to bring a ridership jump to the needed 20,000. Getting to 10,000 bus riders per day in the future light rail corridor is absolutely possible, but it will require significant improvements to the entire bus network, not just the Hillsborough and Capital routes themselves. And spending just half of a transit tax on service might not be enough to do it.

[DanRNC]

The question is does Raleigh want to change development patterns or not? Or is it just interested in providing transportation to those that don't have it? It seems that Raleigh operates under the same ideology as the US as a whole operates, which is public investment in infrastructure and services is solely for the have nots. Maybe I have been in Canada too long but I enjoy that the extra amount in income tax comes back to benefit me as well in the form of enhanced quality of life. I pay more in taxes yet have increased savings and a healthier lifestyle. These are the points that should be made to make this more appealing to the larger population. Add reductions in car related expenses from accidents, repairs, etc. and increased productivity from reduced car-related transit times, reduced stress etc. etc. If you just sell this as another form of transportation which they are doing, this thing is dead from the start. 

[DanRNC]

Ironically a little blurb today in the local entertainment rag.

 

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/1272655/vancouvers-chief-medical-health-officer-backs-transit-yes-vote/

[orulz]

But that's just it. Development is already changing. Take a look around: head down Hillsborough Street. Look at Cameron Village, Glenwood South, North Hills. Might it change a bit faster with light rail, sure. But I think there is a real tendency to exaggerate this influence.

The reason (most) people move to New York City is not because New York City has a subway. To most people, the subway is just transportation. They like New York City because it is a vibrant and extremely walkable city. Of course, density the likes of New York City over such an enormous area would be completely unworkable without the subway, but here in Raleigh, there's still plenty of room to increase density and vibrancy in key neighborhoods without getting choked off by congestion. Sure there are some bad spots, but by and large, the sort of congestion we have in Raleigh really isn't bad enough to limit growth, not yet anyway. Case in point: Crabtree Valley. One of the most congested areas in Raleigh. Yet, developers continue to propose new, bigger, denser mixed use developments right in the heart of it.

Increasing congestion may inconvenience some people, but that's the price you pay for greater vibrancy. Some long time residents will doubtless complain that their neighborhoods are getting ruined by congestion, that they can't find parking spaces on the street anymore, that seven stories is too tall, too dense, and dear God, won't somebody please think of the children?! ...but that will only stop the density and vibrancy if we let it: For plenty of people, the draw of vibrancy is far greater than the negatives of congestion.

Besides, as we all know, light rail won't make much of a dent in congestion anyway. It does its best work on encouraging development when it serves as an escape valve. Basically, when our central neighborhoods are so vibrant and active that they are congested enough to really hamper growth, light rail allows that growth to continue.

As I mentioned before, I genuinely believe that zoning is the linchpin, not light rail.

[Spatula]

I get your arguments Orulz and I'm aware that there are some bus improvements that could go quite far with minimal capital risk. I'm also aware of the projected ridership numbers from the last two times commuter rail/light rail were talked about and rejected. I echo your sentiments about the need for better zoning. I think looking at Atlanta vs Portland is a classic example of the mentality a city needs to have to approach light rail. But as for the arguments over whether we should pursue rail right now...

 

Unfortunately, I have to say that I don't find these arguments against it very persuasive.

 

A few things:

 

-No matter what improvements are made to the buses, conservatives who oppose rail transit will use buses as a red herring. They will continue to propose improving the buses when the question of that vs rail crops up... forever. There is no magical point of inflection where they will start saying "okay now's a good time to start a rail system". There is no magical ridership number we can achieve realistically with buses alone that will cause them to change their mind.

 

-Comparing Raleigh's bus ridership with the bus ridership of a larger city that also has good rail transit is not an apples to apples comparison. We know that Charlotte's bus ridership increased significantly after the blue line was built. The presence of trains in a transit system always has this effect on buses in all cities. The rail provides network benefits with the buses. Buses expand the rail system to places it can't reach by itself realistically. They are the capillaries to the trains' arteries.

 

-Buses offer no advantages over cars other than being cheaper and not needing parking. Trains actually bypass traffic. Buses have to sit on I-40 in rush hour with everyone else. Until there is a transit alternative to sitting on I-40 with everyone else, there isn't really a transit alternative. That is a concrete, qualitative fact we have to weigh in considering where we improve.

 

-There is a psychological aspect to trains. Some people are more willing to ride a bus if it connects to a train than if it connects to another bus. Trains eliminate a lot of uncertainty from traveling--you know where they're going, the tracks cannot change. There are no weird holiday routes or weekend routes, the train simply has to go where the track goes. I've had the experience plenty times of discovering that my connecting bus was no longer running that day and being stranded... not just in Raleigh or RTP but in Chapel Hill! Not during inclement weather or a holiday. During a football game! That's with Chapel Hill buses, which are about the pinnacle of what a bus system can be. Game traffic in the Triangle... well I don't need to explain what that looks like or what it does to the city that's hosting the game. One very clear immediate advantage of linking the major universities is that students could take the train on game days. The Triangle is unique and incomparable to other metro areas because we have such a large population of carless students living in dense areas easy to link up to rail right now.

 

-We know that the longer we wait to start building a rail system the more expensive it's gonna be. We also know that the economic benefits of a rail system will be felt sooner, the sooner we start.

 

-What exactly is the risk to 'building too early'? I think this is a point people supportive of rail should really look at because it's the crux of the skeptic's argument and it's utterly lacking in empirical evidence. Point to a city that has financially been ruined by its rail system. Generally the least successful systems have been in cities that started too late, if anything. The development patters were too fixed. If we wait until we're the size of Atlanta when they started MARTA, or the size of Charlotte when they started Lynx... that is what our city will look like when we start.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Spatula

[DanRNC]

^Agreed on all counts. The plan being floated is not a plan at all and to be honest this topic should be closed and renamed Durham-Chapel Hill Transit Vision Plan as Raleigh has pretty much decided status quo per usual. Moving on, it should be proposed linking Durham to RTP via rail and develop high density along this tract. Durham/Chapel Hill should seize on this shortsightedness to recruit folks to the other side of RTP. 

[ctl]

There are two ways to look at the bus vs rail (or bus + rail) question. One is on their relative merits and consequences, as above. The other is pragmatic, namely getting a tax increase approved in a county-wide referendum. The more narrow the "reach" of a transit system -- regardless of its technologies and frequencies -- the more vulnerable the tax increase becomes at the ballot box, if one assumes that people across the county are equally motivated to vote one way or the other. But spreading the money evenly across the county as a thin veneer of mass transit isn't likely to make a difference anywhere.

 

Wake County isn't Mecklenburg, Durham, or Orange. The Wake County Commission has to find the right balance between merits and pragmatism. I think the new commissioners know that and will take their best shot at it, because if they blow it there won't be a second chance for years. I'm anxious to see what they come up with.

[orulz]

Now, I'm not saying put off building light rail forever. I'm saying shoot for 2030 instead of 2024. The cost of building it will go up, yes, but that's inflation for you. The region's population growth, and sales tax revenue growth resulting from both inflation and population growh will almost certainly keep pace with cost escalations. Triangle Transit already owns much of the land for light rail, and has owned it for more than 10 years.

As I mentioned before, the equation has changed even since 2012. To build light rail, we have to raise 40% of the cost locally instead of 25%. At this point what we give up in terms of short-term service improvements in order to build light rail has increased significantly, especially if we really shoot to build light rail as fast as possible. Giving bus ridership a few more years to grow will build ridership and lay the groundwork for light rail.

And I do think we are missing the point if we treat transit primarily as a tool to encourage development, elevate the profile and image of the region, or whatever, first. Transit is transportation. If people don't actually ride it in large numbers, then what's the point?

[ctl]

Ottawa, Ontario has had a fabulous bus system for years, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OC_Transpo, which (along with the national government) has kept downtown strong. Dedicated busways, shelters at every stop, the whole enchilada. Eventually they worked their way up to light rail, at first using abandoned railroad tracks with minimal construction cost. Very slowly the light rail system is being expanded, but bus remains the primary service.

Edited January 30, 2015 by ctl

[js4life]

^^the BRT system in Curitiba,Brazil is another example of effective bus only transit system

[DanRNC]

BRT works fine in dense, compact areas, it's not for larger municipalities. Anyways, if you think this is what Raleigh is going to get, you are drinking the Kool Aid. This "bus" plan will be a couple of more routes at best. There will be no major investment and you may go from -10 to zero with this plan-nothing more. 

[ctl]

Metro Ottawa is 1.2 million people, mostly in a rectangular box 20 miles wide and 5 miles deep (I've been there on business over 100 times). Not much different from Wake County.

The bus plan might or might not be as minimal as you think, but on the other hand a light rail plan would have a much narrower reach that will be a very hard sell to people who live more than 5 miles from it. Good luck at the polls on that.

[DanRNC]

Let's be honest, Raleigh is going to get peddled "BRT Lite" which is essentially the addition of some express bus routes. Proper BRT is expensive and Raleigh is never going to invest anything as the consensus is they want to do this (like everything else) on the cheap. If you don't have a clear vision of the transit plan, which integrates not only bus and rail but walking, biking, etc. then this is truly a waste of time. From the article, what I heard was the big idea was buses every 15 minutes along congested routes. Big damn deal. 

[Jones_]

I am thinking that despite supportive City and County governing bodies now, the State will find a way to stop anything robust. Stripping away or capping some important tax. Seriously...it's not getting much press, but this State legislative session is looking to be far more conservative now that the House is aligned with the Senate. Tillis was actually fairly moderate compared to Berger and they hate Raleigh something fierce.