Jump to content

2035 Triangle Regional Transit Vision Plan


ChiefJoJo

Recommended Posts

If they have to pay back the Feds, they (TTA) will likely lose money on this transaction. I seriously doubt TTA will get back what they paid in this economy.

It seems to me that TTA should ask the Feds to allow them to sell the land and use that money for a different transit project (ie streetcars in DT Raleigh). That money should not sit invested in a rail corridor that will not come to fruition until 2024.

Remember that most of the land was bought in 2004. So it's probably not lost quite that much of its value as it would have had they bought the property in April 2007 for example.

Nonetheless I think that selling the land would be foolhardy. Pretty much everybody agrees that a cross-regional line is necessary, even if it's not the first line to happen. It makes more sense just to hold onto the land than to sell it and then buy it back again in 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The 9100 number has been thrown out constantly since the line opened. The thing is, that was never a stated goal for this line and unfortunately this was supposed to be the opening day number and not the number 15 months later where there is nothing stated.

FTA New Starts Profile Issued by Federal Government on CATS South Corridor LRT (Word DOC format)

The link above is to a FTA document released in 2006 stating the expected metrics, aka GOALS, of the LYNX line in terms of ridership.

The above report's first page, in the standard format issued annually for all projects in the New Starts program, states that the Opening YEAR (not opening day, Opening YEAR) forecast for the line is 9100 daily weekday boardings, and that the 2025 YEAR forecast is 18,100 average daily weekday boardings.

The 9100 number was stated as a one year ridership goal prior to opening. It was an accepted goal by the regulating agency, the FTA. It was an accepted goal by CATS and by the community.

That said, I'm with ChiefJoJo- we need to get back onto the Triangle topics, not minutia in Charlotte.

Edited by transitman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday, the senate was short of two votes to adding $25 billion to the economic stimulus plan that would have approved interstates/mass transit in this country. <_< This money could have easily gone to funding light rail and high-speed rail in the triangle area of North Carolina. And congress still can't figure out why they have such a low approval rating.

Edited by citylife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above report's first page, in the standard format issued annually for all projects in the New Starts program, states that the Opening YEAR (not opening day, Opening YEAR) forecast for the line is 9100 daily weekday boardings, and that the 2025 YEAR forecast is 18,100 average daily weekday boardings.
That file is posted here on UrbanPlanet in several places and we have discussed it extensively. I am very familiar with it. It doesn't change anything I said above. I will also point out that CATS said it would cost $398M to build the line and it effectively cost $100M more than that including reductions in the design after the fact to reduce capacity. The end result is if that line had been evaluated on what it did cost to build, it would have failed to have been approved. If you are going to hold up one part of that report as some measure of success then you have to hold up all of it. You can't cherry pick these results.

Also take note of a paragraph further down in the document. "As a result of changes in policies and zoning in the South End, new buildings have been built which reflect pedestrian- and transit-oriented design principles (buildings located closer to the street, parking behind buildings, and mixed use developments).". This supports my argument above that transit does not affect growth, city policies and the economy do. CATS knows that it can't use this story with the FTA so they didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, the STAC was aware of the sunk costs of the rail corridor, and that was at least a part of the reason (among several others) the committee chose rail over curb-guided BRT... that they wanted to utilize the studies, designs, & property resulting from the DMU rail project. In other words, they developed a regional consensus on a plan with full knowledge of all that had taken place in the past. Given the STAC's knowledge of the resources put into the DMU rail project, the master developer agreement with Cherokee (to develop station areas), and that we have a new LRT-based plan that will likely utilize the majority of the resources already committed, it makes zero sense to do anything other than leverage those resources (particularly land) towards the development of a regional system as quickly as is feasible. To me that means develop TOD areas that are market ready ASAP, perhaps utilizing TIF, MSDs, PPPs or other innovative methods to help fund a portion of the capital costs of the system.

I would love to see a streetcar in Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill (restoring what in many cases had already existed pre-1930s) and I developed a google map showing what I envisioned a few pages back in this topic. In Raleigh, the most logical places might be along Hillsborough Street, Glenwood Ave and New Bern Ave. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see a streetcar in Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill (restoring what in many cases had already existed pre-1930s) and I developed a google map showing what I envisioned a few pages back in this topic. In Raleigh, the most logical places might be along Hillsborough Street, Glenwood Ave and New Bern Ave. IMO.

Same here. I think that it would actually be low expense in some areas to implement because much of the tracks were merely paved over and could easily be dug up again for use, which would be much cheaper than laying new track. I would imagine that the city would have maps showing where the lines run and likely information which are still actually there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here. I think that it would actually be low expense in some areas to implement because much of the tracks were merely paved over and could easily be dug up again for use, which would be much cheaper than laying new track. I would imagine that the city would have maps showing where the lines run and likely information which are still actually there.

No, it wouldn't be any cheaper. Tracks that have been there embedded in asphalt, unmaintained and unused for 70 years, and have been subject to the incessant stresses of the elements and traffic, as well as occasional repavings, could in no way be reused - other than to send the steel to a recycler like Nucor out in Ahoskie. The old tracks would definitely have to be dug up and replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The high expense isn't in the actual tracks. The expense comes from dealing with the automobile traffic that wasn't present 70 years ago. Many of these proposals get killed because they can't handle the expense in dealing with grade crossings, signaling, etc. (depending upon what is being proposed) Light rail and DMU/Commuter rail have to have some sort of FTA approved method of handling every road crossing they come across. They can either close the crossing, put in the required crossing arms and signaling, and in some cases with commuter rail, they can reduce speed and blow their horn. Streetcars have additional issues as the roads have to be redesigned to prevent collisions.

Many of you may be familiar with Myrtle Beach and the approach to it on Hwy 501. (Hard Rock Park, Waccamaw Pottery, etc) There was a project to run a commuter rail train from the recently renovated historic train station in downtown Myrtle Beach 12 miles west to a similar station in Conway. This is the same route the original train took to Myrtle Beach and the tracks are in good shape. If you notice as you come in on this route, there is a drawbridge next to the highway bridge that is lowered for the train. They ran several excursion trains that were packed with enthusiastic crowds. So this would seem to be a no brainer. People could come to work in Myrtle Beach and avoid the horrible traffic on that road, and not have to worry about parking in a place that has little of it. Downtown Conway, which is a historic town would benefit from tourists from the beach that might want to make a trip to see it.

So why didn't they build it? The grade crossings. Since 1960, development has occurred along this route without restrictions and there are an endless number of grade crossings on this track now. In order to comply with regulations to make the track safe for passengers, they would have to spend something like a $400M just to deal with the crossings. This a a non-starter and the reason the project died. IMO, this is one of the very few places in the Carolinas where rail is actually needed and would solve some significant issues for the residents, but those communities simply can't afford something such as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a list somewhere of grade crossings the DOT/NCRR is trying to eliminate? I thought over the next several years they are planning to reduce existing crossings wherever possible. I know this doesn't apply to new rail, but I'm curious none the less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it wouldn't be any cheaper. Tracks that have been there embedded in asphalt, unmaintained and unused for 70 years, and have been subject to the incessant stresses of the elements and traffic, as well as occasional repavings, could in no way be reused - other than to send the steel to a recycler like Nucor out in Ahoskie. The old tracks would definitely have to be dug up and replaced.
This is very true. Also new street car tracks can be laid for as little as $10 million per mile (in some cases) and at a speed of 1 mile per week. This is why I say set aside 75 to 100 million dollars and give the people a DT/Central Raleigh streetcar route. That would at least give some credibility to TTA after the failed attempt (as of now TTA's credibility is "suspect" at best). It would also help DT Raleigh compete against suburban areas like North Hills and Crabtree for new retail and new residents.

As for the land they (TTA) currently owns, I would love to see how much money in property taxes TTA is paying for that land. I bet it is in the millions annually. By 2024, they (TTA) might end up paying for that land twice thanks to property taxes. Again, TTA should cut their losses and cash some of that land in for streetcar building dollars. Few folks in the Triangle are going to take TTA seriously if trains are not running soon.

Edited by urban980
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very true. Also new street car tracks can be laid for as little as $10 million per mile (in some cases) and at a speed of 1 mile per week. This is why I say set aside 75 to 100 million dollars and give the people a DT/Central Raleigh streetcar route. That would at least give some credibility to TTA after the failed attempt (as of now TTA's credibility is "suspect" at best). It would also help DT Raleigh compete against suburban areas like North Hills and Crabtree for new retail and new residents.
I think the steetcar lines are much more expensive than that. Once you add in the maintenance facility, training, ticketing and logistics systems, and buy the vehicles you are talking something like $40M/mile and that assumes you are building on ROW the city already owns. The other problem with streetcar lines is they are only suited for situations where there is very high bus ridership already because otherwise, there is no way to cost justify them. The FTA is loath to provide any funding towards streetcars and if an attempt is made they will immediately ask the transit agency about using city buses instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the steetcar lines are much more expensive than that. Once you add in the maintenance facility, training, ticketing and logistics systems, and buy the vehicles you are talking something like $40M/mile and that assumes you are building on ROW the city already owns. The other problem with streetcar lines is they are only suited for situations where there is very high bus ridership already because otherwise, there is no way to cost justify them. The FTA is loath to provide any funding towards streetcars and if an attempt is made they will immediately ask the transit agency about using city buses instead.
That is the cost of the more expensive type of streetcar route (ie LRV on the street). The average street car route (modern day street cars, not LRV) is only about 15 to 20 million per mile. A cheap line can be as little as 10 million per mile.

As for the current bus routes' lack of ridership, you do have a point. The Feds will want to see the bus ridership numbers. I guess the best thing to do is use local money for the DT streetcar line. I think a two mile line could easily be done without money from the Feds and will give TTA much needed credibility in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the cost of the more expensive type of streetcar route (ie LRV on the street). The average street car route (modern day street cars, not LRV) is only about 15 to 20 million per mile. A cheap line can be as little as 10 million per mile.
No, I am referring to street cars. LRVs with defined stations are higher than that. Don't underestimate the step in cost for one of these lines. You have to have all the systems and facilities in place to maintain, clean and store the vehicles. You have to build the base electrification system which is not trivial. You have to develop everything needed to train the drivers, the mechanics, handle ticketing, and so forth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am referring to street cars. LRVs with defined stations are higher than that. Don't underestimate the step in cost for one of these lines. You have to have all the systems and facilities in place to maintain, clean and store the vehicles. You have to build the base electrification system which is not trivial. You have to develop everything needed to train the drivers, the mechanics, handle ticketing, and so forth.
Agreed!!! Those are all very realistic expenses associated with any transit line. However, the average street car line seems to be slightly less than $20 million per mile. $10 million dollars per mile is the lowest I have seen (that is why I stated in some cases they can cost $10 million per mile). Just do a quick goggle search of any recent US street car line and you will see what I am talking about. Streetcars and historic trolleys seem to be the cheapest rail option available. TTA should start quickly on the cheapest form of rail (ie trolleys or streetcars).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very true. Also new street car tracks can be laid for as little as $10 million per mile (in some cases) and at a speed of 1 mile per week.

Please cite some examples and data for your assertions, since several of them seem to have little evidence behind them. This one seems particularly unlikely.

Portland has pioneered a very good streetcar construction technique which can cover a standard Portland block (about 200 linear feet) in 3 weeks' time, and then move on to the next block. This is done to minimize impact on adjacent businesses. This construction costs $25-$30 million/mile for extensions, and more for new systems because the first segment amortizes the cost of streetcar maintenance facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please cite some examples and data for your assertions, since several of them seem to have little evidence behind them. This one seems particularly unlikely.

Portland has pioneered a very good streetcar construction technique which can cover a standard Portland block (about 200 linear feet) in 3 weeks' time, and then move on to the next block. This is done to minimize impact on adjacent businesses. This construction costs $25-$30 million/mile for extensions, and more for new systems because the first segment amortizes the cost of streetcar maintenance facilities.

I re-read my post and I am sorry for the error. I honestly meant to say 1 block per week (not one mile).

At any rate, here is an interesting link that answers pretty much all streetcar questions (including start up cost). In my post, I said the average cost of a streetcar line is just under $20 million per mile. This link says that it is nearly $25 million per mile. Some sources say that the average cost is only $15 million per mile, but I think that is a stretch for the average cost.

http://www.cabq.gov/transit/about-us/proje...-streetcar#Cost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here. I think that it would actually be low expense in some areas to implement because much of the tracks were merely paved over and could easily be dug up again for use, which would be much cheaper than laying new track. I would imagine that the city would have maps showing where the lines run and likely information which are still actually there.

I saw some of the tracks on Salisbury and Morgan Streets during a repaving project in the mid 80s. They were in bad shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This report is 6 years old. Construction costs have gone up considerably since then.
That has alot to do with higher fuel cost (asphalt and dyed low sulfur diesel used by construction equipment). Now that fuel has come down in price, I expect to see a drop in construction cost. Only time will tell.

Regardless of the price of construction or the line itself, I think we are all getting a little too "side tracked" LOL. The bottom line is that Raleigh could have built a well planned streetcar line in the downtown area with the $120 million TTA blew on a very costly Durham/Raleigh link. Today, TTA owns a rail corridor and probably pays a hefty property tax to the tune of millions per year. To me, that is money that could have actually had trains running in DT Raleigh years ago.

Also, what about a special tax on new development along the streetcar line? That plus the sell of TTA's failed rail's land could certainly build a streetcar line from downtown to NCSU's campus. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw some of the tracks on Salisbury and Morgan Streets during a repaving project in the mid 80s. They were in bad shape.

I saw some at Fayetteville and Morgan when the mall was being ripped up, and the rails themselves were in decent shape...maybe not usable on that count alone, but certainly not usable for all the layers of asphalt bonded to and around them. They are full of utility cuts and such all over town too. I do find it interesting though that a good chunk of the old lines are still in place...the New Bern stub appears to have a clear impression of the tracks showing through (its kind of near the sewer but offset enough to not be the sewer line. Also, in Oakwood I think a line came down Bloodworth, and parts of Bloodworth clearly has the cobblestones showing through in places which were likely in place as bedding for the rails. I have seen the old maps somewhere, and if I find them will post them. The layout is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That has alot to do with higher fuel cost (asphalt and dyed low sulfur diesel used by construction equipment). Now that fuel has come down in price, I expect to see a drop in construction cost. Only time will tell.....
I think it should be noted that Albuquerque never built that streetcar that you posted the link to. They revisited the plan in 2007 where the price had risen to $270M which it again pretty much died.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI N&O has a decent article on the proposed mass-transit this morning: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1397009.html

Interesting proposal. I'm all for it and glad to see they actually appear to be heavily motivated to get funding despite not being able to get federal support.

This line however I can see pissing a lot of people (read - the type of people who post on wral.com) off:

They intend to ask the state for a 25 percent share, but they say local taxpayers should foot most of the bill.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.