Jump to content

2035 Triangle Regional Transit Vision Plan


ChiefJoJo

Recommended Posts

The rail line would only generate funds for the transit authority, directly. However, it will indirectly generate funds for RDU by giving riders a direct option to the airport. And not just local but visiting riders. Mass transit is a high factor people look at when traveling. If you ask anyone who comes to DC, they will tell you that the metro stop at DC is one of the best features of the airport. And WMAA doesn't have anything to do with it. But they get indirect revenue from it by increase passengers and as a marketing tool. Get off your plane and into the district in under 15 minutes, even during rush hour traffic!

Specifically I was wondering if a such a line would make sense for the transit agency in so far as revenues go. I did not think it would given the fact that airport is not in-line with the other development in the area that is to be served. Buses up and back from a stop at Airport Blvd might be a good compromise...the LGA bus service from Astoria rail stop is a breeze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This is more myth than fact. The airport would probably welcome a transit line, and it would not decrease their revenues significantly, as the vast majority of their revenue comes from fees other than parking, and quite a bit of the parking revenues go towards operating the park-and-ride system.

However, the fact is that the airport authority would probably be asked to shoulder at least some of the cost of a transit line to the terminals. With the massive half-billion dollar Terminal 2 project underway, and the future Terminal 1 project which will also be massive, their financial resources (absent some other source of revenue) are pretty much tapped out for years to come.

Even so, I'd like to see some sort of plan for how it will be incorporated in the future.

I disagree...from the Airport Authority's own annual report for 2008 , page 20:

"Parking continues to be RDU's leading revenue generator. With more than 20,000 spaces, parking operations accounted for just over 30 percent of Airport Authority-generated revenue in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008." the exact figure from that year was 32.7% of revenue (more than landing fees and terminal rents combined). Show me any organization, public or private, that is going to cut into a revenue source that provides one-third of their annual budget...

Since parking revenue is their lifeblood, and since the cash strapped local governments who appoint the RDU Authority Board know that if they killed this golden-egg laying goose by making it superconvenient to take mass transit to the airport, they would have to cover the revenue shortfall from their own overextended revenue sources, don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. It isn't in the financial interests of anyone with any actual authority to make it happen, which means it won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree...from the Airport Authority's own annual report for 2008 , page 20:

"Parking continues to be RDU's leading revenue generator. With more than 20,000 spaces, parking operations accounted for just over 30 percent of Airport Authority-generated revenue in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008." the exact figure from that year was 32.7% of revenue (more than landing fees and terminal rents combined). Show me any organization, public or private, that is going to cut into a revenue source that provides one-third of their annual budget...

Since parking revenue is their lifeblood, and since the cash strapped local governments who appoint the RDU Authority Board know that if they killed this golden-egg laying goose by making it superconvenient to take mass transit to the airport, they would have to cover the revenue shortfall from their own overextended revenue sources, don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. It isn't in the financial interests of anyone with any actual authority to make it happen, which means it won't.

except if they see transit as being able to bring more passengers to the airport without cutting existing demand. If demand for air service continues to rise (yes I know it has fallen the last year) then the airport might find it a win-win to assist transit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree...from the Airport Authority's own annual report for 2008 , page 20:

"Parking continues to be RDU's leading revenue generator. With more than 20,000 spaces, parking operations accounted for just over 30 percent of Airport Authority-generated revenue in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008." the exact figure from that year was 32.7% of revenue (more than landing fees and terminal rents combined). Show me any organization, public or private, that is going to cut into a revenue source that provides one-third of their annual budget...

Since parking revenue is their lifeblood, and since the cash strapped local governments who appoint the RDU Authority Board know that if they killed this golden-egg laying goose by making it superconvenient to take mass transit to the airport, they would have to cover the revenue shortfall from their own overextended revenue sources, don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. It isn't in the financial interests of anyone with any actual authority to make it happen, which means it won't.

I can see what you are saying.. but imagine this.. those taking the light rail are those that are going to be going on short trips. Longer term passengers and families are more likely to drive themselves to the airport due to the number of pieces of baggage and the number of people involved. So I think it could be a win-win.. it allows the airport to take more revenue from longer term parking and it provides more people access to the airport.

But, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some web coverage of the transit bill that was successfully voted out of committee this past Wednesday:

Bob Geary blogs about the potential obstacle of Durham to a regional system. He provides more coverage here, as published in this week's Indy.

A former poster on this forum and author of Bull City Rising weighs in on Durham's situation.

The bill is now in the finance committee, where it may have a tough time moving ahead.

Geary blogs on about Chris Leinberger's (urbanist wonk/author/professor/developer) visit to Raleigh and lecture on suburban/urban challenges on Wednesday night. He spoke about the growing demand (perhaps 50% of Americans in the next 20-30 years) for, and the Triangle's lack of "regionally significant walkable urban" places... think Downtown Raleigh, Downtown Durham, and maybe North Hills (though as Leinberger said, these places still have a long way to go before anyone will confuse them with the urban TODs along the Rosslyn/Ballston corridor in Arlington, for example.

Leinberger's studies of urban regions tells us that a metro area should expect market demand for around 1 regionally significant urban place per 100-150k people. By his measure Metro DC has 20, with another 10 on the way in a metro of perhaps 4M. Importantly, Leinberger noted 90% are linked by Metro Rail stations, which makes a strong case that "walkable urbanism," while possible without it, has a greater chance to thrive when planned in concert with fixed rail transit. By this measure, we are pretty far behind, and thus brings forward his concluding argument about Raleigh and the Greater Triangle, that is we need rail and the accompanying land use policies (SAPs, overlay zoning, etc) to make it happen ASAP.

I would recommend watching this lecture. Check here (scroll down) for web availability & rebroadcasts on cable access/govt TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barring a national mandate that fundamentally changes how transit is viewed in this country, I think that all of these regional plans are doomed to failure. The TTA's last plan is an example of that, and the failure of Charlotte to get ANY of the 7 counties surrounding it to sign on with real money is another example. Sadly the legislature and local governments have been sold on them so we will get these new taxes, but I am willing to be there won't be much to show for it in the end. (except for larger more expensive transit agencies and sadly much less cost effective ones) Anyone that questions them is labeled anti-transit.

I agree that the Metro in DC has done wonders for DC, but outside the district, I would say that it is mostly a convenience for commuters. It really doesn't provide much impetus for TOD to suburban VA and Maryland. The difference is in what is supported by development regulations. They are night and day inside and outside the district.

Raleigh stands a better chance in building something if it were to completely forget what the others are doing for now, and move on to focusing on its needs. First decide what kind of city they want, pass the regulations to make it happen, then and only if the regulations succeed, then build a transit line to support it. Building a train and hoping they will come just doesn't work in the long run and it hurts the prospects for something that will. I would say the same is true for Chapel Hill and Durham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Metro in DC has done wonders for DC, but outside the district, I would say that it is mostly a convenience for commuters. It really doesn't provide much impetus for TOD to suburban VA and Maryland. The difference is in what is supported by development regulations. They are night and day inside and outside the district.

You're absultely right that zoning and development regulation plays an important role in the success or failure of TOD. Without development regulations that allow density and require proper urban form, a TOD is a failure before it even starts.

In the case of Washington, though, I'd say it's inaccurate to draw the line at the DC border. Much of the development within DC already existed and was already very dense at the time the Metro was built. There certainly are examples of where Metro has brought a sleepy neighborhood to life within DC, but for the most successful examples of TOD in the DC region you actually have to look outside the district.

Some might include Arlington and Alexandria as part of downtown DC, but they were suburban areas when Metro was built. Look at Crystal City, Rosslyn-Balston, Pentagon City, King Street, and Eisenhower Avenue. All of those areas were either blighted industrial areas, or full of mid-century strip malls and gas stations. The local government planned a street grid if one wasn't already in place, zoned the areas for high density, built the metro, and things gradually took off over the intervening decades.

It's a bit harder to make the cause-and-effect correlation between Metro and the above TODs, because they benefit from proximity to downtown DC and might have taken off with just the zoning in place but no metro. However, there are some examples further from downtown DC - places like Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Rockville - which are vibrant TODs now. Before metro, they had downtown areas that were already zoned for high density. But nothing much was happening there and they looked more like downtown Huntersville or Cary until Metro came to town.

Wheaton and College Park still haven't really made up their minds about whether they want to be dense downtown-like TODs. But just about everywhere in the region that's been zoned for TOD, has TOD. But these are some suburban areas that I think would turn into vibrant TODs over a few decades with a proper regulatory environment in place.

If you look at the areas where the Metro was built in freeway medians and as a park-and-ride system, then you're right. Every station in Fairfax County was built as a park-and-ride. Same for Prince George's county. With few exceptions, the stations are in freeway medians and surrounded by established neighborhoods of single family homes, so they didn't zone for TOD - so development patterns around those stations suck. Fairfax is trying something different with the silver line through Tyson's and Reston, though; these areas have been re-planned and re-zoned. We'll see how it works out, but early signs are pointing in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

In more intermodal bill news, RTP is now willing to chip in to take some of the burden off the sales tax.

Luebke's committee will consider doubling the RTP district's taxing authority -- raising it to 20 cents per $100 property value, from the current 10-cent ceiling. The additional 10-cent tax, worth an estimated $3 million a year, could be used to underwrite transit service within RTP, to RTP and between RTP and Raleigh-Durham International Airport.

The bill will be heard in the House Finance Committee in 10 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In more intermodal bill news, RTP is now willing to chip in to take some of the burden off the sales tax.

Luebke's committee will consider doubling the RTP district's taxing authority -- raising it to 20 cents per $100 property value, from the current 10-cent ceiling. The additional 10-cent tax, worth an estimated $3 million a year, could be used to underwrite transit service within RTP, to RTP and between RTP and Raleigh-Durham International Airport.

The bill will be heard in the House Finance Committee in 10 minutes.

According to Wral.com, the committee has approved the bill, including the extra taxing in RTP...very nice! Now it goes to the floor to a vote? :dontknow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this should help speed things along I would hope to think:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17train.html

President Obama on Thursday highlighted his ambition for the development of high-speed passenger rail lines in at least 10 regions, expressing confidence in the future of train travel even as he acknowledged that the American rail network, compared with the rest of the world’s, remains a caboose.

Maps, etc:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

Ten major corridors are being identified for potential high-speed rail projects:

• California Corridor (Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego)

• Pacific Northwest Corridor (Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver BC)

• South Central Corridor (Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock)

• Gulf Coast Corridor (Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta)

• Chicago Hub Network (Chicago, Milwaukeevee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville)

• Florida Corridor (Orlando, Tampa, Miami)

Southeast Corridor (Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville)

• Keystone Corridor (Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh)

• Empire Corridor (New York City, Albany, Buffalo)

• Northern New England Corridor (Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany)

Source:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrspfacts.pdf

Edited by DPK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Intermodal Bill passed a 2nd reading in the NC House today and will be heard again tomorrow. If it passes, it will move to the NC Senate, where chances are good that it will pass. :good:

Tangential this topic, or what is really underlying it, is the really the push for more walkable urban places in the Triangle. And of course rapid rail transit, good land use and infrastructure planning provide the stimulus for creating more walkable urban places. Ever wonder why we need more of these? Well, the market for walkable urban places is underserved, as compared to suburbia, which we especially have an awful lot of here. Ever wonder why the market is shifting? Part of the reason is the shift away from the typical suburban demographic--a family with kids--as shown in the graph below. You might think of the curve as a proxy for the demand of drivable suburban places we have today, with a clear downward trend away from the nuclear family.

familyties-1.png

As more people defer and otherwise shoose not to have kids, more will opt out of the SF home and choose an urban lifestyle, perhaps built around living without a car. As a matter of policy, with the myriad of problems we face today, from the real estate bubble (sprawl), to climate change, to resource overuse, we should do whatever we can to encourage more communities of the walkable urban form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Intermodal Bill passed a 2nd reading in the NC House today and will be heard again tomorrow. If it passes, it will move to the NC Senate, where chances are good that it will pass. :good:

Yes, after passing second reading Tuesday 77-40 it passed third reading today 75-40. There was one floor amendment that requires any sales tax referendum to be in the May primary or November general election in the even numbered year, or at the same time as some municipal election in the county in either September, October, or November of the odd-numbered year (some cities, none in the Triangle, have September primaries in the odd-numbered year).

Here is the complete status page if you want to see the different versions or look at the votes.

Edited by staffer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this and realized that with all the different plans currently under study, there would be a total of four different classes of service on the NCRR. They are:

Intercity / HSR express - avg 87 miles between stops (Raleigh-Greensboro-Charlotte)

Intercity / HSR local - avg 20-25 miles between stops (this is the evolution of the Piedmont into a part of the HSR service)

NCRR Commuter Rail - avg 5 miles between stops

Light Rail - the old plan called for about 2.5 miles between stops

Talk about a transit-rich corridor!

The one thing I would change is the light rail. I would add a few stops there since the NCRR commuter rail would be there for longer journeys. An average of 1.5 miles per stop would be a good target: that would be 17 stops between Raleigh and Durham, and would make it so each increment you step down from the express service means about 4 times as many stops. It's a lot of service on a single line, so I wonder if they'll have problems with branding and confusion, but I'd also say that each step down having 4 times as many stops is actually pretty good differentiation so maybe not.

The light rail gets its own dedicated two-track line so that's OK, but will even a double-tracked NCRR be enough for all these trains that are planned? I guess it probably will, given the initial frequencies that are planned, but you can see that there will be a need to add more tracks as demand increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Bob Geary on the chances for the intermodal bill amidst the state budget crisis. Also, it appears there is a public meeting in Cary tonight to discuss mass transit plans in Wake County.

Did anyone go to this meeting? I have seen nothing on any of the news programs or any business mags/papers? Is there a blackout on this type of discussion by all media?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone go to this meeting? I have seen nothing on any of the news programs or any business mags/papers? Is there a blackout on this type of discussion by all media?

My guess is with budgets being debated, most news outlets that cover local & state govts are focusing on that. I did see NBC 17 covered the meeting.

In more transit news, both Triangle Transit & CAT are putting lots of new buses in service this summer and the Indy has a story on the R-Line. Some interesting quotes:

"I just bought a new car, and now it's kind of funny. I keep thinking, why did I do that?"

Jason Smith, chef-proprietor of 18 Seaboard in the Seaboard Station complex off Peace Street at R-Line stop No. 3 (R3), has noticed a
boost in diners
.

"What we've seen are people doing pub crawls. We're their first stop," he says. "We'll have large groups come in that are going to three or four different places."

Customers also use the bus to link his section of town with the Center for the Performing Arts, the convention center and City Market's art galleries during First Friday events.

"We have a huge amount of parking that's very accessible, and people are parking here pre-theater. They leave their car, come in and get an appetizer or entr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still one interesting comment to me, that I think is valid, is that the R-Line does not serve any surrounding neighborhoods other than condos already in the CBD. I know they were trying to keep service at 15 minutes but its certainly set up as a *drive into downtown, then bus your way around* service. I can't help but know that I can walk the width of the route in 15 minutes. Going from Seaboard to the PE center would be faster though....oh well, its a good thing overall...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still one interesting comment to me, that I think is valid, is that the R-Line does not serve any surrounding neighborhoods other than condos already in the CBD. I know they were trying to keep service at 15 minutes but its certainly set up as a *drive into downtown, then bus your way around* service. I can't help but know that I can walk the width of the route in 15 minutes. Going from Seaboard to the PE center would be faster though....oh well, its a good thing overall...

I've used it to get from the State Government Mall to the AMTRAK station, and to go to lunch at more interesting places than the cafeteria in my office building (without using a car)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

House Bill 148, Congestion Relief/Intermodal Transport Fund (the transit bill), is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday at 1 PM (room 544).

Do we yet know what the results of this meeting was? Was this a closed door meeting? I didn't see anything about it in the paper or online, has anyone? :dontknow:

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.