Jump to content

CATS 2030 Transit Plan is Dead


monsoon

Recommended Posts

The comparison to highways is apt when no one seems to be saying completing 485 is dead in light of the stimulus not covering its cost either. The 2030 Plan is not dead. It is in need of rejuvenation. Just as the 2025 Plan morphed into the 2030 Plan, now it is time for a newer plan. One that not only takes into account lower sales tax receipts but also less than expected State funding, which is also to blame.

I truly think North Meck should be the next corridor, as it is not only the cheapest, but it also does have the most TOD in place and likely to happen, as a whole. As successful as NoDa is, such benefits have to offset a much higher cost.

However, it's up to North Towns if they wish to see commuter rail anytime soon. Only this corridor has the blessing of strong TOD and low costs to still yield creative financing in these changed times. It is very likely that the "stimulus" won't pay for any new rail corridor. Hence, it's up to North Towns to find the political will to think outside the box of handouts or tax levies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Not the same argument as I assume you personally benefited from a public education. This isn't an debate about spending on transit or the taxes to pay for it. This is a commentary on CATS' plans that have been put forth for transit to be unrealistic, unaffordable, and lacking in responsibility for the hundreds of millions given to the organization to provide transit. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to have this debate in Charlotte because as soon as CATS is criticized, we get into these discussions of being anti-transit, road people being unfair, and stuff about the public schools. It's unfortunate because it means this city is most likely going to have one light rail line for the foreseeable future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reworking the 2030 plan, the Northeast corridor, for instance, might only go to 36th street in the near future. I know its cheaper to build it all at once, but we may see a more incremental approach since there isn't an extra billion dollars laying around. I think it would be great if the blue line actually extended on either side of downtown and served two distinctly different parts of the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reworking the 2030 plan, the Northeast corridor, for instance, might only go to 36th street in the near future. I know its cheaper to build it all at once, but we may see a more incremental approach since there isn't an extra billion dollars laying around. I think it would be great if the blue line actually extended on either side of downtown and served two distinctly different parts of the community.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you go past 9th Street, you need to buy right-of-way. Once you buy significant right-of-way, you need to use federal funding. Once you use federal funding, you might as well go through the process just once.

And 36th Street seems a poor terminus, as it is a walk-up station, already involves negotiating with NCRR and a grade-separation over the NCRR itself even before you get to 36th Street, which also has a grade-separation. In other words, this section leading up to the 36th Street station has about the highest unit-costs of any along the entire alignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one takes a close-in look at the satellite map of the route the Blue Line would take NE of the city, one finds that it is of extreme low density, even close to the city. Given that it is not likely for this area to be developed anytime in the near future, I would recommend that the city make moves to protect the ROW between downtown and NoDA, but shelve the current plans to build the NE extension. It's just not ready for the expense of LRT. CATS, the City, and the MTC should be focused on getting development to occur along the existing LRT which, as we all know, is mostly non existent now south of East/West station. It might take a decade or more before they reach capacity along this route.

Running LRT past Sugar Creek to UNCC through that urban wasteland of University is really unproductive. This area will never be TOD friendly and the city really should instead look at ways to mitigate they mess they have created up that way since the early 80s and climaxing with the IKEA/Super Walmart development that is opening now. LRT would take a generation's worth of resources to run up that way for little benefit. I could see potentially putting LRT up to Sugar Creek some time in the next 20 years ended with a transit center. This center could be on the Asian mall property that would integrate multi-mode and take the advantage of creating some sort of shopping destination there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the South Corridor doesn't look that dense these days between Remount and Woodlawn. Nor did it use to look that dense between Tremont and Remount. I'd say the area between Parkwood and Matheson is ripe for redevelopment if given the right catalyst, say a station or two. And if the intermodal yard is moved in conjunction with the BLE, that itself is a huge catalyst site.

As for the dreams for Asian Corners, I don't think anyone wants to revisit the Sugar Creek Option debate, as that has been already analyzed and even decided by our public bodies. Besides, the property, if really can be catalyzed, already sits just as close to Sugar Creek Road's future grade-separation with the NCRR as it does with Dorton Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point. It's not smart to keep building rail in such low density areas. However now that we have it in the South, then every effort ought to be made to build an environment that would support it. As people have said here several times, the drop off in ridership has been due to the economy, the weather, etc etc. Yet as far as we know the population is not dropping. So this would imply this line is not being used by people to save money by getting rid of automobiles. This is the secret failure of Lynx. The city should stop, try to figure out why this has happened and then change what is wrong.

As for Sugar Creek, I am speaking of doing this 20 years from now. It makes no sense to run a rail up there now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point. It's not smart to keep building rail in such low density areas. However now that we have it in the South, then every effort ought to be made to build an environment that would support it. As people have said here several times, the drop off in ridership has been due to the economy, the weather, etc etc. Yet as far as we know the population is not dropping. So this would imply this line is not being used by people to save money by getting rid of automobiles. This is the secret failure of Lynx. The city should stop, try to figure out why this has happened and then change what is wrong.

As for Sugar Creek, I am speaking of doing this 20 years from now. It makes no sense to run a rail up there now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On South Corridor, every effort is going into changing development patterns. All down the line, the City has recently developed station area plans, many of them now adopted. And even in this economy, those fresh plans aren't sitting on shelfs. For example, I've heard Crosland is still moving forward, at least with the needed approvals, with their massive, master-planned development in the Scaleybark station area. Once they file, I imagine we will see a proposal consistent with the station-area plan and station-area principles, creating a new town center with retail streets, topped and surrounded by added residential density, all on a network of smaller blocks and new streets, thereby building a true "transit village."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in your theory, since Charlotte is not a densely built city do to its geography and previous lack of constructive zoning, then no rail should be in Charlotte for 20 years. Yeah- that's really planning for the future, let alone forcing 90 percent of the city to continue to use automobiles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful what you wish for. The transit tax is paid for in this county by these same people. In fact it is paid for by people who don't live anywhere close to the rail line. Every time a passenger steps on to Lynx he or she is getting a tax subsidy for that transit by people who will never use that train. The point is that in an argument over who is sharing the burden for what, the trains will lose every time. It is an enormously expensive method of transportation relative to the number of people it can support in this county.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.