tusculan

Well, if their performance is crumby, then they are of little use. Still, I like the idea of having something that is more local friendly than the Siemens. Unfortunately, there has been a real shake-up in the tram manufacturing sector. The maker of the Portland streetcars has folded and the major Italian manufacturer made substandard material and was taken over by a Korean company. Stadler itself had some recent problems in Munich. I would like to have seen Alstom and Skoda bid for this as well. But we have what we have. In this regard, is their a layout plan from the US manufacturer? I didn't see one on the observer page.

Oh yeah. Just on its own merits the Stadler looks more nimble and speedy and projects a great image. I think it fits with having fewer seats--- the goal is not to be for commuters, but quick and local.

While I like the argument that the Siemens would make for some redundancy in parts thereby saving us money... And it possibly could help in negotiating prices with Siemens, I prefer the Stadler. Reason 1: functionality. In the numerous times I've used a streetcar, I have always preferred the uniform car model rather than the segment model. What I mean is that the Siemens has a small middle section between the two loading zones. I prefer this for two reasons. I think it makes it easier to move in the Stadler from one end to the other. And more importantly it makes for quicker/easier loading , because there is less bunching toward the ends and more uniform entry. This is important with a streetcar with less stop time than the lgv. 2. Aesthetics. While in a vacuum, the Siemens is fine, I think it looks too much like the lgv. For visitors, both riders and drivers, I think distinguishing between the streetcar and lgv routes will be helpful. Yes, both may use a surface street, but to know one is only for the surface and mostly for segregated right of way helps to orient people.

I couldn't agree more. Speaking of which, does anyone know: Is there a standing offer to the town of Pineville such that if they agree to come up with X dollars, the Blue Line will be automatically extended? If there isn't, I think the building of the Silver Line to Matthews is a good chance to try and convince Pineville of the benefits of continuing the Blue Line. Also, related to my earlier posts on the number of stops. The orientation of the Silver Line outside of uptown is affected by the Uptown routing. On all of these options, the closet stop after Charlottetown/Independence is at Pecan. If the Route goes down Stonewall or Morehead, this is not a concern. But if the routing goes north to 12th street, this is problematic as there will be no direct interchange with the Gold Line. Instead one will have to walk a couple of blocks to make a connection. I would advocate that if the Line is to go to the North side of uptown, there needs to also be a stop at Hawthorne as well as Pecan.

I prefer option B. I think actually serving downtown Matthews is important....Not just sniffing close to it. In some ways, I would prefer D, but I don't think that will get done, and the time and difficulty will be too much. A is nice in that it provides a stop at WT Harris....but not enough for me to favor it. I would like to point out that on both C and D maps, we should not overlook the proposed stations or lack thereof. They put one station between Wendover/Eastway and Sharon Amity/Albemarle. I know this is early...but this is an important idea. To plan something so expensive and then only provide 3 stops immediately outside of uptown is ridiculous. It is 3.71 miles as the crow flies from Independence/Charlottetown to Sharon Amity/Independence. For 3 stops? In the same distance, there are five stops in South End out to Woodlawn. And there will soon be 5 by Tom Hunter on the BLE. Meanwhile, the 2nd stage of the Gold line, will cover over a dozen stops in this same distance. This may not seem like much...but it is important for density and success of the line that there actually are stops on the line. Plus, I should state...these two stops are not insignificant - one provides for future multi-modal connectivity from Sugar Creek around the NE side of the city and also to the S side to woodlawn. And the other provides a direct way to connect transit to the Southpark area. I don't see having a line without both of these as stops.

Sorry. I should have been more precise. I think this service would be easy to add. I think, however, it would be extremely foolish to build this as a single use line. But, given that the route from uptown to the airport exists along one of the central transit axes, it should be easy to build the line with however many stops, which is what most people would use it for. But I do think adding it as a distinct service that runs once an hour could be feasible for people who live uptown, or during certain parts of the day, the Blue Line Extension or Silver Line. I think here that the transit option matters, of course. Building a streetcar out to the airport won't allow for different service types, and I think would make the trip to the airport quite a bit longer than going by taxi/uber. I think an independent service might only work with light rail. Alternatively, if the airport/485 was simply the first stop on a gaston county commuter line, that could also work and obviate the need for a kind of express shuttle.

Denver's Airport Line is 3x the distance between uptown and CLT, and we already have a major freight terminal at the airport - so there would only need to increase the line capacity for about 5/6 miles. Can you imagine how nice it would be to have an exclusive airport line, that would take a little more than 5 minutes? Without the hassle of parking and riding the shuttles? The trains would be full even if you charged $20 each way.

I think there is 0 short term interest in this, and probably not much more long term. The reason being that if the BLE is to be extended, it makes more sense to head out toward CMS and concord mills and eventually out to Concord airport rather than back over UCB to rejoin the NCRR. However, I think commuter rail is a real possibility in a decade or two. The Salisbury to Charlotte line could stop at UCB and 485, make another in-town stop at the BLE Sugar Creek station, and then proceed to Gateway for its terminus.

Sorry to post again. But the questions we ought to ask are how many lines should come in from the southeast/east side of uptown and where from. In a full system, There should be at minimum also a providence Rd or Randolph line. Also maybe queens RD and the plaza. All this to me advocates the silver running on Charlottetown to stonewall. Lines from providence area could run the opposite way on Charlottetown creating an east side transfer point at cpcc.

I agree entirely. We could argue about silver line placement, but without a systemic vision it will develop significant crunch points that have to be reworked every time we want rail expansion. And that re-working will be pricey, laborious, and annoying.

This is one of several reasons I don't like this option for the silver line. 1: redoing work already done or using less than optimal vehicles for the route 2 how are silver line Vehicles going to pass the streetcar? Or do we expect them to make all the stops? If this is the case, is the silver line just an extended streetcar route, more than a comparable to the blue line? 2: how are you supposed to get to the airport from w trade? Go down Wesley heights? 3: what good is a network that only has two lines? Sure, you can make a mistake and have a big network with not enough frequency--- see the Houston bus reorganization. But you at least need several routes. There are some places that use one downtown transit corridor: Dallas is a prime example. I would like to see ridership numbers and satisfaction figures

So I am a bit confused as to the alternate to go down 7th street from Briar Creek Rd. This shows the option going all the way to Hawthorne as the only option, and then merging with the Gold line. I thought the big problem with using 7th was the width of the street - as its only 36 feet wide. While it is possible that as a streetcar, the width is only 12 feet per direction, that would only leave one lane of free traffic/turning on 7th street. That seems like the Silver line/ running as streetcars will get bogged down there. I would think either 7th street needs to be widened or the Silver Line would need to split, with one direction running up 8th, and one down 7th. I realize 8th was purposefully disconnected so as to allow for neighborhood development....but I think it may be time to revisit that. If you could use both 8th and 7th, you might also be able to go past Hawthorne and still make the turn (via bridge over the on ramp to independence) onto Charlottetown.

I would want to tend toward the precious metals and the jewel tones to complement the Queen City, but most precious metals are some kind of silver color. So, I don't have a perfect solution - However, I do think some concerted rationale would be helpful, rather than just having 20 different color routes that you have to show up and discover what the precise mode of transit is when it pulls up. I have always hated when cities do this. I think Paris was wise with its original conception of different markers as letters and numbers placed in circles or squares (triangles should have also been used) - though I think they later messed this easy articulation up by having the Buses and Trams be labelled as Bus 1 - Bus ## and T1-T10, both in circles like the metro. However, since the development of Paris most systems have switched to colors (though Mexico City has symbols of animals as the principle marker - which just seems crazy) and not numbers to identify routes, because it is far easier for complex systems and maps. So, I guess, I think it would be preferable to have the CityLYNX copper if I could know by its name that it is 1. a streetcar, 2. that heads uptown and 3. will run along McDowell, than I would to ride the LYNX light green line - a name that tells me nothing other than it is public transit, and that I should now look at a map to figure out where the heck it runs.

I agree with this general idea, with one exception. The branding and the coloration need to differ to match the difference in transit mode. Streetcars - all use metallic colors as well as CITYLynx branding. While the metallic color palette is pretty sparse, I don't really envision us having more than 8 streetcar routes anytime soon. More realistically, if there would ever be a big system, the lines could be named like the NY Subway - only indicating which uptown route they run on. If a service runs down trade - it is a Gold....if it runs down McDowell, it is a Bronze....and then they are further differentiated by number. Gold 4 runs from CTC up Freedom Dr. LRT - normal coloration and LYNX moniker. This allows for greater visual choices, which are necessary in lines that end up in really different parts of the city. Green, Red, Blue, Purple = easy and simple. Commuter Rail - LYNXcommuter named in reference to destination ---even more obvious naming to make you choose the right one, but also having different kinds of colors - I don't really know what....but jewel tones, maybe....something with a visual component that allows for identification on a map, but also integration on one standard map. So it could be the LYNX commuter Lake Norman - emerald line. Of course, there are other tones, as well as tints and shades to work with (I think shades would be hard, because it would make everything visually unappealing) I realize that this latter point can be accomplished in other ways - the biggest being thickness of the lines. Nevertheless, colors are the easiest identifier.

Ok, so this might be an idiotic idea. But hey, what do I have to lose? What if the airport line is built as an LRT and is partially serviced by express routes directly to the airport from uptown. That 6 mile trip would take around 10 -12 minutes depending on precise location. What if, in that time, you board people only via the last car, and in the intervening minutes during the trip, you actually go through a secure checkpoint in the middle car, and pass to the first car of the LRT. Then, when you arrive at the airport you enter into the terminal after security? If you can fit about 70 people per car, here you would be limiting capacity by 2/3 - but I think you could easily charge what....$15 per trip out to the airport, and that way it would open up a new revenue stream for Transit? Such an idea would need to be limited - probably to those without checked bags, and for those with TSA pre-check. Nevertheless, wouldn't this be really popular?

I agree with this about Mint St.....however, I think it depends on what the long range plan is. Ideally, I would want a streetcar network that people would walk to switch lines. Which I think would need to be in the 2-3 uptown block range. If this is the case, then eventually, I would be in favor of lines on both Graham and on Church (and not Mint) to provide the most N/S coverage of 3rd Ward. And while this is utterly realistic now, to envision in a piecemeal fashion is stupid. You have to have an overall vision of what build out will look like, so that you can find the appropriate means to get there. Are these two lines viable now...no. In 50 years...yes. So don't bother with splitting the difference and going down Mint now.

http://tinyurl.com/ocqechg Upon reviewing my comment, I altered things a bit to see that there are a few more alternatives (8 in total) for the airport line that heads south from CityLynx and continues north of Morehead St. The link above is a map to the various options. I think I have perhaps a better grasp...that the alternative proposed supports J&W, but really its strong suit is sharing the Gateway stop. While I can see how this would seem to be a big factor, as here is a proposed major interchange of different transit types, that doesn't seem reasonable with the idea of this being an airport line. If people are riding from the airport, then they aren't going to want to just transfer out by the side of the street with their bags. I think to have this intermodal hub at Gateway requires a LRT or train to the airport. Thus, I don't think this warrants the trip down Cedar St. so as to preserve the same Gateway stop. My favorite option is using the former P&N crossing under the NCRR to go up Graham street. It provides the fewest number of stops, but ones that would be popular and encourage usage - one stop at the South side of Gateway, between BB&T and Bank of America Stadium; and a second stop at the crossing of Cedar St.

Thanks for the pictures. It is interesting the selection for the West line to the airport going down Cedar St. Cedar St. really has little development on it, and I don't understand the rationale behind choosing it, unless the only motivation is that the same trackage be used as the Gold line so as to get under the existing NCRR. As far as logical alternatives, I see two main ones. Either the airport line would come into uptown on Morehead under the NCRR, then turn by Bank of America stadium where there used to be the trackage that went to the Charlotte Observer, heading north on Church street until Trade. The other viable alternative is after going under 77 on Morehead, cross-over to the old P&N, across Cedar under the NCRR, and then either heading up graham or preferably down Graham one block and turning to Mint St, until meeting Trade. (I prefer this option as it would allow for easier future connectivity to a second southerly East-West uptown line running all the way on Stonewall over to Charlottetown or Kennilworth) If we consider the potential stops for either of these two other lines, I think it is obvious that they have a higher demand and connectivity than the route selected. Current option: Along Morehead (McNinch or Clarkson) and along Cedar in the area of W 1st St. (.83 miles to 77 from current track at corner of Cedar/Trade) B: Morehead/Clarkson, BofA stadium, Church at W 1st, Church/3rd (1.17 miles to 77 from Church/Trade, but includes old N/S ROW from Stadium to Church St. , about .1 mile) C: P&N at Cedar, Graham at BofA/BB&T or following the second course Stonewall/Mint BofA stadium, BB&T at 3rd/Mint. (C1 - .90 miles,but ROW includes P&N for .1-.2; C2 - 1.03 miles, but ROW includes P&N .1-.2 miles) I think it obvious that choice A is clearly the worst of these options.

I presume that there would be junctions pretty regularly for these lines, since NS would continue to use the NCRR north of Salisbury, but also as needed, south to Charlotte. I can't imagine that this would be that difficult to do - Have NS own one outside track, and be able to rent the other as needed. And allow passenger traffic in the median. I think that problem is basically that the state doesn't value the O line enough to give up one of its slots to NS on the NCRR route. But that is pretty ridiculous (the need for 8 tracks for that distance). Besides, the traffic lost on the NCRR from Salisbury to Charlotte switching to the dedicated NS line would eventually be made up for extra commuter traffic. Wouldn't this be the most cost effective plan, as it would only require the building of 40 miles of infrastructure, but with no new ROW purchases, and the end result be two Charlotte commuter line possibilities?

Actually, there could be a third alternative. The city, or perhaps the state, to purchase the O line, and in return the state build a dedicated NS line as a new track parallel to the existing NCRR as far as Salisbury where the connection for NS to Winston-Salem could be rejoined. From Charlotte to Salisbury a portion of this line is already double tracked. I think increasing it to three for its whole length (one NS owned, two full NCRR for both freight and commuter usage to Kannapolis, Concord, and Salisbury) I would favor this over giving the NS the second partial NCRR track for the simple reason that although far more costly, the state shouldn't be locked in to owning only one line between its major cities.

I think one of the major problems in our transit future is that we have lost a vision for the future. Case in point, the Old Norfolk Southern line between Gastonia and Conover. Norfolk Southern has kept the O line, precisely because it needs one redundant line for the NCRR. So in the 70s and 80s, due to taxes, it shuttered the line 30 miles to the West, as it was financially responsible to do so - who needs two redundant lines. Not NS, but the people of North Carolina need the double redundancy. I really think that we have made awful decisions in terms of taxation of the Railroads and in the willingness to carve up their former ROWs into trails. While its very nice to have urban greenways, those are much more easily constructed than a new rail line through the heart of a town. Realistically, I think there are only two alternatives. Either there is alternative link to the O line that the state helps to secure for NS, or there is another route that is identified by the state for the Commuter line. I don't think double tracking the O line is a viable alternative through Davidson, Cornelius, and Huntersville.

I agree with the idea that it matters how you think about it. Very clearly, this system, at current operational speeds, in mixed traffic, and lacking signal priority would be awful for the full trip from Eastland to Rosa Parks. I honestly think 5 miles is too long for it to be functional, if people were riding from end to end. Rather I think the question is can it be supported in each and every .5 mile - 2.5 mile segment. This is where the streetcar as configured really shines and is a valuable tool. If through its entire 10 mile length, this distance is supportable, then the line will be ridiculously popular. If it can't be supported at every .5 mile to 2.5 mile segment, then it needs to alter something. Either its route, or its terminus, or by being faster with fewer stops. I would love to see a streetcar system that provides great coverage for everything inside the middle ring of the city 3 miles and in from the center city. But I recognize that not all of these could support the same type of service that is needed uptown.

So I was in Bordeaux today, where they have three long new streetcar lines, all of which are frequent and well liked. From 11am until 8pm, the cars were all full seating capacity to 60% standing. Here are my observations: The streetcars ran probably 70/30 in independent ROW. This was accomplished by closing the streets to cars, or reducing lanes. The streetcars were fast. Or fast enough. They averaged 10 mph with stops included. So they probably got to a max speed of about 20. The streetcars went right through the center of the city and between the places people go: the museum, the large park, the train station, the central square. And then decently out into the suburbs. The streetcars had independent signaling. The only time a streetcar stopped other than at a designated spot was to allow another crossing streetcar through. The stations were 500 meters apart almost exactly. I know because each station provided a map of the neighborhood with concentric distances indicated from the stop. About 75%of the stops also had bike rentals. Importantly, these are not the only thoroughfares closed to cars. I would say about 30%of the streets in the center were for streetcars or pedestrians/bikes only. Increase foot traffic, streetcars will be popular. The day pass for unlimited use was 4.30 euro or about 5 dollars.

So, you say that ridership is low - from what I gleaned from other sources, it is seen mostly as a tourist gimmick - because it doesn't connect transit nodes. But in the above discussion, it was mentioned by others that it is to be an urban circulator/ i.e. not for transit. So how am I supposed to reconcile these accounts. One argues its not used because its poor at transit, and the other that its not for transit.....What am I missing here?

As this is behind a paywall, but really important, can you summarize?