CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[nicholas]

15 hours ago, RANYC said:

Was in a Charlotte Ledger article from September of last year.  There are apparently 250 miles of identified sidewalk gaps, and at $4 million to $8 million per mile, that's $1 billion to $2 billion in total costs.  Don't ask me why the range is so massive.

That's wild, 250 miles would be like building a sidewalk all the way to Atlanta.  Have to assume that entails rebuilding a majority of existing narrow sidewalks, as I haven't noticed very many missing sidewalks aside from along suburban two lane roads.

Edited January 17, 2023 by nicholas

[kermit]

17 minutes ago, nicholas said:

That's wild, 250 miles would be like building a sidewalk all the way to Atlanta.  Have to assume that entails rebuilding a majority of existing narrow sidewalks, as I haven't noticed very many missing sidewalks aside from along suburban two lane roads.

There are lots of missing sidewalks in residential areas. In Dilworth they end at McDonald ave (the old city limits). I don’t think there are any sidewalks in residential areas  between Ideal Way and Woodlawn (and probably South of that)

[Desert Power]

41 minutes ago, nicholas said:

That's wild, 250 miles would be like building a sidewalk all the way to Atlanta.  Have to assume that entails rebuilding a majority of existing narrow sidewalks, as I haven't noticed very many missing sidewalks aside from along suburban two lane roads.

Villa Heights and NoDa both have a ton of missing sidewalks.

[videtur quam contuor]

25 minutes ago, kermit said:

There are lots of missing sidewalks in residential areas. In Dilworth they end at McDonald ave (the old city limits). I don’t think there are any sidewalks in residential areas  between Ideal Way and Woodlawn (and probably South of that)

My household historian grew up in Sedgefield and they began installing curbs and gutters in her former area about ten years ago. No sidewalks. Street(s) became narrower with gutters and curbs because no one could pull off street to park on right of way in front of houses as many did prior to the improvements.. 

[nicholas]

3 hours ago, kermit said:

There are lots of missing sidewalks in residential areas. In Dilworth they end at McDonald ave (the old city limits). I don’t think there are any sidewalks in residential areas  between Ideal Way and Woodlawn (and probably South of that)

From driving around as well as looking at satellite view on Google Maps, it seems like almost all thru streets in Sedgefield, Villa Heights, Plaza Midwood, NoDa (think roads like Poindexter Dr, Marsh Rd, etc) have sidewalks on at least one side of the road, although generally they are the older and narrower designs.  However, short side streets that basically just serve that street's residents (think Mayfield Ave in Sedgefield or similar) typically do not have any sidewalks, even in front of newly-constructed homes.  Obviously in a perfect world we'd have sidewalks everywhere, but I think some sidewalk-less streets are more forgivable than others.

I hope that the city is balancing and prioritizing which streets/roads to focus on initially, as side streets that are used solely by residents from that street usually have so little vehicular traffic that the return on acquiring ROW and building sidewalks there is very very minor.  Whereas replacing outdated narrow sidewalks used by far more pedestrians with newer, wider ones on relatively higher volume roads would be much more impactful imo.  Magnolia Ave in Dilworth is one of the few streets I've noticed that is arguably a through street with missing sections of sidewalks, hopefully that's one of the first projects.

Edited January 17, 2023 by nicholas

[southslider]

Forget sidewalks. City Council confirms this is a drive-thru town.

[Desert Power]

On 1/17/2023 at 1:27 PM, nicholas said:

om driving around as well as looking at satellite view on Google Maps, it seems like almost all thru streets in Sedgefield, Villa Heights, Plaza Midwood, NoDa (think roads like Poindexter Dr, Marsh Rd, etc) have sidewalks on at least one side of the road, although generally they are the older and narrower designs

Both 24th and 25th have sidewalks that end half a block into the neighborhood in from Davidson. That means folks trying to get between Villa Heights and the light rail stops have to walk in the middle of the street alongside parked cars. It's a big problem IMO

[nicholas]

12 minutes ago, Desert Power said:

Both 24th and 25th have sidewalks that end half a block into the neighborhood in from Davidson. That means folks trying to get between Villa Heights and the light rail stops have to walk in the middle of the street alongside parked cars. It's a big problem IMO

Noted, hadn't noticed those before. 24th probably isn't *that* bad as it looks like it carries very little vehicle traffic, but 25th looks more necessary especially since it connects to Everett Pl on one end and the light rail station on the other.  Also looks like a few missing segments on N Davidson close to Sugar Creek Rd.

[kermit]

11 hours ago, nicholas said:

Noted, hadn't noticed those before. 24th probably isn't *that* bad as it looks like it carries very little vehicle traffic, but 25th looks more necessary especially since it connects to Everett Pl on one end and the light rail station on the other.  Also looks like a few missing segments on N Davidson close to Sugar Creek Rd.

Not having sidewalks on quiet residential streets is generally fine if you are walking during the day and don’t have any baggage with you (a stroller, little kids or dogs). The problem with no sidewalks on quiet streets is more evident after dark or in the rain due to limited visibility for drivers and the difficulty for pedestrians to step off the road in the rain or darkness. If our goal is to build a pedestrian friendly, vision zero place, we gotta make it safe for people to walk all the time. not just in optimal conditions.

Edited January 19, 2023 by kermit

[KJHburg]

Actually this proposal sounds reasonable and maybe politically doable in NC.  Charlotte Meck loaning the state money with the sales tax revenue to accelerate I-77 south widening then the state paying Char Meck back for transit.  As the old transit plan in its current form is probably dead in the water something else needs to get started.  

https://www.wfae.org/charlotte-area/2023-01-19/how-charlotte-can-salvage-its-transit-sales-tax

[southslider]

^as if North Mecklenburg would tax themselves more to let South Mecklenburg have more free lanes on the same 77 corridor

[RANYC]

8 hours ago, KJHburg said:

Actually this proposal sounds reasonable and maybe politically doable in NC.  Charlotte Meck loaning the state money with the sales tax revenue to accelerate I-77 south widening then the state paying Char Meck back for transit.  As the old transit plan in its current form is probably dead in the water something else needs to get started.  

https://www.wfae.org/charlotte-area/2023-01-19/how-charlotte-can-salvage-its-transit-sales-tax

I’m no muni finance guy, but what confuses me about this article’s proposal is the timing of cash flows from the one cent sales tax. Won’t the city issue bonds soon after passage of the sales tax increase, so that billions will be on hand right away, and then as sales tax collections are made each year, they will go to trustees who will make payments on the outstanding bond issue to bondholders?  Anyone know the multiple on annual estimated sales taxes that determines the total amount of bond issuance proceeds?  Would bond issuances off the sales tax hike happen in phases and what might the amounts be each time?

Also, is it common for large cities to lend money to states?  And is it reasonable to think the city will get back its money plus interest timely and without issue?  I’d be worried about lending to a level of government with so much legislative and other authority over us in so many different ways should they drag their feet on repayment and we decide to pursue recourse.  We may be hamstrung.

[KJHburg]

5 hours ago, southslider said:

^as if North Mecklenburg would tax themselves more to let South Mecklenburg have more free lanes on the same 77 corridor

I know it mentioned free lanes but NCDOT and everybody is talking about tolled express lanes on 77 south.  

[JHart]

5 hours ago, RANYC said:

I’m no muni finance guy, but what confuses me about this article’s proposal is the timing of cash flows from the one cent sales tax. Won’t the city issue bonds soon after passage of the sales tax increase, so that billions will be on hand right away, and then as sales tax collections are made each year, they will go to trustees who will make payments on the outstanding bond issue to bondholders?  Anyone know the multiple on annual estimated sales taxes that determines the total amount of bond issuance proceeds?  Would bond issuances off the sales tax hike happen in phases and what might the amounts be each time?

Also, is it common for large cities to lend money to states?  And is it reasonable to think the city will get back its money plus interest timely and without issue?  I’d be worried about lending to a level of government with so much legislative and other authority over us in so many different ways should they drag their feet on repayment and we decide to pursue recourse.  We may be hamstrung.

The proposal here clearly was done with almost 0 research other than to float the idea that somehow widening 77 is a bargaining chip for transit in Charlotte.. This is neither feasible, nor a good idea.

[Reverie39]

On 1/16/2023 at 8:11 AM, kermit said:

Just stumbled across this. This is roughly how I thought CATS would update their Blue Line vehicle strip maps post Gold Line expansion.

I really like the dot placement showing center vs outer platform. I suppose we could debate the merits of the "Downtown" label all day.

I love this. We were talking a little while ago about how CATS needs to fuse the two line maps together. Currently on the website they are confusingly separate. The city is, theoretically, developing a light rail SYSTEM and transfers will become a thing. A system map is necessary to convey where that is possible.

[RANYC]

2 hours ago, JHart said:

The proposal here clearly was done with almost 0 research other than to float the idea that somehow widening 77 is a bargaining chip for transit in Charlotte.. This is neither feasible, nor a good idea.

I suspected that but just didn’t know.  

Green Bonds in Transit Finance

Also, there are fast-evolving models for funding transit these days.  There’s the “use-of-proceeds” model and “green bonds,” specifically for providing capital to public transit projects that have been proposed and designed to fight climate change/reduce carbon footprint.

Self-Sustaining Silver Line Revenue Model

Purely speculation, but perhaps there’s a way to fund a self-sustaining, clean, efficient, comfortable, and frequent east to west light rail system, all using green bonds backed by future light rail revenues comprised of premium ride rates, without a general sales tax hike?  

A “Choice Riders” Focus for the Silver Line 

I know this will be controversial and maybe maddening for some, but if silver line trips are priced for upscale riders, including aspects of dynamic pricing where game-day and large event rides are $10 per person unless you have a light-rail monthly pass that’s say $250/month or $2500/year, perhaps you can get a mass transit line and transit capacity with green bond finance without raising taxes.  

Choice Transit Strategies Still Reduce Carbon & Relieve Congestion 

Silver line then becomes an operational mass transit solution, relieving Charlotte infrastructure of the burden and onslaught of car-centricity as the city grows and as density crops up along the line.  Because the line will be self-sustaining in catering to premium riders, the transit system’s energy and resources can perhaps be more focused on its subsidies to transit that caters to lower-income passengers.  City could also create an income test for monthly pass subsidies for the working poor who live along or proximal to the line.

Edited January 20, 2023 by RANYC

[carolinaboy]

If Charlotte/CATS can't figure out how to pay for it (additional light-rail/commuter rail), or if they have to obtain money from the state and/or the federal government, maybe they should refocus their efforts on a more modest type of "people-mover" public transportation that is more affordable to build, grow and maintain, with a more affordable per trip cost and schedule which is convenient to the average user/potential user. I mean I want to drive a nice luxury car but my budget keeps me in the Toyota/Honda category and it gets me where I need to go. If the current light-rail were operating smoothly and effectively future light-rail may be the answer. After all these years of operation that doesn't seem to be the case. Why should more light-rail be the preferred option? Would it be run any more smoothly or effectively? If the answer is "No" then maybe other options should be preferable.

 

Full disclosure: I don't live anywhere near Charlotte so I don't have a dog in the fight (other than I pay state taxes). As an urban development enthusiast I love the idea of a full light-rail people mover transportation system in Charlotte. But, if you can't afford it, don't buy it. The Earth won't stop spinning without it.

[kermit]

4 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

The Earth won't stop spinning without it.

I'll voice my metaphorical dissent on this point.

Edited January 21, 2023 by kermit

[15895]

I will say I’m not a fan of mass transit being an economic tool so much. But I do think there is an economic case for Charlotte having solid plans for improved mass transit - including additional light rail lines. economic impact is one area where cross-aisle cooperation can be had. The NC GOP won’t be convinced if the sustainable or urban logic but I think economic impacts would appeal to them. 

I think cities either fall behind or catch up to other peer cities at glacial speeds. Austin surpassing Charlotte was like 20 years in the making in which I did not see coming. Plans take decades. Thinking about other peer cities of Charlotte, some of them have big plans that could be mostly complete by the time a phase I of a potential silver line would ever get complete.  

Austin voters approve went 8 cents per $100 of property valuations for their mass transit plan (updates on progress to be issued soon)  & their leaders seem to be  really pushing for this plan. It wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility they could complete their entire plan by the time construction would even start on the silver line. It’s different industry from Charlotte, but if cities start taking these arduous plans on that take a decade or more… I’d hate to have Charlotte in 2040 making transit plans for 2060 while Austin put in the work starting in 2018. What does that do for Charlotte in recruiting large employers, attracting immigrants and younger people, etc. Then look at other similar cities to Charlotte and benchmark their plans. 

The below are plans for Austin’s approved transit plan. I shrugged off Austin before. I wouldn’t shrug off them pulling off their transit plans. 

 

For anyone newer to the city. We’ve been drawing silver line routings for a longgg time. There’s been zero progress since 2010 on anything outside of the blue line. It’s been the same ole same ole for a long time now so to hear we may push part of a plan that was created in 2010 to 2040/2050 is quite disheartening. 

This was the 2030  Transit Plan. And this was the delayed and cost cutting plan. 

it was a compromise to the below (green was streetcar) and it was though possible to be complete by 2020 at one point I believe (someone correct me if I’m wrong) 

 

At this point, all I really want done is routing finalized. All the tedious time process stuff done. Environmental impacts done. And let’s start chipping away at small things. Utility relocations, any land purchases (imagine 2040 rolls around an a property owner derails light rail), etc etc. start competing for federal grants to knock some of the stuff out. Coordinate with NCDOT or whoever to widen roads or whatever with room for future light rail etc. THAT is where Charlotte needs to be with the Silver line ASAP. A finalized routing. 

[RANYC]

17 minutes ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

I will say I’m not a fan of mass transit being an economic tool so much. But I do think there is an economic case for Charlotte having solid plans for improved mass transit - including additional light rail lines. economic impact is one area where cross-aisle cooperation can be had. The NC GOP won’t be convinced if the sustainable or urban logic but I think economic impacts would appeal to them. 

I think cities either fall behind or catch up to other peer cities at glacial speeds. Austin surpassing Charlotte was like 20 years in the making in which I did not see coming. Plans take decades. Thinking about other peer cities of Charlotte, some of them have big plans that could be mostly complete by the time a phase I of a potential silver line would ever get complete.  

Austin voters approve went 8 cents per $100 of property valuations for their mass transit plan (updates on progress to be issued soon)  & their leaders seem to be  really pushing for this plan. It wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility they could complete their entire plan by the time construction would even start on the silver line. It’s different industry from Charlotte, but if cities start taking these arduous plans on that take a decade or more… I’d hate to have Charlotte in 2040 making transit plans for 2060 while Austin put in the work starting in 2018. What does that do for Charlotte in recruiting large employers, attracting immigrants and younger people, etc. Then look at other similar cities to Charlotte and benchmark their plans. 

The below are plans for Austin’s approved transit plan. I shrugged off Austin before. I wouldn’t shrug off them pulling off their transit plans. 

 

For anyone newer to the city. We’ve been drawing silver line routings for a longgg time. There’s been zero progress since 2010 on anything outside of the blue line. It’s been the same ole same ole for a long time now so to hear we may push part of a plan that was created in 2010 to 2040/2050 is quite disheartening. 

This was the 2030  Transit Plan. And this was the delayed and cost cutting plan. 

it was a compromise to the below (green was streetcar) and it was though possible to be complete by 2020 at one point I believe (someone correct me if I’m wrong) 

 

At this point, all I really want done is routing finalized. All the tedious time process stuff done. Environmental impacts done. And let’s start chipping away at small things. Utility relocations, any land purchases (imagine 2040 rolls around an a property owner derails light rail), etc etc. start competing for federal grants to knock some of the stuff out. Coordinate with NCDOT or whoever to widen roads or whatever with room for future light rail etc. THAT is where Charlotte needs to be with the Silver line ASAP. A finalized routing. 

Let’s be clear now, Charlotte actually has light rail (and a street car) while Austin does not.  Second, Austin’s Project Connect appears to have been largely funded by a property tax increase, something we could do without the state legislature if we wanted.  Third, in April of last year, well after Austin’s vote to approve the tax hike and even after city officials traveled there to marvel at Austin’s plans, officials had to announce that the light rail project estimates had jumped from $5.8bn to freakin’ $10.3bn, calling the light rail plans into question.  
 

 

[JRCLT]

But, if you can't afford it, don't buy it. The Earth won't stop spinning without it.

Highways produce 0 money…yet we spend billions on them. They provide their value in other ways….Transit should be treated the same. “Afford” isn’t in question or shouldn’t be. It’s investing in our communities the same way parks are investments. Even streets and highways. They all do not generate direct revenue to the city or the state but provides value. Development along Blue line shows this.

[southslider]

Sure, neither state legislators nor area voters may support more funding for transit without more funding for roads. Still, spending the bulk of that new revenue on just one highway project makes as much sense as spending the lion's share on just one light rail line.  Marrying two bad plans does not make for a good compromise.

[jthomas]

15 hours ago, RANYC said:

Second, Austin’s Project Connect appears to have been largely funded by a property tax increase, something we could do without the state legislature if we wanted. 

This is a key point. No NC city needs to be held hostage by the NCGA over transit funding, IF they would be willing to truly put their money where their mouth is with a property tax hike. Trying to fund transit via sales tax is a way of trying to find a “painless” funding source, but unfortunately it gives the state de facto veto power. If local leaders truly believed in transit, they would sell it as an essential local investment in the same level as schools, parks, water infrastructure etc., thus justifying the use of property tax funds. The fact that this seems to be a political impossibility says a lot about the true priorities of the region.

[carolinaboy]

14 hours ago, JeanClt said:

 

Highways produce 0 money…yet we spend billions on them. They provide their value in other ways….Transit should be treated the same. “Afford” isn’t in question or shouldn’t be. It’s investing in our communities the same way parks are investments. Even streets and highways. They all do not generate direct revenue to the city or the state but provides value. Development along Blue line shows this.

 

If the measure of success for light-rail in Charlotte is economic development, obviously it has been a grand slam.

If the measure of success for light-rail in Charlotte is people moving, obviously it has been a strike out.

Transit is an investment no doubt. I've stated that before in these threads (that light-rail should be treated as a long-term investment). But do you double down on an investment if it isn't paying off in terms of actual transit? Or do you press ahead knowing the investment pay-off is future economic development?

Maybe a light-rail line from the airport to the future Gateway Station should be the extent of the next phase.

[kermit]

3 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

If the measure of success for light-rail in Charlotte is economic development, obviously it has been a grand slam.

If the measure of success for light-rail in Charlotte is people moving, obviously it has been a strike out.

I have been struggling with this distinction for a while. I find myself increasing leaning towards economic development being an OK goal for transit, particularly since TOD tends to improve density and walkability and (hopefully) precludes some sprawl. 

I might even argue that we should think of cars and roads using the same dichotomous perspective. Cars are, ostensibility, a mobility tool. However, anyone who has been on 77 at 5pm, or South blvd during water main work, knows that cars often fail to provide mobility beneifts. The inefficiency of cars in providing mobility is even more evident when you look at them on a cost per mile basis (driving is really expensive!), or when they break down.

On the other hand, cars fully succeeded in the economic development realm. The US needed a tool to goose consumption following WWII, cars were just the thing to open up the farmland outside of town for new subdivisions and strip centers. As much as I hate auto dependence, I’ll admit that cars were the linchpin of the massive post-war economic boom. Unfortunately the boom was not sustainable and we are now in a place where auto-mobility is degraded with every new car added to the system.

We all seem to be fine with the construction of auto infrastructure when it is merely to enable development  (are there any mobility benefits to I-485? What about a wider West blvd to connect to the River District?). Are we using a double standard (and exaggerating) when we criticize transit for being more about ED than mobility? 
 

Edit: perhaps another analogy here is the very heavily subsidized transcontinental railroads. Very few people needed to travel between coasts, and the five day+ trip was out of reach of most people. But all American’s had an interest in making the West accessible so it could be developed over the next century — and that is exactly what the railroads did. I think I now see rail transit as playing the same role within cities in the 21st century.
 

[Having said all this, I would certainly prefer the Silver Line to have a more logical uptown route]

Edited January 21, 2023 by kermit