CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[15895]

I wonder where BRT would even go in Charlotte. All the routes I think of seem geared towards commuters and at that point, would it only be BRT during the work hours? Or would suburbs get fast frequent and heavily invested in bus infrastructure before the inner city… and is there much demand for that service (relative to the investment) that the Express buses don’t already accomplish? 

I’d love to see Freedom have a bus only lane + protected bike lanes and government $ to flow into it to bring more affordable & low income housing (with Market Rate components). I think that corridor has a tonnnn of potential, but I think only intentional action (laws) by the city can make that successful. Light Rail down Wilkinson, ~12 bus with bus lanes on Freedom, already have the Gold Line and densify the neighborhoods between Brookshire down to Wilkinson. That’d be so awesome IMO.

From Morehead around Wesley Heights and along Berryhill Road, it looks like it has strong bones to be a future SouthEnd (not in character or anything but in scale of development) 
 

[kermit]

On 12/27/2023 at 1:21 PM, AirNostrumMAD said:

I wonder where BRT would even go in Charlotte. All the routes I think of seem geared towards commuters and at that point, would it only be BRT during the work hours? Or would suburbs get fast frequent and heavily invested in bus infrastructure before the inner city… and is there much demand for that service (relative to the investment) that the Express buses don’t already accomplish? 

Providence Road down to Waverly (along w a Southpark spur) seems like one obvious option. Unfortunately devoting a whole lane to BRT would be a political non-starter, and it is also a route where you could make a legitimate case that everyone nearby has access to a car already (and is probably the last portion of Charlotte to become more dense) so it would be doomed to low ridership.

I believe BRT has actually been penciled into the Freedom Rd corridor?

Edited December 30, 2023 by kermit

[elrodvt]

Denver has a situation that seems to me to be very similar to our Davidson one. Residents of Boulder believe they got the short end of the stick when RTD converted the Denver to Boulder plan from commuter rail to a BRT plan. This after residents voted for higher sales tax and have paid it many years. Then RTD determined that based on new estimates (after they gained a lot of experience) it was not the right choice economically. From what I read i believe RTD did the right thing and think it's applicable here. We should focus on reducing headways and increasing reliability before more rail expansion. 

The last I read Boulder brt will open in '25. We can learn from how that goes.

[ajfunder]

3 hours ago, elrodvt said:

Denver has a situation that seems to me to be very similar to our Davidson one. Residents of Boulder believe they got the short end of the stick when RTD converted the Denver to Boulder plan from commuter rail to a BRT plan. This after residents voted for higher sales tax and have paid it many years. Then RTD determined that based on new estimates (after they gained a lot of experience) it was not the right choice economically. From what I read i believe RTD did the right thing and think it's applicable here. We should focus on reducing headways and increasing reliability before more rail expansion. 

The last I read Boulder brt will open in '25. We can learn from how that goes.

A couple things from a former Boulder and now Golden, CO resident.

Boulder and the NW corridor was promised BRT AND Commuter Rail. Not one or the other. The Flatiron Flyer (FF) as the Boulder BRT is branded has been open since 2016 and is long since completed. It is very much an expressway, BRT lite concept. It still runs in general traffic utilizing express lanes where available. Major flaws are the stations are on the Shoulder and the express lanes are in the median which requires some time-consuming maneuvering at every expressway stop, it runs in general traffic in Boulder, has a segment that is subject to a reversible toll lane coming into Denver, and has no signal priority along its route. The FF is a good service usually but it is not true BRT, it is honestly just a high frequency, well branded regional bus system with a few different service patterns.
 

I will add, the FF at its peak had 7 different bus patterns which was great while it lasted, but operator shortages coupled with the pandemic have made the original service plan impossible to maintain. RTD has had that issue across the board though and is honestly pulling a CATS across its entire network in terms of frequency.  RTD even cut two light rail patterns and tried to chop a 3rd. They still have 30 minute headways on quite a few rail routes that used to be or were promised to be at least every 15. RTD is now unfortunately commonly referred to as “Reason to Drive” across the Denver Metro due to their service woes.

The Northwest Rail Line, aka the B line, legally has to happen and coupled with service issues has been a huge black eye for RTD (as well as the 3 other segments of Fastracks that haven’t been completed SW extension, L Line extension, and N Line extension). RTD has been squirrley and has tried to get out of  building the B Line a few times but the Governor of Colorado and a few other powerful politicians keep having to remind RTD they are legally obligated to build the B line which is not a great look for RTD. It also would serve the towns of Longmont and Louisville which presently don’t have any improved transit and have also paid a large amount of taxes for Fastracks. RTD’s latest questionable scheme is to hitch its wagon to Colorado Front Range Passenger Rail which is not a bad idea as long as the NW corridor eventually gets a high quality commuter rail service in addition to the intercity trains.

Edited December 28, 2023 by ajfunder

[davidclt]

18 hours ago, kermit said:

Providence Road down to Waverly (along w a Southpark spur) seems like one obvious option. Unfortunately devoting a whole lane to BRT would be a political non-starter, and it is also a route where you could make a legitimate case that everyone nearby has access to a car already so it would be doomed to low ridership.

But if it ran at 15 minutes headways all day with signal prioritization, could it not be the method of choice to get to where people alllll the way out want to go?

[CLT2014]

2 hours ago, davidclt said:

But if it ran at 15 minutes headways all day with signal prioritization, could it not be the method of choice to get to where people alllll the way out want to go?

One of the problems is how suburban the neighborhoods are off Providence (often no sidewalks in the neighorhood) and relatively low population density near the road itself.  The combination of walking time to get out of the suburban neighborhoods + wait time for a bus is not competitive unless you live right near Providence itself. You then also have to add in that it is relatively unpleasant road to cross depending on which direction you need to go. IMO focusing on the areas where the built environment is closer to making transit viable is a wiser investment at where we are in our transit maturity. 

Example scenario: 
BRT Express Bus at Beverly Crest Boulevard / Providence. 
Person lives at 1809 Lawton Bluff Road.
Objective: Meet friends for lunch at the Strawberry Hill Superica
Time to walk to bus stop near house: 12 minutes, no sidewalk in the neighborhood, and then need to cross 5 lanes of traffic w/ 45 mph speed limit to go northbound
Wait time: 7 minutes
Time on bus: 9 minutes
Total trip: 28 minutes

The same person at 1809 Lawton owns a car. 
Drive time to Superica from their garage: 10 minutes
 

Time savings by driving: 18 minutes

One final thing in the more suburban areas... many are very dark at night with minimal or no street lighting. The combination of no sidewalk and very dark neighborhood streets after sunset discourages walking along the Providence corridor. Nobody wants to have to wear a reflective vest to go out to dinner so they don't get hit in the 5 minute walk out of their suburban neighborhood... so they just drive in the car they already own to live in the very suburban neighborhood. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by CLT2014

[RANYC]

On 12/28/2023 at 9:40 AM, CLT2014 said:

One of the problems is how suburban the neighborhoods are off Providence (often no sidewalks in the neighorhood) and relatively low population density near the road itself.  The combination of walking time to get out of the suburban neighborhoods + wait time for a bus is not competitive unless you live right near Providence itself. You then also have to add in that it is relatively unpleasant road to cross depending on which direction you need to go. IMO focusing on the areas where the built environment is closer to making transit viable is a wiser investment at where we are in our transit maturity. 

Example scenario: 
BRT Express Bus at Beverly Crest Boulevard / Providence. 
Person lives at 1809 Lawton Bluff Road.
Objective: Meet friends for lunch at the Strawberry Hill Superica
Time to walk to bus stop near house: 12 minutes, no sidewalk in the neighborhood, and then need to cross 5 lanes of traffic w/ 45 mph speed limit to go northbound
Wait time: 7 minutes
Time on bus: 9 minutes
Total trip: 28 minutes

The same person at 1809 Lawton owns a car. 
Drive time to Superica from their garage: 10 minutes
 

Time savings by driving: 18 minutes

One final thing in the more suburban areas... many are very dark at night with minimal or no street lighting. The combination of no sidewalk and very dark neighborhood streets after sunset discourages walking along the Providence corridor. Nobody wants to have to wear a reflective vest to go out to dinner so they don't get hit in the 5 minute walk out of their suburban neighborhood... so they just drive in the car they already own to live in the very suburban neighborhood. 

Sounds as though what you're saying is that transit prioritization should be context-sensitive.  I don't disagree.

Edited December 30, 2023 by RANYC

[Windsurfer]

We're not the only ones who struggle with financing. Here's London: https://www.mylondon.news/news/transport/tfl-cant-afford-tube-extension-28365902

[Reverie39]

I've always felt a little disappointed that Richmond hasn't pursued some type of rail (at least a streetcar). Seems to me that Richmond has some of the densest residential neighborhoods in the Southeast right adjacent to downtown, where the BRT currently runs through. Those would be well-served by rail rapid transit.

 

[Hushpuppy321]

Couldn’t find the Page for the Gold Line/Streetcar thread so will post my question here:

Was the Per Mile cost of the Phase II Gold Line comparable to the per mile cost of the BLE?

Well Designed/Run BRT more favorable than a Fixed Rail Streetcar?  If so, why have cities pushed so hard for Streetcars…

[ajfunder]

So I will say, streetcars that have a blend of in traffic and separation where possible are fantastic. Throw in signal priority and they can be a really great tool. Many US cities have seemed to focus on anything but this with their modern attempts and have opted for slow, in traffic, bus-like streetcars that stop at every light.

I travel to Tacoma, Washington often for work and their extended T Line Streetcar (Sound Transit) is one of the more impressive streetcar installations I have ridden in this country. It is extremely fluid and moves well through the City and never dwells at intersections for long as it gets priority.

The Gold Line, like many modern US systems, unfortunately lacks many of the things the T Line does well. Signal priority for the Gold Line at even half of the intersections it runs through would drastically improve service and would likely allow for higher frequency even with current vehicles and operator totals. Also, Trade is completely overbuilt and could definitely have streetcar/transit only sections/lanes.

Edited January 4 by ajfunder

[Windsurfer]

25 minutes ago, ajfunder said:

So I will say, streetcars that have a blend of in traffic and separation where possible are fantastic. Throw in signal priority and they can be a really great tool. Many US cities have seemed to focus on anything but this with their modern attempts and have opted for slow, in traffic, bus-like streetcars that stop at every light.

I travel to Tacoma, Washington often for work and their extended T Line Streetcar (Sound Transit) is one of the more impressive streetcar installations I have ridden in this country. It is extremely fluid and moves well through the City and never dwells at intersections for long as it gets priority.

The Gold Line, like many modern US systems, unfortunately lacks many of the things the T Line does well. Signal priority for the Gold Line at even half of the intersections it runs through would drastically improve service and would likely allow for higher frequency even with current vehicles and operator totals. Also, Trade is completely overbuilt and could definitely have streetcar/transit only sections/lanes.

My only thing is the tracks are so tricky when you're riding a bike.

[kermit]

10 hours ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

Couldn’t find the Page for the Gold Line/Streetcar thread so will post my question here:

Was the Per Mile cost of the Phase II Gold Line comparable to the per mile cost of the BLE?

Well Designed/Run BRT more favorable than a Fixed Rail Streetcar?  If so, why have cities pushed so hard for Streetcars…

These numbers are from the respective wiki pages, which can be of questionable reliability for transit projects (but these numbers are consistent with my memory)

Gold Line, Phase 2: $126 million / 2.5 miles = $50.4 million per mile (this included station rebuilds on the phase 1 portions of the line plus all vehicles currently used on the route).

[FWIW: the non inflation adjusted numbers for the original portion of the Blue Line (7th st to 485) were $48 million per mile ($70million per mile in 2023 dollars adjusted using the cpi)]

BLE: $1,159 million / 9.7 miles = $119.5 million per mile (includes new vehicles for the BLE portion of the line)

Needless to say the cheaper costs for the GoldLine are largely a result of ‘free’ right of way, along with the elimination of crossing gates and much smaller stations. I would wager that streetcar’s were chosen (over light rail)  for the route due to the lack of options for a dedicated right of way for E-W rail service through Uptown (something we saw play out with the Silver Line route) coupled with a need for circulator service uptown.

BRT comparison costs are hard to calculate since large portions of those projects are often just street-running buses. My guess on the dedicated lane portion of the IndyGo Red Line (the northern half) was about $14 million per mile in initial construction costs.

IMO, cities push hard for rail because it has a much higher likelihood of stimulating development and densification like we have seen in Southend, Lower Southend, Optimist Park and NoDa. BRT is generally just a fancy bus overlayed onto sprawl and it is likely to remain that way for all eternity. 

*I would argue that the net out of pocket costs of rail transit to cities is actually lower than for BRT. This is based on the assumption that increased tax revenues from higher density development offset a substantial portion of rail costs. Of course our accounting procedures obscure this revenue benefit of rail.

 

Edited January 4 by kermit

[KJHburg]

Not saying this is an answer for Charlotte but could be implemented in certain neighborhoods where bus ridership is low and connect to LYNX stations.

Gastonia ending all bus service and replace with on demand system like Wilson has done.  

Gastonia to replace bus transit service with on-demand ride-hailing company | WFAE 90.7 - Charlotte's NPR News Source

[kermit]

In an interesting turn of events, there is a new FHWA regulation that requires state DOTs to set future total GHG emission goals that are lower than the current baseline in order to continue to get federal funding for their National Highway System roads. In practical terms this means that any new road capacity (any improvement that results in increased VMT) must be offset with reductions in GHG elsewhere in the state (or sometimes MPO district I think). Should this regulation stick around, states may be required to increase investments in transit systems (and electric car charging) in order to continue highway expansion -- possibly good news for projects like the Red and Silver lines as well as intercity rail.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/RIN-2125-AF99_Performance_Management_GHG_Measure_Final_Rule_11-19-23.pdf

There are a couple of things that may make this new regulation short-lived. The first is a republican in the White House would probably quickly axe this new regulation. The second is 21 state DOTs very quickly filed lawsuits against the FHWA arguing that the law is unlawful and unconstitutional. It sounds like most of these lawsuits are clearly BS (the regulation does not prevent road expansion, it just requires offsets), but its not always clear that the federal judiciary acts rationally. Regardless, this is an interesting sign of hopeful change in financing a more sustainable built environment.

Edited January 5 by kermit

[kayman]

On 1/4/2024 at 10:25 PM, kermit said:

In an interesting turn of events, there is a new FHWA regulation that requires state DOTs to set future total GHG emission goals that are lower than the current baseline in order to continue to get federal funding for their National Highway System roads. In practical terms this means that any new road capacity (any improvement that results in increased VMT) must be offset with reductions in GHG elsewhere in the state (or sometimes MPO district I think). Should this regulation stick around, states may be required to increase investments in transit systems (and electric car charging) in order to continue highway expansion -- possibly good news for projects like the Red and Silver lines as well as intercity rail.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/RIN-2125-AF99_Performance_Management_GHG_Measure_Final_Rule_11-19-23.pdf

There are a couple of things that may make this new regulation short-lived. The first is a republican in the White House would probably quickly axe this new regulation. The second is 21 state DOTs very quickly filed lawsuits against the FHWA arguing that the law is unlawful and unconstitutional. It sounds like most of these lawsuits are clearly BS (the regulation does not prevent road expansion, it just requires offsets), but its not always clear that the federal judiciary acts rationally. Regardless, this is an interesting sign of hopeful change in financing a more sustainable built environment.

That's not exactly how it will work.  First, there are no "MPO districts" that terminology is not accurate and should never be used.  It's metropolitan planning organization (MPO) planning areas which are dependent on the lead planning agency's affirmed boundaries to the FHWA.  Any offsets will be placed in the hands of the state DOTs. 

In Charlotte urban area case since it is a bi-state urban area, NCDOT and SCDOT, will both have to set up a uniform way to conform for our region to conform to the new rule.  Similar to how the Metrolina Region handles the System Performance/Freight/CMAQ Performance Measures Final Rule as another bi-state regional performance measure.

Charlotte has 5 MPOs [Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO), Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization (GCLMPO), Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization (CRMPO), Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS), and Greater Hickory Metropolitan Planning Organization (GHMPO)].  All of them except Greater Hickory MPO (which is housed in the Western Piedmont Council of Governments) are hosted in local municipal governments which means nothing meaningful will come of this rule because NCDOT (and to certain except SCDOT) discourages regional council of governments hosting MPOs.

For the record, Raleigh-Durham are not in any better position at the moment either with 2 MPOs [Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHCMPO) and Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO)] not in congruence.  DCHCMPO has been housed in the Central Pines Regional Council (formerly the Triangle J Council of Governments) since this past July (2023) and CAMPO is currently housed in the Town of Cary. 

The Piedmont Triad has 4 MPOs [Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WSUAMPO), High Point Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPUAMPO), Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO), Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO)] and none of those entities are housing in a regional council of governments either.

If you want things to change then lobby for the North Carolina to allow MPOs especially large ones like Charlotte to be housed in a regional council versus local municipal governments because that's the only way meaningful change might come about with regional transportation coordination across the state lines.  Otherwise, it's always going to be this piecemeal and subtle distrust because local municipal governments are only working in their own best interests not the region's best interests.

Edited January 6 by kayman

[RANYC]

On 1/4/2024 at 7:53 PM, KJHburg said:

Not saying this is an answer for Charlotte but could be implemented in certain neighborhoods where bus ridership is low and connect to LYNX stations.

Gastonia ending all bus service and replace with on demand system like Wilson has done.  

Gastonia to replace bus transit service with on-demand ride-hailing company | WFAE 90.7 - Charlotte's NPR News Source

Article mentions that Gastonia will enlist the services of River North Transit starting in July. 

River North appears to be a subsidiary of Via Transportation, Inc, which is a transit technology provider, creating and deploying an app and other technology services to basically be a "ride broker," coordinating and contracting with third-party service providers to effectuate on-demand transit.

This concept is intriguing and worth exploring for feasibility. 

The Good

• Potential for big data on transit route demand and the quality of transit user experiences. 
• Gets the town of Gastonia out of the direct fleet management business giving it over to River North, avoiding a large up front expense for new fleet acquisition & maintenance
• Allows River North scale to negotiate bulk purchase and/or lease agreements with vehicle/fleet providers as it expands to multiple cities

The Bad

• Cyber-risks/threats
• Much more complex public transit offering given riders can be picked up from anywhere with so many bespoke routes
• Third-party service provider risks
• Induced demand that I believe this kind of convenience will generate might stretch third-party service provider resources thin rather quickly
• Adds a degree of separation between transit provider and accountability to the public through the political process 
• Dynamic price surges
• Makes riders dependent on their mobile devices to use public transit / there will be a phone number option for those without smartphone, but I could see a scenario where wait times are very long or wait times for a vehicle are lengthy

Edited January 6 by RANYC

[kermit]

On 1/6/2024 at 12:34 AM, kayman said:

That's not exactly how it will work.  First, there is no "MPO district" that terminology is not accurate and should never be used.  It's metropolitan planning organization (MPO) planning areas which are in dependent on the lead planning agency's affirmed boundaries to the FHWA.  Any offsets will be placed in the hands of the state DOTs. 

In Charlotte urban area case since it is a bi-state urban area, NCDOT and SCDOT, will both have to set up a uniform way to conform for our region to conform to the new rule.  Similar to how the Metrolina Region handles the System Performance/Freight/CMAQ Performance Measures Final Rule as another bi-state regional performance measure.

Charlotte has 5 MPOs [Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO), Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization (GCLMPO), Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization (CRMPO), Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS), and Greater Hickory Metropolitan Planning Organization (GHMPO)].  All of them except Greater Hickory MPO (which is housed in the Western Piedmont Council of Governments) are hosted in local municipal governments which means nothing meaningful will come of this rule because NCDOT (and to certain except SCDOT) discourages regional council of governments hosting MPOs.

For the record, Raleigh-Durham is not any better position at the moment either with 2 MPOs [Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHCMPO) and Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO)] not in congruence.  DCHCMPO has been housed in the Central Pines Regional Council (formerly the Triangle J Council of Governments) since this past July (2023) and CAMPO is currently housed in the Town of Cary. 

The Piedmont Triad has 4 MPOs [Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WSUAMPO), High Point Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPUAMPO), Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO), Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO)] and none of those entities are housing in a regional council of governments either.

If you want things to change then lobby for the North Carolina to allow MPOs especially large ones like Charlotte to be housed in a regional council versus local municipal governments because that's the only way meaningful change might come about with regional transportation coordination across the state lines.  Otherwise, it's always going to be this piecemeal and subtle distrust because local municipal governments are only working in their own best interests not the region's best interests.

My bad on the misuse of regional planning boundary jargon. Was my interpretation of the rule correct? (Any projects which increase GHG emission will require offsets that will prevent overall GHG emission growth at the state level)

21 hours ago, RANYC said:

Article mentions that Gastonia will enlist the services of River North Transit starting in July. 

River North appears to be a subsidiary of Via Transportation, Inc, which is a transit technology provider, creating and deploying an app and other technology services to basically be a "ride broker," coordinating and contracting with third-party service providers to effectuate on-demand transit.

This concept is intriguing and worth exploring for feasibility. 

The Good

• Potential for big data on transit route demand and the quality of transit user experiences. 
• Gets the town of Gastonia out of the direct fleet management business giving it over to River North, avoiding a large up front expense for new fleet acquisition & maintenance
• Allows River North scale to negotiate bulk purchase and/or lease agreements with vehicle/fleet providers as it expands to multiple cities

The Bad

• Cyber-risks/threats
• Much more complex public transit offering given riders can be picked up from anywhere with so many bespoke routes
• Third-party service provider risks
• Induced demand that I believe this kind of convenience will generate might stretch third-party service provider resources thin rather quickly
• Adds a degree of separation between transit provider and accountability to the public through the political process 
• Dynamic price surges
• Makes riders dependent on their mobile devices to use public transit / there will be a phone number option for those without smartphone, but I could see a scenario where wait times are very long or wait times for a vehicle are lengthy

On demand transit works fine in zero growth communities where people are happy to maintain sprawl. Unfortunately it does not scale at all (costs increase linearly with ridership, unlike mass transit) so it is unable to make communities more sustainable. This sort of system will quickly hit fiscal ceilings (dramatically increasing wait times) in areas where ridership is growing.

Edited January 7 by kermit

[CLT2014]

Gaston County's move just seems to further emphasize bus transit as a system of last resort for the most poor or elderly. Any body that can get a car is going to prefer that to this system.

[RANYC]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

My mad on the misuse of regional planning boundary jargon. Was my interpretation of the rule correct? (Any projects which increase GHG emission will require offsets that will prevent overall GHG emission growth at the state level)

On demand transit works fine in zero growth communities where people are happy to maintain sprawl. Unfortunately it does not scale at all (costs increase linearly with ridership, unlike mass transit) so it is unable to make communities more sustainable. This sort of system will quickly hit fiscal ceilings (or bankrupt transit providers) in areas where ridership is growing.

I do understand your point but Charlotte is high-growth and yet transit participation has generally fallen during that growth period.

The technology also gives cities a chance to build a proprietary data-set on where their transit users want to go and when.  Perhaps this newly-generated data can be used to design a more responsive route system down the road?

Edited January 6 by RANYC

[kayman]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

My bad on the misuse of regional planning boundary jargon. Was my interpretation of the rule correct? (Any projects which increase GHG emission will require offsets that will prevent overall GHG emission growth at the state level)

On demand transit works fine in zero growth communities where people are happy to maintain sprawl. Unfortunately it does not scale at all (costs increase linearly with ridership, unlike mass transit) so it is unable to make communities more sustainable. This sort of system will quickly hit fiscal ceilings (or bankrupt transit providers) in areas where ridership is growing.

Oh yeah, your interpretation is correct.

[kayman]

10 hours ago, RANYC said:

I do understand your point but Charlotte is high-growth and yet transit participation has generally fallen during that growth period.

The technology also gives cities a chance to build a proprietary data-set on where there transit users want to go and when.  Perhaps this newly-generated data can be used to design a more responsive route system down the road?

Don't hold your breath. This move of total replacement of a fixed route bus system with "on-demand" microtransit is not wise at all. Gaston County is growing quickly and becoming more dense at the same time.  CATS is only replacing the North Mecklenburg Village Rider with microtransit as a short-term stop measure while they retool their planning & strategy. The data collected from this microtransit rollout will result in more transit investments in that part of the CATS service area long term. Much of this will come to fruition with the eventual shift to a public transit authority over the CATS transit.

However, Gastonia Transit is being pressed by a certain political party (GOP) to get rid of mass transit in their increasingly growing in black demographic population. 

Edited January 7 by kayman

[RANYC]

6 minutes ago, kayman said:

Don't hold your breath. This move of totally replacement of a fixed route bus system with "on-demand" microtransit is not wise at all. Gaston County is growing quickly and becoming more dense at the same time.  CATS is only replacing the North Mecklenburg Village Rider with microtransit as short-term stop measure while the retool their planning & strategy. The data collected from this microtransit rollout will result in more transit investments in that part of the CATS service area long term. Much of this will come to fruition with the eventual shift to a public transit authority over the CATS transit.

However, Gastonia Transit is being pressed by a certain political party (GOP) to get rid of mass transit in their increasingly growing in black demographic population. 

Yes, it's quite possible that Gastonia Transit's intentions are clouded by an objective to terminate mobility resources for its most vulnerable.

If we set that aside for just a moment, however, might there be a use case for River North Transit's technology?  It seems reasonable that a high-powered, cloud-based app that engages transit users and also helps to "broker," i.e.,  systematically coordinate a wide range of fleet resources to meet user demand in a more dynamic way, has to be the future, no?  And given most Public Transit Authorities aren't tech firms, it might make sense to engage an entity like River North to integrate comprehensive digital resources to move the agency into the future.  In other words, this is the sort of partnership that accelerates a Transit Authority's digitalization.

Edited January 6 by RANYC

[kermit]

20 hours ago, RANYC said:

Yes, it's quite possible that Gastonia Transit's intentions are clouded by an objective to terminate mobility resources for its most vulnerable.

If we set that aside for just a moment, however, might there be a use case for River North Transit's technology?  It seems reasonable that a high-powered, cloud-based app that engages transit users and also helps to "broker," i.e.,  systematically coordinate a wide range of fleet resources to meet user demand in a more dynamic way, has to be the future, no?  And given most Public Transit Authorities aren't tech firms, it might make sense to engage an entity like River North to integrate comprehensive digital resources to move the agency into the future.  In other words, this is the sort of partnership that accelerates a Transit Authority's digitalization.

Yea, the tech does have useful applications. Unfortunately when its packaged as 'public transit' then it needs to be heavily subsidized in order to work as a public service. Subsidies for on demand transit appear to be around $15 per passenger after the transit fare is paid ( https://www.governing.com/transportation/microtransit-has-broad-appeal-despite-clear-drawbacks ).   Unlike mass transit, this subsidy is either fixed, or grows, as more people use the service. This level of subsidy is generally perceived to be fine when riders top out at a couple of thousand, but quickly gets prohibitive for more than a token few riders. The tech is great for businesses like Uber where people are willing to pay the full nut, but the small vehicle sizes necessary for the system to work make it impractical for large scale transit. 

[yes, all transport modes are given subsidy. Commercial air travel to small airports has a subsidy of hundreds of dollars per trip. LRT subsidies in the US range from near zero to $7-8 per ride (they can be higher depending on how you amortize capital costs). These costs are OK (IMO) because of the bonus development / density benefits that come with rail investment. Driving your own car comes with a 50-70% subsidy]

Edited January 7 by kermit

[MarcoPolo]

Great points Kermit....and I'd like to add another, often overlooked one.   In general, many "tech" reliant solutions make assumptions about possible participants.   In the case of transit a very large assumption often made is that ridership is optional for all, or most possible transit users, and the choice and access to the means of participation are generally assumed to be evenly afforded.  But, you know the saying....don't assume, because doing so often makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me"?  

The small assumption with on-demand/mirco-transit is that everyone who needs to use it has full access to the mobile phones (hell, phones in general), internet, and other devices required to make it possible to participate.   For the poor, the elderly, etc.....such access is very low, if present at all.  The burden this will place on them is substantial.  

While on its face it seems to be a prudent and fiscally responsible approach to help with City finances through the deployment of more technology, it really is a clever, some would argue "covert",  way to create the conditions to justify the gradual reduction and eventual elimination of transit all together due to the prevailing and incorrect perception that it's a waste of tax payer money, (Kermit your car ownership subsidy percentage does not even take into account the largest single transfer of wealth by one people to another, since ancient Roman times;  the nearly 70 year buying spree the American taxpayer has supported to buy Mid-east oil, literally trillions of dollars worth).   The unfortunate reality that the poorer among us are the most dependent on such infrastructure does tend to accentuate political divides making it an easier sell in communities that have disempowered and marginalized their poorer populations.  

On demand/micro transit systems are not "transit" solutions.  An analogy is "last mile delivery".   Amazon has not dismantled its massive delivery system, which is analogous to a heavy rail, LR, bus metropolitan transit system, in favor of delivering all its services point to point using a "call on demand" system supported by their massive tech machine.   Imagine the literal "billions" of Amazon trucks this would require!  Such a system would choke their own ability to access their users and conduct an efficient and profitable business.  Same with micro/on demand transit.  It is a last-mile kinda system, not a replacement system.  It is appropriate in communities with a robust set of fixed transit options.  

Because this doe not exist in Gastonia, and I've not heard any further details of other "supportive measures" contemplated beyond the mere service itself, it is obvious the effort is not one that is serious about transit, or the users of it.