CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[Spartan]

I agree. For what ever reason, people don't like to ride the bus. The Sprinter is actually a pretty good service, but it will never be perceived as anything other than a fancy bus.

I think an LRT extension to the airport would be well used if it were an extension of the Silver Line from Matthews. It would more than likely be used primarily by people in the north east and south east parts of the county and the suburbs in that direction along with people in the central parts of Charlotte that live near the line. 

Ultimately, the proximity of the airport and convenience of uber or taxis is hard to beat.

[kermit]

50 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Ultimately, the proximity of the airport and convenience of uber or taxis is hard to beat.

Warning, anecdote posing as data:  Maybe I am just cheap but I would always choose decent transit (ever with longer travel times, transfers etc.) over a $20 uber ride. This desire is so extreme that I have decided not to make recreational trips to Detroit, Halifax and Denver this year simply because I thought it was too expensive to get from airport to downtown. In addition I have traveled to Toronto three times since they opened their rail line from Pearson, in part because the rail option appealed to me. 

I think part of this is just scars from my misspent youth backpacking in Asia. That sort of travel really ingrains a sense that taxis (and anything that requires extra money merely for convenience) are evil. In the backpacking world the person who spends the least money 'wins'. My 15 year old daughter is completely unimpressed with this ethos and she is constantly complaining about why we don't just hop into a cab when traveling.

Edited April 21, 2016 by kermit

[LKN704]

20 minutes ago, kermit said:

Warning, anecdote posing as data:  Maybe I am just cheap but I would always choose decent transit (ever with longer travel times, transfers etc.) over a $20 uber ride. This desire is so extreme that I have decided not to make recreational trips to Detroit, Halifax and Denver this year simply because I thought it was too expensive to get from airport to downtown. In addition I have traveled to Toronto three times since they opened their rail line from Pearson, in part because the rail option appealed to me. 

I think part of this is just scars from my misspent youth backpacking in Asia. That sort of travel really ingrains a sense that taxis (and anything that requires extra money merely for convenience) are evil. In the backpacking world the person who spends the least money 'wins'. My 15 year old daughter is completely unimpressed with this ethos and she is constantly complaining about why we don't just hop into a cab when traveling.

!!!! This.

I do the same thing, but haven't really thought about it before, I guess I just think about some things subconsciously. For example, it the past 5 years I have gone to SFO 4 times for a weekend getaway. I love LA. Love it. But SFO appealed to me so much more because of the option of taking BART to the airport. LAX doesn't really have a good transit connection.

And backpacking really opens your eyes to taxis. Being ripped of in a tuk-tuk in Puerto Princessa (Philippines) for being dropped of at the airport curb instead of the street and being ripped of by taxi drivers in Bangkok and Siem Reap has forever scarred me away from taxis, even in the US. It is just too expensive and not worth it IMHO.

[elrodvt]

You want a real scar - I was with a guy who despite my warnings decided the Narita express was beneath him and took a taxi to Shinjuku. I bet that took some creative expense accounting to recoup. I too share these sentiments and will walk over and take the bus almost every time. Unless it's raining. ;-)

[kermit]

^ You guys made me feel much better , very glad I am not alone as a taxiphobic.

#UPbetterthantherapy

[SgtCampsalot]

I've been listening to a lot of Strong Towns podcasts and came upon this recording from a conference called Railvolution in MN, it was a panel of people with very different foundational opinions on the role transit has in our cities and towns: some unabashedly pro-transit by any means possible, some very open to it, but see the knee-jerk assumption that it is a deus ex machina for our communities as misguided.

The crux that I was intrigued by is that there are many, many different things we could do that would help our communities in an on-the-ground manner, and would help them be incrementally better over time, that would eventually lead to those communities naturally getting to a point that they can naturally support the cost of transit infrastructure, rather than borrowing as much money as possible to implement one corridor every decade, over the course of 50 years, both artificially changing the fate of these communities by development booms, and completely neglecting every other corridor that doesn't get a line yet. One of my favorite lines was that we should be "figuring out 'networks', rather than just 'transit networks'," which would allow us to prioritize what walking/biking/auto/transit stretches of roads are most important, rather than focusing on a train in the same manner as a highway.

It's also kinda neat, because within the first 30 minutes someone referred to CLT's blue line...

Link to the podcast

Edited April 21, 2016 by SgtCampsalot

[Third Strike]

Here's a list of non-road projects submitted to the draft 2018-2027 STIP:

• Gateway Station.
• Renovations to the CTC.
• ACWR relocation in NoDa.
• Purchase of six new buses for a new line that would connect the UNCC Station on the BLE to the CK Rider in Concord Mills (possible blueprint for a future extension of the Blue Line).
• New greenway link along Briar Creek from Plaza Midwood to Chantilly, with a tunnel under Independence (I think it would be cheaper for a pedestrian bridge).

2018-2027 STIP Development

[Spartan]

So for the record, I always take the Sprinter to the airport and generally prefer public transportation in other cities if it's practical. In places where you don't speak the language you can really get screwed over by taxis for sure. But my point is that for people living in Charlotte it's generally faster to take an uber or taxi and time will frequently win out over money when we're talking about relatively low costs overall. If the taxi ride was $50 then maybe people would think twice about it. 

I think rail is a game changer, but also I think the biggest challenge to get rail to the airport will be convincing the airport that they won't lose substantial parking revenue.

 

[southslider]

Any rail line likely won't end directly at the terminal. Granted, the Airport can complete that last-mile connection with a people mover or other means. Still, that's where Sprinter is actually faster than any future rail, since it goes to the front door of the terminal. And if you don't like a stopping for (or riding with) others on a bus, the Airport-LYNX connector bus route goes directly from the Woodlawn station to the terminal's door via Billy Graham Parkway. 

I still see the merits in a West Corridor. It just won't be entirely focused on going to the Airport. An East-West rail line has stronger merits. And continuity to 485 and Gaston commuters will compete with ending at the Terminal.

[cjd5050]

13 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

I've been listening to a lot of Strong Towns podcasts and came upon this recording from a conference called Railvolution in MN, it was a panel of people with very different foundational opinions on the role transit has in our cities and towns: some unabashedly pro-transit by any means possible, some very open to it, but see the knee-jerk assumption that it is a deus ex machina for our communities as misguided.

The crux that I was intrigued by is that there are many, many different things we could do that would help our communities in an on-the-ground manner, and would help them be incrementally better over time, that would eventually lead to those communities naturally getting to a point that they can naturally support the cost of transit infrastructure, rather than borrowing as much money as possible to implement one corridor every decade, over the course of 50 years, both artificially changing the fate of these communities by development booms, and completely neglecting every other corridor that doesn't get a line yet. One of my favorite lines was that we should be "figuring out 'networks', rather than just 'transit networks'," which would allow us to prioritize what walking/biking/auto/transit stretches of roads are most important, rather than focusing on a train in the same manner as a highway.

It's also kinda neat, because within the first 30 minutes someone referred to CLT's blue line...

Link to the podcast

I'll need to listen to this and your take is very interesting.  My question to picking networks or transportation networks is this.

The thing that I am not sure you're considering is the timeline of mass transportation and how it impacts cost.  The longer you wait to develop mass transportation the more expensive and problematic it becomes.  Not just in the ever rising cost of construction but also the logistics of it.   The more people and buildings you have to 'work around' the more difficult building something as structured as mass transit becomes.  

It used to be rail was built to open up development and it did.  Now it seems to have become the exact opposite where first you wait for a place to become populated and then you build mass transit to it.  I think fundamentally this is wrong.  Take for example the river district.  Light rail planning should be one of the first things done and the design of that entire area should be based around it.  But sadly, this will not happen.  

I mean..just imagine if in the past they had the vision to build South Park or Ballantyne out with light rail in mind.  Just how different would Charlotte be?

 

 

 

 

[archiham04]

^commuter rail to Albemarle.

[SgtCampsalot]

^Truth, but I do think, regardless, every community should be developed with potentially mass transit in mind. Even if you preserve it as a greenway trail in the meantime, there's no excuse not to have that kind of thinking, for sure.

[Spartan]

4 hours ago, southslider said:

Any rail line likely won't end directly at the terminal. Granted, the Airport can complete that last-mile connection with a people mover or other means. Still, that's where Sprinter is actually faster than any future rail, since it goes to the front door of the terminal. And if you don't like a stopping for (or riding with) others on a bus, the Airport-LYNX connector bus route goes directly from the Woodlawn station to the terminal's door via Billy Graham Parkway. 

I still see the merits in a West Corridor. It just won't be entirely focused on going to the Airport. An East-West rail line has stronger merits. And continuity to 485 and Gaston commuters will compete with ending at the Terminal.

Although it would be ideal to connect, it doesn't have to connect directly to the terminal. I went to Seattle last year, and their LRT stop is about a 1/2 mile from the main terminal and you have to go outside and wander through a parking deck to get there. If an airport station was to be located along the existing rail line it would be about the same distance from the CLT terminal, which is in a very reasonable walking distance. 

The west corridor would need to go to the River District. IMO, rail transit is key to not letting that become a carbon copy of Ballantyne.

[dcharlotte]

It should connect directly to the terminal. MIA requires a transfer and a walk which is nothing short of bad planning. 

[Deleted.]

I would not ride light rail if I had to walk 1/2 mile, especially with all the bags I have to drag.

[DMann]

Anyone take it at O'Hare?  It is not all that convenient for the traveler.

[kermit]

7 minutes ago, DMann said:

Anyone take it at O'Hare?  It is not all that convenient for the traveler.

I take the Blue Line to O'Hare all the time, never thought it was a chore. I might have a different opinion about it if you had to go outside to get on the train. 

[Spartan]

17 hours ago, Piedmont767 said:

I would not ride light rail if I had to walk 1/2 mile, especially with all the bags I have to drag.

That's your prerogative. People walk that far just to get to a terminal in many airports. I know I've rolled my suitcase much further distances through cities, so an airport doesn't make a difference to me.

I agree in principle that direct access would be better, but I honestly don't see how direct access to the concourse could be made unless they go underground. The configuration of the buildings and both existing and future runway expansions won't allow a surface route to access the airport while also being able to provide access to the River District.

[Norm2]

22 hours ago, Piedmont767 said:

I would not ride light rail if I had to walk 1/2 mile, especially with all the bags I have to drag.

I have dragged my bags more than 1 mile from Crown Heights through Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn NY, hopped on the subway, transferred subway lines, then hopped onto the airports AirTran system, then walked the distance form AirTrain to the terminal.....  I have learned to travel as light as I can.

[Deleted.]

1 hour ago, norm21499 said:

I have dragged my bags more than 1 mile from Crown Heights through Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn NY, hopped on the subway, transferred subway lines, then hopped onto the airports AirTran system, then walked the distance form AirTrain to the terminal.....  I have learned to travel as light as I can.

Well, when you are a flight attendant, who has to pack for a 3 day trip to Europe and work all through out the night, and does that 2/3 times a week, it would get hideous to walk 1/2 mile. 

[cltbwimob]

8 hours ago, Spartan said:

That's your prerogative. People walk that far just to get to a terminal in many airports. I know I've rolled my suitcase much further distances through cities, so an airport doesn't make a difference to me.

I agree in principle that direct access would be better, but I honestly don't see how direct access to the concourse could be made unless they go underground. The configuration of the buildings and both existing and future runway expansions won't allow a surface route to access the airport while also being able to provide access to the River District.

While not direct access to the terminal, I believe that if they were to hypothetically follow an alignment along Josh Birmingham to the parking deck adjacent to the terminal the line could get close enough to the terminal where the last mile problem is not really a problem any more (because it would really only be about a 1/10th mile walk to the terminal) and, at the same time, preserve the ability for the line to "turn out" and proceed on to whatever future stops may exist (i.e. 485 park and ride, river district, etc.).  It may require elevated sections, but there looks to be plenty of space for an LRT alignment without having to go underground.  I have included a picture to show what I am talking about. 

 

[cltcane]

On April 22, 2016 at 3:18 PM, dcharlotte said:

It should connect directly to the terminal. MIA requires a transfer and a walk which is nothing short of bad planning. 

At least it's better than sitting in traffic in Miami.  It may not be the most convenient setup, but having Metro service to the airport is incredibly convenient, especially if you live in Brickell or Downtown within walking distance of a Metromover stop. I always use the Metro to and from MIA now. And speaking of, I'll be in Miami next weekend. Shall we 'Make It A Double' one afternoon?

[cltbwimob]

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/planning/silver-line/Pages/default.aspx

The link above describes the four Silver Line alignment options in detail.  Two would have short sections of mixed traffic ops in downtown Matthews. Otherwise all four have exclusive guideway until they get to Uptown where they may interline with the Gold Line.  All-in-all, I am pleased with the results, although if I had my pick I would say that Option C is the best.  IMO it strikes the best balance between transit speed and the desire for redevelopment opportunities. 

Edited April 24, 2016 by cltbwimob

[Third Strike]

Option A might be the most realistic plan. Option C is the best one, but the cost associated with it could easily surpass the BLE. With Option A, it will be easy and cost effective to begin persevering ROW right now, especially since several connector roads have been approved via bonds, which will allow businesses to realign away from Independence, which would also open up the much needed land for light rail to run down Independence. Also, even if the light rail doesn't run on Monroe, I still anticipate TOD to happen, since Monroe literally runs run next to Independence. Lastly, I hope CATS coordinates with the NCDOT for designing Independence Pointe Parkway in a way where light rail can be easily be added in after the next phase of the widening Independence Blvd is completed. Similar to how the stretch of North Tryon between the I-85 Connector and University City Blvd was reconstructed to accommodate the light rail years before construction started.   

[cltbwimob]

^^^I think any of the options will easily surpass the cost of the BLE since the corridor is about 4 miles longer. The only real difference between option A and option C is the stretch between Briar Creek and Idlewild.   I think the best chance for TOD along the corridor is along Monroe Rd between Briar Creek and Idlewild.  IMO if option A or B is chosen then they will be essentially giving up on TOD for the corridor.  Of course I am of the opinion that the transportation element of transit is more important than its ability to generate TOD, and option A wins on this point hands down.  So if that's the one that's actually feasible from a cost perspective, then I'm all for it.  However I think if there is an option which accomplishes both the transit mission and the TOD-generating mission well, then that's the one that should be chosen.

Edited April 25, 2016 by cltbwimob