CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[LKN704]

CATS apparently presented its findings/recommendations to the MTC today regarding the Silver Line LRT study. Hopefully we will hear info soon. Regardless of whether there is a state funding cap, it is important that CATS be ready to begin the official application/funding process as soon as the funding becomes available.

Maybe its time for a separate Silver Line LRT thread?

[kermit]

Charlotte is way behind the curve in our reluctance to remove minimum parking requirements:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1fpQabG3XKyHH7YNlmQobUHjwuLI

[kermit]

Since we are on the cusp of developing a new long term transit plan I thought this article from Dissent Mag discussing the unholy origins and inevitable perversion of BRT into BRT-lite might be an interesting read (its not specifically related to Charlotte)

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/brt-bus-rapid-transit-big-philanthropy-oil-lobby

TLDR: BRT is a big oil scheme to preserve the hegemony of asphalt and oil.

Edited June 27, 2016 by kermit

[cjd5050]

On 6/23/2016 at 3:21 PM, kermit said:

Charlotte is way behind the curve in our reluctance to remove minimum parking requirements:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1fpQabG3XKyHH7YNlmQobUHjwuLI

Maybe I have a naive perspective on this but I have always thought, for Uptown at least, the minimum parking requirement was a good thing.  The reason is it reduces the value of surface parking lots while adding height to buildings.  

What am I missing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SgtCampsalot]

41 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

Maybe I have a naive perspective on this but I have always thought, for Uptown at least, the minimum parking requirement was a good thing.  The reason is it reduces the value of surface parking lots while adding height to buildings.  

Height is a fun thing to have, but requiring a certain level of parking increases costs of all development, small and large alike, which is often passed on in rents, etc. And they are often one of the biggest things keeping small developers from getting their own projects off the ground. 

Cheap/free parking is a nice thing to have if your goal is to live far away and work in the CBD, but it also discourages those people from using any alternative mode of transportation. When parking is less affordable, people find other ways to get around. If I may say the cliche: There's research to support this.

Edited June 27, 2016 by SgtCampsalot

[cjd5050]

1 hour ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Height is a fun thing to have, but requiring a certain level of parking increases costs of all development, small and large alike, which is often passed on in rents, etc. And they are often one of the biggest things keeping small developers from getting their own projects off the ground. 

Cheap/free parking is a nice thing to have if your goal is to live far away and work in the CBD, but it also discourages those people from using any alternative mode of transportation. When parking is less affordable, people find other ways to get around. If I may say the cliche: There's research to support this.

On the small developer/small project, wouldn't it make more sense to relax the parking requirement outside of uptown then rather than eliminating it?   Wouldn't this be a good tool to ensure only a certain scale is built in Uptown?

As for people using alternative methods of transportation, I am all for encouraging that but I don't think that hand should be forced.  Just a personal take.  To start, it's not like Charlotte has a robust public transportation network right now.  Maybe after the blue line is done and an extension to either Matthews or Lake Norman can you start to force the hand here but right now it's really difficult for the middle class or lower to live in an area where public transportation is reasonable.  

I get the idea of making parking less affordable to force people to make choices, I have no doubt there are studies on that being successful but what is the net result?  Sure some my change how they get to work but what about those who change jobs or don't apply for some?  If you're saying there is an acceptable level of pain..that's understandable.  I just think it should be smaller maybe.

[SgtCampsalot]

Regarding the parking affordability vs. opting for public transit, I totally hear you, and on many levels agree with you. This car-reliant geography is the system we have for now, period, and extending rules TOO much that punish people who live out there can border on top-down authoritarian (ie: exactly what some people hate government for today). So while it may be promoting an ideal situation in some ways (not needing cars), it isn't necessarily the best thing for a city's citizens if it makes that many peoples' lives harder.

However, this brings the discussion into the long-view: how will we reorganize our built-environment to not necessitate as much driving in the first place? Rather than having on CBD in the center of a huge metro area, we will need to promote making hundreds of tiny "downtown" cores throughout our metros. Then, maybe all of the high-paying jobs that people work in Uptown for can be spread out to other almost-as-easily-accessible places, rather than one huge core.
This will obviously begin most strongly along our transit corridors, but it can, and must, happen in many of the strip malls and subdivisions where nobody can walk to buy a pack of smokes. Adding housing to single-use commercial areas. Adding middle-density housing and commercial/office to the single-use residential areas (whether garden apts, or subdivisions). This is the kind of thing that will just need to happen out of financial necessity. Our government bodies are on the line for too much infrastructure upkeep as it is. 

4 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

On the small developer/small project, wouldn't it make more sense to relax the parking requirement outside of uptown then rather than eliminating it?   Wouldn't this be a good tool to ensure only a certain scale is built in Uptown?

I'd argue that a "certain [appropriate] scale" is going to get built where it makes the most sense (ie: Uptown, etc) no matter what, and more effectively, to boot. I mean, if you can build [x] number of units on a [x] sized lot and NOT have to pay that much more for quite as many parking spaces, then you can essentially make it more dense. Any high-dollar, big-scale developer would be happy to take advantage of that.

Also, it could be argued that the proper "scale" should be many, many more micro-dense dwellings. It doesn't have to just be 2 or 3 story buildings. Maybe a whole bunch of 10-story tall buildings that are 50 ft wide, on a tiny lot, and with no dedicated parking. Is it a high rise? No. Is it dense? Yes. Is the core of a city like CLT the place to put that kind of thing? Absolutely. It would be even more efficient in space used, because it's using a higher ratio of its space on actual human dwellings, rather than car storage.

EDIT: Didn't realize I'd write a novel. I lack brevity.

Edited June 27, 2016 by SgtCampsalot

[kermit]

21 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

As for people using alternative methods of transportation, I am all for encouraging that but I don't think that hand should be forced. 

But here is the thing, minimum parking requirements force people to pay some of the cost of driving (parking real estate) regardless of their mode choice. Parking is obscenely expensive to build so the cost must be recovered in rent, retail prices etc. if you choose to bike or take transit to work or shop you are still forced to pay this subsidy to drivers. Lots of people shrug this cost off by saying 'well everybody drives' while this might be kinda true, the existence of this this subsidy is one of the many things that encourages people to drive and discourages people from trying alternative modes (e.g. "why should I bother to bike or move closer to work when I know there is plenty of free parking"). 

Transportation subsidies (for all modes) need to end. Parking is one of the biggest and most distorting subsidies.

Edited June 28, 2016 by kermit

[jednc]

The NCGA just agreed to a budget. Post of that agreement includes this: " Repeals the $500,000 cap on state funding for light rail projects effective for the next round of project prioritization (P5.0)."

Sorry about the font change...

[kermit]

^ yes, but according to the Observer the state merely changed the cap to 10% of total project costs. Blue Line and BLE received 25% of total costs from the state, DOLRT planned on 25% as well. The state seems to have no hesitance paying for 50-100% of the cost of roads.

Edited June 28, 2016 by kermit

[cjd5050]

13 hours ago, kermit said:

But here is the thing, minimum parking requirements force people to pay some of the cost of driving (parking real estate) regardless of their mode choice. Parking is obscenely expensive to build so the cost must be recovered in rent, retail prices etc. if you choose to bike or take transit to work or shop you are still forced to pay this subsidy to drivers. Lots of people shrug this cost off by saying 'well everybody drives' while this might be kinda true this subsidy simply encourages people to drive and discourages people from trying alternative modes. 

Transportation subsidies (for all modes) need to end. Parking is one of the biggest and most distorting subsidies.

I think there are more factors in play that a person considers when looking at transportation than the cost of parking.  

Like it or not, Charlotte is really spread out.  So taking a bike to work is not a viable option for many no matter the desire to do so.  As for taking transit, that's why I said until Charlotte has a more robust mass transit system it's not reasonable to force the hand of people to use it.  

As for transportation subsidies, I don't agree that all need to end.  I think everything but mass transportation needs to be drastically cut back and then expand mass transportation spending.  Just my personal take.  I absolutely think the car culture needs to be broken down but I think this should be done by providing better alternatives not forcing the hand of residents.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cjd5050]

16 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

However, this brings the discussion into the long-view: how will we reorganize our built-environment to not necessitate as much driving in the first place? Rather than having on CBD in the center of a huge metro area, we will need to promote making hundreds of tiny "downtown" cores throughout our metros. Then, maybe all of the high-paying jobs that people work in Uptown for can be spread out to other almost-as-easily-accessible places, rather than one huge core.
This will obviously begin most strongly along our transit corridors, but it can, and must, happen in many of the strip malls and subdivisions where nobody can walk to buy a pack of smokes. Adding housing to single-use commercial areas. Adding middle-density housing and commercial/office to the single-use residential areas (whether garden apts, or subdivisions). This is the kind of thing that will just need to happen out of financial necessity. Our government bodies are on the line for too much infrastructure upkeep as it is.

Agree 100% with this.  

I said this in the River District thread but I think the real opportunity for Charlotte right now is to extend light rail from Uptown to the River District through the Airport.   Not only do you connect to the last 'big' development in Charlotte and can change the course of how that's built but you run through all of those strip malls.  It would take a lot of gentrification but I think gentrification and removing the car culture go hand in hand.  

[kermit]

3 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

 I think this should be done by providing better alternatives not forcing the hand of residents.  

I'll reiterate that parking minimum requirements force the hand of everyone to pay for parking (whether they use it or not).

Removing parking minimums does not mean that parking will be eliminated, it will merely reduce our massive oversupply of parking and allow people who choose to consume parking to acquire it through normal market forces.  I have always been puzzled as to why the development industry (and much of the public) tends to be against government regulation of any kind except for parking -- the deregulation of parking (via the removal of minimums) would make the development process much cheaper and easier and rapidly change cities for the better.

I do understand that the cost of parking is not the only component of mode choice, but our reluctance to price it appropriately is one of the biggest reasons why Charlotte is so spread out.

Edited June 28, 2016 by kermit

[jednc]

15 hours ago, kermit said:

^ yes, but according to the Observer the state merely changed the cap to 10% of total project costs. Blue Line and BLE received 25% of total costs from the state, DOLRT planned on 25% as well. The state seems to have no hesitance paying for 50-100% of the cost of roads.

 

I missed that detail somehow. Thanks for expounding.

[kermit]

Could it finally be here???? (I have not yet tried it)

edit: my initial take away is that its clunky and not very intuitive. Still can't figure out how to get vehicle locations to show on the map (disclaimer, I am old)

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by kermit

[CLT704]

6 hours ago, kermit said:

Could it finally be here???? (I have not yet tried it)

edit: my initial take away is that its clunky and not very intuitive. Still can't figure out how to get vehicle locations to show on the map (disclaimer, I am old)

 

Does this mean we can have a transit layer on google maps now?

[southslider]

Google maps uses schedule.  The new app calculates real-time. Both show bus stops.  Neither show bus vehicles.

[CoffeeSamurai]

I tried the new app. Is it really GPS based? Or is there some kind of delay between the bus signal and the app? I wanted to see how it worked and was watching for a bus that goes by and it did not seem like it was "live" GPS. 

[grodney]

I have the new app.  The train is definitely NOT GPS-based, as is claimed.  My train this morning was about 2 stops behind schedule, so I brought up a station 2 stops ahead of us....and that station showed a countdown to the next train arrival...50 seconds....39 seconds....11 seconds..........9 minutes.  And we were still 1.5 stops away.  So anyway, that's total BS...how can they say "Times are derived from GPS devices located on CATS and LYNX vehicles."?

I also get the impression from some reviewers that they can see the moving trains/buses on the map???  I don't see anything like that.  Maybe I'm just mis-reading them.  From the Android Market (Play Store) reviews: "I love how you can see the progression of the bus as it gets close to my stop." and "the virtual bus on the app floats along...".

I'm running Android 5.1.1 on a Galaxy S5, if that matters.

[Matthew.Brendan]

 Fake reviews by those who coded the app. lol. 

[kermit]

From the Charmeck.org page where you download the app (link contained in CATS tweet above):

"The Live Tracker screen displays a map with the location of the bus/train and the list of stops"

 

[grodney]

20 minutes ago, kermit said:

From the Charmeck.org page where you download the app (link contained in CATS tweet above):

"The Live Tracker screen displays a map with the location of the bus/train and the list of stops"

 

What the frick?  Ahhhhh, also from that site:

Current levels of Smartphone and Operating System supported are

 

iPhone	Andriod
6s - 9.3.2 (Current)	Motorola Droid Ultra 4.4 -KitKat
6 - 9.3.2 (Current)	Nexus 6 6.0.1 (Current)
5s - 9.3.2 (Current)	Galaxy S6 6.0.1 (Current)
Tablet - iPad Air - iOS 9.3.2	Tablet - Nexus 9 6.0.1

 

So there you go....my S5 with 5.1.1 isn't new enough, allegedly.  Geez, less than 10% of android users are on 6.x (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history#/media/File:Android_historical_version_distribution_-_vector.svg).  Something's still wonky, though, because generally Play Store doesn't even let you install if your device doesn't support it.  Could it really be that I can install the app but not have full functionality?  (By the way, the app on my device says version 2.0.34 which matches the explainer page in Play Store.)

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by grodney

[kermit]

OS differences also fail to explain the outright errors/innacuracies you are finding.

I have a kosher OS on my ipad (9.3.2) and can't get vehicle locations to show.

Edited July 7, 2016 by kermit

[southslider]

Vehicle locations aren't shown, just protected times by bus stop.

[cltbwimob]

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

The Silver Line has been officially narrowed down to two of the original four options Option A and Option B. 

I was hoping Option C would be the one that was picked as I thought it struck the best balance between speed, reliability, and redevelopment opportunities.  However, given Options A and B, I think that Option A is the better of the two.  I also think it will be the cheapest to implement.

Edited July 8, 2016 by cltbwimob