Charlotte Center City Streetcar Network

[15895]

^ it's not like light rail would be that much faster. This is for inner-city transit and is intended to stimulate a migration pattern to draw tax payers into urban Charlotte (Charlotte can't keep growing out forever)

From Bland Street to 7th street, Lynx doesn't go that fast anyway. I can't imagine streetcar going any slower than LRT would from say Bland to 7th... So I assume for the most part, the LRT would be comparable to Streetcar on the east/west corridor.

I would not agree with a streetcar system tha serves connecting the burbs to the city. That is inefficient. This is linking 3 neighborhoods on top of urbanizing Charlotte and influencing the growth pattern Of Charlotte.

[dubone]

The Siemens S70 which we use for our "light rail" system is also sold to other cities for their "streetcar" systems.  Granted, when they are designed to run on streets (yes, different design for different purpose), they only do single car trains, but half the time that is how we operate our Lynx system -- with one car.    Houston's "light rail" system uses the S70 and they run in mixed traffic.  San Diego's "streetcar" system uses the S70 and they run in mixed traffic.      The "streetcar" version of the vehicle is 10' shorter, but meanwhile Salt Lake City ordered the 'streetcar' length S70 for their dedicated right of way TRAX system.     

 

"Streetcar" is marginally smaller light rail vehicles in mixed traffic.   Of course it is a different purpose than cross-county systems with bridges and dedicated rights of way.  But it is practically, and in some cases the exact, same vehicles.   Sure, the historic or replica "trolleys" are much smaller and typical of the vintage design styles of a streetcar.  But the project that we are pushing for is a light rail vehicle that operates on a short length with more frequent stops, without dedicated right of way.   It is reduce cost, and to have a different focus of serving the densest neighborhoods in the city versus delivering people into town in a high speed competitive with an interstate commute.

 

Splitting hairs, maybe, but my point is that the line we plan is and should be closer to a mixed-traffic, frequent-stop "light rail" line than compared to nostalgic/vintage trolley lines they have in SF or NOLA.  So we should describe more as that than belittling it with terms that connote those rickety antiques that people have spent their money on as tourists.  

 

The one saving grace is that if they design the streetcar tracks like they did on Elizabeth Ave, drivers will avoid Trade St like the plague like they currently avoid Elizabeth Ave, as driving on those horribly designed humpy streets bouncing all over the place is a very uncomfortable experience.  So that should make it a virtually dedicated right of way anyway, and then we are back to "light rail".  

[RVA2CLT]

The Siemens S70 which we use for our "light rail" system is also sold to other cities for their "streetcar" systems. Granted, when they are designed to run on streets (yes, different design for different purpose), they only do single car trains, but half the time that is how we operate our Lynx system -- with one car. Houston's "light rail" system uses the S70 and they run in mixed traffic. San Diego's "streetcar" system uses the S70 and they run in mixed traffic. The "streetcar" version of the vehicle is 10' shorter, but meanwhile Salt Lake City ordered the 'streetcar' length S70 for their dedicated right of way TRAX system.

"Streetcar" is marginally smaller light rail vehicles in mixed traffic. Of course it is a different purpose than cross-county systems with bridges and dedicated rights of way. But it is practically, and in some cases the exact, same vehicles. Sure, the historic or replica "trolleys" are much smaller and typical of the vintage design styles of a streetcar. But the project that we are pushing for is a light rail vehicle that operates on a short length with more frequent stops, without dedicated right of way. It is reduce cost, and to have a different focus of serving the densest neighborhoods in the city versus delivering people into town in a high speed competitive with an interstate commute.

Splitting hairs, maybe, but my point is that the line we plan is and should be closer to a mixed-traffic, frequent-stop "light rail" line than compared to nostalgic/vintage trolley lines they have in SF or NOLA. So we should describe more as that than belittling it with terms that connote those rickety antiques that people have spent their money on as tourists.

The one saving grace is that if they design the streetcar tracks like they did on Elizabeth Ave, drivers will avoid Trade St like the plague like they currently avoid Elizabeth Ave, as driving on those horribly designed humpy streets bouncing all over the place is a very uncomfortable experience. So that should make it a virtually dedicated right of way anyway, and then we are back to "light rail".

Agreed, and well worded. You should have briefed the Mayor before he went to pitch this to council.

Also Dallas' DART Light Rail Red, Blue and Greenline turn into 'street cars', since they are in mixed-traffic, in the heart of downtown.

Most Charlotteans who are opposed to this project are suburban-living and probably never lived a life-style in another city where transit options are the norm and life-blood of the city.

It's tough battling the mindset and commuter culture of the majority of a population who grew-up and live in the burbs where getting around in a car is the norm and traveling by bus means you're poor.

The fact of the matter is a StreetCar (Tram for the Euro savvy) will tie the neighbohoods to the city center and allow for more inter-connectivity and strengthen each neighborhood's uniquity and desiriability as a place to visit, live, and start/move a business. They would become accessible and attractive to visitors and tourists and could become marketable 'brand name' destination places within Charlotte, such as neighborrhoods in NYC and SF. It's already happening with South End and NoDa. South End even has registered/copyrighted it's logo, Now that's Brand ownership.

Personaly I look forward to the day where I can hop on the lightrail at Bland, jump off/on the Street-Tram at CTC, take it to Plaza Midwood for an early dinner and drinks, back through a re-viving Elizabeth, jumping off to meet friends at a new bar and then back on the Street-Tram to Gateway Station to meet my cousin arriving to town from Richmond after which we walk a couple blocks over to BB&T Ballpark for the Knight's game. One Day... Hopefully it will be a day when I will still be living here.

Edited December 13, 2012 by RVA2CLT

[Urbanity]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and put forth a rather blasphemous idea for this board, but what the hell (pun intended):

 

Maybe the Streetcar should in fact be a street car/trolley.  I say that with appreciation of all the liabilities AND glory that such a visual provides.

 

The earlier mention of New Orleans and San Francisco, along with the planned route, and the long term funding issues, just makes me ask out loud: would it really be so horrible to move the discussion (one which I think is losing) from important-mass-transit-that-is-not-what-you-think-it-is-when-you-hear-the-phrase-streetcar to, uhm, a streetcar?

 

Promote it as a long term investment to be funded by local TIF and BID funds.  State the purpose as enhancing neighborhoods along the line with a sense of connection and community (which is different from calling it an economic engine which people do not buy when it comes to increasing taxes) that directly and demonstrably increases the size of Charlotte's overall visitor destination area (area being defined as that the conventional wisdom of where tourists and trade shows consider easily accessible from the core) which in turn helps the city land more convention business and tourist dollars.  

 

But stop arguing it is a vital transit need for the city that requires the same appreciation as the conventional right-of-way Light Rail.  No matter how we rationalize things like adjusted traffic lights or cars avoiding streets where it operates it is not going to be seen as rapid transit any different from a bus (at least until it is fully built out).  So why waste citizen good-will by trying to convince them otherwise?

 

Change the M.O. to what I described above.  Give all trade-shows attendees a free pass card.  Use the old trolleys and have it run primarily from Five Points on the west side to Plaza-Midwood. Maybe I'm completely off base here but I think PR battle is lost and until the economy is in full swing the willingness to spend/increase tax funds is directly tied to salesmanship - and the streetcar in it's current form doesn't have it.

[dubone]

That is what broke ground today.   But for safety reasons they won't use the antique car (although NOLA and SF do).

 

Many people also remember the $30-50m trolley line half of which was virtually ripped out when the blue line was funded and built.  It did draw tourists who rode up and back purely for amusement.  Many assume this is the same type of project, for history and a tourism gimmick. 

 

But we do need a higher capacity rail line to take over what is currently 3 of the most used bus lines (Beatties Ford, Central Ave, and Red Gold Rush).   Certainly the line that just broke ground will take over from the Gold Rush at CTC, and the old cars might help draw some tourist riders like the trolley buses do.  But most are riders doing a hop-on-hop-off service to speed up a 15-20 minute walk, which is how I use the Gold Rush now.  Being able to take it to Midtown or hospital area will be a good thing, and once it is running beyond 6p, it will actually be more convenient to get to the Elizabeth Ave nightlife, too, which the Gold Rush does not provide.

[thetrick]

There are many shades of grey between traditional light rail and old school street car, and simply thinking it has to be one or the other is short sighted. 

 

Do you want a streetcar that can run multiple cars? you can get that. Operating in a median with timed lights can be significantly faster than a bus or car. For example How about a line to the airport that runs single car trains for local stops along Wilkinson (median), but then runs dedicated multiple unit trains from the airport to downtown and back.  Then use the same car type for the high density routes like Beatties Ford and Central. 

 

Over time some of these routes may grow from just interconnecting neighborhoods to having more of a commuter operation. Some times I get the feeling that people think that once you build it, it can never change. One thing I have learned in the civil engineering field is that you can realistically plan for maybe 5-10 year, but changes in demographics, economy, and technology make plans past that point a real stab in the dark.

 

The current streetcar plan will at least be something for people to begin to understand what a streetcar is. Do you not remember how they used the old historic trolley line where the Lynx is now? That original little historic fun ride was basically a sales pitch, and as far as I am concerned a brilliant idea that grew the necessary support for the blue line. Using the historic trolley again may be a little hokey, but it gets us started with minimal risk.

[Matthew.Brendan]

So will modern cars be able to run on the rails being built now? Why are we not running them from the start? (Cost, I imagine?) Is there a time frame for the transition?

I'm all for this and increased public transportation in general but agree completely that the old trolley cars are hokey at best and will certainly help cement the negative attitudes towards this project, at least among those already predisposed against it

[15895]

They'll use modern streetcars when it is expanded. That's what Foxx has been saying... If we approve funding soon, the extension and the starter line open at the same time and we won't have to use trolleys and ridership will be in the thousands as opposed to, well..... Not many people.

Edited December 13, 2012 by AirNostrumMAD

[Missmylab4]

Will this supplant Concord Mills as North Carolina's number 1 tourist draw??? With the antique cars. That is just a shame the city won't step up and buy some modern cars if the CIP doesn't pass.

[15895]

It's not going to be a tourist attraction in anyway, shape, nor form...

The streetcar is supposed to connect inner city neighborhoods to other rail and bus stations to support The Charlotte wide transit system. Also, it will revitalize East and West Urban Charlotte. This will encourage Charlotte to grow in instead Of out (loosing tax payers) and also encourages density as opposed to sprawl.

The daily ridership will well be over in the thousands connecting the Rosa parks transit center to CTC/Lynx/Gateway, connecting Plaza, Elizabeth, JCSU University, Johnson and Wales University, Central piedmont Community College, Uptown, Bobcats arena, etc. it's not high speed RoW like the blue line but it's not meant to connect the suburbs to the city. It's meant to get from one side of the city to the other. It's for people who live at new bern who want to go to Plaza who otherwise would take blue line to NoDa. It encourages a dense migration pattern.

Edited December 13, 2012 by AirNostrumMAD

[tozmervo]

So will modern cars be able to run on the rails being built now? Why are we not running them from the start? (Cost, I imagine?) Is there a time frame for the transition?

 

The only thing being built now that may potentially be different with modern streetcars would be the overhead catenary lines. They are needed to power the traditional trolleys and most streetcars. There are newer power systems that don't require catenary lines, and they are slowly coming into use around the world. Once the line is extended, they may opt for one of these newer systems and the catenary lines would go out of use.

 

(I have been told that if the CIP is passed and they choose to use a new power system, they can still pull the catenary lines from the starter project)

[ah59396]

This won't be a tourist attraction. No one will pay to ride that train 1.5 miles to Presbyterian hospital and back. There is nothing historical along the route and even if we do get development down the road, it will be years from now.

This isn't Ybor city, it's Trade Street.

[New Name]

^True... but lets just say that Grubb turns starts marketing some of his open lots as "park & ride" for events uptown for the suburban folks who aren't convenient to use the LYNX.... 

[thetrick]

My favorite idea as far as new technology goes for streetcars is the Hybrid streetcar, and it has already been tested in Charlotte.

 

http://potomacexpress.blogspot.com/2011/01/hybrid-streetcar-unveiled-in-charlotte.html

 

Do not underestimate the potential cost savings and visual impact of only having to install overhead catenary (overhead power wires) in select areas. Imagine no wires in intersections, in tree lined streets. Also the streetcar would have a reduced overhead clearance requirement so potentially less overhead infrastructure (bridges ect) would need to be replaced.

[ah59396]

^ Can't agree more.  I saw that article a while back and was mad I missed the day they tested it.  What a fantastic concept.

[Urbanity]

Makes you wonder if there is such a push for innovative and creative ways to fund the project that maybe some kind of deal could be worked out with Kinkisharyo for the city to use loaner cars while highlighting the company?

[Matthew.Brendan]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. For a city like Charlotte which has no problem tearing down it's past to build new shiny things it's a shame that it is mostly a rehash of last century ideas and infrastructure with at best incremental improvements.

It would really be amazing if we were able to make bold choices in choosing technologies that really pushes us ahead as an innovative, 21st century city.

[Urbanity]

This week's CBJ is a 2013 forecast.  In the transportation/rail section they have one line that I absolutely think surmises my issue with the streetcar focus of late:

 

Somehow, in a year when the federal government committed to pay half the cost of the 9.3-mile, $1.16 billion BLE project between uptown and UNC Charlotte, a 2.5-mile streetcar segment has taken center stage and ignited a political firestorm.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I would like to see the streetcar built, but the year we celebrate five years of the opening (and resounding success) of Charlotte's first modern rail line, and when we received all the good news and forward momentum of the BLE to the University City area the discussion over mass transportation should be less fodder for real funding arguments outside of those diametrically opposed to mass transit in general.  Instead Walton's and Foxx's decision to push the streetcar makes it feel like 2007 again.

 

I can only hope (and I do have cautious optimism on this) that focus is renewed on the Commuter line and perhaps the airport line (which I disagree must rely on the streetcar happening) as two of the more attainable goals.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Urbanity

[Missmylab4]

Completely agree with the CBJ quote. The NIMBY/Tea Party has had a field day with this project. It's going to be productive infrastructure for us and future generations. People have trouble looking past themselves. This and all the mass transit projects can be looked at as one of the few investments made towards future generations. "Usually it's all about if it doesn't directly affect me then I don't need it." Which is really sad humans are wired this way.

P.S. earlier post was a bad attempt at humor. I want modern trams not replica trolleys to showcase the potential of the tram.

[cltbwimob]

The Siemens S70 which we use for our "light rail" system is also sold to other cities for their "streetcar" systems.  Granted, when they are designed to run on streets (yes, different design for different purpose), they only do single car trains, but half the time that is how we operate our Lynx system -- with one car.    Houston's "light rail" system uses the S70 and they run in mixed traffic.  San Diego's "streetcar" system uses the S70 and they run in mixed traffic.      The "streetcar" version of the vehicle is 10' shorter, but meanwhile Salt Lake City ordered the 'streetcar' length S70 for their dedicated right of way TRAX system.     

 

"Streetcar" is marginally smaller light rail vehicles in mixed traffic.   Of course it is a different purpose than cross-county systems with bridges and dedicated rights of way.  But it is practically, and in some cases the exact, same vehicles.   Sure, the historic or replica "trolleys" are much smaller and typical of the vintage design styles of a streetcar.  But the project that we are pushing for is a light rail vehicle that operates on a short length with more frequent stops, without dedicated right of way.   It is reduce cost, and to have a different focus of serving the densest neighborhoods in the city versus delivering people into town in a high speed competitive with an interstate commute.

 

Splitting hairs, maybe, but my point is that the line we plan is and should be closer to a mixed-traffic, frequent-stop "light rail" line than compared to nostalgic/vintage trolley lines they have in SF or NOLA.  So we should describe more as that than belittling it with terms that connote those rickety antiques that people have spent their money on as tourists.  

 

The one saving grace is that if they design the streetcar tracks like they did on Elizabeth Ave, drivers will avoid Trade St like the plague like they currently avoid Elizabeth Ave, as driving on those horribly designed humpy streets bouncing all over the place is a very uncomfortable experience.  So that should make it a virtually dedicated right of way anyway, and then we are back to "light rail".  

The San Diego Trolley is not a streetcar system.  It is a light rail system that runs 2 and 3 car trains in dedicated ROWs outside center city, and even inside center city, the trains are so long that they have approximately 4-6 times the capacity of a normal streetcar.  And I don't think that it is necessarily effective to argue the merits of a streetcar system based on Houston's LRT line because it is a light rail system, not a streetcar system and because it gained fame not due to it's ability to move passengers but rather it's frequent incursions with local traffic giving it the nickname "wham-bam-tram".  Furthermore I would like to point out that if you use S70 vehicles or something of similar size, then you will negate one of the primary cost advantages that streetcar has over light rail due to the increased cost of infrastructure improvements. Additionally, you will negate one of it's supposed operational advantages by making the turning radius much larger.  In such a hypothetical system, the only real cost savings would come from reducing ROW acquisition costs, and that would largely be replaced with the cost it takes to raze and rebuild a road to accept the streetcar.  Finally, the vehicles primarily used for streetcar in the US are not nearly as large as LRVs.  LRVs on average are 20-30 feet longer than streetcars.

 

All the good ideas that we come up with on this board that would significantly increase the streetcar's appeal as a true mass transit alternative such as larger cars, semi dedicated right-of-ways, etc, essentially would drive up the cost so much that it's costs savings over a true light rail line would be severely reduced.  We use all these gimmicks to argue the merits of the streetcar line when, in fact, we are the only ones talking about creating such a line.  In reality, the streetcar line currently being vetted by council is a streetcar in all it's former glory, designed to replace a couple of bus routes.  It will not run in semi dedicated ROWs, the vehicles will not be as large as LRVs, the trains will not be coupled, and it will be slow with one stop every 1/4-1/3 mile on average.  The arguments of supporters in  positions of authority such as telling people they don't understand, that somehow a vehicle that looks somewhat like an LRV will change the perception of streetcar, and that traffic light timers will change this from a bus on rails to a true mass transit system are not only weak, they are insulting to the intelligence of the people they are going to require to fund this expensive toy in the first place.  Perhaps the gang of six against the streetcar aren't the ones who don't understand; perhaps it's the mayor, the city manager, and the other five council members who don't understand.

 

I would be all for streectar if the plans never called for extending it beyond 1-1.5 miles from the 77/277 loop, but this line from one side of town to the other is a little ridiculous.  The thought of extending it to the airport is worse and the thought that this might one day find it's way to Matthews along Monroe Rd. nearly makes my blood boil.  My charge to those in council is to take a step back, help CATS find a way to get light rail to the airport and incrementally get light rail, not streetcar, to the east of the city.  It's popular, it spurs development, it relieves congestion, it improves air quality, it exceeds it's ridership projections by a large factor.  Streetcar will likely not even begin to touch the benefits that light rail will offer, not just to the city, but the Charlotte region as a whole. Despite the scare tactics of those such as Curt Walton who say federal funding has dried up for such projects, it can still receive federal funding.  The BLE did and the US Transportation Secretary was just in town this week with the news that transit funds are still available.  If the city chooses to go full steam ahead and ram streetcar down the throats of the public (especially the line along Monroe Rd.), then I, and possibly many others, will join the chorus of the "Repeal the Transit Tax" crowd.

Edited December 14, 2012 by cltbwimob

[tozmervo]

I think we're arguing two different systems for two different applications. LRT is intended for longer distance, faster, limited stop travel. The streetcar system is more appropriate for intra-neighborhood short range travel. I agree, it would not be appropriate for traveling from Matthews to Center City. But for traveling from Plaza Midwood to JCSU? It's the right scale for those neighborhoods. 

 

As for the ULI proposal for streetcar along Monroe, I thought that was a really nice idea with a lot of merit that would serve the neighborhoods adjacent to Monroe really well in a way that Independence, as a freeway, never will. If I were commuting to Uptown from Matthews, LRT or BRT would certainly be more appropriate as I'd have no interest in those neighborhoods. 

 

I think dubone's point is that Streetcar is a dedicated transit method that will be an improvement over existing bus lines in time, efficiency and energy usage. It's not just "replacing a couple of bus lines." 

[15895]

I think we're arguing two different systems for two different applications. LRT is intended for longer distance, faster, limited stop travel. The streetcar system is more appropriate for intra-neighborhood short range travel. I agree, it would not be appropriate for traveling from Matthews to Center City. But for traveling from Plaza Midwood to JCSU? It's the right scale for those neighborhoods.

."

Exactly. It'd be a 10 mile light rail line whose top speed would be no higher than the speedlimit.... The first extension we are discussing to JCSU will make the line like 5 miles long. Do you really advocate for a faster LRT over streetcar for that??? Edited December 14, 2012 by AirNostrumMAD

[cltbwimob]

I think we're arguing two different systems for two different applications. LRT is intended for longer distance, faster, limited stop travel. The streetcar system is more appropriate for intra-neighborhood short range travel. I agree, it would not be appropriate for traveling from Matthews to Center City. But for traveling from Plaza Midwood to JCSU? It's the right scale for those neighborhoods. 

 

As for the ULI proposal for streetcar along Monroe, I thought that was a really nice idea with a lot of merit that would serve the neighborhoods adjacent to Monroe really well in a way that Independence, as a freeway, never will. If I were commuting to Uptown from Matthews, LRT or BRT would certainly be more appropriate as I'd have no interest in those neighborhoods. 

 

I think dubone's point is that Streetcar is a dedicated transit method that will be an improvement over existing bus lines in time, efficiency and energy usage. It's not just "replacing a couple of bus lines." 

Perhaps I should provide some amplifying information then.  I would not be opposed to running the streetcar from JCSU to Plaza Midwood.  That would fit my "do not extend beyond 1.5 miles or so from center city" criteria.  Furthermore I would not be opposed to taking streetcar to Midtown, CMC, or Freedom Drive.  I think these are all places where streetcar would work in it's intended function as an urban circulator.  My problem does not lie with the CIP portion of the project (other than I think there are better ways to spend 120 million dollars) but the streetcar line as it is currently planned.  The line as it is currently planned will eventually stretch approximately 4 miles from center city in either direction, and consist of 34 stops across the entire line.  It will be incredibly slow because there is not enough time for it to build speed from one stop to the next.  In fact I doubt that it will be able to travel faster than 20 miles per hour between stops.  Just because the car is able to attain the speed limit in a testing environment doesn't mean it will be able to do the same in an operational environment.  The cars, despite the fact that they are smaller than LRVs still have quite a bit of mass and, as a result, a lot of weight (70,000-90,000 lbs).  Their weight is similar to that of a semi truck and trailer.  Could you imagine how painfully slow it would be to travel nearly 10 miles on a semi truck that stopped every 1/4-1/3 mile? ( I will remind everyone that top speed of the car is not the only consideration but also how it accelerates, decelerates and how comfortable it is when performing said tasks.)  Add into the aforementioned considerations that it would still operate in mixed traffic and be subject to any traffic jams or stalled vehicles blocking it's path (there is a picture of Toronto's streetcars backed up approximately 10 deep waiting on a wreck to get cleared) and you will increasingly see the appeal of the streetcar as a functioning transportation alternative becoming degraded.  I would also like to add that it's ability to affect development patterns is directly correlated with it's effectiveness as a transit system.  As such, if it's effectiveness as a transit system is questionable, then the argument that it would be an economic development tool is perhaps grossly overstated.  And the idea that development would follow due to the permanence of the rails as opposed to a bus which can be rerouted is fallacious.  Does anyone actually believe that somehow the bus routes that run along Central and Beatties Ford would ever magically be rerouted and that those areas would have no transit alternative?

 

My point is this: I do not necessarily have a problem with the CIP streetcar extension other than I think that money could be used more appropriately elsewhere.  My problem lies in the fact that the CIP is just a stepping stone to a project that I think will be bad for the Charlotte taxpayer, and that it is being prioritized over two of the major transit corridors in the system, the Airport and Southeast lines.  I do not think the full line should be built much less be prioritized over major commuter corridors.  Furthermore, streetcar to the Airport and Monroe Rd., in my opinion, represents some of the most shortsighted thinking to ever have a foothold in the halls of council or CATS.  The people who are trying to ram this project through council do not even have a defensible argument...Modern cars looks like light rail vehicles.  So what?  Modern streetcar systems operate like buses.  It will spur economic development? Only if it is effective as a true transportation system, and if that goes away, you run the risk of the area being just as blighted as it ever was, only now with an electrified rail system to provide you with a tour of the blight.  And that is why I take an antagonistic and perhaps ostracized viewpoint on the streetcar system.  It is not merely nomenclature that is the sticking point of this argument as some have suggested.  As it is planned, there are major operational differences between streetcar and light rail.  None of these ideas mentioned on this board aimed at turning the division between streetcar and light rail into an ever deeper hue of grey are being considered by those making the decisions.  That is why there is broad support for light rail but anemic support for streetcar.  Not because the public is ignorant, but that the public is informed on this issue.  That is why all these arguments about the merits of streetcar based on the success of the LYNX Blue Line are laughably weak. 

 

In the end we all know what this is about.  This is about densification and economic development neither of which I am inclined to believe will happen..at least not to the extent it has been promoted.  None of these streetcar plans are really based in their merits as true transportation systems, not the Central/Beatties line, definitely not the Airport line, and absolutely not the Monroe Rd line.  My solution is to build LRT from CTC to the airport, and then incrementally expand it to the east and southeast of the city using careful analysis of alignments over years of study and public inputs versus taking the suggestions of some panel of three people who spent a weekend in Charlotte.  After those lines and the Red Line are built, then maybe we can reinstate talks of incorporating streetcar into our overall transit future.

Edited December 14, 2012 by cltbwimob

[ah59396]

^I like a lot of what you said, except your belief that the public is "informed". Because it isn't.

If I were to go uptown right now and ask them about the streetcar, I would wager 3 of 10 would know where it is being built. 1 of 10 how it is funded.

But overall I agree streetcar should be lower on the totem pole. I still think it can work though if given an appropriate amount of ROW

[DEnd]

^I like a lot of what you said, except your belief that the public is "informed". Because it isn't.

If I were to go uptown right now and ask them about the streetcar, I would wager 3 of 10 would know where it is being built. 1 of 10 how it is funded.

But overall I agree streetcar should be lower on the totem pole. I still think it can work though if given an appropriate amount of ROW

 

I think the public is intuitively informed.  They may not know the specifics, but many people are rightfully concerned that a 10 mile street car may be a waste of money.  Even the 2.5 mile segment from JCSU to Presby may not be the best idea as the stretch is lightly (but densly) populated. The main impetus for the street car is that there is not an east west rail line that runs through the center city.

 

Basically the way I look at is as an interim step to a subway.  We need some sort of rail connection between gateway station, and the blue line.  Plaza-Midwood and JCSU are just sensible extensions that increase connectivity and allow for more dense housing along a path other than just North/South.