Charlotte Center City Streetcar Network

[grodney]

It's an Op-Ed, not an article.  I'm sure Agenda would take a rebuttal/supportive Op-Ed, if anyone were so inclined.

[ajfunder]

^I like how he corrected the article to say phase two will charge a fare but still leaves in his other points (half his argument) that also relate to the streetcar not charging a fare, the bus currently does charge a fair, etc.

Also, I would be shocked if 16mph is the max speed on the later phase sections so I'm not sure if that argument is valid either. The streetcars in Portland got up to 25mph-30mph in sections.

Edited June 9, 2015 by ajfunder

[kermit]

Aside from Elizabeth, how much opportunity is there for densification? It isn't running through a bunch of empty properties like the light rail line was when it was opened. Clearly there are some opportunities along the way, but I think it is more than fair to say anything close to Uptown is getting developed regardless of street car anyway.

 

I'm a firm believer we won't see this thing expanded beyond phase II for decades, so how much development potential does it really bring?

I dunno, beyond the motherlode of space around Elizabeth ave I see some scope for new multifamily infil along Hawthorne and still lots of interesting options around the CSX (particularly if the city moves their garbagetruck lot). Also plenty of infil options west of 77, particularly past five points. You don't need vacant lots to see density increases.

[kermit]

BRT with it's own dedicated lane and shelters with traffic control, as others have said.  Would have been a 1/10th of the cost and at least gone the speed limit..

Sure, but normal-sized buses don't have the caciy to move 2-4 times more people than they are currently carrying and articulated busses are illegal in Charlotte thanks to Dan Codfelter's previous gig in Raleigh. Increasing bus frequency will also jack up operating costs substantially -- thus making it a tempting target for cost cutting -- thus making developers and commuters skittish about long-term investments.

[elrodvt]

Sure, but normal-sized buses don't have the caciy to move 2-4 times more people than they are currently carrying and articulated busses are illegal in Charlotte thanks to Dan Codfelter's previous gig in Raleigh. Increasing bus frequency will also jack up operating costs substantially -- thus making it a tempting target for cost cutting -- thus making developers and commuters skittish about long-term investments.

Can someone tell me what the reasoning was behind the articulated bus legislation? Sounds insane on the surface.

[kermit]

Can someone tell me what the reasoning was behind the articulated bus legislation? Sounds insane on the surface.

Codfelter represented the East side when he was in the state legislature. His constituents were against using BRT on the propsed Silverline running down Independence to Matthews, they wanted rail. CATS wanted BRT. (CATS was run by Ron Tobler at the time -- the guy responsible for building the Cleveland Health Line BRT). Codfelter's method for addressing his constituant's concerns was to create a bill that made articulated busses illegal. The bill passed and this essentially ended the discusison of BRT along Independence.

The timeline is fuzzy now, but I suspect that we would have BRT to Matthews now if it were not for the confluence of this bill and the blue line cost overruns.

I think the legislation just applied to Charlotte (or maybe just cities larger than x) because they do use articulated busses in Chapel Hill.

Edited June 9, 2015 by kermit

[Niner National]

Sure, but normal-sized buses don't have the caciy to move 2-4 times more people than they are currently carrying and articulated busses are illegal in Charlotte thanks to Dan Codfelter's previous gig in Raleigh. Increasing bus frequency will also jack up operating costs substantially -- thus making it a tempting target for cost cutting -- thus making developers and commuters skittish about long-term investments.

I find it hard to believe the trolley cars we're running can hold 2-4 times as many people as a normal bus. Especially when we only have 3 cars to use.

 

I'm assuming that number is based on using a real streetcar and not our gimmicky trolley?

[kermit]

 

I'm assuming that number is based on using a real streetcar and not our gimmicky trolley?

Yes

[ah59396]

Sure, but normal-sized buses don't have the caciy to move 2-4 times more people than they are currently carrying and articulated busses are illegal in Charlotte thanks to Dan Codfelter's previous gig in Raleigh. Increasing bus frequency will also jack up operating costs substantially -- thus making it a tempting target for cost cutting -- thus making developers and commuters skittish about long-term investments.

 

 

I think this is overstated though.  I rode the 15 on a weekly basis when I lived in Elizabeth.  It was never full and came right down Elizabeth and Trade Street.

 

I have a difficult time believing that the cost of bumping frequency would have even come close to matching the cost of the street car in its current form.  The Gomaco trolley has a capacity of 105 sitting + standing in comparison to say, an NABI 42 foot BRT (non-articulated I might add) which would hold 75 people.  We actually already have rolling stock of Gillig buses that have a capacity of roughly 70 sitting + standing.

[navigator319]

^I like how he corrected the article to say phase two will charge a fare but still leaves in his other points (half his argument) that also relate to the streetcar not charging a fare, the bus currently does charge a fair, etc.

Also, I would be shocked if 16mph is the max speed on the later phase sections so I'm not sure if that argument is valid either. The streetcars in Portland got up to 25mph-30mph in sections.

 

That is because I e-mailed Ted after reading the article this morning saying need to get the facts right even if an op-ed.  I am very happy he updated the article, i'll think ill send a thank you mail now

[kermit]

^ you are absolutely right about total costs -- a bus based system would always be way cheaper in terms of total dollars spent. However political entites see capital costs and operating costs as two completely seperate things. Capital costs are paid upfront (and frequently have huge federal subsidies) so they can't be cut to fix budget problems. On the other hand, operaitng costs are budgeted every year so they can be cut if the budget necessitates it. The high operating costs of a high frequency bus route are a tempting target when pols are looking for ways to avoid a tax increase. The very high capital costs of rail buys much lower operating costs on a per rider basis, so its a less tempting cut. This is one of the factors that allows rail to stimulate development and density while BRT does not.

Edited June 9, 2015 by kermit

[elrodvt]

^ you are absolutely right about total costs -- a bus based system would always be way cheaper, and this is the most sensible way to look at it. However political entites see capital costs and operating costs seperatly. Capital costs are paid upfront and so they can't be cut. Since Operating costs can be reduced one year to the next the relativey high operating costs of a high frequency bus route are a tempting target when pols are looking for ways to avoid a tax increase. The very high capital costs of rail buys much lower operating costs on a per rider basis, so its a less tempting cut. This is one of the factors that allows rail to stimulate development and density while BRT does not.

Wow, I feel dirty learning all this. ;-)  

 

In Denver, after much hate and discontent, the planned Commuter rail to Boulder was changed to BRT. The tradeoff was start now or start when the money is available with no date in site. The Boulder people were really bitter as everyone sees BRT as second class. I never heard the argument it could be cut.  

[tozmervo]

this feels like an appropriate time to ask - did the NCGA pass legislation that prohibits Mecklenburg from increasing the sales tax any further? I remember those discussions but don't remember if it actually happened.

[ah59396]

^ you are absolutely right about total costs -- a bus based system would always be way cheaper, and this is the most sensible way to look at it. However political entites see capital costs and operating costs seperatly. Capital costs are paid upfront and so they can't be cut. Since Operating costs can be reduced one year to the next the relativey high operating costs of a high frequency bus route are a tempting target when pols are looking for ways to avoid a tax increase. The very high capital costs of rail buys much lower operating costs on a per rider basis, so its a less tempting cut. This is one of the factors that allows rail to stimulate development and density while BRT does not.

Interesting. The development aspect certainly can't be ignored.

Out of curiosity, would a dedicated BRT line with stations similar to our street car line not be a "bridge" between the gap of bus to rail? In regards to how it is viewed politically as a capital cost?

[15895]

I wouldn't use a single bus to get around Charlotte. I would use express buses to get to CLT. But I'm not bussing around from Uptown to say Plaza. I would hop on rail though and visit Plaza.

Not because buses are beneath, but I'm not going into Charlotte leaving my car just to catch buses. With rail, I know myself and my friends would buy daily passes and neighborhood hop.

I think the biggest critics are people from towns like Albenarle and will be against everything in general like Romare Bearden park.

Build it. It will be successful as far as streetcar lines go.

[kermit]

Out of curiosity, would a dedicated BRT line with stations similar to our street car line not be a "bridge" between the gap of bus to rail? In regards to how it is viewed politically as a capital cost?

To a degree yes, BRT is a middle ground between regular buses and rail. The more fixed investment you can put into a route (raised platforms, shelters, offboard fare machines) the less likely pols are to walk away from the route. The difficulty with BRT is that vehicle capacities are limited so the operating costs per passegner for BRT are always higher than for rail (assuming rapdership targets are achieved) so there is always a bigger finacial reward to cutting BRT operating expenses over rail operating expenses.

The other aspect of capital intensive projects that is relevant here is that the Feds frequently subsidise huge portions of capital costs (50% is typical for transit even though the feds paid for 80% of the interstate highway system). But there are few, if any, federal subsidies for operating costs. This has the effect of encouraging to build rail (the big grant awards look great on resumes) and discourages them from building BRT (becuase relatively high operating costs must be born by the local transit system).

Edited June 9, 2015 by kermit

[ah59396]

I wouldn't use a single bus to get around Charlotte. I would use express buses to get to CLT. But I'm not bussing around from Uptown to say Plaza. I would hop on rail though and visit Plaza.

Not because buses are beneath, but I'm not going into Charlotte leaving my car just to catch buses. With rail, I know myself and my friends would buy daily passes and neighborhood hop.

I think the biggest critics are people from towns like Albenarle and will be against everything in general like Romare Bearden park.

Build it. It will be successful as far as streetcar lines go.

You wouldn't use a dedicated bus line, with sheltered stops similar to a street car and raised platforms?

To a degree yes, BRT is a middle ground between regular buses and rail. The more fixed investment you can put into a route (raised platforms, shelters, offboard fare machines) the less likely pols are to walk away from the route. The difficulty with BRT is that vehicle capacities are limited and smaller than modern rail vehicles. This means that the operating costs per passegner for BRT are always higher than for rail (assuming rapdership targets are achieved) so there is always a bigger finacial reward to cutting it over rail.

The other aspect of capital intensive projects that is relevant here is that the Feds frequently subsidise huge portions of capital costs (50% is typical, but they paid for 80% of the interstate highway sustem). But there are few, if any, federal subsidies for operating costs. This encourages localities to build rail and essentially discourages them from building BRT.

So essentially we would not have been eligible for any federal funding for a fixed investment BRT line, unlike the grants we received for the Streetcar? That certainly is impactful if so.

[15895]

^ I probably wouldn't. I would if I were commuting to uptown or lived there just like I take 77X & 48X to uptown from Huntersville. As a visitor, I'll just take rail to NoDa &. SouthEnd instead. It may be irrational but I'm being honest

[ah59396]

^ I probably wouldn't. I would if I were commuting to uptown or lived there just like I take 77X & 48X to uptown from Huntersville. As a visitor, I'll just take rail to NoDa &. SouthEnd instead. It may be irrational but I'm being honest

 

Can't fault anyone for being honest!  Haha.

[Spartan]

Codfelter represented the East side when he was in the state legislature. His constituents were against using BRT on the propsed Silverline running down Independence to Matthews, they wanter rail. CATS wanted BRT. CATS was run by Ron Tobler at the time -- Tobler was they guy responsible for the Cleveland Health Line BRT, so he knew that a BRT could so a decent job on that corridor. Codfelter's solution was to get a bill passed that made articulated busses illegal in order to force CATS to the rail option on the east side.

The tomeline is fuzzy now, but I suspect that we would have BRT to Matthews now if it were not for the confluence of this bill, the blue line cost overruns and the transit tax repeal refferendum in 2007. (Assuming that BRT construction got started before the recession)

I think the legislation just applied to Charlotte (or maybe just cities larger than x) because they do use articulated busses in Chapel Hill.

this feels like an appropriate time to ask - did the NCGA pass legislation that prohibits Mecklenburg from increasing the sales tax any further? I remember those discussions but don't remember if it actually happened.

 

Regarding the two posts above... North Carolina is a Dillon's Rule state, meaning that the General Assembly must pass enabling legislation in order for any subordinate jurisdiction to be able to do pretty much any thing. So, the legislature specifically passed a law that prohibited Mecklenburg from using articulated buses (which otherwise would have been fine since transit in general is allowed), but never passed a law that enabled Mecklenburg to have a referendum to increase the sales tax for transit again.

 

(BTW the opposite of Dillon's Rule is 'Home Rule' which is what South Carolina has. Essentially, subordinate jurisdictions have more freedom to enact local laws unless the General Assembly specifically forbids it)

[southslider]

^was his tactic at the time to prevent BRT on Independence Blvd

[kermit]

^was his tactic at the time to prevent BRT on Independence Blvd

Yes

[kermit]

A short early history of the Streetcar:

 

The streetcar line from Beaties Ford / I-85 to the Eastland Transit center was prioritized by the MTC as project #3 (after the BLE and red line) on the 2030 Transit plan (this was back in 2006). The original timeline had engineering beginning in 2013 and the full line’s completion by 2023. (this is per the wiki page so YMMV).

 

As we all know the 2030 plan blew up in the recession due to sales tax revenue declines and South line cost overruns. In 2008 Grubb was planning a massive mixed-use project (movie theatre, Whole Foods, condos, and (maybe) office space) on Elizabeth ave near Hawthorne. This was imagined as a TOD type development and an agreement was reached between Grubb and the City to that 1) Grubb would purchase the rails for the streetcar along Elizabeth ave and the city would install them during a planned streetscape / repaving project on Elizabeth ave. The goal of this was to 1) get some private investment in transit, 2) only tear up Elizabeth ave once for rail installation and 3) speed construction on the streetcar to serve the Grubb project. The streetscape project and rails were completed in 2009/2010. Grubb cancelled the project in 2008/2009 (after the rails were purchased and the streetscape project had commenced).

 

In 2010 the Federal Transit Administration sponsored an “Urban Circulator Grant Program” (similar to the current TIGER program). The largest portion of this grant program was allocated to streetcar development (a smaller portion of the program could be used to fund other forms of transit). The city of Charlotte applied (not CATS). The grant application emphasized that the city had 1) already spent money on engineering studies (part of the 2030 plan), 2) the rails that were in place on Elizabeth and 3) CATS already owned the three replica streetcar vehicles which were purchased as part of the South line project. These investments were listed in the urban circulator grant proposal as part of the city's local match. Since the grant application built on existing rail project assets AND was submitted to the streetcar portion of the urban circulator grant program the $25 million federal grant could NOT have been used for BRT or enhanced bus service.

 

[this is mostly from memory, posts from the Transport Politic and a little from wikipedia, don't hesitate to provide corrections where needed].

 

Looking all this up reminded me that the MTC really needs to revisit and update the 2030 plan.
 

Edited June 9, 2015 by kermit

[kermit]

This is the wrong thread but....

 

Heritage streetcar service is moving towards reality in Belmont (between downtown and Belmont Abbey on the former P&N tracks)

 

http://www.gastongazette.com/spotlight/plans-on-track-for-belmont-trolley-between-downtown-abbey-1.489111?ot=hmg.PrintPageLayout.ot&print=photo

 

I'll boldly predict that our phase one of the Gold Line will have higher ridership than this project.

Edited June 9, 2015 by kermit

[Third Strike]

This is the wrong thread but....

 

Heritage streetcar service is moving towards reality in Belmont (between downtown and Belmont Abbey on the former P&N tracks)

 

http://www.gastongazette.com/spotlight/plans-on-track-for-belmont-trolley-between-downtown-abbey-1.489111?ot=hmg.PrintPageLayout.ot&print=photo

 

I'll boldly predict that our phase one of the Gold Line will have higher ridership than this project.

 

You know, that's pretty damn cool. I think having a streetcar service in Belmont is huge for a town that size. Wouldn't they be the second only city/town in North Carolina that would have a streetcar running? It would also be cool if an interurban system was reestablished on that line, from Uptown Charlotte to Belmont. Though, I do think the CSX owns a small part of that line, so that would be a problem.