Charlotte's Light Rail: Lynx Blue Line

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, KJHburg said:

After bar fight or fight outside of bar pickup truck is seen driving down the LYNX tracks at Bland.

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local/truck-light-rail-tracks-fight-south-end-video-charlotte-nc/275-05bfdfdd-b10e-4b0c-992c-e138fab1fb57

Hope he or she gets a hefty fine and when is the bar being tore down??  Cousins I think owns it now the building anyway but I think they are starting the first phase across the street. 

Tech Hub indeed

[KJHburg]

Oh Channel 3 WBTV has better footage of the truck which went a few blocks down the LYNX tracks.

https://www.wbtv.com/2023/09/04/cats-deems-railway-safe-after-video-shows-pickup-truck-tracks-south-end/

[KJHburg]

 

[Blue_Devil]

16 hours ago, KJHburg said:

 

How much damage did that cause?

[KJHburg]

5 hours ago, Blue_Devil said:

How much damage did that cause?

CATS is saying they inspected the track but dont think it did any damage but who knows. 

[15895]

Saw this on the Twit (talking about how low ridership is in LA despite how extensive the system is becoming.) even when you include their heavy rail lines, it’s still a small amount of rail ridership especially for the size of LA.

But ignoring that, I just thought it was useful here too to see how Charlottes light rail compared to others (also note this excluded heavy rail & commuter rail. So no San Francisco BART, no Baltimore Metro, none of Boston or LA’s heavy rail lines, etc) 
 

 

Edit: off topic but exciting. I didn’t realize Phoenix was quietly building a nice network with already decent ridership despite its current size with some opening extensions in 2024:

Edited September 9, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[kermit]

^ Since our rail network is significantly shorter than Sacramento, St. Louis, Salt Lake, Minneapolis and Denver, we would certainly rank much better on a riders per mile chart.  Dallas has so much LRT mileage that we might end up beating them on a per mile basis as well (not sure).

Edited September 10, 2023 by kermit

[15895]

11 minutes ago, kermit said:

^ Since our rail network is significantly shorter than Sacramento, St. Louis, Salt Lake, Minneapolis and Denver, we would certainly rank much better on a riders per mile chart.  Dallas has so much LRT mileage that we might end up beating them on a per mile basis as well (not sure).

Yep. Charlotte does above average on TOD (I think. At very least, on its own merit, I think it’s good). DART is just the worst and proof building right is more important that building more. I bet a 10 mile heavy rail in Dallas mostly underground would have higher ridership than what its system currently handles. 
 

I think Charlotte was very lucky with where its rail road tracks were for the blue line and smart to go all in on TOD and capitalize on the good routing. I’m sort of glad the silver line is still where it is in its planning stage because I’m holding out hope the silver line gets it right (my ideal option being from Bojangles Coliseum, underground in uptown, directly to and terminating  at the airport as a Phase 1 and  Phase 2 median running independence to Matthews.)

[carolinaboy]

14 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

Saw this on the Twit (talking about how low ridership is in LA despite how extensive the system is becoming.) even when you include their heavy rail lines, it’s still a small amount of rail ridership especially for the size of LA.

But ignoring that, I just thought it was useful here too to see how Charlottes light rail compared to others (also note this excluded heavy rail & commuter rail. So no San Francisco BART, no Baltimore Metro, none of Boston or LA’s heavy rail lines, etc) 
 

 

Edit: off topic but exciting. I didn’t realize Phoenix was quietly building a nice network with already decent ridership despite its current size with some opening extensions in 2024:

What's funny about the first chart is there is no light rail in Virginia Beach. The light rail is in Norfolk and literally does not go into VA Beach. Doesn't make a difference but still.

[kermit]

5 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

What's funny about the first chart is there is no light rail in Virginia Beach. The light rail is in Norfolk and literally does not go into VA Beach. Doesn't make a difference but still.

^ Good catch. The boomer city council of Virginia Beach made quite a show of how much they did not want light rail to be extended into town (while using many dog whistles). Its really a shame. That stretch of road(s) is awful and the light rail would have run along an abandoned freight ROW the whole way. Would have been a very good route in one of the most auto-centric towns in the country.

Edited September 10, 2023 by kermit

[elrodvt]

18 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

Yep. Charlotte does above average on TOD (I think. At very least, on its own merit, I think it’s good). DART is just the worst and proof building right is more important that building more. I bet a 10 mile heavy rail in Dallas mostly underground would have higher ridership than what its system currently handles. 
 

I think Charlotte was very lucky with where its rail road tracks were for the blue line and smart to go all in on TOD and capitalize on the good routing. I’m sort of glad the silver line is still where it is in its planning stage because I’m holding out hope the silver line gets it right (my ideal option being from Bojangles Coliseum, underground in uptown, directly to and terminating  at the airport as a Phase 1 and  Phase 2 median running independence to Matthews.)

There are a lot of ways to look at this but I'm just not sure TOD is a great metric to judge our transit systems success. Shouldn't the most basic goal of a transit system (need to include busses of course) be to allow poor people to not purchase cars and thus improve their financial situation greatly? Secondly, to avoid building more roads and reduce cars and thus CO2 emissions and other pollutants. TOD is great for the upper middle class and above but I don't see how it helps the people who need transit the most. They're not going to be moving into these cool new neighborhoods, right? I do get it has to be sold politically and TOD does seem to do that well.

Maybe the question should be can I get to the main employment centers in the city without a car and in a reasonable commute time from all middle and poor class residential areas. Nope. Not even close!

These are just uneducated musings as I have no background in the subject other than trying to use public transit wherever possible and generally failing miserably. 

So, for you experts, what are CLT transits top goals and what are the best available measures of our systems success in meeting them? Do our expansion plans address the shortcomings or just buy new toys? 

[CLT2014]

Honestly if the goal was to help poor people, it would have been much more efficient to give everybody that doesn't own a car in Charlotte one $10,000 car for free. For around $150 million we could have helped those marginal households have actual access to jobs and opportunity that could change their life. Instead we built the Gold Line for around 1,700 people per day for the same cost. Luckily churches and nonprofits will fill the gap in trying to get poor people access to cars because it is a necessity for most in this city to live a successful life, have access to healthcare, jobs, education, and more. 

Bad math aside, I think the main goal of CATS with light rail is to promote real estate development, density, and walkable neighborhoods with actual transit to places as a secondary priority. If the goal was equality.... well... we are doing a pretty bad job at that with transit thus far. CATS is trying to move the needle on Charlotte eventually being a place that isn't car dependent, but that will likely take decades and not happen in most of our lifetimes at this rate. It really is only for the future generations... but assuming the age range here is around 21 - 65 and the current pace of the Silver Line... several posters will be dead before we see light rail in Charlotte again (bleak, but reality). 

Edited September 10, 2023 by CLT2014

[15895]

1 hour ago, elrodvt said:

There are a lot of ways to look at this but I'm just not sure TOD is a great metric to judge our transit systems success. Shouldn't the most basic goal of a transit system (need to include busses of course) be to allow poor people to not purchase cars and thus improve their financial situation greatly? Secondly, to avoid building more roads and reduce cars and thus CO2 emissions and other pollutants. TOD is great for the upper middle class and above but I don't see how it helps the people who need transit the most. They're not going to be moving into these cool new neighborhoods, right? I do get it has to be sold politically and TOD does seem to do that well.

Maybe the question should be can I get to the main employment centers in the city without a car and in a reasonable commute time from all middle and poor class residential areas. Nope. Not even close!

These are just uneducated musings as I have no background in the subject other than trying to use public transit wherever possible and generally failing miserably. 

So, for you experts, what are CLT transits top goals and what are the best available measures of our systems success in meeting them? Do our expansion plans address the shortcomings or just buy new toys? 

For me, & all of this is just my opinion, the best metric for success is, the amount of stops to where people want to go. The problem with Charlotte is its very low density. Same with Dallas. Even their small area of peak density is sort of sparse (see uptown Charlotte).

The below (San Francisco, DC, Philadelphia, Boston) are all around dense. Stick a subway line anywhere, it’ll be very successful. The cities also just blow away the Dallas’s and Charlotte’s of the US because most any part of the cities, it’s likely each stop is going to have a ton of people who want/need to go there. 

 

So TOD in those (and others) aren’t the best focus. The focus should be better and better connectivity and frequency, completely separated from traffic and high speed. 

In Charlotte and Dallas. There’s really no significant areas of density outside their downtowns (which even then aren’t anywhere near full, & geographically small areas of the city etc.) Additionally, there’s not that many residents. Uptown has maybe 25,000 in 2 sq. Miles. But even so, outside of the central portion of uptown and let’s say SouthEnd. The city is very low density. There’s no obvious areas to connect to rail transit that could support it outside of park & ride.

Even the below is the more dense part of Charlotte (outside the tiny footprint of central uptown and the narrow strip of SouthEnd.) the density of these neighborhoods doesn’t make sense for underground rail transit there’s no area with seemingly more than a few hundred that anywhere a stop would be convenient due to the roads. Even light rail running in Woodlawn (which would be slower and less direct towards uptown) it still won’t have many people to conveniently reach a station. 

 

Pretty much every thing Charlotte has, I can reach by DC metro at a pleasant stop. From basics like Walmart, multiple malls, TJ Maxx, ikea, wegmans, Taco Bell, every store and amenity, it’s accessible to me by transit. So I could use metro many times a day even just to go to Chipotle and back. Even if you could magically make rail transit appear in Charlotte or Dallas drawing lines on a map, it would be crazy difficult and take a ton of lines to connect easily to all the stores and things people use in their day to day to where they live (because their scattered strip malls with giant parking lots etc) When I see a transit map. I want to know what as a pedestrian can I access comfortably. Whether that’s new TOD or historical density. Anywhere I’d want to spontaneously go, for example to the movies. I know I have like 8 easy & fast options by rail transit. Maybe Michaels for new fall decor.

Thus, I think for cities like Charlotte & Dallas, TOD is the *only* way to be successful [in addition to frequent frequencies and optimal routings]. Because they have hardly any natural destinations due to the low density. 

Dallas has a ton of stations that look like this. The best purpose this serves is to drive and park there and use the train for work, a special event or sports game in downtown and that’s it. 

With Charlotte, you dont just have uptown as a destination. Some people might take light rail from NoDa to SouthEnd. Then to somewhere else in SouthEnd. And maybe back to their place at Parkwood or drive back home. Charlottes stations are increasingly becoming places people want and need to go. I think that’s what separates Charlotte light rail from Dallas; there’s more places to visit than just a few downtown stations in Charlotte. 

Rail transit requires certain density imo. Not just skyscrapers, but all around. People, commerce, walkability, access to amenities. The only way for that to occur in Charlotte and Dallas is to create corridors of TOD. To densify  around those areas of TOD by integrating all the amenities the NIMBY’s want (a Birkdale village like town center with movies, fancy grocery store, outdoor restaurants, parking decks all while being able to throw thousands of units along these stations (which is beneficial to the area in the long term)

Lake Norman is actually set up really great where rail transit could effectively serve most of the amenities that low dense single family homes enjoy that there are natural destinations for various everyday things. (My crude drawing below.) Charlotte doesn’t have those logical clusters. 

Long story short. Charlotte & Dallas aren’t dense enough. So TOD is the only natural way for rail to be successful. And from there you get into, funding affordable housing, low income housing, libraries, etc. 

Toronto is probably king of North America in TOD and you can see stretches of linear intense density all around the region. I just don’t foresee anywhere in North America wiping out whole sale these single family home areas so. TOD it is. 

 

Dallas DART Sucksssss. Charlottes Blue Line is bueno and getting better. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[kermit]

For me the goal of rail transit is to change land use to something that is more walkable and less auto-centric. This is a long-term process (and TOD is a part of it) that creates more sustainable mobility, and hopefully, more equitable cities. While providing mobility for people who can't afford cars is clearly a significant need, the starter-rail transit that build in most US cities just won't accomplish that goal since we have so little of it (there is a huge shortage of urban living options so prices quickly get bid-up). Expanded bus transportation might provide mobility for the impoverished, but buses will always be super-slow in mixed traffic, so riders abandon buses as soon as they are able, and since slow buses don't attract choice riders they have little to no impact on landuse in the long run. TOD (which is really only possible along rail transit) has a reputation of being expensive in the US, but that is only because we have so little of it, expanding rail transit to European levels would eliminate the gentrification premium that is now assumed for all TOD.

The 'just buy poor people a car" suggestion has always rung hollow for me. First, 30ish percent of the population is unable to drive -- do we just tell those millions that they are out of luck? Second, where are you going to find $10,000 used cars these days? Third, what happens when that $10,000 used car needs maintenance (and is in the shop), insurance or replacement and no other mobility alternatives are available? (since we gave everyone cars public transit was eliminated) Owners will both need to come up with money and may loose a job while the car is in the shop.  Finally, what happens when we give cars for 10s of thousands of urban residents who did not have them before -- road capacity can't accommodate this change and cities become even less walkable/sustainable.

Edited September 11, 2023 by kermit

[Windsurfer]

"The 'just buy poor people a car" suggestion has always rung hollow for me. ..."      Obviously, I'm not in government, academia nor planning, but I did run a business that hired low income people forever. I've never heard this as a solution.  Most employers I know, including myself, built in low income areas in order to take advantage (wrong word I guess ) of cheaper labor and realestate.  When I bought land out on Statesville Ave, part of my 'calculus' was knowing that some of my employees lived in the neighborhood and could walk to work. We were welcomed by everyone there, including the church behind us.

 

 

[jthomas]

16 hours ago, kermit said:

While providing mobility for people who can't afford cars is clearly a significant need, the starter-rail transit that build in most US cities just won't accomplish that goal since we have so little of it (there is a huge shortage of urban living options so prices quickly get bid-up).

Just wanted to highlight this, which I think illustrates the failure of new-start rail transit in the US. So often, the thinking is focused on building an individual line, rather than developing a network, and the individual lines typically have miles and miles of trackage stretching into the low-density fringes of cities. Also, often times the first line in the system is done relatively cheaply as a proof of concept. This fragmented and timid thinking ultimately shackles the long term prospects of the system.

I think a better way to start a system from scratch would be to invest in 2-3 shorter lines that intersect in the center city, and to build this core network to a high standard, meaning center city tunnels, proper transfer stations, etc. The suburban extensions can always be done later, but the core network enables good car-free mobility in the densest central areas. 

In Charlotte, there are currently just over 23 miles of line between the Blue and Gold lines. What if instead of the current system, those 23+ miles were divided as follows: 

- Line 1: Current Blue Line from Scaleybark to Sugar Creek - 6.5 miles

- Line 2: Gold/Silver alignment from Presbyterian Hospital to CLT terminal - 8 miles

- Line 3: Camp North End to South Park via O-line, Morehead, and Park - 8.5 miles

Sure, it would have been more expensive to build this hypothetical system with tunnels in uptown and other places. But building that system all at once would have instantly transformed inner Charlotte and would be the backbone of a system that could serve the city from 50-100 years.

[elrodvt]

Great comments. I personally cannot give up on the goal being transportation for the poor. Giving everyone a car, which I assume was somewhat "tongue in cheek", would never work  but I get the sentiment.

This is why in more rural-urban areas (funny way to say it) such as Charlotte or Dallas I've changed my mind on rail and think we should pause our efforts there until we can meet the primary goal of moving people around without cars. What kind of a bus network would we have now if instead of rail we'd gone after traditional bus plus BRT? In my case I live around 8 miles south and can easily walk to Park road from my suburban hell (jk). That's a darn busy street with hardly any bus service. Plus what's there is unreliable. I've tried it several times.  Bus has a negative connotation and we're not doing much to fix that. Everyone raves about rail in Japan, and it's definitely awesome, but I spent a lot more time on buses than trains there and it was all good. You don't need to bother looking at the schedule, just bike to a main road, leave your bike in the corral, and one will be along shortly! There is just no reason it can't be a much better experience here too. Starting with 99.9 reliability then more routes, hubs and frequency then finally building towards brt and more comfortable, electric, buses with better ways to load bikes. What do you suppose the cost of that would be vs. silver, red etc. LRT? I don't know but suspect it's powers of 10 less $?

I can already hear the complaints though about paying for free Wi-Fi and extra legroom for poor people though... 

[Windsurfer]

29 minutes ago, elrodvt said:

Great comments. I personally cannot give up on the goal being transportation for the poor. Giving everyone a car, which I assume was somewhat "tongue in cheek", would never work  but I get the sentiment.

This is why in more rural-urban areas (funny way to say it) such as Charlotte or Dallas I've changed my mind on rail and think we should pause our efforts there until we can meet the primary goal of moving people around without cars. What kind of a bus network would we have now if instead of rail we'd gone after traditional bus plus BRT? In my case I live around 8 miles south and can easily walk to Park road from my suburban hell (jk). That's a darn busy street with hardly any bus service. Plus what's there is unreliable. I've tried it several times.  Bus has a negative connotation and we're not doing much to fix that. Everyone raves about rail in Japan, and it's definitely awesome, but I spent a lot more time on buses than trains there and it was all good. You don't need to bother looking at the schedule, just bike to a main road, leave your bike in the corral, and one will be along shortly! There is just no reason it can't be a much better experience here too. Starting with 99.9 reliability then more routes, hubs and frequency then finally building towards brt and more comfortable, electric, buses with better ways to load bikes. What do you suppose the cost of that would be vs. silver, red etc. LRT? I don't know but suspect it's powers of 10 less $?

I can already hear the complaints though about paying for free Wi-Fi and extra legroom for poor people though... 

I'm in London now, without a car. Been travelling by train,  lightrail, bus, uber and bicycle.  For really short distances, bikes are great, and longer....say 5-10 miles then bus, and for anything longer train.  I'm having to go up the road to a specific town that's five miles away.  Time after time, except when there's a train strike ;-`0,  it works out to be a tie. Busses are fine, but they sure do have a lot of stops.

As far as "rural`',  doesn't it make sense to put in the right of ways ASAP?  I suppose cities have growth spurts and population demands change so it can be tough forecasting, but for heaven's sake, at least put in ROWs for parks and light rail until density arrives.

[elrodvt]

2 hours ago, Windsurfer said:

I'm in London now, without a car. Been travelling by train,  lightrail, bus, uber and bicycle.  For really short distances, bikes are great, and longer....say 5-10 miles then bus, and for anything longer train.  I'm having to go up the road to a specific town that's five miles away.  Time after time, except when there's a train strike ;-`0,  it works out to be a tie. Busses are fine, but they sure do have a lot of stops.

As far as "rural`',  doesn't it make sense to put in the right of ways ASAP?  I suppose cities have growth spurts and population demands change so it can be tough forecasting, but for heaven's sake, at least put in ROWs for parks and light rail until density arrives.

Agree about the stops but well designed systems will have lots of "X"  routes so thats solvable. I know it isn't prestigious but I never minded taking the airport express bus (except when it didn't show up!). It's sure a lot more flexible as changing a stop location can be done in months. Cause I'm old I'd like to see improvements NOW not in 20y! That can only happen with bus. 

Going astray, but to your point of locking down future routes, this made me wonder if you can get some kind of provisional ROW? Something like: here is 20% of your value now and we'll give you the rest within 20y (at current mkt value plus 3% per yr) or you get to walk with the 20%? No idea how that's done but It'd be pretty crappy to take someones property for a potential lrt line in 20 years. Especially when you can't reasonably predict the odds of it ever being built. If the land isn't built up yet that's different I suppose. 

Parks, don't get me started... It's getting a lot better though with us at least having good walking options on Greenways now. 

[Windsurfer]

10 hours ago, elrodvt said:

Agree about the stops but well designed systems will have lots of "X"  routes so thats solvable. I know it isn't prestigious but I never minded taking the airport express bus (except when it didn't show up!). It's sure a lot more flexible as changing a stop location can be done in months. Cause I'm old I'd like to see improvements NOW not in 20y! That can only happen with bus. 

Going astray, but to your point of locking down future routes, this made me wonder if you can get some kind of provisional ROW? Something like: here is 20% of your value now and we'll give you the rest within 20y (at current mkt value plus 3% per yr) or you get to walk with the 20%? No idea how that's done but It'd be pretty crappy to take someones property for a potential lrt line in 20 years. Especially when you can't reasonably predict the odds of it ever being built. If the land isn't built up yet that's different I suppose. 

Parks, don't get me started... It's getting a lot better though with us at least having good walking options on Greenways now. 

BTW,  there was a controversy here in London several years ago when a designated greenway was partially used for a rail line.  As far as reserving for future use, yes, the idea would be to preserve undeveloped land as opposed to condemning/buying land that DOES get developed before doing so.    The thought just occurred to me.... there are a lot of over head power lines running direct lines down swaths of the city.  Seems like those could be utilized.  

[kermit]

7 hours ago, Windsurfer said:

 The thought just occurred to me.... there are a lot of over head power lines running direct lines down swaths of the city.  Seems like those could be utilized. 

This has been done in St. Louis and Dallas, so it is possible. 

Their is a  powerline easement running from the Blue Line (at the Home Depot near Woodlawn) to the southern side of Southpark which is tempting, but a bunch of easement-holders would be pissed about their backyards. Duke power might actually be convinced to share, James B. Duke did spend some of his fortune building electric passenger rail (The Piedmont and Northern) in the Carolinas with the express purpose of “improving the lives of Carolinians.”

[Windsurfer]

5 hours ago, kermit said:

This has been done in St. Louis and Dallas, so it is possible. 

Their is a  powerline easement running from the Blue Line (at the Home Depot near Woodlawn) to the southern side of Southpark which is tempting, but a bunch of easement-holders would be pissed about their backyards. Duke power might actually be convinced to share, James B. Duke did spend some of his fortune building electric passenger rail (The Piedmont and Northern) in the Carolinas with the express purpose of “improving the lives of Carolinians.”

That's pretty amazing that Duke would recognize the potential. 

I suppose you're right about the protests to use, but paying off those folks might be easier than buying land later on. 

Thanks for information on St. Louis and Dallas. Big issues with landowners there?

[elrodvt]

5 hours ago, kermit said:

This has been done in St. Louis and Dallas, so it is possible. 

Their is a  powerline easement running from the Blue Line (at the Home Depot near Woodlawn) to the southern side of Southpark which is tempting, but a bunch of easement-holders would be pissed about their backyards. Duke power might actually be convinced to share, James B. Duke did spend some of his fortune building electric passenger rail (The Piedmont and Northern) in the Carolinas with the express purpose of “improving the lives of Carolinians.”

Interesting, Can you actually convert the purpose of an easement like that? I would sympathize with the property owners if so. Quite a difference in property value impact. 

[jthomas]

9 minutes ago, elrodvt said:

Interesting, Can you actually convert the purpose of an easement like that? I would sympathize with the property owners if so. Quite a difference in property value impact. 

People always hyperventilate about "property values" any time any urban intervention is proposed in a single family area. Being adjacent to a transit line would probably cause their property values to skyrocket if current experience is any guide.

[elrodvt]

1 hour ago, jthomas said:

People always hyperventilate about "property values" any time any urban intervention is proposed in a single family area. Being adjacent to a transit line would probably cause their property values to skyrocket if current experience is any guide.

I'm not "hyperventilating"  but I think it's naive to think a suburban neighborhoods home values wouldn't drop if a train line ran through the middle of it. Maybe in 20y it'd be an asset to them. Not like your going to put a stop at every development, many get nothing but the noise and crossings...

Look, I'm personally not against it but I suspect the suits would be numerous and in many cases justified without compensation. These are also people with political clout who vote. Remember, this demographic sued for years in some neighborhoods (mine for one!) to prevent Greenway access since it'll allow (code word) "criminals" into the area. I guess we must have some proof points for neighborhoods to the South that had the blue line go through them? Anyone know? I didn't live here then but assume there was a furor. But those are lower income areas mainly I believe, so fair game? 

I say we route through all the golf courses not paying their fair share. No one will mind the train noise or waiting for it to go by in order to walk down the fairway. Course with our frequencies maybe you'd hardly notice. Hmmm, actually....