Triangle Regional Transit

[urbanesq]

What is not known (although TTA may have studied the US70 corridor years ago) is how much it would cost.

Charlotte's south corridor LRT is budgeted at only $426 million... the South Corridor is only 9.6 miles long

meaning that a comparable system in the Triangle would cost in excess of $1.2billion.

I'd argue that TTA has always taken a cost-sensitive approach.

Also, the Feds' model is based on and favors central city systems in places like Charlotte. It does not account for mutli-city areas that function as a region, like Raleigh-Durham.

[urbanesq]

Just thought of something. Maybe TTA can re-negotiate some of their contracts with the freight railroads - namely, the one requiring them to seperate their tracks from the freight line by 25 feet. The reason for this stipulation, as I recall, was so that the freight carrier's maintenence-of-way crews could operate without interference from the TTA trains.

But if, for example, TTA agreed to decrease service frequency and only use the far track (the one furthest from the freight rails) when the freight railroad was maintaining their tracks, then maybe the freight carriers could be persuaded to agree.

This is probably hopeless, but it's just something to think about.

A great idea; it won't happen.

Another rationale was so that if a heavy freight train fell over in its side, the TTA train would not be crushed under its weight. As someone who plans to one day ride the trains, I think it's a great idea to not be crushed by a freight train. But a freight train just falling over on its side has, in the entire history of rail transportation, I think, never happened. So one wonders about the utility of such a requirement.

Also, remember that the frieght carriers have not played nice with TTA throughout its entire process. Re-negotiating anything with them would be virtually impossible.

[monsoon]

A couple of comments on the above. The inner city infrastructure the South LRT will use was paid for by local funds devoted to transit, and by carefull planning so that local businesses would build around the transit line in such a way to reduce the amount of money it was going to take for CATS to build the project. Several of the downtown buildings were designed to accomidate stations. Probably the biggest expense was the construction of the 485 overpass.

All of this construction money could have been included in the cost of the line and the government asked to pay 50% of the cost, and it might have doomed it in the long run. Charlotte did benefit from having built the 2.5 mile electric trolley line where much of this initial cost was covered, but they built it without any federal and state funding. I suspect that once it was all said and done, the S. LRT might have cost as much as the proposed TTA line, if not more. This is a key for the TTA in that any plan is going to have to significantly reduce the Fed's share of this really high cost.

A more interesting comparison would be with Charlotte's North Commuter Rail line. It's currently projected to cost somewhere around $240M and will stretch for 35 miles with 12 stations. Interestingly enough it is now on the same schedule as the TTA system with an anticipated opening date of 2009. The record of decision is scheduled for Oct 2006. I would hope that something similar could be accomplished in the RDU area.

[orulz]

A couple of comments on the above. The inner city infrastructure the South LRT will use was paid for by local funds devoted to transit, and by carefull planning so that local businesses would build around the transit line in such a way to reduce the amount of money it was going to take for CATS to build the project. Several of the downtown buildings were designed to accomidate stations. Probably the biggest expense was the construction of the 485 overpass.

Do you mean the 277 overpass? And while it is true that it cost a lot of money for CATS to overhaul this bridge, and it will cost a lot of money to rebuild it again for LRT, the bridge was actually already there, from the days that the right-of-way was being used for freight traffic. The same can be said of the bridges over 3rd, 4th, and Trade. While these bridges were overhauled extensively for the trolley (and will be overhauled again for LRT), the substructure and supports for all of them were already in place long before the trolley ever existed. This and the fact that the roadbed was already there and graded is why Charlotte "lucked out", so to speak - saving the city hundreds of millions of dollars on the overall cost of the project. If that old freight corridor hadn't been there as a rallying point, Charlotte may never have passed its transit tax, and might be struggling to justify federal investment in exactly the same way that the Triangle is now. I could be wrong, of course, but at least it's something to think about.

All of this construction money could have been included in the cost of the line and the government asked to pay 50% of the cost, and it might have doomed it in the long run. Charlotte did benefit from having built the 2.5 mile electric trolley line where much of this initial cost was covered, but they built it without any federal and state funding. I suspect that once it was all said and done, the S. LRT might have cost as much as the proposed TTA line, if not more. This is a key for the TTA in that any plan is going to have to significantly reduce the Fed's share of this really high cost.

You're right. Greater local participation and responsibility is absolutely key. I've long believed that, until we can find a dedicated, reliable, and sufficient local revenue stream, this region will have limited success at best in pursuing transit.

A more interesting comparison would be with Charlotte's North Commuter Rail line. It's currently projected to cost somewhere around $240M and will stretch for 35 miles with 12 stations. Interestingly enough it is now on the same schedule as the TTA system with an anticipated opening date of 2009. The record of decision is scheduled for Oct 2006. I would hope that something similar could be accomplished in the RDU area.

That's not quite apples-to-apples either. There are plenty of opportunities for the Triangle to do something exactly like Charlotte's North Corridor (see example: Eastrans) but firstly, there's no underused freight line between Raleigh and Durham, and secondly, the travel patterns on the corridor are a great deal more complicated than what the North Corridor is designed to accommodate. It's a good point that a lower level of infrastructure investment might be enough, but I'm not really sure what options exist.

I don't really understand why TTA's ridership projections are so low. It seems that the new model assumes that we'll get all our "requested" highway improvements (which we won't) and that this rail line will have little to no effect on regional development patterns (which I believe it will).

[mattm]

It seems the assumptions were all weighted against the project in the latest run. This seems to be a requirement from the feds. The submission for the '06 New Starts is available on the TTA website now; I took a look at it last night. The inclusion of the letter from Cherokee Investments at the end makes me wonder if the TOD planned at the stations was included in the "strawman" proposal? I'll have to hope to bump into the modelling guru and ask the question...

[avery]

Well, I certainly respect your opinion, and very much appreciate your expressing it, because this is an important debate. But I couldn't disagree with you more.

The current plan is very functional. It connects the region's areas of highest density in terms of employment and residents, and, yes: it provides the maximum potential for directing a portion of the area's future growth into high density corridors. High car traffic areas don't usually equate with high transit usage areas, because people need to be able to walk and bike to transit; they can't do that on or near major higways. Plus, areas that are designed for cars are not generally zoned for the density (residential and employment) needed to support a transit system.

In addition to being an indirect route that would mean commuting times were unreasonably long, by and large, the areas you talk about for a Phase I are very low density by transit standards. Actually, by ANY standards. Brier Creek is nice and all, but it's a sprawling wasteland. Nobody could walk to a transit stop from anywhere in that development. Crabtree is dense in terms of retail sq. ft., but that's about it; also, people use transit for work and entertainment, not for shopping. North Hills is a little better, but again, most of their density is retail. Plus, the people who live along your proposed corridor would ADAMANTLY fight 1) the acquisition of corridor in their back yard; 2) the development of truly dense pockets around stations and 3) the local tax hikes needed to fund a system on entirely new corridor.

Eventually connecting North Raleigh to RTP via the airport is a great idea, but starting there would mean the system never had enough riders to expand elsewhere. Plus, failing to link downtown Raleigh directly to RTP and Durham would be a fatal flaw in any system, more inefficient and misguided than not going to the airport.

Again, it's easy to say "start over" until one realizes that this has been a fifteen-year-long process resulting in choices based on intensive study and voluminous public input, and that to "start over" means no transit in the Triangle for at least another 20 years.

The main problem with TTA (aside from their early decision not to seek much local funding--which was a major mistake, don't get me wrong) is that the Bush Administration and the railroads keep moving the ball and upping the ante. With better cooperation, we could all have been riding TTA's trains years ago. Let's not make the mistake of confusing external obstructionism for fundamental problems with the regional rail plan.

I say (again) stay the course and start figuring out how to pay for it locally so we don't need the feds as much.

You bring up some good points. After looking at the map, I guess it does look a little bit odd, although I wasn't expecting as much squiggles in the route and neglected to think about the problem of a state park.

As far as Crabtree and North Hills are concerned, I do disagree with you. I think these areas are centrally located, and are what I consider core areas in Raleigh. I don't see how these are any less dense than downtown Cary, Morrisville, the Fairgrounds or RTP for that matter. I think the placement of stations in locations here are logical even if they are not in Phase I. There are a number of people who live and work in these areas and the growth in these areas are strong.

I think the exclusion of RDU is a very poor decision too. Personally, I think there may be some politics involved on that end of it from the standpoint of parking revenues. Linking the airport seems like a no-brainer to me.

I mentioned Briar Creek because that area is really growing and I would like to see higher density there to combat the sprawling nature you discuss. It is also very close to RTP and to the airport. That is my only reason for suggesting.

The RBC center is another important area in my opinion. It is close to the Fairgrounds, Carter-Finley, and Rex Hospital. The area is ripe for high density development around the arena.

Obviously, RTP and downtown need to be connected, but I see no reason why an altered route should not be considered, even if it were spur lines to RBC, Crabtree and North Hills from the original plan. I don't exactly know the answer, but to not reconsider alternate plans is narrow-minded. The current plan has obviously not worked thus far. I'm not suggesting starting over...I'm suggesting revision. The TTA needs to be flexible at their approach instead of fudging the numbers or redoing their model as they call it in order for it to get approval.

[orulz]

he submission for the '06 New Starts is available on the TTA website now; I took a look at it last night.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have my weekend reading material now

[ChiefJoJo]

A more interesting comparison would be with Charlotte's North Commuter Rail line. It's currently projected to cost somewhere around $240M and will stretch for 35 miles with 12 stations. Interestingly enough it is now on the same schedule as the TTA system with an anticipated opening date of 2009. The record of decision is scheduled for Oct 2006. I would hope that something similar could be accomplished in the RDU area.

I wonder if the ridership on that line will allow it to go forward? I believe that with the new federal New Starts C/B #s, a lot of the ridership numbers will depend on Iredell Co. participating in the local funding of the exension into their county and up to Mooresville hopefully. I have spoken with CATS officials, and they intend on extending the North line into Iredell for at least one stop in phase 1 (something about a Lowes facility that will employ several thousand at buildout--not sure exactly though).

I still believe that TTA needs to get this line done somehow. Let's pass a local transit tax or cut a few more costs. I know there have been other ideas touted here, but I truly believe that this is the best corridor we have to achieve the necessary riderhip for the least cost, while still accessing some very crucial areas in the Triangle (DT Dur, DT Ral, RTP, NCSU, NCCU, Cary, RBC/fairground, etc.) A lot of you don't realize just how expensive some of these other ideas would be. This project will be the backbone of all future fixed guideway transit in the Triangle, and we need to get it done.

[monsoon]

Do you mean the 277 overpass?

You are correct, it is the 277 bypass. It was the bridge over Stonewall that had to be rebuilt as it had been torn down some years earlier.

[monsoon]

I wonder if the ridership on that line will allow it to go forward? I believe that with the new federal New Starts C/B #s, a lot of the ridership numbers will depend on Iredell Co. participating in the local funding of the exension into their county and up to Mooresville hopefully. I have spoken with CATS officials, and they intend on extending the North line into Iredell for at least one stop in phase 1 (something about a Lowes facility that will employ several thousand at buildout--not sure exactly though).

That is the new Corporate HQ campus for Lowes Home Improvement stores and they are ramping up to employ 8000 there. They are moving to the CLT area, and that stop will be the Mt. Mourne stop just across the Mecklenburg-Iredell cnty line. The rail line passes right next to the Lowes property. Ridership may be an issue for this line just as it is for the TTA line. However because the cost is so much less, there may be other options for getting it built including picking up more of a local share so the line would qualify under the Small Starts program.

[avery]

Someone who knows more about this, please enlighten me. I keep up with with this with probably slightly more interest than the average person but don't know near as much as alot of you on here. The nature of my job would not lend itself to the use of mass transit. However, I would use it to go to the airport or maybe to shoot over to a ballgame or downtown if there were a station close to me. It seems you have to give people a reason to ditch the car and outside of downtown and NC State I don't see people doing it to the extent intended. It is too inconvienent for most in this area to drive 20 minutes to a station, wait for a train and then catch a bus ride that may add another 15-20 minutes.

I think it is important to develop a mass transit system in the Triangle. I want to see it. I also realize that inflation typically escalates at a rate of 3% annually, so the longer it is put off, the more expensive this solution may be. The more expensive it gets, the less likely it will happen.

What will it take for regional rail to get approval? What type of ridership is needed? Do different locations need to be considered to get numbers up or do they need to scale down the plan to get costs in line? Just curious since my above post was not well received. Hey, I'm just trying to think of ideas to get this thing going...

[RiverwoodCLT]

On CATS north line, they are looking at ridership both ways due to Lowes and uptown Charlotte.

If they landscape the South LRT line like the trolley line uptown, it will be a show pice for LRT.

The triangle cities must get out and spend some of their own money starting local LRT to feed the line between Raleigh and Durham.

What is the state's position on the TTA plan? Are they putting any money into it?

[monsoon]

...

What will it take for regional rail to get approval? What type of ridership is needed? Do different locations need to be considered to get numbers up or do they need to scale down the plan to get costs in line? Just curious since my above post was not well received. Hey, I'm just trying to think of ideas to get this thing going...

I think it comes down to this. The TTA needs to reduce the cost and and/or the federal commitment to 50% or less. The Feds don't want to build systems anymore that are not solvent and local funding commitments are a significant part in determining if it is a worthwhile plan or not. A $800M plan may be fine for the Triangle, but asking the Federal govt to pay 60% of the cost of it is not. In comparison the Feds are only paying for about 45-48% of the cost of the Charlotte line. If you look back to other posts I have made here in the past, some years ago, I said then the lack of local funding is what will kill the TTA line, and that as it unfortunately seems, to be the case.

[MR-2]

Oh if only...

You see really, I think the system will only become feasible when it's very comprehensive and covers a large proportion of the triangle.

It should, first of all, include all three major universities. Its heaviest traffic would likely be for games.

Unfortunately the entry price for building an entire system completely from scratch is... astronomical.

But building a complete, well-covered mass transit system would definitely encourage ridership.

Without projected exponential growth like this in the next 30-or-so years a TTA rail system would never get enough ridership to justify itself.

[dmccall]

MR-2 how did you produce the image? Edit a screen shot in a graphics editor??

[MR-2]

MR-2 how did you produce the image? Edit a screen shot in a graphics editor??

It's ah, erm, hypothetical map of a well-developed rail transit system overlaid with a screengrab from googlemaps, produced in photoshop on behalf of myself.

Don't mistake it for anything official. Nobody's ever drawn up anything remotely resembling that. I didn't get the idea from anyone important, I guess, if that's what you're wondering.

[mattm]

Most everyone that's saying "it doesn't go where I want" is missing the point, somewhat. The region is set to grow by over a million people by the horizon year (2030). Do we want them to sprawl all over the map or do we want them to concentrate in urban infill? The point of a fixed guideway system is to attract that infill development. This is part of the problem with that ridership simulation -- it's not allowed to take into account different development patterns (this is an inbuilt bias against rail projects in Washington politics).

MR-2, I'm impressed by your map, but its routes are glued to existing highways. Those are poor locations for mass transit.

[MR-2]

I disagree. When you're implanting a transit system in a very suburban area, you're making a system that reduces traffic in the urban cores by allowing people to park in the outskirts and travel to the inner city. Highways are a great place to put the outer stations, since it allows people to drive to the metro area without having to drive IN it. That, and the're existing corridors.

[JunktionFET]

MR-2's proposal isn't too far off of CAMPO's 30 year vision:

They have TTA Phase I rail, Eastrans, as well as a number of other study corridors--a few of which apparently use existing abandoned or low-traffic rail ROW. Commuter rail shown connecting Raleigh with Fuquay could be extended down to Fayetteville along the same ROW as the need for such transit grew.

DCHCMPO released a similar 2030 plan which illustrated fixed guideway corridors for Durham and Orange Counties, but I can no longer find the report. It was written poorly anyway, so it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to pull it from public access.

At any rate, it envisioned an LRT or BRT line running down NC54 from the vicinity of the proposed Triangle Metro Center TTA rail stop (Miami Blvd), all the way into Chapel Hill. Another line ran down US15-501 from Durham into Chapel Hill. Best case scenerio I assume would be to join those two lines in Chapel Hill, thus forming a transit loop of sorts (though I don't know if the vehicles would be shared).

[dmccall]

Most everyone that's saying "it doesn't go where I want" is missing the point, somewhat. The region is set to grow by over a million people by the horizon year (2030). Do we want them to sprawl all over the map or do we want them to concentrate in urban infill?

I think this is a good ideal, but we can look at city after city where land values around the rail lines rose to the point that people were driven to live AWAY from the rails. A great example is Atlanta. If Marta's two-ish lines were such a great magnet for growth, then why are we seeing incredible growth outside of the perimeter? This growth far exceeds Marta's abilities to keep up. Most people won't consider if "rail is nearby" when buying a house, but if one happened to be nearby, they'd consider using it.

Mass transit lines generally have to be down current road/rail/electrical/sewer right of ways. (That is unless you want to try to convince existing neighborhoods to tear down a large swath so a rail can come through). Existing rail lines are cheap becuase they've always been the yucky industrial corridors. We can create a multi-node, linear utopia, but that doesn't serve people living out Creedmoor road who spend 30 min each way to work. They aren't going to burn their houses down and move.

Society will be much more open to a transit system that fits their lives rather than "designers" mandating the way they live. We need to offer a system that cost-effectively caters to people living all over the place. This is who we are and that will never change. The system has to do a BETTER job with speed than the incredibly dangerous car, at a nearly equal level of convenience. (I think the "stress and danger of driving" angle is the way to play mass transit to the carphyles out there). But people will continue to take the risks of driving as long as the only other transit option takes twice as long to get there.

Don't forget about my techie friend who lives 1.7mi from a phase II rail station. It will take him 75 minutes to get to the door at Cisco. YOU try and sell that to him!

[JunktionFET]

What we want to do and what we can do are two different things. Everyone would love to have a multiline subway throughout the Triangle, and a stop placed at the end of their driveway... but we all know that just wouldn't be feasible. It's even a little much for a dream.

People also have trouble with patience and vision. For example, dmcall mentions his Cisco friend, and the possible hour+ commute time he would face if he were to take the proposed TTA rail from a north Raleigh station to the Triangle Metro Center stop in RTP. Obviously this person has taken the time to imagine himself using the train, so that shows a lot of promise... however it seems that he and apparently many others have trouble understanding that this is only one of what may be several lines, and that the picture drawn on TTA's website is not the one and only rail line to ever be planned/discussed/built.

This is a backbone, a starting point. Just because it doesn't serve someone living on Leesville Rd conveniently does not mean it will be useless. Think of the people that it will serve from the start, and how it will grow in capacity as more lines are added. This concept has been stated over and over and over and over and over again, but people just don't get it, and I cannot imagine why. They don't even ask any questions about it... it's almost as though they somehow skip over it when they read.

dmcall makes a good point, similar to one that I mentioned in the past, about using ROW other than existing rail to facilitate future service. As we know, rail lines don't criss-cross much of north or northwestern Raleigh, or southeastern Cary, etc... Acquiring individual properties for an ideal line would of course be financially impossible, so utility ROW might be a good option to explore.

One such major power ROW runs alongside US1/I-440 from down near New Hill, all the way to just south of the Lake Boone Tr exit on I-440. From there it shoots NNW, straight by Crabtree Valley, and up towards I-540 along Creedmor Rd, Leesville Rd and such. This is just an example, but a corridor like that would serve a rail transit system beautifully, and I'd wager it wouldn't be as prohibitively expensive. It would tie in northwest Raleigh and southeast Cary to the proposed TTA backbone--perhaps in the vicinity of the Fairgrounds.

[dmccall]

I also noticed a power line that runs from Hillsborough St. straight to Carolina County Club's golf course, crosses 440 just west of N. Hills, runs north by Capital towers, then across Spring Forest near Lucky 32, then across North Ridge's golf course, then across 540 west of US1, then through Wakefield. A transit option that could use this corridor would have to be extremely quiet. I'm sure the neighborhoods affected by this would imaging having the clackity clack of Chicago's L. Talk about NIMBYs!!!! But if it were quiet, MAN would that make it convenient for people. (Of course I'm talking about an overhead transit line)

[dmccall]

I went to the TTA showing today and it struck me: this display is EXACTLY what is wrong with the TTA proposal. We have 175,000 people over a two-day period just 3.5miles away from here and the bull-headed ttA insists on showing their mockup in an empty warehouse to about 25 adult visitors per hour. (We went and rode the Pullen Park Train afterward and there were 160 people per hour riding it) I told the ttA rep there that this is the same old thing of ttA assuming they can make people come to them instead of going to where the people are.

I asked them, too, if this mockup is shared with other cities so that Rotem can show what something like this would look like for San Antonio, Kansas City, etc. They said,"No, it's just for Raleigh." If that's the case, why isn't this thing on display for a MONTH at Crabtree? Why not at the airport or RBC Center for a month? They said that it weighs too much for the floors of these places and is too hard to transport. ARRGH. All it is is a shell, a bunch of seats, and a computer at a table with a big window. No wonder support is horrible for this project!

As far as the vehicle, I was a bit disappointed. The legroom in the seating area is less than that of a bus. The seats have the same upholstry used in bus coaches (Greyhounds, not vinyl like CAT or CHT busses and Marta and Metro - this is a good thing that they used real upholstry, BTW). One side of the car has two wide seats, the other with two narrow seats. The narrow seats are extremely narrow. I am 5'9", 185lbs and I would constantly rub shoulders with anyone of a greater size in the narrow seats. My knees were resting against the bulkhead. I can't imagine how uncomfortable this would be for a 6'4" man in a suit riding for 30 minutes. I was amused by the mock announcement of the stations 'in my city'! "Did you hear that? They said,"NC State" on a subway car!"

Like I said, this thing just seems too much like a little boy with his little red wagon being like daddy with his car. Some of my worries would be assuaged if I felt that it were a system that could be converted to newer technology in 20 years. Since we're talking about laying down track, can anyone confirm whether or not this system's guage is compatible with current light rail or heavy rail lines?

The system really needs to go where the people are, not where we want them to be. The majority of people going to RTP from the East in the morning live in north Raleigh or Cary. (We can't make them live on the line. They won't move.) This system doesn't serve those people. I have a hard time seeing this system with this technology being expanded down I-540 in the year 2025, for instance. It reminds me of those people who bought 128MB MP3 players. I think much more exciting transit technology is 10-ish years away.

[orulz]

I went to see the vehicle today, too. I thought the design was very cool, and I got to pick the brain of TTA's vehicles guy, pour over engineering diagrams, and learn more about the project so I had a lot of fun. But you're right, dmccall, the vehicle should be at the fairgrounds this week rather than the Dillon warehouse. Maybe they're planning on carting it out there? I didn't ask. The thing at Dillon is only two days long, and the fair lasts for 10 days, so it's certainly a possibility. If they miss the chance, though, sucks for them...

Next subject.

I really don't think that transit technology is going to change much over the next 30 years, let alone 10. Light rail is an evolution of 19th century streetcars; electric subways and elevated heavy rail still use the same principles used around the turn of the century. As for technologies powered by fossil fuels, development has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary since motor buses and diesel-electric locomotives came onto the scene in the first half of the 20th century.

Things like monorail technology, elevated people movers, and maglev aren't recent concepts. Futurists have been wet-dreaming about monorails and Personal Rapid Transit since the 1960s and before, but outside of a few VERY spefiic niches they just haven't caught on. Note the recent failure of the Seattle Monorail project. And why do all these new, promising, and sexy technologies fail? Because the tried-and-true combination of rubber wheeled buses and and steel wheels on steel rails can do exactly the same thing, or do it better, for a fraction the cost. Just because a technology has been around for 60 years (DMUs) or 180 years (railroads) does not mean it is irrelevant. The technology has worked so well for so many years in so many places that I sincerely doubt anything is waiting just around the corner to make it obsolete.

Regarding the "exciting transit technology (that) is 10-ish years away" - are you're alluding to a form of transit that is quiet, unobtrusive, and can serve our current development patterns and destinations without a significant need for redevelopment or densification? Do you really think that such a beast can exist? I'll believe it when I see it, and I'm not holding my breath.

Well, take that back - we do have something that comes pretty close: buses. A massive investment in improved bus service rather than a rail line is certainly an option, but sources and destinations are so varied and roads can get so congested that I don't think it would work well.

Last subject.

In case you've missed the statistics, the Census Bureau is predicting that 1.2 million more people will move into our area over the next 25 years. That's a total of 2.5 million people in the RDU MSA by 2030. And get this, the Census Bureau estimates tend to be on the conservative side! So, where are all these people going to live? I find the notion that none of those people would want to live near the transit line to be absurd, particularly when faced with the dysfunction that will be our transportation network if suburban/exurban development continues as the only game in town.

The problem with putting the trains "where the people are" is that there are no built-out neighborhoods with enough people to make a transit line work. A lot of people live in North Raleigh, but from what I've seen there is nothing cohesive or dense enough to make a fixed-guideway transit line of any kind work. Right now, nowhere in the triangle is dense enough to support transit in the short term, and there is little prospect for redevelopment and densification of established neighborhoods, because of the rights and concerns of individual property owners (aka the NIMBY factor).

Without transit in place FIRST, there is basically no prospect for transit-supporting density in the region, either. The argument that "We're not dense enough" becomes self-sustaining, and the status quo of exurban population explosion will be maintained forever. All of these now-vacant parcels around the rail line that could have been dense urban communities will either remain vacant or be sucked up by lower-density subdivisions and office parks.

So, the answer is: serve a FEW existing destinations, and then put the rest of the stops in areas that can be readily and densely redeveloped. Sounds like the TTA regional rail line to me!

Okay I've rambled on enough. Good evening.

[JunktionFET]

Without a doubt, TTA needs to show the public possible future routes. I believe that if people see that TTA has an expansion concept for the future, they might actually get excited about the system. This system is all about the future anyway, and there are many goals for this system that people obviously do not know about.