Triangle Regional Transit

[plus2]

Looking at that image above^...

I would love to see a figure 8 loop eventually created with the existing plan. The Chapel Hill portion could be extended back along I-40 connected Southpoint and ending at the RTP stop. The line could then continue through RTP to the airport and extend either along I-540 connecting Brier Creek and eventually towards Triangle Town Center. Another line could follow the Beltline connecting North Hills and Crabtree.

Trains could move in both directions of the Figure 8 giving people lots of options to optimize their time.

[Jones_]

This is a great topic! It seems like a flashy spreadsheet feeding a powerpoint presentation could show off a reality something like future federal entitlements (medicare, social security) vs. the future federal budget.......making a little money off parking structures downtown now is the best way to utilize the land (formerly this was surface lot econimics which we have passed now). Clearly though, as land prices escalate, parking structures lose their ability to make money so the best use of the property becomes office space, commercial space etc. Raleigh has not passed that point yet but will and TTA did not sell that point on the graph where the two lines cross finally, very well. Sewer and water lines are subsidized quite regularly both with low interest government loans and by denser areas of the city to the benefit of the less dense areas. A subsidy for mass transit to downtown would logicly be supported by beneficiaries...business owners downtown...who pays for this subsidy? V proposed taxing parking decks, some say no more on street free parking downtown, perhaps even a pavement tax citywide, not unlike the stormwater tax...those downtown need to fight hard for it to work, Progress Energy? RBC? Capital Bank? The City? The County? Where are you guys....like V pointed out, there is another point on the graph where is past not even making sense to build space for cars downtown but actually financially influences people to go to places in the city where parking is cheaper, and downtown will drain like it did in the 50's. Many State workers I know already cringe at paying 50 bucks a month to use a parking deck based on their salaries. If land got to 10Million an acre downtown and parking spaces rocketed up to 100 bucks a month but salaries still only increased their 2-5% a year does that influence workers decisions?

[vitaviatic]

Cars are directly involved in the exacerbation of poverty and low standards of living. Countless studies have proven that out. And the math is simple.

Example:

Single mother of one. Works as a secretary. Lives in a suburban apartment, and drives 100 miles per week (to work, to daycare, to WalMart, wherever). Has to buy a $4,000 car (which will undoubtedly demand maintenance expenses) on credit at usery rates (say 22%, @ 5 years). Must buy compulsory liability insurance, has one ticket and one accident driving her rates up. Car gets 15 miles to the gallon, city (actually quite good for city driving) at an average of $2.25 gallon (with petrol spikes figured in). So here we go:

Car payment = $110 (she will pay $2,600 more than the price of the car over the life of the loan)

Insurance = probably in the $100 per month range (conservative)

Gasoline = 6.67 gallons per week @ $2.25 per gallon -- $15.01 per week ($2.14 per day x 30 days -- $64.20 per month)

So here we have a crushing $274.20 per month burden on someone who can least afford to pay it, just for the sake of mobility. And of the AFDC payments that everyone hates so much, the lion's share of that will go to a finance company for the automobile, the insurance underwriter, and petrolistas -- instead of into the poor child's mouth as food, as was intended in the first place! If indeed there were a viable transit option available, bus or rail -- but something efficient enough to serve the time demands of this woman -- we would see a monthly transit pass of around $60 per month and a $25 or $30 per month pass for the child (if over 6 years old, free if under) replace all of those automobile charges, provided the market furnished housing options along the transit corridor (which in our experience, it will). She can now have +/- $185 per month more to split between a better place to live, food, and utility bills.

There is a program in place that we are working on to refurbish older mid-rise apartment buildings along Denver's new southeast light rail line in which cases like this would be targeted for a rental-to-purchase program. The apartment building would be operated as a not-for-profit enterprise by a charitable organization (comprised of homebuilders, mortgage companies, realtors, etc.) which would take in these families and contract them to stay for 12 or 18 months as apartment tenants. As part of the contract, the tenant declares their intention to purchase a home, and throughout the term of the lease contract a certain percentage of the "rent" proceeds are credited as down payment toward the purchase of a new home (which would most likely be a townhome or condo unit in a higher-density TOD area, also with transit available). The working figures are right now between 60% and 75% of the "rent" toward homebuyer credit. If the tenant defaults on the contract, or chooses to opt out of the buy, near-market rates are charged and the entire payment is kept by the facility. But, as part of the contract, the tenant is obligated to refrain from purchasing and operating a car (to eliminate this kind of overhead), and utilize public transit and taxis.

So, even if a rent of say, $800 per month were charged for a two-bedroom apartment (which, like Raleigh/Durham, is a bit less than market rate in Denver) between $480 to $600 per month becomes a functioning savings account, which at the term of the lease contract is converted into home ownership, which itself is one of the best ways to save. Meanwhile the facility is operated more or less at cost or even at a deficit, with the charitable consortium writing off the losses, and/or receiving tax credits through HUD or other local housing authorities. But, in the long run, these homebuilders, mortgage companies, and realtors will be able to avail themselves to a market segment that did not previously exist, and was incapable of entering the buyers' market. If a homebuilder makes a 30% profit off of the sales of a $150,000 TOD townhome, at $45,000, and if the mortgage company and broker make their profits off a loan (e.g., 6%, 30 years = payment of $833 per month, 30-year profit of $149,880), and the realtors make their 3% off of the sale at $4,500 -- that's a long-term profit of $199,380 between the parties for an 18-month investment in the tenant/buyer. And this scenario is also a basis for a stable 7% down, fixed-rate loan for the tenant/buyer. (And forget the no-down ARM loans. They are money-pit frauds, and one of the primary reasons for our high defaulture rates.)

We haven't made a formal presentation of this project yet, but it has raised some eyebrows here. Happily, we have found that not all builders are greedy. Sure, they'd all like to make money, but it really doesn't matter to a good portion of them whether the money comes in the form of profit, tax breaks, credits, or whatever. This kind of program has not yet been feasible here until the SE corridor opened. There must be a transit component available in which to base this kind of a program, and now there is here in Denver. With a 7-minute transit headway in both directions, the transit requirement does not impose a serious burden on prospective participants. A $15 cab ride once a week, or the Dial-a-Ride system in place here will negate the burden of using transit for grocery shopping and other hauling activities. Indeed, one of the main tenets of this program is teach people how to rely on transit and taxis, and teach them the economy of doing so versus the perceived convenience of a car.

The mechanizations for this type of program are in place here in Denver. They aren't even begun yet in RDU, and until something gets put into place, they won't be. Martin Eakes of the Self-Help Credit Union in Durham is a trailblazer in projects similar to these, and no doubt these would become a good possibility along the NCRR alignment should trains begin to run.

I can't say it enough. Transit should be planned and built for the possibilities, not just the current realities.

[ncwebguy]

The TTA/Cherokee partnership needs to be approved soon to show the federal government and local leaders that a private development entity outside of TTA thinks rail mass transit is a good idea.

I hope the "community concensus building" Mr. King is working on kickstarts the process instead of killing it. Phases one, two and three do need to be redefined to include the areas that have grown since 1995 (Apex, Clayton, Wake Forest, etc) but not *replace* the existing corridor.

A phase I with the Duke University stop included will help financially and politically. If Cherokee could acquire the land, I would like to see a stop near the Six Forks/Wake Forest intersection that redevloped most of the land roughly bounded by 440, Wake Forest, Six Forks and Atlantic. This stop could also serve as a North Raleigh CAT/TTA bus terminal, with service to North Hills, Triangle Town Center, a Wake Forest express bus, etc. But if they already acquired land at Highwoods, this multimodal stop could go there. Demonstrating how rail could move further north in later years would hopefully get more community support.

Demonstraing how all areas will get some kind of service, instead of the "one line that goes nowhwere", will hopefully generate the support needed. It will be interesting to see how much additional local support (above the rental car tax and registration fee) will be needed after the Cherokee plan's contribution is calculated.

[musial78]

The Triangle area really needs to embrace the TTA and the rail system or it will lose out in the long run. Why don't Downtown Raleigh & Durham planners see their overall success of urban renewal and competing with other cities; contigent upon having strong mass transit? Raleigh has 5 universities and a new convention center. All would benefit greatly from having a rail line.

It seems so many people have this idea that the rail system won't work because of our lack of density; but isn't that being shortsighted, considering our immense growth?

[sax184]

The Triangle area really needs to embrace the TTA and the rail system or it will lose out in the long run. Why don't Downtown Raleigh & Durham planners see their overall success of urban renewal and competing with other cities; contigent upon having strong mass transit?

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

Does anyone know what the smallest cities in the us are that already have or are getting heavy rail/light rail? Or the least urban/populated cities? Thank you!

[thewhister]

The Triangle area really needs to embrace the TTA and the rail system or it will lose out in the long run. Why don't Downtown Raleigh & Durham planners see their overall success of urban renewal and competing with other cities; contigent upon having strong mass transit? Raleigh has 5 universities and a new convention center. All would benefit greatly from having a rail line.

It seems so many people have this idea that the rail system won't work because of our lack of density; but isn't that being shortsighted, considering our immense growth?

[monsoon]

Does anyone know what the smallest cities in the us are that already have or are getting heavy rail/light rail? Or the least urban/populated cities? Thank you!

[JDC]

A rail line would be pretty handy with today's wintry mix and predictable gridlock.

[tkd720man]

I've been very interested in reading about the possibility of starting with a simple rail line connecting downtown to the RBC center. It makes perfect sense.

Everyone I've talked to about it says they like the idea, too. They all like the idea of a train in Raleigh, but only if it's got a reasonable chance of succeeding - and this is one plan that everyone agrees has a good chance of succeeding.

One thing I don't think I've seen anyone mention with respect to such a route is the difficulty that NCSU students currently face trying to get to the stadiums for football and basketball games. This would create a lot of demand for that rail line and make a lot of students very happy.

[monsoon]

One thing I don't think I've seen anyone mention with respect to such a route is the difficulty that NCSU students currently face trying to get to the stadiums for football and basketball games. This would create a lot of demand for that rail line and make a lot of students very happy.

[citiboi27610]

The rail technologies that are being discussed for the Triangle do not have the bandwidth to handle a huge load that would hit it when a game was over.

[monsoon]

The issue isn't the rail cars as much as line scheduling. You can't put extra cars on a line that was designed for 15 minute response times. I will use the Light Rail line in Charlotte as an example.

The cars will hold about 250 people maximum standing room only. At peak periods the system is designed for a train to stop at every station , every 7.5 minutes or so. There are 15 stations. So this means that you have to have two vehicles every 7.5 minutes at each station. (one each way)

Now assume there is a stadium on the line at one of the stations and a basketball game ends and 20,000 people exit the stadium. At the peak levels of the line, the line can only handle 500 people every 7.5 minutes (assuming 50% go both ways) To work through this crowd then it will take 5 hours. If the stadium is at the end of the line then its worse because everyone is going in the same direction. If somehow you had 32 train sets, and put them all on the track at once, your problem now are disruptions to the rest of the system and there is no way to reduce station time to 3.5 minutes. But assume that you could, that would still take 2.5 hours to handle the crowd, and most people are not likely willing to wait more than 15 minutes. The only kind of system that can loads like his is electrified heavy rail and that isn't being contemplated anywhere in the Carolinas. They are extremely expensive.

Unless there is a huge employment center at RBC arena or it could be made into a park and ride location, I don't see where building a transit line to make that a single destination would be justified.

[tkd720man]

The rail technologies that are being discussed for the Triangle do not have the bandwidth to handle a huge load that would hit it when a game was over.

[sax184]

This discussion is missing one obvious point about the RBC/Carter-Finley area. There is oodles of parking there that is not going away anytime soon. Even with say, TTA's first phase running, with so few transit connections elsewhere in the region (only 12 stations) you'd be very lucky to get 10% of the crowd to take the train because of all of the parking. Maybe you'd get 10%- 2000 people. They're not all going to arrive at once, they'll arrive at the station over about 30 minutes' time. Assume there's 1000 going each direction, and that means if you just double the train length (hook up a couple of cars earlier in the evening) then you'll have about 500 seats in each direction once every 15 minutes.

That's pretty reasonable.

[monsoon]

I refuse to believe that it's impossible to take advantage of such obvious potential.

Whether it's by packing people into existing cars by standing up in the aisles, or switching in cars that are more like a traditional subway, it's doable. In fact, it's necessary.

I cannot begin to describe the level of stupidity it would demonstrate to build a train on that route and NOT make it capable of handling the game-day traffic between the university and the stadium. How out of touch do you have to be to brush aside something so obvious?

[Transplant]

Will each station be design to accomodate one and only one car? If not, capacity could vary by positioning cars appropriately. More over, if the station feeding Arena area was the only one large, the TTA could line up cars based on station stops. Clear the line ahead and make them 'express type' cars.

[sax184]

Will each station be design to accomodate one and only one car? If not, capacity could vary by positioning cars appropriately. More over, if the station feeding Arena area was the only one large, the TTA could line up cars based on station stops. Clear the line ahead and make them 'express type' cars.

[monsoon]

We are on the same page transitman. Given how hard it is to get funding for rail transit, any design should only put stations where there is a potential for high daily ridership. A single use facility like RBC arena doesn't meet that criteria, UNLESS the location can be used for something else such as an office park, a location for schools, etc.

[thewhister]

You can't run express trains on any of the currently planned rail projects in NC. You need a third track.

As to monsoon's comment, I think we're at the same place. There's no point in building a special line to the RBC/Carter Finley area to serve 6 home football games a year and a broader RBC calendar. There's nothing else out there that is going to support demand in great quantities.

Again, TTA Phase I is in the right place. Spending money on dedicated bus lanes from the Fairgrounds station to RBC would make a TON of sense. Sending rail out there would be a waste.

[Transplant]

You can't run express trains on any of the currently planned rail projects in NC. You need a third track.

As to monsoon's comment, I think we're at the same place. There's no point in building a special line to the RBC/Carter Finley area to serve 6 home football games a year and a broader RBC calendar. There's nothing else out there that is going to support demand in great quantities.

Again, TTA Phase I is in the right place. Spending money on dedicated bus lanes from the Fairgrounds station to RBC would make a TON of sense. Sending rail out there would be a waste.

[monsoon]

I'm sorry. You are not understanding. IF there isn't a train on the track ahead then a train could go directly from RBC to DT Raleigh and not stop at other stations. This would not be an 'express' the same way a NY Subway express is. It would be Raleigh's version.

...

[orulz]

An express train could potentially switch back and forth between tracks, weaving among trains on a two-track line. This is done all over the world, on lines without extremely high frequency. The trains on TTA's line (at 15 minute headways) would potentially be far enough apart to allow this, but it would complicate the operational model quite a bit. It would require Japanese-style scheduling precision, and I doubt we can pull that off without Japanese-style funding and staffing.

But for example, where New York's subway has express service, there is always at least a third track, and usually a fourth as well.

[monsoon]

NYC runs a 4 track system, one of the few in the world to do this, and that is why they can have express service. My qualification earlier was that the technology being proposed for the Carolinas (Not Japanese, not Heavy Rail) will not allow for express service nor has the capacity to come anywhere close to handling traffic exiting from a 20,000 person ball game. In other words, building a train to RBC is not justified due to the cost.

If anyone can explain how it could work using the technology proposed for Raleigh then I would be interested in hearing it.