Triangle Regional Transit

[ChiefJoJo]

Anyone know the extent to which a change in party control in DC in the 2008 election (Dem in the White House; solidified Dem control of Senate) would improve the financial climate for Mass Transit? Any chances the funding formulas would loosen again?

[mattm]

Anyone know the extent to which a change in party control in DC in the 2008 election (Dem in the White House; solidified Dem control of Senate) would improve the financial climate for Mass Transit? Any chances the funding formulas would loosen again?

My cynical side says "probably not" especially given the impact on the federal budget of Dubya's ongoing foreign escapades...

[ChiefJoJo]

Actually it will do very little. The transportation authorization law runs for 6 year intervals. The previous one expired in 2003, but was not renewed until 2005 (the famous "Bridge to Nowhere" fiasco), so we're not due to renew until 2011 now I think.

In a sense, yes, the 2008 election is important since the administration that will have to propose and ride herd on the new bill will be elected then, but also the 2010 election will be important too because control of congress is also important. The 2000 and 2002 elections got us in the mess we're in now, so we need to remember that when our opportunities come up in the future.

[ncwebguy]

I figured there was some out of service time for buses around that time, but thought it was weird that it happened away from the RTP terminal or the downtown Chapel Hill/Durham/Raleigh stations. Or even in the Morrisville Outlet mall where they often train, etc.

I don't think any of the buses had riders, but they may have been picked up by shuttles.

Shutting buses down on the side of 40 is *not* a way to encourage ridership!

[tjoad]

TTA evacuated its buses because of a bomb threat.

Even parts of Franklin St. were evacuated .

[ChiefJoJo]

The TOD lecture last night...

JDC, I missed you if you were there... tjoad, I think I saw you but you might have left early. Dana was there. Oh, yes, I know know who the whister is. Mayor Meeker and Thomas Crowder were there.

Cervero made some good points:

• set forth the land use vision, then match the most appropriate transit technology to the vision

• park & ride trips eliminate many of the environmental benefits of transit

• TOD is not a one-size-fits-all arrangement

I've heard Reid Ewing before and he's done some cutting edge research on the effects of sprawl on health, but I'm sure that more than a few people felt he was not very positive with respect to our area improving it's livability via transit. He noted we rank near the bottom of several measures of density and land use patterns. I know he took the contrarian view, but it came across as a little bit deflating... like why should we even pursue transit?

David King said a few things that reinforced how I think we are going to proceed with transit via the Cherokee deal. I like how he said we can remake the area with TOD setting the tone for high density, walkable places... transit won't solve traffic problems but can be a major land use tool. That needs to be a key message going forward.

The gentleman from Cherokee was impressive, and I got the real sense they are 100% comitted to making transit and sustainability work.

I enjoyed the forum and was easily the most well-attended, but to me it was not as interesting or informative as Bruce Katz's talk on transformative investments in Feb.

[tjoad]

Yeah Jo I was there but I had to sneak out a little early, plus Mr. Ewing's lecture was ok but it did little to keep me there any longer. Although I'm sorry I missed King speak.

Mr. Cervero's lecture was very interesting and showed how well planned and executed TOD should be in order to justify the investment. But one of the last things he said was one of the most important, and that is how we should start out with a small well designed transit system/TOD, and build from that. That is especially important in our region where there are naysayers galore, and show them a great example of an efficient transit system.

There will be streaming video of this lecture sometime soon, for those who missed it.

[thewhister]

Yeah Jo I was there but I had to sneak out a little early, plus Mr. Ewing's lecture was ok but it did little to keep me there any longer. Although I'm sorry I missed King speak.

Mr. Cervero's lecture was very interesting and showed how well planned and executed TOD should be in order to justify the investment. But one of the last things he said was one of the most important, and that is how we should start out with a small well designed transit system/TOD, and build from that. That is especially important in our region where there are naysayers galore, and show them a great example of an efficient transit system.

There will be streaming video of this lecture sometime soon, for those who missed it.

[sax184]

With regards to the Transit Advisory Commission, I hope that there will be something good that comes out of this group. Since I am on it there is already signs of people that are pro-rail and pro-rubber-tires-meets-the pavement.

[ChiefJoJo]

Coming out of Cervero's presentation last Thursday night, I was thinking about the transit/land use vision for the area, and whether we're on the right track. He mentioned how Ottawa decided they didn't want to grow too dense and thus focused on a BRT system with feeder buses, and it works extremely well... he also emphasized that each area is so unique, planners much not use a one-size-fits-all model...

(1)I (still) think that a spine system using the orginal TTA Phase I DMU (Duke Med to NE Ral) should still be the base system on which to begin and build upon. I think the fact that it hits the major employment centers (minus UNC) and downtowns and parallels I-40 makes it a winner long term, although it may be tough to sell given the past failures of TTA. This must be sold as a land use scenario, just as important as the transportation option. We should have extremely limited (on the fringe stations like NE Ral) or no park and ride options for these stations IMO. With Cherokee on board and the possibility of TIFs for funding the startup, I think this could limit the capital costs via taxes/fees to the general public (users pay majority of the costs). I believe Cervero said Portland used the TIF as a method for starting up it's system.

(2)I think that a BRT system for the TTA Phase II (Duke Med to UNC Med) line might work very well considering it was the recommended technology in the MIS study, it's cheap to build, and it has the most flexibility to operate in mixed traffic or exclusive lanes on 54 & 15/501. Given the shorter length (10mi?), DMU is not a great match, and LRT is overkill and more costly. The downside is that very few folks favor BRT in the US, and it appears to adversely impact the likelihood of TODs sprouting up.

(3)EASTRANS is still a great plan as well, and would tie in well with TTA, and could likely be achieved with a small intial startup cost for a basic system to connect the eastern towns and provide an economic development tool and an alternative to sprawl.

(4)Now, other than that, I really think we could use some sort of BRT or rapid bus using existing or future exclusive lanes to tie-in other areas to the main sytem. You could even use HOV or HOT lanes that the BRT could use for free, say along 540, 40, US 70, 401, that could complement the rail system (for those suburban folks that don't want to live in dense neighborhoods near transit stations).

Whatever plan is adopted *must* have a mix of TOD-type developments around stations (DT Ral, Govt Ctr, DT Durham, etc) to achieve our land use goals... *but* must also acknowledge that there are lots of residents (voters) out there who don't live, nor want to live, in dense TODs. That, along with getting *something* basic funded and rolling, will help sell any plan that goes forward to the broader general public. If you tie it all together, DMU regional rail, BRT, commuter rail, and rapid or express buses in HOV/HOT lanes (or mixed traffic) I think represents a broad approach to the issues of a diverse population, unique corridors and varying land uses that we see in the region.

[thewhister]

Would you say that the pro-rail/pro-bus signs you are seeing are similar to the MPO interests, (i.e. Wake more interested in Roads, Durham/Orange more in transit/rail) or is that not necessarily the pattern?

[monsoon]

......

(2)I think that a BRT system for the TTA Phase II (Duke Med to UNC Med) line might work very well considering it was the recommended technology in the MIS study, it's cheap to build, and it has the most flexibility to operate in mixed traffic or exclusive lanes on 54 & 15/501. Given the shorter length (10mi?), DMU is not a great match, and LRT is overkill and more costly. The downside is that very few folks favor BRT in the US, and it appears to adversely impact the likelihood of TODs sprouting up.......

[orulz]

Exactly, Metro.

I strongly disagree with FTA's pitch that BRT can offer equivalent service to LRT for often 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.

If a BRT line is built with a dedicated right-of-way, it might cost about 80% as much to build as a Light Rail line. But nobody ever does that. A big reason that BRT is so much cheaper is that it usually incorporates long stretches of mixed-traffic running, where the only capital costs are new pavement striping, shelters, and benches. With LRT, even when running on-street, you still have to lay tracks and string catenary wire. And when LRT gets a dedicated lane (which is most of the time) it's a lane that cars physically cannot use, whereas dedicated BRT lanes are prone to double parking and other blockages.

Yes, BRT saves money, but you end up with a functionally inferior line. And you can make up the difference in capital costs over a decade or so of operation: LRVs carry more passengers per operator, last about 3 times as long as BRT buses, and run on electricity, which is cheaper than diesel fuel.

BRT absolutely has a reason to exist, however, and every city's bus system should incorporate elements of it. One of the best things about BRT is that it can be implemented one element at a time, incrementally improving and speeding up existing bus routes. First add the shelters, then the bus lanes, then signal priority, and finally the sleek, comfortable, high-capacity buses. But make no mistake: BRT is an improved mode of bus service, not an equivalent to a rail line.

[sax184]

Great post, orulz. There's one other problem with BRT. There is no BRT project in the USA that has changed development patterns in any significant way. The development community does not run to build TOD when you put in BRT. It just doesn't happen. You get large park-and-ride facilities in recent growth cities, and in old-growth cities like Boston and LA, the quasi-BRT implementations in both places support density that was already there.

BRT has also reached oversell for what it can do. The Triangle needs to chart its own path, and whoever said the NCRR is a gift from the transit gods was right. We'd be out of our minds not to figure out how to use it.

[ChiefJoJo]

I strongly disagree with FTA's pitch that BRT can offer equivalent service to LRT for often 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.

[monsoon]

^It should be noted the Charlotte MTC has shelved a decision on going to BRT on this route since nobody wants it and the line is dependent on the NCDOT's plans for Independence blvd which won't be realized for another decade. At that point they should have some real world experience with the South LRT and won't need to rely as much on the models for predicitons. They plan to re-address the decision in 5 years.

[vitaviatic]

As far as BRT goes, from our experience in Denver, you can fill them up during the morning and afternoon rushes, but the real barometer of how popular it is evidenced during the off-peak hours. Light rail in both the southwest and southeast corridors here tends to stay 1/2 to 3/4 full during off-peak, at least until the late night hours when it begins to ebb and flow. Meanwhile, the BRT scheme on the north end (with dedicated HOV lanes down the middle of I-25, and limited stops) runs virtually empty artics during off peak. And it is true -- nothing has been added in the way of development enhancements due to BRT. Whatever is there, was already there, and by virtue of the freeway itself (no TODs).

In the absence of anything else, even having said all of that, as an "it'll do" project it may be fine for Durham-Chapel Hill via 15-501 ***provided*** that the infrastructure costs were incorporated into a highway improvement project, such as Denver's T-REX was whereby ROW and excavation costs were co-opted between CDOT (highway) and RTD (transit). If that's the case, TTA will need to toss something substantial into the pot -- and whether or not that underwhelmingly funded agency should expend that kind of funding for a BRT is a precarious issue. We have a full one-cent sales tax in 6 counties to support transit here. RDU has a rental car tax and Balkanized city-run "competitors" for fed funding. Pick your battles wisely.

I just returned from a trip to Oakland. It would behoove anyone in the planning spheres of TTA to give close scrutiny to developments in the Golden State. I was unaware of this, amazingly enough, but the Capitol Corridor service has been extended from Sacramento all the way through Oakland and the East Bay, on down to San Jose. This isn't BART, or other transit specific ROW we're talking about here. This is down the main SP/UP corridor that empties out of the Port of Oakland into the western states. The Port of Oakland is one of the ten busiest ports in the Western Hemisphere, and spits out way more rail traffic than either NCRR's half dozen freight trains per week, or even CSX or Norfolk lines "Down East". Caltrans entered a partnership with UP to upgrade the trackage (multi mainline between Sacto and Oakland), with improvements pending along the East Bay. Both Amtrak California and UP have the full usage of all tracks, while UP maintains the dispatching, but with pretty stringent performance standards in place, unlike Amtrak intercity trains. It's a full schedule too. 16 Sacto departures to Oakland, with 7 trains through to San Jose "westbound" (sic), with an equal schedule "eastbound" back to Sacto. Sporting lounge cars with snack bars, lavatories, reclining chairs, and tabletops, they are way more comfortable than a car or a bus to ride in. With 120VAC outlets and WiFi provided for laptops as well, you would create plenty of demand for this type of service.

If the State of North Carolina could come up with a quid pro quo arrangement similar in nature with CSX or NS -- a co-opting of the tracks so to speak -- the freight carriers reduce their infrastructure burden by doing so, while coming by double tracking and improved flow, and the state gains specified usage of the trackage without a giveout with a "corporate welfare" stench to it. This would not apply so much to the NCRR, since the State already owns it, but it bodes well for an "Eastrans" operation. Granted California is a way bigger state, but the commuter dynamics are similar. With a high concentration of universities and high-tech employment in the Triangle, Eastrans would avail students from Down East the opportunity to stay at home with family (saving on rent), and much higher paying jobs than would be accessible sans a 4-hour commute at $4 a gallon. In turn, with greatly improved access, the Down East cities -- Rocky Mount, Wilson, Smithfield/Selma, Goldsboro, perhaps even Kinston -- will become more attractive to industrial concerns with readily available "easy commute" access to Triangle ammenities. Politically speaking, it would bring way more supporters under the umbrella than a stand-alone TTA.

It shouldn't be lost on anyone either that, if Eastrans does get going, it increases the efficacy of TTA two- to three-fold. The connectivity between Sacramento's RT light rail, BART at Oakland, and the VTA light rail in San Jose is awesome, and really shows up in the freeway census numbers. Remember that California (even those parts of Northern California) "grew flat" in the absence of that kind of rail service. NorCal is just now playing catch up, trying desperately to take pressure off of I-80 and its gaggle of bypass cousins. If NC institutes this kind of service before sprawl creeps out along 64 and 70 (any farther than it already has) perhaps dense nodes can be developed within the cores of these struggling communities to limit the strip-malling effects of supercommuter hell.

[ChiefJoJo]

Did you know that as gas prices rise, demand for transit ridership increases? Amazing stuff, huh.

[Jones_]

Did you know that as gas prices rise, demand for transit ridership increases? Amazing stuff, huh.

[orulz]

Did you know that as gas prices rise, demand for transit ridership increases? Amazing stuff, huh.

[vitaviatic]

Party pooper back again with some links to BRT case studies.

Light Rail Now.org

Considering the source, one could make the case that this reference might lack objectivity. That may well be true, but the cases are well documented, and you can follow the "press droppings" all the way through as verification. Of particular note, the experiences of Honolulu, Ottawa, and Winnipeg are illustrative.

Main point -- once you go BRT, it is not easily retrofitted to "insert light rail here". So if BRT is done, you better be sure that is what you want to do, AND that it is absolutely the best option available without cost as a factor. In other words, if rail of any type would work better, for whatever reason, better to spend more time getting one's ducks in a row and go for the real thing.

Of my personal knowledge, yet another BRT project that is sinking is the TransCaribe project in Cartagena. This one, like most BRTs, looks good on paper, but the tires are nearly flat on this project that was to be majority funded through the World Bank. These things aren't as simple as they seem. They seem to combine more of the bad traits of both trains and buses than the good ones, and they only work if you get them completely off the roadway (forget priority signalling, and that other crap). If it's in, or even near the streets, it won't sell with the riders at all. Better than nothing, but not by much.

Ciao.

[ChiefJoJo]

The article also mentions a "regional bus expansion plan." Details on that plan can be found in the May 1 Agenda for the TTA Planning & Legislative Committee.

[thewhister]

Well Chief from the STAC meeting yesterday we learned a little bit more about the Transit Blueprinting process and the information that has been gathered and a presentation on national perspectives on transit.

John Hodges-Copple from TCOJ shared information on the Blueprinting process:

1. The 3 transit challenges are: land use planning, funding, and governance.

2. We are part of a Megaregion called PAM (Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion) that spans from the Triangle - Charlotte - Atlanta to Birmingham, AL that will continue to gain in population. In the Triangle alone we will add about 1 million more people by 2030 and during the past 15 years we have had a 57% population growth and that this trend is higher than the growth in Charlotte and even nationally.

3. Triangle demographics - 21,000 households (1 out of 11 people) in the triangle have no vehicle as means of transportation. 20-30% of households are preffering compact and walkable communities. And that by 2030, 15% of Triangle residences wil be 65 years and older.

He talked about transit and land use = dense/intense development, that it needs to be mixed, and that is needs to be properly designed to accomodate current/future transit use/service. He talked about the different levels of land use, begining with the 1> site/property, integrating with 2> the neighborhood, and the neigborhood integrating with a 3> transportation corridor (grouping of neighborhoods) and integrating to 4> the region (grouping of corridors).

Of course Atlanta was mentioned (and the jab of not wanting to be like Atlanta....) and a proposal to widen one of the interstates that would be as wide as a football field including both endzones. Then shifted to else is Atlanta is doing to reverse what has been done and having transit be part of that solution. John mention that there is community planning around transit infrastructure, working with public/private partnerships, getting the business communities to make a commitment and changing the decision making process via a regional governing body and compared that to what we have here in the triangle (he listed well over half a dozen acronyms of the governing authorities - too many for my notes) that a decision would have to be made.

A powerpoint of John's presentation will be provided to the commission members and some members of the commission felt that using "Blueprinting" sounds a bit concrete.

Bill Millar, APTA president, was here to speak to us about the national perspective on transit. He mentioned that there are a few places in the country that faced the same challenges we are having: Tampa, FL; Indianapolis, IN; and Montgomery, AL. On to national perspectives! did we know that 35 million people take transit on a daily basis in our country? more than aviation which is about 1.5 million per day. Last year 10 billion trips were made on transit, highest in 49 years. In 1946 transit use peaked at 24 billion trips and has declined to a low in 1972. He mention what would 10 billion customers be like and it would equate to people going to all major sporting events + movie theatres + eating at McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's (a little disturbing here) combined.

He mentioned that there are 6 impacts on transit:

1. Changing demographics

2. Global competitiveness

3. Energy security

4. Enviornmental impacts

5. Advances in information technology (GPS tracking, information delivery via cell, PDA, smartcards, etc.)

6. Overcoming the old perception of using transit

In 39 years, there will 100 million more people in our country and the population will be more diverse and the notion of one size fits all with not work anymore. Globally, the USA lacks the transportation investment. He compared the investment of GDP, and the country invests 0.93% towards transportation, compared that with China at 9% and India at 3.5%. There needs to be a COMPLETE transportation system - roads, rail, transit, aviation. Nationally 25% of the country have an adequate transportation system.

Polls nationally, he mentioned that the majority of americans want public transportation and that public funds are need for that investment (75% people approve) and that people want rail and bus to travel compared to car (11%). Last year there was 200 ballot initiatives for funding transit investment - 70% of those ballot measures were approved. He mentioned that the public is starting to understand the value of investing in transit but do not understand the personal benefits.

Last year, $63 billion was wasted in traffic conjestion. For every $10 million in transit investment, $30 million return in economic benefit.

Trends - Developers are starting to understand Transit Oriented Development and that 50% of the built enviornment has not been built yet in this country (till year 2050). The transit zone is the "New Beach Front Property" The investment needs to be public first to generate private investment so the rate of return is a stable and incremental increase in long term taxation. The key also is to make relationships with local governing bodies for TOD to be effective. Business leadership - he mentioned how many business offer "Free Parking" and that the mindset should be to offer transit incentives - a gesture of changing ways.

He charged the commission to 1> BE BOLD. 2> BE INNOVATIVE, 3> BE PERSISTANT, and 4> BE TOGETHER in this vision process.

A lot of facts have poured out of this meeting and it is probably preaching to the chior on this forum, but we as the commission have to be educated.

Our next meeting will focus on transit and transportation planning in the region.

[DPK]

Whoa, thewhister, that's probably one of the more impressive posts I've seen on here in a while. You either take some mean notes or have one heck of a memory. Either way, nice.

[urbanaturalist]

Of course Atlanta was mentioned (and the jab of not wanting to be like Atlanta....) and a proposal to widen one of the interstates that would be as wide as a football field including both endzones. Then shifted to else is Atlanta is doing to reverse what has been done and having transit be part of that solution. John mention that there is community planning around transit infrastructure, working with public/private partnerships, getting the business communities to make a commitment and changing the decision making process via a regional governing body and compared that to what we have here in the triangle (he listed well over half a dozen acronyms of the governing authorities - too many for my notes) that a decision would have to be made.

Before long there going to be wanting to build more car lanes "AS WIDE AS a Nacar Oval". Atlanta USE to be the train capital of the South, thats part of why it is what it is. Instead of waiting for millions of new North Carolina residents to come, why not build a some regional rail move a lot faster than now. Disciplined those transportation funds to get out of the car and pore it into connecting our metro areas and cities in them. `