Triangle Regional Transit

[mattm]

My impression isn't that love of CGB is so widespread that everyone wants to do that instead of RRph1, from what I've gathered talking to various STAC members (I don't get a vote in the matter). There are at least a couple of members that seem to want to do that, and at least one staff member that's presenting it fairly strongly, but I think we're all pretty much aware that not doing regional rail is not a good idea.

The interest in commuter rail is high in any case because it extends the reach of mass transit in the area. The existence of the NCRR study in particular is very exciting because it means that something is already in the works, and success in that area would help accelerate regional rail (in my mind anyway).

Curb Guided Bus does sound interesting on other corridors though. In particular it would be a good fit from Chapel Hill to RDU. Building it does require that regional rail is up and running too, though, since neither regular bus nor commuter rail would be a good connector for it.

[vitaviatic]

As quoted from Orulz, 12/16/2007:

"...A synopsis of the STAC process and some of the discussion/thoughts being generated: The Phase I regional rail project is seen as a failure and therefore some feel no part of it should be considered going forward. A new project should have scalability, which was one of the difficulties of the Phase 1 project. Bus on fixed guideway proposals are being pushed forward as a way to scale a project. Commuter rail is being heavily considered, although it is less effective in changing land use. Several smaller projects would allow a better spread of resources around the region. King then said that neither criteria for selection and prioritization nor funding have been determined..."

OMG! This can't be serious! Buses, fixed guideway or not, would be fine if they were orbiting a high-volume, high-speed corridor, but as a stand-alone system I opine that they would be a collosal failure much larger than TTA's aborted Phase I. You would create a system that would have a much, much tougher time getting accepted than trains, regardless of its merits, for all of the reasons that we have discussed ad nauseum -- myself at length. The statement that I italicized is only rendered true or false when quality of a development is considered. Whoever (or whom-) wrote that, doesn't get around in the transit world very much. Someone please buy this person a ticket to Oakland, and take them to Emeryville, which no more than 15 years ago was a squalid, skid-row, industrial wasteland, now sporting hotels, shopping centers, and the kind of mid-to-high-rise density that ostensibly you want to see in the transit nodes. Probably the most hip place in the East Bay outside of neighboring Berkeley, the wealth that was created there was enormous. And yet, there is no BART station in sight. No ferry pier. No, this jewel was built around the Amtrak California station that runs only commuter trains. Hell, Long Island became what it is by virtue of the commuter rails (LIRR), albeit in a different era. The expressways didn't do it. You wanna drive from Montauk or the Hamptons all the way to Manhattan, Queens, or even Melville? Then you are out of your mind.

I will say however, that it takes a special kind of developer to see the potential in a commuter rail site. A seat, is a seat, is a seat. The factors are price, speed, and availablity -- sometimes in that order, sometimes not. Those seats bring people. People bring money. And developers like to build where there is money. I've hammered on this equation before.

People who chirp "who wants to go from downtown Raleigh to downtown Durham?" are bellicosing on the wrong question. The more important questions are: "Who wants to go from Cary to NCSU?"; "Who wants to go from Cary to downtown Raleigh?"; "Who wants to go from Cary to RTP?"; "Who wants to go from NCSU to RTP?"; "Who wants to go from downtown Durham (i.e., Duke, NCCU, DTCC, American/Liggett, etc.) to RTP?" Any transit planner worth his or her salt knows that very few riders ride an entire route from beginning to end -- train or bus. I would guess that 75% to 85% of ridership and farebox revenue will come from interstitial route segments in between Raleigh and Durham. I've also spoken before, from experience, that hardly any transit system comes with a gift-wrapped market from Day 1, and I said this about Charlotte. Once the rail is in place, the market develops itself around the rail system. People start to redesign their lives around it, if not for the money savings from taking transit and saving on parking, then for the sheer fun of it. Gee whiz, some people actually like those trains!

Buses of any ilk also reduce your probability of deriving any income other than farebox to almost nil. On trains with club cars income can be supplemented by food, beverage, and periodical sales (not an insubtantial source of revenue, mind you). Newer developments in onboard income include plasma screens running silent GIF ads across bulkheads of cars, for which advertisers (such as real estate companies and developers, goods and services located trackside, and cultural facilities) will spend a good deal on to reach that captive market. Proprietary income from terminals is also an option. With buses you will see none of that!! (By the way, in response to the question on what would provide operating income for the commuter system -- well, there is part of my answer.) Instead the all-wise transit authority implementing an all-bus solution will wring the neck of that entity with a high-cost, low-revenue system which saddle the agency with so much debt, and such bad operating numbers that that agency will never recover. And even if it changed its collective mind later, that agency would not be able to implement rail due to the financial sump and public outrage in the aftermath.

You want numbers? I got numbers:

Train crew ratio of 277:1 (engineer/conductor on a 3-car consist) vs. Bus crew ratio of 50:1 (driver only - 60:1 max. highly doubtful) = higher personnel costs

[Train fuel consumption (2 gallons per mile/double-decker DMU) x route mileage (25 for this argument)] / Passenger total per consist (555) = .09 gallons per passenger vs. [bus fuel consumption (.166 gallons per mile - 6 mpg which is good in city traffic) x route mileage (25)] / Passenger total per bus (50) = .08 gallons per passenger > statistically almost a wash, except when considering... vvvv

11 buses needed to move the same 555 passengers as the train = 5.5 times more personnel needed to move same passenger count + 8 more engines under maintenance for the equal service (by the way, Colorado Railcar DMUs use the same Detroit 60 engines (1 per DMU) as each of those buses probably have.

Way, way, way more pollution impact from the buses both from quantity and delay time (no bus operation is 100% independent from the street grid).

(Anyone who doubts me, I can hook you up with the pubished tech data.)

Estimated 1,500 sq. ft. of real estate required to accomodate one DMU in one direction (trackage only - not including platform) x 3-car consist = 4,500 sq.ft. total vs. Estimated 450 sq.ft. per bus (8.5' x 53' commuter coach) x 11 bus spaces (to handle same demand/capacity) = 4,950 sq.ft. (assuming linear, busway-type stations)

Rail is much cheaper to maintain than roadway on a per mile basis, and is generally more durable and longer-lasting when not subject to acts of God such as washouts, etc. It gets much less constant wear, and much easier to fix when repair is needed.

Good grief, if the curmudgeons (especially of the Helmsesque variety in Raleigh) are going to carry the day with their petty grievances, and the transit professionals there aren't going to have any huevos about the thing, then your cause is lost anyway. To a certain extent, it is somewhat a "build it and they will come" proposition. But I still don't think the public there is quite stupid enough to buy into the all-negative rhetoric. Every poll seems to reflect a consensus for building a rail-based transit system, but again they don't want an overpriced, convoluted mess. Stick to your guns and give them a solid, basic system to whet their teeth on. Then take a break and see what happens then. But to say that everything TTA originally tried to do was wrong is an egregious case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[monsoon]

....

Rail is much cheaper to maintain than roadway on a per mile basis, and is generally more durable and longer-lasting when not subject to acts of God such as washouts, etc. It gets much less constant wear, and much easier to fix when repair is needed.....

[ChiefJoJo]

Everyone keep in mind this was from the November TTA Board meeting and there have been at least one or two STAC meetings since then. I know for a fact there is not consensus on the commission for either CGB or rail. I do understand the feeling that the Ral-Dur rail project is seen as a failure by some in the general public ('if the feds won't even fund it, why should we?' is the mantra), and I can see why folks would be looking for another choice. It's quite another step for logical folks to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater" as V put it. I know it's difficult, but people need to separate funding from the overall vision that was developed 10 years ago, and is being revisited now. Funding is a means to achieving the ultimate vision... it doesn't mean the vision is or was ever flawed. If folks could just get past the negative history of the rail project and look at it with a fresh pair of eyes, they would see a state-owned rail corridor right through the heart of the largest downtowns and employment centers in the region... then they might see it as a major historic opportunity, not a waste.

If the STAC comes back recommending the original TTA plan as the first thing to get built, they risk digging back up all the negative sentiment towards it ("Who wants to go from downtown Raleigh to downtown Durham?" "But it doesn't go to the airport!" etc etc) plus all the feelings of bitterness over FTA's rejection of the plan.

[monsoon]

^What they need to do is take a field trip to Charlotte and ride the South LRT. It has the effect changing minds.

[staffer]

^What they need to do is take a field trip to Charlotte and ride the South LRT. It has the effect changing minds.

[uptownliving]

actually, some of the STAC members (myself included) have done exactly as Monsoon suggests!

[orulz]

I have moved some off-topic posts to the Urban Transit forum on Urban Planet.

[vitaviatic]

But this is a pretty pointless argument as a given mile of rail moves far fewer people/mile than highway given the type of rail we are discussing here. On a per passenger basis, rail is extremely expensive compared to highways which is why you see highways being built in this country instead of rail. (the societal cost is a different issue) And that is why you have to pick and choose the battles you fight to put it in...

[monsoon]

.....

I can only use Denver numbers to explain, so it may not make much sense. Current ridership on the Southeast Line of RTD is pegged at around 63,000 pax per day at this time. The traffic for Interstate 25 (with which the LRT shares the T-REX corridor) through Denver has high range traffic counts of 212,000 per day in Greenwood Village to the south to about 220,000 in Denver itself at 8th Ave. My guesstimate is an average of 1.25 people per car. So, the LRT is moving those 63,000 people through a 35-foot socket, while the freeway cuts out a nearly 200-foot swath to move 275,000. Just over 4x as many people are being moved through a freeway corridor nearly 6x bigger than the rail corridor. The numbers begin to slant toward rail, even if construction costs are equal or slightly higher per mile for rail......

[vitaviatic]

Actually you gave ridership numbers for the entire system. Ridership on the SE line is around 32,000 and has probably hit it's limit without more money being spent on it. Assuming your other numbers are correct, the highway is moving 9x the people in a corridor that is only 6x as wide. Using your own logic to argue this, the city ought to build more highways.

It's these kinds of arguments that provide lots of fodder for transit critics to shoot holes in transit plans including those here in the Triangle. What has to happen is that the local Transit agency HAS to get local buy-in from the population as they did in 1994, they HAVE to get a dedicated source of local funding that is going to pay a significant share of the cost, and they HAVE to find a way to get part of the burden and responsibility for building this system built into the politics of the local municipal governments. And, honestly, IMO, they need to get rid of their consultants such as Cherokee Investments because I question their value add when the time comes for when the rubber hits the road. These kinds of consultants are good with coming up with plans that end up getting rejected all while collecting lots of money in the process. If anything, they should at least be given a deal where they don't get paid unless the system is actually built. (my guess is this is something that hasn't happened in the Triangle)

[ChiefJoJo]

What has to happen is that the local Transit agency HAS to get local buy-in from the population as they did in 1994, they HAVE to get a dedicated source of local funding that is going to pay a significant share of the cost, and they HAVE to find a way to get part of the burden and responsibility for building this system built into the politics of the local municipal governments. And, honestly, IMO, they need to get rid of their consultants such as Cherokee Investments because I question their value add when the time comes for when the rubber hits the road. These kinds of consultants are good with coming up with plans that end up getting rejected all while collecting lots of money in the process. If anything, they should at least be given a deal where they don't get paid unless the system is actually built. (my guess is this is something that hasn't happened in the Triangle)

[phoenixnc]

Someone said earlier (I'm not sure how to quote) that rail is more expensive than highway by the mile. That doesn't make sense to me. I believe it, but large expanses of concrete and asphalt, complex interchanges, and massive grading processes seem much more expensive than grading for a much narrower rail corridor. It seems that subways and interstates would be more comparable by the mile, but I might be mistaken.

[ChiefJoJo]

Someone said earlier (I'm not sure how to quote) that rail is more expensive than highway by the mile. That doesn't make sense to me. I believe it, but large expanses of concrete and asphalt, complex interchanges, and massive grading processes seem much more expensive than grading for a much narrower rail corridor. It seems that subways and interstates would be more comparable by the mile, but I might be mistaken.

[Cary NC]

So my understanding is that TTA has purchased a large percentage of the land already needed for the route from DT Raleigh to DT Durham. Anybody know/remember that percentage? I think that the Triangle needs to come up with some type of funding for the rest of I540 and Triangle Parkway thru RTP, Rail of some type, and Regional bus service. I have noticed in former cities that I have lived in, Denver, Salt Lake City, and Seattle, that all the transportation needs are tied into one ballot for the citizens to vote on. Has anyone heard if that is what STAC is looking to do?

It seems a half cent sales tax increase along with the already puny tax on rental cars would be able to fund the needs rather quickly. Anyone have exact numbers. I am sure it is around $500 million a year, so after 10 years we could have $5 billion spent on improved regional transportation. I just sit and lament in thinking that if TTA enacted that 10 years ago instead of the car rental tax we could have $5 Billion to spend now. I am sure someone will correct my math and please, it was more of the thought than the exact numbers.

I know in large this is a Wake county issue because that is where all the traffic is mainly concentrated but on the otherhand I think this also effects all those that drive to Wake County from Johnston, Durham, Orange, Chatham, and Franklin counties. These counties I think will be able to beenfit from increased options in mass transit and road construction.

I am fully aware that the state gov't is out of money for road construction. We just need to take ownership of our problems that we created in our county and not wait for the state to fix them for us, even though ironically the state capital is in wake county and all the legistlators are effected by it too. If they do, then great but meanwhile the clock is tickin until the economic engine becomes stagnant and cuts off because we didn't address our problems.

[ChiefJoJo]

Even though the STAC doesn't meet until Friday, some members have already given their preferences. It seems the regional rail idea may not be favored any more and that an approach that begins some service on either end of the region may be the preference, at least in the near term. I think they are clearly punting on the issue of curb-guided buses versus regional rail from Raleigh to Durham, and starting on either end is the easy way to get around that decision now.

Triangle residents will need good local streetcars, trains and express buses before they need a proposed regional rail link between Durham, Research Triangle Park and Raleigh.

That's the emerging view on a three-county advisory panel of civic leaders who are drafting a list of transit priorities for the next 12 years.

In Raleigh, the short list might include trains running from downtown to northern Wake County, on former CSX tracks that parallel the city's crowded Capital Boulevard.

One priority for the western end of the Triangle is light rail or bus rapid transit service that could offer relief from the clogged U.S. 15-501 between Durham and Chapel Hill.

...

"In terms of starting with Raleigh-to-Durham, nobody's talking about that any more," said Sig Hutchinson of Raleigh, chairman of the TTA trustees. "It's got too much baggage."

...

York said trains on the old CSX tracks could ease congestion on the Capital Boulevard commuter corridor, and the transit service would stimulate an urban mix of commercial and residential growth along the line. The TTA's long line from Raleigh to Durham would not be as successful, he said.

"Even though there's a lot of traffic on I-40, it's a pretty long distance and there are probably not as many mixed-use and high-density locations in that stretch," York said.

A Raleigh-Durham connection will make sense later, maybe after 2020, York said.

George Cianciolo of Chapel Hill, a Duke University pathologist who is a co-chairman of the advisory group, agreed that a decision on the TTA line could be deferred for a few years.

[orulz]

It sounds to me like they are afraid of "waking the beast" of bad press that essentially killed the TTA line. If they come out and say "The TTA line (that failed embarrassingly 2 years ago) is what we should build first" their entire proposal will be DOA and nobody will take it seriously. So instead of starting with the Raleigh-Durham line, they're starting with something else. That seems backwards, but if that's what has to be done to keep public opinion positive that's what has to be done, regardless of what makes the most sense from a transportation standpoint.

[DanRNC]

So essentially RTP is left out of the plans which, if so, is the most idiotic aspect of these plans considering that is the major employment center in the region.

[monsoon]

^However, it does not seem possible that RTP can be served by mass transit given that it is completely the wrong design for it. They could not have done a better job in isolating off the workers from all transit options other than the automobile when it was built and finding a solution is going to be very expensive. It's probably one of the reasons that ridership was not high enough on the TTA design to cost justify it.

The original TTA plan is now dead and there seems to be no chance it will be brought back to life anytime in the near future. The cities in the Triangle are going to have to do something else and the approach above seems to be a better option. (and one that might get public support)

[ChiefJoJo]

^However, it does not seem possible that RTP can be served by mass transit given that it is completely the wrong design for it. They could not have done a better job in isolating off the workers from all transit options other than the automobile when it was built and finding a solution is going to be very expensive. It's probably one of the reasons that ridership was not high enough on the TTA design to cost justify it.

The original TTA plan is now dead and there seems to be no chance it will be brought back to life anytime in the near future. The cities in the Triangle are going to have to do something else and the approach above seems to be a better option. (and one that might get public support)

[monsoon]

^Yet, I can't help but remind you, that almost 14 years have passed since it was first proposed and they still have not figured out how to get it built. How much longer should that proposal draw time, resources and mind share away from other more viable projects?

They can continue to study the DMU plan and it's just going to hold up some other alternative.

[Transplant]

The current plan, if thats what it is, is exactly whats needed. Lets focus first on DT Raleigh and connecting to that; DT Durham and connecting to it. Adding in some Commuter Rail to link into DT.

RTP is years, if ever, going to be ready for mass transit. I see the local TTA bus go through here with 1 or 2 people on it. First thing that needs to be done is put 'busways' in that will connect all the businesses. Allow for connection to the two future TTA stations and see what happens.

Building the TTA line will be much easier to justify if a commuter line running through North Raleigh has several stations, each with TOD.

[DanRNC]

I would say there is no need for expanded mass transit into DT Durham. The area is essentially dead and even with residential growth projections the numbers still don't justify it. The one thing Raleigh has going for it is the large amount of density along Capital Blvd. into DT. NCSU should definitely be incorporated. Chapel Hill and Durham need to figure out their own issues and Chapel Hill needs to realize that most people that live there do not work there-follow the traffic lines out 54, 15-501, and 86 every morning and evening. RTP traffic needs to addressed as I-40 is a disaster that will ultimately start to stifle economic growth in the area.

[ChiefJoJo]

There's another issue probably at work here: Chapel Hill. I think that in addition to the STAC leaders punting on (A) Dur-Ral DMU rail vs BRT debate and avoiding (B) the 'same old plan' public outcry, there are leaders in Chapel Hill who {C} will not support a regional plan that does not include them in an initial implementation phase. This means if you included Dur-Ral DMU rail 1st (~$900M), along with Dur-CH BRT/LRT ($400M?), that's a huge amount of startup cost. Seeing the political problems with A & B, and C plus the high cost, I'm guessing that the STAC leaders see that a first phase with NE Ral-DT Ral DMU rail line plus the Dur-CH LRT/BRT line does four things:

(1) It looks like a new plan to the public (no Dur-Ral rail line first; even though that's just old TTA Plan Phases II&III): solves problems A & B

(2) It preserves the Durham-Raleigh DMU rail line in the future and allows time to study curb-guided BRT (although if you build DMU rail in NE Ral, it almost prescribes extending it westward--which I like)

(3) It appeases the Chapel Hill crowd, solving problem C and hits all 3 corners of the Triangle

(4) Does 1-3 and gets a transit system going at a relatively more palatable startup cost (~$1B)

If you don't believe me, look at this Jan 4 presentation and scroll to slide 11, entitled "Hypothetical Triangle Projects."

I think there's definitely been some greasing of the tracks here . Interestingly, the Raleigh line in that David King presentation also includes Cary as well, which I think makes some sense. I was going to say that if the decision is to start with the NE Ral-DT Ral line, it would make a lot of sense to extend it west to NCSU (like Dan mentioned above), but Cary is only two more stations away, so that probably makes sense too. The EIS (environmental study) covered all these areas too, so implementation won't be too arduous (unlike CGBRT). Maybe this is the best way--considering all the politics at work--to sell a plan and get a transit system off the ground.

[Creasy336]

I'd like to see them implement a Burlington to Clayton commuter rail line intially, with service from 9th St Durham (Duke) to DT Raleigh having higher frequency. This would lay the foundation for the TTA's original line and also start the development of TOD around stations, and change the culture of the Triangle towards one that uses mass transit. I also like the idea of the running an all Wake County commuter rail from Wake Forest to Cary.