Triangle Regional Transit

[monsoon]

In reading through several long articles today on the TTA system, I have to say that it does not look too positive. It would appear the TTA's problems were caused by an unfortunate convergence of several items.

• Unrealistic expectations and promises from the TTA leadership. They originally announced they could do this for $100M. They should have nailed down agreements before going with a number like this. After announcing the plans in 1994, they waited more than 4 years before approaching the freight lines for what it would cost to use their tracks or ROW. Nobody in a leadership position did anything to raise alarms as costs spiraled up to 10x of that originally promised.

• Norfolk Southern and the other RRs that were being asked to share ROW with the TTA have played hardball and placed requirements on the TTA that have significantly increased the cost of the lines. They are protecting unused freight lines at the cost of forcing the TTA into agreements that it can't handle. They are being opportunistic and not being good members of the community. IMO

• The NC Railroad has focused on the instate rail system and the SEHSR project at the expense of the TTA. The NC RR could have forced the freight RRs to negotiate better terms with the TTA, but bowed down to the freight lines instead. In addition some of the infrastructure plans for the SEHSR conflict with the TTA system. There is a lot of blame to go around here for lack of coordination and planning but one word always pops up when you start using these kind of words. NCDOT.

• A federal government that is turning increasingly hostile towards mass transit. Part of this is we elect officials now based in idealogy instead of science, common sense, doing what is right for the people.

I think the bottom line is the present system as designed will most likely not be built. It remains to be seen what will replace it, if anything.

[dmccall]

I just finished reading the N&O Monday article and, man! Are the freight people ever-playing hardball. I didn't realize the TTA had to build it's own pair of lines. What a JOKE!! What's the point in going with a diesel system if you can't use existing lines? For that matter, why are we even trying to use this corridor whcih falls short of meeting so many desirable destinations?

It sounds like the TTA people are so desparate to make a do-it-on-the-cheap plan (which seemed like a good idea given we could use existing lines) work that they will make bad deal after bad deal. This whole thing is reminding me of someone who keeps updating their outdated computer.

Sometimes it is better to go back to the drawing board. Can't SOMEBODY over in the engineering school come up with something easier and cheaper??

[yfreemark]

The freight railroad people are indeed playing hardball.

The diesel system is still cheaper than a light rail line when you tally up the costs for the same corridor, because you don't have to pay for the overhead catenary when you're running the diesel fleet.

I'm also not exactly sure what corridor would better hit destinations in this region. What other corridor more effectively hits the region's major job centers? What other corridor hits the future dense population centers (Ninth St, the downtowns, Triangle Metro Center, Glenwood South)?

As far as I can tell, building a fixed and separated corridor route this long between two cities can't really come much cheaper than the cost that we'll be paying for this thing. Even a bus rapid transit system would mean hundreds of millions of dollars in busways that lead busses on and off of the highways.

[MR-2]

The freight railroad people are indeed playing hardball.

The diesel system is still cheaper than a light rail line when you tally up the costs for the same corridor, because you don't have to pay for the overhead catenary when you're running the diesel fleet.

I'm also not exactly sure what corridor would better hit destinations in this region. What other corridor more effectively hits the region's major job centers? What other corridor hits the future dense population centers (Ninth St, the downtowns, Triangle Metro Center, Glenwood South)?

As far as I can tell, building a fixed and separated corridor route this long between two cities can't really come much cheaper than the cost that we'll be paying for this thing. Even a bus rapid transit system would mean hundreds of millions of dollars in busways that lead busses on and off of the highways.

This is the only good existing corridor. And that is precisely why it gets so much use.

Building more tracks on it is ludicrous. If we have to pay for new tracks, might as well make a better corridor too. A daunting task considering much of the area is JUST DENSE ENOUGH to require an underground line, but not dense enough to provide good ridership numbers for the cost estimate... in the short run anyway. The advantage of a new corridor is that it would be much more direct; it could probably get to the airport, and it would be lined up better for new lines to branch off longitudinally.

Building a new corridor > Flat-out buying the existing corridor > Building new tracks in the existing corridor.

In terms of the benefits vs the cost, I'd say this is how it breaks down. Unfortunately, this is also the raw cost of each project, which is inversely proportional to the likelihood of it being done.

*I think* that if TTA were to come up with a workable scheme, it would be a combination of all three. In the really dense areas, they could build new tracks next to the existing ones (downtown Durham and Duke/Downtown Raleigh and NCSU are already lined up very well on the existing corridor; might as well use that), in the more sparse areas, they could redirect their tracks to a new corridor entirely, bypassing the industrial traffic; possibly including the airport.

[JunktionFET]

I thought that the NCRR corridor is being used because the right of way was being offered to TTA at a bargain price--essentially a "bring your own tracks" sort of deal. Otherwise the cost of acquiring new ROW from scratch in this day and age would be astronomical. Maybe 50 years ago it would've been more economical to do it from scratch. One thing is certain, it won't get any cheaper to do it either way.

Charlotte's proposed LRT and Commuter rail lines all use existing rail ROW. In fact, this is a common practice for many rail transit systems.

The Triangle has only a few signficant islands in what is otherwise a suburban sprawl soup. The planned system hits downtown Raleigh, NCSU, the Fairgrounds and RBC Center, downtown Cary, Northwest Cary, [Morrisville eventually], RTP twice, and several points in and around the urban core of Durham. Additionally a northern leg from downtown Raleigh hit Highwoods, and some other points up Atlantic Ave.

It sounds to me like it already conveniently touches on some important areas and its presence would certainly influence bordering development. Just look at downtown Cary's plan for example.

Where else should it go? Oh it would be nice to have a subway hitting every cul-de-sac laden subdivision in north Raleigh, Cary, and south Durham... but that isn't going to happen. And forget about slicing NEW heavy rails through Hayes Barton, NIMBY land in north Raleigh, Preston in Cary, etc...

This is a foundation for greater things to come, and it is a very resourceful plan even though the management has fumbled more than I care to watch.

I wonder if some of the naysayers have ever really seen or used a real multi-modal transit system in a big city before. I'd wager that they have not... they probably have some image worked out in their minds of how a transit system works, probably inspired by the movies or something--the romantic and miraculously convenient NYC subway, etc. Amazing how the actors are always 5 steps from a station!!

[orulz]

The only other corridor I've heard seriously discussed is US70. But since much of it is already built-up with standard auto-oriented schlock, I really don't think that's a good place to start. Long range, it might be a reasonable companion to the rail service, but the rail service needs to come first.

The US70 transit plan would be thus: add bus lanes as US70 is converted to a freeway between the East End Connector and Duraleigh Road. Bus lanes should also be added to the "conventional" section from Duraleigh to the Beltline. Inside the beltline, just run in mixed traffic on Glenwood Avenue to downtown. In Durham, run in mixed traffic on the Durham Freeway or Holloway Street (US70 Business).

Sounds nice and it should probably be pursued eventually. But then think of how ungodly expensive the US70 freeway retrofit is going to be, and then how much more bus lanes would add on top of that. For the whole package including the US70 freeway, you're definitely going to be in the same ballpark as the TTA rail line, maybe higher. Sure you gain Five Points, Crabtree, and the strip malls on Glenwood as destinations, but you still have to go miles out of your way to serve the airport, and you miss NCSU, the Fairgrounds, Cary, and most of RTP.

[monsoon]

In chatting off line with Norffcarolina, I wondered why the TTA never considered using the highways for ROW instead of putting it on freight lines? ... especially when the costs spiraled out of control. I am thinking of something similar to how the DC Metro uses the median of interstates to get to the suburban towns.

The TTA should be made part of the NCDOT and told to fix this problem. And they need the tools to do it such as the ability to condemn land.

[mattm]

Re: some recent posts. It's helpful to remember who rides mass transit: pedestrians. Wherever you put a mass transit stop, you have to have a pedestrian-oriented environment. US-70 and I-40 are most definitely not pedestrian-oriented.

As to what gets built instead, I doubt any fixed guideway project would get off the ground if this project fails. The $5 registration fee will probably just continue to pay for bus service much like what TTA is running today, and the 5% rental tax will probably go to pay off the $80M already supplied by the feds, so it won't get used for any other possibilities. Forget getting any other transit tax passed in that environment! You might even see the John Locke types lobbying to kill off TTA entirely.

This is really a bummer. I've been moping around all day today over this...

[mattm]

In chatting off line with Norffcarolina, I wondered why the TTA never considered using the highways for ROW instead of putting it on freight lines? ... especially when the costs spiraled out of control. I am thinking of something similar to how the DC Metro uses the median of interstates to get to the suburban towns.

The TTA should be made part of the NCDOT and told to fix this problem. And they need the tools to do it such as the ability to condemn land.

Oh! Actually this is already what's been going on for 5-6 years. The original legislation creating TTA back in 1989 made it like a local government with condemnation powers and with two dedicated funding streams ($5 registration and 5% rental tax), plus the power to issue bonds. However, it doesn't have the ability to raise any additional taxes without getting the state legislature to pass specific legislation.

NCDOT Rail Division got involved in the design around 1999 or so, after they hit a rock with the railroads. There's an article in The Independant from back then if you search through their archives at http://indyweek.com (although I had an NCDOT person describe that article to me as "yellow journalism").

If you look at the preliminary engineering output there are 4 different alignments proposed: A, B1, B2, and C. The C aligniment was the NCDOT proposal. It had its own problems, such as requiring a complete realignment of all the track in the Raleigh "Wye" (near the current Amtrak station). The project of record is a combination of B1 and B2, I believe.

[orulz]

Welcome to the forum, by the way, mattm.

I imagine that TTA did consider using freeway medians for transit, but I'm sure they turned it down flat because it doesn't fit with their goals at all.

There are a number of reasons, but first and foremost is that it's extremely difficult to have transit oriented development by a freeway, while it's extremely easy to have TOD near a freight railroad. Why? Well, the TTA right-of-way plus the freight right-of-way would be on the order of 60 or 70 feet wide. A freeway like I-40 with transit in the median would be more than 200 feet wide. Not to mention that the only existing development around freeways is always auto-oriented. Pretty much all you'll ever find at a freeway-median station is a park-and-ride lot. A bunch of stations that connect parking lots to each other is not exactly a winning proposition.

Noise is another issue. Noise from freight trains is blown way out of proportion - as long as you have grade separations or horn exemptions. Ever seen Glenwood South in Raleigh? There's a rather busy freight railroad 200 feet to the east of it. Norfolk Southern trains run on it perhaps 10 times or more a day, since it's the primary access to their Raleigh freight yard. Even so, it's completely quiet 97% of the time, when trains aren't passing. Freeways are, of course, noisy 100% of the time.

It is also incredibly disruptive to build in the middle of a heavily traveled highway. Sure there would be traffic impacts even along the freight corridor, but nothing compared to the havoc that would ensue as the freeway R.O.W was widened to make room for trains or buses in the median.

It's also very expensive, too. Every time you exit and enter the median you need an enormous flyover, which is an order of magnitude more expensive than a standard railroad bridge over a cross street.

All of these reasons contribute to make building transit in the median of a highway a very poor option - particularly when the highways are not designed for it in the first place.

Sometimes people fixate on highway medians for transit because that's the route that they're used to travelling in their cars, but building in a highway really just aren't that great of an option. Pretty much the only advantage in a sea of drawbacks is that you only have to deal deal with the DOT, rather than the for-profit freight railroads. And while the freight railroads can demand accomodations from TTA due to their contract with the state, NCRR still owns the physical right-of-way and I don't think TTA has to pay to use it.

You may not realize it, but even in spite of the massive cost increases, $759 million is quite a bargain for a dedicated-guideway, 15 minute headway, 28-mile, two-track transit system. FTA calls this a commuter rail line, but you can ignore that moniker. This has very little in common with, say, the North Corridor in Charlotte. TTA's planned line is much more like light rail line in terms of frequency and service characteristics. I challenge you to find anything this long and with this sort of frequency being built anywhere for less than a billion. Whether or not this system is overkill is another issue, but it would not get any cheaper or better by picking it up and plunking it down as-is in the middle of a highway instead of a freight RR.

[monsoon]

It may be a bargain, but many are going to argue that it is over designed for an area of Raleigh's population density considering there isn't enough support to pay for it with at least 25% local funding.

There is an article in today's N&O that repeats some of these issues, but what is more interesting are the comments about the Nashville system. They reflect what I said earlier that something much much less expensive is needed.

Also on the comparisons to the CLT LRT. The federal share of the CLT system was only around $197M, and CLT is removing the existing tracks and building completely new rails. Contrast that to the request of $470M for the RTP system, and it travels along a much less dense line. Something is definately wrong with the TTA's costs. I think one of the problems in reading through all these articles, is the TTA has put its blinders on and is refusing to consider alternatives that might reduce cost a great deal.

[Jones_]

Two quick points tha seem to have been lost in this discussion (although the discussion is quite good!). First, Hotel and meals tax is what is funding the local portion at this point. Hotel tax = visitors expense and still quite low compared to Hotel taxes in other cities I have visited and meal tax of an additional 1/2% is almost frivolous. In other words, its not costing local residents anything at this point. Second, North Carolina is a giver State when it comes to Federal transportation dollars, we get back less than we put into the pot. That alone is enough reason to think the Feds tossing in a share is justified.

[sax184]

Several comments.

Highway ROW is not often a good place for rail because a rubber-tire car can climb much steeper grades than steel wheel on steel rail.

Today's article (Tuesday) was very irresponsible. It compared the Triangle's density TODAY, BEFORE CONSTRUCTION, with other cities who have built rail YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTION.

It also compared TTA to VRE, which is a very different system- one way peak commuter rail into DC- virtually no outbound travel in the morning and very little inbound in the afternoon.

TTA's line will have the benefit of having passenger flow opportunities in two directions.

Finally, the Nashville service is also a radial spoke-hub alignment with 3 trains in the morning, 3 out in the evening, TOTAL. It's the cheap Eastrans option. Yeah, they can get it started, but significantly more capital investment is going to be required to get any growth past a certain point of usage.

TTA's plan is a full-day, full-fledged transit line. Each TTA station is likely to get 51 trains per day. Big difference in service quality, and potential for ridership.

[JunktionFET]

As is human nature, people will jump on any opportunity to attack something they don't like, regardless of how flawed or conditional their argument is... if it serves their cause, they'll take it. Pick any subject and you'll see it time and time again--religion, politics (especially), science, and in this case: transit.

I'm not talking about people here of course--we are all offering constructive criticism or support. I'm talking about the outright naysayers that write editorials or influence a negative (sometimes hateful or nasty) spin on a newspaper article, etc. I fear that those strong and highly subjective one-sided comments may damage the reputation of responsible transportation completely.

[JunktionFET]

Speaking of Progress Energy, I wonder if TTA has examined the possibility of using a utility ROW for a rail line... perhaps not to start with, but as a vision to help inspire people about how the system could develop over time. There are a number of such ROWs that run alongside I-440, and even slice straight up through North Raleigh--along Leesville Rd, down towards the northeast and east side of Raleigh, for example. It seems like it would be much easier to obtain land this way instead of individually buying pieces of property.

Rail and Utilities share ROW in a number of transit systems, and it seems like some of the existing utility ROW in the Triangle could support. Heck, power lines already occupy part of the NCRR ROW in the Cary and Morrisville area.

I think it is certainly worth considering if TTA wishes to feasibly bring this system a little closer to people who might otherwise not give a crap.

[mattm]

Hi, thanks for the welcome orulz!

I agree about the N&O articles this week. They've gone downhill from when Vicki Hyman was doing the Road Worrier column. They've even stooped to the "density too low" red herring now!

Urban density follows the transportation network, not the other way around. Here's a good example of this in my old hometown in upstate NY (a "trolley suburb"):

before picture (taken in 1903): http://www.4cls.org/webpages/members/endicott/38.jpg

after picture (taken in 1923 from almost the same point): http://www.4cls.org/webpages/members/endicott/139.jpg

and further down that street in 1913: http://www.4cls.org/webpages/members/endicott/140.jpg

You can see how much this town grew up from almost nothing at all once the trolley line was built.

[yfreemark]

New Pictures of TTA's railcar (if this happens...)

Not as good looking as I wish, but what are you going to do?

[urbanvb]

I think I was reading earlier in a posting that Orulz does not have a car. I was just curious does the RDU area have a good bus system as it were. I would think it would be difficult to get around in such a suburban area without a car. Here in VB I cannot even imagine not having a car. Going pretty much anywhere here requires having one.

[orulz]

The bus system in Chapel Hill and Carrboro is quite good, and it's free.

Outside of that, buses around here are about what you'd expect. Semi-decent service at rush hour, but things get sparse during off hours and weekends.

When I was in an apartment in Raleigh near NCSU, going carless was hardly a hardship at all. There were lots of restaurants, stores, movie theaters, bowling alleys, bars, etc. all within a 10 minute bus or bike ride. It limited me a little as far as my choices were concerned.

For example: I had "make do" with a K-mart instead of getting to choose between Target, Wal-mart, K-mart and Roses; only a Harris Teeter and a Food Lion were close enough to bike to so I had to forgo Kroger, Lowe's Foods, Whole Foods, etc. I only had two choices for Mexican food and three choices for Chinese within easy range. You get the point. But think about it... isn't that enough? Why do I need 85 choices for Mexican food?

When I had errands to run (post office, bank, dry cleaner's, etc.) I would ride the bus to one area that had everything and do them all at once. The biggest problem was visiting friends who lived way out in the boonies where the sun-don't-shine and the busses-don't-run. I had to get someone to pick me up, or I just couldn't go.

*****

Now, I moved to Morrisville - right in between all the major Triangle cities (a short 10 minute bike ride from my place of employment, but far from anything else). Not having a car severely restricts me in everything that I do, no question. Let's just say it's not the life for everyone. For one, I have to do a lot of bicycling in very heavy traffic and that will turn off 95% of anyone who might think about doing this.

The bus that serves my apartment complex directly only runs at rush hour and on weekdays. Another bus stops about a mile and a half down the road and runs until 10:30pm, but the walk / ride home from there really sucks after dark (55mph 2 lane highway with no sidewalks.) I bought some ridiculously huge and bright strobes for my bicycle so that I would be seen, but I still pull about 10 feet into the grass to the side of the road every time a car passes, just to be safe.

If I want to go out on the weekend during the day, I have to bike to the TTA transfer station, 5 miles away. Going out at night is difficult, so I'm usually in bed by 11:00 and awake by 6:30 - so I can go for a run before biking to work.

I live about 5 minutes walk from a 24 hour grocery store. It's unbelievably convenient, and things would be a lot harder on me if it weren't there. Living so close to a grocery store but so far from any restaurants also helps me save money and improve my cooking skills.

The main reasons for living carless?

1. It's cheap. Dirt cheap. My job doesn't pay a whole lot, but I can still save more than half of every paycheck.

2. It's challenging, I enjoy proving to myself and to others that it's possible.

3. I enjoy physical activity. I love riding my bicycle around, the only problem is that I'm always sweaty when I reach my destination.

[mattm]

Personally, I go partially carless from Cary -- most days I can get to work and back without need for my car. The only hangup I have is running errands (especially having to do with the kids) and getting to the glider club on weekends (that's way too far away from civilization). I see the benefit in decreased stress and helping to make sure that mass transit will be around in the future!

There was a carless fellow that rode TTA for quite a while from the same bus stop as myself; typically he'd put his bike on the bus in the morning and ride it home (he had about a 5 mile ride I think). His major complaint was lack of Saturday service in Cary.

Cary is setting up a fixed route system starting in a couple of months. That system should be more convenient to me since it's a lot closer to my house (200 yds instead of a mile) and it runs on Saturday, except that it doesn't connect to CAT. As it is I don't live too far from downtown Cary so I actually have a fair bit of stuff within a 45 minute walk. I've even caught trains to Charlotte without using my car.

[Subway Scoundrel]

In chatting off line with Norffcarolina, I wondered why the TTA never considered using the highways for ROW instead of putting it on freight lines? ... especially when the costs spiraled out of control. I am thinking of something similar to how the DC Metro uses the median of interstates to get to the suburban towns.

The TTA should be made part of the NCDOT and told to fix this problem. And they need the tools to do it such as the ability to condemn land.

Note: Places like Denver and San Jose use the ROW of highways, while also using rail lines

[urbanesq]

In chatting off line with Norffcarolina, I wondered why the TTA never considered using the highways for ROW instead of putting it on freight lines? ... especially when the costs spiraled out of control. I am thinking of something similar to how the DC Metro uses the median of interstates to get to the suburban towns.

others have addressed this, too, but it's important to remember that TTA's current plans didn't come out of nowhere. There were literally YEARS of meetings and studies and visioning leading to the decision to run the line on new rails in existing corridors. One of the major criteria to come out of the original Triangle Fixed Guideway Study was that rail should not only alleviate traffic congestion and provide mobility options, but also provide a fixed infrastructure onto which growth and development could be focused at higher densities. Another was to minimize negative impact on existing homes and businesses.

Think about it: the existing rail corridor is highly developed and close to a really high percentage of the region's population, but is itself almost devoid of residents. This presents the ideal environment for redevelopment from industrial to walkable, integrated mixed-use, transit-supportive communities. The I-40 corridor, by contrast, has a much smaller percentage of the region's population within a relatively close proximity, and does not present as many opportunities for such redevelopment.

Also, I've said it before, but TTA has taken the heat for the project's slow pace, but major infrastructure always takes a long time, plus it has faced behind-the-scenes opposition from stakeholders playing hardball like the freight carriers, the airport authority, Duke University, Rosemary Waldorf and the Chapel Hill Ottawa Club, the Upchurch, then Fetzer, then Coble administrations of Raleigh City Hall, and a business community that failed to realize until very recently the potential for vast, private economic gain associated with the project.

And now people are saying "we need it in the future, but we shouldn't build it now," which makes about as much sense as saying "I need to fly to New York next month, but I certainly don't need a ticket today, so I won't buy a ticket until I get to the airport." We all know that ticket will be much more expensive next month, we won't be able to choose our seat, and may miss the flight altogether.

[sax184]

Hey- just saw this on the TTA website.

Rail Vehicle Public Display Link

They are also test-running a hybrid bus to the airport today and tomorrow.

Hybrid Bus Link

[ChiefJoJo]

New article here. David Price: 'Waive new reg on rail.'

[orulz]

It's great to have Rep. Price bringing this to attention on the national level, but it's debatable how much difference one person in the house of representatives can make.

It'd be really nice to have one of our senators, Elizabeth Dole perhaps, push for a waiver for TTA. Alternatively, had Edwards stuck to the Senate, he probably would have helped us out a bit more.