HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2018, 3:20 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Charlotte looks at 3 new rail lines, including a downtown subway

Will Charlotte take the next big step?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Charlotte Observer
Charlotte unveils new transit options, including a billion-dollar tunnel through uptown

The Charlotte Area Transit System on Tuesday unveiled detailed options for light rail to the airport, rail or bus to Lake Norman, and a possible tunnel through uptown.

CATS chief executive John Lewis wants to spend up to $7 billion finishing the 2030 transit plan, which calls for rail lines to all corners of Mecklenburg County.






__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2018, 4:38 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
I would say connect the airport and avoid a subway line to increase passenger counts and to keep costs down and then expand it from there once you get the residents hooked.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2018, 4:40 PM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,776
Can't help but wonder if the cost of tunneling is one thing that broke Transit Nashville's back ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2018, 5:17 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
Can't help but wonder if the cost of tunneling is one thing that broke Transit Nashville's back ?
That's what I was thinking. Sometimes these really ambitious plans are just too much too soon and voters see sticker shock which makes it easy to reject the measure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2018, 5:18 PM
NikolasM NikolasM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 47
Koch brothers casting aspersions at anything mass transit with their near unlimited money is what kills many votes. It's almost like they want to keep people using as much oil/gas as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2018, 7:23 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
I don't think it's the cost of the subway that makes or breaks these things. There are not going to be many voters who honestly think "Hm, this $7 billion proposal is too much to approve, but I'd totally vote for a $6 billion version." People base their votes on the big idea, not on the 17% cost difference between $6B & $7B.

Remember, a few years before Nashville voters rejected the big subway plan, they also rejected a cheap BRT starter corridor. It's not about the money, even if many of the people who would be opponents no matter what publicly cite the money as a reason for their opposition.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2018, 7:41 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
I don't think it's the cost of the subway that makes or breaks these things. There are not going to be many voters who honestly think "Hm, this $7 billion proposal is too much to approve, but I'd totally vote for a $6 billion version." People base their votes on the big idea, not on the 17% cost difference between $6B & $7B.

Remember, a few years before Nashville voters rejected the big subway plan, they also rejected a cheap BRT starter corridor. It's not about the money, even if many of the people who would be opponents no matter what publicly cite the money as a reason for their opposition.
Why not start with a $1.9 billion plan and inform voters that close to 50% will be covered from the Federal government, which would then send the price tag down to millions and not billions.

That would likely pass with ease and then go from there. Otherwise, it becomes a little bit of an "all in" type situation. If voters reject it, then it'll take a few years to come back with a scaled down version anyways.

E] There probably aren't too many people that would vote NO because the plan is not big enough, but there are definitely many voters that would rally to vote against something that seems too big [with or without outside money funding the opposition -- especially if a tunnel is involved]. Los Angeles knows all about those evil tunnels.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2018, 10:47 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
Maybe Charlotte should focus on improving their bus system, which has suffered 24% ridership decline since 2012, wiping out most of the ridership gains since their first light rail line opened in 2007.

2002
Bus 14,319,100

2007
Bus 17,877,900
Light Rail 517,200

2012
Bus 20,858,100
Light Rail 4,950,300

2017
Bus 15,960,700
Light Rail 5,228,500

Charlotte is an urban area of only 1.2 million people and yet it already has 34km of light rail. In comparison, Edmonton (urban area population 1.1 million) has 24km of light rail but six times more transit ridership (138 million boardings annually). It doesn't seem like rail expansion should be such a huge priority for Charlotte.

Nashville's system gets 9.1 million boardings annually with an annual budget of $85 million and a fleet of 135 buses (cost approx $400,000 each). Does a system like that really need $5.2 billion? I think places like Nashville and Charlotte are looking at transit expansion the wrong way. There are much cheaper ways to get people using transit, and more people using transit will make them more likely to support more spending on transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 2:17 AM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolasM View Post
Koch brothers casting aspersions at anything mass transit with their near unlimited money is what kills many votes. It's almost like they want to keep people using as much oil/gas as possible.
Koch brothers contribution was $10,000 compared to the $2.9 million spent by proponents.

Nashvillians simply didn't want it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 2:17 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,819
There was a recent discussion on how Kingston, Ontario, population 175,000 doubled transit ridership in just 5 years. The answer: Make bus routes more efficient so that riders get to their destinations faster and increasing service frequency. Yes, it cost money, but part of the increased cost is offset by increased fare recovery from the substantial increase in ridership.

This is a lesson that can be learned by many cities. Better service is the key.

Incidentally, Kingston ridership is not that far behind that of Nashville, for a city 1/10 the size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 3:22 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Why not start with a $1.9 billion plan...
That would likely pass with ease and then go from there.
Way to completely ignore every point in my original reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
I think places like Nashville and Charlotte are looking at transit expansion the wrong way. There are much cheaper ways to get people using transit, and more people using transit will make them more likely to support more spending on transit.
Certainly I agree that every city should have Jarrett Walker-style frequent networks, with LA Metro Rapid-style bus priority on their trunk lines. However it's worth noting that the disconnected characteristics of these southern cities' street networks unquestionably limits what you can accomplish with bus networks. Buses work great on street grids and poorly amid cul-de-sacs. Nashville and Charlotte have tiny street grids that only serve a small portion of their overall populations. Compare to Edmonton which is almost entirely gridded.

They *can* do more with buses. Unquestionably. But they also have to serve large populations that cannot be well-served by buses on existing streets, which are crucial to getting voter approval for transit spending. The population is too far out and the streets are too twisty and nobody lives directly along the few big radial roads, which forces transit into a model using park-and-rides along express non-arterial rights-of-way. So while I'm sympathetic to your position and agree with it up to a point, it really is more complicated in these cities than "just start by running more buses." They can't effectively run them in many of the places they would need to run them to get the support they need to get. They have to either abandon 90% of their service area as unservable, or have to spend big on express rights-of-way. They could build busways instead of rail, but it would be just as expensive and less sexy to voters.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 3:57 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
While this sounds cool, in theory, in practical terms makes as much sense as the Nashville proposal (which is to say, none).

There are very few places in the U.S. that could use a "downtown subway". Charlotte would not be one of those places.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2018, 8:43 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
While this sounds cool, in theory, in practical terms makes as much sense as the Nashville proposal (which is to say, none).

There are very few places in the U.S. that could use a "downtown subway". Charlotte would not be one of those places.
I disagree. There are plenty of places that could use a downtown subway if it's built in a sensible manner.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2018, 9:38 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Certainly I agree that every city should have Jarrett Walker-style frequent networks, with LA Metro Rapid-style bus priority on their trunk lines. However it's worth noting that the disconnected characteristics of these southern cities' street networks unquestionably limits what you can accomplish with bus networks. Buses work great on street grids and poorly amid cul-de-sacs. Nashville and Charlotte have tiny street grids that only serve a small portion of their overall populations. Compare to Edmonton which is almost entirely gridded.

They *can* do more with buses. Unquestionably. But they also have to serve large populations that cannot be well-served by buses on existing streets, which are crucial to getting voter approval for transit spending. The population is too far out and the streets are too twisty and nobody lives directly along the few big radial roads, which forces transit into a model using park-and-rides along express non-arterial rights-of-way. So while I'm sympathetic to your position and agree with it up to a point, it really is more complicated in these cities than "just start by running more buses." They can't effectively run them in many of the places they would need to run them to get the support they need to get. They have to either abandon 90% of their service area as unservable, or have to spend big on express rights-of-way. They could build busways instead of rail, but it would be just as expensive and less sexy to voters.
If the ridership is not there for buses, the cheapest and most flexible mode by far, then I don't see how it can justify high-capacity light rail and subway. Light rail and subway need to be surrounded by high density and be connected to other transit even more than buses do. Park-and-ride alone cannot make up for all that.

What metropolitan area in the US has the highest bus ridership per capita? It's New York, the metropolitan area with the most rail transit. New Yorkers rely on buses more than anyone else in the US.

When Calgary first built light rail in 1981, its annual ridership was 53 million (linked trips). Today, the ridership is 103 million, representing 94% growth. Their population grew from 592k to 1.24 million during that time, representing 109% growth. So Calgary built light rail not because it was lacking transit riders, but because it had too many riders. The high ridership came first, not the light rail.

Charlotte just finished building a 31km light rail line a few months ago, they are still building a 16km streetcar line, and their ridership is in a downward spiral. An additional $7 billion more rail doesn't seem like the answer, and it might even be a distraction. They should focus more about incremental ridership growth instead obsessing over these big, sexy new rail projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2018, 9:58 PM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
I disagree. There are plenty of places that could use a downtown subway if it's built in a sensible manner.
... and billions of dollars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2018, 10:02 PM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
If the ridership is not there for buses, the cheapest and most flexible mode by far, then I don't see how it can justify high-capacity light rail and subway. Light rail and subway need to be surrounded by high density and be connected to other transit even more than buses do. Park-and-ride alone cannot make up for all that.

What metropolitan area in the US has the highest bus ridership per capita? It's New York, the metropolitan area with the most rail transit. New Yorkers rely on buses more than anyone else in the US.

When Calgary first built light rail in 1981, its annual ridership was 53 million (linked trips). Today, the ridership is 103 million, representing 94% growth. Their population grew from 592k to 1.24 million during that time, representing 109% growth. So Calgary built light rail not because it was lacking transit riders, but because it had too many riders. The high ridership came first, not the light rail.

Charlotte just finished building a 31km light rail line a few months ago, they are still building a 16km streetcar line, and their ridership is in a downward spiral. An additional $7 billion more rail doesn't seem like the answer, and it might even be a distraction. They should focus more about incremental ridership growth instead obsessing over these big, sexy new rail projects.
Quoted for truth. For most cities, gazillion dollar rail projects function as a civic feather-in-the-cap, a sort of status symbol for Europhile Millennials.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2018, 12:09 AM
Qubert Qubert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
If the ridership is not there for buses, the cheapest and most flexible mode by far, then I don't see how it can justify high-capacity light rail and subway. Light rail and subway need to be surrounded by high density and be connected to other transit even more than buses do. Park-and-ride alone cannot make up for all that.

What metropolitan area in the US has the highest bus ridership per capita? It's New York, the metropolitan area with the most rail transit. New Yorkers rely on buses more than anyone else in the US.

When Calgary first built light rail in 1981, its annual ridership was 53 million (linked trips). Today, the ridership is 103 million, representing 94% growth. Their population grew from 592k to 1.24 million during that time, representing 109% growth. So Calgary built light rail not because it was lacking transit riders, but because it had too many riders. The high ridership came first, not the light rail.

Charlotte just finished building a 31km light rail line a few months ago, they are still building a 16km streetcar line, and their ridership is in a downward spiral. An additional $7 billion more rail doesn't seem like the answer, and it might even be a distraction. They should focus more about incremental ridership growth instead obsessing over these big, sexy new rail projects.
The thing is that building rail even when bus ridership is cratering is about building for the future and about trying to generate a transit culture.

The reality is that buses are more often than not transit for the lower-working-class/poor even in Europe/Asia. Bus ridership is tanking in the US because believe it or not the US economy has been on a tear since 2010/2011 and it's causing the working classes to ditch transit for cars/ride sharing even here in NYC. People are not going to build a transit culture around buses if there are other options available. Building rail is about attracting choice riders who will be far more loyal and vested in the transit of the city.

An example is what's going on in Washington DC: As Metro has cratered the people still sticking it out are the upper middle class base on the Virginia/Red Line segments while the working class PG/DC residents are leaving the bus system like it's on fire. If it wasn't for Metrorail, DC would see it's "transit culture" unraveling too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2018, 12:16 AM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qubert View Post
The thing is that building rail even when bus ridership is cratering is about building for the future and about trying to generate a transit culture.

The reality is that buses are more often than not transit for the lower-working-class/poor even in Europe/Asia. Bus ridership is tanking in the US because believe it or not the US economy has been on a tear since 2010/2011 and it's causing the working classes to ditch transit for cars/ride sharing even here in NYC. People are not going to build a transit culture around buses if there are other options available. Building rail is about attracting choice riders who will be far more loyal and vested in the transit of the city.

An example is what's going on in Washington DC: As Metro has cratered the people still sticking it out are the upper middle class base on the Virginia/Red Line segments while the working class PG/DC residents are leaving the bus system like it's on fire. If it wasn't for Metrorail, DC would see it's "transit culture" unraveling too.
More than just transit culture is unraveling in DC. Long time residents are being priced out of their city due to gentrification.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2018, 12:46 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

What happens in Nashville may or may not happen in Charolette. Nashville did not have an operating light rail train line, Charolette does, and it has been recently expanded. Outsiders (Koch brothers included) will not be able to bamboozle voters with misconceptions and fears, the voters can already ride the trains and experience it themselves.
It seems cities with good existing transit in place are more willing to pass referendums for more transit, if the proposals are deemed worthy by the taxpayers and previous projects had been built on time and under budget.
So I recommend not proposing pie in the sky projects, keep them real and cost effective, and there’s a great chance it will pass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2018, 3:37 AM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: all over
Posts: 2,301
Walker style bus redesigns are normally a failure. ie Houston, the one Baltimore just did is a disaster etc

Then again transit in the US is just generally terrible. We have the worst efficacy per dollar spent of any rich country
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:06 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.