6 for D6



It should swing by the Trinity Road area...drop people off at State/Canes games and concerts



[Edited on August 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

8/3/2011 11:26:02 AM

The plan is to have it on the ballot in the 2012 election.

^Station will be at the fairgrounds and there will be circulator buses running to the arena.

8/3/2011 11:29:43 AM

Quote :

"Question someone else asked me: Why not make it go to the airport? I think that's good point."

I read somewhere that in order to swing it out by the airport it would cost significantly more. They want to keep it near current rail corridors to save money and speed construction. I think the eventual plan is to have a people mover run from the airport to the closest station. It would probably just be buses and shuttles at first but would eventually be replaced by a dedicated source; maybe a monorail or something to that effect

8/3/2011 1:59:05 PM

If they make it go near the airport, then the airport loses all the revenue from their parking lots.
RDU is lobbying hard and somewhat successfully to have the line go nowhere it.

8/4/2011 6:06:46 PM

As mentioned, it would be significantly out of the way to get to the airport, adding cost and travel time. I also would argue that it is not a priority, because while it would be very nice to have for sure, you are talking about a place that the average person needs to get to maybe a couple of times a year. There will definitely be some sort of connection though, likely as part of the extremely beefed up bus network that would come with a transit plan and half cent sales tax increase.

8/4/2011 7:01:58 PM

What is your map showing?

8/4/2011 7:05:43 PM

Proposed corridors. The blue I believe would be commuter rail, and the red would be light rail. The initial segment of light rail from my understanding would be from Cary through Raleigh to around 540. The rest would be possible future extensions.

8/4/2011 7:26:20 PM

what's the difference between light rail and commuter rail?

8/17/2011 12:24:07 PM

Commuter rail is heavy rail using more traditional passenger rail trains for longer distance trips with longer distances between stops As the name indicates, it mainly exists for peak time commuters going from suburbs to city. Typically commuter rail does not bring a lot of land use benefits with it, and is more park and ride focused, although there can be exceptions to this, such as some of the stops on NJ Transit and Metro North lines going into New York City.

Light rail is the modern day trolley car. Small light trains that more resemble a city bus inside with seating configuration, and can accelerate and decelerate quickly, which is necessary because stops are usually spaced around a mile apart. Light rail brings the greatest potential for land use changes, with dense development usually seen around the stops.

NJ Transit, Metro North, Long Island Railroad, Septa, MBTA, Metra, and Caltrain are some of the biggest commuter rail systems in the US if you are looking for more info. Light rail systems are springing up everywhere, but Charlotte's Lynx Blue Line is a commonly cited example of a great success story, with a lot of transit oriented development occurring around it and ridership far surpassing projections.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 2:23:32 PM

Phoenix's light rail system (valley metro?) was pretty nice, comparable to Charlotte's from what I remember

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 2:30 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 2:29:58 PM

They are going to tax all of us an extra half percent so less than half a percent of us can have subsidized rides to work?

8/17/2011 3:39:54 PM

need to have a rail that goes straight up glenwood/70 into durham. I'd never have to drive again

8/17/2011 3:57:14 PM

You already have a subsidized ride to work and wherever else you go. It's called roads.

8/17/2011 4:08:52 PM

I pay my gasoline taxes.

8/17/2011 4:30:22 PM

Let bears pay the bear tax. I pay the Homer tax.

8/17/2011 4:37:12 PM

Quote :

"If they make it go near the airport, then the airport loses all the revenue from their parking lots. RDU is lobbying hard and somewhat successfully to have the line go nowhere it."

This is pretty sad if true. And terribly short-sighted. RDU should be thinking about growing and handling more planes/passengers for a growing city, and a good way to do that would be to make it more accessible to the people who use it. They're in the business of air travel, not parking.

8/17/2011 4:42:52 PM

The gas tax does not cover the cost of roads, and to my knowledge never has, not to mention the enormous cost of free parking that is paid indirectly by everyone. If people had to pay the true cost of driving and parking their cars, many wouldn't be able to afford it. For some reason transit is held to a different standard.

8/17/2011 4:46:34 PM

Is this the main thread about Raleigh's light rail plans or is there another one?

9/21/2011 12:39:37 PM

yesterday i was watching public access and they were on there talking about the transportation bond which will be for vote on october 11, and i swore it said something about union station, but all i could find on the raleigh site was

Quote :

""Transportation Bonds This is the first transportation bond issue in the City of Raleigh's history to include funding for bicycle lanes, greenways, new sidewalks and sidewalk repairs, and general street resurfacing projects.""

i did find this tho

Quote :

"On October 11th, Raleigh citizens will elect a new mayor, City Council representatives, a new school board, and vote on two bond referenda. One of these referenda is a $40 million bond for transportation improvements. At the center of this bond is $3 million to build the proposed Union Station in the Warehouse District."

http://goodnightraleigh.com/2011/09/make-union-station-a-reality-vote-yes-on-the-transportation-bond/

9/21/2011 12:46:05 PM

Quote :

"They're in the business of air travel, not parking."

I'd say they're pretty firmly in the business of parking too. Your assertion is like saying that cell phone companies aren't in the business of selling ringtones. Or charging customers to unlock features that the manufactures put on the phone they already bought. Yes, they are in that business.

Quote :

"If people had to pay the true cost of driving and parking"

A major problem is that it's not just government that subsidizes transportation, businesses subsidize parking to a very major extent in a completely opaque way. If you're operating in a highly urban area, then it's quite possible that the parking lot comprises half of the entire real estate value - and thus half the rent. That doesn't even account for the liquidity penalty, which is to say that it's going to be cheaper to buy 2 1 acre lots than a 2 acre contiguous lot.

Some may even argue that inefficient land use has a negative externality, in that it inhibits commerce when everyone in an area is building inefficiently. The land values may or may not reflect this, that's something I'd be interested in asking an economist.

9/21/2011 1:14:39 PM

Right there with you on that. One of my favorite topics.

9/21/2011 2:07:22 PM

But what are you going to do about it?

A customer has a cost to look and a cost to buy. A business will subsidize the customer's cost to look, and sometimes even give direct payouts for it. The business then has an incentive to use any tricks possible to make the actual price higher than what the customer perceives when looking.

Stores don't charge you to walk in them.
Cell phone companies will give you FREE PHONES to sign a contract for their service.

Parking is a cost to look. If anything, business would rather pay people to park and walk in their store as opposed to charge them to do so! I agree we could construct better systems, where things will be much less car centered, walker friendly, and it will be easier and more pleasant to get around. But our economy is optimized on the individual business and consumer scale, regardless of how grossly inefficient the outcome is for the whole.

9/21/2011 2:20:17 PM

Well, I think there are two things: One, often businesses that don't need to build parking or can get by with less parking have no choice because nearly every city in the country has minimum parking space requirements, which is absolutely absurd. Even NEW YORK CITY has them. The other thing is that we have policies that encourage and subsidize sprawl and bad growth. If people were able to get to businesses by non-motorized methods, then I'm sure those businesses would be thrilled to not have to spend the enormous cost of parking (which is passed on to the consumer).

9/21/2011 2:34:58 PM

So is the bond referendum for just Raleigh or a Wake County bond?

9/21/2011 3:02:46 PM

Just Raleigh. The big Wake County vote for the transit plan will be 2012 (if it happens).

9/21/2011 3:14:08 PM

Quote :

"nearly every city in the country has minimum parking space requirements, which is absolutely absurd"

To be devils advocate:

The club on hillsborough st., which changed it's name a few times, used to be Pi bar, had a lot of scuffles with the neighborhood. There were people who didn't like the bar, and didn't like people going to the bar parking on their street even more, as these patrons had a reputation for being loud and unruly (not particularly shocking).

Individuals are individuals and businesses are businesses. Enforcement of customers overflowing into neighboring parking lots would be difficult or impossible, and no business would play their part in building parking as a common good if they didn't have to. Yet the state has already obligated itself to provide transportation infrastructure for individuals to get where they're going. The argument that business can and should just horde their own parking (or use community agreements) probably won't hold up for very long in the current environment.

If we had a major F-you-in-the-ass parking shortage sustained for a long period of time we'd see public transportation materialize. When casual day trippers get the boot or towed on a regular basis, something will change real fast. The libertarian case might easily be to have that experiment and we'll be better off for it. But no voting constituency will let that situation happen without demanding that the government fix it.

9/21/2011 3:38:58 PM

isn't there an election or something happening soon?

10/8/2011 2:37:32 PM

Dammit I forgot to early vote today

10/8/2011 7:08:17 PM

Tuesday.^^

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM. Reason : ^^]

10/8/2011 7:08:21 PM

so what should i vote for?

10/9/2011 2:34:00 PM

I have a reoccurring dream every few months or so where I'm at NCState (typically I have some sort of super-power).. anyways there is always a underground subway from NCState to the downtown of the city.

Let me warn you. Watch out for super-powered bad guys in our future subway!

10/9/2011 2:46:10 PM

^^ http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/ArticleArchives?section=1179044&category=1179213&year=2011&page=1

10/9/2011 4:52:02 PM

Quote :

""If people had to pay the true cost of driving and parking""

Go ahead and throw infrastructure into that one, too. If people had to pay more for services that run way to the edge of town (plumbing, electrical, water, sewage) then people wouldn't really be able to afford their suburban lifestyles much, either.

Quote :

"I'd say they're pretty firmly in the business of parking too. Your assertion is like saying that cell phone companies aren't in the business of selling ringtones. Or charging customers to unlock features that the manufactures put on the phone they already bought. Yes, they are in that business."

No, what I'm saying is that the tail shouldn't be wagging the dog. Cell phone companies can't sell ringtones without first selling phones/contracts, 'naw mean? (Well, I guess they could, but I doubt it would be very popular).

I should warn you that I'm arguing from the viewpoint of an architect/urban planner (I'm no economist), so I fucking hate parking lots (especially surface lots). They kill urbanism and encourage sprawl. I also think that they actually hurt businesses. The more people are in their car, the less money they're spending on goods (and the more they spend on gas, the less they have to spend when they get to their destination). And in the case of an airport, my main point is that an airport would be best served by expanding: adding terminals, increasing air-traffic, building more shops/retails/last minute souvenir stands/and expensive coffee. Real estate is valuable, and getting more foot traffic inside of the building will net more money (in my opinion) than a parking space that can only generate a maximum of $18 a day. An airport that can handle more passengers from various parts of the world, shuffling them around with more spare change in their pockets is more likely to get those same people to open their wallets at various locations within the building envelope rather than a parking garage that really only serves local residents.

Likewise, a growing airport would be indicative of a growing city. The more the city grows, the more users/passengers, which leads to more people using the airport, which I'm sure would lead to more money. Not to mention, I doubt a parking garage even operates at close to 100% occupancy, which means most of that space is wasted, generating zero revenue for large chunks of time.

Quote :

"Some may even argue that inefficient land use has a negative externality, in that it inhibits commerce when everyone in an area is building inefficiently. The land values may or may not reflect this, that's something I'd be interested in asking an economist."

Funny you should mention asking the opinion of an economist, because I read this and instantly began forming my solution as an urban theorist. To me, the solution is just as much architectural as it is economic. The two fields definitely overlap, and its one of those things that I feel like my discipline struggles with. It's very hard to convince people to work together to reach common goals when it comes to building their physical environment, and often times the idea of sharing a space in a society that values libertarian ideals and private property rights is met with intense resistance, which seems to be happening with the airport and parking issue. In my opinion, all parties involved tend to benefit when they pool resources and share common spaces, but the notion of doing that really grates some political sensibilities.

But none of that really matters, because the general public is convinced that they can't survive without their cars, and in some cases, they're probably right. Raleigh is the least urban city I've ever lived in, and it's going to start running into a lot of problems that face other cities like Houston in the near future if it doesn't start ackin' right.

[Edited on October 10, 2011 at 5:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/10/2011 4:58:12 AM

Quote :

"In my opinion, all parties involved tend to benefit when they pool resources and share common spaces, but the notion of doing that really grates some political sensibilities."

I wish more people would freaking realize this.

10/10/2011 8:39:55 AM

Raleigh Transportation Bonds

Yes
29,805
68%

No
14,187
32%

75% reporting

http://www.wral.com/news/political/page/10223704/?group=durham

10/11/2011 8:38:09 PM

I thought that bond was dealing with building sidewalks and adding bus routes?

10/12/2011 9:22:25 AM

Re: rail connections to the airport

Quote :

"I also would argue that it is not a priority, because while it would be very nice to have for sure, you are talking about a place that the average person needs to get to maybe a couple of times a year. There will definitely be some sort of connection though, likely as part of the extremely beefed up bus network that would come with a transit plan and half cent sales tax increase."

The plan listed up there, while it does not go directly to the airport, does appear to go directly past the TTA bus transfer station in Imperial Park (on the edge of RTP). From there, it's a $2, less than 10 minute bus ride to RDU that drops you off immediately in front of the station. If people are willing to get on a train to go to the airport, hopefully having to go from there to a short bus ride wouldn't be a big enough obstacle to cause them to change their plans completely. Heck, if you park in a park & ride lot, you have to get on a bus anyway. Perhaps that would, at least to some degree, make up for the rail line not offering "front door" service to the airport.

10/12/2011 9:24:23 AM

I've lived in other cities that had similar rail/bus transfers to the airport. As long as the buses they provide are ones that have luggage storage and run regularly people will use them.

10/12/2011 9:35:21 AM

No matter what there would almost certainly have to be some sort of transfer, because it is unlikely that you would be able to run a rail system that goes within walking distance of both terminals.

Two cities I've been to where you can actually get on a train at the terminal and go directly into the city center are Philadelphia and Minneapolis.

The following all have shuttle buses that take you from the airport to a rail connection: Albuquerque, Baltimore, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Montreal, LaGuardia, Oakland, Phoenix, San Jose.

10/12/2011 10:17:22 AM

Quote :

"Go ahead and throw infrastructure into that one, too. If people had to pay more for services that run way to the edge of town (plumbing, electrical, water, sewage) then people wouldn't really be able to afford their suburban lifestyles much, either."

They already do...it is embedded into the cost of purchasing the home/lot. When a developer puts lots on the ground, he has to get infrastructure to the lots. He will not do this for free; it is in the cost of the lot. It is not so obvious though because lots within a certain proximity are worth more of a premium than the additional cost of the infrastructure (read: ITB).

10/12/2011 11:35:37 AM

So assuming they keep the TTA transfer center in the neighborhood (it's not an actual building, just a prefab with a bus loop and some small shelters) it sounds like that's a win with the rail line. If demand was strong enough they could add a dedicated airport connector that ran a set time after arriving trains.

10/12/2011 11:35:38 AM

Quote :

"No matter what there would almost certainly have to be some sort of transfer, because it is unlikely that you would be able to run a rail system that goes within walking distance of both terminals. "

Most cities I've been to the station is underground and then you have to walk through tunnels to get to the terminals. Only way I could really see that working in RDU is if they built the train station underneath the parking deck and had it connect to the already existing walkways to the terminals.

Quote :

"Two cities I've been to where you can actually get on a train at the terminal and go directly into the city center are Philadelphia and Minneapolis."

San Francisco, JFK, and Atlanta are also domestic cities with direct train access.

10/12/2011 12:17:32 PM

At JFK you have to take the AirTrain to transfer to the subway or LIRR. Same with Newark.

10/12/2011 12:24:32 PM

It's still a train Even if you're having to transfer train to train most people perceive that as being less of a hassle than train to bus. In reality it's probably about the same.

10/12/2011 12:44:08 PM

I hope a train is built just so I can do train missions whenever they come out with Grand Theft Auto: Raleigh-Durham.

10/12/2011 12:57:24 PM

Durham voters approved their half cent sales tax increase today. Article from The Transport Politic: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/11/09/in-north-carolinas-triangle-the-passage-of-a-sales-tax-increase-in-durham-is-just-the-first-step/

11/9/2011 12:27:52 AM

http://www.ourtransitfuture.com/images/uploads/files/Wake/Wake%20Vol%202%20Plans%20and%20Profiles%20-%20Index,%20Key%20Maps%20&%20Typ%20Sect..pdf
Wake county plans

Pretty awesome stuff.

11/9/2011 1:34:09 AM

^^ Damn if that map's correct I'd get a light rail station just down the street from my house and one right at my work. YES PLEASE.

11/9/2011 7:53:24 AM

The title of this thread still sucks.

11/9/2011 8:52:52 AM

^^^Pretty sure those are old plans. If I'm not mistaken, a different route was decided on for downtown.

11/10/2011 10:00:21 AM