http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/4109388/

I'm not for trains. The RTP is way far away from subdivisions in Garner, Clayton, Cary, etc. I do like the idea of improving the roads. The only problem is they need to quit fucking up how they do it. I heard the new 55 bypass is a mess because it goes through Apex. The rush hour buses doesn't sound too bad either. I would also like to see a carpool lane like LA has. We don't need a train, or downtown rail cars. Just buy more buses for downtown.

12/9/2008 9:41:10 PM

RDU desperately needs light/commuter rail.

It's the *ONLY* way the triangle is going to be able to handle the eventual conglomeration into a larger metro area.

RDU is still sparse enough that the cities can afford to put in rail, and commuter lots to handle the suburban traffic. You can't really improve the roads much more than they have, and expansion is pretty much retarded at this point. Adding buses to already congested roads doesn't help either, especially if you take away traffic lanes for HOV/Bus lanes. Converting existing highways for HOV usage is almost always a disaster.

And the fact you are comparing LA to anything we should implement is laughable. They have one of the worst transit systems in the country.

You need trains for RTP, and inter-city (Raleigh to Chapel Hill, Raleigh to Durham, Durham to CH) transit. It would massively reduce commuter traffic, reduce infrastructure costs over time (offset by revenue from commuter rail), and lessen commute times and costs for the individual.

12/9/2008 9:59:00 PM

I'm not big4country which is why I support railway systems.

Quote :

"You can't really improve the roads much more than they have"

i hope you mean 'expand' because the road quality is piss poor here

[Edited on December 9, 2008 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2008 10:45:13 PM

^Agreed! They need to think about controlling the State budget and fixing that problem long before they add a train and more buses. The road in front of my parents house is a state owned road and it is falling apart. The neighborhood paper said the odds of it ever being resurfaced are next to nil because the road budget is pretty much depleted. I wish people would quit voting all of the spenders into office.

12/9/2008 11:36:25 PM

Quote :

"You need trains for RTP, and inter-city (Raleigh to Chapel Hill, Raleigh to Durham, Durham to CH) transit. It would massively reduce commuter traffic, reduce infrastructure costs over time (offset by revenue from commuter rail), and lessen commute times and costs for the individual."

Really? I'm not sure which claim is more ridiculous - a massive reduction in commuter traffic or a reduction in infrastructure costs. Since everyone loves Charlotte - I'll use it as an example. A 9.x mile line in Charlotte cost 500mm to build. I imagine a line from Raleigh to CH and Durham would be at least 30 miles and come with a price tag around $1 billion.

12/10/2008 12:20:20 AM

charlotte's a fucking shithole, and the Triangle would do well to use them as a lesson of what not to do.

that said, NOW is the time you folks in RTP should be doing some long-term-vision planning.

dont fuck up like Seattle did and wait til it was too late.



[Edited on December 10, 2008 at 12:50 AM. Reason : ]

12/10/2008 12:49:02 AM

Quote :

"Agreed! They need to think about controlling the State budget and fixing that problem long before they add a train and more buses. The road in front of my parents house is a state owned road and it is falling apart. The neighborhood paper said the odds of it ever being resurfaced are next to nil because the road budget is pretty much depleted. I wish people would quit voting all of the spenders into office."

What does mass transit have to do with the road in front of your parents' house?

One is maintenance, one is sustainability and growth, they are essentially mutually exclusive issues. But, traffic all around Raleigh is pretty terrible already, and it's going to get worse. They really do need to do something, and a light rail would be a great solution I think. There's already train tracks that go out to garner/raleigh too, i wonder if they'd be able to piggyback on those somehow?

12/10/2008 1:47:31 AM

12/10/2008 4:32:58 AM

Quote :

"RDU desperately needs light/commuter rail. It's the *ONLY* way the triangle is going to be able to handle the eventual conglomeration into a larger metro area."

Huh? The only thing I've seen is massive sprawl, which rail is nearly worthless in helping.

Quote :

"RDU is still sparse enough that the cities can afford to put in rail, and commuter lots to handle the suburban traffic. You can't really improve the roads much more than they have, and expansion is pretty much retarded at this point. Adding buses to already congested roads doesn't help either, especially if you take away traffic lanes for HOV/Bus lanes. Converting existing highways for HOV usage is almost always a disaster."

You are talking out of your ass.

http://www.quickride.org/hov_system.stm

Disaster, right?

Buses are EXACTLY what RDU needs, since they can actually go to the sprawling neighborhoods AND work inside of cities, and, guess what, you can change their routes and adapt if need be--rail can't. Is it so hard to recognize that the density of RDU simply does not call for rail? Buffalo is calling...

Quote :

"And the fact you are comparing LA to anything we should implement is laughable. They have one of the worst transit systems in the country. You need trains for RTP, and inter-city (Raleigh to Chapel Hill, Raleigh to Durham, Durham to CH) transit. It would massively reduce commuter traffic, reduce infrastructure costs over time (offset by revenue from commuter rail), and lessen commute times and costs for the individual."

Run for office so someone can publicly call you out on these idiotic claims.

[Edited on December 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2008 10:31:37 AM

The concept of light rail is good, but how would it work well? The train wouldn't drop me off anywhere near my office, am I supposed to walk the (hypothetical) mile after getting off the train? (not that I mind walking, its just added time to the commute). Not to mention driving and getting a parking spot at the commuter lot.

Right now every night I drive through the thick of rush hour traffic on I-40 from RTP to Raleigh, and its not horribly bad. Adds an extra 10-15 minutes to my travel time. And the way to fix most of that congestion isn't hard to figure out. Everything backs up on I-40 b/c at the Wade Ave split I-40 goes down to 2 lanes all the way till the other side of Cary, which is fucking retarded. It should be 4 lanes all the way past the east side of Raleigh. Likewise traveling west on I-40 backs up when the extra lanes past Chapel Hill end. The solution there is to extend the 3rd lane all the way to the 40/85 connection.

I realize these solutions would be happered down the line by further population growth, but light rail's not going to work unless the businesses in RTP stop being so spread out.

12/10/2008 10:32:55 AM

anyone who's riden the cat bus on a regular basis knows they're clearly not the best option...

12/10/2008 10:40:17 AM

That's cause public transportation in RDU is a joke that has never been taken seriously or given any real advantages to driving yourself.

12/10/2008 10:47:12 AM

Quote :

"The concept of light rail is good, but how would it work well? The train wouldn't drop me off anywhere near my office, am I supposed to walk the (hypothetical) mile after getting off the train? (not that I mind walking, its just added time to the commute). Not to mention driving and getting a parking spot at the commuter lot."

The plan includes circulator service in RTP to quickly move people to and from their work to the rail stop(s).

12/10/2008 10:56:03 AM

thinking way into the future, 100 years or so, light rail becomes more and more practical, neon is at least partially correct as now would be the best time to get parts of it in and let the cities grow in around them.

anyone who thinks this area won't be a bigass city (ala boston) comprised of the 3 big ones and the smaller towns in 50-100 is just deluding themselves. gas prices will go back up this will reduce sprawl somewhat combined with most folks just not wanting to commute for 50+ minutes.

they need to do several things to the road system around here,

1 add those extra lanes around the current choke points out beyond the cities entirely (a few miles out from CH and from the outer beltline would be the best start).

2 improve highway 70 to a controlled access highway, will be difficult and expensive but with parallel roads and connecting only the major access points it can be done. while this is being done expand 70 to 3 lanes on each side minimum. add a connecting spur from nc147 to hw 70

3 finish 540, add connector/extension of NC 147

4 improve 15-501 from MLK through 40/CH/carrboro to controlled access highway, again with feeder roads and a minimum of 3 lanes on each side. (this would also make a mini 'loop' around durham as well)
if you want to get really ambitious you can add a connector to the other side of 54 through 751 and all the way to the edge of 540 creating a bypass for the whole triangle area to the south. extend aviation to the improved 70 for north side airport access.

5 improve/expand/conglomerate the bus transit system HOV/bus lanes where possible, expand biking/running trails and lanes greatly (won't help a lot but will definitely help some)

6 the last and most extreme thing that i can think of is decking the roads, but this is quite expensive.

outside of roads a surface light rail would work pretty well running out of the airport to rtp and other locations, read bus stations. a hybrid rail and bus system can get you to most of the area, this can later be bolstered by a subway system or a sub/light rail/bus hybrid system.

with hopefully a north south (at least HSR line (200-300mph would be very nice)) through near the airport we would have a pretty good transit system for our size. it all has to be done carefully and preferably before it is really needed to accommodate growth, it can also help control/dictate growth patterns

a lot of this is wishful thinking of course and will probably never happen.

12/10/2008 11:05:24 AM

^all your road expansion suggestions are fantastic.

Unfortunately if you look at rail systems around the country there is only ONE city where the energy/cost savings is superior to driving yourself in a car. And that's NYC.

The obvious solution is federal subsidized jetpacks for everyone

12/10/2008 11:11:44 AM

Quote :

"i hope you mean 'expand' because the road quality is piss poor here"

are you comparing the road quality to other comparable places or just angry about a pothole or two? in general i'd say the roads are good in the area

rdu will need trains but my guess is not for at least another 20-25yrs - they should start within the next 15 to formulate a plan - they can afford to wait as it is i think

12/10/2008 11:17:58 AM

Quote :

"there is only ONE city where the energy/cost savings is superior to driving yourself in a car"

i'd rather ride in a train even if it costs an extra 1 dollar a day. i can actually get shit done while going to work. hell i'd ride in a bus now if it didn't take two buses (and over an hour) to do it now.

[Edited on December 10, 2008 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2008 11:23:41 AM

^ I agree. Raleigh roads may sometimes seem crappy, but compared to a lot of places, they're good, borderline fantastic.

Compare the roads to a city like Milwaukee, and Raleigh looks incredible. I've NEVER seen roads as bad as the ones in Wisconsin. The entire road system is just a series of potholes. As soon as they fill one in, a new one pops up.

12/10/2008 11:28:43 AM

Quote :

"Not to mention driving and getting a parking spot at the commuter lot."

yeah that's the biggest dealbreaker for me

i like having my car right outside

12/10/2008 11:31:33 AM

THESE PLANS ARE FINE SO LONG AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR XX%

enter politics

12/10/2008 11:42:42 AM

Quote :

" i'd rather ride in a train even if it costs an extra 1 dollar a day. i can actually get shit done while going to work. hell i'd ride in a bus now if it didn't take two buses (and over an hour) to do it now. "

Well ideally (for cost purposes) the train would be slam packed, and you wouldn't have much room for anything, except maybe read some documents/newspaper held up to your face.

12/10/2008 11:47:13 AM

Quote :

"We don't need a train, or downtown rail cars. Just buy more buses for downtown."

You are a straight genius.

12/10/2008 11:49:55 AM

Quote :

"Well ideally (for cost purposes) the train would be slam packed, and you wouldn't have much room for anything, except maybe read some documents/newspaper held up to your face."

chicago's metra isn't that crowded and is very well-patronized

12/10/2008 11:55:26 AM

Quote :

"The concept of light rail is good, but how would it work well? The train wouldn't drop me off anywhere near my office, am I supposed to walk the (hypothetical) mile after getting off the train? (not that I mind walking, its just added time to the commute). Not to mention driving and getting a parking spot at the commuter lot. Right now every night I drive through the thick of rush hour traffic on I-40 from RTP to Raleigh, and its not horribly bad. Adds an extra 10-15 minutes to my travel time. And the way to fix most of that congestion isn't hard to figure out. Everything backs up on I-40 b/c at the Wade Ave split I-40 goes down to 2 lanes all the way till the other side of Cary, which is fucking retarded. It should be 4 lanes all the way past the east side of Raleigh. Likewise traveling west on I-40 backs up when the extra lanes past Chapel Hill end. The solution there is to extend the 3rd lane all the way to the 40/85 connection. I realize these solutions would be happered down the line by further population growth, but light rail's not going to work unless the businesses in RTP stop being so spread out."

You couldn't have said it any better. This issue came up on a talk show I was listening to about 5 years ago. A lot of RTP workers made the same comment you did. They said they would rather drive and have the freedom to do what they want after work instead of driving half way to work and then hopping on a train and then a bus. Many subdivisions have also popped up over the years and some are even advertising now that they are a short drive to RTP. The main reason I don't want a train like Charlotte is because the plan that has been presented doesn't even take the train past the RDU airport. That is the first place it would need to go.

As for the comparison to LA, LA is spread out like us and installed a train that not too many people use. Their train was pretty much a waste of money.

12/10/2008 1:27:09 PM

LA used to have one of the best light rail systems in the world until GM bought up all the lines and tore everything out.


(this was 100 years ago)

12/10/2008 2:40:50 PM

Quote :

"As for the comparison to LA, LA is spread out like us and installed a train that not too many people use."

LA is a city of nearly 4 million, with ~ 13 million in the metro area

can't even begin to compare the two

though perhaps it might be advantageous to think of light rail/mass transit solutions in the triangle before the area grows too big to make significant changes

[Edited on December 10, 2008 at 3:28 PM. Reason : typo]

12/10/2008 3:28:00 PM

Quote :

"The main reason I don't want a train like Charlotte is because the plan that has been presented doesn't even take the train past the RDU airport."

this is a political problem basically. the airport doesn't want to lose car rental and pay lot revenue. if they were thinking in the long term they would realize that an airport with a mass transit system that goes to rtp/raleigh/durham/chapel hill would be a much bigger draw for business travel/conferences etc.

12/10/2008 7:06:20 PM

Quote :

"chicago's metra isn't that crowded and is very well-patronized"

Thats true, I've ridden it. However, like I stated earlier it doesn't beat the energy/cost performance of just driving a car to work.

12/10/2008 7:22:31 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately if you look at rail systems around the country there is only ONE city where the energy/cost savings is superior to driving yourself in a car. And that's NYC."

It seems to work very well in Philly too. I absolutely love love love the train. My husband rides it to center city every day to work and we use it to go down there to shop or to ride to the airport. Parking is hella expensive in the city and at the airport and traffic is horrendous. It cost $9 round trip from the suburbs and it is worth every penny. I don't know ANYONE who commutes to the city by car.

12/10/2008 7:43:02 PM

How long does it take vs distance? Just curious

12/10/2008 7:59:11 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately if you look at rail systems around the country there is only ONE city where the energy/cost savings is superior to driving yourself in a car. And that's NYC. "

DC's train system is great too.

12/10/2008 8:03:30 PM

Quote :

"Thats true, I've ridden it. However, like I stated earlier it doesn't beat the energy/cost performance of just driving a car to work. "

Would love to see any supporting evidence to back your assertions.

12/10/2008 9:06:46 PM

Quote :

"It seems to work very well in Philly too. I absolutely love love love the train. My husband rides it to center city every day to work and we use it to go down there to shop or to ride to the airport. Parking is hella expensive in the city and at the airport and traffic is horrendous. It cost $9 round trip from the suburbs and it is worth every penny. I don't know ANYONE who commutes to the city by car."

I always took the train from west philly into center city or out to the airport. It was so convenient.

12/10/2008 9:34:18 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately if you look at rail systems around the country there is only ONE city where the energy/cost savings is superior to driving yourself in a car. And that's NYC."

You could easily add Chicago, Boston, DC, Philly, and San Francisco to the list too.

Just sayin'

12/10/2008 10:34:36 PM

Quote :

"Would love to see any supporting evidence to back your assertions."

Okay I found it. It was a study by the Cato Institute, "Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?" The study compared the average energy and C02 emissions used per passenger mile for various transportation methods. The only public transit system superior to driving from an energy efficiency standpoint was NYC, where 30.8% of commuters used the subway/bus. San Francisco-Oakland, Boston, and Chicago were next up at 13.1%, 12.3%, and 12.2% respectively. Sacramento and New Orleans were 2.9%, and Dallas-Fort Worth is down at 2.1%.

I do apologize though, b/c this study didn't take into account travel time. Just CO2 emissions and BTU usage so my argument is indeed flawed. Interesting stuff though.

12/11/2008 12:08:01 AM

http://letsgetmoving.org/pdfs/rtaStateMobility2008.pdf

12/11/2008 10:03:49 AM

Quote :

"LA used to have one of the best light rail systems in the world until GM bought up all the lines and tore everything out. (this was 100 years ago) "

IIRC, isn't this what "Who Framed Rodger Rabbit" was based on?

12/11/2008 10:23:28 AM

Quote :

"You could easily add Chicago, Boston, DC, Philly, and San Francisco to the list too. Just sayin'"

No way dude, it's far cheaper to just sit on the Dan Ryan for 40 minutes each way to go 5 miles and pay $22 for parking rather than pay $2.86 a day to use the CTA.

12/11/2008 10:26:59 AM

Quote :

"40 minutes each way"

40 x 2 = 80 = 1.3 hours

i'm gonna assume you have a decent job (~50k/year) which is a little more than $24/hour

1.3 x $24 = $31.20 + fuel costs + mileage costs > $35 (very conservative fuel and mileage costs added)

that's your real per-day cost, add the $22/month for parking (i assume that's a monthly, could be a weekly though)

and all of a sudden the $2.86 to ride the train and potentially get ANYTHING/SOMETHING done starts to look much much better

12/11/2008 10:53:14 AM

Could you really not sense the sarcasm in his post

12/11/2008 10:59:59 AM

lol it's $22 a DAY to park in downtown chicago, on average

12/11/2008 12:34:22 PM

thats not bad for a major city.

12/11/2008 12:48:18 PM

it's ridiculous, that's fosh

[Edited on December 11, 2008 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/11/2008 12:50:47 PM

for some place like Manhattan that would be cheap....

12/11/2008 12:52:22 PM

double that $22 in Manhattan and you're still getting a deal.

12/11/2008 1:12:50 PM

The first thing each city needs to do is create a "Green Line" such to inhibit sprawl. There is so much unused area inside the 540 loop that there should be no expansion beyond it for SEVERAL decades.

Also, this would ensure that it would be cheaper to redevelop underutilized tracts of land.

If the development inside the green line was adhered to, a light rail would be extremely feasible. However, this would increase population density and housing costs per acre and be counter intuitive to the typical reason people are moving here.

I will be the first to tell you that I don't want to live on a 1/8th acre lot, but i don't mind commuting an hour either.

This theoretical line would cause people to live, work, and shop in a small community area.

#1 priority in my mind is the completion of 540 at all costs. If it has to be a toll, so be it. get the traffic out of the congested areas of I40 by creating another way.

Once 540 is completed, there needs to be a north/south interstate to connect the wakefield/wake forest areas to garner/fuquay/holly springs, basically the northern and southern extremes of 540.

i am against light rail at this point in time for the reason that it will not be used by the vast majority. it is too inconvenient without making changes to the way land is developed.

at the rate land is being developed so sparsely, Raleigh, Garner, Cary, Holly Springs, Apex, Fuquay-Varina, Knightdale, Wake Forest, and RTP will not have any sort of division between them. I think this is a bad approach because when development is spread out, infrastructure costs are high.

installation costs are roughly the same for sewer pipe regardless of the size, the only difference is the material cost. if you minimize the lengths of roads, pipes, power lines, and just increase their capacities, there is a savings.

there is also an environmental consideration to this approach. Less disturbed land = less pollution.

12/11/2008 1:30:51 PM

Everyone who is interested in this sort of thing should take a look at the new comprehensive plan that was just presented a couple weeks ago: http://www.planningraleigh2030.com/

If you really want to be active you can go to some of the workshops or open houses and express your thoughts. The major focus of the plan seem to be funneling growth into 8 areas of the city, with downtown being the main focus. There is a lot of attention to transit as well and two corridors they have envisioned; one going west from downtown to the fairgrounds/stadium area, and one north up Capital Blvd.

12/11/2008 1:43:12 PM

I saw this on the news a while back. PLEASE NO GIANT SQUIRREL STATUES!!!!!!!!

12/13/2008 12:31:54 AM

Quote :

"The first thing each city needs to do is create a "Green Line" such to inhibit sprawl. There is so much unused area inside the 540 loop that there should be no expansion beyond it for SEVERAL decades."

Its called an Urban Growth Boundary. Portland, Oregon is the textbook example of it. It sounds wonderful in theory, but has tons of problems in practice. Housing costs are inflated and inefficiently planned cul-de-sac subdivisions are still all over the place, just inside the magic line. Don't get me wrong, its a nice thought. It is just politically impossible to perfectly allocate land uses to their best uses. You'd have to resort to totalitarian control of resources to do it right. Believe me, I am all about responsible growth, I studied every theory of planning and land use out there during my undergrad. But outside of Sim City, you have to deal with the ignorance of the average taxpayer.

On the positive side, Portland has one of the nation's best transit systems and a vibrant downtown. Portland's rail system was so successful in revitalizing their downtown that it drastically increased traffic congestion. It brought so much more business and cultural activity that it induced travel demand, which increased vehicle travel. This just goes to show you that congestion isn't a problem, its a symptom of excess demand. If you treat a symptom like a problem, you can provide short-term relief, but in the long run you only make it worse (see System Dynamics/ Complex Systems & Feedback Loops). Read these books for more: Urban Dynamics by Jay Forrester & Still Stuck in Traffic by Anthony Downs. You can find good excerpts from them online, they're also in DH Hill.

[Edited on December 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM. Reason : e: I wrote a short article about Portland's UGB for a class. If I find it, I'll post it.]

12/13/2008 10:28:09 AM

Quote :

"thinking way into the future, 100 years or so, light rail becomes more and more practical, neon is at least partially correct as now would be the best time to get parts of it in and let the cities grow in around them."

there is no reason to buid any rail now. All that you need to do is have DOT acquire property and sit on it until the time comes when the rail is justified.

12/13/2008 10:41:50 AM