There's nothing in the article that suggests the calculations account for fuel economy, just miles driven.

FTA:

Quote :

"The cities and suburbs of “The Triangle” are close enough that people don’t think twice about driving from one to the other. Yet in doing so, the average household racks up 21,800 miles per year. Assuming an average 20.3 miles per gallon, that means burning through 1,074 gallons per year, about $4,200 at current prices."

So even if everyone in the triangle drove a Honda Fit, we'd still be atop of this list.


Ultimately, this list is more about urban sprawl than fuel utilization. A more interesting (though still imprecise) stat would be the amount of gas sold per-capita in the triangle compared with other areas on the list.

5/16/2011 9:31:35 AM

Quote :

"i want a dirigible service between downtown raleigh, durham, greensboro, charlotte, etc."

This made me lol because one of my co-workers is really huge on blimps and thinks they should be brought back as a cost efficient method for short distance travel.

5/16/2011 10:00:15 AM

I see the problem most days as I sit at stop lights. The other day I was sitting at one and realized I was completely surrounded by SUVs on all sides. I began looking at them and yep I think 6 of the 8 were just single women with no other passengers.

5/16/2011 10:30:52 AM

Fuel efficiency is definitely an issue, but only a part of it. Congestion is already an issue in the Triangle, and with a million people expected to be added to the Raleigh metro area in the next 25 years (fastest growing metro area in the country), there is simply no way to build out of road congestion. We need to be able to give people who do not want to drive or are unable to drive the ability to use transit or walk and bike safely (in addition to continuing to improve road infrastructure).

5/16/2011 10:38:36 AM

^ agree. The towns and cities of the triangle have to stop expanding out (especially you, Cary) their borders and start building up.

5/16/2011 11:32:34 AM

Quote :

"Can't tow my boat or trailers full of four-wheelers with a car."

Europeans manage to tow everything with their tiny 4-cylinder hatchbacks. Sometimes they just need a running start to get up the hill.

Quote :

"Congestion is already an issue in the Triangle, and with a million people expected to be added to the Raleigh metro area in the next 25 years"

For the last four decades the trends have remained the same: we have spent ever more money on mass transit networks while mass transit ridership has continued to fall, replaced by ever more drivers on the roads where spending has been down. This has been the case across America, in Europe, it is even the case in New York City for goodness sakes. Why do some people assume these trends are going to suddenly reverse themselves now? Wishful thinking?

Cities across the country have spent vast sums of money on light rail systems only to have mass transit ridership fall, replaced by a flood of new drivers and traffic jams on a road network they might have otherwise spent the money expanding.

The convenience of a car is too much for people to pass up. This convenience can sometimes be matched by liberated bus service where private operators provide curb to curb service akin to the buses to NCState from off-campus apartment complexes.

That said, currently cars are even cheaper than the bus trips people are making today. According to the statistics from the National Transit Database, an average bus trip in Raleigh cost $18.53 to complete at a public subsidy of $16.80.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=4208

5/16/2011 11:32:38 AM

Quote :

"Europeans manage to tow everything with their tiny 4-cylinder hatchbacks. Sometimes they just need a running start to get up the hill."

We like our tow vehicles to be able to stop in a reasonable distance on this side of the pond. It's the American way.

5/16/2011 11:41:01 AM

This is really sad because the Triangle (Cary included) are great places to Bicycle.

5/16/2011 11:56:00 AM

^^^Citing the Anti-Planner... always nice...

You are right, we have increased spending on transit. Highway spending, however, has not decreased. Quite the contrary.



As for car share increasing in Europe; also not true.


(Car share of passenger transport)

Nor is it true in New York City:



[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 11:59 AM. Reason : .]

5/16/2011 11:59:08 AM

Quote :

"Not even planning to have light rail implemented in the triangle until 2025. And traffic is only going to get worse until then."

Granted, it could happen. But you should be double suspicious of any plan that comes to completion after 2020.

Face it, it's not going to happen. I know you have this "plan" to get light-rail in the Triangle. But that means very little.

5/16/2011 12:07:55 PM

It's going on the ballot in 2012, so it certainly could happen. It will be up to the voters at that point.

5/16/2011 12:57:46 PM

Quote :

"Can't tow my boat or trailers full of four-wheelers with a car."

If I had a boat or some four wheelers to trailer around I'd probably buy a cheap pick up for $4-5,000 to get that job done. I doubt you tow your boat daily so why bother driving a big inefficient vehicle daily?

Despite my comments on the previous page I'm very much in favor of a light rail system. But I don't see how it's financially possible. Consumers aren't willing to pay the true cost for it. Automobiles are still cheaper and faster and give you more freedom. Even if there was a light rail system I could ride to work how does that help me get to the gym that I go to after work every day? Or the grocery store that I stop at 1-2 times a week after work to get things I need for the week. The triangle is far too spread out for any sort of practical (and not ridiculously expensive) rail system to be a big use for most people.

The best bang for the buck would be a very extensive express bus system, possibly equipped with bike racks so people can get from the stop to their final destinations quickly.

Finally, I'd like to add that the new 3rd lane on I-40 through Cary is awesome. It has reduced my commute time by 30% and has bumped up my car's fuel efficiency 2-3 mpg per tank. Of course with the area's continual growth I wonder how long the road will stay clear (more than 5 years seems unlikely).

5/16/2011 1:23:12 PM

Quote :

"The triangle is far too spread out for any sort of practical (and not ridiculously expensive) rail system to be a big use for most people."

It's the whole chicken and egg debate. Is effective mass transit unpractical because the Triangle is far too spread out, or is the Triangle spread out in part due to ineffective mass transit?

The fact is, whatever is built will not be able to serve everyone. It won't be able to serve even a fraction of everyone. All you can do is pick the densest and most traveled corridors and start there. If it is funded by a sales tax increase, then that means a lot of people who will never touch the system will be helping to fund it. But, that is how our infrastructure works. The Triangle is a great example of this, as all taxpayers help to fund the utility and road infrastructure for those who choose to live 15 miles outside the city center in mcmansions.

I think the argument that effective transit requires huge densities is a myth. One of my favorite examples is Switzerland. Make no mistake, Switzerland is quite different from the United States culturally, demographically, and geographically, but they have succeeded in implementing effective mass transit even in incredibly low density suburban and rural areas. Zurich is probably the best example, where the mode share is 40% transit, 20% bike/ped, and 40% car. This in a city that is less dense than Detroit, Baltimore, Seattle, Milwaukee, Sacramento, Cleveland, and Minneapolis.

5/16/2011 1:34:36 PM

Want to cut gas consumption? How about doing a better job of syncing lights up. Every single day I catch these same two lights red. Every day. The lights are on a main highway (not a secondary road) and they are less than a block apart. Both lights just serve gas stations and little else. Most of the time there isn't even a single car waiting to get on the highway so everyone sits and waits on no one. I could understand catching one the majority of the time, catching none occasionally, but catching both should be a rare occurrence. Nope, both red every single day without fail.

That's just one intersection - on those roads like Capital and Kildaire where there's a stoplight every block it felt like I was hitting 2 out of every 3 lights red regardless of volume. Capital has some sections that were synced up nicely, but I always had problems in east Cary.

In some parts of Cary it was so bad that it seemed like they synced the lights up such that you'd catch as many reds as possible. For some reason Cary feels the need to stray from the normal left hand turners go first rule. You get in the left lane to make a turn, wait... but the light doesn't turn green. People going straight go first - or those fun cases where everyone in the oncoming lane, left turners and people going straight get to all go and everyone on your side waits. The light might or might not turn green.

If you're stuck there waiting to turn left and wondering whether you'll even get a green that cycle you know the light is about to turn green after:
1) There's been a long lull without any cars coming in the oncoming lane.
2) After the lull there's a huge group of cars in the oncoming lane that are headed toward the intersection.

Sure enough, the light will turn green so you can go, making that group in the oncoming lane wait. You sat there because the oncoming lanes had the green but there weren't any cars. As soon as there are cars - make 'em wait.

I hear things are getting better now that they're starting to implement a flashing yellow arrow at some intersections.

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 1:58 PM. Reason : -]

5/16/2011 1:35:36 PM

^ hah, wasn't that Charles Meeker's big campaign promise?

5/16/2011 1:36:53 PM

Last I checked Meeker is not mayor of Cary. And yes, the light timing in Cary is absolutely terrible.

5/16/2011 2:42:10 PM

^^&^^^I really don't understand the need for flashing yellow arrow. Were people too stupid to understand the signs that said "left turn yield to oncoming traffic when green"?

^^^You raise a great point about dumb traffic lights. Installation of smart traffic lights and more DOT studies of traffic pattersn could help us get the most from our current roads.

And for the life of me can somebody please tell me why there are green arrows on Gorman Street at both I-40 on-ramps and another one at Thistledown? All of those should be left turn yields. I mean the line of sight is a freaking half a mile! No reason to only be able to turn left when given a green turn arrow

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM. Reason : ^]

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM. Reason : need]

5/16/2011 2:48:05 PM

Quote :

"If I had a boat or some four wheelers to trailer around I'd probably buy a cheap pick up for $4-5,000 to get that job done. I doubt you tow your boat daily so why bother driving a big inefficient vehicle daily?"

That's what I did...Dropped $6k on a 4Runner for the boat, but I dd a new Civic. Back when I had the S2000 I'd just borrow trucks from trusted friends. It's not hard to trade your S2k for a truck for the day; the question is whether or not you really trust the other person behind the wheel.

I've got a trailer hitch on the Civic and I tow with it quite often though. Anything under 800lbs or so goes on the Civic most of the time. It pulls the ATV, the jet ski, furniture, lawnmowers etc. just fine and I still get 28-31 MPG doing it. I'll be pulling either a jet ski or a 4x6 trailer with some firewood with it this weekend.

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 2:51 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 2:51 PM. Reason : l]

5/16/2011 2:50:51 PM

^^ that's exactly why they have those flashing yellow turns now. People are too stupid to follow traffic laws without them.

5/16/2011 2:52:58 PM

Yeah, my parents have a truck they use primarily to haul their boat and other things but almost never use it for non truck purposes.

5/16/2011 2:53:41 PM

Here's an article about the flashing yellow lights: http://www.newsobserver.com/2009/12/15/241284/cary-has-a-new-hue-in-its-lights.html#storylink=misearch

5/16/2011 2:56:36 PM

Quote :

"Zurich is probably the best example, where the mode share is 40% transit, 20% bike/ped, and 40% car. This in a city that is less dense than Detroit, Baltimore, Seattle, Milwaukee, Sacramento, Cleveland, and Minneapolis."

You sure about that? Wikipedia says otherwise.

5/16/2011 2:58:41 PM

Shit, I think I looked at the wrong numbers.

Numerous mistakes made... it looks as though Zurich has about 10,000 people per square mile, which is quite denser than all of the cities I listed. However, what I should have been referring to was the CANTON of Zurich (which includes the city), which has a density of 2,000 people per square mile (for comparison Raleigh has 2,800). Unfortunately, I cannot find the mode share numbers for the Canton right now, but I do know that is is noted for being served extremely well by transit.

5/16/2011 3:04:10 PM

Vulcan91, your graph is showing "cumulative capital investment", a term cherry picked to skew the figure since roads are nearly 100% construction (capital investment) while the big expense with mass transit is operating costs, filtered out of your graph.

"car share increasing in Europe; also not true."
Your graph is for inter-city, not intra-city, which was the subject. But fine, even on that scale rail looks bad: while road as a share of passenger transport is down, so is rail, both being displaced by air travel.

5/16/2011 3:26:07 PM

Quote :

"Numerous mistakes made... it looks as though Zurich has about 10,000 people per square mile, which is quite denser than all of the cities I listed. However, what I should have been referring to was the CANTON of Zurich (which includes the city), which has a density of 2,000 people per square mile (for comparison Raleigh has 2,800). Unfortunately, I cannot find the mode share numbers for the Canton right now, but I do know that is is noted for being served extremely well by transit."

Yeah but the Canton is more comparable to Wake County than the City of Raleigh.

5/16/2011 3:56:22 PM

Quote :

"I really don't understand the need for flashing yellow arrow. Were people too stupid to understand the signs that said "left turn yield to oncoming traffic when green"?"

I see what you're saying, they had to invent the new signal for people that don't/won't/can't pay attention.

In this case most of the intersections had red lights when they didn't give the green arrow, so more often than not you'd be stuck there waiting for the light to change even though you could see that there wasn't a single car coming. The yellow arrows finally allowed people to go in these circumstances.

[/tinfoil hat]
If you ask me, the government knows they're making significant money every time a gallon of gas is sold. They stand to make more money if people have to use more gas because they have to idle at an extra light or two.
[tinfoil hat]

[Edited on May 17, 2011 at 7:17 AM. Reason : -]

5/17/2011 7:13:36 AM

Quote :

"Crashes happen when left-turners confuse a green ball with a green arrow. The green ball doesn't give them the right of way, but they somehow think it does."

lmfao

5/17/2011 2:05:39 PM

Quote :

"And for the life of me can somebody please tell me why there are green arrows on Gorman Street at both I-40 on-ramps and another one at Thistledown? All of those should be left turn yields. I mean the line of sight is a freaking half a mile! No reason to only be able to turn left when given a green turn arrow"

Yeah, I ignore those on a regular basis, in much the same way I only stop for about 2 seconds at any light if it's 4 AM or if there is no traffic around me.

5/17/2011 3:40:08 PM

Quote :

"That said, currently cars are even cheaper than the bus trips people are making today. According to the statistics from the National Transit Database, an average bus trip in Raleigh cost $18.53 to complete at a public subsidy of $16.80. http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=4208"

This claim is not supported by the reference, although it is a good reference. The reference claims that transit is marginally less energy efficient that cars, and that vanpools are vastly more energy efficient.

5/17/2011 5:02:24 PM

Quote :

"I really don't understand the need for flashing yellow arrow. Were people too stupid to understand the signs that said "left turn yield to oncoming traffic when green"?"

lol, there was someone who crashed after they changed it to a yellow flashing light. He was confused... so he went.

Yes, yes people are that stupid.

5/17/2011 5:14:01 PM

Quote :

"Want to cut gas consumption? How about doing a better job of syncing lights up."

ding ding ding

City driving is far less efficient than steady-state highway driving.

5/17/2011 5:24:49 PM

Quote :

"and that vanpools are vastly more energy efficient."

Absolutely yes. The city should do everything within its power to encourage small vehicle mass transport. Of course, most cities here in the US tend to make such transport difficult and sometimes illegal because it competes against city buses and special interest taxi services.

[Edited on May 17, 2011 at 10:13 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/17/2011 10:13:02 PM

Quote :

"I think the argument that effective transit requires huge densities is a myth. One of my favorite examples is Switzerland. Make no mistake, Switzerland is quite different from the United States culturally, demographically, and geographically, but they have succeeded in implementing effective mass transit even in incredibly low density suburban and rural areas. Zurich is probably the best example, where the mode share is 40% transit, 20% bike/ped, and 40% car."

Having lived in Switzerland briefly, I'm going to say that Swiss city planning makes light rail possible. Towns were designed to rely on busses and rail:

-Business and civic districts are dense, designed to be within a walk or bike from the train station.
-The government heavily subsidizes rail and busing. Even residences on the fringe of a Swiss "suburb" are within walking distance of a bus stop.
-Auto Dealers do not have huge inventory lots. They have a few demo vehicles, and you order the car you decide you want. Imagine how much real estate would be freed up along Capital or Glenwood if every car dealer was reduced to the size of a starbucks.
-Cars are a luxury. Getting a license costs a lot more money and requires a lot more education. Personal vehicles are heavily taxed and there are fees out the wazoo. Gas is triple what it costs here.
-Mass transit is supplemented (in the more mountainous communities) by Gondola.
-Much less real estate is dedicated to auto travel. If you were to take away all the parling lots, most of the gas stations, most of the service stations, road lanes beyond two, and then push everything towards downtown to fill in the space created, Raleigh would be very similar in size and density to a Swiss city.

Even considering all that, the few Swiss who do own cars often use them. Don't think that because mass transit exists, people are going to leave their cars at home most of the time.

[Edited on May 18, 2011 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2011 11:08:59 AM

Quote :

"Getting a license costs a lot more money and requires a lot more education."

This is what we dearly need here in the US. It's inexcusably easy to get a license here, and keep it as well.

5/18/2011 11:32:24 AM

Hey did anyone read this?

Quote :

"not everything in the world has to make money for it to be worthwhile."

5/18/2011 1:03:00 PM

^ yeah, folks read it...i don't know if you're endorsing the statement or mocking it, but the statement is stupid in reference to just about anything requiring the support of the common US citizen

i happen to agree with the statement, but it would require a perception shift in the general populace and that ain't going to happen anytime soon

5/18/2011 1:09:00 PM

Quote :

"not everything in the world has to make money for it to be worthwhile."

Quite right. It is called charity, such as editing Wikipedia, writing code for Linux, caring for your friends and family, or working at the soup kitchen. Capitalist society is heavily supportive of such voluntary behavior. So what?

5/18/2011 2:52:01 PM

So you are against basically every single service provided by local, state, and federal governments then

5/18/2011 2:58:12 PM

No, the vast majority of those activities make money or could easily be made to do so. Government charges me for water, garbage pickup, ambulance service, road user-fees on gasoline, court costs, etc etc. Some services are currently tax payer supported but shouldn't be, such as police and fire (I prefer the democratic district model of competition where they would be supported like most cities currently support garbage collection).

And there are some services where the user-fee model would not work and do require taxpayer support, such as supporting the legislature/executive, bureaucracy, criminal courts, SBI, FBI, military, and provision for the poor (education vouchers, etc).

Everything that doesn't fall under these two categories should, I believe, be left up to the American people.

[Edited on May 18, 2011 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/18/2011 6:10:48 PM