Triangle Transit Authority: Not Serving the Triangle?

Mark
08/09 03:04 PM

At first glance this looks like a huge mistake.  No public transit to the airport?  Seriously?

Michael
08/09 03:31 PM

Soooo…what exactly are you reffering to?  Is there a specific route number this affects?  Are you referring to a new rail proposal?  TTA appears to actually be adding bus service to the airport (routes 470, 570, & 670).  I’m not trying to be confrontational here, but you should provide some reference to a proposal or some real information other than this really generic image.  The route that does not include the airport on your map appears to be the old light rail proposal (which actually did include a future expansion to the airport).  Are you saying there is a new proposal for light rail that includes the aiport?

orulz
08/09 04:34 PM

First of all, I have no idea what exactly which plan you’re advocating in favor of - the red “figure 8?” That plan makes no sense. Someone going from Raleigh to Durham have to make a detour up to RDU. (there are LOTS more people going Raleigh to Durham than Raleigh OR Durham to RDU) Also, who the heck would ride transit along I-540? There’s very little that could be considered a destination along I-540 at all, certainly nothing between Brier Creek and Triangle Towne Center. The only only thing that’s close to a “source” are the quarter- to half-acre single family homes built up in the neighborhoods around the highway, and that’s nowhere near transit-supporting density.

Next, guess who will ride transit to the airport in the Triangle? Airport employees. That’s how it works in MOST cities with transit access to the airport. Parking at RDU is still relatively cheap, traffic isn’t bad enough, and the drive isn’t long enough to convince large numbers of people bound to or from flights at RDU to haul themselves AND their luggage onto transit rather than driving, getting dropped off, taking a taxi, renting a car, etc. How many people do you know who go to RDU more than, say once every 2 weeks. Probably not many who aren’t RDU employees. *THAT* is why RDU makes absolutely no sense as the hub of our transit system.

But then, how many people do you know who go to *RTP* each and every weekday? Probably lots. Therefore, RTP is a much more logical “hub” for the region than RDU. But not the sprawling mess of an RTP that we know today. RTP needs a downtown, a destination with lots of jobs, retail, and housing, and convenient transit connections to the companies out in sprawly “old-school” RTP.

Chad
08/09 04:37 PM

Yes it does seem strange to be proposing a much more limited route. It seems as though this would be a terrible decisions, but I can only speculate on what would cause this change. What are the reasons they are making this proposal? Is TTA making the proposal? Are there any more facts or online resources the anonymous writer can share with us to help us gain a more informed opinion?

orulz
08/09 04:48 PM

Sorry to add another post so quickly after. My previous post was a bit hasty. But my main point about transit to the airport is this: the multi-modal connection is academically appealing, but when the rubber hits the road, the synergy really isn’t there- especially in a region like the Triangle with ZERO transit culture. If we can build a transit network that people can use on a daily basis, get them used to riding it and build up a substantial ridership base, THEN we could perhaps justify the expense of linking the airport to the transit to serve the daily users’ occasional trips to the airport. Building our transit system around the airport and inconveniencing potentially daily riders by forcing them to transfer at or veer from a straight-line course to go through the airport is a sure recipe for a FAILED transit system.

Mark
08/09 04:57 PM

I know several business folk who work all over the country and fly multiple times a week. Also, I think this proposed route is bus and not rail.  If I am reading this correctly, the red bus route is existing, and the green route is proposed new.  Would you stop existing service to the airport and to Chapel Hill?

orulz
08/09 05:17 PM

The figure-8 bears basically no resemblance to the TTA’s current or planned bus route structure. Spend some time on ridetta.org and see for yourself. First off, TTA’s hub is in RTP, not RDU, there is no TTA service to Brier Creek, and no TTA service that goes anywhere near Capital Blvd or Triangle Town Center.

orulz
08/09 05:21 PM

And ok- you know a -couple- of businesspeople who fly as often as a couple times a week. Now what about the second part of my question - how many people do you know who go commute to RTP, every day of every week?

The Green Route is the proposed RAIL route. TTA does NOT plan on cancelling bus service to Chapel Hill if the rail line happens. Where’d you get that notion?

orulz
08/09 05:34 PM

I hate how this is now my fifth post in this thread, but I just keep coming up with more things to say.

The author of this article seems to have no idea of what’s happening at TTA, and to have no other agenda other than to write a sensationalist article to sling mud at TTA.

As Michael points out, TTA IS changing their night service, to eliminate the inefficient “triangular” combination of RTP->Durham->Chapel Hill->RTP/RTP->Chapel Hill->Durham->RTP, and the straight line of RTP<->Raliegh with indivudual routes that go Durham<->RDU<->Raleigh, Chapel Hill<->RDU<->Raleigh, and Durham<->Chapel Hill.

Rather than NOT serving the needs of the traveling public, this benifits the following:

- Allows one-seat rides at night, Chapel Hill<->Raleigh, and Durham<->Raleigh
- Allows one seat rides to RDU Period (RDU actually may be a stronger hub at night than the daytime-only RTP)
- Allows 30-minute frequency between Raleigh and RDU at night

Read about the route change here:
http://www.ridetta.org/Home/News_Events/8-07TTASvcChanges.htm

Contrary to the obvious public perception that TTA “obviously” cain’t do nuthin right, TTA has slowly but steadily been improving and streamlining their services to work BETTER. I use it. I know.

adrian
08/09 05:57 PM

It sounds like TTA’s improvements are for the better to me.  RTP makes sense as a day-time hub and better evening RDU service would be great!

Regarding the rail plan, the article makes these two points:
“our rail transit solution should be built on its own infrastructure separate from the existing industrial rail lines.”
“This system should have parallel tracks that run in both directions and allow passengers to go either direction at any stop.”
I believe TTA’s plan has always been in agreement with this.  The proposed system was within the freight corridor, but on it’s own tracks, so that freight traffic will not hold up passenger traffic.  (Amtrak suffers from having to share track with the freight—that is the reason Amtrak gets delayed).
The corridor is owned by the state of North Carolina, but they lease it to the freight companies for something like $1 for 100 years and allow the freight companies to call the shots (need to move a freight? tell Amtrak to wait.)

If you want to get bent about something, get bent about the state allowing freight to run roughshod over Amtrak, on OUR rails.
Or about the insufficient funding of TTA.
Or about shopping centers trying to shut-out the bus.

David
08/09 06:05 PM

orluz- thanks for your impassioned response and the wealth of information you provided. The article was not clear about several things: The figure 8 is an alternative proposal.  In our opinion the linear - straight line - concept has already failed once. This is an attempt to think outside the box - to get folks thinking about something different.

A central location like RDU is not an unreasonable solution. The post is to stimulate this kind of conversation- not set out right and wrong. 

And you are right, we are not very transit oriented, and thats why we are trying to start a conversation in what it would take to become more transit oriented.  RDU as a hub may be idyllic but in the future it seems to make much more sense.  You are right academic does not equal reality - but lets thing about this area with 3 million folks living here- we are going to need very good public transit- much better than what we have. 

I have used TTA extensively myself and I agree it has improved- The new plan is very intriguing, but I think you are underestimating the value of the airport stops.

We are proud that TTA and Raleigh have worked toward the cool cities program and many other progressive transit concepts. I think the challenge lies in making something that everyone wants to use.

Mark
08/09 06:15 PM

I misread, my mistake.

David
08/09 06:21 PM

adrian - you are too right, thanks for the comments.  I don’t think it’s that we are too bent out about it, just trying to pose the right questions.  This article was built on some input from outside sources. We have covered the shopping center issues extensively and the rail line issues you are posing are even more interesting. Thanks.

adrian
08/09 06:40 PM

So, to clarify/summarize TTA’s bus offerings:

TTA’s hub is in RTP.

There are also “express” busses in the morning and evening that connect R, CH & D, bypassing RTP.

RDU has service (TTA 747) every 30min to RTP, from about 6am to 6pm

The express stuff (including the new routes) does NOT run on Saturday.

TTA does not run anything on Sunday.

They’ve just added express to R and CH as an evening service (3 runs in each direction between 8pm and 11pm).

(I hope I got that all right.  In my opinion/experience, one needs a bicycle to make the system really usefull—i.e. to make the final connections to/from the bus end-points.  I think there’s bike racks on all the busses, but I’m uncertain about the airport shuttle?  Helen Tart is the unsung hero we have to thank for the bike carriers.  TTA has mentioned the possibility of adding 3-bike carriers, and they’ve said they’re working on fixing GoTriangle.org to work better for planning bus-with-bike trips, but I think they could use a gentle “push” on getting that done.  Hopefully with a new federal administration in 2008 the rail service can begin implementation.)

(Thanks for opening the discussion!)

David
08/09 10:16 PM

If we (the Triangle) could snap our fingers and have the most efficient and effective mass transit train route put in place over night, all the state-of-the-art track and trains available in the world today, where would we choose to put it? How would it look? Where would it go?

More to the point, if we could put it in place tomorrow, what routes would be the best choice looking 25-50 years out.

Lets start with the final product and work backwards. The 30,000 foot view of the triangle, 50 years out with proper planning.  Can we suggest ideas that are worthy of the brains and enthusiasm that this area has to offer? RTP - the reason most of us live here - was nothing more than a paper concept that people laughed at but visionaries saw it for what it is today - and began the process.

Yes - they made mistakes based on an auto-centric culture - but never-the-less - they envisioned it 50 years ago. Lets envision the Cadillac (pun intended) of transit systems that suits this area.

orulz
08/10 03:21 AM

Hey. Just wanted to take back what I said about mudslinging. I can see that you’re just writing about his opinion of what the best transit system for our region (NOT an easy question - and there are more ways to try to skin this cat than we could count). Your opinion may be different than mine.

BTW - I had an experience with the new TTA night service today and it was not a good one, though it was kind of my fault.

I missed the last bus leaving my workplace in RTP, but I had already arranged for a co-worker to drop me off on the RTP bus center for the 7:20 departure.

Wait. There’s no 7:20 departure from RTP anymore! Even though I knew about the service change, I had a brain fart and forgot. Whoops! Had I remembered I would have got my co-worker to drop me off at Southpoint (a bit more out of the way but oh well.)

go go girl
08/10 04:41 PM

I don’t think anyone meant to beat up the TTA – they gave it their best from the get-go. The rules were changed and the local support was less then enthusiastic.

I also would like to see a brain-storming session about possible solutions to the transit issue – now that the TTA “may” not be wedded to using existing track the ‘region’ could host any and all potential route suggestions. That figure-eight route has a lot going for it – particularly if there were trains running in both directions. If it’s a elevated track isn’t existing road right-of-way an option?

Regarding transit we do need to think regionally – if others have a better dream concept I’d like to see it. Anything can be engineered and built – that isn’t the problem, it’s the cost that scares folks away.

But if the transit system were thought of as a regionally utility – like sewer and water – supplied by the region because it’s considered a necessity for growth, for quality of life, for transportation management, for housing development administration, for density mixture – then it could and should incorporate the entire area in a way that makes the Triangle feel connected; connected by something other than ever-widening and continually congested strips of asphalt that require even the poorest among us to purchase and maintain an automobile.

A hundred people are moving here everyday and the sprawl is being designed, built and managed by the for-profit developers, and to a lesser extent the local governments. The belief that we don’t have the density for transit, IMO, is backward thinking.

Acknowledge that density is a goal and that the suburban landscape isn’t the best choice for the ENTIRE region and transit becomes a UTILITY that the region designs, builds and manages for the future.

Following behind the developers – picking up the slack left behind - water/roads/sewer/schools - one local government at a time hasn’t exactly proven to be the most efficient, forward thinking strategy. Being proud that our sprawl is the best, the prettiest, the most desirous sprawl this country has to offer is a bit short-sighted, sad and sooo seventies…

It’s not going to be too long before some of the baby-boomers/gen-xers and others throw their grown kids out, develop cataracts and decide lawn care and home maintenance isn’t the fun it used to be. Where will they want to live and what will they want to do? All of a sudden high-density housing along a transit line that connects to all the urban areas, the schools, the hospitals and medical centers, the airport and the rail lines starts looking pretty damn good.

I like the idea that it is the planning for and managing of regional density that establishes the transit route – not the desire to use existing track to save money and get the transit ball rolling.

I like the idea of starting with “the final product” and then figuring out how to make it happen.

I like this discussion – I want to see where others think an amazing, world renown, region-wide light-rail transit route might be located.

Thanks again for getting this started.

jz
08/11 12:45 AM

Without being verbose about the EXTREMELY complex process involved with the TTA Rail Transit project, it must be known that the reason the airport was not part of the deal, was not because of TTA.  The airport authority declined involvement, probably because of its recent investments in new parking structures.  I would not be surprised if a relationship with the airport taxi agencies, ahem, “swayed” the Airport to remain aloof about public transport. 

Another element to TTA being on hold was the Federal Funding being withheld by the FTA.  The reason for this is twofold: a)TTA was asking for the maximum allowable due to the lack of state and local support and, b) it was the FTA’s opinion that the ridershiop estimates due to the extreme disbursment of the population was too low to continue to recommend funding.

The irony was that the Rail project wasn’t in the end about people moving as much as it was about creating new mixed-used densities/nodes at the stops.  Nobody beyond a 15 minute walk of a station was probably going to use the system on a regular basis, but it would have helped to shift the overall urban morphology of sprawl that continues to plague the region.

The good thing is that the TTA does own the land at all the stops and seems committed to developing them in anticipation of a brighter future

H
10/18 06:31 AM

Light rail was a stupid idea and I’m glad it didn’t go through! Who wants to wait for a train then have to use a bus or taxi to get to your next destination? A monorail would serve the purpose much better and would not be thwarted by traffic or other trains. We don’t really need that yet though, It’s something to look at though for the future.

JZ
10/18 01:42 PM

H__

Would you please refer to my previous comment regarding the importance of TTA and the Rail System:  It was never intended to solve the issues of commutership, but to shift the sub-urban growth patterns in this area. Those present (irresponsible) growth patterns will, as energy costs rise, end up costing us more dollars than the cost of establishing the rail system (remember oil hit $89/barrel yesterday).  One should note the similar condition with the DC Metro which, as it leaves the center city, radiates out leaving large areas of the city a good 1/2 hour walk from any stop.  Yet, the growth and density along the corridor is more intensive.  Look at the tremendous development in Bethesda, MD or Rosslyn and Alexandria, VA for example.  It does not solve all the problems, BUT NOTHING WILL.  The point is: a) create choice and b) move growth toward a responsible pattern.

And I would posit that if you are more than a 15 or 20 minute walk from a station, in the end, you may end up being more of the problem than the solution.  At the very least, your cost of living, based on the limited choices you will have for mobility, will uncomfortably increase.

The reason a monorail is not feasible is because of the extreme costs of land and rights-of-way acquisition. TTA chose to work within the existing rail corridor and establish agreements with Norfolk-Southern, NCRR and NCDOT to control cost.  A personally appealing and superior alternative is the Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) concept.  Like a light rail/monorail system its infrastructure is less invasive and has a smaller footprint, actually its the smallest footprint of all rail transit options.  Its so lightweight, it could be erected over existing sidewalks and stops could be established within existing buildings with only modest costs for modifications. With this system, local municipalities could cede easements and rights-of-way more readily than the bombastic and bureaucratic process that involved NCDOT and the private fiefdoms of the rail companies.  The problem is that there is no system yet in place (Well, actually, Morgantown, W.VA implemented a rudimentary version of the PRT in the 1970s)...so the first community to go for it may bear the greatest first cost.  More info with happy graphics and at-a-glance text here:  http://www.personalrapidtransit.com/  Googling will get you many more links….

Do we need it today, probably not….and I just LOVE the idea of waiting until its too late to do something about it.  Its time to plan ahead by budgeting a modest amount now rather than bear the burden of that greater cost in the future.  Oh, wait, you will probably have moved by then so why should your tax money go to support something you won’t be using, right? The reason it failed was a lack of local support.  Of all the cities in the nation competing for FTA monies (Phoenix, St. Louis, Charlotte, etc.), the TTA system was the only one asking for the maximum allowable as it could not convince local leadership to fund it. I’m so pleased to see so much altruism.

H
12/03 12:12 PM

So JZ how do you suggest folks getting from the train station to their place of work without taking a lot of time, and a lot of money. I doubt the train will be easy on the wallet either. I like living in the county, not in a downtown metro area where train service might be easier to obtain. As far as mass transit goes,I like the park and ride system in Chapel Hill. That system makes the bus systems useful for working people and is less traffic, but you still have a car to go to an appointment or by the grocery store after work or anywhere else you need to go. I work third shift and in Raleigh so I still do not have that option for me. I have used it when I visit downtown Chapel Hill where there is very little parking and also going to the State Fair. There could be greener buses and have a free park and ride going to the rtp that would go past each business every 15 minutes. It is going to cost way too much to build the light rail that is not convienant to very many people.

JZ
12/03 02:15 PM

H__

At present, none of us have choice. We are bound to either live and work downtown (which arguably can be limiting), use the fledgling bus service, or drive.  Given the schedules for the bus, 99% of the time, I would opt for driving (I’m human, I understand WHY we make the choices we do…).  A transit system will allow for smaller, village-like developments along the rail.  This new density will give many people who desire it, options for living a less car dependent lifestyle.  (also: TTA proposed a shuttle system from their stops to designated drop off points to ensure folks could get within a 10 or 15 minute walk of their destination.)

The choices you make for you life may not allow the TTA system to benefit you.  And, as I previously stated, it will not have the capability of serving everyone.

When your costs for living in the county rise, however, and commuting gets expensive in time or money, I hope that you have made provisions by authorizing that an infrastructure (bus, train, PRT, etc.) be built to give you choice if you decide to make a change in that lifestyle.  Paying for it now, before populations rise, land costs rise, construction costs rise, will be the most economically responsible decision one can make. 

Heck, I don’t ONLY support the TTA initiative.  If the bus system was expanded and made as functional as Seattle’s I would be just as happy.  I am advocating for choice not a mechanism that is more “right” that something that is “wrong”.