Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would like to see some type of mass transit system in the triangle as well, but I do not think the trainalge "area" is as perfectfa candidate for a light rail system as some people would like to think. Although not completely out of control, the sprawl being seen in the traingle are prevents the centralized population density needed to make a centralized light rail sysmte effective. The growth in the area is already well outside the traingle area of Ralegih/Durham/Chapel hill with extensive growth in Fuquay Varina, Holly Springs, Knightdale, Clayton ect..... Any approach to easing traffic congestion will need to include more than just a light rail system that will only be easily accesible to a small percentage of the population.
Don;t worry about building political pressure to fight for the light rail. It is already there since developers gobbled up all the available land around the proposed light rail system since they were speculating its value would skyrocket. The Home Builders Association is a power house in NC and if anybody has the power to get this done it would be them.
Money has been put aside for this project although government subsidy may not be easily won due to lack of interest by the potentially riding public. People love to drive fast and furiously on the streets, roads, and by ways!
I would like to see some type of mass transit system in the triangle as well, but I do not think the trainalge "area" is as perfectfa candidate for a light rail system as some people would like to think. Although not completely out of control, the sprawl being seen in the traingle are prevents the centralized population density needed to make a centralized light rail sysmte effective.
And that's the problem I have with a light rail system presently - the rail system is not going to be accessible but to a small percentage of residents. Figure out who benefits the most from rail transit (those with long commutes, lack of cars, etc) and where those peoples destinations ultimately are (high traffic retail areas, schools/universities, jobs, etc) and therein lies the challenge of meeting those needs. Two elements against the rail idea presently - sprawl, and long distance commuters. There's so many outlying office and industrial/warehouse parks in the Triangle that it's impossible to serve most of them, let alone all of them. Add to that the fact that there are thousands who commute from areas well outside the Triangle daily - Rocky Mount, Wilson, Goldsboro, Burlington, even Greensboro. None of those people benefit from the rail plan.
So what's the answer? I don't know. Traffic and commute patterns could well be different 20 years from now. I think planners need to think hard about carefully creating living and job density in areas (ie, downtown, North Hills, Highwoods and RTP) and when you can identify those areas as places where large amounts of people would use light rail if they have convenient access to it, then you have something you can build a solution around. Don't throw the rail system out there and expect the masses and developers to flock to it - it won't happen.
I would like to see some type of mass transit system in the triangle as well, but I do not think the trainalge "area" is as perfectfa candidate for a light rail system as some people would like to think. Although not completely out of control, the sprawl being seen in the traingle are prevents the centralized population density needed to make a centralized light rail sysmte effective. The growth in the area is already well outside the traingle area of Ralegih/Durham/Chapel hill with extensive growth in Fuquay Varina, Holly Springs, Knightdale, Clayton ect..... Any approach to easing traffic congestion will need to include more than just a light rail system that will only be easily accesible to a small percentage of the population.
Don;t worry about building political pressure to fight for the light rail. It is already there since developers gobbled up all the available land around the proposed light rail system since they were speculating its value would skyrocket. The Home Builders Association is a power house in NC and if anybody has the power to get this done it would be them.
Great reply and I can't argue fact for fact since I have only visited the Chapel Hill area.
Don't discount the park and ride factor for outlying areas as well as the natural business, entertainment and University uses in the more citified areas.
I know the naysayers will want all those parking lots filled immediately, but look down the road.
It's too late when you have to look back and say I remember when it used to be quiet here instead of the 6 lane road or I remember when there used to be a downtown you could get to.
I'm not a Bostonian telling everybody what to do, I'm a former Austin resident who realizes that town will never have an alternative transportation system, (non-road) because it's just too decentralized.
Lived in San Diego too, (short while) and they tried it, but i doubt it was successful because they don't have the "points" of interest.
If you do, it's a great way to have the good aspects of the city and the pleasant aspects of getting away from it preserved.
Last edited by Tampa Red; 12-03-2006 at 04:48 PM..
And that's the problem I have with a light rail system presently - the rail system is not going to be accessible but to a small percentage of residents. Figure out who benefits the most from rail transit (those with long commutes, lack of cars, etc) and where those peoples destinations ultimately are (high traffic retail areas, schools/universities, jobs, etc) and therein lies the challenge of meeting those needs. Two elements against the rail idea presently - sprawl, and long distance commuters. There's so many outlying office and industrial/warehouse parks in the Triangle that it's impossible to serve most of them, let alone all of them. Add to that the fact that there are thousands who commute from areas well outside the Triangle daily - Rocky Mount, Wilson, Goldsboro, Burlington, even Greensboro. None of those people benefit from the rail plan.
So what's the answer? I don't know. Traffic and commute patterns could well be different 20 years from now. I think planners need to think hard about carefully creating living and job density in areas (ie, downtown, North Hills, Highwoods and RTP) and when you can identify those areas as places where large amounts of people would use light rail if they have convenient access to it, then you have something you can build a solution around. Don't throw the rail system out there and expect the masses and developers to flock to it - it won't happen.
Their is a chicken and egg thing here which makes non-road transit beneficial.
Even if it doesn't serve everyone at first, it tends to concentrate people in areas served by the transit. Instead of 1,000 cars on the road 1,000 cars in a parking lot mean less unattractive highways an strip malls in every neighborhood to service commuters.
I like having big woodsy lots and slower growth in some areas. If we have to feed the commuter beast in every neighborhood with a shiny 6 lane strip mall, I might as well stay in Tampa.
Believe me Boston and New York can be miserable, but they have a lotmore population density and you can work and enjoy downtown while living with some space because of subway and rail.
Even a less extensive commuter downtown system would take pressure off the road building allowing planning. Not everybody wants to live near commuter trains or major highways.
In Tampa, you're either in some endless strip mall, rough neighborhood or gated plastic golf course community.
Food for thought, anyway. Hard to unbuild those highways and remember there used to be a quaint little main street there.
I'm enjoying this thread. It reminds me of past conversations had about proposed rail systems in So Cal. Because So Cal sprawles out widely in all directions, the majority thought it was a waste of money and no one would ride. The original systems brought people into LA and closely surrounding suburbs from distant suburbs such as Valencia. Ridership was low until we were hard hit by an earthquake in the mid 90's and a major freeway was closed down due to a collapsed overpass. Suddenly people started riding the rail system and it's been popular ever since. In the past couple of years the Gold Line was added connecting the Pasadena area to downtown Los Angeles. This is revitalizing downtown business. First the young people starting riding the line to downtown's Chinatown, restaraunts and movie theatres. Now everyones riding it and loving it.
I'm enjoying this thread. It reminds me of past conversations had about proposed rail systems in So Cal. Because So Cal sprawles out widely in all directions, the majority thought it was a waste of money and no one would ride. The original systems brought people into LA and closely surrounding suburbs from distant suburbs such as Valencia. Ridership was low until we were hard hit by an earthquake in the mid 90's and a major freeway was closed down due to a collapsed overpass. Suddenly people started riding the rail system and it's been popular ever since. In the past couple of years the Gold Line was added connecting the Pasadena area to downtown Los Angeles. This is revitalizing downtown business. First the young people starting riding the line to downtown's Chinatown, restaraunts and movie theatres. Now everyones riding it and loving it.
That's what people don't realize. I'm surprised it works in LA, to tell you the truth, but once people start to use it it makes downtowns livelier, driving easier and lets those beautiful suburbs stay beautiful.
It's a win win if ever there was one, but people only think they benefit if they use it.
You can pretty much sculpt the downtown and the exclusive type neighborhoods by where you put the stations.
Many communities will opt out, but they still benefit because the sprawl is contained keeping certain communities slower moving, if that's what the residents desire.
New twist to the Light Rail debate. Below is a link to an article about a study to be conducted to see if they could use exisitng Railroad Tracks. Interesting.....
My memory is a little fuzzy on all the details, but isn't that how this whole light rail idea came about? They were going to be able to use existing rails and it was going to fairly inexpensive. Then it turned out they couldn't use (or get permission to use) the existing rail and the cost estimates skyrocketed. Not we are back to where we started*.
*Except that the taxpayers have shelled out tens of millions of dollars for "studies" in the interim. All of which has resulted in impartial experts in the federal govt (.ie, the ones who weren't getting rich off all these studies) saying the plan was unworkable and did not justify the expense.
Last edited by Dire Wolf; 08-02-2007 at 10:24 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Light Rail
