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.
Without a doubt RTP today is too spread out to support transit, but that's something the Research Tri. Fdn. seems likely to change. If you're following the RTP Blog run by the foundation, or the news coverage, the master planning process underway there seems to be aiming to build an urban core center in the heart of RTP, more akin to the Kannapolis and Winston-Salem research parks -- an urban, dense core in the heart of the traditional park.
The direction that the consultants are moving towards as we enter this next phase is to redefine the Park’s relationship to the landscape and ecology, determine how to intensify through increased density, and how to create more clusters to better utilize our land.
As we examine the viability of a community nexus in RTP, one of the considerations will be the types of amenities that will be included in the center. What amenities would you like in the Park? An ampitheater? A town center? A coffee house? A microbrewery? A charter school? We’d love to hear from you!
It'd take a 10-20 year effort to build a real dense area in RTP, and of course one would want to not hurt the urban progress being made in North Hills/Six Forks, downtown Raleigh, or downtown Durham along the way. But if RTF/RTP can pull this off, you suddenly make a Durham-to-RTP-to-Raleigh transit system much more viable.
Charlotte's downtown core is only now at a size that can sustain a first rail line, and parking hassles, not to mention cost, probably serve as the impetus for the high ridership numbers. I want the Triangle to begin building at least the first piece of a rail framework however. Get a 1/2cent sales tax passed among the 5-6 county area, and then it's doable.
Reality Check: I'm carless here in Atlanta, and despite much larger downtown/business clusters-nodes along MARTA (not to mention sometimes horrendous traffic), this heavy-rail, smooth train still loses money, and is under-utilized. It does take time to walk to stations, wait for 15-minute scheduled trains to arrive, and then climb back up to streetlevel to complete the final leg in reaching your destination. Driving could have gotten you there in half the time....
But anyhoo, aren't these electric cars going to remove some of the guilt from driving everywhere?
Pushing for more telecommuting is a far more viable option for our area. Honestly, how many of you could do your jobs from home with proper access to your company software/systems? Instead, lets spend billions and billions on rail that will not reduce commuter time for most (infact probably increases it for many) and would be a logistical nightmare to implement. I worked at IBM for seven years. The vast majority of those jobs can be performed at a home office with todays technology.
Charlotte's downtown core is only now at a size that can sustain a first rail line, and parking hassles, not to mention cost, probably serve as the impetus for the high ridership numbers. I want the Triangle to begin building at least the first piece of a rail framework however. Get a 1/2cent sales tax passed among the 5-6 county area, and then it's doable.
Reality Check: I'm carless here in Atlanta, and despite much larger downtown/business clusters-nodes along MARTA (not to mention sometimes horrendous traffic), this heavy-rail, smooth train still loses money, and is under-utilized. It does take time to walk to stations, wait for 15-minute scheduled trains to arrive, and then climb back up to streetlevel to complete the final leg in reaching your destination. Driving could have gotten you there in half the time....
But anyhoo, aren't these electric cars going to remove some of the guilt from driving everywhere?
Good points, architect77.
Time is important to many people, and mass transit will have to compete on time.
If my commute is more hassle, and takes longer, and the price of gas stays under $20.00/gallon, how can an expensive and inefficient but cuddly train be an improvement?
If I drive 17000 miles per year and average 17 miles per gallon, that is 1000 gallons of gasoline consumed.
I could squeeze into something that would give me minimum 25-26 MPG I guess, so the choice of 1000 gallons per year can be revised to 680 gallons per year with a sacrifice of comfort on my part, and that sacrifice is not even true of many people who are not 6'5" and 250 pounds.
And I could probably reduce the driving 10% without much effort. Telecommuting, as sacredgrooves mentions, more than I do already is one way.
So, let's say 612 gallons of regular annually.
So, at $3.00/gallon for regular and 1000 annual gallons burned, I pay $3000 per year for gasoline.
Tax deductible as a business expense, for about 2/3 of that amount. So reduce it to $2500/year for current net gasoline expense.
At a chosen figure of $7.00/gallon for future regular, driving 15,300 miles per year at 25 miles per gallon, my 612 gallons costs me $4284, tax deductible for about 2/3 of the amount, calcs to about $3500 net annual fuel cost.
So for $1000/year net cost due to increased fuel prices (Lowered if I do something interesting like an electric hybrid, or a grease car), I should bag the car and ride the train, walk more than I ever want to in Lord only knows what weather conditions, carry two briefcases an umbrella and a raincoat all the time, and wait in transit stations for connections, wasting hundreds of hours a year?
Bad bad bad sales pitch to get anyone who is a little analytical to go along with the albatross of an expensive train system.
People going to have to practice the pitch a little to sell the "gasoline-costs-as-an-inducement-for-a-train" pig in a poke, I think.
The truly sad thing is, this sort of simple analysis is so easy to do and so escapes so many people, it explains a WHOLE lot why public, private, and personal finances are disrupted so significantly in the current climate.
So for $1000/year net cost due to increased fuel prices (Lowered if I do something interesting like an electric hybrid, or a grease car), I should bag the car and ride the train, walk more than I ever want to in Lord only knows what weather conditions, carry two briefcases an umbrella and a raincoat all the time, and wait in transit stations for connections, wasting hundreds of hours a year?
Bad bad bad sales pitch to get anyone who is a little analytical to go along with the albatross of an expensive train system.
People going to have to practice the pitch a little to sell the "gasoline-costs-as-an-inducement-for-a-train" pig in a poke, I think.
The truly sad thing is, this sort of simple analysis is so easy to do and so escapes so many people, it explains a WHOLE lot why public, private, and personal finances are disrupted so significantly in the current climate.
Mike, I think part of the argument here is that preferences are different among different consumers/workers.
Plenty of Americans -- the majority, I would concede -- approach the decision-making in the way you're laying out. But there are other Americans who actually prefer transit for its own sake, given the ability to make productive use of one's commute for reading, email, or relaxing/gaming/personal time.
There's a strong linkage between those preferences and younger, increasingly knowledge-oriented workers -- the so-called creative class, as well as professional "millennials" generically. As a group, they seem to be somewhat more interested in renting (vs. buying) than their predecessors are; more interested in living in denser urban centers; and more inclined to use transit.
Our region is very suburban in nature and our suburbs are growing well and healthily. But in the past 5-10 years, urban areas -- downtown Raleigh and Durham, the Cameron Village and North Hills areas of Raleigh -- have also seen plenty of growth and interest.
No transit system is going to persuade everyone from using their car, nor should it. We don't all get to deduct our mileage. But many people (including most CD'ers) will still find car living compelling.
OTOH, you see a lot of City-Data'ers asking about relo from Long Island and Westchester Co. You don't see Manhattanites asking those questions on here. You also don't see them moving to "family-friendly" subdivisions in WF and Clayton in large numbers, either. It's a different market -- and it's a market that, I have good reason to believe, disproportionately chooses urban vs. suburban living.
My concern isn't making transit the answer for everyone. It's making it a good option for those who want to use it -- lest we lose them, and their companies, to the DCs, Manhattans, Chicagos, Atlantas of the world.
Good points, architect77.
Time is important to many people, and mass transit will have to compete on time.
If my commute is more hassle, and takes longer, and the price of gas stays under $20.00/gallon, how can an expensive and inefficient but cuddly train be an improvement?
If I drive 17000 miles per year and average 17 miles per gallon, that is 1000 gallons of gasoline consumed.
I could squeeze into something that would give me minimum 25-26 MPG I guess, so the choice of 1000 gallons per year can be revised to 680 gallons per year with a sacrifice of comfort on my part, and that sacrifice is not even true of many people who are not 6'5" and 250 pounds.
And I could probably reduce the driving 10% without much effort. Telecommuting, as sacredgrooves mentions, more than I do already is one way.
So, let's say 612 gallons of regular annually.
So, at $3.00/gallon for regular and 1000 annual gallons burned, I pay $3000 per year for gasoline.
Tax deductible as a business expense, for about 2/3 of that amount. So reduce it to $2500/year for current net gasoline expense.
At a chosen figure of $7.00/gallon for future regular, driving 15,300 miles per year at 25 miles per gallon, my 612 gallons costs me $4284, tax deductible for about 2/3 of the amount, calcs to about $3500 net annual fuel cost.
So for $1000/year net cost due to increased fuel prices (Lowered if I do something interesting like an electric hybrid, or a grease car), I should bag the car and ride the train, walk more than I ever want to in Lord only knows what weather conditions, carry two briefcases an umbrella and a raincoat all the time, and wait in transit stations for connections, wasting hundreds of hours a year?
Bad bad bad sales pitch to get anyone who is a little analytical to go along with the albatross of an expensive train system.
People going to have to practice the pitch a little to sell the "gasoline-costs-as-an-inducement-for-a-train" pig in a poke, I think.
The truly sad thing is, this sort of simple analysis is so easy to do and so escapes so many people, it explains a WHOLE lot why public, private, and personal finances are disrupted so significantly in the current climate.
BCR had an excellent response to this post. Mike, your comments are good, and valid for many, but as BCR points out, not to all. he covered that, so I don't have to.
What I have to add is that the savings proposition is different than what y ou said. Your $1000 assumes that you still drive most of the time. If someone were to become a full time transit user, their driving would be more likely to go from 17k miles, assuming most is commuting to and from work, to just driving some on the weekends and evenings, so maybe just 6k miles. At that rate, the savings is more like $3k per year (approximate) in gas alone, plus you can figure a depreciation rate of about 9-cents a mile, or another $900-$1k per year, plus wear and tear, and maintenance, and you are up to nearly $5k. I think that you can actually get lower insurance rates too if you don't drive a certain number of miles to work?
Another thing is that some folks will place value on being part of the solution. Just like the people who are willing to pay crazy money for the early hybrids, or the "grease cars".
I think that mass transit would likely never be a viable solution for someone like a realator, as you need the flexibility a car offers, but for nine-to-fivers, it may work.
The thing that people sometimes fail to see is that a transit system should be part of a master urban plan. It is no good to just put a train in, unless the development is going to support it. We are not NYC, but neither was DC when the Metro went in, and that is now a very successful system.
All good comments from all sides (except the guy from Portland who called us lazy hicks)
Mike, I think part of the argument here is that preferences are different among different consumers/workers.
Plenty of Americans -- the majority, I would concede -- approach the decision-making in the way you're laying out. But there are other Americans who actually prefer transit for its own sake, given the ability to make productive use of one's commute for reading, email, or relaxing/gaming/personal time.
There's a strong linkage between those preferences and younger, increasingly knowledge-oriented workers -- the so-called creative class, as well as professional "millennials" generically. As a group, they seem to be somewhat more interested in renting (vs. buying) than their predecessors are; more interested in living in denser urban centers; and more inclined to use transit.
Our region is very suburban in nature and our suburbs are growing well and healthily. But in the past 5-10 years, urban areas -- downtown Raleigh and Durham, the Cameron Village and North Hills areas of Raleigh -- have also seen plenty of growth and interest.
No transit system is going to persuade everyone from using their car, nor should it. We don't all get to deduct our mileage. But many people (including most CD'ers) will still find car living compelling.
OTOH, you see a lot of City-Data'ers asking about relo from Long Island and Westchester Co. You don't see Manhattanites asking those questions on here. You also don't see them moving to "family-friendly" subdivisions in WF and Clayton in large numbers, either. It's a different market -- and it's a market that, I have good reason to believe, disproportionately chooses urban vs. suburban living.
My concern isn't making transit the answer for everyone. It's making it a good option for those who want to use it -- lest we lose them, and their companies, to the DCs, Manhattans, Chicagos, Atlantas of the world.
BCR,
I don't think enough Americans analyze economics like I did. And I don't think I really supported the decision-making analysis I mentioned as highly laudatory in terms of driving decisions for the common good, as much as I pooh-poohed the silliness of the concept that $5.00 gas prices should be a formidable factor in the sales pitch to the public for a train.
And, while tax deductions are a flash point among myriad Americans who disrespect self-employment, they can be disregarded in the example as the difference does not materially affect the final numbers. $1000 or $1284 annually will not change many minds to push for a train and give up the flexibility of driving.
Much more impact in the example is evident in the conservation effort of a more efficient vehicle, and reduction in the miles driven.
Cars will be with us for a very long time, methinks.
Interestingly enough, telecommuting which will further disperse the workforce along broadband backbones, and self-employment are huge pieces of the future.
Telecommuters will not need as much transit or transportation, obviously.
Ask the CD crowd how many have worked for a 1099 as a means to gain employment. Quite a few, I think, and some who are not working would be wise to consider it should the opportunity arise.
In the days when I worked in one location, I would have enjoyed a train ride to work, and would have found a way to use the time well. That is NOT a confirmation that I would prefer to lose that time rather than be with family.
I don't understand how laying new track for any type of rail service ends up being astronomically expense. Some grading, gravel, evenly spaced timbers and bolts, and the steel itself. With limited resources, absolutely no technology, and sheer brute strength, wasn't rail the economical and achievable solution that first linked the world's regions together?
Charlotte's 15mile long straight-shot to downtown ends up costing double the original estimate, takes several years to complete, and viewed as some kind of huge feat of engineering that Charlotteans are so lucky to have. Meanwhile about every other month on the news China's is debuting yet another bullet train setting speed records...
Something must change soon here in the U.S., because in addition to taming our debt situation, we've got to figure out a new way to get things done over here. Republicans saying no to everything isn't enough. Our competitive edge is being chipped away with each and every waking day, and y'all's children very likely will witness another country assume the top spot in their lifetimes.
There is some stretch of I-95 near Philadelphia that desperately needs replacing, and though it's only 6 miles long, supposedly it will cost like $10 billion or so to rebuild. Something has to change.
Y'all should watch online PBS's Blueprint America series on our aging infrastructure. I think we should commence with some of the biggest infrastructure initiatives, and offer anyone a job and pay minimum wage or close to it without any benefits. Sure it's unfair, inhumane, but it would help ease unemployment and have tangible results afterwards. From it's inception, America has been defined by those wanting to conquer the biggest challenges, not a piddly track-upgrade on existing lines labeled as high-speed trains.
(Amtrak's 30 year plan to build one new track from D.C. to Boston supparosedly needs $6 billion every year to implement. $180 billion for one new separate track)
(New York Subway (MTA) is the 5th largest debtor in the country, with operating costs having to cover the interest on the $27 billion it owes. I had no idea.)
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.
)
