Comparing Long-Range Land Use/Transportation Alternatives for North Carolina's Triangle
Your Subtitle text

Current Transit Plan

In 1991 the NC General Assembly authorized the Triangle's counties to levy a $5 vehicle registration tax in order to plan a regional commuter rail system.
 
Money for capital expenses (rail lines, train stations, etc.) began to be collected in 1997 when counties were authorized to levy a rental vehicle tax of up to 5% of gross proceeds.

But the Triangle's application to the US Department of Transportation was turned down because of extremely low projected ridership.

In 2009 the two regional MPO's (Metropolitan Planning Organizations) decided to try once again, this time adding commuter bus service to the rail plan.






                            "2035 LRTP," Endorsed by the Triangle's MPO's in 2009


THE PLAN. The MPOs first formed a citizen's group called STAC (the Special Transit Advisory Commission) which released the outlines of the current plan in a 2008 report, "Regional Transit Vision Plan."  It includes the first official suggestion to increase the regional sales tax by 1/2 cent to pay the Triangle's local share of expenses. Durham voters will be asked to approve the tax November 8, 2011.

The heart of the LRTP (Long Range Transportation Plan) is a 56-mi light-rail system overlaid with express-bus routes extending into the region's hinterlands. Users would drive, or ride an express-bus to a transit station where they would board a train to a station within walking distance of their final destination, or board a second bus to their final destination. The following are the published costs and benefits.

 

                         Costs and Benefits

 



Evaluation

COSTS. The region's total transportation costs would increase 21% to build and operate a light-rail system that will serve less than 1/2 of 1% of the population.

The Triangle's over-all 25-yr public cost for transportation would increase $5.7bn -- from $16.0bn to $21.7bn. At full build-out light-rail would carry 0.02 percent of the region's total person-trips (16,233 person-trips per day vs. 10, 291, 804 person-trips per day on all other modes).
 
The Plan targets suburban commuters who would be willing to undertake a bus-to-rail-to-bus trip, a travel pattern that federal officials say, "cannot be found on any existing commuter rail service in the United States." This is why the Plan produces such low ridership at such high costs per rider.

 BENEFITS TO CAPTIVE RIDERS. The real beneficiaries of the Plan are the 10,000 or so transportation disadvantaged, living without a car or bus in the Triangle's suburban fringes. They make up the bulk of the Plan's commuter-bus riders, 21,222 daily passenger-trips. Unfortunately, the service is poorly designed for them because the market for the regional commuter-bus routes is the 99% of us who drive, not the 1% of us living in the suburbs without a car.

BENEFITS TO CHOICE RIDERS. Transit planners have stopped using the terms "choice" and "captive" to identify their riders. Since the 1990's almost all transit riders, outside the biggest cities, are poor and without a choice. Of the riders who do have an license and a car, they ride because they do not have the money to pay for gas to get to work. They are not "attracted" to transit.

BENEFITS TO HEROIC RIDERS. There is one other type of rider, new to transportation planners, who is "attracted" to transit. Mostly men in their thirties or forties who commute using both bicycles and buses. They commute under what can only be described as heroic circumstances and for the most altruistic reasons. Regularly running across 15-501 in heavy traffic to the nearest bus stop. Bicycling from home to bus, rain and snow, through heavy traffic on I-40. Proud to spend 90 min to get to work when a trip by car would take no more than 10-15 min.

There aren't many heroic riders but when it comes to promoting transit they make up for their low numbers with extreme enthusiasm for the transit cause.

BENEFITS TO DRIVERS. To the extent that the Plan does relieve highway congestion, the more people will drive. Vehicle-trips and vehicle-miles of travel will go up due to the implementation of the "transit" plan.

Traffic congestion would be somewhat  reduced. 14% of freeway drivers will experience congestion under the No-Change alternative but only 5% of freeway drivers would experience congestion if the light-rail/commuter-bus plan were implemented. Vehicle speeds in the Triangle would increase 5mph to an average 47mph.

The LRTP admits that it does not meet the MPO's own targets for performance and effectiveness saying, "The percent of SOV (single occupant vehicle) trip share and the percent of non-motorized trip share fall well short of the targets."

In other words, the MPO's, knowing their transit plan will perform poorly and ineffectively,  approved it anyway. According to Durham's mayor, "We know we can't solve all our transportation problems by building more roads and more highways. We also know we aren't going to solve all our transportation problems with [more] transit but I think by having both we have an opportunity to continue the quality of life that we have been experiencing in this community."

Mayor Bell believes that wider roads and more transit are our only two options. He knows that the quality of life that our community wants to continue, is suburban life -- which is just another way of saying, life spent behind the wheel, driving from place-to-place. If the regional transit plan is carried out, only 5% of drivers would be inconvenienced by freeway traffic congestion, instead of 14% if it is not approved.

The budget to extend and widen highways remains the same whether or not we pay for a regional light-rail and commuter-bus system. Hoorah.



 
 


LRTP LAND USE DENSITY MAPS

LAND USE. The MPO's plan avoids land use issues. The 2035 LRTP's density maps show no change to sprawl whether or not the light-rail system is built. The LRTP notes up front that "the Triangle is one of the most sprawling regions of the nation." 

We may indeed be number-one in sprawl. We don't have a single, large center like the Charlotte and Atlanta regions. We spread out more. The Triangle may well be the sprawlingest region in the United States. Could it be that we are the sprawlingest, most suburban place on Earth?

Not to put too fine a point on it, the Plan is "compatible with the suburban character and [low-density] development practices of our communities." The light-rail/commuter-bus plan will have no effect on sprawl in the Triangle.

A MODAL DEFINITION OF LAND USE. The reason that the LRTP is so ineffective offers suggestions of better alternatives. It's easier to see if one begins by considering how urban and suburban land uses are related to transportation mode. Suburbs are places designed to drive from origin-to-destination. Urban areas (cities) are designed to walk from origin-to-destination. The ride modes struggle in suburbs and thrive in cities but don't determine land use like the drive mode does for suburbs and the walk mode does for cities.

Setting politics and special interests aside, there are more efficient and effective transportation policies to consider if we want to reduce highway congestion or reinvigorate city life.









1997 Original Light-Rail Plan



Interviews with Captive Riders






Interviews with Choice Rider
s





Interviews with Heroic Riders


































Web Hosting Companies