HomeNewsWake County  }

Even more transit ideas

What's up with the STAC, Nov. 1 edition

31 OCT 2007  •  by Bob Geary, rjgeary (at) mac (dot) com

Three big decisions remain to be made, as summarized at the end of yesterday's meeting by co-chair George Cianciolo of Chapel Hill. The first: Rail or bus in the "linchpin" corridor. Second: The overall scope of the plan. And third: How to pay for it.

And if that sounds like the entire job of the STAC is still in front of it as the Oct. 31 target date for finishing passes by, well, yes it is; on the other hand, a lot of information about potential routes has been digested by the group over the course of six months and 10 meetings to date.

The first question is a huge one. The ill-fated TTA plan was to start off transit in the Triangle with commuter rail service in the Durham-to-Raleigh corridor, which is shared now by Amtrak and freight trains. The corridor is owned by the N.C. Railroad Co., which is run as a private corporation—with its own board of directors—though it is wholly owned by the State of North Carolina. TTA was going to rent enough space in the corridor to build its own tracks, and was in the process of acquiring the adjacent properties it needed for stations, when federal funding for its plan fell apart.

But Durham-to-Raleigh is still considered the linchpin of any regional transit plan—and indeed, the planners have started calling it "the linchpin" because "Durham-to-Raleigh" sounds like it's leaving out the Carys, the Chapel Hills and others whose money will be needed to make a regional plan fly. So the question now is: Stay on course for rail service in the corridor someday, when federal funding is available? Or go for some kind of rapid-transit bus service instead, which would require buying up some other land in the corridor?

The basic idea of the bus alternative is to parallel I-40 in dedicated lanes and/or wholly separate corridors. In its own lanes, bus service could be as fast as trains. But if it's ever forced onto I-40 itself, or any of the other congested roads around it, it could slow to a crawl.

One big tradeoff, according to transit planner Patrick McDonough, who works for TTA: Bus service could be launched in segments and would be cheaper to run initially; but long-term, additional riders drive the cost of bus service up (more buses, more drivers), whereas additional riders drive the cost of rail service down. So in the long-run, it's likely a commuter-rail service would be more efficient.

The STAC is trying to put together a long-term regional transit "vision" that includes—someday—connections to fast-growing places like Northern Durham, Apex, Wake Forest, Zebulon and Clayton. But what routes to use, and more to the point, what "technology"—rail, bus, buses in dedicated lanes—is contingent in most cases on what's running in the linchpin corridor, trains or buses.

And costing the whole thing out is dependent on the above decision.

At which point, Cianciolo said, the STAC is supposed to tell local and state decision-makers how to pay for it. There's a good chance the STAC will say that Wake, Durham and Orange county voters should be asked to approve a dedicated tax for transit, probably akin to the 1/2-cent sales tax adopted in Charlotte-Mecklenburg to fund its transit system. That would require, first, approval by the General Assembly, since local governments in North Carolina can't do anything tax-wise until the legislature OKs it.

And everyone's watching closely for the outcome of the vote in Mecklenburg County next week, where conservatives are trying to get voters to repeal the 1/2-cent transit tax. So far, polls have the repeal effort losing, which would bolster the STAC's case here, no doubt.

Expect the basic decisions on this by December, Cianciolo said yesterday. But the exact shape of a tax recommendation will probably not be made until January.

4 COMMENTS

Can we just put the rail idea to sleep? 85% of the Triangle polled, said they would not use a rail idea because it is inefficient and too expensive. High speed buses make much more sense.They are much more flexible to pick up lots more people--closer to their homes. The RDU Airport and Duke Hospital are not going to allow rail service at their location because it hits them in the pocketbook---they make gobs of money at their parking lots! Even the people who ride the rail cannot pick up their kids while going home from work. The riders have no flexibility to stop and shop (groceries)on the way home,do errands, etc,. Many land owners think that the rail idea was a "Private-land-grab idea" by the TTA. Condemning private property--buying it dirt cheap,etc. And then, when the federal money dried up--the official of the TTA-who had ties to the real estate industry--was "Gone-in-the -wind". Was there an idea to develop a large, housing, retail, office center -- sub-division out by Page Road--where a rail "hub" was to be built? Think people--we see these TTA buses currently driving all over Durham downtown and suburbs--with 5 riders--on a 60 passenger bus ! Taxpayers are still paying $5.00 per vehicle when they renew their license plates, and $10.oo per vehicle on their vehicle "property taxes" for the TTA Rail Service that 85 % of us say we will never use.
by Madashell Durham 5 Nov 2007, 8:03pm Report this comment
So what is the answer? More I-40s? If the true cost of such highways were built into the gasoline taxes the way they should be, gas would cost $8 to $10 per gallon...this looks to me like we are providing our car-centric transportation choices subsidies not dissimilar from those given to TTA. Rail is a long-term solution that will encourage higher density development along the chosen rail corrider...and, if designed properly (not on the cheap like the now dead version of the simple Raleigh to Durham ridiculousness of a couple years ago) would be a better expenditure than idiotic I-540 that has been built in the middle of no where, and will encourage more and more sprawl. You want more highways and sprawl? Fine, then pay the proper price with proper gasoline taxes so that those of use who do not use the highways (or cars very often) don't have to continue to subsidize your choices...or, we continue to subsidize a variety of choices and are up front about the true cost of all the transportation options.
by Smartashell Durham 5 Nov 2007, 9:41pm Report this comment
Why do you say "Even the people who ride the rail cannot pick up their kids while going home from work." ? In a properly designed system this would be a strong argument FOR rail. With hundreds or thousands of commuters passing through well defined depots daily, these would be prime locations for busiesses providing the services that most commuters use daily--including child-care, groceries, restaurants, gyms. Adding cafes, bookstores, etc. at the rail park-and-ride locations would be a win-win as this would naturally smooth the flow of traffic as commuters conduct these activities without making yet another car trip. Less vehicle-miles-traveled, more efficient use of time, sounds great to me.
by AHands Carrboro 12 Nov 2007, 3:34pm Report this comment
The cost of rail rises every day...whereas, the costs of buses come down every day, especially given the competition of late.
by Galileo3 Raleigh 29 Nov 2007, 4:01pm Report this comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
 
return to top