Utah's FrontRunner has been in service for just about 1 week and already ridership is 120% of expectations. If planners don't expect much then they don't plan for much parking.
dd
dldance wrote: Utah's FrontRunner has been in service for just about 1 week and already ridership is 120% of expectations. If planners don't expect much then they don't plan for much parking.dd
If I were a rail-transit planner, I'd do my best to pre-clear permits and zoning to allow the flat parking lot to become a multi-storey.
Better yet, if the transit agency has the money, even a "Greenfield" line extension is better than none. Currently Metra operates the UP west line thru Geneva to Elburn, and I believe it's the MILW-west line that runs thru Elgin to Big Timber.
The ideal, of course, would be to have circulator buses running to the station during peak hours. There's a lot of that done in the suburbs and subdivisions of Toronto, where the bus schedules mesh with those of the GO trains and the feeder routes come right up many of the culs-de-sac during rush times. But would American city/county dichotomy politics louse up such coordination?
PACE (RTA's bus division) does operate rush-hour only feeder buses at several stations, mostly in DuPage County and some north and northwest suburbs. A fair number of other such routes have been discontinued for lack of ridership.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: PACE (RTA's bus division) does operate rush-hour only feeder buses at several stations, mostly in DuPage County and some north and northwest suburbs. A fair number of other such routes have been discontinued for lack of ridership.
Right, but "never say never" to the routes that were tried in the past and abandoned. Metra is getting more riders because of the rising price of gasoline, and extra people who ordinarily would have driven to work, or straight to the train station, might be lured by the prospect of a work day without having to drive the car at all.
I have limited experience with PACE but I have been impressed on the few rides I took at how well the buses kept to schedule. Of course, the CTA is quite an "object lesson" by comparison! - a.s.
The PATCO Hi-Speed Line has some BIG park and ride lots - all flat. The downside is that at some, the furthest space is more than 1/3 mile from the station. More like park-walk-and ride lots!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Parking lots are often shortchanged by transit agencies not because the agencies are dumb, penurious, or shortsighted, but because they're a non-critical path item where economies can be found without causing the project to come up incomplete with the money all spent. It's not possible to buy less catenary, track, right-of-way, street relocation, or utility relocation, and still open the railroad. But it is possible to buy half as much parking lot as you'd like to have, and hope that after the railroad opens the taxpayers will agree to fund an expansion.
It's not pretty but it's reality.
RWM
They key here again is that MARC and VRE has found out in places like Germantown and Gathersburg that the Real Estate gets preety valuble next to the train station and that condos and retail next to the tracks could bring in more revenue.------
The problem with Feeder Buses is that you have the labor costs of the drivers which at 40,000.00s a driver and 80,000 for mini-bus or used bus could add up..
My solution would to have eletronic rideshare boards on the trains or have stationmasters help cornidate a rideshare board like the ones you see at colleges
transitrapid wrote: They key here again is that MARC and VRE has found out in places like Germantown and Gathersburg that the Real Estate gets preety valuble next to the train station and that condos and retail next to the tracks could bring in more revenue.------The problem with Feeder Buses is that you have the labor costs of the drivers which at 40,000.00s a driver and 80,000 for mini-bus or used bus could add up..My solution would to have eletronic rideshare boards on the trains or have stationmasters help cornidate a rideshare board like the ones you see at colleges
I keep thinking of an article I read about five years ago about a women who had to get to her VRE station parking lot before 5:00 a.m. or she wouldn't have a place to park. The train was due close to an hour and a half later.
Ironically, she would probably appear to be a "satisfied customer" according to ticket sales if she always uses a monthly pass.
Many people disagree with me, but I think it's crazy for people to have to stay up all night for Stevie Nicks tickets or waste part of the early morning just to find a place in the lot. One solution would be to institute a charge to park or raise the price if VRE already charges. Another would be a lottery, but that could easily be subject to fraud.
transitrapid wrote:charge for parking?$$$$$?
Obviously you've never visited Chicago!
Al:
You and I don't disagree often, but you struck a nerve this time.
The cost of parking in center city is one of the major draws that the Lynx light rail has.
When people are interviewed by the press at the light rail station they quote the cost of gasoline and the cost of parking vs the cost of the light rail. They seldom mention the inconvenience of fighting rush hour traffic.
I believe charging for parking at the park and ride lots would be counterproductive unless the goal is to get fewer people to use mass transit.
We, too, are finding that the planners underestimated the parking need.
The following is not a plan or advocacy, just a thought:
A large part of the cost of transportation systems is the cost of selling, the fare evidence, verifying and enforcing the payment of the fare, collecting, protecting, and accounting for the collected fares, etc. I often wonder what the difference in cost per rider would be if a tax on city parking spaces was implimented and used to fund a totally free extensive mass transit system.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet wrote: A large part of the cost of transportation systems is the cost of selling, the fare evidence, verifying and enforcing the payment of the fare, collecting, protecting, and accounting for the collected fares, etc. I often wonder what the difference in cost per rider would be if a tax on city parking spaces was implimented and used to fund a totally free extensive mass transit system.
Austin Texas bus system did something like that in the mid 1980's. The bean counters figured it was cheaper not to charge than it was to buy the newfangled fare boxes that could handle bills and coins, as well as collecting, protecting, accounting etc... you mention.
I forget how long that free system lasted, but it was more than a year. I'm assuming the bean counters took another look, or maybe increased fare increased then amount of payment with paper money, which probably is cheaper to handle than coins.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
I didn't expect it to be cheaper, just not as much more expensive as one might think.
The loss of the fare revenue would be partially offset by the money saved by not having to administer the collecting of the fare.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Al:You and I don't disagree often, but you struck a nerve this time.The cost of parking in center city is one of the major draws that the Lynx light rail has.When people are interviewed by the press at the light rail station they quote the cost of gasoline and the cost of parking vs the cost of the light rail. They seldom mention the inconvenience of fighting rush hour traffic.I believe charging for parking at the park and ride lots would be counterproductive unless the goal is to get fewer people to use mass transit.We, too, are finding that the planners underestimated the parking need.The following is not a plan or advocacy, just a thought:A large part of the cost of transportation systems is the cost of selling, the fare evidence, verifying and enforcing the payment of the fare, collecting, protecting, and accounting for the collected fares, etc. I often wonder what the difference in cost per rider would be if a tax on city parking spaces was implimented and used to fund a totally free extensive mass transit system.
I see your point and believe your facts. We seem in this thread to have exhausted what's possible in transit parking. I've seen those multi-acred PATCO parking lots. But if you're someone like me who can't stand for long, I could handle the walk but not standing on a train. VRE must be tremendously effective if it has people literally standing in the aisles!
Yes, it was dumb of me to insert a disincentive of higher parking cost at the suburban end of the commuter rail system. Me, I won't drive into D.C. on a bet.
I wouldn't use the term "dumb". It's should be more like "Gosh, I didn't think of that".
For those who can't stand for long or walk long distances, that is what handicap parking spots are for.
The Lynx has one 4 level parking deck, the rest are flat lots. The deck is large enough, but only just. If ridership increases much it won't be. The Arrowood Road lot is way too small. They are evaluating possible remedies. One of the thoughts is better bus service feeding the rail stop. The light rail pass or ticket is good on the bus, too, and the fare is the same no matter how far you travel. The stops close to city center don't have any parking at all. Condos and mixed use buildings are popping up near all the stops advertising that they are at, or within walking distance, of the light rail.
Unexpected is the fact that there is a shopping center right across the street from that last stop and a lot of people are taking the train to and from the shopping center. I don't know from where. I often sit in one of the restaurants there and watch all the people walking across what is a very busy street that is 6 lanes wide there, carrying bags of stuff headed for the train.
Before they built it, and even during the construction, I was not opposed, but I was skeptical. I, however, am now convinced and looking forward to the planned expansion. In fact, I think the plan was too conservative. It should go farther in both directions.
Note the parking deck on the right.
Phoebe Vet wrote: For those who can't stand for long or walk long distances, that is what handicap parking spots are for.They are evaluating possible remedies. One of the thoughts is better bus service feeding the rail stop.
They are evaluating possible remedies. One of the thoughts is better bus service feeding the rail stop.
any thoughts on bus service feeding parking lots? For example, Septa Cornwells Heights RR station got a major parking lot expansion, but most of the expansion was gerrymandered so that it's not much different from having 1 small lot next to the station platform and a completely separate large lot connected via a driveway. Septa provides small buses-large vans to shuttle from station to the expansion lot. Meanwhile there's no public transit service from the gigantic Franklin Mills shopping mall, which looks to be not much more than 2 or 3 times further from the station than the farthest parking spot. http://www.mapquest.com/
/maps/station+ave+and+railroad+ave+bensalem+pa/
woodhaven+rd+and+millbrook+rd+philadelphia+pa/ says 1.41 mi
Similarly just a bit north on the Amtrak Philly-NYC main, NJ transit Hamilton station 9:30am on a weekday I saw quite a few people, I'm guessing about 50 in the half hour I was hanging out at the platform, walking from underneath the Sloan Ave overpass. I asked one of them if that was the closest parking spot, he said yes, this time of day there's nothing closer to the station. I'm confused though as to where they parked, my google earth, and mapquest satellite don't show any lot. Is there legal street parking?
And for something completely different, Cherry Hill station on the NJ transit Atlantic City line. When originally built the only nearby attraction was the Garden State Park racetrack, which had a huge parking lot, but which was on the opposite side of the railroad track from the platform. In its wisdom Amtrak/NJ transit positioned the fences so that not only could noone get to the other side, one also had to navigate a bit of a cattle chute to get from the parking area designated for the station to the platform.
In the intervening years since the racetrack is no more, a shopping center has now sprung up on the platform side of the tracks so that now the station is in the back of a supermarket. TIt looks like about 6 legal parking spaces next to the platform to accomodate the apparent limited demand, remember the Atlantic City line itself is not a major hauler. Maybe another 40 spaces nearby in the back of the supermarket, but I can't figure if they're legal, available to riders, or reserved for store employees. Then another 20 spaces on each of the lanes that straddle the sides of the supermarket, guess what, the train station is pretty much smack in the middle of the back of the store, so it's an equal walk from either of those lanes to the platform. And of course there are all the spaces in the front of the store.
On the other side of the tracks, in place of the former racetrack there is yet another shopping center and a fair amount of housing under construction, but as in years past no permissable way to cross the tracks. So in addition to thoughts about feeders and satellite parking areas, how about thoughts on adequate access to the platform?
Cornwell Heights
Hamilton
Cherry Hill
dldance wrote:If planners don't expect much then they don't plan for much parking.
I don't know that they can always tell; advance surveys are not always reliable.
In contrast with the successes cited elsewhere in this thread, last year I read somewhere that Nashville's Music City Star had passenger counts below expectations. One poster noted that its route was not that advantageous to commuters. Maybe with $4 gas that will change...
Boston's Orange line Wellingon station has the only installation I've seen of a people mover from parking garage over yard and shop to station platform
Phoebe Vet wrote:Al:You and I don't disagree often, but you struck a nerve this time.The cost of parking in center city is one of the major draws that the Lynx light rail has.When people are interviewed by the press at the light rail station they quote the cost of gasoline and the cost of parking vs the cost of the light rail. They seldom mention the inconvenience of fighting rush hour traffic.I believe charging for parking at the park and ride lots would be counterproductive unless the goal is to get fewer people to use mass transit.We, too, are finding that the planners underestimated the parking need.The following is not a plan or advocacy, just a thought:A large part of the cost of transportation systems is the cost of selling, the fare evidence, verifying and enforcing the payment of the fare, collecting, protecting, and accounting for the collected fares, etc. I often wonder what the difference in cost per rider would be if a tax on city parking spaces was implimented and used to fund a totally free extensive mass transit system.
http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/656506.html
Pace in Chicago's suburbs has a finite budget and communities have finite patience when it comes to feeder services to Metra. Low ridership is politically embarrassing as well as costly.
One problem I see is that the discontinued Pace feeder routes were rush-only.
Parking can be a bane to suburban downtowns. Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Mount Prospect, Arlington Heights and Palatine have adopted the idea promoted by the Center for Neighborhood Technology of high-rise condominium living within walking distance of the Metra station. The improved land utilization and increased real estate tax revenue from new residential and commercial development pays for building parking decks to replace sprawling flat lots. Money trumped community character.
Most of Pace's services in the northwest suburban area are oriented to the CTA Blue Line and River Road/Rosemont transit center.
I would mention Evanston; but development there is driven more by Northwestern University and a desire to enjoy the related shopping, restaurant, and cultural opportunities within a short walk or transit trip distance as well as access to downtown Chicago.
SoCal Metrolink put in a new station at Buena Park on the Orange County Line. It had 300 parking spaces and a bus stop for 2 bus lines. Within 2 months the lot was packed full by 7:30 AM. I use Metrolink at least once a month and had been using Fullerton. Buena Park is 1/2 the distance to my house so I used it for a while. Now I am back to Fullerton, since finding a parking place in BP is impossible for my 8 AM train. I can always find a spot in Fullerton by using my handicapped placard to park in a time-limited slot.
OCTA's solution is to start a new free shuttle bus from a Park 'n Ride bus lot 3 miles away. Since I have never seen more than 5 or 6 people get off the existing bus lines for a train, I don't think the shuttle is going to do much good. People who want to use the train do NOT want to take a bus to get to it.
Jack
Here in Charlotte, our furthest out light rail station has 1120 parking spaces in a park and ride deck. It is full by 7:30 AM, as are the next two stations in.
The planners greatly under estimated how many riders they would be serving.
And it will increase as all the high rise condos along the light rail line are completed.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Here in Charlotte, our furthest out light rail station has 1120 parking spaces in a park and ride deck. It is full by 7:30 AM, as are the next two stations in.The planners greatly under estimated how many riders they would be serving.And it will increase as all the high rise condos along the light rail line are completed.
as HarveyK400 mentioned, if you build the condo within walking distance of the station then increased ridership does not necessarily mean you need increased parking spots.
NIMBY's can be interesting. A multi story housing development less than 3 blocks from the Ambler PA SEPTA heavy rail station, newspaper mentioned one of the oppositions was fear that x number of units would result in x new cars on Ambler streets at rush hour, presumably to get to the turnpike several miles away. Nothing in the article about how at least some of the potential residents would locate there because of proximity to transit and so x residents would result in less than x additional car trips.
I mentioned before in some forum, newspaper mentioned NIMBY opposing NJT River Line station placement because it would lower property values. Generally doesn't proximity to public transit figure prominently in items realtors use as selling points?
Of course the new dwellings will not increase the need for park and ride parking spaces.
The statement about increase was related to the second paragraph:
"The planners greatly under estimated how many riders they would be serving."
The inadequate number of parking spaces is a result of the same under estimate.
They also have discovered that they did not buy enough trainsets. They have ordered more, but it will be almost 2 years before delivery.
Update:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/146935.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Pheobe,
While the ridership has been higher then officially projected (a very conservative estimate to meet the FTA "cost benefit" analysis requirements) many of us who work with CATS on a regular basis always felt that ridership was going to be much higer. (I am one of the two Matthews' reps on the MTC)
As for parking- most all of the lots were planned to be larger, (several much larger) but got cut in the FTA's "value engineering" process. Basically they said, "if you are using a consertive ridership estimate to meet our requirements, then why are you asking to fund these big lots". The FTA required that they be reduced, or they would not pay.
That's also the reason that the platforms were cut short- 2 car lengths- what we applied to fund was three car length platforms. Again the FTA disapproved, so they were cut. We will be seeking 3 car platforms on the NE line- we will see what they say then.
Remember the FTA's job is to make the administration look good (no matter who is in office) not necessarly fund transportation improvements. The current FTA is really not supportive of rail investments in sunbelt cities. If we were to accept a BRT proposal for the SE, they have basically said they would fund it at 80% - tomorrow- they are desperate to get a big BRT on the ground.
gardendance wrote:no, not really, but if it's not to transport people then what do you think its real objective is?
Public carriage is almost always subsidized by the Federal Government. To have new Federal dollars start floating around in a region or community is economically beneficial, because through banking logistical wizardry, that money can double or even triple with no real effort. So, while public rail and bus systems tout the TRANSPORTATION benefits of their offerings, there are those that relish a FREE FEDERAL HANDOUT THAT MIRACULOUSLY GROWS. Wouldn't you thrill at a $20 bill on your kitchen table that miraculously became TWO $20 bills, even THREE such bills?
Matthewsaggie:
Kind of makes you wonder which component of BRT systems is the big political donor, doesn't it?
K. P. Harrier wrote: gardendance wrote:no, not really, but if it's not to transport people then what do you think its real objective is?Public carriage is almost always subsidized by the Federal Government. To have new Federal dollars start floating around in a region or community is economically beneficial, because through banking logistical wizardry, that money can double or even triple with no real effort. So, while public rail and bus systems tout the TRANSPORTATION benefits of their offerings, there are those that relish a FREE FEDERAL HANDOUT THAT MIRACULOUSLY GROWS. Wouldn't you thrill at a $20 bill on your kitchen table that miraculously became TWO $20 bills, even THREE such bills?
I'm completely puzzled by your economic theory.
Puzzled?
You just need to listen to Fox and Rush more often.
Under the new Democratically controlled Congress, the government's goal is to collect all the money and give it to the lazy people. In order to justify taking all of OUR money, they are forced to provide at least a few services, so they come up with cockamamie schemes like mass transit where they just move a few people around at a cost that exceeds what it would cost to just buy each them a car, so that the feds will shower us with our own money.
Did I miss anything?
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: K. P. Harrier wrote: through banking logistical wizardry, that money can double or even triple with no real effort. I'm completely puzzled by your economic theory.
K. P. Harrier wrote: through banking logistical wizardry, that money can double or even triple with no real effort.
through banking logistical wizardry, that money can double or even triple with no real effort.
K. P. Harrier can certainly answer for himself, but what I think he refers to is the phenomenon where one deposits $10 in the bank, the bank then loans it to someone who uses it to pay someone else for goods or services, who in turn deposits the $10 in the bank, and the cycle repeats.
At its worst this is a pyramid fraud scheme, at its best it's the grease on the gears that make our economy run.
Phoebe Vet wrote: You just need to listen to Fox and Rush more often.
Phoebe Vet, are you offering this as your own opinion, or is it how you feel is Fox's and Rush's opinion?
Sarcasm
Fox is to news what WWE is to the sport of wrestling.
For every $10 deposited in the banking system, the banks can lend 10 times the initial deposit with a fractional reserve requirement of 20 per cent. The fractional reserve requirement is the amount the banks are required to keep on hand.
Of the initial $10 deposit, only $2 must be kept on hand. The other $8 can be loaned. The recipient of the $8 loan usually spends it. The receiver of the $8 eventually deposits in his or her bank. That bank keeps $1.60 and lends out $6.40. The process repeats itself. And it keeps repeating itself until the initial deposit has expanded to $100 in loans and deposits.
This is how the banking system creates money. It is a critical economic process. Without it our economy could not function. It is not a pyramid scheme.
The fractional deposit reserve requirement is one way the Federal Reserve can control the money supply. If there is too much money in the economy, which can fuel inflation, the Fed can raise the deposit requirement, thereby decreasing the amount of money in circulation.
As an aside, DART is considering requiring its patrons to pay for parking at its light rail parking lots. It seems that the majority of the citizenry, who do not use DART, is not happy about subsidizing transit patron parking.
I am not up on the current Federal Reserve mandates, but Samantha has explained sufficiently well the phenomena I spoke about.
So, does it make sense, then, that the carriage of people in public transit may NOT be the underlying motive for municipalities and districts to pursue transit funding handouts? If carriage was the main objective, there would be an abundance of parking!
Samantha explained the dynamics that drive a healthy economy.
I fail to see how that supports your theory that mass transit projects are planned to keep money in circulation rather than to transport people.
While transporting people around a medium or large size city does enable them to spend their money in a more diverse range of places, it is not more money than they would have spent anyway, and the Federal money spent on building the new system usually goes to an out of town contractor who specializes in such projects.
Mass transit projects are usually built because of traffic density problems and electric systems like light rail are often motivated by air quality issues.
The inadequate parking is a result of disagreements over how many people will use the future system and from where they will come to get to it.
The Lynx station closest to my home has more than 1100 parking spaces in a 4 level ramp. During planning and construction, the consultants said it wouldn't be enough, but the NIMBYs said it was going to sit empty. Conflicting studies resulted in it being smaller than originally planned but larger than the naysayers thought we needed. It is full by 7:30 AM and the nearby shopping center is waging a constant battle to keep commuters from parking there.
If you drive through the lot at midday, you will see that 75% of the cars parked there have SOUTH Carolina plates. We don't need a bigger ramp, we need to extend the line into South Carolina.
Phoebe Vet wrote: ...you will see that 75% of the cars parked there have SOUTH Carolina plates. We don't need a bigger ramp, we need to extend the line into South Carolina.
...you will see that 75% of the cars parked there have SOUTH Carolina plates. We don't need a bigger ramp, we need to extend the line into South Carolina.
DART has a similar problem. Many people who live in cities outside of the DART service area have discovered public transit. They have been piling onto the trains at the end of the line, e.g. Plano, Garland, etc.
It also illustrates one of the problems of subsidized transit systems. The people who live in the service area cities pay a one per cent sales tax to help fund DART. Those who live outside of the service area pay nothing. Ironically, since they get on the trains at the end of the line, they get the seats. The folks who pay the tab through their sales tax frequently get an opportunity to stand.
Samantha:
Charlotte is right on the state border. A huge percentage of the people who work in city center live in South Carolina. Many were already using Cats because there is a park and ride for the express bus to city center at the state line. I'm not sure why Lynx didn't end there. The RR right of way on which the Blue Line is built goes right past it.
The Blue Line takes about 2,000 rush hour cars a day in each direction off I-77.
Phoebe Vet wrote: I'm not sure why Lynx didn't end there. The RR right of way on which the Blue Line is built goes right past it.The Blue Line takes about 2,000 rush hour cars a day in each direction off I-77.
I'm not sure why Lynx didn't end there. The RR right of way on which the Blue Line is built goes right past it.
Two reasons-
1) Pineville was very concerned about what the concept of Transit Oriented Development would do to their downtown, as CATS wanted all of the towns to adopt TOD goals (all the rest did). I assume you live near Pineville- you might stop in and talk to Mike Rose, the Town Administrator sometime about it. 2) Because bridging I-485 would have added so much cost that we would no longer meet the FTA funding financial funding guidelines. ($/per new rider) It was actually a blessing in disguise financially when Pineville backed down.
The park and ride of which I spoke is right off I-77 next to Carowinds. The path would not have gone through Pineville. It is on the line that goes over to the Westinghouse warehouse district. It would, however, have required that bridge.
I am familiar with the NIMBY capitol of the world AKA Pineville. I assumed there was a reason that the county caved so easily when Pineville balked.
I know it's not going to happen, but I still think the Blue Line should go to Rock Hill in the south, and Kannapolis to the north.
I think that if you look at the CATS website, the recent Rock Hill "Major Investment Study" is linked there. If not you can google it. It calls for a connection to the Linx, and I think Pineville is coming around, too, but no one knows where the money will come from.
On the northeast Bruton Smith was making some noise recently about going to the Speedway (almost to Concord) , and those of is in this area know what he can do. (ie his new dragstrip) On the other hand Kanapolis may be a bit of a stretch for a LRT line.
Well, that gives me something to dream about. I'd love to be able to take the Blue Line to the Track.
Now if you want to make my 10 year old granddaughter's day tell me where I can get an HO model of that S-70 low floor tram. We already have a subway on the layout and she is absolutely in love with the light rail. She begs to go somewhere on it constantly.
I have found Seimens models, but not the S-70
Samantha wrote: DART has a similar problem. Many people who live in cities outside of the DART service area have discovered public transit. They have been piling onto the trains at the end of the line, e.g. Plano, Garland, etc. It also illustrates one of the problems of subsidized transit systems. The people who live in the service area cities pay a one per cent sales tax to help fund DART. Those who live outside of the service area pay nothing.
It also illustrates one of the problems of subsidized transit systems. The people who live in the service area cities pay a one per cent sales tax to help fund DART. Those who live outside of the service area pay nothing.
You mention nothing of the fact that those outside the DART service area probably formerly drove the entire distance. Isn't there some advantage now that they only drive part way? Couldn't DART run a few short trips if the carpetbagger are actually scaring away the locals?
That's similar to New Jersey's reluctance at first even to build a storage yard in Morrisville PA, there were some who wanted it built in Trenton, even though that would have required backup moves from the Trenton station. And they have yet to put a passenger station at the Morrisville yard, even though most trains originate and terminate there. I'm not sure what benefit accrues to New Jersey to have those trains run empty from Morrisville while those Pennsylvanians drive to the Trenton or Hamilton train stations. Also similar to the old days when trains ran empty from New Brunswick station to the Jersey Ave yard, several times commented in John Kneiling's Professional Iconoclast column in Trains.
Also since it's a sales tax don't those who live outside the service area pay based the taxable items they buy within the service area, regardless of whether they use DART or not? And one assumes they're commuting to jobs in Dallas. Don't they then contribute to Dallas's economy, or do you consider outside jobholders to be a drain on the local economy?
gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: DART has a similar problem. Many people who live in cities outside of the DART service area have discovered public transit. They have been piling onto the trains at the end of the line, e.g. Plano, Garland, etc. It also illustrates one of the problems of subsidized transit systems. The people who live in the service area cities pay a one per cent sales tax to help fund DART. Those who live outside of the service area pay nothing.Couldn't DART run a few short trips if the carpetbagger are actually scaring away the locals?Also since it's a sales tax don't those who live outside the service area pay based the taxable items they buy within the service area, regardless of whether they use DART or not? And one assumes they're commuting to jobs in Dallas. Don't they then contribute to Dallas's economy, or do you consider outside jobholders to be a drain on the local economy?
Couldn't DART run a few short trips if the carpetbagger are actually scaring away the locals?
DART's light rail trains operate end point to end point. The light rail system is not set-up to run less than the length of the system, except for the trains headed to the train shed. The point I was highlighting is that people who live outside of the service area are taking the seats of the people who live in the service area. And it is the people in the service area who pay the lion's share of the cost of the light rail system. Indeed, they foot the lion's share of all of DART's services.
Most of the commuters, who use the light rail system, or any of DART's services for that matter, work in the service area. Many although not all of them go downtown Dallas since that is where the trains go. Many of them eat in service area restaurants, have a drink after work at one of the local watering holes, and may pick-up a few items at the equivalent of a convenience store. These transactions attract sales tax. But their purchases in the service area are minimal compared to the services that they purchase at their local malls, restaurants, entertainment venues, service providers, car dealers, etc.
Most workers in Dallas go to work, do their job, and then go back to their suburban homes. Some of them return to suburban homes in the service area, i.e. Richardson, Plano, etc. But many of them go to suburbs that do not belong to the service area. They contribute to the success of their employer, but they don't pay a lot of taxes in the service area.
The bulk of the sales taxes are paid by the service area residents. Moreover, it is the service area dwellers who pay the property taxes to help build the access infrastructure that makes getting to and from DART's facilities possible. Moreover, while everyone in the service area pays to support DART's services, less than two to three per cent use the system. This is true even after the run-up in ridership that has taken place recently.
Many of the outsiders come from communities that said "No" to DART. I know their reaction because I was very active in getting the DART referendum passed. They believed that public transit would never work in North Texas. Now they are singing a different tune. They want to opt into the system. And many of their residents are driving to the end points for a highly subsidized ride to town.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Samantha explained the dynamics that drive a healthy economy.I fail to see how that supports your theory that mass transit projects are planned to keep money in circulation rather than to transport people.
Those that promote a project have various motives. Some people's motives are humanitarian, some are profit in some way, others political advancement, or whatever.
Since insufficient parking is a widespread reoccurring problem in transit all over the country, one has to wonder WHY a solution hasn't been found by now. But, if a community in a subtle way benefits MORE from the expanding money phenomena than from transportation itself, then, there is little motive to fix transit problems.
Public transit is a political beast. The public that rides has little incentive to personally effect changes, just complain to usually deaf ears. However, those that see direct benefits to themselves of money ‘expanding' near their wallets have incentive to keep those benefits coming, year after year after year.
Perhaps a way of seeing SHIFTED MOTIVE is to ponder the situation if NO federal funds where granted. An area would thus NOT have, say, $50 million annually pumped into it, which $50 million would NOT magically become $200 million. No new money nor its expansion would happen year after year after year.
In reality, though, money does come, and expand
So, in that light, what city official would even care about a $1 million parking expansion? They ARE, however, very interested in keeping the magical $200 million coming annually!
The only other thing that seems to get the attention of political leaders are radical action groups.
Harrier:
Your argument is not convincing.
Here in Charlotte, the Feds declined to participate in one of the rail lines Cats planned, and they are building it anyway even without any federal money.
I might buy your argument if the feds paid the whole thing, but that is never the case. Local communities and states have to jump through a lot of hoops to raise the local portion of the funds.
Mass transit programs are built to move people. Which system is chosen (LRT,BRT, or bus) may be influenced by federal participation or lack thereof, but they are going to build SOMETHING to move the people anyway.
Samantha wrote: DART's light rail trains operate end point to end point. The light rail system is not set-up to run less than the length of the system, except for the trains headed to the train shed. The point I was highlighting is that people who live outside of the service area are taking the seats of the people who live in the service area. And it is the people in the service area who pay the lion's share of the cost of the light rail system. Indeed, they foot the lion's share of all of DART's services.
Please explain what is it about the set up that makes it so difficult to run less than the lenght? Don't they have adequate cross overs and signals? I can understand something like Philadelphia, once the streetcar gets past 40th St or 36th St it's physically impossible to turn around before the terminal just west of 13th St, or San Francisco, once you get into the Market St subway I don't think there are any crossovers, but except for a tunnel under the expressway, isn't DART a surface private or reserved right of way line with double ended equipment? Why can't they short turn a trip?
Samantha wrote:Many of the outsiders come from communities that said "No" to DART. I know their reaction because I was very active in getting the DART referendum passed. They believed that public transit would never work in North Texas. Now they are singing a different tune. They want to opt into the system. And many of their residents are driving to the end points for a highly subsidized ride to town.
And why is singing a different tune a bad thing? Blessed are those who see and believe, even if those who did not see and yet believed are more blessed. Give those gummints who now sing a different tune an opportunity to contribute, get creative with how you distribute your subsidized monthly passes, maybe via the welfare departments or employers, so you have some assurance that deserving residents can get them. Or raise the price of monthly passes, but offer a discount if the buyer prooves residency, or has it mailed to a local address.
gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: Please explain what is it about the set up that makes it so difficult to run less than the lenght? Don't they have adequate cross overs and signals? Samantha wrote:And why is singing a different tune a bad thing?
Samantha wrote:
Please explain what is it about the set up that makes it so difficult to run less than the lenght? Don't they have adequate cross overs and signals?
And why is singing a different tune a bad thing?
The DART track and signal system could accommodate less than end point to end point trains. Unfortunately, DART does not have the equipment to do it. All of the equipment, except the cars that out of service for maintenance, are needed to support current operations. If they ran short trip trains, the end point to end point trains would be jammed even more for the same reason that they are jammed now. People from outside the service area are driving to one of the end points and hopping on the trains. I am told that the rush hour trains are chockers before they leave the end point stations.
DART is expanding its light rail carrying capacity, primarily by increasing the length of the train configuration. Each train will have three sections, one of which will be low floor, as compared to the two section configuration today. But the reconfiguration of the fleet will not be complete to 2010.
Like many transit planners, DART is faced with a dilemma. If it orders additional equipment to handle the increase in passengers, it may find itself with under used cars if the price of gasoline drops and the newbie's go back to driving. Today the price of gasoline in Texas dropped below $3.50 a gallon.
People who crash the party are usually resented by those who went through the birthing pains of putting it together. They did not pay their dues. The same thing applies in Georgetown and Round Rock, which are just north of Austin. Because of changing conditions, they want to joint Capital Metro, although they said no when they had the chance.
DART and Capitol Metro are considering ways to let the newbie's join the party. But they are going to have to pay. One idea being floated in the DART area is to require the late comers to pay to DART what they would have paid if they had joined on day one. It would be a lot of money, and I suspect the local tax payers would squawk loudly. Capital Metro's view is a bit different. It laid out a plan whereby Georgetown and Round Rock, as well as several other cities, could opt into the system, but they would have to pay the out-of-pocket cost of extending the express bus system to their communities. This would require a sizeable payment to Capitol Metro, a hefty fare for Georgetown and Round Rock passengers, or a combination thereof. Ironically, DART or Capitol Metro will not make the decision. These decisions are made by the Texas Legislature.
People in the DART service cities have been paying an extra one per cent in sales tax for more than 15 years, and only now are some of them getting light rail service. Understandably they resent the late comers who have paid nothing for the system and want what amounts to a reduced fare ride to town.
Are the trains crowded from say on the red line from tyler or spring valley or on the blue line morrell, cedars, victory to the end of the lines? If not why can't DART drop one car at one of these points or somewhere else and couple it onto the next train going back? Maybe there are not reversing lines yet and it would require an extra operator at each location. Thankfully FRA rules do not apply for brake tests. I've observed European outfits do it less than two minutes. Passengers in europe quickly adapt to a destination car.
Actually, short turns could be done as a means of giving riders all along the line a chance at a seat. This works like a zone express service from the boonies. If there is only one downtown stop; then it's on a first come basis. Passengers are concentrated with less frequent service from a set of stop zone stations.
Given the high number of passengers driving or busing in to the end of the line from outside the taxing districts for Dallas and Charlotte, that one station could be a single zone. The next zone would begin at the next-to-last station and may pick up from a number of stations before the beginning of the next zone; and so forth. Trains would stop to discharge passengers at any stop.
As for equipment, the shorter runs permit faster cycling of equipment that effectively increases fleet capacity.
Most suburbs around Chicago have resident and non-resident parking permits with different rates. This is one way to cut down on the free ride non-residents otherwise would get.
Outsiders' use raises farebox revenue and reduces the level of operating support from the taxing district.
Samantha wrote:The DART track and signal system could accommodate less than end point to end point trains. Unfortunately, DART does not have the equipment to do it...I am told that the rush hour trains are chockers before they leave the end point stations.
The DART track and signal system could accommodate less than end point to end point trains. Unfortunately, DART does not have the equipment to do it...
I am told that the rush hour trains are chockers before they leave the end point stations.
So the problem seems to be a lack of rolling stock, not a lack of ability to short turn trains. And if it's true that the trains are full when leaving the terminal then short turn wouldn't help.
HarveyK400 wrote: Given the high number of passengers driving or busing in to the end of the line from outside the taxing districts for Dallas and Charlotte, that one station could be a single zone.
Given the high number of passengers driving or busing in to the end of the line from outside the taxing districts for Dallas and Charlotte, that one station could be a single zone.
Maybe an issue for another thread, how do self service honor systems handle multiple zones? All the ones I've ridden - NJ Transit, Baltimore, Buffalo, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacremento, Portland - were one zone for the line's entire length.
HarveyK400 wrote: Most suburbs around Chicago have resident and non-resident parking permits with different rates. This is one way to cut down on the free ride non-residents otherwise would get.
thanks, that reminds me, this thread's "not enough parking". So in addition to increasing fares and then offering discounts with proof of residence, Dallas could also do the parking permits. Are these out of towners getting free parking now? Is there a free transfer between feeder bus and light rail?
Samantha, you're a bean counter, right? I think your theme here is that the out of towners are getting an unfair advantage. Would it be better for Dallas if they returned to driving the entire distance?
A bit more difficult to do, and probably not too beneficial, but maybe they can add temporary tracks about 1000 feet to a temporary platform with no parking, so at least more of the seats get occupied by local passengers.
Most cities and villages in Illinois require vehicles owned by residents and businesses to be registered and taxed. A resident commuter parking permit can be renewed at the same time showing both drivers's license and state vehicle registration documentation showing the plate ID. A space is assigned to your designated vehicle(s), usually you can register two or three vehicles, but only one car can be in only the assigned space.
If you change cars, you need to go back to city hall and de-register the prior car and register the current one, and get the new stickers.
Obtaining a permit is complicated by the demand exceeding the supply - for example, I heard Naperville had a four year wait. Preference is given to community residents.
Enforcement is no more of a problem than any other parking violation, including ticketing, towing, and impounding the vehicle. An enforcement aide patrols the lot or garage looking for the current permit sticker. After a while, they get used to certain cars in certain spaces. They can get a list of permit-holders that are in arrears. Enforcement probably is split between commuter parking and downtown metered spaces.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Harrier:Your argument is not convincing.
How can anyone prove secret motives? I certainly can't. Besides, each community's leaders differ from place to place. But, I have suggested that transit may not always be the end motive, but rather, getting Federal dollars into a local economy. Each one can judge for themselves if that makes sense or not ...
Phoebe Vet wrote: I might buy your argument if the feds paid the whole thing, but that is never the case. Local communities and states have to jump through a lot of hoops to raise the local portion of the funds.
You are correct about the Feds not paying everything; but, they do pay a large percentage. If the Feds refuse to fund a project, but a community builds it on their own anyway, would the project's result then qualify for seemingly perpetual Federal funding in order to operate it? Just a thought ...
The person throwing out a whacky conspiracy theory bears the burden of proof to support the theory.
But, as usual, the theorist says "I think this" "Try to prove me wrong".
Your theory doesn't make sense. While federal participation makes it possible to build needed projects that otherwise could just not be fit into the budget, that does not translate into "they build unneeded or unwanted projects for the sole purpose of getting the federal funds".
I remember a statement made by a robber baron that the purpose of a railroad was not to [carry anything]; but to make money [financing it].
Chicago's motto is that no federal dollar is left on the table; and anything remotely resembling a worthy project will be pursued unless a more pressing need, transportation or political, arises. The hot-button project had been the Red Line extension within a mile of the Metra Electric and two miles of the Rock Island. This is why, with the federal push for BRT, there has been a sudden shift in priorities to get cheap money faster.
Chicago also loads up on proposals, often extensions into suburban areas already serve by Metra, so that the shear weight obliges a compromise with much more money going to the City because they are only getting a small part of what was asked.
The economic flow generated by federal project dollars starts with contracts to the politically connected, some residual portion of which may find its way back through Chicago.
News from Charlotte for Pheobe:
At the MTC meeting tonight we were advised that 1) They are going to pave the remaining one acre of land towards the front of the existing deck - taking bids this coming month- will get about 40 spaces- of course people are already parking on the dirt now. 2) They are short term leasing parking from the Texas Roadhouse- will add another 100 spaces or so- and 3) The Roadhouse is interested in selling out and CATS will be making an offer to buy the property, remove the building and add almost 400 spaces. This will take a year of more but the resturant is interested in selling but of course it will all take time.
If you listen to WBT, they were there tonight and they may mention it in the AM, and it might be in the Observer, though the O's reporter may have left before we got to that on the agenda- at least I couldn't see from where I was sitting.
Anyway- some relief for parking in Charlotte!
Phoebe Vet:
You sound like an intelligent and informed person. Tell me, hypothetically, if a transit agency received and deposited in a local bank a $50 million operating grant check, would the bank rejoice or prefer the transit agency went elsewhere?
Thanks.
K.P.
matthewsaggie:
Thank you. That is encouraging, though I will miss Roadhouse. I like to eat there.
I do not see anything in this morning's Observer. At least not the on line version.
If I understand your inquiry, you seem to be implying that the transit authority exists for the primary purpose of supporting local banks.
Two of the largest banks in the country are headquartered in Charlotte. Most of the Sprint Cup teams, who sell sponsorships for 10s of millions of dollars per year per team, are here. We have a Federal Reserve Bank here. While that big federal check would certainly be welcomed, I doubt it would generate the euphoria which you seem to believe.
Clearly, the purpose of Federal transit funds is to build, maintain, and operate mass transit systems. But, WHY would that big Federal check "certainly be welcomed," and by whom?
I'm sorry but I'm having trouble following this conversation.
What is the point you are trying to make?
Phoebe Vet wrote:The cost of identifying the non residents, issuing permits both paid for the non residents and free for the local residents and enforcement of the use will probably exceed the amount of revenue generated.
The cost of identifying the non residents, issuing permits both paid for the non residents and free for the local residents and enforcement of the use will probably exceed the amount of revenue generated.
Depends. I agree if there's free parking, but If it's a paid lot with monthly permits then you're already issuing permits. Just offer the discounted permit if the buyer provides satisfactory residency proof, which in the case of a parking spot should reasonably be a driver's license. And if you're mailing the monthly permits you have added reassurance that at least the discounted passes get mailed to local addresses.
K. P. Harrier wrote: Phoebe Vet:Clearly, the purpose of Federal transit funds is to build, maintain, and operate mass transit systems. But, WHY would that big Federal check "certainly be welcomed," and by whom?K.P.
Like Phoebe I'm also confused by your thinking. Yes in all transactions there may be some stakeholders whose priorities are different than others, for example the motorman's primary desire might be to get 3 hots and a cot, rather than to provide transportation. I expect that all things being equal that motorman would welcome a big federal check. Now if there were big strings attached to that check, for example if his federal taxes were to increase, he might think twice, but usually the thought is that the fed cheats the other guy and passes the savings off to you.
The park and ride lots and ramp in Charlotte are free. Just drive in and park. The cost would go up significantly if they had to install gates, hire a crew of attendants to check for permits, hire people to research residency and issue permits and account for any fees charged.
Add to that the fact that the gate slows down entering and exiting, and parking fees make taking the light rail less attractive and the entire exercise seems counter productive to me.
I prefer the plan CATS has chosen. They are making the lots bigger.
The following two concepts where hoped to be tactfully reasoned out and elaborated on:
(1) The very widespread parking problem is caused by complicated matters difficult to identify and accept, and ...
(2) Multiple cross-objectives may be compounding the problem, and cross-objective situations so often are dangerous, especially where big money is in play.
Best wishes,
K.P.:
I am not trying to be contrary, I truly do not follow your line of logic.
I believe that the parking problems are caused by attempts at cost containment combined with a genuine good faith underestimation of the number of potential riders.
I believe the desparate need to move people in our ever more densly populated urban centers is the sole motivation for building mass transit systems. Every large city is struggling with gridlock. Just adding a lane or two to the main roads is only part of the solution. All those extra cars also wind up on the city center streets and need a place to park. When you widen a road, bridges need to be rebuilt, and often land must be aquired and structures moved or removed. It is not just a matter of placing some concrete.
Then there are the air quality issues that more traffic brings.
If there are cross purposes among the State and/or Federal politicians who are supplying money, such as pushing specific contractors, brands, or systems, that that is a separate issue. An example would be the Federal push for BRT at the very time when we are trying to reduce our use of oil and our emmission of greenhouse gases. I would bet that there are political donations involved. But the Feds don't come to town and say "want to buy some buses"? They respond to requests for help funding mass transit by saying "we will give you more money or quicker money for buses than we will for rail".
Phoebe Vet wrote: Now if you want to make my 10 year old granddaughter's day tell me where I can get an HO model of that S-70 low floor tram. We already have a subway on the layout and she is absolutely in love with the light rail. She begs to go somewhere on it constantly. I have found Seimens models, but not the S-70
Check out these links:
http://www.saarbahn.de/aktuelles/modelle/index.php?subcat=modelle
http://www.halling.at/modelleisenbahnen/index.php?g=Saarbahn
The center section looks wrong (too long), but the ends look close for an approximation of the S70.
What do you think? Does it need to be a precise model, or will a "stand in" model work?
Paul F.
Phoebe Vet wrote: I prefer the plan CATS has chosen. They are making the lots bigger.
I also hope they explored the feeder bus system, expanding and or making it more efficient. Charlotte, Dallas and elsewhere, how convenient, economical, etc... is the bus to rail transfer? For example, I've seen lots of places where the kiss and ride drop off is right at the station entrance, but the bus drop off is many car lengths away. Even worse, sometimes the bus drops off, then drives to the far end of the parking lot to layover, returning to pickup. One possible explanation is to reduce fumes and noise at the station entrance if they need to keep the engine running to maintain intside heating or cooling, but that wears a bit thin. If the outside temperature's that extreme I'd prefer to be inside the bus napping and enjoy the fruits of the air conditioning, instead of walking extra or waiting curbside in the elements.
This thread's been concentrating on new systems. There are many grandaddy operations. For example Septa's 69th St subway terminal does not have very much parking, but instead has 3 light rail and a whole mess of bus feeders. A big difference of course could be that these suburbs grew up around public transit, so there might be fewer cul-de-sac houses a long hike from the bus stop.
But it's also not necessarily true that once somebody gets into their car that they'll always drive all the way to work, even if there's no light rail. I lived for the past 20 years in Philadelphia's Fairmount-Art Museum neighborhood, a mile or 2 from city hall and the center of town. I knew quite a few folks who took advantage of free on street parking who would then take the bus the rest of the way to work. And since they were boarding near the center city end of the bus route they tended to have to stand. Of course outbound they had the same chance of getting a seat as a local person, but then they would vacate the seat sooner.
I think Samantha's complaint about out-of-towners taking up highly subsidized seats in Dallas without paying their fare share in taxes started me on this tangent about different parking rates for taxpaying locals vs freeriding outsiders. So does anybody know if it's free to park in Dallas's lots?
And Samantha, do you think Dallas would be better off if those out-of-towners drove all the way instead of parking and taking the light rail?
gardendance wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: I prefer the plan CATS has chosen. They are making the lots bigger.I also hope they explored the feeder bus system, expanding and or making it more efficient. Charlotte, Dallas and elsewhere, how convenient, economical, etc... is the bus to rail transfer? For example, I've seen lots of places where the kiss and ride drop off is right at the station entrance, but the bus drop off is many car lengths away. Even worse, sometimes the bus drops off, then drives to the far end of the parking lot to layover, returning to pickup. One possible explanation is to reduce fumes and noise at the station entrance if they need to keep the engine running to maintain intside heating or cooling, but that wears a bit thin. If the outside temperature's that extreme I'd prefer to be inside the bus napping and enjoy the fruits of the air conditioning, instead of walking extra or waiting curbside in the elements.This thread's been concentrating on new systems. There are many grandaddy operations. For example Septa's 69th St subway terminal does not have very much parking, but instead has 3 light rail and a whole mess of bus feeders. A big difference of course could be that these suburbs grew up around public transit, so there might be fewer cul-de-sac houses a long hike from the bus stop.But it's also not necessarily true that once somebody gets into their car that they'll always drive all the way to work, even if there's no light rail. I lived for the past 20 years in Philadelphia's Fairmount-Art Museum neighborhood, a mile or 2 from city hall and the center of town. I knew quite a few folks who took advantage of free on street parking who would then take the bus the rest of the way to work. And since they were boarding near the center city end of the bus route they tended to have to stand. Of course outbound they had the same chance of getting a seat as a local person, but then they would vacate the seat sooner.I think Samantha's complaint about out-of-towners taking up highly subsidized seats in Dallas without paying their fare share in taxes started me on this tangent about different parking rates for taxpaying locals vs freeriding outsiders. So does anybody know if it's free to park in Dallas's lots?And Samantha, do you think Dallas would be better off if those out-of-towners drove all the way instead of parking and taking the light rail?
Parking for DART's light rail trains, where it is provided, as well as the Trinity Railway Express, is free. The DART Board requested a study to determine the feasibility of implementing a parking fee at the DART and TRE lots as a way to pay to expand them. As far as I know the study has not been completed.
The primary purpose of my post was to show one of the consequences of a highly subsidized system that draws extensively on a regional tax base to support it. People outside the taxing district can use the system at the expense of the people who live inside the taxing district and help tote the note.
I don't advocate keeping out-of-towners off the trains.
OK, now you sound more like a friend ...
It is well known that one person may see a certain benefit to something while another sees a very different benefit. It would be ideal if everyone saw Federal money as something to benefit the carriage of people. Unfortunately, some see it as a way to increase political clout. Even others see Federal money as a way to enhance the local economy through money multiplication (by banks), and could care less about the carriage of people. Even others say that no public money should be used at all for transit. The political system is a strange beast at best.
Consider Metrolink in Southern California. The below photo depicts a Metrolink train in push mode a few miles west of Fontana. It is racing westward to Los Angeles.
Metrolink is a 1992 public outfit of the 1991 formed Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a joint powers creation involving five counties. Here again, with such a diverse beast, there is no uniform perspective. It is not as with the saying, "America is a super great nation." Virtually everyone in America would jump on THAT thought bandwagon. But Metrolink has officials that come and go who have various perspectives, passions, and objectives. Some are political appointees.
Just recently I dropped by the Metrolink station in San Bernardino, thinking maybe I would take a ride somewhere soon for the fun of it. Unfortunately, there were NO parking spaces anywhere, and it was relatively early in the day. Here was someone with money in hand that got a bad impression, and that impression will linger and linger now for months to come. Look, it even got mentioned herein.
Overall, Phoebe Vet, you are probably right that parking problems are caused by attempts at cost containment. I find it strange, though, that parking problems are so widespread. But, if one perceives that political tug of wars and cross objectives proliferate everywhere, then they are capable of seeing that compromises upon compromises ultimately have impossible consequences that result, like insufficient parking. To fix the result of such requires a great amount of time and money, as well as arm bending and twisting of politicians who probably could care less about transit, but ARE sensitive to people when they are massed together. But finding PEOPLE willing to mass together about transit is a difficult proposition.
As far as botching estimates, I say something is very wrong with the calculative process. But, calculating the future is like picking the winning lottery numbers. Someone obviously wins, but the majority loses. Maybe that is what transit planning is, a big lottery game. Seriously, though, one would think by now all the great minds involved would have predicting ridership down to a science. Why aren't transit planners like life insurance mortality actuaries? Actuaries know exactly how many people will die. But, they just don't know WHO will.
The irony in conflicting opinions and objectives is that such is the American way, where everyone through free speech is free to have and promote their own opinion and objectives. Unfortunately, the dark side of this is that things don't get done very fast, most pointedly for our discussion, is that more parking spaces take forever to come by. And, because transit is NOT a lucrative proposition, it is super unlikely that a great patriot will rise up and rally all America to solve the problem of which we've been dealing with.
CARPOOL? You know like those ride share boards at college? Every Station could have one.
My local college has 2 maps one of the USA and one regional map...There are index cards that one fills out blue for rides wanted and pink for rides offered.
“Things of quality have no fear of time.”
My theory is that planners often underestimate the possible use of the transit system. In the NY metropolitan area on all lines of all operators most of the park and rides get filled up sooner in their lives than expected. Take Southeast, NY, end of electric service on the MNRR's Harlem Line, almost 60 miles from GCT....it was filled to capacity on the day it opened and has been expanded and is still overflowing...and we're talking over a thousand daily patrons!!!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Aatually the way to solve the parking problem takes several steps.
First: line up as much land a possible at each station location. Clear the land closest to the entrances and lay out the parking lot. The land that is not needed can be leased out on a short term basis to support operations.
Second: Engineer the parking for eventual building of a multi story parking building and/or retail-appartment buildings above.
Third: If parking becomes overloaded then a modular approach to building parking spaces + using land that was not initially anticipated for the additional parking. There is no reason that if the foundation is already in place that prestressed concrete parking garages could be built in 6 months.
Your plan looks good on paper, but our most overwhelmed park and ride is already a parking ramp.
We don't really need more parking spaces, we need the light rail to go farther,
Phoebe: Several questions.
First: Is there an online source for a map of CATS and its future plans?
Second: Using that map what are the overloaded parking stops and how badly overloaded?
Third: How hard and expensive is it going to be to lengthen the two car stops to three or four?
Fourth: How soon are the additional cars going to be delivered?
Fifth: Has CATS hired extra car maintenance porsonel to speed out of service cars back into service both day and night?
Brochure:
http://publications.ingagepublication.com/charlottelightrail/
Map:
http://www.charmeck.org/NR/rdonlyres/e3evk2t5giogrjxuovybhjrrvhydul4hlof5qg4h2hwntlgqh434wbu4rjuskeazfh5o32j6hkppxz7qhyff7owan5b/2030LYNXMap2242X3000.gif
Bus Integration:
http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS/Rapid+Transit+Planning/Bus+Rail+Integration.html
I-485/South Blvd is a deck that has 1160 parking spaces that is full in early AM. They are in the process of paving and leasing a couple hundred more spaces.
Arrowood and Sharon Road are flat lots that are near saturation.
Many of the stations are up in the air at, or next to, road overpasses. They will probably be tough to expand, but it is being looked into.
MatthewsAggie can answer your questions better than I, he is actually involved in the project.
Phoebe: Thanks now some more questions.
First: How many cars does CATS have? It appears that it takes 8 trainsets to cover the schedule as published.
Second: That figure is based on a 5 minute turn but what is the scheduled layover times at each end?
Third: Does the same operator stay on the equipment or is there extra operators to make a speedy turn if arriving late?
Fourth: Are the trains given traffic light priority to speed them through town? The systems I have ridden that have partial priority seem to really slow down at non priority locations.
Fifth: Are there any ROW or other constraints for 5 minute headways to be implemented? (assuming enough cars available). What is the minimum headway built into the signal system? Does the power system now have enough capacity to handle these additional trips?
16 Siemens Avanto S70 low floor tram trainsets. 4 more have been ordered but will not be delivered for at least a year.
There is always one sitting at the I-485 stop. One pulls in a couple of minutes before the other pulls out. Sometimes 1 or 2 more are parked there so they can be quickly doubled up for rush hour. The operator exits the trainset there. They have an employees only building there. The maint facility is about in the middle of the curren Blue Line, just north of the Scaleybark stop.
The light rail crosses, but does not run in the street so far. The next segment will. So far all grade level conflicts are standard railroad crossings with gates that drop as the train approaches.
I cannot answer your signal or power questions. I am not associated with CATS.
Phoebe: 16 - do you mean 16 units with two placed together for a train? Also I was wondering if all track was double track?
Another question does it appear that the filling up of Arrowwood and sharon road is overflow from the I-485 parking deck? Its been so long since I was in Charlotte that I can not remember the lay out of streets.
Blue streak:
Each trainset is 3 pieces permanently fastened together.
There are two identical "front pieces" facing in opposite directions with a small section in between. The black joints are articulated.
The set is 90 feet long and seats 68 with a total capacity somewhere around 230.
A double set is two of those sets joined by a coupler.
CATS wanted to be able to run triples, but the Feds were not convinced that much capacity was needed and so required the platforms to be shortened to 200 feet as a contingency of participation in the funding.
This is one of the over street platforms.
CATS has 16 of those three piece sets, and four more ordered.
I'm sure some of the parking at Arrowood and Sharon Rd are overflow from I-485, because there is an electronic sign next to the road at I-485 that tells people when the ramp is full and directs them to those other two lots.
It's all double track, and while it shares right of way with Norfolk & Southern in some areas, is does not share track. The railroad crossing gates in the second picture are for the N&S track which is at grade level.
Phoebe: thanks for all the information. It appears that car capacity is limiting and other than trying to make quick turns at the end points there is no way to increase number of trains and reduce headway. It really is a shame that three unit or four unit platforms were not planned for even though not built. I hope all of learn this lesson and when or if there are plans in your area that this is brought up at all public hearings. Also the ability to build up the parking garages in the future has to be planned. The locating of the college's recreation area on top of the garage was a very smart idea.
Actually, it's an elementary school.
They always wanted 300 foot platforms. It was the Feds who balked. The next project, which is to extend the Blue Line another 11 miles to UNCC they are again begging for 300 foot platforms, and are looking for the money to extend the existing platforms. They are also considering 6 minute spacing instead of 7 1/2 during rush hour, but they don't have enough trainsets at this time.
They really underestimated the demand.
Sometimes getting back federal money helps; but at other times strings are attached for highly questionable agendas. In the case of CATS, sanctions for providing for potential growth to minimize intitail costs is highly dubious with the possibility of future needs being much more costly to meet. My daddy would say this was being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
One can only hope that future federal administrations are more enlightened.
Phorbe: The underestimation that occurred in Charlotte show that there needs to be co-ordination nationwide of all equipment to be built to the same specifications. Then if one agency is under utilized then one who needs additional equipment can borrow the excess equipment. Does anyone know if any systems have excess equipment? I remember Salt Lake City borrowed units from somewhere elses (don't remember from whom) for the olympic games. They did keep units segregated from SLC's units. Has anyone at CATS looked into borrowing equipment?
They borrowed cars from Dallas and returned them in the first-class condition they received them. They ran in separate trains, but without segregation as to time or routes.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/336339.html
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/354286.html
If you build it they will come.
Beware misleading statistics.
Article says ridership on the connecting buses is up Dec 2007, first full month of route changes, to Oct 2008. I feel this statistic is meaningless. Far more signifigant would be bus ridership comparisons for all routes serving the area before and after reconfigured for light rail.
If there were bus routes which used to duplicate the light rail route which are now configured to feed the light rail, how did their ridership change?
Article says "No. 42 Carowinds, from the South Point Business Park near Carowinds to the I-485/South Boulevard stop: 412 then, 3,589 last month."
If before light rail there was a bus service from Carowinds to downtown Charlotte which used to carry 4,000 passengers, and the 42 replaced some of its service then I'd have to say that the overall system lost some portion of the 4,000-3,589 passengers, some of whom now drive to I-485/South Boulevard, some of whom now drive all the way to downtown.
And Dec 2007 the deficit was far worse, it's only getting close to recovering in this No. 42 hypothetical scenario.
I hope the actual statistic is more favorable for transit, I just hate articles that provide meaningless statistics like this one.
The routes quoted in the article did not exist before the light rail opened. They are short, frequent, neighborhood loops designed to transport people to and from the light rail stops. A few routes were also discontinued, replaced by the new routes combined with light rail.
That said, the number of people riding CATS buses is up, system wide. The statistics, while focused on the light rail, because the article is ABOUT the light rail, are not meaningless. The park and ride by Carowinds used to be served by an express bus to city center. It takes more than 40 minutes to get from there to city center on I-77 during rush hour and it only ran during rush hour. Every bus in CATS inventory couldn't have moved 1,700 people from there to city center. Most of the increase are people who couldn't find parking at the I-485 light rail stop. They used to drive I-77 all the way. The Blue Line should be extended through Fort Mill to Rock Hill.
Phoebe Vet
Unless the statistics include what happened to the passengers on the routes that were discontinued I still feel they're meaningless.
You mention Carowinds used to be served by an express bus to city center. It takes more than 40 minutes to get from there to city center on I-77 during rush hour and it only ran during rush hour
but you don't say how many people used to ride that express bus, or how long it takes now via the 42 connecting to the light rail.
Every bus in CATS inventory couldn't have moved 1,700 people from there to city center.
If this is true then it's great news for light rail, since apparently light rail and the 42 feeder bus carry far more than 1,700 people, presumably all the way from there to city center.
I'm sorry. I guess I don't understand your point.
The combination of feeder buses and light rail is transporting many times the number of people that the former South corridor buses used to. I'm sure some of them used to take the bus all the way, but the buses were not transporting anywhere near the volume that are using the light rail now.
I don't understand why you think the statistics are misleading. No one is claiming that every passenger is new to the system. The claim is that the addition of the light rail has greatly increased the number of people using the system.
I think the statistics are misleading because they show only the increase of bus passengers on those routes after light rail started, but as you say The claim is that the addition of the light rail has greatly increased the number of people using the system.
That's like saying "My new job is a success, I started at $10 an hour, now I'm making $15 an hour" without mentioning how much money you made in your old job. If you were making $20 an hour in your old job then I'd have to conclude your new job is not a success.
Likewise just saying feeder buses to the light rail have dramatically increased their passengers does not say anything about if light rail is a success since you're not mentioning what the passenger loads were before light rail.
Or how about this : light rail ridership declined by 10%, the city population declined by 20%. There are some who would declare just the 10% light rail decline as sign of a light rail problem, there are others who would declare it a success, light rail now carries a larger percentage of the population.
From this morning's paper:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/362397.html
Perfect Example of not enough parking:
The Park n Ride in Mt. Arlington NJ opened only a year ago. Every day, on my way to school, the bus goes past it on Route 80. Every day, EVERY SINGLE PARKING SPACE is occupied. In a year (it opened last January IIRC) it has become so popular that there is nowhere to park at the station. They absolutely need a parking garage or something.
My Model Railroad: Tri State RailMy Photos on Flickr: FlickrMy Videos on Youtube: YoutubeMy Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives
Are you talking about a parking lot at the Mt. Arlington train station? What was there before it opened?
A parking lot. With a bus stop. That didn't get nearly as much use as is does now with the train station.
Forgive my ignorance, but are you saying that Mt. Arlington did not have a train station before a year ago, and did they get the new parking lot around the same time they got the train station?
Thanks for the article, P.V.! - a.s.
The train station opened last January. The park n ride was previously only a bus stop. I believe that it is the same parking lot, although they may have expanded it slightly.
And BTW, there were no spots left when we passed at 7:13 this morning.
Phoebe Vet A large part of the cost of transportation systems is the cost of selling, the fare evidence, verifying and enforcing the payment of the fare, collecting, protecting, and accounting for the collected fares, etc. I often wonder what the difference in cost per rider would be if a tax on city parking spaces was implimented and used to fund a totally free extensive mass transit system.
Out here in San Francisco, we have spare the air days,when transit is free for a day. Yes, we get about ten percent more riders but we encountered another problem. Since the system is free, lots of troublemakers ride - people who harass the rest of the riders, snatch purses, panhandle, sell candy, etc. And they tend to do things that delay the trains, like block the doors, ride on the roof, or between cars (on the outside, walking between cars inside is allowed), or hang on the grab irons and ride outside or on the rear. So, now we open it up until Noon, or so, then it is a pay system.
About half our expenses are covered by fares, the other half is from sales tax (3/4 %) and property tax (like $50 per house). 10 percent comes from ads and renting the right of way (to communications companies, for cables and fiber optic).
Half our stations are suburban (BART is a combination subway and commuter railroad) and most fill up by 8 AM. As a result, the huge capital investment is lightly used from 8 to Noon. There are lots of park and ride spaces within a couple of miles of many stations, but here's the challenge. If you drive to a lot at 9 AM and park you can get a bus to the train station. But, when your 10 to 6 job ends, and you get back to your station at 7 or 8 (or 10 if you go out after work) the buses are no longer running. We need a method of getting to those lots after 6 PM.
One method is to have a shuttle make the rounds of all the lots near a particular station. Generally, a trip that covers half a dozen lots, each within 2 miles of the station, would take about 20 minutes. So, one shuttle could meet every other train (15 minute schedule). Cost is not a big deal, as long as it was around 2 or 3 bucks.
Another option are the cabs. I've been in cities where I had something I had to carry 2 blocks, so I took a cab. 4 bucks - 2 for the flag drop, and about a buck a block. So I gave the cabbie six bucks. He spent more time writing down his trip than actually doing it! The cabbies at the suburban stations are looking for the 25 buck trips (10 miles), but if they had a steady stream of 5 buck vouchers, going to the lots, they would be happy. With pretax dollars and subsidies, these vouchers would cost the rider about 2 bucks, and the cabby would have a few dozen at the end of the night - well worth his while. We already have "work late" vouchers (I think one is limited to five a year), so the system is in place. Most of us have no great aversion to short bus rides - flying into an airport usually involves either a shuttle to the hotel, or a shuttle to the rental car lot. What most people want to avoid is an hour-long bus ride, when they could be on a train, doing something semi productive or entertaining.
For BART, low cost satellite lots would give us a 20 percent ridership boost.
Fundamentally, we are an automotive society. There is a minimum level of education that parents want for their kids and they are going to move far enough out to get that level. That means commuting involves a short car trip, for most suburban riders. If you are in the transit business, you are in the parking business.
Phoebe: The news wire announced that AMT (Montreal) is working to add 10,000 parking spaces. For a commuter rail system that is not that large then it is a giant step to having enough parking there.
al-in-chgo Thanks for the article, P.V.! - a.s.
You were fast to get this up today, but it semed out of the blue- perhaps you should have stated it was from the Monthly Service Report for Charlotte Area Transit System, CATS. Most people here are not going to know about our neighborhood circulators, STS service, etc. LINX and regular bus service totals looked good though, even with lower gas costs, we were still up.
--RSM AKA-Matthewsaggie
That is true. I put it up there, only for the benefit of those people in here who keep insisting that the success of the system is just because of the high gas prices and that the lower gas prices we have been experiencing for the last few months would result in big declines.
The layoffs that are beginning by both big banks will probably have an adverse impact in the near future, though.
gardendance
Re: Kiss and Ride Lots Never enough kissing....
Apparently there is a suburb of London that has had quite enough of kissing. I saw on TV where the city fathers put a "No Kissing" sign at that suburb's railway station: yup, conventional Euro-pictogram of a man's profile, a woman's in curlers, and the red line slashing through. Ironically, here in the USA we call drop-off zones at RT or heavy-rail "kiss-and-ride," or at least we used to. - a.s.
al-in-chgo gardendance Re: Kiss and Ride Lots Never enough kissing.... Apparently there is a suburb of London that has had quite enough of kissing. I saw on TV where the city fathers put a "No Kissing" sign at that suburb's railway station: yup, conventional Euro-pictogram of a man's profile, a woman's in curlers, and the red line slashing through. Ironically, here in the USA we call drop-off zones at RT or heavy-rail "kiss-and-ride," or at least we used to. - a.s.
The original article is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/61464.stm
It is a town in northen England, but the original signs came from Chicago.
From a UK perspective the discussion on station parking etc. is interesting. London commuters have no real option but the train, so the fares are high and so are charges to park at the stations where the car parks are often full, particularly at main stations. A return from my local station to London (about 40 miles out) is £25.90 plus about £8 to park which adds up to about $50. There are reductions for monthly tickets but it is a significant cost to which there is no viable alternative.
from the article in the link:
The signs were given to Cheshire businessman Christopher Reston by Katie Spies, the president of the chamber of commerce for the Chicago suburbs of Deerfield, Bannockburn and Riverwoods, as a souvenir of his trans-Atlantic trip.
They are a familiar sight in Deerfield, Illinois, where an embargo on early morning embraces has eased traffic congestion, says Ms Spies,
...
A spokeswoman for Railtrack Northwest, which is currently investing £1.25 million in a revamp of Warrington Bank Quay, said kissing bays and smooch-free zones were not part of the station's regeneration programme.
---
So why wasn't this news when Deerfield, Illinois, started it, but it's news when a town in England copies it?
And if congestion is such a problem, why isn't there investment in kissing bays? I'm assuming Deerfield didn't have kiss and ride lots either.
From a prior post: "The signs were given to Cheshire businessman Christopher Reston by Katie Spies, the president of the chamber of commerce for the Chicago suburbs of Deerfield, Bannockburn and Riverwoods, as a souvenir of his trans-Atlantic trip.
"They are a familiar sight in Deerfield, Illinois, where an embargo on early morning embraces has eased traffic congestion, says Ms Spies." (emphasis mine)
So how long has Deerfield had this restriction posted? - a.s.
Also from a parking perspective, kiss and ride helps, since one spousal unit takes the automobile away while the other rides transit, mitigating the need for parking spaces.
Kiss and ride could contribute to parking lot and station congestion at pickup time if the automobile arrived well in advance and waited for train arrival. And to the extent you subsititute 2 round trips from home to station with kissing for 1 round trip with parking you reduce environmental efficiency.
I also got the feeling from the article that the English and Deerfield Illinois embracing embargoes were - are you ready here it comes - tongue in cheek.
Perhaps when the parking lot at the farthest out station is being overwhelmed, what it actually means is that the rail line needs to be extended.
The other pre-rail solution is to institute shuttle buses or vans from remote parking lots, such as at churches and at shopping malls on lightly used weekdays, and reserve priority parking at the station for same-community residents. For community residents, a sticker would be purchased for a vehicle registered to the resident either for commuter parking (unlimited daily use) at an assigned spot, or for occasional unassigned day use in a reserved area. Day parking preferably would be at the station; but it would be subject to demand and availability.
The more difficult task is to get feeder buses from communities and counties that didn't want to join the transit district. The only hope is to engage in a "grass-roots" campaign in those communities and counties to join the transit district, to build the extensions, and to provide interim feeder services from church lots and shopping malls.
As for parking spaces and kiss-n-ride, the efficiency in facility utilization comes in the number of rush hour trips multiplying the use. Congestion is not increased since the demand for parking is unchanged. Instead, the capacity and size of a facility can be reduced to serve the same demand.
Fuel efficiency and emissions take a hit not only for waiting which, by the way, supplements shelter and waiting room facilities; but also in the daily return trip for some while others may drive to their job or school. Some comfort can be taken in the comparatively short trip to the station as opposed to traveling all the way by car, and in reduction of area vehicle miles and road congestion.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.