Do you realize how many people are unlicensed, uninsured, unfit to drive? Most low-income blue collar people can barely keep their license in good standing let alone maintain a road worthy vehicle. Not to mention the millions of migrant workers who are driving illegally because they have no other option. Public transportation should be viewed as a basic human right but so many people have it in their heads that anything beyond bare bones bus service is nothing more than a vanity project for wealthy urban dwellers. Our public transportation is complete dog shit and we need to improve it. You can keep driving, no one is stopping you.
8 Likes
I agree that it seems like the easier approach to get money. As a review for everyone, it’s not like grant money is the only way we can fund this rail project.
…but without a detailed look at GoTriangle’s credit, it’s too early to say whether it’s viable. And even then, the Build America Bureau’s TIFIA loans process (which is what I assume Lattuca is talking about; that’s also how Complete 540 is funded) is still a risky process.
As for other approaches... (click me!)
The federal government won’t let anyone besides the Treasury issue bonds, on principle. Transit agencies can issue revenue bonds (presumably if state law allows them to do so) that are backed by farebox revenues or imminent grants, but it seems like that’s typically only done by big legacy agencies like New York’s MTA or Atlanta’s MARTA. Plus, neither of those things would work as particularly good collateral for the Triangle; we still have fare suspension until this June, and we haven’t won large dollar amounts of federal grants.
Maybe there are other options out there -and the FTA has a program dedicated to researching new funding mechanisms. But of course, that’s experimental, so it’s hard to imagine that it could even be considered for a project like this.
And for anyone who’s curious, highways tend to not have this problem because they have their own trust fund, but that’s also running a deficit (which is being covered by transfers from our nation’s general tax revenues) such that it’s also surviving on borrowed time.
1 Like
It’s like it won’t work why do I think that because of what I’ve been preaching about theMetro areas.
The present estimated cost of $3.2 billion is absurdly expensive. It makes the cost per trip about $50 to pay for interest, depreciation, and maintenance alone. Operations add more. There is existing technology which with a little creative design can give us a Clayton to Durham system with 10 minutes between trains all day long for about $100 million plus some track construction. There is no need for grade crossing elimination, fancy stations, traditional rail cars, or human drivers.
4 Likes
There is no need for grade crossing elimination, fancy stations, traditional rail cars, or human drivers.
We are going to have trains on our train line, though, right?
1 Like
So, George is after driverless trains…?!? Hell to the yeah, on your local news at 11…
I like where George’s head is at. Let’s do this!
Please 
do share your thoughts 
? 
Welcome to the forum, by the way. 
Nice first post 
1 Like
You are absolutely right.
Sounds like absolute snake oil to me, unless that “plus some track construction” is doing some very heavy lifting.
8 Likes
Think of horizontal elevators with seats instead of 19th century trains. The 10 minute spacing at a 30 mph average speed would need 16 cars along the 80 miles of round trip travel. Cars could be essentially small busses with seats at one end and bicycle racks at the other. Electrification is probably the best power using recharged battery modules swapped each time a car turns around in Clayton. Self driving in a controlled environment such as a long track has been operational for several years. Stations need a car level platform for walking and wheeled access, seating, and a rain cover. Any parking or other amenities can be left to private enterprise to see the need , make a profit, and get taxed. A transit system needs a track not blocked by old trains. The portions of the 40 miles with a single track will need another added to the existing right of way. Two tracks can operate like a 2 lane highway if lane changing switching is provided for fast cars passing slow traffic. Grade level crossings can be made safe with standard traffic lights. A low cost fast link from Durham to Clayton is easily expandable to North Raleigh and Chapel Hill. Transit stations can be served by synshronized local busses to cover the whole region including RTP and RDU. Increased use is easily handled by reducing headway and increasing the size of cars. A lot of people will choose to live in Clayton and work in RTP if the commute is convenient and they can work while commuting.
1 Like
You must not know much about the FRA…
3 Likes
So basically trams?
1 Like
What the hell is this? I think we need to educate him.
Raleigh could finance a tram on its own, At least this would be a holdover for the commuter rail I know several corridors for it.
Trams are probably overkill with the projected ridership and 10 minute headway. The system needs essentially smaller busses with rail wheels instead of tires, internal bike racks, battery power with swapped recharged modules, and automated driving. The proposed Clayton-Durham system could operate on a single track with bypass sections every 2.5 miles if it did not have to contend with slow trains. The 2 tracks for transit shown in the picture is also overkill. The system we need is essentially computer controlled express busses on rails with bus stop style stops for loading and unloading. We do not need and cannot afford a 19th century style commuter railroad. 21st century IT allows the elimination of human drivers, much tighter schedule control, smaller more frequent vehicles, and huge cost reductions. A cheaper system that riders would pay for because it is cheaper than driving is much better than a traditional train system needing a $3.2 billion subsidy from taxpayers. There are much better ways to invest tax money. For example, how about using the money to pay $100,000 bonuses to the 3000 best teachers in the region every year? If we are going to spend $300 million of tax money annually let’s get something for it.
I’ll be a little more explicit: the Federal Railroad Administration would not allow something like this to operate on the same tracks as freight. It could certainly parallel NCRR, but it would need its own track in that instance. Now you’re looking at a new set of tracks for the entire corridor, not just parts of it. That lands you with a pretty similar price tag, or possibly even more, especially considering that you’d have to acquire additional ROW to make this happen.
It’s a neat idea, but working with existing track is always going to be the cheapest option when it’s available to you. And there’s no chance the FRA would allow “smaller busses with rail wheels instead of tires” to mix with Class I freight. They don’t even let standard light rail vehicles mix with freight (the closest you can get, to my knowledge, is a hybrid option like the Sprinter or the Arrow).
6 Likes
Thoughts?
1 Like
A single track dedicated to very light transit would be a lot less expensive than a full heavy duty railroad track. Has the cost been estimated?
1 Like
The issue is land acquisition I believe. I’m with you though, if heavy rail can run this corridor, you’d think there’s be a way to run something smaller/lighter/less expensive that runs on the same rails in the same ROW
You would think this would be the case - but the weight of the different trains leads to regulations about how even in the same ROW there has to be greater separation. This was a big part of this discussion when it first began in the last century. What seems common sense runs afoul of rules and regs.