My understanding is that LAPP money is federal, and the modal investment mix is set by the feds. This money was probably appropriated under the Trump administration, hence the strong bias towards roadways.
That would make a lot of sense. Still trying to learn what’s what when it comes to funding.
@evan.j.bost - Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. My understanding (and I know very little about this stuff compared to folks who actually work in planning) is that regional MPOs act as some form of a collaborative board through which DOTs, local leaders, and local transportation agencies work together to communicate what transportation projects to prioritize and move forward on. For most MPOs, it seems like the state DOT has a perpetual trump card, and everyone else it just along for the ride. Unless priorities shift at the DOT level, little else will change.
That’s my understanding. I’m sure there are folks on this forum who have way more useful insight than I do.
3 Likes
Not a career transit expert, but I can try to add to this -though Colby got the gist of it right.
CAMPO and other MPOs (metro planning organizations) are federally funded organizations that propose and implement policies related to transportation. They do not enact those policies, though, since that’s the job of legislative branches like city councils or the General Assembly. MPOs are in charge of creating and managing two things:
-
"Comprehensive Transportation Plans" (CTP): long-range plans that act as a regional wish list for new or improved transit projects. These lay out ideas over the next 20 years or more, and are also fiscally constrained (limited based on, for example, what relevant agencies like NCDoT or GoTriangle can afford).
-
"Transportation Improvement Programs" (TIP): a more short-term, focused plan for how to fund and execute specific programs outlined within CTPs. Obviously these are also fiscally constrained, too.
MPOs are often manned by full-time staff, and led by appointees from local governments (though places like Portland, Oregon have directly elected board members). MPOs, then, can come up with plans for what they want, but it’s up to local governments to actually fund the design and construction of infrastructure projects. Federal and state DoTs seem to treat MPOs as the go-to place to talk to “local” transit planners and ask for new projects/project updates. But it’s DoTs, not MPOs, that choose where our taxes go.
Edit: correction by @pierretong
5 Likes
If we’re going to stick with spending more on roads, I wish they would at least implement carpool lanes.
I’m pretty bullish on commuter rail and I think that creating population pockets along the railway between Durham and Raleigh would make a ton of sense. Incentivize development within X-distance of a planned rail stop and then after a few projects go up the community thrives a la Arlington County with Courthouse, Clarendon, Virginia Square, Ballston, etc.
People still say we aren’t “dense” enough to support rail but people are still moving here and this would be a nice way to address that concern with easy connectivity to both Raleigh and Durham without having to add more traffic.
14 Likes
Exactly. A good transit project anticipates growth and development. It’s proactive, not reactive. Density and sprawl are both primarily results of intentional transportation decisions; one is a result of road-building, and the other is a result of walkability and transit. Of course, both are cyclical, but you have to start somewhere.
In terms of station area planning, I’m with you. I hope to see a similar effort to what we’re doing with BRT. The Equitable Development Around Transit plan looks promising, and I hope that local leadership is as aggressive with it as they say they will be. If they do this right, it could be less than ten years before more than 25% of Raleigh residents live within a quarter mile of a high-capacity transit station.
11 Likes
I worked in Toronto for a year and other than going back and forth to airport never got in a car. Don’t tell Canadian border control but, um company I was doing work for told me to say I was attending classes to avoid work rules. LOL
1 Like
Just a small correction on the terminology but MPO’s and RPO’s (Rural Planning Organizations) put out CTP’s (Comprehensive Transportation Plans).
1 Like
During a public comment period about this LAPP funding mix, I suggested a different mix and got the following response from the LAPP program manager:
“ Your question of when will the LAPP Target Modal Mix flip to favor transit higher is a tricky one to answer. In theory, the Executive Board could make the entire LAPP budget for next year 100% transit, roadway, or bike/ped and then do something completely different the following year. The Target Modal Mix is considered and adopted by the CAMPO Executive Board every year before the call for projects. Adopting this mix annually is an important step in our processes, because it allows the Region to look at priorities on an annual basis and have this target reflect those priorities. That being said, the Target Modal Mix is such: a target. The actual adopted modal distribution depends on the number and quality of projects submitted, and ultimately the Executive Board adoption. This year, for example, the Target Investment Mix for Transit was $2,000,000, but the recommended mix ended up being around $2,600,000. Our plan to determine the target modal investment mix for the next round of LAPP in FY2022 is similar to previous years- we will look into trends of funding requests in recent rounds of LAPP and solicit feedback from our participating jurisdictions on their needs, we will then discuss our findings with the LAPP Steering Committee, who will ultimately come up with a recommendation for a Target Modal Investment Mix as well as any proposed changes to the program as a whole. This Target Mix and proposed changes will be posted for public comment and ultimately host a public hearing before consideration for our Executive Board. ”
5 Likes
So… TL/DR: the funding target that Colby posted is just a goal based on projects CAMPO thinks will get submitted, and the actual funding ratios will depend on what local agencies decides to apply to the DoT to fund? Did I understand that right?
If so, I’m not surprised. Friendly reminder though: NCDoT is at the root of this, not CAMPO. The DoT is in charge of allocating funding, whereas CAMPO is just the messenger that has to conform to the state’s rules and priorities. It would be nice if we can just pay for commuter (and all-day regional) rail without relying on federal funding, for example, but we don’t exactly have a state-level Pete Buttigieg on our side 
Besides, none of the transit projects we have right now are shovel-ready yet.
In all fairness, though, some of the road projects can be helpful for commuter rail and other public transit projects, too. The Airport Blvd. extension, for example, will make it easier to grade-separate McCrimmon Parkway (maybe making way for a commuter rail station there), and then there’s the West St. extension (we have a thread for that topic btw).
For reference, here are the bike/pedestrian and transit projects recommended to be sent to the DoT:
Again: recommendations. The state still needs to put their money where their mouth is in the new fiscal year (i.e. this summer) before the above projects are funded.
3 Likes
I am trying to find details about the top project on each list: Which Crabtree Creek Trail gap are they talking about (is it Lassiter Mill, Duraleigh, Anderson Drive, or what?), and what part of Airport Blvd will be extended? Is it an extension from Lake Grove to Church Street (easy, limited usefulness by itself) or will it include a connection over the RR tracks and NC54 (hard, resolves several major bottlenecks, big win for connectivity)
Edit: Found the answer to the second one. Of course it’s the easy part.
1 Like
The Crabtree Creek gap is definitely Lassiter. The Umstead section would be called an extension, not a gap, I’d think.
Maybe I’m a selfish hiking freak, maybe I spend too much time in Denver, but I think the greenways need much more than that. Hare Snipe Creek and Walnut Creek have been sitting unfinished forever. Pigeon House Branch would be a higher priority for me than either Dix or the stadium. Good vertical connections through ITB should’ve been top priority long ago. That will play a key role in converting the Capital corridor into dense and reasonably attainable housing.
5 Likes
I’m hoping to start commuting by bike once my office moves in June (assuming my kids eventually go back to school fulltime). My totally personal agenda would be for a connection from the Mine Creek Trail up into the Greystone neighborhood (the city has the Greenway as “Planned” but who knows when it will ever be built). The unpaved trail between Saw Mill and Mine Creek is OK, but stays pretty muddy, gets over grown during the summer, and there is a section with very steep rocks. That isn’t something I would want to deal with on a bike twice a day.
I also would like to see the Blue Ridge connector over Wade Ave built ASAP. The leg from NCMA over to Wade Park is a bit scary. There is a paved trail beside Edwards Mill Road, but that is practically a freeway for drivers and does not make for a peaceful biking commute.
4 Likes
yeah the Crabtree Creek gap is the section west of Lassiter
There is also the gap on the boardwalk heading up to Capital that has been closed for far too long.
1 Like
Could you use a bike on the unpaved trail? I guess you could carry it over those rocks, but I would hate to do that on the way to and from work. Why not use Longstreet Dr? I enjoy taking a stroll along the unpaved trail.
That’s the major one for me. I used to ride regularly from our 'hood down Lassiter to the greenway and follow it a good ways. Now I end up just hauling my bike to Fall of Neuse trail which eats up a lot more time. I’ve tried riding east towards FoN on the streets from our area and it’s a pretty bad experience. I’ve tried other routes from NH to various entrances to the greenway but it seems like I can’t get more than half a mile on the greenway before running into a torn up zone.
I wish they would build this connection in the massive sewer easement on the north bank of the creek. That would result in a much better experience for the public compared with climbing up to Hertford and then back down and then sharing the roadway bridge over the creek. There would be fewer hills, and running the mainline greenway along Lassiter Falls Circle would give better access to the falls, which is the most scenic spot on Crabtree Creek.
But that would run through the backyards of $2m mansions. If there were justice in the world, that would be on the table - since they don’t generally hesitate to run greenways through the backyards of $300k houses, even under threat of eminent domain, but alas. Too afraid to poke the WASPs nest.
Here is a plan I drew up for how they could do this, if it were on the table. It’s three bridges in rapid succession, which may seem like a lot, but then there are already three bridges over Crabtree Creek between Lassiter Mill and Anderson, so it seems kind of reasonable from that perspective.
5 Likes
I did that a few months ago. Rode down to Marlow, hopped on the greenway, I had to get on Hodges to bypass the closed section near Capital, but then road it all the way to Anderson Point and back.
1 Like