<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: North Carolina&#8217;s Triangle Questions How Best to Connect a Multipolar Region</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:43:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/#comment-49721</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:38:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5556#comment-49721</guid>
		<description>We have to start somewhere. If LRT is built now, even in an imperfect arrangement that requires feeder buses now (e.g. in the business park), high-density transit-oriented redevelopment will follow. Of course it needs to be accompanied by major improvements to bus service, but buses are not adequate by themselves. As for those advocating PRT, PRT is a pipe dream that will never be competitive with the car.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We have to start somewhere. If LRT is built now, even in an imperfect arrangement that requires feeder buses now (e.g. in the business park), high-density transit-oriented redevelopment will follow. Of course it needs to be accompanied by major improvements to bus service, but buses are not adequate by themselves. As for those advocating PRT, PRT is a pipe dream that will never be competitive with the car.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Uninformed</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/#comment-28911</link>
		<dc:creator>Uninformed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:07:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5556#comment-28911</guid>
		<description>One thing nobody is talking about is the nature of the people who live in the Triangle.  It doesn&#039;t seem there is a critical mass of folks who favor living in the dense environment necessary for mass transit to really work.  In other words, the people who live by and large enjoy the suburban sprawl of places like Cary and North Raleigh.  Even our most dense neighborhoods are defined by quarter acre lots.  For better or worse, people here seem to prefer to live in a subdivision or developments that are segregated and not easily accessible to the rest of the community.   Walking to get anywhere, let alone a distance of say a mile to get to a rail stop seems like a foreign concept to our residents.  

People often debate the identity of the Triangle, but our sprawl is very much a part of that identity, and an attractive attribute for many.  Mass transit should wait until we have a critical mass of people in this area who are interested in living an urban lifestyle. 

The central question to me is; will building these rail lines attract the critical mass that is not currently present?  My opinion is no, but that is just my opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing nobody is talking about is the nature of the people who live in the Triangle.  It doesn&#8217;t seem there is a critical mass of folks who favor living in the dense environment necessary for mass transit to really work.  In other words, the people who live by and large enjoy the suburban sprawl of places like Cary and North Raleigh.  Even our most dense neighborhoods are defined by quarter acre lots.  For better or worse, people here seem to prefer to live in a subdivision or developments that are segregated and not easily accessible to the rest of the community.   Walking to get anywhere, let alone a distance of say a mile to get to a rail stop seems like a foreign concept to our residents.  </p>
<p>People often debate the identity of the Triangle, but our sprawl is very much a part of that identity, and an attractive attribute for many.  Mass transit should wait until we have a critical mass of people in this area who are interested in living an urban lifestyle. </p>
<p>The central question to me is; will building these rail lines attract the critical mass that is not currently present?  My opinion is no, but that is just my opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ocean Railroader</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/#comment-28672</link>
		<dc:creator>Ocean Railroader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:04:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5556#comment-28672</guid>
		<description>It looks like that the NEC Catenary might have to reach this area one day then if high speed rail and commuter lines come though one day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It looks like that the NEC Catenary might have to reach this area one day then if high speed rail and commuter lines come though one day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PRTGuy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/#comment-28644</link>
		<dc:creator>PRTGuy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:28:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5556#comment-28644</guid>
		<description>Orluz, you make some good points but also are incorrect in some assumptions.

You&#039;re correct that there will be significant expenses for studies, engineering, etc. 

Stations can largely be integrated into existing buildings, using their elevators and stairs. All that&#039;s needed is a platform, ticketing, safety doors, etc.

I&#039;m not aware of any PRT designs that use track switches. Switching is all done from the vehicle. It&#039;s not that expensive.

Vehicles do not need to go 50-60 mph to be competitive with cars. With off-line stations and non-stop travel, speeds of 30 mph would be faster than the typical trip time with automobiles. With stoplights, congestion, parking, etc., the average trip speed for automobile traffic is in the 20 mph range. With frequent stops, LRT is not much faster.

Control systems exist that have been used for other applications that have all the underpinnings required for PRT. This is not as big an issue as you may think.

Depending on system capacity, a PRT system could be built for around $15-20 million per one-way mile. If there are significant land acquisition costs, then it would cost more; however, if there&#039;s room for a streetlamp, there&#039;s probably room for PRT. 

PRT a black hole with no hope of return whatsoever? Really? That&#039;s like saying man will never fly. What state did the first motorized flight take place in? Hmmm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Orluz, you make some good points but also are incorrect in some assumptions.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re correct that there will be significant expenses for studies, engineering, etc. </p>
<p>Stations can largely be integrated into existing buildings, using their elevators and stairs. All that&#8217;s needed is a platform, ticketing, safety doors, etc.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not aware of any PRT designs that use track switches. Switching is all done from the vehicle. It&#8217;s not that expensive.</p>
<p>Vehicles do not need to go 50-60 mph to be competitive with cars. With off-line stations and non-stop travel, speeds of 30 mph would be faster than the typical trip time with automobiles. With stoplights, congestion, parking, etc., the average trip speed for automobile traffic is in the 20 mph range. With frequent stops, LRT is not much faster.</p>
<p>Control systems exist that have been used for other applications that have all the underpinnings required for PRT. This is not as big an issue as you may think.</p>
<p>Depending on system capacity, a PRT system could be built for around $15-20 million per one-way mile. If there are significant land acquisition costs, then it would cost more; however, if there&#8217;s room for a streetlamp, there&#8217;s probably room for PRT. </p>
<p>PRT a black hole with no hope of return whatsoever? Really? That&#8217;s like saying man will never fly. What state did the first motorized flight take place in? Hmmm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathanael</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/#comment-27565</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathanael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:40:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5556#comment-27565</guid>
		<description>So the Raleigh-Durham corridor might end up &lt;b&gt;FOUR-TRACKED&lt;/b&gt;, with two high-speed rail tracks (also carrying some freight) and two light rail tracks?

The mind boggles.  I think commuter rail Raleigh-Durham, with a RTP station in the middle (and shuttle buses therefrom to the rest of RTP) is clearly the way to start.  If it starts really filling up and clogging the rails needed for high speed traffic, a parallel light rail spine would then make sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So the Raleigh-Durham corridor might end up <b>FOUR-TRACKED</b>, with two high-speed rail tracks (also carrying some freight) and two light rail tracks?</p>
<p>The mind boggles.  I think commuter rail Raleigh-Durham, with a RTP station in the middle (and shuttle buses therefrom to the rest of RTP) is clearly the way to start.  If it starts really filling up and clogging the rails needed for high speed traffic, a parallel light rail spine would then make sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: orulz</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/#comment-27256</link>
		<dc:creator>orulz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:08:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5556#comment-27256</guid>
		<description>Oops, I botched one of the links: &lt;a href=&quot;ftp://ftp.tjcog.org/pub/tjcog/regplan/core/transconconnector.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(1)&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops, I botched one of the links: <a href="ftp://ftp.tjcog.org/pub/tjcog/regplan/core/transconconnector.pdf" rel="nofollow">(1)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: orulz</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/#comment-27255</link>
		<dc:creator>orulz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5556#comment-27255</guid>
		<description>I actually think it&#039;s not too far-fetched to talk about PRT, at least in the RTP area. But even if we&#039;re not talking PRT, let&#039;s talk about how to get around in the RTP-RDU-Morrisville area.

The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/regplan/core.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CORE&lt;/a&gt; (Center Of the Region Enterprise) is a joint committee with representatives from all the entities that build and plan infrastructure in the heart of the Triangle. These entities include Durham County, Durham City, Wake County, Raleigh, Cary, Morrisville, NCDOT, RDU Airport, RTP, and Triangle Transit. They have studied several possibilities for transit connectors and circulators to link the moderate-density activity centers in the RTP region: &lt;a&gt;(1)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;ftp://ftp.tjcog.org/pub/tjcog/regplan/core/transconcirculatoropp.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(2)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;ftp://ftp.tjcog.org/pub/tjcog/regplan/core/transconcirculator.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(3)&lt;/a&gt;. Options range from a simple APM connector between the airport terminal and a rail station, to a fancy transit loop at least 10 miles long. Technologies they have considered include people mover, guided bus, dedicated bus roadways, etc.

Given the enormous investment obviously under consideration here, the distances between the activity centers, the level of activity at each of them, and the technologies already under consideration, I don&#039;t think it would be a stretch to say PRT might find a real niche here. But regardless of the technology, this is not going to be a replacement for a higher-speed, higher capacity line that carries large numbers of peole from downtown Raleigh to downtown Durham

My question is, regardless of the technology, would such a plan be worth the additional cost over a shuttle bus system like what is already in place? Obviously some whizbang PRT or APM or guided bus would have a better public image, and probably be easier to use, but we&#039;re talking lots of money here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually think it&#8217;s not too far-fetched to talk about PRT, at least in the RTP area. But even if we&#8217;re not talking PRT, let&#8217;s talk about how to get around in the RTP-RDU-Morrisville area.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/regplan/core.shtml" rel="nofollow">CORE</a> (Center Of the Region Enterprise) is a joint committee with representatives from all the entities that build and plan infrastructure in the heart of the Triangle. These entities include Durham County, Durham City, Wake County, Raleigh, Cary, Morrisville, NCDOT, RDU Airport, RTP, and Triangle Transit. They have studied several possibilities for transit connectors and circulators to link the moderate-density activity centers in the RTP region: <a>(1)</a><a href="ftp://ftp.tjcog.org/pub/tjcog/regplan/core/transconcirculatoropp.pdf" rel="nofollow">(2)</a><a href="ftp://ftp.tjcog.org/pub/tjcog/regplan/core/transconcirculator.pdf" rel="nofollow">(3)</a>. Options range from a simple APM connector between the airport terminal and a rail station, to a fancy transit loop at least 10 miles long. Technologies they have considered include people mover, guided bus, dedicated bus roadways, etc.</p>
<p>Given the enormous investment obviously under consideration here, the distances between the activity centers, the level of activity at each of them, and the technologies already under consideration, I don&#8217;t think it would be a stretch to say PRT might find a real niche here. But regardless of the technology, this is not going to be a replacement for a higher-speed, higher capacity line that carries large numbers of peole from downtown Raleigh to downtown Durham</p>
<p>My question is, regardless of the technology, would such a plan be worth the additional cost over a shuttle bus system like what is already in place? Obviously some whizbang PRT or APM or guided bus would have a better public image, and probably be easier to use, but we&#8217;re talking lots of money here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike C</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/#comment-27076</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5556#comment-27076</guid>
		<description>Yes, I&#039;m sorry if I diverted the conversation; I was just answering the questions that Orulz posed. Yonah, feel free to forward Orulz my email address, in case he wants to continue our side discussion privately.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I&#8217;m sorry if I diverted the conversation; I was just answering the questions that Orulz posed. Yonah, feel free to forward Orulz my email address, in case he wants to continue our side discussion privately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yonah Freemark</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/#comment-27072</link>
		<dc:creator>Yonah Freemark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:37:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5556#comment-27072</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s try to keep the discussion here to what has been actually proposed for the Triangle, rather than devolve into a long-ranging discussion of PRT, something &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/12/28/are-london-heathrows-ultra-pods-the-future-of-transit/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;we&#039;ve already done on this site&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s try to keep the discussion here to what has been actually proposed for the Triangle, rather than devolve into a long-ranging discussion of PRT, something <a href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/12/28/are-london-heathrows-ultra-pods-the-future-of-transit/" rel="nofollow">we&#8217;ve already done on this site</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike C</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/27/north-carolinas-triangle-questions-how-best-to-connect-a-multipolar-region/#comment-27068</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:52:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5556#comment-27068</guid>
		<description>Orulz, PRT can be implemented in a variety of ways. Sure, it could be used in a sprawling development, and yes, it may require park-and-ride for such applications. But PRT is also flexible in placement of stations, so rather than all stations being on a line, PRT stations could appear anywhere in a 2-dimensional area. So the park-and-ride could be placed where land for parking is cheap, or even alongside existing parking structures.

But I think it can also work in the TOD model, with local PRT circulators extending the reach of existing trains to neighborhoods further from the line. I also see the possibility that PRT could lead to TOD in transit-sparse areas where cars dominate, by creating an easy-to-use transit system which can draw people out of cars. Once the stranglehold of the automobile is broken, other transit might be more viable. PRT&#039;s ability to draw people from their cars would be central to this approach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Orulz, PRT can be implemented in a variety of ways. Sure, it could be used in a sprawling development, and yes, it may require park-and-ride for such applications. But PRT is also flexible in placement of stations, so rather than all stations being on a line, PRT stations could appear anywhere in a 2-dimensional area. So the park-and-ride could be placed where land for parking is cheap, or even alongside existing parking structures.</p>
<p>But I think it can also work in the TOD model, with local PRT circulators extending the reach of existing trains to neighborhoods further from the line. I also see the possibility that PRT could lead to TOD in transit-sparse areas where cars dominate, by creating an easy-to-use transit system which can draw people out of cars. Once the stranglehold of the automobile is broken, other transit might be more viable. PRT&#8217;s ability to draw people from their cars would be central to this approach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

