On October 24, 2006, results from a survey sponsored by WRAL and the News & Observer reported fairly strong interest in mass transit options for the Triangle by residents. The survey included approximately 600 likely voters and among many political questions, asked what the region’s biggest problems are. 28% of those surveyed selected “controlling growth/development” while 26% stated “Traffic congestion”. Education ranked third with 16% of responses while all other issues ranked in single digits. Additional questions asked about citizens’ likelihood to use rail mass transit, a regional bus system, carpooling, and HOV lanes. This survey, which seemed to have a reasonably small amount of bias, concludes that there is strong interest in improving the Triangle’s transportation options.
The Triangle began its population boom in the 1960’s with the advent of the Research Triangle Park (RTP), a sprawling development of business and research campuses between Raleigh and Durham. As people moved in they were impressed with the low tax rates, climate, educational opportunities, and lack of traffic congestion. Many appreciated the conveniences of living in a suburban environment and stayed.
As congestion worsened ideas for an economical rail transit system evolved. This system never had much support, however, because planners approached the system completely backwards. They devised a system that would cheaply hit downtown areas, NCSU, RTP, and other minor stops using undeveloped, existing rail corridors. The problem is that they forgot to ask citizens what they want. Most felt the proposed system had novelty value, but wasn’t a viable transit alternative to using their car.
The viability of new transit options depends on how they serve car-loving citizens, not how they change car-loving citizens. It is important, though, that we not forget why people moved here and what kinds of people are attracted to this area. In order for Triangle residents to embrace new transit methods as an adjunct or a replacement to their cars, several conditions must be equal to or superior to the automobile experience.
Safety
The new transit options must be safer than driving a car. Cars are extremely dangerous, so this is an easy parameter to satisfy. In fact, out of 5.2 million drivers statewide, there are approximately 275,000 annual vehicle crashes (753 per day). Every year in North Carolina there are approximately 1,500 traffic deaths (4 per day). So, just over 5% of North Carolina drivers have an accident each year and 0.5% of them will die in those crashes.
Not only must the drivers be safe from collisions, they must be safe from their fellow man. Carjackings are a relatively new challenge to drivers, especially those stopped in congested conditions. According to the National Insurance Crime Bureau, a car is stolen in the U.S. every 25.5 seconds.
Crime rates with alternative mass transit modes are generally low, however there is a strong perception that they are not safe. Perhaps the lack of visible police in transit stations and intense media coverage of crime events contribute to citizen’s association of mass transit and crime.
Travel Time
Many drivers are used to driving cars at speeds of up to 75 miles per hour. Drivers make frequent stops, though, so the commuter’s average speed is usually only somewhere between 20 and 30mph. Many mass transit alternatives offer moderate speeds with few stops, so the average speed is more than the commuter perceives. A transit method that travels just as fast as cars with few stops, in clear view of congested drivers, would be a desirable alternative to the car.
Efficiency
High occupancy transit vehicles (HOTVs) such as buses and trains have the problem of headway, the time between vehicle stops. At many bus and train stops, it is not uncommon to find 15 to 30 minute wait times for a vehicle which holds somewhere between 40 and 400 people. Over the course of an entire day, the total transit load in an HOTV line falls well short of normally flowing highways full of cars. Additionally people tend to reject long platform times as they feel they are wasting time, are not safe, or are uncomfortable because of the climate (wind, rain, cold, etc).
A viable alternative to a car must be as efficient and comfortable as a car to be considered by drivers. Transit alternatives involving shared transport vehicles usually involve a fixed routing system on a fixed delivery schedule. In order for commuters to consider a transit alternative, it must be conveniently accessed and reliable. Bus and train stops are generally accessed by those within a 1/2mile radius of the transit stop. If commuters have to drive their car to access the transit vehicle, they will likely opt to complete their commute in the car instead. Even worse, if one must use three modes of transit, they will certainly opt for staying in their car.
Cost
A transit alternative must also be perceived to be cheaper for the commuter than driving a car. AAA estimates that car costs are 50-cents per mile, or $7,500 per year for a 15,000-mile per year driver. Transit proponents need to remind people that drivers spend more than $20 per day to own and operate their cars, and present an alternative that only costs $10 to $15 per day.
Privacy
Cars offer commuters privacy unmatched by current mass transit options. When faced with the prospect of sitting next to a sneezing stranger in a HOTV versus dictating their own experience in a car, they’ll almost always opt for the privacy of a car. This is an important factor to many people, but it often ignored by transit “experts”.
Flexibility
Cars offer the commuter much flexibility. While people generally follow patterns, they highly value the ability to adapt to pattern changes. Car commuting affords one the chance to stop by the cleaners, stop by the grocery store, leave work early to care for a sick child, and transport large quantities. Mass transit alternatives that work on a fixed schedule and pathway have difficulty matching the flexibility of a car.
Popular Destinations
People know where they want to go, and a transit system must include these destinations. A transit system that does not include the RDU airport, Crabtree Valley Mall, Streets at Southpoint Mall, and the RBC Center/Carter-Finley stadium is not centered on people. Rather, it expects people to center themselves on the system, which will not happen to a worthwhile degree. In order for a transit system to work anywhere, it has to move people where they want to go.
Car travel is immensely popular, and few alternatives have been accepted. Airplanes feature an enormous speed advantage, but sacrifice privacy, accessibility, and convenience. Passenger trains offer great convenience to the traveler wishing to complete much work on the train, however they do not offer a speed and privacy advantage to cars. They have limited access points and lengthy travel times so Amtrak, for example, is an unpopular option for Americans. We need a local transit option that is faster and safer than a car with similar costs, privacy, and comfort. It has to offer reasonable access, efficiency, and dependability. In short, the alternative that will draw people out of their cars has not been invented yet.
One idea that seems like a viable concept is an elevated Personal Rail Transit (PRT). Imagine walking up to ½ a mile to a lightweight transit terminal and getting into a personal transit pod. The pod recognizes your wireless key fob (similar to Toyota’s SmartKey) and asks for your destination. You announce “Airport” and through voice recognition, the system recognizes your account, debits your account based on the distance of the trip, moves your pod 60-90mph to RDU. The system handles routing along the rail lines, gives an ETA, and bypasses each station along the way.
There are several interesting PRT concepts such as SkyTran, Futrex’s Monobeam, HighRoad, and Skyloop, however no working prototype for the model above actually exists. A PRT concept introduces some possibilities never seen before with HOTV systems. For instance, most HOTV systems are exorbitantly expensive because they rely on huge land acquisitions that cut objectionable swaths through existing developments. They are thus rejected by neighborhoods and result in half-hearted systems (like Atlanta’s MARTA) which don’t fix the area’s congestion problems, but still cost a fortune. HOTV track segments are custom fabricated on-site, driving up construction costs considerably. One of the biggest expenses with a HOTV systems is the construction of elaborate, ADA-compliant terminals.
One problem with adapting current HOTV mass transit models to our region is our lack of population centers and central destinations. RTP office buildings are the primary destination of congested car commuters, however a HOTV only delivers masses of riders to a central point in the sprawling park. A PRT system can deliver these workers more accurately to RTP destinations. In fact, the system could be privately subsidized and secured. For instance, Glaxo could build a private spur from the line which is only accessible by a user password or passkey in the pod. Glaxo could either deny uncleared visitors or allow them in, carefully monitoring them as they exit the pod.
One of the most famous American HOTV systems is probably Disney World’s monorail system. It’s sexy and safe, however not even Disney was able to make the numbers work for monorail expansion when they opened the Animal Kingdom park! Perhaps involving prefabricated construction concepts to transit could drastically reduce construction costs. Most of us had HO train sets when we were little. Those sets contained fewer than 10 standardized pieces and we made them work. Similarly standardized pieces could be made under controlled conditions, transported to the construction site, and set into place at a fraction of the cost of building a traditional rail system.
Another way to reduce costs is to indirectly address the ADA standards of the transit stations. A very, very small percentage of Americans are handicapped to the point they cannot use stairs, so instead of building expensive terminals, offer a door to door limousine service for handicapped people. This would be far cheaper and serve the handicapped better than it would to create a fixed transit system that caters to their needs.
The SkyTran system is a concept that addresses a many transit problems. The system features lightweight 2-person pods which, using MAG-LEV technology, could be strung along most current roadways replacing brown telephone poles. Its bypass-styled terminals can be dropped literally anywhere in the system, so as demand changes occur, the stops can change, too. The system is so lightweight that it could be run into existing buildings to create some ADA-compliant transit stops, too.
As demands change, the system can call empty pods to migrate and answer demand swells. Should a pod be unsuitably damaged or defaced, a send-to-service button could let the next person on the platform send the pod on its way to the shop. Each pod could contain hidden cameras to monitor rider activities. Should a single rider or pair of riders appear to be breaking system rules, security could send to pod to the nearest station and dump the riders off where police could be waiting.
The SkyTran system claims to drastically reduce costs by accommodating only 2 people at a time. The reduced weight of the pods reduces the superstructure requirements by 99%, drastically changing the construction and economic model. This is totally acceptable, because most commuters are single drivers. No transit system should chiefly aim to serve people transporting large loads of goods or children! We want these commuter groups in cars while we remove the single driver from congestion.
The SkyTran company’s claims of being able to fabricate a system for $1 million per mile are outrageous. We all know how cost estimates run, especially from the conceptual point of development. To put this number in perspective, though, the last TTA proposals estimated costs running about $23 million per mile. Charlotte’s proposed light rail (high tech streetcars) system is now up to $45 million per mile. The Las Vegas Monorail system costs anywhere from $87 million to $150 million per mile (there is a big debate over the actual numbers). Even if SkyTran is off by several million per mile, it is conceivable that the same amount of money it would take to build TTA’s 35-mile proposal could be converted to a 200-mile PRT system that includes more than twice as many Triangle destinations
The News & Observer has an interactive map showing anticipated growth patterns. From this map we can deduct that an ideal system for Raleigh includes several key population center/destinations:
- Downtown Raleigh
- Triangle Town Center
- Crabtree Valley Mall
- North Hills
- N.C. State University
- RBC Center/Carter-Finley Stadium
- Downtown Cary
- RDU Airport
- Brier Creek
- Downtown Durham
- Streets at Southpoint Mall
- Koka Booth Amphitheater
- Alltel Pavilion
Additionally the Raleigh Master plan shows future job centers in these areas:
- RTP
- Downtown Raleigh
- Highwoods
- McGregor Park
- White Oak Crossings (Garner)
- Capital Blvd/540
- Knightdale
- South Raleigh along S. Saunders Street, OTB
Would a system that costs riders 25 cents per mile (half the rate of a car) that serves these areas be enticing? Here is a coverage map which shows a system that would be 181 miles long and serve all of the areas mentioned. The CAT bus system could then be reconfigured to compliment the needs within the PRT’s gaps, rather than canvassing the entire city.
Whether it’s environmental impacts, safety impacts, esthetic impacts, costs, or efficiency impacts, every transportation concept has its weaknesses. The PRT concept is not perfect, but is one to consider for matching the needs of our region. Unfortunately the concept is only that. No working models exist, so the concept needs progress.
We need to rethink transportation outside of the box. We need something that serves our needs well and ignores whether or not we are “keeping up” with larger cities’ outdated concepts. We need zealous engineers and engineering students to put all of their energy into new transit concepts, not to develop a better NASCAR car or a remote controlled SUV for the Pentagon. We need greatness.
Cars have done an outstanding job of transporting Americans with flexibility, privacy, and efficiency for almost a century. Unfortunately the concepts of transit have been stuck in the mud for decades. There is an old saying,”If you keep doing what you’ve done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve been getting.” The introduction of a limited-access HOTV system would not prevent us from “becoming Atlanta”. It would in fact, be exactly Atlanta. Raleigh should strive to be the envy of America’s secondary cities, not the mirror of them. We can be great, but do we have the guts to be?
