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?

Just off of Glenwood Avenue near Oberlin, one can find Yarmouth Drive #1. It is the first street off of Edenburgh Rd. (which secretly becomes both Lake Boone Tr. and Cambridge within 1/4 of a mile – how is that for stupidity in a street system?) Yarmouth #1 is a quiet residential street that is half of a loop with Chesterfield Rd. The name changes from Yarmouth to Chesterfield with no warning.
Yarmouth Drive #2 is nearby and extends from Sussex Rd. to Coley Forest Place. This is another quiet neighborhood street.

Problem: While these are not major streets, it is important to clear confusion adn reduce the costs of the delivery of emergency services, mail, and food.


Solution: Rename Yarmouth #1 to "Chesterfield Road".

Did you notice that Lake Boone Trail takes over a portion of Edenburgh to jog over to Glenwood, where it suddenly becomes a service road for Glenwood Ave? The solution here is to rename the short part of Lake Boone Trail to something else, and rename Cambridge Dr. to "Edenburgh Rd."

Areas like this are giving Raleigh a terrible image to newcomers. They understandably feel that we native Raleighites are either stuck up or plain ol’ stupid. Neither is the case. Clarity trumps all, friends!!!

Problem: At its northern end (at Spring Forest Rd), Atlantic secretly becomes Litchford Road. Litchford is an old country road that connects to Falls of Neuse north of I-540.

The secret name change is another example of a single Raleigh Street with two names. If one knew that a business on Litchford Road were actually on the same road as Atlantic Ave, he or she would have an easier time finding one’s destination.

Solution: Rename Litchford Road to "Atlantic Avenue".

When Rock Quarry Road and Tarboro Street were realigned to create a North/South artery in SE Raleigh, East Davie St. was bisected. The western half of the split still intersects Rock Quarry, but the eastern half was terminated with a cul de sac, creating two "East Davie Streets". This increases access time and confusion in emergencies, therefore the eastern half of E. Davie St should be renamed. The street creates the southern border of Roberts Park, so Roberts Drive would be a good name, as it would give Raleigh Blvd drivers an easier time accessing Roberts Park.

Well guess what folks? We have two Lane Streets. Lane is a minor East/West street in the north end of downtown that extends westward from Oakwood until it is bisected by the railroad tracks in the Glenwood South area. The solution here is to rename the segment west of the railroad tracks. We could use this street to honor a previous mayor, a famous person from Raleigh, or after a concept such as "Oak City St" or "Freedom St." .

map it

Another great street debacle in Raleigh is the Peace Street/Clark Aveue mess. Guess what! There are TWO Clark Avenues. (You knew I couldn’t resist pointing that one out!)

Peace Street extends westward from its Eastern terminus at N. Person Street (where Krispy Kreme is). After crossing Capital Blvd and Glenwood Ave, Peace Street makes an incredibly dangerous blind camel hump before crossing St. Mary’s Street. It becomes somewhat residential as it meanders past the 75-year-old Broughton High School. At the point where Peace meets Smallwood and Bellwood Drives, it jogs to the north for a few feet and secretly becomes "Clark Avenue". Clark borders Cameron Village to the south, crosses Oberlin Rd., and extends through a residential section to its terminus at Brooks Ave.

The Raleigh Road Silliness continues as the second Clark Avenue begins a westward jaunt from Dixie Trail. This stretch of Clark Avenue is truly residential and ends to the west at Faircloth Street.

Problems – Wouldn’t it be nice if Cameron Village drivers recognized an important East/West artery which borders the north end of downtown? Also, if some businesses in Cameron Village had a Peace St address, drivers on Captial Blvd and Glenwood Ave could find the secret Cameron Village easier.

With two identically named streets, as is in the case of Clark, emergency services might be unclear as to which street they need to seek. The Peace Street camel hump creates one of Raleigh’s most dangerous blind spots.

Solutions – Rename the long, eastern Clark Ave to "Peace Street". Regrade Peace Street’s camel hump to create a situation that is safe for drivers and pedestrians.

St. Mary’s Street/Lassiter Mill Road map it #1, #2

One of Raleigh’s longest streets is also one of its most beautiful. St. Mary’s Street begins just south of Hillsborough Street and heads north, defining the western edge of downtown. Along this stretch one sees the old carriage house, St. Mary’s School, Wiley Elementary, Broughton High School, the former Methodist Orphanage, and the former Rex Hospital (at Wade Ave.). Northward, St. Mary’s passes through the Hayes Barton neighborhood and by some of Raleigh’s most charming houses. The section between Fairview and Glenwood is lined by majestic, but cozy, trees creating Raleigh’s most picturesque block. Glenwood Ave, however, is where the trouble starts.

The Glenwood/St Mary’s/Anderson Drive intersection has rightfully been termed “Confusion Corner”. If one intends to stay on northbound St. Mary’s, they must turn left onto Glenwood Ave and then turn a soft right at the next intersection (a hard right puts drivers on Anderson Dr.). St. Mary’s proceeds several blocks north until it reaches the intersection where White Oak Road and Scotland Dr. secretly join. From that point onward, the street is called “Lassiter Mill Road”. There is no announcement of the two road name changes at this otherwise simple intersection. Lassiter Mill Road continues to one block beyond Six Forks Road,

Why is it right for Raleigh have a two-named road connecting (and bordering) downtown to Six Forks Rd? It should not be a secret to Six Forks Rd. drivers that Lassiter Mill connects to Glenwood Ave. and downtown. The other crazy facet to this road is that it goes through a break (at Glenwood) where a name change would be natural. If there is going to be a name change, why not change it at the Glenwood discontinuity?

Raleigh should simplify the street by renaming Old Lassiter Mill Rd to “Lassiter Mill Rd.” and rename the current Lassiter Mill Rd. to “St. Mary’s Street.” A second option is to rename the St. Mary’s section north of Glenwood to “Lassiter Mill Rd.” Either way, drivers on major arteries would recognize this secondary artery and save time and gas with a smarter route.

This is the final part of a 10-part series (there will be bonus entries soon!) in which we examine Raleigh’s most
embarrassing shortcoming to visitors: the abundance of dysfunctional street names. A city should try to be
easily understood instead remaining a labyrinth only understood by the
long-time natives.

This one is a mess, too. The Western Blvd that we all know extends from behind Memorial Auditorium to the point west of I-440 where Hillsborough St. butts in. The eastern half of this road is a fairly new connection of minor roads collectively called Martin Luther Kind Blvd. It extends eastward to Poole Rd. This road is one of Raleigh’s most important, best flowing East/West connectors. There is a second Western Blvd. It is the eastern extension of Cary Towne Blvd. Apparently there are/were plans to connect Cary Towne to Western, but no discussion has arisen lately.

Problem – Drivers may not recognize this free flowing artery if they are in an unfamiliar part of Raleigh. Emergency services may be unclear as to which Western Blvd contains an emergency.

Solution – This one is tricky. First of all, rename the fragmented Western to "Cary Town Blvd". The main Western Blvd is a much older, established name that wouldn’t make sense in east Raleigh. So, rename Western Blvd to Martin Luther King Blvd. This would be controversial, however it would be less controversial than renaming the whole artery something different, like “Southern Blvd”. In the latter case, the city would be forced to rename another road after MLK. The best candidate would be Raleigh Blvd, but it is not an important street and it is used by few white people, and it would be very confusing to move a street name. King’s contributions stem from his ability to be understood by all people, so his street shouldn’t just be a local street. But many would argue that one of the most major arteries shouldn’t be named after such a controversial figure. Clearly, though, the best solution is to have one single name for the road. That is whole point of this series!

I hope you’ve enjoyed this series. As I’ve stated before, Raleigh could have a much simpler road system by renaming many streets. Certainly this will be a hardship to those who have to announce their new addresses, but this is a small price to pay for Raleigh having an easily presentable road plan. Until the street names are simplified, Raleigh can at least post signs at intersections announcing the the end and beginning of two roads. The omission of simple signage shows that the City isn’t even trying to make our lives easier.

New Hope Church Road/Buffalo Road/Hardimont Road – map it
New Hope Church Road extends from Hardimont Road (next to the Wendy’s on Wake Forest Road) to Capital Blvd where it becomes Buffalo Rd. Buffalo extends to Horton Road, just north of Knightdale. It is a major connector in the eastern section of Wake County. This artery, like many others mentioned in this series, is the result of realigning and connecting several minor streets.

Problem – Drivers on Wake Forest Road may not recognize this major East/West artery that extends from Knightdale to the North Hills area. Drivers in eastern Wake County don’t realize they can get to Wake Forest Rd in North Raleigh easily.

Solution – This thoroughfare will grow as eastern Wake County grows. Because Buffalo road is long and sure to be an important East/West route, the entire street should be renamed Buffalo Rd. Removing the New Hope Church Road name would reduce confusion with the existing New Hope Road (which should be renamed “Upchurch Parkway”).