Difference between revisions of "US/NC/Durham/rail/commuter"

from HTYP, the free directory anyone can edit if they can prove to me that they're not a spambot
< US‎ | NC‎ | Durham
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎News: 7/8 railroad article; 2 more links dead)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{US Town Article|Durham|North Carolina|NC}}: [[{{PAGENAME}}|Commuter Rail]]
+
<hide>
==Overview==
+
[[category:US/NC/Durham]]
Plans for commuter rail involving Durham have been officially in the planning stage since the mid-1990s, and have been discussed widely at least since the 1980s<sup>1</sup>. As of this writing, the initial rail line is ready to begin construction once funding is obtained, but the funding proposal to the [[Wikipedia:Federal Transit Administration|FTA]] in 2005 was turned down. (One theory<sup>2</sup> for why it was turned down is that [[The Triangle, NC|the Triangle area]] doesn't fit into the classic hub-and-spokes model that the FTA is accustomed to evaluating; another theory is that the FTA's evaluation methods make the odd assumption that the rail line will not affect patterns of growth in the area, which leads to severely lowered estimates of eventual ridership.) Proponents are currently regrouping.
+
{{subpage}}
 +
</hide>
 +
==About==
 +
Plans for [[commuter rail]] involving [[US/NC/Durham|Durham]] have been officially in the planning stage since the mid-1990s, and have been discussed widely at least since the 1980s<ref name=iw1 />.
 +
 
 +
As of February 25, 2014, a plan for an initial single line between Durham and Chapel Hill was been approved for Federal funding, with additional funding coming from a local sales tax increase that was approved earlier by popular referendum -- but the federal funding somehow disappeared by October of 2015, when we were back to the stage of needing to get state funding before applying for federal<ref name=iw3 />.
 +
===2006 status===
 +
As of 2006, the initial rail line was ready to begin construction once funding is obtained, but the funding proposal to the [[Wikipedia:Federal Transit Administration|FTA]] in 2005 was turned down. Proponents regrouped to work out the best strategy for another try
 +
 
 +
One theory<ref name=iw2 /> for why it was turned down is that [[The Triangle, NC|the Triangle area]] doesn't fit into the classic hub-and-spokes model that the FTA is accustomed to evaluating; another theory is that the FTA's evaluation methods make the odd assumption that the rail line will not affect patterns of growth in the area, which leads to severely lowered estimates of eventual ridership.
  
 
The proposed plan involved an initial rail line apparently running from two stops in downtown Durham, skirting [[RTP, NC|RTP]], through {{townlink|Cary|NC}}, to two stops in {{townlink|Raleigh|NC}}. Extensions would be built later to run the line out to [[Wikipedia:Duke University|Duke]] and three further stops in Raleigh. A secondary line was also tentatively planned (but not part of the 2005 FTA funding request) running from Durham to {{townlink|Chapel Hill|NC}} along or near [[15-501]].<sup>1</sup>
 
The proposed plan involved an initial rail line apparently running from two stops in downtown Durham, skirting [[RTP, NC|RTP]], through {{townlink|Cary|NC}}, to two stops in {{townlink|Raleigh|NC}}. Extensions would be built later to run the line out to [[Wikipedia:Duke University|Duke]] and three further stops in Raleigh. A secondary line was also tentatively planned (but not part of the 2005 FTA funding request) running from Durham to {{townlink|Chapel Hill|NC}} along or near [[15-501]].<sup>1</sup>
  
In the absence of approval from the FTA, at least one suggestion<sup>2</sup> has been floated to start with the Durham-to-Chapel-Hill line, since most of the push for commuter rail seems to be coming from those two areas; the argument is that this would be easier and cheaper in some ways than the original Durham-to-Raleigh plan, might actually provide more bang for the buck, and in any case will get the ball rolling again.
+
In the absence of approval from the FTA, at least one suggestion<sup>2</sup> was floated to start with the Durham-to-Chapel-Hill line, since most of the push for commuter rail seems to be coming from those two areas; the argument is that this would be easier and cheaper in some ways than the original Durham-to-Raleigh plan, might actually provide more bang for the buck, and in any case will get the ball rolling again. (This later formed the basis of the idea that was later adopted.)
 
+
==Sites==
==References==
+
* [http://ourtransitfuture.com/ Our Transit Future]: informational site about the plan currently (2015) going forward
# [http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-08-31/news2.html Mystery train]: "Ten questions for TTA &ndash; and at least some of the answers"
+
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014916/http://www.transittime.com/ TTA Red Line]: promotional site for the 2005 plan
# [http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2006-01-04/citizen.html Who Needs Raleigh?] by Bob Geary
 
 
==News==
 
==News==
* '''2006-07-08''' [http://thedurhamnews.com/front/story/2973584p-9405906c.html Rail fight steams parties, but it fails to surprise]: includes some history of the railroad in Durham (this probably doesn't have much to do with commuter rail, really...)
+
* '''2017-10-04''' [https://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/durham-commissioners-consider-adding-a-new-city-center-light-rail-stop-downtown/Content?oid=8513258 Durham Commissioners Consider Adding a New "City-Center" Light-Rail Stop Downtown] ([http://archive.is/UXdrS archive.is])
* '''2006-04-27''' [http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-728828.html Poll: 70% of Triangle residents back rail] ([[2006-04-27 Herald-Sun: 70% of Triangle residents back rail|archive]])
+
* '''2016-09-19''' [http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/durham-news/article102813947.html Durham-Orange light rail plan may add stop at NCCU] ([http://archive.is/LM846 archive.is] [https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ThaddaeusEdwards/posts/4C4jkf4EUMi via])
 +
* '''2014-02-25''' [http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/02/25/3654185/with-federal-ok-triangle-transit.html Triangle Transit gets federal approval to plan Durham-Orange light rail]
 +
* '''2006-10-27''' <s>[http://endangereddurham.blogspot.com/2006/10/choo-choo.html CHOO-CHOO]</s>: blog entry with some interesting details (content is probably available on [[Gary Kueber]]'s Durham history site, whose name I can never remember)
 +
* '''2006-07-08''' <s>[http://thedurhamnews.com/front/story/2973584p-9405906c.html Rail fight steams parties, but it fails to surprise]</s>: includes some history of the railroad in Durham (this probably doesn't have much to do with commuter rail, really...)
 +
* '''2006-04-27''' <s>[http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-728828.html Poll: 70% of Triangle residents back rail]</s> ([[2006-04-27 Herald-Sun: 70 percent of Triangle residents back rail|archive]])
 
* <s>'''2006-04-12''' [http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-723779.html Old and new issues still plague transit corridor]</s> dead link
 
* <s>'''2006-04-12''' [http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-723779.html Old and new issues still plague transit corridor]</s> dead link
 
* <s>'''2006-03-22''' [http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-715994.html TTA awaits rail data response]</s> dead link
 
* <s>'''2006-03-22''' [http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-715994.html TTA awaits rail data response]</s> dead link
* '''2005-12-07''' [http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-12-07/backtalk.html Backtalk] "The air up there" letter by Chuck Till on another issue criticizes the rail plan in passing
+
* '''2005-12-07''' <s>[http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-12-07/backtalk.html Backtalk]</s> "The air up there" letter by Chuck Till on another issue criticizes the rail plan in passing
* '''2005-10-19''' [http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-10-19/citizen.html Citizen] by Bob Geary: largely about other local issues, but mentions that the revised plan was accepted as valid by the FTA
+
* '''2005-10-19''' <s>[http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-10-19/citizen.html Citizen]</s> by [[Bob Geary]]: largely about other local issues, but mentions that the revised plan was accepted as valid by the FTA
 
* '''2005-08-31'''
 
* '''2005-08-31'''
** [http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-08-31/news2.html Mystery train] by Bob Geary
+
** <s>[http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-08-31/news2.html Mystery train]</s> by Bob Geary
** [http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-08-31/news.html Transit by the numbers]
+
** <s>[http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-08-31/news.html Transit by the numbers]</s>
* '''2005-08-24''' [http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-08-24/citizen.html Citizen, ''Planners muscle up'']: update on rail proposal
+
* '''2005-08-24''' <s>[http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-08-24/citizen.html Citizen, ''Planners muscle up'']</s>: update on rail proposal
* '''2003-10-08''' [http://indyweek.com/durham/2003-10-08/burtman.html Burtman, ''One-way track'']: status of the debate
+
* '''2003-10-08''' <s>[http://indyweek.com/durham/2003-10-08/burtman.html Burtman, ''One-way track'']</s>: status of the debate
* '''2003-05-07''' [http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2003-05-07/triangles.html Triangles, ''Walk this way''] by Peter Eichenberger: argument against the commuter rail plan
+
* '''2003-05-07''' <s>[http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2003-05-07/triangles.html Triangles, ''Walk this way'']</s> by [[Peter Eichenberger]]: argument against the commuter rail plan
* '''2002-03-13''' [http://indyweek.com/durham/2002-03-13/cover.html Basic Training] (cover story by Bob Geary): more details about the plan and its philosophy
+
* '''2002-03-13''' <s>[http://indyweek.com/durham/2002-03-13/cover.html Basic Training]</s> (cover story by [[Bob Geary]]): more details about the plan and its philosophy
 +
 
 +
==Footnotes==
 +
<references>
 +
<ref name=iw1>'''2005-08-31''' <s>[http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-08-31/news2.html Mystery train]</s>: "Ten questions for TTA &ndash; and at least some of the answers"</ref>
 +
<ref name=iw2>'''2006-01-04''' <s>[http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2006-01-04/citizen.html Who Needs Raleigh?]</s> by Bob Geary</ref>
 +
<ref name=iw3>'''2015-10-14''' [http://m.indyweek.com/indyweek/does-the-light-rail-line-have-a-math-problem/Content?oid=4812199 Does the light-rail line have a math problem?] ([https://archive.is/1Uzfk archive]; [https://plus.google.com/u/0/108380237584739011265/posts/F3zskZY2U3y discussion])</ref>
 +
</references>

Latest revision as of 00:10, 5 October 2017

About

Plans for commuter rail involving Durham have been officially in the planning stage since the mid-1990s, and have been discussed widely at least since the 1980s[1].

As of February 25, 2014, a plan for an initial single line between Durham and Chapel Hill was been approved for Federal funding, with additional funding coming from a local sales tax increase that was approved earlier by popular referendum -- but the federal funding somehow disappeared by October of 2015, when we were back to the stage of needing to get state funding before applying for federal[2].

2006 status

As of 2006, the initial rail line was ready to begin construction once funding is obtained, but the funding proposal to the FTA in 2005 was turned down. Proponents regrouped to work out the best strategy for another try

One theory[3] for why it was turned down is that the Triangle area doesn't fit into the classic hub-and-spokes model that the FTA is accustomed to evaluating; another theory is that the FTA's evaluation methods make the odd assumption that the rail line will not affect patterns of growth in the area, which leads to severely lowered estimates of eventual ridership.

The proposed plan involved an initial rail line apparently running from two stops in downtown Durham, skirting RTP, through Cary, to two stops in Raleigh. Extensions would be built later to run the line out to Duke and three further stops in Raleigh. A secondary line was also tentatively planned (but not part of the 2005 FTA funding request) running from Durham to Chapel Hill along or near 15-501.1

In the absence of approval from the FTA, at least one suggestion2 was floated to start with the Durham-to-Chapel-Hill line, since most of the push for commuter rail seems to be coming from those two areas; the argument is that this would be easier and cheaper in some ways than the original Durham-to-Raleigh plan, might actually provide more bang for the buck, and in any case will get the ball rolling again. (This later formed the basis of the idea that was later adopted.)

Sites

News

Footnotes

  1. 2005-08-31 Mystery train: "Ten questions for TTA – and at least some of the answers"
  2. 2015-10-14 Does the light-rail line have a math problem? (archive; discussion)
  3. 2006-01-04 Who Needs Raleigh? by Bob Geary