You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Beside the tracks”.
Beside the tracks
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 13, 2013
http://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/11/13/beside-the-tracks/
Previous Post
Sorting out recycling
Sorting out recycling
Next Post
Loopholes and buzzkill
Loopholes and buzzkill
Recent Comments
- Nancy Oates on We’re still here
- Deborah Fulghieri on We’re still here
- Pluramus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
Blogroll
Categories
- 140 West
- Budget
- Business
- Carolina North
- CH2020
- Committees
- Community life
- Council Members
- County business
- Courts
- Courtyards of Homestead
- COVID-19
- Deer
- Downtown Chapel Hill
- Economic development
- Elections
- Environment
- Ethics
- Food Trucks
- Homeless Shelter
- Housing
- Land Use
- Library
- Lifestyle
- Media
- Museum
- Northside
- Occupy Protests
- Parking
- Police
- Politics
- Public Works
- Roads
- Sanitation workers
- Schools
- Social justice
- Spending
- Taxes
- Technology
- Town staff
- Transportation
- Trees
- UNC
- Uncategorized
- Work and Money
Tag Cloud
123 West Franklin advisory boards affordability American Legion annexation Bicycle Apartments bond referendum BRT Bus ads candidates Carolina Flats cell phones Central West CH2020 Charterwood Community Home Trust comprehensive plan county commissioners county government development Ephesus-Fordham fireworks form-based zoning Franklin Street Friends of Downtown Growth health care Historic District Commission historic districts Holidays Light Rail Obey Creek park-and-ride personalities real estate sales Rogers Road Shortbread Silent Sam students The Edge Timber Hollow towing traffic Trinitas VOEMeta
Matt Czajkowski
/ November 13, 2013Many,
I started a discussion of the risk that we squander $ 30 million in applying for fed and state funding for LIght Rail now that three independent experts have told Wake County that it is “unlikely” this area will qualify for federal funding. Our choice is to put $30 million at risk or instead spend it on Bus Rapid Transit and have something to show for it. Your sage comments on this topic would be helpful indeed.
Thanks,
Matt
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 13, 2013Nancy -thanks for opening the discussion here. There’s an important meeting tomorrow night -at 5:00 at the Friday Center. TTA is going to give an update on the transit plan
Many of us want to know the status of the plan (costs are increasing because of route problems), the state of grants (FTA sent them back), and what improvements are planned for bus service (less than the paultry amount originally planned?).
So the question is what should the county do? If they allow things to move forward, then TTA will be spending millions of dollars at the taxpayer risk. Since Durham and the MPO have to agree to any changes – will there be shared interest in putting LRT spending on hold at least until grants are received.
Of course -like many – I’d like to see TTA drop LRT in favor of BRT now. At a minimum, I’d like to see a hold on LRT spending until there’s evidence that Federal funding is forthcoming. .
Matt Czajkowski
/ November 13, 2013This is the largest financial risk in the county’s history. The fundamental issue is whether we are willing to spend $30 to $36 million at risk In order to pursue an application for LRT funding from not only the US Government but also the State! If either or both say no we have squandered $30 to $36 million. For a decision of such consequence we need to know where every current elected official in Orange Count stands. Yes or no. Not “I see both sides of the argument” or whatever. Yes I support it or no I don’t. We need to be asking every one of them — and the professional advocacy groups as well. We need to keep track of their positions and if we go forward and a decision is eventually forthcoming then one side or the other will have supported the outcome. Whoever supports it should get praise. Whoever doesn’t should be thrown out of office if they are still around.
So far in the recent discussion Damon Sells is in favor of taking the risk. I am opposed. Where do all the other elected officials in Orange County stand.?
Here is an opportunity for true accountability!
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 13, 2013Part of the question is “what’s the risk”? So far, there’s no indication that the funding for LRT is coming -so it appears to be very high. That has to be part of the discussion.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 13, 2013Here’s an interesting point of view. Stop transit planning altogether – and allow new telecommuniting, walkable communities and other models of transportation take form. And give the money to teacher assistants.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/13/3368127/as-people-move-closer-less-need.html
many
/ November 13, 2013There is real economic data to suggest peak driving occurred somewhere between 2005 & 2006.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=d2T
What is more interesting is the divergence from GDP
Check “GDPC1” on the same site…..
Of course correlation ^= causation, but the data suggests something may well be changing.
Matt Czajkowski
/ November 13, 2013Where is everybody? I know Ed Harrison posts here. And I think George Cianciolo. Lee? Where do you stand on the $30 million at risk? Anyone else out there? We will be asking all of you one way or the other. Abstentions are effectively votes for taking the risk. Only an assertive no will have any effect on derailing this runaway freight train so to speak!
CitizenWill
/ November 13, 2013Matt, your standing on the 3rd rail of local politics!
The lack of input is not surprising given how tightly TTA and others (Ed, for instance) have bound LRT to the mix.
It’s kind of like the NIMBY brush. If you express any concerns about development you’re a NIMBY. If you express any concerns – as I very well know – about LRT – you’re anti-transit.
I thought it was anti-transit not to allocate Orange County tax dollars for today’s Orange County needs.
I thought it was wrong to prefer an inflexible system – LRT – whose crazy alignment benefits Durham’s big time developers and harms the environment – over the much more flexible BRT and pure bus plays.
I thought it was very short-sighted not to carve out some percentage – I argued 50% and then 20% – of each OC sales tax dollar to go directly to local bus service over “send the students to Southpoint” TTA’s offerings.
I also would like to see a very clear justification for continuing to spend dollars to fund TTA’s LRT administrative and infrastructure overhead over more flexible, economically rewarding services for a broad range of riders.
Matt Czajkowski
/ November 13, 2013Thanks Will,
I’ve been standing on the third rail for six years now. Just would like to see a little hard and fast accountability for a while.
Thanks,
Matt
many
/ November 13, 2013Yes Matt, Where are the OC reps on the TTA? Bernadette? Hello? Earth to Ed, come in please…..
How about the unanimous OCBOCC vote that approved the Tax? Where do we go from here commissioners?
Joan Garnett
/ November 13, 2013Bus Rapid Transit is my choice because it will help more people, more quickly and for less money.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 13, 2013Wait a minute – Earl voted against the tax. Earl and Renee voted against the fee.
Alice is interesting. She’s strongly invested in Transit and TTA – but I’m sure she’ll be concerned about the fiscal developments.
The commissioners will be discussing this in December. Don’t have the date.
Matt Czajkowski
/ November 13, 2013OK — so we’ve got Earl and me against. Renee sort of against and so far Damon yes. Remember my rules are it has to be an unequivocal position. Alice has to say yes or no. I’m hopeful Renee will state her full opposition to risking the $30 million. That’s the only question I’m asking. Funding for transit through the sales tax is taken as a given.
We’re making progress. Be sure to ask your local politician!
Del Snow
/ November 13, 2013I have argued for lower parking numbers for every development application that I have seen while on the PB, precisely because I felt it was, for lack of a better phrase, put up or shut up time. The response has always been that residents will still want to have cars, and I quote, “to use at other times.” What those “other times” are is a mystery. Generally, once you have a car, you use it. I have never won a battle. IF, a really big word, one really wanted to support transit, parking has to be cut. The other choice would be to provide high priced garage space in order to discourage car ownership and support transit and zip car-like solutions.
Similar to the disconnect between talking about affordable housing and then endorsing an over-priced movie theater, this is one more example of asking officials to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
The $30 million boondoggle for “research” for something that has a good chance of never happening, is insulting to the residents of the entire County who need transit now…not when they are retired. One noted transit expert recently said that utilizing BRT over rail meant that we could service 10 times the riders for 1/10 the cost in 1/10 the time. Sounds good to me!
Matt Czajkowski
/ November 13, 2013Del,
Do you have that citation?
Thanks,
Matt
CitizenWill
/ November 13, 2013Maybe this?
http://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/bus-rapid-transit-comes-washington-dc
CitizenWill
/ November 13, 2013Or this?
http://www.itdp.org/microsites/bus-rapid-transit-planning-guide/
Julie McClintock
/ November 13, 2013Many – Thanks for the interesting and instructive commentary, “Beside the Tracks”. I lived in Watertown but taught in Lexington so transit was not an option and I got to work by auto. I do not miss the long auto commutes of the north eastern cities.
Matt – Thanks for asking the hard questions. It’s admirable when an elected official is willing to question a long range plan that no longer makes sense. The connection between Duke and UNC made more sense in the old days – now medical practices are everywhere. So we now have sprawl of another sort.
I feel ill informed to be asking but do we have a choice on the 30 million? Is that all Federal money or does it include our OC transit tax? I agree it’s a mistake and a big risk for possibly no return. But aren’t we locked into the implementation agreement that Orange County signed with Durham County and TTA? Can the terms of that agreement be revisited if events change – i.e. there is no federal money?
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 14, 2013Julie – that’s the big question. Can the county change course? Durham and TTA have to agree. I hope that they wont want to take the risk either.
TTA will be presenting to the commissioners in December – it will be interesting.
The $30-$36 million is for the advanced planning studies including enviornmental. I don’t know how it compares to the original budget – but the federal grants were supposed to pay for a large part of it. So without federal funding, should TTA move forward? And without Wake in the picture, does the likihood of federal funding further diminish?
That’s the big question Matt is asking
Earl McKee
/ November 14, 2013Note to Many— If you are going to comment on votes, it would be a good idea to check the minutes of our meetings. I spent the last two years asking questions about the viability of the transit plan and cast my first “NO” vote early in the process. After that I did not cast a single “yes” vote due to the inclusion of LRT as the preferred technology. Anyone paying attention would not need to question my position on this issue and regardless of the consequences I will continue to insist on providing for the transportation needs of those who are most dependent on public transportation.
I have advocated for a staged expansion of transit options starting with expanded local bus service (ask a student or anyone without a vehicle if it is more important to them to be able to get to the grocery store on a bus or ride to Durham on LRT) with more operating hours and frequency followed by BRT and when density and tax dollars permit (I think I mentioned 2050-2075) bring LRT online. For a more detailed argument look at the point -counterpoint between Commissioner Pelissier and me in the Chapel Hill News last year. I don’t think there is a chance in hell to repel the tax so I intend to insist that we spend the money on those services that best serve all of our residents.
Terri Buckner
/ November 14, 2013Once again, I hope people will take it upon themselves to double check the ‘data’ being provided here by certain individuals. The investment for Orange Co is more like $23M; i believe 100% of it is made up from taxes that are already being collected; and the first couple of years of those taxes are for planning and doing the technical studies. the issue i am not clear on is whether the portion of those taxes that are being used for improving current bus service is in addition to the $23M or part of that sum. Many of us have complained about CH’s lack of detailed technical studies before putting CW and Obey Creek plans together–TTA is required by the Feds to do those studies and they are expensive.
They are currently undertaking a detailed environmental impact assessment, information that will be used even if plans change and they pursue BRT instead of LRT. There is feedback on the plans all the way thru the process so that if at anytime the Feds signal that money will not be awarded, the planning will change direction.
Yesterday Matt complained that we aren’t listening to the ‘experts’ meaning the 3 person panel hired by Wake Co to advise them on transit. Wake has a much larger population that Durham and Orange combined but we have more than double the transit ridership. Wake isn’t part of the Orange-Durham plan. That plan is a single LRT line between NCCU, Duke and UNC. Julie’s correct that UNC and Duke are expanding outside of their medical complexes but that doesn’t mean their main complexes won’t still be fully populated.
Just as the Wake comparison is flawed so is the either/or implication for BRT v LRT. Shouldn’t we look at the most appropriate technology for each problem space? In this case BRT for the route would mean not serving the northern most segment of the Durham portion of the planned route. The portion with the highest poverty rate AND the portion serving the amenities so many of us value in Durham: Bulls stadium, DPAC, and NCCU.
This is a plan for the next 50 years but it also benefits our current transit system, thanks to the insistence of the BOCC. Matt asked yesterday about the fiduciary responsibility of elected officials. If I was one of those individuals, I would be supporting this plan although as always I would want to have performance measures in place.
many
/ November 14, 2013“…………Wake has a much larger population that Durham and Orange combined but we have more than double the transit ridership.”……….Right, because the CHT ridership is fare free and driven by student populations that are largely dependent on the transit system. You have to ask yourself how long can that be sustained with a Billion + light rail monkey on its back and what would be the impact on ridership (….and Taxes)?
“…………In this case BRT for the route would mean not serving the northern most segment of the Durham portion of the planned route. The portion with the highest poverty rate AND the portion serving the amenities so many of us value in Durham: Bulls stadium, DPAC, and NCCU.”………This statement is complete nonsense. No one has proposed not serving anyone. In truth, for the same money a less expensive BRT system would allow for *more* service in a *larger* area with *better* stops and waiting areas.
In light of the the history we have of being told exactly what we wanted to hear, what performance metrics would you put in place for this 30M spend on consultants?
The questions I have are:
Now that things have changed, is there the political will to employ mid-course corrections rather than risking costly project resets?
How could the 30M be better spent then on vaporous “studies” of last century solutions?
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 14, 2013Terri – the plan is for 20 years. The $30-$36 milliion is for advanced planning and environmental studies. The FTA and State were supposed to fund a large part of it.
The sales tax is only $5 million a year. The vehicle tax and rental income -about another $2 million. Durham’s revenues are higher – but I dont recall the numbers. That’s supposed to fund everything.
The LRT plan reiles on 80% of funding coming from state and federal grants. Some large portion of planning was supposed to be funded by the grants. The first ones have been sent back. So might one of your “performance indicators” be the likelihood for federal funding? And would you take the risk of approving $30-$36 million without any indication that federal funds are coming?
Many experts suggest that our project wont ever make the cut – because we’re too small and in the transit world, we don’t have a congestion problem (which is good cause the LRT line wont fix congestion).
many
/ November 14, 2013Julie,
In my mind the tax money is ours, and I frankly do not give a hoot what TTA has to say about it. I am already tired of seeing Chapel Hill and Orange County hurt by this ill conceived agreement.
ParkNRide in Chapel Hill now charges a fee, while the South Square and South Point TTA ParkNRide do not.
CHT is being thrown a pittance of the transit taxes and is way over budget.
The proposal is to build a short LRT system for the well (tar) heeled (pun intended) at a +Billion dollar cost though a critical watershed so people can take their tax dollars to Durham.
Meanwhile obvious regional transit needs are being ignored (read airport)
Its a bad deal. The political leadership and voters were asleep at the wheel on this one.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 14, 2013Sadly our leaders were awake enough to give TTA and Durham control over our destiny.
Terri Buckner
/ November 14, 2013“In truth, for the same money a less expensive BRT system would allow for *more* service in a *larger* area with *better* stops and waiting areas.” Please back this up with something more substantive than your opinion. Has someone done the route studies and estimated the cost of the getting right of way on this “larger” area you’re referencing? BRT requires right-of-way and the railroads will not give permission to use their property for anything but LRT.
“Now that things have changed,”—-what has changed? The opinion of 3 experts who were only talking about Raleigh/Wake county?
“Many experts suggest that our project wont ever make the cut”–who are those experts? please provide a reference to their explanations for why they don’t think the project will qualify for federal funding.
Matt Czajkowski
/ November 14, 2013Here’s the problem Terri. Nobody has done that analysis. You’re a scientist. Don’t you think that before a decision is made that both alternatives should be analyzed and compared. The fundamental problem here is that TTA management is bound and determined to go forward with LRT. That is why the Wake County Commissioners brought in independent experts. Did we ever do that? Of course any independent expert that questions LRT is immediately impugned as being part of a “right leaning” think tank even though one of the three experts that Wake brought in used to run the Denver Transit System (which has light rail). Could it be that the Wake BOCC is doing a much more methodical analysis than Orange County did?
Deborah Fulghieri
/ November 14, 2013Light rail is attractive in principle, and people in Chapel Hill are a principled lot. But it is meaningful that the TTA and now Wake County do not plan to help provide LRT to RTP (42,000 employed there per its website) or to RDU (1,170,000 departures and 1,180,000 arrivals July 1-Sept 30 2013).
The LRT plan would only stop at UNC Hospital, Hamilton Road, East 54, and Friday Center before entering Durham County and stopping at a future mixed use development near Barbee Chapel Road. Then it would wind through the Jordan Lake wetland and stop at a large mixed use development to be built this side of I-40, to be called Leigh Village. Leigh Village would be about midway between 15-501 and NC-54 next to I-40. Does anyone think this arrangement will reduce traffic on 15-501 or NC-54?
Terri Buckner
/ November 14, 2013Done what analysis Matt? I grilled TTA as hard as I could last night and the only challenges I have to their plan is the placement of their park and ride lots in the northern Chapel Hill area. I asked for a comparison between BRT and LRT and got a very creditable response. In fact, they have a poster that compares all the various options, not just BRT and LRT.
If you consider the cost of the right of ways as one of the limiting factors, the route makes sense. I think they have done all the analysis you want, but it’s complex and the voices that are misrepresenting a lot of the data have to be filtered out (although they do offer a good foundation for trying to poke holes in the plan).
You’re a business person; ask for a meeting with TTA if you can’t go to tonight’s session and grill them as hard as you can. Financially, environmentally, and logistically they gave me details that I could not poke any holes in. There were some issues that I think they need to make public, like payback, so that members of the public don’t present their own calculations; but those are communication issues that every project faces.
I still haven’t figured out why you think Raleigh’s panel has anything to do with Orange-Durham. The political ideology of those experts is meaningless as far as I’m concerned. What matters is that Raleigh has never been invested in transit as Chapel Hill/Carrboro has been. Durham is catching up with us and the partnership between our two communities makes sense, especially in light of the close inter-workings of our largest employers: the universities and medical centers.
many
/ November 14, 2013What has changed is the lack of federal and state funding to support the study. Let alone the project itself. There is a message in there for people that are paying attention.
As far as backing it up…..Ummm…Hows the ITDP? Or is the Ford Foundation to “Right wing Libertarian” for you? I refer you to page 19: http://www.itdp.org/documents/ITDP_MORE_DEVELOPMENT_924.pdf
In 2004, the St. Louis Federal Reserve has a serious indictment of LRT and its benefits to society: It looks like the Federal Transportation Administration is finally paying attention:
“Based solely on dollar cost, the annual light-rail subsidies could instead be used to buy an environmentally friendly hybrid Toyota Prius every five years for each poor rider and even to pay annual maintenance costs of $6,000. Increases in pollution would be minimal with the hybrid vehicle, and 7,700 new vehicles on the roadway would result in only a 0.5 percent increase in traffic congestion.3 And there would still be funds left over-about $49 million per year. These funds could be given to all other MetroLink riders (amounting to roughly $1,045 per person per year) and be used for cab fare, bus fare, etc.”
To view the entire article google “Light Rail Boon or Boondoggle” by By Molly D. Castelazo and Thomas A. Garrett.
I try not to include multiple links because it causes posting to be stuck “awaiting moderation” or at least it does for me.
many
/ November 14, 2013So Terri,
You have no issues with a new development corridor on the Hope Valley Watershed?
You don’t think that the 1.3 Billion dollars could provide a better more comprehensive transit system that serves the population that needs it than a 12 mile LRT that links expensive apartments?
Right of ways exist now. they are called 15-501, highway 54, Martin Luther King Boulevard, etc. These tie in much better to current development and planning.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 14, 2013Deborah- there has never been any plan to provide LRT or any direct high speed transit (BRT) to RTP or RDU. The regional plan expects people to take LRT to the Durham station and then connect to a commuter train (not in operation) to RTP or RDU. That’s after they’ve driven to a park n ride and taken a bus to get to the LRT.
Of course now we have no idea what Wake will do.
Terri- LRT requires its own tracks and guideways – it doesn’t run on tradtional rail. for BRT – imagine a bus system – with dedicated guideway in the dense corridors only. Its all one system and the same vehicles can continue into communities.
Here’s what Eugene did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia3W6RBAJxY
The good news is that as more people are learning about TTAs plan – there’s a growing movement for a change in direction.
Del Snow
/ November 14, 2013Matt – I was quoting Prof. John Pucher, Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy and visiting Prof.essor of Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC from a conversation I had with him in May of this year.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 14, 2013Del -you mean the 40 year transportation expert who’s sabattical was abruptly cancelled when he started speaking out against LRT in favor of BRT?
Del Snow
/ November 14, 2013that’s the guy, Bonnie.
Gene Pease
/ November 15, 2013I am against spending the money on pursuing light rail and would rather invest in Bus Rapid Transit.
Terri Buckner
/ November 15, 2013John Pucher….. You mean the guy who was brought here to talk about bike-ped, who acknowledged he wasn’t an expert on LRT and hadn’t reviewed the local plan but shared his opinion anyway?
many
/ November 15, 2013yes…..John Pucher…..Ph.D…..Professor, Urban Planning and Policy Development Program and Research Associate…… a published expert on the socioeconomics of urban travel:
http://fmip.ornl.gov/2001/articles/socioeconomicsOfUrbanTravel.pdf
A subject that has obviously been completely ignored by TTA, so reading what amounts to shiny marketing collateral filled with glittering generalities and financial gobbledy gook was at best….. unimportant.
John Pucher, who, when asked his opinion on LRT by the N&O, innocently gave his honest assesment.. Too bad it didn’t align with TTA. Too bad his free speech was subsequently threatened by TTA minions.
Probably just another right wing libertarian outsider to one who “grilled TTA as hard as I could” though.
Terri Buckner
/ November 15, 2013Fortunately, he publicly clarified that he knew nothing about the Orange-Durham plan when he made an off-the-cuff comment, and his presence here was marred by the anti-plan activists quoting his comment as “evidence” against the plan.
Matt Czajkowski
/ November 15, 2013Way to go Gene Pease! One more elected official willing to take a clear position. The count of those willing to stand up is now as follows: No — Earl McKee, Gene Pease, Matt Czajkowski. Yes — Damon Sells, Where are the others? Remember — the question is should we risk $ 40 million dollars for LRT? There is the real risk we end up with nothing for it — and our transit efforts are set back by several years. Saying yes (or no) is quite fair — it’s a judgement — but not taking a position is irresponsible!
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 15, 2013John Pucher would vote support your no vote – even though he did read the plan and met with many of us. Even though he has personally worked with the FTA on clarifying the distinction between Transit-oriented development and transit dependent communities. Even though he’s networked into LRT and BRT projects globally.
His “no’ vote is because he believes that the polynodal configuration of the already sprawled Triangle is not well suited to a linear LRT line.
His “no” vote is because TTA’s plans do not serve transit dependent communities.
His “no” vote is because he believes that the FTA is presdisposed to fund newer BRT technlolgy over LRT projects because they are better value for the taxpayers.
His “no” vote is because he doesnt have a vested interest in his own bureaucracy and instead can focus on serving the public.
Matt, Gene, Earl – you are in good company with Dr Pucher and many
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 15, 2013Its surprising that Damon or any Carrboro leader would support the LRT spending. Isn’t the $29 consultant budget bigger than the entire annual budget of Carrboro?
Plus last night TTA explained that there’s been virtually no progress on the Hillsborough Train Station and bus expansion is going slower than expected.
Its hard to understand what Carrboro citizens are getting for their tax dollar.
many
/ November 15, 2013Unfortunately the knee jerk, reactive TTA crowd took out their anger on a guest in our community, rather than addressing the very real concerns of the fiscally responsible.
I for one, am embarrassed by you.
Matt Czajkowski
/ November 15, 2013Sadly the standard operating procedure of ideologues on both sides of virtually any political argument is to impugn the motives and credibility of any one who opposes their view. It is why it is so hard to have a reasoned discussion of the many challenging issues facing our community and our country. The issue here is not money for transit. There is almost virtual agreement on that. It is how we spend the money. The question at hand is how likely it is that the FTA will approve the proposed LRT project. We are putting over $40 million at risk – meaning we spend $40 million and risk getting NOTHING for it. The issue for the community — and especially its elected officials — is whether that is a risk we should take or not. Until three years ago TTA expected to get an earmark to pay for all this but Congress has thankfully put a stop to the earmark game for now. Without a lot of discussion the risk has moved from one potentially borne by the Federal government to one borne entirely by our local communities. How much discussion has there been of that? It’s fun to go to TTA presentations and look at the fancy (expensive) videos and talk about the details of the plan. Who will stand up a few years from now if BOTH the Federal and State government refuse to fund it. We will be several years behind and $40 million out of pocket. That is not an ideological issue. It is a matter of risk-reward. In any other realm that risk-reward analysis would be taken very seriously. Why not here?
Weigh in my fellow elected officials!
Del Snow
/ November 15, 2013It saddens me that so much vitriol is being flung around amongst people who all, presumably, have Chapel Hill and Orange County’s best interests at heart. Surely we can disagree without resorting to perjorative assertions.
Among other things, the LRT has been touted for its ability to help the workforce commute to both UNC and Duke. Does anyone know what the projected fare would be for LRT along with charges at the park and rides? We cannot count on the workforce being able to live on the transit corridor because only luxury units are being proposed. The few places where affordable units are being considered (15-501, Obey’s Creek) will not be served by LRT, so those people will still need a car (and gasoline) or a bus to get to the park and ride and the train.
I am wondering about the costs of this for the segment of our population that may really need it. Will that affect ridership? Thanks.
Matt Czajkowski
/ November 15, 2013Triangle Transit will be holding public workshops to provide information on proposed increases to regional bus fares and to get input.
11/18/2013 – 4:00pm – 7:00pm
Location:
Chapel Hill Public Library, 100 Library Drive, Chapel Hill
http://www.gotriangle.org/transit/fare-increase-proposal?/fareincrease
Do you think they’ll have more fancy videos? What input are they looking for — that we want them to raise fares?
many
/ November 15, 2013Matt,
You are bang on. People should voice their opinion pro or con to the proposals.
I would also remind folks that experts and economists from all political persuasions agree that making walkable, transit friendly development and communities is a key grassroots socioeconomic precursor to ridership and the ultimate success of public transit.
I make no secret of my viewpoint that the tax money we have set aside is far better spent on walkability than it is on the narrow, short sighted TTA LRT plan. We have many areas that are hampered by DoT and land use regulations and issues that will kill public transit unless they are solved. We need to solve those issues first.
Please consider taking back “our transit future” from those that are simply promoting a long term jobs program for consultants.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 16, 2013Good points Many. I’d add that we will always face operational issues with TTA providing regional serivce when “the last mile” is provided by CHT and OPT. Who’s driving the bus???
On Thursday – it became clear that the other projects in the plan (Hillsborough Amtrak station, MLK BRT, and expanded bus service) are being shortchanged so that TTA can focus its (our) resources on the LRT EIS.
The commissioners will hear from TTA in December – I wonder i fhtey will put the committed projects -all of them back on track.
Oh -and maybe I’m reading too much into it – but is David King signaling a concern about state and federal funding?
http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2013/11/15/3373610/transit-officials-bring-orange.html
Steve J
/ November 16, 2013I read the local blogs much as one looks at a train wreck.
You see, the arguments of the sort in this thread ultimately devolve into a stand-off, because they involve command of power over spending other people’s money. The division divides roughly into people having either a blind devotion to fostering, or impeding, that process.
There’s a third way.
Let me share, for a moment, and if you can, try to step away from the paradigms of yesterday and today … to another view.
Professionally, I am what most people would call a ‘futurist.’ I watch a VERY wide array of advancing and emerging technologies and try to project how they might affect the future, and then I advise investors accordingly. (On the side, seeing opportunities, I myself joined in and have so far received 27 awarded US patents.)
The local community, after the engineering school moved to Raleigh about 45 years ago, has been substantially relegated to promoting beliefs instead of realities, and this has provided me with a career! I digress.
Take a look at this URL:
http://ecoprt.com/
to get a glimpse of what can be, instead of arguing about LRT, BRT, and all that obsolete people-hauling technology promoted by legacy big iron corporations like Hyundai, Siemens, Bombardier, et. al.
As I often say: “Hey look, the 80s called … and they want their choo-choo back!”
PRT technology (of which the above link is just one example), along with the emergence of autonomous vehicles now being primarily fostered by Google, will result in such a massive change in the way we all get around in the future that people 20 or 25 years from now will gasp in astonishment when reading archives of blogs like this one. It will be the same astonishment that a modern child shows when he or she first sees a phonograph playing.
Earl McKee
/ November 16, 2013The part of the article in the Chapel Hill News that should concern everyone, pro or con, is a statement that “the agency also is investigating alternative resources”. This is code for having more of the cost fall on the local community in case State funding does not come thru. A lack of Federal funding will probability kill LRT.