You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Who does LRT railroad?”.
Who does LRT railroad?
by Nancy Oates on November 21, 2016
• Permalink
Tagged Light Rail
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 21, 2016
http://chapelhillwatch.com/2016/11/21/who-does-lrt-railroad/
Previous Post
How we can win
How we can win
Next Post
Living Stronger Together
Living Stronger Together
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
Judith Mellyn
/ November 21, 2016It is time elected officials at all levels of Durham and Orange governance demand that GoTriangle halt this financially destructive project and utilize those aspects of it that can be converted into an effective transportation plan similar to Wake County’s inclusive bus, BRT and commuter rail at far lower cost. Durham and Orange County’s ability to generate tax revenue should be zealously guarded by our elected officials in their fiduciary role, protecting available and future resources needed for education, affordable housing, healthcare, infrastructure, social safety nets, public transportation. We cannot afford to starve these needs to feed the voracious appetite of the D-O-LRT project that serves so few.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 21, 2016Who does LRT railroad – it appears that GoTriangle is railroading the commissioners and when they are railroaded, we all lose.
Before they commit to any more money for LRT, the commissioners can ask for a full review of the project, including alternatives. But they wont do it if they suspect that only white rural residents are watching.
Since LRT only services UNC and Durham, why arent’ Chapel HIll residents coming out and questioning this development.
The finances are troubling. the timing is alarming. #wearenotthiseither
Terri
/ November 21, 2016Trying to turn the LRT issue into a racial conflict is really, really low, Bonnie. Nor do I believe LRT is railroading anyone.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about LRT. Getting cars off 15-501 will benefit the environment and add health benefits to many. I do believe it is the best long-term choice for transit, but it is expensive, especially with these new changes at the state and federal level. And as I’ve said at every one of the Go Triangle public meetings, I don’t think they’ve done a good job of communicating how the system will be used. The oft repeated mantra that this is a project that benefits only Duke and UNC is example one of a misconception that just keeps on being repeated and not corrected.
It’s also odd to me that there are so many calls for infrastructure investments and then opposition to infrastructure projects like this.
Plurimus
/ November 21, 2016Terri I think the issues with DOLRT are many and make it untenable.
Any “benefit” to the environment is completely over shadowed by the route through a critical watershed.
Any benefit to the economy is offset by the tremendous cost per mile/per ride and the fact that LRT will drive up land values forcing those with modest incomes further out. Further. DOLRT is a money pit. Look at how much “The Tide” a comparable line in Hampton Roads Va, subsidizes $6.68 per ride. I know all transit gets some subsidy, but the average for cars and buses is ~2.50 to $3.00, and roads carry commercial traffic while DOLRT will not. The money if spent on less flashy, more flexible and modest transit solutions would go a lot further and enable many more options.
DOLRT compromises public safety with at grade crossings that we are paying millions to eliminate statewide elsewhere. Makes no sense.
There is a high likelihood that new technologies and business models will obsolete an inflexible 19th century DOLRT transit solution.
Gotriangle’s know it all attitude and slanted, selective data is painfully apparent.
The commissioners that support this mess are pushing this DOLRT thing up a hill for the benefit of developers and it is past time for people to let then know who they need to listen to and stop squandering our transit tax dollars on this white elephant.
bart
/ November 21, 2016I’ve been attending various meetings about this project for a few years now. I’ve never understood who will ride this. 54 is crowded now during rush hours (mainly because of the light at Farrington), but many of those cars are going east on 40, not straight on to Durham. I understand that the rail plan calls for massive park and ride lots.
So is the thinking that drivers will get to within 5 miles of work, park, walk to the train stop, wait, ride the train, get off and walk to work?
Terri
/ November 21, 2016I think the expectation is that they use the LRT for the distance travel and then use local buses or walk once they get to Chapel Hill or Durham.
From what I’ve read the cost savings with LRT is primarily through quantity of ridership. Supposedly people like LRT better than bus or BRT. But like Bart, I’ve never seen any reliable data on expected ridership or rider profiles.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 21, 2016Bart – you are exactly right – and its one of the controversial issues around LRT. Its a win for Durham developers although I’m at a loss as to how the city is going to fare with all those at grade crossings. For Orange, its all for UNC – to get people on campus or along their growing healthcare corridor on 54.
Wake will be adding BRT county wide – and commuter rail using existing tracks. Wake and Chapel Hill have learned that BRT provides the benefits of LRT at about 1/5 of the cost. Wake is planning Uber and driverless vehicles for last mile service. Its genuinely flexible and forward thinking.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 22, 2016There’s a petition circulating -asking the commissioners to fully review the project and how the new request fits given the county’s other funding priorities.
https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-look-and-listen-petition-to-orange-county-commissioners.html#.WDRTySHdUrY.facebook
Plurimus
/ November 22, 2016According to Arron Nelson “10 years is too long” and since there is no GoTriangle plan for transit to RDU, an “express bus is being planned” (not sure by whom).
http://www.wral.com/officials-traffic-relief-for-nc-54-can-t-come-quick-enough-/16262758/
Beside the obvious cost savings couldn’t BRT be up and running much faster than LRT?
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 22, 2016Wake County’s entire plan will be up and running – including BRT county wide – before the first LRT train leaves the station.
So in a word “yes”
Bruce Springsteen
/ November 23, 2016I think it’s more than the economy that led some of those people to vote for Trump. The PC stuff has reached such a crazy level that there’s a backlash against it. On one hand a Christian baker that refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding is crucified (pun intended) and on the other a Muslim fundamentalist kills 50 gay people in a nightclub while taking a break in the middle of the slaughter to post on Facebook that he’s doing it specifically for religious reasons and then people that bring religion into the discussion about it are called Islamophobes. That and many other things going on are just plain absurd (as well as illiberal) and there’s a reaction to it.
The best description of the recent election that I’ve heard was that many people that voted for Trump took him seriously but not literally and many people that voted against Trump took him literally but not seriously.
As far as LRT goes, considering that we’re in the midst of a revolution in technology that will change how people are transported, I think fixed rail, or “fixed” anything with regards to transportation is silly. It’s like permanently locking into one operating system early in the computer revolution.
bart
/ November 23, 2016If driverless cars become practicable, wouldn’t it be better to use a string of those on an as needed basis to ferry people? At least they wouldn’t be “fixed” and could be used for other trips when not needed during rush hours.
As an aside, I saw where the first driverless semi delivered its haul (beer) recently. What happens to all the truckers who make a decent blue-collar living?
Plurimus
/ November 23, 2016bart, to your first question; yes. A more granular transit system would also allow for people to get much closer to their destination, perhaps even providing point to point service.
Your second question is the important one. Many predict that 6% of US jobs (at first mostly low skilled) will be replaced by machines and AI by 2021. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Skilled jobs such as pilots and journalists are already being supplanted by machines.
With the same data IBM’s Watson has clearly demonstrated diagnostic and predictive abilities superior to that of doctors and analysts. Even more important is that AI has demonstrated the ability to “learn”
Of course some new jobs will be created and we all know that technology rarely fully delivers on the marketing hype, but given how government has failed people over the last two decades even results of the most modest of predictions are not at all pretty.
bart
/ November 26, 2016I was thinking about this project (for the umpteenth time) and remembered some years ago various stories about the massive adoption of cell phones in countries without much wired communication.
The stories lauded the idea that these places could leap over all the digging and stringing of phone wire in favor of connecting its people via cell service. Less maintenance, less disruption, lower cost, etc.
While it was probably a “glass half full” story about how cell phones helped poorer areas become more connected, I looked at the technology side.
Why would anyone build a legacy system when a massive swerve in technology is already coming into view? Why not push the envelope and try something new?
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 26, 2016Bart – write to the commissioners and ask they why they would spend so much on a fixed rail system when BRT can provide more for a lot less money
ocbocc@orangecountync.gov
Terri
/ November 28, 2016I haven’t read this full study but it looks like the kind of analysis I think needs to be done locally. Basically, it found that “Rail transit does have significant costs. Rail transit requires about $12.5 billion annually in public subsidy, which averages about $90 additional dollars annually per rail transit city resident compared with Bus Only cities. However, these extra costs are offset several times over by economic benefits, including $19.4 billion in congestion costs savings, $8.0 billion in roadway cost savings, $12.1 billion in parking cost savings, $22.6 billion in consumer cost saving, and $50 billion in reduced crash damages.” http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 29, 2016Terri- There’s elegance in a good fit. We do not have the scale or the experience to do a study like this. The first chart shows that we = have the scale of a bus community.
The DOLRT plan speculates about ridership that doesn’t currently exist – and based on Charlotte’s experience, there’s no assurance that if you build it, they will come” Charlotte commuters are choosing uber over LRT. Remember, LRT users have to drive to the train.
How about this for starters – a basic plan to put countywide service in place to build ridership. Its evolutionary and is a great first step for Wake. More value, less risk. http://www.waketransit.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Recommended-Wake-County-Transit-Plan_12-07-15.pdf
I can’t seem to copy it to this comment – but if you want a comparison of costs for LRT vs BRT vs commuter rail, I can send it to you. Basically LRT capital costs 5-10 times as much as BRT per mile. Operating costs for LRT are 30-50% higher than BRT. Based on GoTriangles estimates, BRT service is faster.
Terri
/ November 29, 2016Bonnie, the economic analysis in this report isn’t difficult and there are plenty of resources available in this community to do such a study. You are welcome to your opinion but let’s acknowledge that your opinion is biased against this project.
What everyone needs to understand is that this kind of investment (and I’m still on the fence about it) comes with costs and benefits that are not part of an accounting analysis. The environmental and social benefits and costs don’t show on a ledger sheet. The study I referenced points to a balance of benefits when they are considered.
Plurimus
/ November 29, 2016Terri, if DOLRT has these intangible economic development aspects why isn’t it being sold as such?
Will Raymond has pointed to cutting a new swath through the New Hope watershed as offsetting any environmental benefits and electric buses are just as clean and much cheaper.
LRT has the known effect of raising land values and forcing low and moderate income people to live elsewhere. Additionally, as I have pointed out the taxes funding DOLRT are very regressive so I just don’t see any social gains.
Am I missing something?
David
/ November 29, 2016Terri,
I haven’t read the entire study you referenced, but the excerpt you provided seems to be comparing rail to auto transport, not rail to BRT, which is the comparison of interest here. From my reading, BRT can provide many of the same economic development benefits and cost savings as does light rail at lower capital and operating costs and with greater long-term flexibility.
Here’s an excerpt from an article entitled “Putting our towns on the path toward good public transit”:
“In sum, I don’t think our cities should be making massive rail investments merely because they think it will encourage wealthy people to finally give public transit a shot. I’d rather focus time, effort and even money on changing the culture around busing and adjusting bus routes for increasing ridership—proving that it can save people time, money and stress— and eventually transitioning to Bus Rapid Transit where appropriate. (Making public transit safer for women should also be a priority.) In some cities, rail is ideal and the community is ready for that investment, but in many like mine, I think it’s too risky.”
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/11/1/putting-our-towns-on-the-path-toward-good-public-transit
Terri
/ November 29, 2016David, take a look at the article I posted. It compares full blown LRT with “light” LRT as well as vehicle. I think BRT would classify as light LRT.
As I recall you are an economist so you understand classic cost benefit analysis. What are the costs of not building more and/or wider roads? What are the pollution offsets? etc.
Pluribus–Will Raymond is a smart guy but I sincerely doubt he has done the full environmental analysis on the wetlands and is saying what he thinks to be true. We can either continue to treat this issue on peoples “gut” feelings or we can be truly data driven. I vote for data driven.
Plurimus
/ November 29, 2016I vote for fact driven.
It’s a fact that DOLRT will bypass all (not some) of the newly approved development in Chapel Hill. It’s a fact that DOLRT costs much more per mile than BRT. It’s a fact that DOLRT is bypassing much of the “brownfield” development on 15-501 in favor of a newly carved transit corridor through the New Hope watershed. It’s a fact that the taxes used to support DOLRT are regressive and a fact that DOLRT will not serve in any way most of the people footing the bill. It’s a fact that in most, if not all cities that have implemented DOLRT the low and moderate income people have been forced out. It’s a fact that Duke U opposes DOLRT on safety and access grounds.
I could go on, but the negative factual data seem to outweigh the positive by a wide margin. Again, this seems like an economic development fantasy that cannot stand on its own disguised as a “transit” program.
CitizenWill
/ November 29, 2016Terri, I have looked at the preliminary assays plus older EPA & DWQ reports for other projects in the corridor.
I also reviewed Charlotte and other current LRT projects to get a sense of how different projected impacts differed from eventual impacts (want to guess if the impacts were underestimated or not?).
Between the Emerald Tower and UNC the proposed route directly traverses 5 major watersheds. It also passes through the steep sloped Hwy54 waterfowl impoundment and Jordan Gamesland.
Worse than the track alignment is all the new propsed (high priced) residential on existing undeveloped greenfields along that same stretch.
I find GoTriangle’s silence on the secondary environmental consequences quite telling.
There will be significantly more impervious surface generating polluted flows into these critical watersheds, significantly less forest and grasslands to sop it up.
When I asked a GoTriangle rep how many cars are expected to park-n-ride or sit in front of all these new residences, he blandly responded that it wasn’t a concern. No surprise as over the last 8 years the attitude has been that the only relevant environmental issues for this plan are the ones that directly impede the alignment.
Forget “total cost of ownership”. Damn the torpedos, etc.
Finally, I find it even more telling as far as which masters GoTriangle serves in the absolute resistance to build a project that fits the budget.
Developers who stand to cash in bigtime once again get preference over those footing the environmental and economic bills.
Plurimus
/ November 29, 2016“Developers who stand to cash in bigtime once again get preference over those footing the environmental and economic bills.”
……and are being enabled by a regressive funding instrument.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 29, 2016Is safety of interest? DOLRT has over 40 at grade crossings in Durham and Orange
http://ripgatewaycorridor.blogspot.com/2012/04/light-rail-accidents-crashes-deaths.html?m=1
Terri
/ November 29, 2016“Worse than the track alignment is all the new propsed (high priced) residential on existing undeveloped greenfields along that same stretch.”
Will, are you saying that these developments won’t be built if LRT isn’t moved forward?
David
/ November 30, 2016“As I recall you are an economist so you understand classic cost benefit analysis.”
Terri, my graduate degree is in psychology, but, yes, I understand classic cost benefit analysis. And as best I can tell, BRT would deliver much the same benefit as LRT, e.g., including decreasing the need for road widening and reduced air pollution (especially if the buses are electric), at lower cost.
CitizenWill
/ November 30, 2016Terri, I don’t think a number of the proposed sprawling large-scale developments located on greenfields adjacent to the proposed LRT stations would be built.
Bonnie Hauser
/ November 30, 2016Dont fret David – Terri thinks I’m an accountant and doesn’t realize that I am a business management consultant with a specialty in strategic planning, priority setting and cost restructuring.
In this case, all you have to do is read. The data is clear that BRT capital is a fraction of LRT and the operating costs are lower. And because of all the environmental accommodations, BRT is now faster than LRT.
We’ve known about the fiscal problems for months and nothing was done. Instead of asking for a critical project review, our commissioners want to pledge their support for LRT -and hope that they’ll be able to course correct later – after the fed funds are approved based on their pledge.
Lets take their side- they have to first find money to fund $125 million to pay for the school and housing bonds. Then there’s LRT. Imagine what they are going to do when the legislature says they are cutting funds to affluent school districts? Maybe they can hold classes on the trains
Terri
/ December 1, 2016“…as best I can tell, BRT would deliver much the same benefit as LRT, e.g., including decreasing the need for road widening and reduced air pollution (especially if the buses are electric), at lower cost.”
Recent research has shown that electric vehicles may reduce air pollution from the vehicle, but increase the pollution from the additional electricity generation. One study found a -5 cents per mile of environmental benefit for electric vehicles (Andrew Yates, UNC Economics). So while the “common knowledge” says that electric vehicles are more environmentally friendly, a detailed cost benefit analysis (which looks at social and environmental factors as well as financial) challenges that common knowledge.
That’s my fear for this whole LRT discussion. It comes with such an enormous price tag that it’s really difficult to have a conversation around factually based costs and benefits. It’s a discussion that reminds me of the Sierra Club’s big push to move to natural gas instead of coal for the UNC cogen plant. The water quality and geological problems (earthquakes) from fracking were never part of the conversation. Common knowledge said coal is dirty so anything was seen as better. I doubt if the folks in Oklahoma agree with that “common knowledge” today.
As I’ve said, I’m still on the fence. But I don’t believe that those who are pushing so loudly against this project have sufficient information to make a truly fact based decision.
Plurimus
/ December 1, 2016“Recent research has shown that electric vehicles may reduce air pollution from the vehicle, but increase the pollution from the additional electricity generation. One study found a -5 cents per mile of environmental benefit for electric vehicles (Andrew Yates, UNC Economics).”
-True, but that same caveat holds true for the electric LRT as well, eh? Also, obviously all electric generation is not equal in terms of environmental impact or cost. How do the Oklahoma earthquakes compare with mountaintop removal in West Virginia and Kentucky? Can such a comparison even be made in a purely unemotional way?
I think that the politicians, developers and hipsters that are glossing over this economic travesty claiming that the analysis has been done are far less informed than the opponents. Go Triangle has definitely not helped the analysis with its lack of transparency.
Terri
/ December 2, 2016The Southern Environmental Law Center continues to support this project:
“The Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project is at a key juncture as it begins to progress through the engineering and design phases. The project represents an exciting opportunity for North Carolina’s Research Triangle to incorporate reliable, environmentally-friendly public transit into the regional transportation network. SELC has been a strong proponent of this project because of its potential to encourage compact, smart land use in the Durham-Orange corridor, as opposed to car-oriented, sprawling land use that disturbs natural areas and increases local air pollution.”
Their feedback on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) can be found here:
https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/words_docs/2015-10-13_Durham-Orange_LRT_Project_Comments_re_DEIS_from_SELC.pdf
Terri
/ December 2, 2016Duke also reaffirms their support:
“GoTriangle received a letter from Duke University President Richard Brodhead on Friday, December 2nd reaffirming the University and Duke University Health System’s continued support for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project.”
http://www.gotriangle.org/news/article?item=159cd4e9-4b10-4d89-be09-e432160b640e
Plurimus
/ December 2, 2016Funny how Duke the Hospital and Duke the University are at odds on this.
I notice neither are kicking in any money, so I guess it’s “yea taxpayers”.
CitizenWill
/ December 2, 2016SELC confusedly thinks DOLRT serves “North Carolina’s Research Triangle” and that “smart land use” involves environmentally destructive development in major watersheds and wildlife reserves while Duke’s Brodhead (buddy of Durham Mayor Bell) is more than happy to endorse with words but not with money.
Stellar endorsements.
CitizenWill
/ December 2, 2016To quote the SELC “SELC has been a strong proponent of this project because of its potential to encourage compact, smart land use in the Durham-Orange corridor, as opposed to car-oriented, sprawling land use that disturbs natural areas and increases local air pollution.”
Yet, there is nothing in Durham, Orange county’s or Durham, Chapel Hill’s city’s land-use plans or ordinances that ensures the “compact” development along the LRT (on, as I’ve noted before, environmentally sensitive areas) which will prevent sprawl or air pollution.
Worse, if the SELC really was worried about development that “disturbs natural areas”, it would be calling for a route that was lined with brownfields, that was the shortest possible way to deliver the maximum transit benefits. Instead it is supporting a route that guarantees huge residential development on transit nodes sited in critical watersheds, on existing greenfields where there has been little or no commitment to ameliorate the aggregated damage caused.
That the SELC not only buys into but supports the pretense that these 7 to 10 new “Meadowmonts” stretching along 15-501, I40 and Hwy54 won’t add thousands of car trips, require thousands of impermeable parking spaces and vastly reduced tree canopy/vegetative buffers to soak up stormwater before it reaches Jordan is disappointing.
Bonnie Hauser
/ December 3, 2016and Duke announces its new president !http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article118410498.html
Terri
/ December 4, 2016“The Federal Highway Administration estimates that households in auto-dependent locations spend 25 percent of their income on transportation. …Reducing auto travel is key to addressing road congestion as well as to reducing our carbon footprint.”
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/chn-opinion/article118189398.html#storylink=cpy
plurimus
/ December 4, 2016“For all households, reduced dependence on automobiles offers the benefit of a lower cost of living.”
Talk about fake news…..the N&O strikes again.
The first sentence should be amended to say “For those households that can afford it, reduced dependence on automobiles offers the benefit…….”
Those of low and moderate income forced to move further and further away from jobs and shopping by soaring land values and rents are negatively impacted. Furthermore, the regressive taxes used to fund DOLRT is a second slap in the face to those of limited means.
How many families are going to move into those 800sq foot +2K a month Environ Way and Meadowmont apartments? How much affordable housing might be built close to DOLRT when it is not explicitly in the plan? Promises mean nothing to the displaced.
Decouple DOLRT from the regional transit plan and it does not pass the laugh test. Without the DOLRT, the rest of the plan still makes sense and would benefit immeasurably from spending those DOLRT dollars wisely.
CitizenWill
/ December 4, 2016I never thought I’d have to fight “progressives” who push trickle down (housing) economics or cling so feverishly to a transit plan that only benefits wealthy riders and subsidizes developer profits over the environmental and social good.
Priorities are really skewed when we can’t carve out a few million additional dollars a year for affordable housing or social services in a county with roughly 30% people living in poverty but when GoTriangle, who already missed its original budget target by 39%, comes calling for $4M+ / year for a project that will serve mainly the well-off, it’s “no problem”.
Terri
/ December 5, 2016My email to the county commissioners:
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to request that you vote to continue the light rail discussion with Go Triangle this evening. We’ve invested too much money, time, and effort to end the discussion without looking for a palatable way out of the funding deficit. Funding gaps can be filled in many ways and we deserve to know what those options are before we pull the rug out from under a project this far along.
Please note that I am not endorsing a commitment to invest new funds from Orange County; only that we ensure that we know all the options and make an informed decision before taking a step that could altogether eliminate light rail or other regional mass transit as an option well into the future.
CitizenWill
/ December 5, 2016Terri,
“We’ve invested too much money, time, and effort to end the discussion” is falling into the “sunk cost” and “escalation of commitment” fallacies which often lead to very poor outcomes.
Without a commitment to “take a breather” and review the costs and benefits now, we’re actually wasting even more resources.
By signing the “non-binding” agreement, the BOCC gives GoTriangle the permission to start spending big dollars on the engineering studies in Feb. I expect that if there is a call to “pause” for a review after those expenditures the same fallacious “sunk cost” arguments will be used to push further for a broken system.
The original agreement had a built-in mechanism to take such a “pause” if there was a material change, of which there has been a number. There was a reason for that inclusion – it was part of the pledge for due diligence and prudent oversight over the public’s monies. Lets use it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost_fallacy
Plurimus
/ December 5, 2016I argue that we should “….ensure that we know all the options and make an informed decision…” we must do it before we enter the engineering phase. Throwing good money after bad is not a plan for success.
Terri
/ December 5, 2016That’s fine Will. But if they vote not to move forward tonight, there is no “breather.” It means all discussions end and anything the comes out of the “breather” starts from scratch. It means we lose our place in line for federal funding and move to the bottom of the list. Your “breather” has serious, long-term consequences. We may be able to achieve the same outcome without eliminating any possibility of transit for the future (including the BRT option).
And I’d like to know what happens to the transit tax funds if they vote no.
Plurimus
/ December 5, 2016Terri, if this was the case then why did GoT wait until the 11th hour to make this request? Sounds like a false urgency to me.
I frankly do not believe that a so called “non binding” letter could make or break this deal. Rather, I think its a way to nullify the Material Change clause.
GoT and the politicians that support it have been less than forthcoming and honestly I do not think DOLRT will pass close independent scrutiny. Why agree to spend more money before finding out?
Terri
/ December 5, 2016Because no one can predict the final outcome. Duke has extensive land holdings along the planned route. If they donate easements, it could significantly change the funding deficit.
I don’t know the organizational structure of GoTriangle, but they have a board of directors in addition to their staff so each community is represented in every decision.
What happens to the organization if OC pulls out of light rail? Do the services of GoT have to be taken over by the county? So many unanswered questions and so many conflicting opinions. The financial costs for operating another 4-5 months may be minimal in comparison to the chaos of an poorly thought out decision.
CitizenWill
/ December 5, 2016Terri, even if Duke contributed all of the easements, how much of a dent in the $110M/mile cost will that make? $200M over the 17 mile extent?
Also, as Plurimus notes, this 11th hour tactic is a tried and true way to force a bad decision.
There is nothing to support claims that the Feds will toss us on the heap, we will lose our place in line, etc.
Look at Wake’s situation – by building a better plan it has positioned itself more strongly in terms of getting Fed dollars. Reassessing after the several material changes in this plan is only prudent.
As far as “predicting”, some of us did predict costs would go up, Federal funding wouldn’t gel and alternatives would get short shrift back when the transit tax was passed.
Terri
/ December 5, 2016Will,
I’m not arguing with you on any detail other than what decision the BOCC should make tonight. They don’t have to make any decision except to consider new information over the next couple of months. They don’t have to commit to new funding or any thing else concrete. I can see no downside to having an open mind and letting this process go forward for a brief time while all the details, including those for what happens if Orange County pulls out, are solidified.
CitizenWill
/ December 5, 2016“They don’t have to commit to new funding or any thing else concrete.”
Terri, GoT will have a difficult time justifying big dollar engineering studies in Feb. if the funding memorandum isn’t approved. I’d rather those monies be spent on an independent review of our current transit needs and alternative solutions – certainly would put OC in a better position to address transit as we now know more than we did when originally approved.
Also, can’t underestimate the impact of nullifying OC’s ability to “pause” in the future for just such a review. I agree with Plurimus, this is a bald attempt to remove the possibility of just such a review when the numbers work out even worse for the DOLRT distraction.
Finally, since GoTriangle has made it exceedingly difficult to determine how many “dual dollars” are being spent on personnel, activity that supports both its current operations and planning for LRT, this review will give the BOCC an opportunity to audit the very particular expenditures made to date to make sure that they are going directly to the intended function.
Terri
/ December 5, 2016“GoT will have a difficult time justifying big dollar engineering studies in Feb. if the funding memorandum isn’t approved.”
So give them until February to come back with a funding proposal instead of pulling the rug out now.
I think what’s at stake here is regional transit. Since the majority of Chapel Hill/Carrboro residents work elsewhere and since the majority of UNC/UNC Healthcare employees commute into town from elsewhere, regional transit should be a priority IMHO. Does your opposition to light rail (and your distrust of GoTriangle) mean that you do not support regional transit planning?