greenvillegrows

I think the above statement is interesting considering the way the WYFF video ends. Other cities prioritize the funding needed for better transit. Citing "budgetary restrictions" is just another way of saying that someone doesn't think the issue is important enough to fund.

Summary of results from local survey about transit. Graphic included. 81% of respondants said it was very important for Greenville to have a good mass transit system. Only 3% said it wasn't important. What percentage of Greenville City Council or County Council members will prove that they think having a good mass transit system is important?

I would be amazed if any planner came in and said that tearing down the bridge or widening Church was a good idea unless they were pressured locally. Widening downtown roads leads to dreadful results nationwide. Also, the bridge is not long enough for people to bypass downtown, but it does help with traffic flow somewhat, so it's a good fit - one not easily duplicated. Interesting spaces are good for our downtown.

"Two City Council members who voted to scrap the Greenville Transit Authority for a new city-led bus system eight weeks ago now say they are concerned that the city is rushing too quickly toward plan B without the input of riders or experts." Link: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/.../707080312/1004 Does anyone else think this is an extremely strange turn of events? Vote to scrap the system several times over a period of months, after some kind of joint task force looks into the issue for months before that, but then don't agree to manage the GTA when it's all said and done, after even more time has passed because of a lack of input of riders or experts? I thought it was the "experts" that city council was peeved at to begin with, thus the exit of the General Manager followed by deciding not to scrap the system. What have they been doing all this time? How did that go... "Hey, I've got an idea - we don't like the way things are so let's shut it down and start over!" "Yeh, that sounds like a great idea!" "Let's blame management, OK?" "Perfect!" "Wait, you mean that someone wants us to actually take responsibility now? No way!" "We don't pick up the stones, we just throw them!" I have to say, I'm very disappointed. I expected better from the City of Greenville. Well, I hoped for better, anyway.

Actually, they can ignore the issue. They have ignored the issue for many years. They just haven't ignored the issue recently. At least, they have been talking about the issue, but I'm not sure talking about it is actually the same as doing something about it.

Can anyone say "referendum"? Charleston County South Carolina puts over $7 million into their transit system. Greenville County puts something like $250,000. The City supposedly puts in a little more. I don't know what individual municipalities put into the Charleston system. Does anyone really think that Greenville is trying to come up with a real transit system? If so, show me the money! Our elected politicians, our government managers, our civic employees, our community volunteers, and the news media have apparantly spent thousands of hours discussing how to be more frugal with our transit spending. What the? Who is spending the time necessary discussing how to spend more money? $500,000 versus $7,000,000 plus. How do you save your way into a real transit system?

After the vote article. "After the denial, Kirven said, "We wish GTA well, and the county's out of it." What does that mean? Sounds like "if I can't play by my rules I won't play", but the majority of county council voted to stick with the GTA. So, doesn't the county own part of the GTA? What does he mean "the county's out of it?".

Pre-vote articles: Article 1; Article 2 No one seems to think there was bad management anymore. Someone, please tell me that this hasn't just been a show to avoid putting more money into transit. I still don't hear anyone talking about actual improvements that the public will see.

I think this recent article summarizes the GTA/Transit issue in Greenville very well: Article 1 This second article is pretty hostile, but it, like the first article, certainly rings of "I write it as I see it". Unlike some "conspiracy theories" I've seen out there, it seems referenced pretty well and draws some reasonable conclusions from the referenced material. Here are some other recent articles: 1, 2. I can't believe that the discussion is all about how to save more money. Please tell me that someone is talking about how to make it feasible for the masses to use "mass" transit in Greenville.

I don't think we'd lose anything by trying it the city's way (whatever that is). My point is, that if the county doesn't want to recreate the entity that is mass transit in Greenville, why wouldn't the city try to work with the GTA for a change? It seems like all they do is try to get something from the GTA instead of put something into it. The city could do whatever it's been trying to do by dedicating funds to the GTA for a specific purpose (again, whatever that may be). My fear is that while big ideas are tossed about urbanplanet as probables, the city isn't pusuing any of them. If they were, they would present the ideas to the GTA and work together to obtain them. They'd have to do the same thing with a new system, commission, or whatever. If the GTA turns them down (if that's even possible), then the city could point to something that would have been possible had the GTA not been in the way.

The system is only troubled because the city won't put money into it. Almost all of the administration costs would get duplicated anyway. This is not about saving $100,000. If the city truly wanted to improve transit, it could do it though the GTA. Supposedly, the only difference in the authority of the new commission is that it would be five members (2 city, 2 county, 1 other). Currently it it's 2 city, 2 county, and 3 state (all of whom live in the city and county). Does anyone really think that if the city said "We want the GTA to run service up the swamp trail to Traveler's Rest, and we'll pay whatever the Federal Government won't", that the GTA would say, no, if you give us your money, we'll spend it however we want?

It shouldn't be about jurisdiction. They could operate Greenlink through the GTA more cheaply because of the federal money that is available to the GTA. But, the city would still have to pay for the portion that the Federal Government won't pay because the GTA doesn't have any extra money. That's what I've never understood. If the city is willing to pay for it. Why not step up and do it? Why blame it on someone else? Do you really think that the GTA has ever said "no, we won't operate service where the city wants it"? All I've read is, "we really don't have the money to do what the city is asking".

Did they really just run off the management and then say "wait a minute, we don't want to take responsibility"? I think the city's reasons to take over the GTA have been veiled. I think the county has been in the dark. I think that the city and county should have supported the existing organization. But, to let it go so far as to wait until after management resigns and then to say "oh, we were just kidding?" What is going on? Will the city and county step up and take responsibility for the destiny of the Greenville community when it comes to mass transit? Recent GNews articles: 1 2 3

2 articles from GNews. 1st article. 2nd article. Article 1: the GM is retiring and a memo goes out from the city appointed board members saying that it's "ridiculous" that she told the County Council that there may be some unforseen side effects to making a new system. The memo also claims that the GTA had no strategic plan, but the writer, Ben Szobody, says there was a 70 page plan put out by the GTA last year. The memo criticizes further claiming that there was an investigation into the GTA by the inspector general the lasted almost 2 years, but the article says that nothing came out of it. The ironic thing is, the critical memo sort of criticizes the GM for telling the County Council that it's not necessary to be so critical of the old system just to develop the new system. Article 2: the county council is saying that there may be a lot of side effects to making a new system -"bigger effort than envisioned...huge undertaking...lots of implications to the city. The city manager says no new funding is planned, and the mayor says the city's current plan is an extensive cleaning of equipment and the bus station - not quite 70 pages, but a start. I like the sentiment that there's not a need to keep criticizing the old in order to organize the new. Everytime the new criticizes the old, they have to measure up against the same standard or be criticized themselves.

Agreed. Agreed. It will be interesting to watch.

Has anyone kept up on the Charlotte Area Transit System? They have a construction update page that says that the rail is being put in already, and that in February some of the LRT vehicles were received and the light rail was being tested. They are going someplace. Seems like it would be cheaper to put in the infrastructure now then to wait until we're the size of Charlotte. The BRT/LRT plan to Traveler's Rest seems like a good place to start. Charlotte's trolleys are on a rail also. Again, cheaper now than later as real estate values in the downtown area continue to escalate. I hate hearing that Greenville County and City Councils are trying to save money by getting rid of the GTA. Seems like the only people that have been interested in promoting Greenville's transportation future has been the GTA. Unfortunately, no money = no service. I'd rather hear that instead of making the GTA pinch pennies, the City and County was finally opening their eyes to the future.

Several articles on GreenvilleOnline today. Before the vote. After the vote. Asking for input. This has to be a good thing. I don't think the system could get any smaller. There is no way we're getting the facts, though. I love this article from Friday which says that Jim Bourey and Joe Kernell repeated to county council "the key rationale that by taking over local bus service they could save money by eliminating the need for separate accountants, maintenance facilities and other overhead costs." And that they've been "talking several times a day about the new system". They've had months to look at the expenses of a small $3 million dollar organization which, as a recipient of Federal money has to undergo thorough finanical audits (which if I remember correctly were available to the so called Task Force), but when directly questioned about how much money they could save they said that "it was too hard to estimate". "We don't even know all the info at this time". What's really going on here? Did they really just vote to disband the GTA without being able to estimate how much it will cost to take over? Hopefully, they're planning on doing something innovative. I sure get sick of all the political positioning though. The city must be pushing this because they seem to go negative hard and quick when they want something.

Greenville News article: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs....D=2007704260373 Maybe things are headed in the right direction. Sounds like no one quite knows what they're doing but they're willing to start trying.

No, I'm not a developer, but I guess I've been around the block a time or two. I wasn't trying to distract from the discussion. Instead, I was hinting toward the idea that there are very few dice rollers out there that have money. The "let's sign that multi-million dollar, break me if I can't pull it off, note because the project should work" folks are usually not the same group as the "experienced" folks. If these are experienced developers, enough of the building is spoken for to take most of the risk out of it. If a bank's involved, the bank makes sure, often because the law makes them, that most of the risk is out of it. Because, even when most of the risk is taken out of something like this, there's still enough risk to make most folks stay away from putting their name on that note -- unless of course they had nothing to lose to begin with meaning they wouldn't qualify anyway. This isn't just true of development. Highrises will come when the demand to fill them is here. Developers don't invent demand, they supply it.

As with any large building, pre-sales are virtually the same as financing. If you have the one, you get the other. Even those lucky few who don't need that kind of financing, rarely use the "if you build it they will come" philosophy. I'd be suprised if almost all of the floors weren't already spoken for. Of course, that doesn't mean that the floors won't sell again before the construction is finished. Same thing goes for other highrises. The plans come and go, but if the floors aren't spoken for, they financing won't happen, and the building won't go up.

Actually, I may have partially answered my own question. Charleston did something similar in 2006. The plan they funded with a 1/2 cent sales tax: http://www.smallchangeforbigchange.org/pre...rtationPlan.pdf What they sent to the US Justice Department for approval of the vote: http://www.smallchangeforbigchange.org/ord...0Referendum.pdf The website explaining: http://www.smallchangeforbigchange.org/ Still don't know who in Greenville puts the ordinance on the ballot.

County Councilman Fred Payne's editorial: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs....D=2007704180341 Many of the transit sentiments are covered. The ways of paying for it aren't. A new image doesn't change how county councilmen feel about funding real mass transit as an alternative to automobile transportation. Councilman Payne is willing to ask businesses to fund it, but I doubt any Councilmen will suggest dedicating tax payers' money to it. Charleston, Columbia, and Charlotte, all seem to priortize transit much higher. I agree, posting opions in this forum may not do any good. How about posting opinions at the polls? What's the process for having the whole county vote on the issue? I bet more people could see the potential benefit than the County realizes.

Look at these comments from the article: "Council Chairman Butch Kirven said the measure would eliminate much of the struggling bus system's overhead costs such as human resources, maintenance and legal support, freeing up additional revenue to spend on buses." "It also would get rid of private management firm McDonald Transit and give the city and county more direct control over the local bus system" "Grier said ... he personally likes the idea because the cost of running human resources, accounting, inventory and other functions for a $3 million organization is "killing us." These things don't sound right. For a regional transit system, most maintance is paid by the Federal Government. Human resources alone can't be responsible for the dwindling, pathetic system - let alone be "killing" it. McDonald Transit runs transit all over the country: http://mcdonaldtransit.com/locations.htm. In the past, the city and county have never stepped up to fund transit, why will they be able to run it better than a national management company? Another large company, First Transit (http://www.firsttransit.com/customers_loc_profile.php), ran it before and got no support either. I think it all comes down to: "Asked Friday if reducing overhead costs is a way for the county to avoid increasing its slice of transit funding, Kirven said the proposal "probably would have that effect." Neither Greenville County, nor the City prioritizes real transit. The County will contribute less and the City is going to pick up big bucks in the way of real estate development. I wouldn't be suprised to hear that the Hughes or Centennial American pick up another project on the GTA's property within 2 years after this all happens. Greenlink is a great idea. But it needs real mass transit to support it. Otherwise, it's just another tourist ride.

It's interesting that both the city and county are simultaneously developing their own ideas for BRT/LRT. Rapid Transit only works as part of a system (you can't step off and be expected to walk a half mile to work). Has there ever been financial backing for the normal bus system in Greenville? I've read that they operate only a fraction of the system compared to Charleston or Charlotte - that means operational funding issues. I can't imagine that the Federal Government would pay for the infrastructure being discussed without a support system in place (otherwise everyone would do it just for the project benefit). I know that the city did some trolleys downtown, but that seemed more like tourism than transit.