2030 Transit Plan

[monsoon]

This is no longer a question about ridership as the system planned for Charlotte has dismally low planned ridership so even if they meet their numbers it's not going to make any difference in the scheme of things. Instead it is the fact that CATS is collecting $75M/year in transit tax money and is basically not spending it on anything else that will make a difference except it's own buerocracy and now very inefficient bus service. They have been chasing ridership numbers to the exclusion of all else, and as a result are happy to put an entire bus on a route if it means just picking up a few riders/day. It's a huge waste of the tax and there is absolutely no incentive for CATS and the City to change this status quo. It's also a huge lost opportunity to do more with the tax.

Because of the above and while this is a county tax, the county and the towns are seeing very little benefit from what CATS had done with the money and what they plan to do with it with the 2030 plan. Except for the few express buses that run each day, CATS has done almost nothing for the the towns and county and I question why they should continue to fund the organization given the lack of service, accountability, and making any difference at all in these areas.

[ChiefJoJo]

It's amazing to see the resistance to density from some of the politicians on the transit issue, as if somehow it's bad for the county or implying that people are being forced into urban living. Hello? Is anyone home? Density and urban infill help to reduce the tax burden for everyone, especially the burbs and their "houses with lawns." For every condo that goes up, that's probably tens of acres of open space saved on the fringes of the city. Yes, transit investment up front is expensive, but increasing capacity is comparitively cheap vs roads, and utimately, it will allow for more density and efficient land use where it would otherwise not occur, which again, keeps property taxes low, reduces auto dependency, promotes better health, better air quality, etc.

All of these folks who support the repeal fail to make the connection between the sprawl that has gripped the area for 40 years and the traffic congestion that exists now. All those "houses with lawns" and their 2.5 cars in the driveway sure didn't help the matter... and guess what, if the transit tax is repealed, there isn't any more money coming for roads. So, what the politicians are saying is 'let's just continue doing what we've been doing and hope the problem goes away.' Yeah, that's real leadership...

[Neo]

I would feel much better about this possible repeal if it were happening next November instead of this year. At least then we could all see how the 'choo choo's' and Ron Tober's replacement do in 2008. At the moment I'm not sure everyone will be making an educated vote but instead voting just because they heard something bad on the news or a rumor here or there. Very few people, IMO, will be voting based on what they believe is fact and I find that extremely disheartening to the future of transit in this city.

[Mobuchu]

I dont agree that the bus system is inefficient. It takes time for new lines to grab hold and create new riders. Every year the ridership #'s go up for the bus system. People need to get used to the lines, its schedule, and ultimately give up their cars. In suburban Charlotte this is a very tough task. Results are not going to happen overnight.

It is also becoming more and more evident that if this tax is repealed, that there will be less transit, not more. The commisioners that spoke in support of the repeal argued against densification and smart growth, not beefing up the transit system and spending more money on it. I am all for supporting a better plan if someone can come up with one (which nobody has), but voting down that tax is not going to accomplish that, only make things worse. We can argue all day as to whether the 2030 plan is going to make a difference, but I would argue its irrelevant, because the repeal is becoming a debate between keeping the 2030 plan and improving it, or the anti transit/suburban crowd wanting more roads.

[Charlotte_native]

I'm asking because I really don't know...what is included in those 177% costs? Is the purchase of new vehicles included? The maintenance facility off Tryon Street construction and the move there? New bus stops? Or is it just operating costs like paying drivers, gas, and maintenance?

It it includes all of the above then building and adding and purchasing would make those numbers make more sense. If not it is a different story.

[1979Heel]

You know, I have no data for this. But I expect that when the blue line opens, it will quickly be overwhelmed with riders. If I had to drive less-than-express-way I77 every day to the center city from, say, Ballantyne or Baxter Village, I can't imagine why I wouldn't avail myself of the blue line. I guess we'll soon find out.

[cinco]

are you really putting all that blame on CATS?? the only line that is currently being built was originally planned to run to downtown pineville - where it was met with opposition that defeated that plan. the same thing seems to be beginning to play out in the northern cities. maybe some in these burb towns want connected, progressive transit but feel it isn't happening quick enough (in which i can agree)...

however, i feel what is really happening is a culture clash between the suburb and urban mentalities. most in the suburbs move there to divide themselves from things they don't want in a more urban enviornment - yet they are still close enough to enjoy the urban amenities when they choose or need. i believe the majority of these VOTING citizens who oppose the transit tax reside in the suburbs. throw in the fact that everyone who opposes the transit plan is paying for it - and that causes very vocal resentment. (even though they could simply drive across the county line to buy their goods - and avoid participating in the tax).

it is unfair to conclude that cats is the sole reason that these towns haven't or won't see any benefit from the transit tax - especially when we are seeing opposition by neighboring cities that threaten to shut it down - before they COULD even possibly see benefits.

i too, wish there were a way this whole thing could have been done differently. especially in hind sight. i wish the city of charlotte could have gone at this alone... build and pay for the transit lines within city limits and if neighboring communities want in - they would be responsible for picking up that cost.

ultimately it's a shame that there is opposition - for whatever reasons. it would be nice to be better connected so i could enjoy some of these smaller towns. i would be thrilled to be able to hop on a train and spend an afternoon eating and shopping in DT huntersville, pineville, concord etc.

as it stands now, for many reasons (few of which have little to do with the actual town) - i am not motivated to hop in my car for the same experience.

[sax184]

This is one person's opinion. Quoting the ridership projections authoritatively is like saying "we know for certain that on Monday, Sept 24th, 2023, it will be partly sunny with a high of exactly 82 degrees and a low of exactly 58."

The ridership forecast is a PREDICTION. Most of the predictions accepted by the FTA in recent years have been LOW by large factors, sometimes over 60% off. I look forward to seeing the real numbers on the line a year or so after opening.

As to the comments from the Commissioners, it's fascinating to see the truth come out. "Rail transit is a threat to our way of life." Has anybody noticed that about 90% of the Charlotte metro area is completely suburban? Do people really think those houses are going to disappear? Maybe they think so. It boggles the mind.

Well, at least they're on record so these statements can be juxtaposed with the ones they'll make in a few years about how CATS needs to hurry up and get rail to their area.

[monsoon]

The ridership forecast is a PREDICTION. Most of the predictions accepted by the FTA in recent years have been LOW by large factors, sometimes over 60% off. I look forward to seeing the real numbers on the line a year or so after opening.....

[1979Heel]

As to the comments from the Commissioners, it's fascinating to see the truth come out. "Rail transit is a threat to our way of life."

Ain't it the truth. I nearly spilled my coffee when I read that this morning. I guess the truth will eventually come out, but I expected better from Dan Bishop. [We just don't like those Yankees, city folks, gays, etc etc and blahblahblah...I need me a Chevy Suburban and blahblah and bloviatebloviate and oh good grief.]

Nearly 30 years of MARTA has barely budged Atlanta's suburban cul-de-sac way of life. Except for Midtown, maybe Buckhead near Lenox and a few nodes (Lindbergh, for example) Atlanta is as suburban as it ever was.

It's undeniable that Charlotte's whole character is suburban. I can't imagine why anyone thinks this modest attept at building a rail system is a threat to that. Do they think Charlotte is mere weeks away from becoming a southern Manhattan? I guess they do-and as I've said on earlier posts, what really angers the anti-rail forces is the potential change to Charlotte's character, not the ha'penny or how it's been spent.

[sax184]

No, it speaks volumes about the process by which the Federal Government fails to correctly assess the impact of light rail projects.

Did the Nashville line go through the modeling process that the Charlotte line did? No. It was such a small project it was not even evaluated in that way.

Has the Nashville line done anything to effect development? No- with 3 trains each morning and afternoon, and nothing else, the benefits to the tax base and on the mobility front have been miniscule.

The correct "peer" projects for the Charlotte LRT are LIGHT RAIL systems in fast growing Sunbelt and Western states. Examples include:

Denver

Portland

Dallas

Salt Lake

St Louis

Projects that make poor comparisons are heavy rail (Atlanta) and commuter rail. (Nashville, Albequerque)

[monsoon]

.....

Projects that make poor comparisons are heavy rail (Atlanta) and commuter rail. (Nashville, Albequerque)

[Andyc545]

This is off topic in the middle of this increasingly painful debate, but I would like to admire Metro, although I come with opposition to his views on not supporting the tax, that he is the only one on this forum I think that has stood his ground on opposing the tax, for his reasons, and has not backed down his views with the pressures of everyones decision on supporting the tax.

Nonetheless, it seems like this tax is a must, although I don't agree with CAT's and agree with whoever said it is going to need an overhaul and "out-of-the-box" thinking. I try and coorelate the tax as seperate from CAT's personal issues. If the tax is repealed, everything in Charlotte transit seems like it will fall - the bus, proposed lines, and possibly even the current line just built. I think we can agree that the current 2030 plan isn't ideal, and could use some tweaking to help increase the ridership numbers, but the idea behind this all is connecting vital portions of our suburban areas to center city.

[Neo]

I figured you would say that. The ones that don't work dont count and the ones that do, do. Sorry that isn't an argument either.

You are also picking and choosing. Transitman even posted Atlanta's MARTA rail ssytem, an example that you praised earlier in this thread I might add and should be a ridership model we should look up to if I'm not mistaken. The truth of the matter is that MOST newly constructed light rail lines in this country have exceeded expectations. I don't care if a project failed or beat all expectations several times over, you need to compare LRT with LRT and not with commuter rail or heavy rail, it just doesn't work that way.

I agree that in places like Portland there were heavy influences that caused greater than expected numbers, some of which will not be recreated here, but you can't discount our first line as it isn't up and running yet. Whether or not you come out and say it or not, it is perceived that in your mind the blue line is a failure and the truth is that no one will know if that's the case or not until several months after it has opened.

I particularly don't care much for the idea of commuter rail in suburban cities like Charlotte, Nashville, etc. It works well when you have a definite center point of your city that is an absolute destination for the county and surrounding counties such as in the Chicago area. You're just not going to get that kind of ridership in areas like Charlotte or Nashville, especially when the roads aren't in bad condition, etc. like they are up north. It is much less hassle it seems in warmer climates to jump in your car and drive into work unfortunately.

[Charlotte_native]

Nonetheless, it seems like this tax is a must, although I don't agree with CAT's and agree with whoever said it is going to need an overhaul and "out-of-the-box" thinking. I try and coorelate the tax as seperate from CAT's personal issues. If the tax is repealed, everything in Charlotte transit seems like it will fall - the bus, proposed lines, and possibly even the current line just built. I think we can agree that the current 2030 plan isn't ideal, and could use some tweaking to help increase the ridership numbers, but the idea behind this all is connecting vital portions of our suburban areas to center city.

[monsoon]

......

We did it with school bonds a couple of years ago -- in order to send a signal to CMS that people weren't happy with how things were being run, they essentially cut off funding by voting down bonds. Funny thing though, kids still need schools so what was accomplished? The same old debate is going round and round today......

[Charlotte_native]

I'm asking because I really don't know...what is included in those 177% costs? Is the purchase of new vehicles included? The maintenance facility off Tryon Street construction and the move there? New bus stops? Or is it just operating costs like paying drivers, gas, and maintenance?

It it includes all of the above then building and adding and purchasing would make those numbers make more sense. If not it is a different story.

[dubone]

To me, Bishop's quote about way of life really cuts to the heart of this whole issue. I have written for a very long time that this is primarily an issue of suburban versus urban mindset competing for what kind of city this will become. It comes up in any discussion of infrastructure that is designed to urbanize this city or support urban and downtown redevelopment. It came up when the city was spending a relatively paltry sum on the trolley, a sizeable sum on the arena, on HOV lanes, or transit, on bike lanes, on the arts plan, on practically any dense zoning happening outside of downtown. Even the South Park mall renovation displayed this fundamental rift in this city's two cultures, with the expansion being viewed as making the mall too urban, with its mixed uses and parking decks, etc.

At each point, it seems to be on whether the city embraces its rapid growth, and directs it to more sustainable patterns that are more typical of other cities than of Charlotte. Many people living in this city came here for what it has been for decades, a mid-sized city with relatively open roads, moderately priced middle class suburban homes (even the poor areas in this city were once middle class suburban homes), with a decent supply of high paying jobs in the city, with plenty of surface parking around it and decent roadway capacity to deliver people back to their homes and yards in the early evening. This city has become a caricature of itself as the city has grown. The suburban roads are now packed with triple the number of cars, which have tripled in size along with the average american ponch. The suburban homes are triple the size and now three times farther away from the heart of the city, and for a while the center city was completely decimated by the need to service those people with parking spaces.

Some people, however, still don't get that this is a terrible way to live and an even worse way to design a city. The US is consuming more oil than every other industrialized nation combined. Americans often can't imagine going anywhere without driving in their cars, which has caused much of our public policy to be focused on subsidizing the oil to streamline that transportation process. The suburban americans all have yards and garages, but the cars tend to stay on the driveway, with the garage full of equipment for maintaining the yards, including some of the most toxic chemicals that humans are regularly exposed to. The house with the yard is often defended as being for the kids, but most kids do not end up playing in the yard as much, with video games and TV and the internet, which has led to a diabetes and obesity epidemic that is causing americans to reduce the life expectency in comparison other countries. But people who have grown up on this lifestyle are often addicted to the convenience and laziness that it provides for, with the only real input to sustain it being money, which causes the lifestyle to be seen as a status symbol. The people that love that lifestyle have controlled this city for decades, and we now have a city that almost entirely dominated by it.

It started with blacks, who sort of defaulted into urban lifestyles by being left behind by social and economic circumstances, with the urban life offering less expensive way to jobs and housing. Bohemians and eventually gays started to return to the cities in a spirit of integration, and an eye for the potential of many of the older structures and way of life. Eventually, all across the country, there has been a resurgence of urbanist thinking, with people choosing to be contrarian to the average suburban life. It is a life of walking or short drives or bike rides, of no traffic, of shared spaces like parks and restaurants and community events, of integrated social diversity, of ambient exercise, and many other things. There is also a reliance on infrastructure other than just asphalt roads and schools to make it liveable for so many people living in the same small space. Cars do not easily fit into that urban scale, and switch to a less significant percentage of transportation, which relies then on wider sidewalks, bike lanes and racks, and transit infrastructure to get around.

At this point, urban living is closer to becoming mainstream in this country, and it is now a very real choice. The urban revolution has already begun in Charlotte, just like many other cities in around the country. The people who are trying to participate in this trend and live a more healthy existance, who are trying to not pollute as much, trying to make a positive mark on the social structure (crime, traffic, poverty, etc.), are starting to make a real mark on the city as a whole. But the pro-suburban political leaders are now putting a stake in the ground to stop Charlotte from becoming a more urban place that philosophically brings up images of the Old World or of socialist countries (even though the urbanism was there before socialism). As urban living requires investments in infrastructure to support density, with transit being a major component, the pro-suburban leaders are trying to make a major push against funding that infrastructure. If they succeed, they believe they will choke off that trend, keeping this city in the suburban way of life that they prefer. People who want to live a more responsible and healthy urban life might be starved of the infrastructure they need in which to do it. The problem is, those leaders might be succeeding.

Meanwhile, the oil orgy is ongoing, Greenland is melting, and every day millions of people in this region walk out of their oversized vinyl homes with the A/C and lots of lights still on, past their toxic green lawns, get in their oversized SUV and drive 45 minutes on a congested freeway to a surface lot to park and to an elevator and to a cube and computer and back again for TV and microwave dinners. But we have a way of life to protect, so please repeal the transit tax.

[Note: This theory of mine does not seek to argue against nuanced opinions for or against the transit tax within the urbanist community, but I am convinced that this dichotomy is occuring in the city at large.]

[budpress]

While I am an outsider from Wake Co., I have been following your debate on the 1/2 cent transit tax repeal for some time. The information from both sides is interesting. The News and Observer (Raleigh) had a large front page article titled "Our Traffic Misery is Just Getting Worse", referring to traffic in the Triangle. In it are some glaring stats just released from the Texas Transportation Institute for the latest year available-2005. It also listed the stats for Charlotte. They are as follows--Daily congested 'rush' hours: Triangle-6.2 hours, Charlotte-7.2 hours; (annual) commuter time in congestion: Triangle 35 hours, Charlotte 45 hours; Travel slowed by congestion: Triangle 47%, Charlotte 58%; and this very telling one, congestion's (annual) cost per commuter: Triangle $671, Charlotte $875. These stats have all increase from what they were in 2000, and keep in mind they are now 2 years old. Guys and gals, the price of oil is at the highest its been this year at $81 a barrel and rising still. You will soon begin to feel it at the pump in about a month as those tankers carrying that high dollar crude start to arrive here. Add to that discomfort the fact that the dollar is losing value against other currencies and that will make the prices of most of our imported goods go up even more. The dollar has lost value in the international monetary markets since the Fed cut the interest rate yesterday. Gas is on the way up bigtime. Even if the buses and light rail don't take another car off the road, can you folks in the Charlotte metro area continue to afford the rising cost of congestion per commuter? We cannot here in the Triangle and its costs us less to commute. If you commute to work be honest with yourself in your answer. The impact of tourism seems to be forgotten by the antitransit tax crowd. With the Nascar HOF, US Whitewater Park, Carowinds, the new museums coming being built at the Wachovia headquarters site, Ikea, the conference and regional NCAA tournaments (ACC & CIAA), and possibly the ACC football championships, Billy Graham Library, etc. more tourists will be spending money in Mecklenburg Co. than ever before in its history. I personally would like to be able to take Amtrak from Raleigh to Charlotte, get off at a new Gateway Station, and catch a trolley across Trade St. or stay in a hotel near the light rail line and ride the train to downtown. Its nice to not have to drive everywhere! So IMHO, keep the 1/2 cent tax! There's a lot of pride, bitterness and some selfishness on both sides of the arguments, but don't cut off your nose to spite your face!! A partial solution is better than none. If the tax foes win, those who supported the tax should nail them down to the floor of accountabilityand require them come up with a working solution and only give them a limited amount of time to show results. Local antitax officials should be voted out of office if they don't deliver. The costs of failure are too high.

[1979Heel]

Me too, Dubone. I have often said that the real issue is not the ha'penny and its mismanagement but the change in thinking and being that it represents. Dan Bishop finally came out of the closet with his "our way of life" statement (again, I expected better of him.)

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

[RiverwoodCLT]

budpress

Thanks for your post.

We have to look at the future not now at the present. The cost of building roads, houses, LRT line will be more in the future, so we must make good decisions today so they do not have to pay more later. We should learn from our mistakes, and not repeat them in the future. The repeal of the 1/2 cent sale tax will not end the world, but it will change the direction of transit in Charlotte in the future. If we think we can build our selves out of transit mess by building more and more roads, this is not going to happen due to the funding of our state roads from the DOT. We know that we will not get a lot of road needs done in the Charlotte region any time soon. DOT does not have the money. So if you are looking for DOT to dig us out of traffic problems, think again.

CATS is a city owed and the City needs to make sure CATS is on task all the time.

CATS is a transportation system, not all buses, LRTs, or van pools. There are many services that will be cut or stop if the tax goes away. I hear people say that we could get along with a much smaller system. With the growth that we have seen in the Charlotte region in the pass years keeps growing, a small system is not going to provide the service needed.

So all it means is if the

[Charlotte_native]

Dubone, amazing piece on some of the core issues we are facing today. I'm glad someone could put it in a concise format.

I've seen what appears to an emerging (for a number of years now) us against them attitude develop regarding our suburbs and our urban core. Most people I know that live in either don't have this attitude, but enough people do and they seem to be vocal. This comes up with schools especially and now is leaking into the transit debate. We are all in this together and this attitude does nothing to help the agenda of either side, but wastes valuable time and energy to get anything done. The rounds and rounds of debate between these two sides miss the point that is simple -- the city is growing and has needs, both in town and on the outskirts. Quit trying to hoard all the resources for either group and compromise somewhere. I have as much right to city county funds for urban infrastructure as a burbanite has a right for more lanes on the road or another school nearby. It shouldn't be a battle but no one sensible seems to be leading the run for compromise.

[Mobuchu]

To me, Bishop's quote about way of life really cuts to the heart of this whole issue. I have written for a very long time that this is primarily an issue of suburban versus urban mindset competing for what kind of city this will become. It comes up in any discussion of infrastructure that is designed to urbanize this city or support urban and downtown redevelopment. It came up when the city was spending a relatively paltry sum on the trolley, a sizeable sum on the arena, on HOV lanes, or transit, on bike lanes, on the arts plan, on practically any dense zoning happening outside of downtown. Even the South Park mall renovation displayed this fundamental rift in this city's two cultures, with the expansion being viewed as making the mall too urban, with its mixed uses and parking decks, etc.

.....But the pro-suburban political leaders are now putting a stake in the ground to stop Charlotte from becoming a more urban place that philosophically brings up images of the Old World or of socialist countries (even though the urbanism was there before socialism). As urban living requires investments in infrastructure to support density, with transit being a major component, the pro-suburban leaders are trying to make a major push against funding that infrastructure. If they succeed, they believe they will choke off that trend, keeping this city in the suburban way of life that they prefer. People who want to live a more responsible and healthy urban life might be starved of the infrastructure they need in which to do it. The problem is, those leaders might be succeeding.

Meanwhile, the oil orgy is ongoing, Greenland is melting, and every day millions of people in this region walk out of their oversized vinyl homes with the A/C and lots of lights still on, past their toxic green lawns, get in their oversized SUV and drive 45 minutes on a congested freeway to a surface lot to park and to an elevator and to a cube and computer and back again for TV and microwave dinners. But we have a way of life to protect, so please repeal the transit tax.

[monsoon]

Great posts by both of you. IMO the future of transit rests on this repeal. The anti transit momentum from a repeal will be too great to overcome.

......

[Mobuchu]

Again the 2030 plan does not provide for effective transit. Nobody here has argued that it does and refuses to answer any of the questions that I have submitted above on what are the goals for the 2030 plan, how are they measured, and what is the criteria for success or failure.