2030 Transit Plan

[uptownliving]

What I said is there is no proof at all the 2030 plan will do anything towards achieving those goals and in fact wasting $6B on it may very well mean that we fail to meet those goals.

[monsoon]

The 2030 plan is part of the transportation model used to project out air pollution for Char-Meck. This will be my 4th time stating this now...if you want the details of how the LYNX will affect air pollution then contact Jim Humphrey at CDOT.

[Justadude]

What you posted is simply a statement about the air pollution in Charlotte and where it is coming from. What is missing is how does the efforts supported by the transit tax going to reduce this pollution.

[nowensone]

^ Good solid argument, I would say there is a big "if" around someone moving from the perimeter into the new TOD properties, but luckily this is irrelevant - new comers to the city, which we know there are going to be plenty of, will do so, and they are creating the resulting savings (versus moving to a house in the burbs because TOD otherwise is pointless). I truly don't get how opponents are simply not addressing the future aspects of the plan, the lines and the tax.

[monsoon]

Jiustadude, the fault with your argument is there is nothing to stop the person from moving to South End today as you made the claim that it is more desirable. This is the one of the fallacies being put forth about the 2030 plan. That somehow it is going to make people change the way they live, the way they shop, etc etc. It's not going to happen unless Charlotte establishes the related urban development policies that would support the changes and as we all know they have dropped the ball completely on that one. If you go and real the clean air thing the county did in 2002, you will find that this was mentioned as being important, but which has essentially been abandoned by the city which has sole zoning control now.

So what we have is a transit plan that chases bus ridership numbers and does not address transit, and has designed a rail transit system that does not solve transit problems. It is not tied to any urban development plans that would restrict new development expect along the transit corridors which was one of the promises made when this came up for a vote. The expansion of South Park, the approval of NorthLake, Midtown square, and the Ikea development and the continued proliferation of strip development throughout the town are indication enough of that.

So assuming your predictions are correct, I am not sure that spending $6B in capital costs and $100M/year to remove 300 lbs of NOx from the air is worth it given that we currently measure that in 100s of tons/day. And the fact of the matter is that when this plan is built out there will be tens of thousands more living in the city, it will be all for naught.

[Justadude]

^ I am assuming that you, without saying it, have acknowleged that transit DOES clean pollution from the air -- check that off the list of questions. Also, add one demerit to the anti-tax crowd for spreading false information (such as, "trains make pollution go up", which I as a total amateur debunked with basic algebra in about 10 minutes).

Anyhoo... whether the city zones for transit or not, is not part of CATS' purview. Repealing the 1/2 cent won't force CATS to be more efficient about zoning because they have no power over it in the first place. Everyone here, without exception as far as I can tell, agrees that TOD needs to be much more strictly enforced, but that is irrelevant to the design of the system itself. I have brought up the metaphor in the past, but it works so well I'll do it again: this is like voting down CMS bonds because you don't like the school board. Political action is only effective if it's aimed at the right targets!

Jiustadude, the fault with your argument is there is nothing to stop the person from moving to South End today as you made the claim that it is more desirable. This is the one of the fallacies being put forth about the 2030 plan. That somehow it is going to make people change the way they live, the way they shop, etc etc.

[monsoon]

^ I am assuming that you, without saying it, have acknowleged that transit DOES clean pollution from the air -- check that off the list of questions.

[nowensone]

^ Does the opposite validate a smarter proposal? Of course not, the anti-transit folks aren't going to change their minds because there is a better plan as they will not have bothered to analyze it or even opened their mind to it. Other than perhaps a small group of 5 - 10 % who are more concerned about making a statement than disputing the need for transit.

[Justadude]

[edit: this was in response to post #1302]

^ Not if it is accompanied by appropriate political action to help change the parts of the system that need changing. If people put 1/10th as much time, energy, and money into speaking out at the planning meetings that took place prior to the release of the 2030 plan, we would likely not be having this discussion. Instead, protest is occurring at the back end of the political process, where it has the least potential to elicit positive change.

I would be elated to see people buying billboards and handing out fliers intended to improve our transit system. But I cannot support a campaign that is clearly intended to destroy most of the system and leave the carcass of CATS underfunded and unsupported. There ARE ways to change the status quo without ripping up the foundations of the public transit network; but nobody is willing to take the time or effort to pursue un-sexy change through moderate, directed revision of the 2030 plan. Instead the preferred political strategy involves screaming talk-show hosts, online "debates" in which both sides ignore each other's arguments, and mass-media campaigns that will outright lie to you if that's what it takes to change your vote.

[southslider]

If you admit that ridership can't be proven until after the line opens, why is the repeal being held before the line opens? Wouldn't a voter be able to make a more informed opinion after there is some ridership? Considering the possible combinations for scenarios, there is just too much risk to vote for a repeal before the line opens.

Scenario A:

Repeal passes and ridership is higher than expected. Many voters regret their decision. It becomes difficult to re-establish a tax.

Scenario B:

Repeal fails and ridership is higher than expected. Voters are validated, but there remain concerns over CATS cost-efficiency. Any voice of reason over modifying the 2030 Plan is then lost in the "mandate" ironically enabled by a pre-mature referendum.

Scenario C:

Repeal fails and ridership is lower than expected. But given the pre-mature "mandate," it becomes harder to revisit a repeal.

Scenario D:

Repeal passes and ridership is lower than expected. Only in this combination, do the repeal proponents seem validated. But even then, transit-backers can say the forced cuts of feeder buses and reduced frequency on LYNX made ridership lower.

[Raintree21]

How will they determine ridership? Is it by tickets sold or number of people actually on the train? What if someone purchases an unlimited week pass. They could ride the train 5 times or maybe 100 just on that "one ticket."

[uptownliving]

They have Automatic Passenger Counters installed on all of the LRT cars (and busses ) that are able to count the number of passengers...where they get on and off and that data is downloaded to the central server where it is compiled into monthly reports.

[monsoon]

If you admit that ridership can't be proven until after the line opens, why is the repeal being held before the line opens? ....

[southslider]

^Sure, the South LRT will still be completed and start operations whether or not the repeal passes. But following a repeal, funding for operations will be cut. As such, frequency of trains will be reduced and feeder-bus service (as well as all buses) cut, meaning we will never know whether the ridership could have been higher, if only the repeal hadn't cut funding for operations. So again, the voter can't make a fully informed decision about the repeal until after the line opens.

In reality, it's fairly obvious how emotional this vote is on both sides. Cynically, repeal-supporters complain about cost overruns (they can only speculate about the benefits pre-operation), but they don't think twice about all the waste found in highways. For example, the much needed improvements to the I-485 interchange at Johnston Road are now way more than three times their original estimate (compared to a transit system whose capital cost is now three times its original estimate). At the same time, transit-tax-supporters (or repeal opponents) have big-city envy, caught up in a love-fest for sexy trains, when BRT in many corridors would be more cost-effective. The South Corridor has shown promise for TOD, but other corridors may have less development potential.

So again, neither side seems to be making a fully informed vote. But given the premature timing of the repeal before ridership results are even available, not surprisingly, the undecided voter will have a hard time making sense of the emotionally-driven arguments. Then again, in a low turnout election like next month's, the passionate voters could easily sway the vote anyway.

[monsoon]

^Sure, the South LRT will still be completed and start operations whether or not the repeal passes. But following a repeal, funding for operations will be cut. As such, frequency of trains will be reduced and feeder-bus service (as well as all buses) cut, meaning we will never know whether the ridership could have been higher, if only the repeal hadn't cut funding for operations. .....

[Neo]

On a side note (and perhaps I have overlooked it in the discussion), what is the status of naming or finding a successor to Ron Tober? With only a couple of months left for him in office I would have thought the search for a successor would have been big news, especially with the debacle CATS is in at the moment. Perhaps they're going to hold off on any public announcements until after the transit tax vote?

[Justadude]

In reality, it's fairly obvious how emotional this vote is on both sides. Cynically, repeal-supporters complain about cost overruns (they can only speculate about the benefits pre-operation), but they don't think twice about all the waste found in highways.

[monsoon]

.... when in reality most of the overruns can be attributed to factors other than CATS management.

[Justadude]

^ One could argue, as CATS is prepared to do in court, that Parsons' mistakes weren't due to mismanagement. But I can understand the general argument that CATS is ultimately in charge and should have overseen Parsons more carefully to prevent overruns in the first place.

Either way, it's still not justified to report inflation, increases in construction costs, and expansion of services as "overruns"... which happens on a daily basis in the local media and private anti-tax campaigns. There are only two reasons for using those numbers as "proof" of mismanagement: 1) Dire misunderstanding of what the numbers actually mean, or 2) Desire to create an inaccurate picture of the budget situation in order to sway (trick) voters into believing that the situation is much worse than it actually is.

[monsoon]

.....

Either way, it's still not justified to report inflation, increases in construction costs, and expansion of services as "overruns"... .....

[DAC]

Is there a new development on the Central/JC Smith trolley line? I read that CATS moved it from 2018 to 2013. Not that would really mean anything given how much these things tend to get delayed.

[monsoon]

Is there a new development on the Central/JC Smith trolley line? I read that CATS moved it from 2018 to 2013. Not that would really mean anything given how much these things tend to get delayed.

[uptownliving]

CATS will be holding an update meeting on the Southeast Line as well as the Center City Streetcar next week at Eastland Mall. Here are the details:

The timing of this meeting is interesting with all of the debate going on about the transit tax.

[monsoon]

There are an un-precedented number of candidates running to take control of Huntersville's town council and mayor's office this November. Keep in mind the Huntersville mayor is also a voting member of the MTC.

According to the paper, one way this group is clearly divided in in their support for the transit tax and using city TIFs to help pay for the North commuter rail line. The candidates for mayor are split evenly or against the transit tax and I would guess participation in the MTC. Of the town council, a slightly higher number of candidates are against the tax.

So aside from voting on the transit tax, the residents of the county's second largest city are also going to have to choose a new government that's either for or against the 2030 plan.

[Justadude]

So when CATS provides a cost to build a transit line, it is supposed to take all of this into account and be an accurate price tag period.