2030 Transit Plan

[cinco]

LOL, it seems to me they hit the nail on the head. If the amount of money had been spent to defeat the tax, I am sure the vote would have been just as lopsided in the other direction.

Instead of calling them sore losers, how about addressing the points they are making on that page. i.e. the transit tax won't do anything about transit problems in this county and the other promises made like cleaner air, less congestion, etc.

[tiblerbrit]

Their methods for collecting those signatures were very dubious. They fooled a lot of people into thinking they were signing a petition for lower taxes.

[Raintree21]

What points? They took them all down and simply posted 3 paragraphs that drips with sarcasm about their defeat. If they wanted to change this county for the common good, they would leave their ideas up and continue to push for change. Just because the tax wasn't repealed doesn't mean changes to the 2030 plan can't be made.

[Neo]

I'm not sure what to make of this posted on the traindrain.com page:

"Thank you Center City for showing us the way to make a real world class city just like all those cities people have come to Charlotte from over the last few years "

Ummm, shouldn't we look up to cities like NYC for example on how transit has been implemented?

[atlrvr]

I'm not sure what to make of this posted on the traindrain.com page:

"Thank you Center City for showing us the way to make a real world class city just like all those cities people have come to Charlotte from over the last few years "

[monsoon]

I think if you look at the list of entities that paid great deals of money for the anti-repeal advertising, you will find a list of who's who of downtown Charlotte.

[stadtguy]

I'm sensitive to Metro's criticism about the dubious benefits associated with light rail. Congestion and pollution are here to stay and light rail will solve neither. That being said, it provides another option that might positively impact the quality of life. We could debate the cost/benefit of this outcome, of course. Another important factor that is often overlooked is retaining urban vitality. A lesson from industrial cities is the need to keep middle- and upper-income families. Once they abandon the city, it's hard to function. If light rail is a toy that caters to the whims of these folks and keeps them vested in the city, I'm for it. The city is in competition with the suburbs for residents, disposable income, jobs, etc. Light rail is a luxury good that appeals to a cadre of people Charlotte needs to retain over the long haul.

[Justadude]

I maintain that Larry Bumgarner (the traindrain.com guru) speaks primarily for himself and not for others. He's made a lifetime out of attempting, and failing, to push his personal agenda in this city. He's obviously quite good at getting people to listen and playing the "regular joe" card, but when the rubber meets the road his ideas are poorly developed and poorly expressed. I would not take anything on his (many) websites to be a reflection of any large population's opinions.

However... even though the repeal was defeated by a large margin, I don't think this is a mandate for CATS. I think the electorate chose the lesser of two evils in this case, because the repeal was obviously a destructive measure that would not have provided a clear, preferable alternative to the 2030 plan. But the fact that the debate occurred in the first place is an indication that CATS needs to do some serious self-evaluation, and that Tober's successor needs to be carefully chosen and well-qualified. I would certainly hope to see a serious discussion of 2030 reform on the heels of the repeal debate, hopefully in less-divisive and more productive terms.

[Charlotte_native]

I think if you look at the list of entities that paid great deals of money for the anti-repeal advertising, you will find a list of who's who of downtown Charlotte.

[Charlotte_native]

Larry's site now says this: We citizens can not wait and see all the relief we will have in traffic and how clear the air will be over the next few years with the new trains running all over Charlotte.

He still can't resist making statements that aren't true. Mumford's open letter, plenty of sources including numerous articles in practically every local rag, have consistently said that this line ISN'T going to relieve our traffic issues or significantly change air quality. He either doesn't get it (and I don't believe that) or will continue to lie to prove his point. Sad.

It is about BEGINNING to create a system to provide mass transit -- it WILL NOT take away congestion, but people who CHOOSE to use it will get relief.

He might actually get some traction one day if he would lose sarcastic smart-ass method of delivering his message. Who knows if he has something decent to say or any realistic ideas -- most people are turned off by this and therefore turn him off.

[monsoon]

^I have 9 post cards from Pat Mumford's repeal effort that says to vote for the tax to relieve traffic congestion. They did say this, and it was documented by me above before the results of the election were know. They also made other bogus claims about air pollution, loss of federal aid and so forth.

[atlrvr]

Ok.....question.....without the transit tax, is traffic going to be better or worse? Is pollution going to be better or worse? Are we more or less likely to lose federal transportation dollars for remaining an area in non-attainment by the EPA without a mandated transit plan?

I didn't get a postcard, so I don't know if they promised this a miracle pill that makes traffic and pollution go away, but I can't think of a rational arguement that thinks taking 9,000 cars off the road a day wouldn't at least help with traffic and pollution.

Maybe its a matter of semantics, but if we have 100k cars entering downtown during the day, and that would grow to 120k without the South LRT, and 111k with the LRT, then I call that traffic relief.....it's easier to put on a postcard that "reduction to increasing over-capacity"

[monsoon]

Except of course there is no indication that 9000 cars will come off the road. No goal been set for CATS to do this, and no measurements that will indicate that spending 1/2 billion dollars is going to achieve this goal. This has been my whole point all along. If you create a transit plan that has a particular goal, such as getting cars off the road, then you absolutely have to have a plan for measuring the results. As we have discussed so far there are no such specific goals and measurements and hence you have no idea if you are achieving anything. It could be that CATS plans make this problem worse.

This is why I contend this isn't a plan for transit because it has no goals and the media blitz that we just went though was about disinginious as it gets becuase it was pretty much said that voting for the tax will insure that we won't have pollution and traffic problems. Not even close in reality. But then again, the American voter will prove time and time again that saying something enough times, even though it isn't true, is enough to get them to vote for it.

Like it or not Larry's message is on the mark and Charlotteans have voted for a plan that spends a lot of money but achieves no results. (in regards to moving Charlotte away from the automobile) None of this is new news here as we have already thoroughly discussed, though I don't know why I bother, that the 2030 plan isn't a transit plan, it's a development plan.

[Charlotte_native]

I'm just happy a lot of people voted to keep the tax. Its over. Time to look forward.

[ChiefJoJo]

A lot of this arguing over advertising dollars spent, etc, seems to be a waste of time at his point--it passed EASILY, besting anyone's expectation. I would say 70% support represents a very surprisingly strong mandate for transit in general and the 2030 Plan. Going from 58% in '98 to 70% in '07 should pretty much send the transit opponents (JLF-ers, Bumgardner, etc) into obscurity for good now. CATS still needs to move forward with some caution on the remainder of the plan, and perhaps even rethink some priorities, but overall, it's hard not to be optimistic on the future.

[dubone]

Downtown Charlotte does happen to be the county seat and center of economic activity, so it makes sense that the civic leaders that help fund campaigns would be list of who's who of downtown. Of course, many of them, including the mayor don't live downtown, but for smear purposes, they're labeled 'downtown' people because that is what seems to give the highest boogeyman quotient. In effect, this was a vote decided primarily by middle-ring South Charlotte and Davidson, as they had high turnout and high percentages against the repeal. They felt passionately and went to vote. Areas without transit support were the ones that didn't get much turnout.

Advertising helped, for sure, as I think many people otherwise tune out to local ballot issues, but this one struck a nerve. Absolutely everyone I spoke with about this issue, most of which were suburban-minded people living outside of 485, when they found out about the vote, were strongly about keeping transit. "This city is growing fast, and we need transit." "You can't have a city without significant amount transit." "Charlotte is 20 years behind on what it is just now building." On and on, and that was without me even speaking up much about what I thought or believed. Many of those were people that do not care about local politics generally, and many of which I assumed would be against the transit tax when I asked. Many of those people voted, but wouldn't have otherwise. I had thought from all this talk in the media that the conventional wisdom was against growth and urbanization, but it seems Charlotte is not that kind of city. It has always been about business and growth, and most people instantly agree that you must have transit to have a city like that.

I think that is part of why there is so much venom from those opposed, because momentum is obviously now gotten stronger. I'm sure we'll continue to see more boogeymanism and plenty of the other phrases we are sure to see lots of from Puckett and Bishop and the rest. But a landslide vote and high turnout despite an off-year election and complex wording and significant anti-transit press, the fact is the established transit approach has been endorsed by the citizens.

A non-binding vote against the arena has been used ad nauseum against that project, and a clause in the parks bonds vote has been extrapolated to somehow forbid baseball from ever being played on a patch of land. Surely a landslide in a direct vote on the transit funding scheme system can mean that the people support the transit system. Not a 10 billion dollar triangulated, downtown-bypassing system of heavy rail that stays within Rt 4 or tunneling under the ritzy neighborhoods to surface only in poor ones, whatever the ideal scenario can be dreamt up by different people. It is a confidence vote for a system that is paid for by whatever revenue comes from a half-penny sales tax. That has the been the job of Tober, paid professionals, paid consultants, public meetings, and, not least of all, a committee of elected officials to approve every single decision along the way. At this point, we have a had a transit plan strategy for almost a decade and we have millions of dollars of preliminary engineering and a half-billion in construction already spent as a result of that approved strategy.

That is the direction we are headed and it is headed there even stronger as of yesterday. While I still agree with reviewing the decisions, shifting around time tables, and tweaking designs, there is just absolutely no way that any amount of angry words or bright ideas or dumb ideas on any websites are going to change the heart of those plans, including me.

[monsoon]

It's a nice observation of why people voted but it does not change the basic facts of the matter. The system they voted for will have a daily rail ridership of only 35K in 20+ years. Hence it isn't going to solve any of their concerns about the city. If in 5 years when they open the argument on the SE BRT vs LRT and they change that line to LRT then we are talking about, at most 50K riding the rails. It is a dismally low ridership goal and when people look back from that time, they will say, Why didn't they build a much larger system?". Atlanta in comparison moves 250,000 on Marta.

Will they revise the current plan? No. And the reason they won't is because to do so would be an admission that the current plan, which we were just told = good transit planning, really isn't. We are stuck with it until the forseeable future or if the Fed's say no to the NE line, which is a distinct possibility and then we will be having this fight again.

[Mobuchu]

^^^ Well that is your opinion, and we have heard it before, but obviously with a landslide vote against repealing the transit tax the voters of this county dont agree.

Things are not perfect in the 2030 plan, there is room for improvement. It has been changed before and there is no reason it can't be tweeked again. Shifting of priority on the lines. Adjusting alignment of the airport and SE lines is a possibility. Maybe more funding will become available from the FEDs in the future and we can plan for an even more robust system. Either way, the people have once again spoken and this is the plan we will continue to work with. Arguing over why it was a landslide vote or tactics of campaigns are a waste of time. Lets talk about how we can continue to improve the 2030 plan.

[Andyc545]

^^^ Well that is your opinion, and we have heard it before, but obviously with a landslide vote against repealing the transit tax the voters of this county dont agree.

Things are not perfect in the 2030 plan, there is room for improvement. It has been changed before and there is no reason it can't be tweeked again. Shifting of priority on the lines. Adjusting alignment of the airport and SE lines is a possibility. Maybe more funding will become available from the FEDs in the future and we can plan for an even more robust system. Either way, the people have once again spoken and this is the plan we will continue to work with. Arguing over why it was a landslide vote or tactics of campaigns are a waste of time. Lets talk about how we can continue to improve the 2030 plan.

[atlrvr]

Ok, let's talk about improving the 2030 plan

We can raise the half-cent tax to a full-cent and complete the remaineder of the 2030 identified transits lines correctly.....grade separated.

The SE line should be LRT, and be buried in Uptown extending all the way to the new Amtrak/commuter rail station in Graham.....it should then run in the center of Independence above ground.

The NE line should not have any at grade crossings, with bridges probably cheaper than tunneling, though it may be worth tunneling uptown, as a relatively cheap cut/cover would work, and it could be shallow.

The North Communter Rail should be extended to the south all the way to Rock Hill following the existing freight ROW, including station

near the old-coliseum area, served by a community shuttle bus, and a station at the South LRT terminus by I-485.

A second Commuter Rail line should be established running from Gastonia (possibly Kings Mountain) to Kannapolis (possibly China Grove), including stations by CLT airport and UNCC.

The SE line should eventually be extended west to the airport completely GRADE SEPARATED in the Wilkinson median.

The streetcar should be built as planned, obviously not grade separated, and additional crosstown streetcars should be examined, that would link to LRT lines and major commercial centers.

[Andyc545]

Ok, let's talk about improving the 2030 plan

We can raise the half-cent tax to a full-cent and complete the remaineder of the 2030 identified transits lines correctly.....grade separated.

The SE line should be LRT, and be buried in Uptown extending all the way to the new Amtrak/commuter rail station in Graham.....it should then run in the center of Independence above ground.

The NE line should not have any at grade crossings, with bridges probably cheaper than tunneling, though it may be worth tunneling uptown, as a relatively cheap cut/cover would work, and it could be shallow.

The North Communter Rail should be extended to the south all the way to Rock Hill following the existing freight ROW, including station

near the old-coliseum area, served by a community shuttle bus, and a station at the South LRT terminus by I-485.

A second Commuter Rail line should be established running from Gastonia (possibly Kings Mountain) to Kannapolis (possibly China Grove), including stations by CLT airport and UNCC.

The SE line should eventually be extended west to the airport completely GRADE SEPARATED in the Wilkinson median.

The streetcar should be built as planned, obviously not grade separated, and additional crosstown streetcars should be examined, that would link to LRT lines and major commercial centers.

[atlrvr]

^ I hiked the cost by hiking the transit tax to a full cent......by my calculations, that would cover an additional 2.1B in principal and debt over a 30 year period, and given bond rates, that would pay for a approx. 1.1B in transit improvements.

Since the current plan already can pay for the N, NE, and SE (as BRT) I think the additional 1.1B could pay for upgrading those lines to grade separated, as well as adding the commuter rail lines.....it would not be enough to pay for the W extension of the SE LRT line.

EDIT. Keith Parker was just named as Tober's replacement.....sigh....we continue to trend of hiring from within. Oh well. Not that I have any problem or concerns about Keith, it's just becoming troubling that all new top-level city positions are internal hires. Keith...read my plan and get it done!

[Charlotte_native]

I had thought from all this talk in the media that the conventional wisdom was against growth and urbanization, but it seems Charlotte is not that kind of city. It has always been about business and growth, and most people instantly agree that you must have transit to have a city like that.

[monsoon]

Also it's unfair to compare CLT to ATL rail, I thought this was already determined as an unfair debate in the past. .....

[Neo]

What do we know about Keith Parker? Are his views any different than Tober's on the current 2030 plan? Can we expect much of the same from him as with Tober or does anyone foresee any changes with the new chief at the helm?