Charlotte Off Topic

[grodney]

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/morning-edition/2014/07/cooper-defending-n-c-ban-on-same-sex-marriage.html

 

Once step closer to NC finally coming out of the Stone Age....not saying itll happen any time soon, but its at least a (forced) step in the right direction.

 

Such good news.  I'm confused, though, by all the articles only mentioning the constitutional ban in NC.  Same-sex marriage was already against the law before the amendment.  So these pending lawsuits in N.C., do they cover both the amendment and the original law?

[ScottCLT]

Among the plethora of crap comments on the Observer website, I did see a nice one that referenced the NC attorney general's oath of office (can't find it anymore or I would reference it). Everyone kept complaining that Attorney General Cooper wasn't doing his job by no longer defending the ban now since it hadn't been struck down in NC just yet. Thom Tillis called him out (of course he did), as well as a bunch of other right-wingers. The AG stated that it was a waste of time and tax dollars to continue to enforce a law that will be almost certainly struck down (which I think is intelligent). But even beyond that, here's the oath of office for the NC Attorney General:

 

"I, ___________, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will support the Constitution of 

the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, 

and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the 

government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution 

of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of my 

knowledge and ability; so help me God."

 

Since Federal courts have found many times that same-sex marriage bans are against the fourteenth amendment, and therefore against the constitution of the United States, it's not only just to save time/tax dollars - it is literally the AG's duty to ensure that the laws upheld in NC are consistent with the constitution, which this one clearly is not. So Thillis can whine all he wants about how Cooper isn't doing his job, but he's wrong.

 

Take that, wingnuts.

[15895]

PNC seems way more involved than RBC ever was in Charlotte. The PNC Ampitheater, PNC host the Observer forums at the college, huge sponsors at festival. What are odds of some corporate expansion here?

[SouthEndCLT811]

PNC seems way more involved than RBC ever was in Charlotte. The PNC Ampitheater, PNC host the Observer forums at the college, huge sponsors at festival. What are odds of some corporate expansion here?

 

Not sure if there's much.  They're in the midst of building this beauty in Pittsburgh.

 

http://www.thetoweratpncplaza.com/

 

[CLTProductions]

Not sure if there's much.  They're in the midst of building this beauty in Pittsburgh.

 

http://www.thetoweratpncplaza.com/

 

First off, beautiful building. Second off, I realllllyyyy hope 300 S Tryon has a "completion tracker" thing that this building does on its website. Very cool feature.

[ah59396]

I don't know where else to put this, so I'll just throw it in here for now, just for general thought provoking debate.

 

 

Has the city of Charlotte considered a very realistic future where the driver-less car is king?

 

I've been reading a lot about the tech behind these vehicles and future implications (I work in auto insurance for Christ's sake) and I'm beginning to feel like our perception of a future with "less cars" in Charlotte may be quite the opposite.  Maybe less cars per person, but certainly not a drop off in need or desire for personal (aka private) transit.  And this future is not all that far away/

 

Supposing we live in a future where a driver-less car is not owned but shared like a fleet and you use a system similar to Uber to pick you up and drop you off, why walk to a train station or bus at all?  The prices could potentially be very competitive.  You don't have to drive in traffic, you'd sit and relax in privacy, you don't have to find parking, you don't have to worry about a "safe ride home", ect.  And supposing these vehicles are electric or even hybrids, you can feel good about the environmental aspect.

 

Are we building out a transit system that will be frankly antiquated and obsolete by the time it's finished?

[southslider]

Transit works with car-sharing systems. New York City sees high utilization of both systems. Uber only operates within the densest areas of Charlotte. Density supports living without a car, where sometimes transit makes sense for your trip, and sometimes car-sharing does. Obviously, bike-sharing and walking make sense for shorter trips. Someday, the parking decks at LYNX stations may be car-sharing hubs for an integrated system.

[SouthEndCLT811]

On this topic of an integrated system I remembered a video from about 4 years ago.  Ignore some mention of the high speed rail act from 2009 that seems to have struggled a bit since.

 

http://www.america2050.org/2010/02/journey-to-detriot.html

Edited August 12, 2014 by SouthEndCLT811

[kermit]

Even the sharpest futureists are having a tough time getting their heads around self-driving cars. There are a couple of outcomes that I _think_ are likely:

 

First, the physics involved (accelerating a 1.5 ton object between 100 and 0 kph) will always make driving energy inefficient compared to all other modes. While these vehicles will almost certainly be electric, replacing the fossil fleet will require the consumption of huge amounts of energy for battery charging. This will be in the form of electricity that we are not yet producing. Baring a substantial technological and political changes in our use of renewables (or a renewal of our 'love affair' with nuclear power) self-driving vehicles will still make large carbon footprints.  (smaller footprints than fossil vehicles, but much bigger footprints than transit)

 

Second is cost. Self-driving cars will certainly be more expensive than piloted vehicles. Combined with the fact that these vehicles are capable of earning revenue when not in use for the owner's needs they are likely to be used as shared assets. Essentially every self-driving car owner will want/need to earn money as an Urber driver (no driving needed). So, the revenue potential of self-driving cars means that individuals are unlikely to have cars sitting at home and instead will hail them only when needed via app. This subtle difference will, I think, create a new consumer mindset towards 'driving.' There will no longer be an expensive car sitting beside their house that they can use for short trips at a perceived marginal cost of near zero. Since using your money-earning self-driving car will require a brief wait AND a loss of income, owners will more vividly see the true cost of using their car for short trips. When the marginal cost of a short trip is no longer be perceived to be zero (for people who share their self-driving car), individuals will be more likely to consider walking or biking as attractive short-distance transportation options.

 

Third is parking. Self-driving cars (in theory) do not need parking. This may free professional employers to concentrate office space in areas where f2f information exchange and recreational opportunities for workers are maximized. I suspect this will mean more jobs in center cities and fewer jobs in suburbs (why build suburban office space at all if parking is not an issue?) The single destination for work trips will make transit more efficient (and rail systems will be easier to justify since they become arterials to a primary job center) and the last mile problem of transit disappears thanks to your self-driving car smart phone app. Centralized employment should also put a limit on sprawl as professional jobs leave suburban business districts for downtown.

 

Finally, (and this may just be me). The only good thing about driving is, well... driving. Turning the experience into just sitting is a cramped seat, and having no control, will make me MUCH less likely to desire using a car.

 

While I think the phenomena listed above are likely to occur, when it comes down to it, I am just as full of crap as the next guy.

Edited August 12, 2014 by kermit

[cltbwimob]

I don't know where else to put this, so I'll just throw it in here for now, just for general thought provoking debate.

 

 

Has the city of Charlotte considered a very realistic future where the driver-less car is king?

 

I've been reading a lot about the tech behind these vehicles and future implications (I work in auto insurance for Christ's sake) and I'm beginning to feel like our perception of a future with "less cars" in Charlotte may be quite the opposite.  Maybe less cars per person, but certainly not a drop off in need or desire for personal (aka private) transit.  And this future is not all that far away/

 

Supposing we live in a future where a driver-less car is not owned but shared like a fleet and you use a system similar to Uber to pick you up and drop you off, why walk to a train station or bus at all?  The prices could potentially be very competitive.  You don't have to drive in traffic, you'd sit and relax in privacy, you don't have to find parking, you don't have to worry about a "safe ride home", ect.  And supposing these vehicles are electric or even hybrids, you can feel good about the environmental aspect.

 

Are we building out a transit system that will be frankly antiquated and obsolete by the time it's finished?

Randal O'Toole likes the way you think.

[ah59396]

Randal O'Toole likes the way you think.

 

 

Ha-ha, I'm sure he does.  I'm not an advocate for or against any of it.  I just think the tide is shifting.  And the way we view private transit now versus in the future will likely be drastically different.  And I'd wager most Americans (again, if the pricing is competitive, which is very possible) would rather order a driver-less vehicle on their phone to zip them to their destination as opposed to sitting on a train, especially if it involves walking to that station or standing in the rain, ect.  People love their privacy, and they tend to be lazy.

[Third Strike]

Finally, (and this may just be me). The only good thing about driving is, well... driving. Turning the experience into just sitting is a cramped seat and having no control will make me MUCH less likely to desire using a car.

 

I actually think this will be a huge plus for some people. Instead of the time we spend on driving, we could instead use that time to be more productive, like catching up on work, reading a book, or just leisure activities like internet browsing and movies. Heck, just being able to truly enjoy sight-seeing from your car is a big draw for me.

[cltbwimob]

Ha-ha, I'm sure he does. I'm not an advocate for or against any of it. I just think the tide is shifting. And the way we view private transit now versus in the future will likely be drastically different. And I'd wager most Americans (again, if the pricing is competitive, which is very possible) would rather order a driver-less vehicle on their phone to zip them to their destination as opposed to sitting on a train, especially if it involves walking to that station or standing in the rain, ect. People love their privacy, and they tend to be lazy.

I think there is an argument that could be made, but I think the idea of the driverless car making rail based rapid transit obsolete is so far into the future, that it shouldn't really be a concern for several reasons. For sure roads already exist, and the technology to make driverless cars possible is being churned out now by Silicon Valley, however there are still some critical infrastructure questions that must be answered prior to the driverless car taking over. One is that it would still have to deal with congestion. Driverless cars might be able to, in theory, reduce congestion, however I imagine that would be only in a world where most or all cars are driverless and can communicate with eachother and with other outside entities to allow them to optimize spacing between other cars and routing. A world where human drivers are mixed with the iCar will likely negate any congestion reduction benefits and might even make congestion worse. At a minimum I would expect there to be a minimum spacing requirement to be instituted into the technology, if not through engineering certainly through regulatory means, for safety reasons so that cars can change lanes and stop suddenly if needed. The technology needed to overcome this one barrier is likely to be monumentally expensive.

A second reason I think it is well into the future, along those same lines is infrastructure costs. As previously stated the roads are already in place, but assuming a driverless Uber model of mass transit (similar to Personal Rapid Transit) think about this: suppose 50,000 of the 100,000 employees downtown were using this service and they were arriving at roughly the same time, but were not going to parking decks or lots and providing door-to-door service; can you picture the amount of queuing lanes that would have to be added to support this? Now the cars could go into the decks and lots, but that would negate the benefit of door-to-door service, and would also require the decks to be able to communicate with the cars. All these technology and infrastructure improvements will not be cheap and they will not happen overnight.

Third and final reason, I think this will not be a viable model for a long time is that the car is about individuality, and part of the draw to them is that they are, in their own right, a form of self expression. As a piggyback onto Kermit's post, part of the fun of driving is driving, and how many people do we think are going to give up a 300-600 hp thrill machine for riding shotgun in a driverless Smart that will be likely governed at roughly the speed limit. Or what mom can give up her minivan/SUV? What country kid from Union county is going to give up his truck? My point is that if these people will not give up on driving, then one, the model will lose much needed market share, and two the necessary safety margins to be instituted will likely serve to reduce the capacity of our current infrastructure, not enhance it. This will lead to the need for more highway lanes, and thus more environmental problems even if the driverless cars were 100% electric.

I did not really touch on the cost side of the cars themselves, but it would likely make purchasing them en masse for a taxi-style door-to-door service incredibly expensive. In fact, the type of service you are suggesting is for the most part provided by taxi services, with the most notable exception being the absence of a driver. Could you imagine having to pay a fare to cover the costs of riding in a new electric car with an advanced electronics suite versus the 1995 Crown Victoria taxi today which is already very expensive?

I will leave you with this thought. Pilotless airplane technology is decades farther along than driverless car technology; the navigation and communication equipment needed to make pilotless flying possible is not nearly as complicated as making driverless cars. Flight plans don't require nearly as many turns and changes and the sky is not nearly as congested as roads. Yet most planes have pilots, and those that don't are not anywhere close to being 100% autonomous with the exception of maybe a couple of military drones which aren't mass produced. In fact autopilots have been on board planes for probably the better part of the last half-century, whereas driverless car technology is in its infancy. If planes aren't 100% pilotless by now, and more money than Google or Apple has ever thought about having has been placed in R&D for pilotless aircraft technologies (courtesy of the defense department), I do not expect the idea of a driverless Uber, otherwise known as Personal Rapid Transit to be feasible any time in the near future.

Edited August 13, 2014 by cltbwimob

[Yurek]

There was a discussion on WFAE today about transit alternatives and generation on millennial wanting to live in urban and walkable areas.

 

If anyone wants to listen, here is a link - http://wfae.org/post/not-my-backyard

I believe audio will be posted around 3 pm.

[Yurek]

This also sounds interesting - http://thehill.com/policy/technology/214891-gop-gets-hip-with-uber

[Yurek]

Also, anyone knows if it is going anywhere http://www.whitehouse.gov/high-speed-rail ?

[grodney]

Saturday night's Bristol night race is being pre-empted by the Charlotte ABC affiliate so they can instead show a pre-season NFL game featuring the team from Washington.  Bristol is one of the biggest races of the year -- it got a higher rating than any of the Chase races last year.  This is the Charlotte market -- the home of NASCAR.  And this is a PRE-SEASON football game, for a team that isn't even in this market.  That is shocking.  But I can only assume that the station is confident that the football will pull a higher rating than the race.  Amazing.

 

"

Saturday TV switch: The Irwin Tools Night Race at Bristol (Tenn.) Motor Speedway is scheduled to be shown on ABC, but WSOC-TV in Charlotte instead will air a Washington Redskins exhibition. The race will air on WAXN.

WSOC-TV will join the race in progress after the football game and the telecast will air simultaneously on both. ABC affiliates are independently operated and can make their own programming decisions.

"

 

"

Bristol TV Ratings: With an average of 6.3 million people watching, ABC's live telecast of the Irwin Tools Night Race for the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series at Bristol Motor Speedway on Saturday night, Aug. 24, was the most-viewed version of the race since ESPN and ABC returned to live NASCAR coverage in 2007. The viewership average of 6,322,082 was up from the average of 5,905,051 from last year's race, according to the Nielsen Company. The telecast earned a 3.9 U.S. household rating, up from a 3.7 for last year's race, despite the race not airing on ABC in seven markets due to ABC affiliates airing NFL pre-season football games. With a 9.4 rating, Greenville, S.C., was the nation's highest-rated market, followed by Knoxville, Tenn., and Greensboro, N.C., at 8.9. Charlotte, N.C., was fourth with an 8.7 rating with Richmond, Va., fifth at 8.2. Rounding out the top 10 were Norfolk, Va., 7.3; Indianapolis and Birmingham, Ala., at 6.3; Raleigh-Durham, N.C., at 6.2 and Orlando, Fla., at 6.1.

"

[kermit]

Also, anyone knows if it is going anywhere http://www.whitehouse.gov/high-speed-rail ?

 

as long as the teapublicans have any power in Washington that plan is going nowhere. There are some small bits getting built now thanks to the 2009 stimulus funding of "HSR" (including improving the tracks between here and Raleigh)

[SouthEndCLT811]

Also kind of sucks because while Irwin is part of Rubbermaid, it's HQ is in Huntersville.  Kind of hits us locally two times for sponsor and obviously NASCAR HQ.

[HopHead]

Saturday night's Bristol night race is being pre-empted by the Charlotte ABC affiliate so they can instead show a pre-season NFL game featuring the team from Washington.  Bristol is one of the biggest races of the year -- it got a higher rating than any of the Chase races last year.  This is the Charlotte market -- the home of NASCAR.  And this is a PRE-SEASON football game, for a team that isn't even in this market.  That is shocking.  But I can only assume that the station is confident that the football will pull a higher rating than the race.  Amazing.

 

"

Saturday TV switch: The Irwin Tools Night Race at Bristol (Tenn.) Motor Speedway is scheduled to be shown on ABC, but WSOC-TV in Charlotte instead will air a Washington Redskins exhibition. The race will air on WAXN.

WSOC-TV will join the race in progress after the football game and the telecast will air simultaneously on both. ABC affiliates are independently operated and can make their own programming decisions.

"

 

"

Bristol TV Ratings: With an average of 6.3 million people watching, ABC's live telecast of the Irwin Tools Night Race for the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series at Bristol Motor Speedway on Saturday night, Aug. 24, was the most-viewed version of the race since ESPN and ABC returned to live NASCAR coverage in 2007. The viewership average of 6,322,082 was up from the average of 5,905,051 from last year's race, according to the Nielsen Company. The telecast earned a 3.9 U.S. household rating, up from a 3.7 for last year's race, despite the race not airing on ABC in seven markets due to ABC affiliates airing NFL pre-season football games. With a 9.4 rating, Greenville, S.C., was the nation's highest-rated market, followed by Knoxville, Tenn., and Greensboro, N.C., at 8.9. Charlotte, N.C., was fourth with an 8.7 rating with Richmond, Va., fifth at 8.2. Rounding out the top 10 were Norfolk, Va., 7.3; Indianapolis and Birmingham, Ala., at 6.3; Raleigh-Durham, N.C., at 6.2 and Orlando, Fla., at 6.1.

"

 

There was a TON of bashing against WSOC on Twitter last night when this story came out. Which is rightfully deserved because:

 

1) As mentioned, this is a big NASCAR race in terms of viewership. 

2) Charlotte is NASCAR's backyard. This is basically a middle finger to the industry from WSOC. And it's just pure bad citizenship. 

3) That team in Washington (actually technically Maryland) is over 400 miles away and is NOT the home team. 

4) I can't imagine the viewership of that pre-season game is even a blip on the radar compared to the Bristol race.

 

I've heard that the Panthers org is quite displeased with WSOC over the fact they even cover their games. Can't say I blame them either. I'd boycott them. 

Edited August 21, 2014 by wend28

[Madison Parkitect]

I'm just happy I can watch my Skins on tv!

I know there are a lot of older Washington fans that live around here from before the Panthers existed, so maybe that's why.

[HopHead]

^They were the adopted home team a long time ago... haven't been for 20 years. It's not like NY or the Bay Area where you have two local teams. Sorry, it's just a slap in the face to the Panthers org, its fans and in this case NASCAR. Given all the media options for watching the NFL now, it's ridiculous that WSOC would even do that. Kind of hard to call yourself a source for Panthers news when you're broadcasting another market's team. 

[CLTProductions]

Very off topic, but I need some help recruiting a friend to the Queen City. Currently he works for a company (described by them as "a specialty contractor and maintenance firm, specializing in sustainable building solutions and innovative hvac management."). 

 

Basically he does project management for HVAC systems and the company does mechanical engineering. Manages the mechanical portion of major construction projects.

 

Does anyone know of some companies here in Charlotte that I can have him look into. I have sent him a few, but this forum is well informed and can perhaps send me some I haven't found. Like who works closely with Balfour? Or who is doing 300 S Tryon?

 

Any help would be appreciated, thanks team!

Edited August 24, 2014 by Jayvee

[tozmervo]

Optima Engineering, McVeigh and Mangum, Barrett Woodyard, Sutton Kennerly, United Engineering Group

[CLTProductions]

Optima Engineering, McVeigh and Mangum, Barrett Woodyard, Sutton Kennerly, United Engineering Group

Thanks a lot!! I appreciate it.