Wake county just isn't crowded enough to support rail transit outside experts say

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/12/3365566/wake-county-just-isnt-crowded.html

The panelists said Wake County was not likely to attract the federal funding it would need for a light rail line, and it doesn’t have a dense downtown employment center that would support rush-hour commuter trains.

“It’s a mass mode,” Polzin said. “And you need mass to make it work cost-effectively."

But Chapel Hill is going to bet $30 million (with Durham) that we could use for other transit on getting federal and state funding?  Now that's something worth ranting about!


Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/12/3365566/wake-county-just-isnt-crowded.html#storylink=cpy

Comments

BRT options were carefully studied in the Durham-Orange Alternatives Analysis, and the lengthy report was published in April 2012.The Chapel Hill Town Council held a public forum on the matter in November 2011, in which the discussion focused primarily on the decision to forward rail alignments C-1, C-2, or both as the locally preferred alternative. The matter returned in January 2012, at which time the Town Council approved a resolution to promote both rail alignments for consideration.

Virtually the entire meeting was taken up with a fight with TTA over changing the "local preferred alternative" for LRT.  They were insistent that it was too late to change from the C-1 alternative that runs through Meadowmont.  It was stunning to me how hard it was to get them to agree to include a second "preferred alternative".  TTA has favored LRT from the start.  Wake had the good sense to get outside experts to review the TTA plan.  That's what started this discussion.  Apparently we will keep going forward -- and we will see.  One of us will be wrong.  If it's me then I promise to resign.  Will you make the same promise?  Anyone associated with supporting the largest financial mistake in the history of the County should resign.  We can all celebrate accountability!

the alleged "fact" thst "LRT has fallen out of favor" at FTA and that "the almost unanimous voice is that BRT is a better bet" is not supported by the evidence. For both FY2013 and FY2014, of the 21 approved New Starts projects, 12 are LRT, 8 are heavy/commuter rail and one is BRT.  The small starts program has 4 BRT projects approved.  Durham to Chapel Hill or Raleigh to Durham are not eligible for small starts, they are too big.  MLK BRT would be eligible for small starts. There is also a TIGER program that a BRT application could be made for for MLK. Charlotte gots its 1.5 mile street car starter route funding under this program. Raleigh made a BRT application for New Bern avenue which was not approved. The only realistic corridor Raleigh to Durham is the NCRR right of way, and neither Norfolk Southern nor FRA would allow buses there. There is no abandoned rail ROW to use for BRT anywhere in the Triangle. That's where many jurisdictions have gotten their space for BRT.  We can't put a dedicated lane on I40 for buses at an enormous capital construction costs then somehow move it to the rail right of way.

Thank you for putting some straight forward clarity on the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) issue. Sure it may be cheap to plop a BRT down on an existing lane and take a lane off that existing road with no stations or platforms or parking but in reality this is a pipe dream. Taking a lane off of say 54 between Durham and Chapel Hill (already pretty congested) would so increase congestion that it would be impossible to drive on the remaining lanes due to the congestion. This reality would apply to any existing congested road. That is the heart of the BRT issue. To implement BRT properly means purchasing right of way (probably the largest cost), constructing new lanes, building stations and platforms and purchasing equipment. The Triangle Transit plan looked at BRT compared to Light Rail (LRT) and found it may be somewhat cheaper to implement BRT in the beginning but in the long term with equipment, maintenance and labor costs (to add capacity to BRT you must add equipment and drivers, for LRT just attach another car to the train) the BRT costs are about the same as LRT. With the exception of Durham/Chapel Hill LRT, the Triangle has existing rail right of way that goes to all the major locations where new jobs will be created (Durham, Raleigh, Cary and Research Triangle Park) that can coexist with Amtrak, the commuter rail plan as well as the LRT so lets use the existing rail right of way. With the possible future extension of the commuter rail to Hillsborough, Burlington, Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point would provide a tranportation network allowing daily commuting anywhere between High Point and Raleigh that would compete with the best of the knowledge job centers in the world for new jobs providing a desirable sustainable quality of life for new job seekers. 

Thx Dave L

That the Wake commissioners did not consult with their own staff on this issue and instead brought in "outside experts" of their own choosing?  Anyone have an explanation for this unusual process? 

it was publicly stated that the county manager chose the "experts"

One of Wake's goals wias to bring in experts who didn't have a vested interest in an outcome. They consulted with academic leaders and experts throughout the country - you know -people who have hands on experience with transportation systems Damon - on your point on BRT - please remember that it includes many technologies and only the densiest corridors run on guideways.  The buses can run on roads with priority signaling and covered shelters. Part of the economic value is that it is easiily integrated with bus service, can be implemented faster with less risk, and offers a chance to build ridership throughout the community. Our LRT will serve Durham, UNC and expensive properties on East 54.   TTA is making little prograess on its other projects (the Amtrak Station, expanded bus service, and MLK BRT. )  Is TTA signaling a concern about state and federal funding?   http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2013/11/15/3373610/transit-officials-bring-orange.htmlBonnie Hauser

Bonnie -- are you speaking of the Raleigh AMTRAK station or Hillsborough? In Raleigh the project is fully funded ($60+ million). TTA at one point was to be contractor but The City of Raleigh is now the grantee with TTA land being used for the site.  As to Hillsborough I do not know its status. As far as state and federal funding, there would be concerns whether bus, BRT, or LRT. As far as BRT NOT on a fixed guideway, priority signaling can help some places but does not avoid most of the road congestion, just stoping as ling at interchanges.

Ger,  you're involved with the General Assembly.  Do you think the state will fork over $250 million (at a minimum) without Wake participating.  That's beaucoup transit bucks that could go a long way for projects with much greater impact (remember, TTAs own projections only show LRT reducing congestion in the corridor by three percent.  TTAs projections also assume ridership is based on virtually every rider being subsidized completely by their employer!How much of your own money would you be willing to bet on that -- no matter which party is in power?  Which would you vote for -- using that $250 million to fund expanding Medicaid -- or a three percent reduction in congestion on the  corridor? 

transportation is entirely funded by road use taxes -- gas taxes, fees, etc. So there is no competition between transit and Medicad. None whatsoever. In fact, I suppose Durham/Orange has a greater chance of funding if Wake is on the sideline as Wake has much more political clout so in a competition between Wake and Durham/Orange Wake might be likely to win. How muchy money would I be willing to bet? Well, first off I bet $600 because that was my contribution to the referemdum campaign in Orange (and $250 for Durham's). Personally, I'd be much more likely to retire to Chapel Hill if there was rail transit in the future. Listen, we had a long planning process that resulted in multiple elected and appointed boards voting for rail transit. We had a referendum and 58% approved that plan. I'd be pretty pissed as a voter if the people who spoke out against rail before and during the referendum process and got clubbered 58-42 won out. Personally, I though much of the opposing rhetoric in the runup to county commissioner approval and in the referendum campaign was a liefest. Lies repeated over and over again.

Ger, this is all about wasting $40 million.  Do you think the citizens of Orange County will be upset if two or three years from now we have nothing!  TTA is going to raise fares.  There is very little apparent improvement in headways.  We're already starting to hear rumblings from the citizenry.  What citizens voted for was the tax.  They expect us to use it carefully and in the most sensible manner.  If you're using Light Rail as your criterion for moving here you'll be waiting a very long time.  Might want to tie your decision to better bus service.  It is not a lie to question the probability of success with LRT funding.  If we don't get it there will be a lot of voters asking why we didn't ask the question more explicitly and strongly.  The answers from the supporters of going forward with the risk will be the ones doing the lying then.  I am confident it will be blamed on someone other than themselves.  After all that's party politics as usual isn't it Ger?  Or does only one side lie and the other is truthfulness incarnate.

MattCz sorry for being intemperate. But circumstances haven't changed. It's the same arguments rehashed.

 Voters approved a sales tax for "public transportation" and few people understood the underlying plan.  The pitch was and continues to be that the need was due to the million or more people coming to the area (think "Wake"). Expanded bus service followed by the amtrak station in Hillsborough led the advocacy as benefitsToday Wake is out, there's been very little progress and a lot less funding for promised bus improvements, and virtually no progress on The Amtrak station.  The federal funding has been delayed and the process has changed.  There is no state funding.   So the $30-$40 million for studies is now a risk assumed by taxpayers and at the expense of planned (and higher priority) improvements to bus and train service in Hillsborough).  With Wake out of the picture, the likelihood of receiving federal or state funding for the studies or the project goes way down.  Plus if Wake - the primary population center - uses a different system, the regional benefits are substantially reduced. These are changed circumstances BTW Gerry - do you have any info on the size of the  communities or congestion served by the LRT projects that received  grants?  Bonnie Hauser

Bonnie, you say that "few people understood the underlying plan"  and "expanded bus service followed by the AMTRAK station in Hillsborough led the advocacy", and "today Wake is out". I'd say most voters knew that the plan was rail based.  The pro-transit postcard that was mailed to thousands of voters and used at the polls has an LRT vehicle prominently on front, it refers readers to "ourfutureontrack.com" (cleverly using the word "track" to deceive voters into thinking it had nothing to do with rail) and that website has ONE picture on the front page http://ourfutureontrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/railstation.jpg which is LRT. The projects mentioned in order are light rail followed by bus expansion. Opponents had leaflets at the polling places criticizing rail. The Daily Tar Heel had nine stories between September 15, 2012 and election day, including two letters to the editor encouraging people to vote no because supposedly light rail was a boondoggle. The Durham and Chapel Hill papers also had lots of similar publicity  All nine mentioned light rail prominently, including the editorial encouraging a yes vote.  Pro transit leaflets at the polls also prominently mentioned light rail.  So, after a 58-42 approval at the polls, we are supposed to drop LRT because opponents keep repeating the same arguments they had before the referendum? Wake has never yet voted on the tax, so it is not yet "out". There is also no evidence that Wake not yet being n the plan affects whether Orange and Durham will get funding. There has not yet been any "change in the process".  The Orange GOP just before the election seemed to center its reasons for supporting their county commissioner candidate on her opposition to light rail. So they were prominently talking about it http://www.orangencgop.org/content/four-vying-for-two-board-seats/ I will research and post the list of currently funded LRT projects nationwide. Again, your comment that "few people understood the underlying plan" is a blatant falsehood.as to Hillsborough AMTRAK, there is now federal funding to run two more roundtrip from Raleigh to Charlotte mid-2017. That's the first that there realistically could be a stop in Hillsborough. What either you or Julie M told me (the two of your were standing together)outside the Orange Commissioners meeting in 2012 where the ballot referendum was formally approved, was that the LRT (running from UNC Hospitals to Duke and downtown Durham) was a route from "nowhere to nowhere". I asked the two of you then whether you actually thought that the two largest employers in the two counties were actually "nowhere".  All I got in response was blank stares

 Gerry since you don't live or vote in Orange County, you might be careful about making claims about local voting information and decisions.  Let's agree to disagree on this one.Bonnie Hauser

well Bonnie while it's true that I neither live not vote in Orange, my involvement in the transit campaign included two full Saturdays as the pro-transit pollworker at Carrboro Town Hall and one full Saturday at RamsHead. I also worked three late afternoons at Rams and also Greenwood (CDA) on election day, and talked to perhaps 2000 voters personally.  I also hand addressed 2512 pro-transit postcards cards sent to 2711 people voting by mail, all of which had pictures of an LRT vehicle. I added handwritten notes to lots of those cards. I think I am as qualified as anyone to speak about local voting information and decisions.  My impression from talking to folks is that they knew exactly what they were voting for.

I also disagree. There many well attended open houses, multitides of articles in the paper and a huge amount of opinions letters in the papers. I think the general population was well educated and know that they voted for a plan that with a major component of Light Rail, a Hillsborough train station and increased bus service in Orange County. I know that's what I voted for and expect the Triangle Transit plan to be followed and not changed. I also believe Wake is just in the beginning of analyzing there options and are far from making a decsion. A change in the Wake commissioners in 2014 could change the thinking pretty quickly. We still have not heard how the voters of Wake county feel about their transit options. We have only heard how a few right wing commissioners feel and 3 right wing analysts with there own agenda.

Thx Dave L

The poll workers would disagree that people understood (or cared) about the tax.  Most were there to vote for te president  But this is all beside the point -now that that we know that most of  the money (not part of the money) is going to LRT - and that the $30-$40 million in studies are at the taxpayer expense - should we keep going. We have 3 elected officials voting no - one voting yes.  Bonnie Hauser

my involvement in the transit campaign included two full Saturdays as the pro-transit pollworker at Carrboro Town Hall and one full Saturday at RamsHead. I also worked three late afternoons at Rams and also Greenwood (CDA) on election day, and talked to perhaps 2000 voters personally. In talking to voters I found that most of them knew quite well what the referendum was about. While it is true that president was the big draw, there was only a 5% drop off in the votes cast for the transit referendum as for president. 10,000 more Orange County voters cast ballots in the transit referendum as for Supreme Court Justice.  I completely disagree with your conclusion that people neither understood nor cared about the tax. In fact, all evidence showed that they cared strongly. You can put out all the revisionist history that you want.

the first bus improvements are evening and weekend service expansions, as they require no new equipment.  some of that has already happened, I believe more is to come.  For improving peak hour headways more buses are needed, those have to be ordered as there is a lead time to get buses.

As has been pointed out here, TTA is having a meeting Monday at the Chapel Hill library to get "citizen "input on raising fares". What input are they looking for exactly?  Are they expecting citizens will ask why they are raising fares after receiving $28 million in sales tax revenue this fiscal year?  They should be.

I've been a regular rider of the TTA 400/405 routes this Fall, and have seen no improvements on this route, even though both counties (Durham and Orange) voted for the transit tax to improve inter-city bus travel.

I called TTA a few weeks ago, and the planner there implied that there wouldn't be any significant TTA service improvements until Wake County schedules a vote.

Again, I'm a strong supporter of the light rail. But it seems crazy to squirrel away all this tax revenue for a future project, while not being able to deliver frequent bus service between the two cities that have the most to gain from the light rail.

The 400 bus runs once an hour during off-peak periods, and takes almost an hour to get from Durham Station to downtown Chapel Hill as it winds its way through shopping center parking lots. The 405 is faster (40m), but it only runs during rush hour, and even then just once every half-hour.

To put this more concretely, when I take the Megabus from Durham to DC, the bus trip is approximately 4h 30m. Due to the infrequent TTA bus service, it takes me up to 1h55m to get from Durham to Chapel Hill. (The Megabus frequently arrives to Durham at 12:05 p.m.).

If any transit improvements are made, it seems that the 400/405 bus should be top priority, particularly because they serve the same facilities (Durham, Duke Hospital, Chapel Hill, UNC Hospital) that the light rail is expected to serve.

I do NOT think it is true that there will be no TTA service improvements until Wake adds the tax. In fact there are Orange-Durham service expansion plans listed below along with what has happened this yearService improvemements for Orange County from the Transit tax and vehicle registration fee implemented in FY 2013-2014 (internal Durham service expansion not listed below)CHTYear round later-evening service already implemented on the following routes: o CM (Carrboro / Merritt Mill Rd / Family Medicine) o CW (Carrboro / Weaver St) o D (Culbreth Road / Franklin Street / Eastowne) o J (Carrboro / Downtown Chapel Hill / Jones Ferry Road)o Additional evening trips on the F route  (Colony Woods / Franklin Street / McDougle School) Saturday service enhancements already implemented: o CM operates as a separate route (formerly combined with CW) o CW operates as a separate route (formerly combined with CM) o JN adds additional morning trip TTARoute 800 Chapel Hill to Southpoint 15 minute headways already implemented during peak hours (rather than 30 minutes)============under review for FY 2014-2015 for TTAo New service between central Orange County and Duke/downtown Durham o New service between Rougemont and Duke/downtown Durham o Additional weekday service to Chapel Hill, Durham and RTP o Extended Saturday evening service to Chapel Hill, Durham and RTP o New Sunday service to Chapel Hill, Durham and RTPI'm not sure of CHT plans for 2014-2015

The lack of service improvements are because - contrary to the plan - most of the money is going to fund the EIS studies  for LRT ( without any indication that state or federal funds are forthcoming) the proposed service improvements can't occur without the proposed funding Bonnie Hauser

$28 million from sales tax.  $1.7 million from the registration tax.  Total about $30 million.  $1.0 million (approximately three percent) for operating expenses for the counties and towns.  $88 thousand for Orange, $470 thousand for Chapel Hill, $33 thousand for Durham County, $450,000 for DATA and $300 thousand for TTA.  No spending on capital.  It's a long wait in between buses in Mebane or Hillsborough or Chapel Hill on the weekends for that matter. Source: TTA, not right leaning think tanks! 

I just watched this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqijCS_B2U8 which makes the issue a bit easier to think about. A few notes:* Does UNC have a position on the light rail? It seems that all their development plans are focused on Carolina North, where the real potential for the light rail plan would be to tear down student housing and develop new mixed-use (student housing, office space, etc.) at the Mason Farm stop. * Is it possible to run this project in phases? Connecting Meadowmont, or the next stop, to UNC Hospitals would be nice, and could allow UNC to convert all the parking on campus to office space. Likewise, connecting Ninth Street to Duke Hospital would be wrothwhile for the same reason.* I think BRT is worth pursuing on other routes (MLK, 15/501), but it's really a regulatory/planning issue, not a financial one. You could convert two lanes of MLK to bus lanes tomorrow, and increase travel times considerably. Pair that with the elimination of surface lots and on-campus parking, and you've gone a long way to solving the traffic problem in the short-term. * I am disappointed in the use of transit tax money so far. I've not seen any service improvements at all. I would like to see us get to 30m headways for bus service between Chapel Hill and Durham (15m headways during rush hour) before we get too far into building a transit system people might not want.   

Gerry - I was refering to the HIllsborough Amtrak station. Just another part of the plan that appears to be on hold as TTA focuses its resources on LRT.   Bus service is losing too.  WRT Mason Farm - I thought that was untouchable from a development perspective.  Hard to understand where UNC stands - but all signs suggest that they are the greatest beneficiaty in Orange County - followed by East-West Partners developements at Meadowmont and 54E.   The flyover shows how seriously limited the service will be for Orange County residents. Bonnie Hauser

Conversely, Bonnie, the LRT fly-through demonstrates how useful the light rail line will be - for both Orange and Durham residents. Having that direct line will dramatically reduce commute times for employees who live in one county and work in the other, as well as provide easy access to destinations in Chapel Hill/Carrboro for Durham residents and vice-versa for Orange residents.

Critically, the LRT is not a standalone transit improvement. It is, instead, one single component and the backbone of a stronger regional transit system that includes bus and rail. If you review the alternatives analysis - specifically Table 5-12 (on pages 5-53 and 5-54) - you'll see that bus line improvements are acknowledged as critical to supporting a successful light rail line and feeding into the light rail line. Saying that the light rail won't benefit Orange County is simply untrue because you have to consider the line in the context of additional improvements and how much of an impact that line will have as a result. For your convenience, I have excerpted the paragraph describing the bus improvements below.

The feeder bus service network is a key component of the LRT Alternative. Modifications to the programmed 2035 LRTP (or the No-Build Alternative) bus network were identified by station travel shed along the LRT alignment. If a route would duplicate or compete with the LRT service, then it was removed from the bus network. For each travel shed, a set of feeder bus routes was identified that provides access to the station from the various activity centers in the travel shed that are beyond the acceptable walking distance from the station (usually about one‐third of a mile). The feeder buses serve both residential activities and commercial/employment centers. These routes were then compared to the programmed bus network contained in the 2035 LRTP. If no route in the LRTP provided the same service as the proposed feeder route then a new route was added. If an existing route provided essentially the same service as the feeder route, then the existing route was modified as necessary to match the proposed feeder route. Table 5‐12 reflects these changes from the No‐Build Alternative.

Of course UNC is the biggest beneficiary, because it's a proxy for where the students, faculty, staff, and visitors are, It's the largest employer in the county. UNC has reserved a right of way corridor on campus for the LRT.

Travis - if you spoke to TTA at one of their session - you'd learn that the bus improvements "are not occuring as fast as they had hoped" I fully agree that UNC and UNC Healthcare benefits greatly from LRT - except they are not paying it  If you  argued that we're doing this for Durham and UNC, then we could start having an honest discussion about the system's value.  The question remains - are we thowoing good money after bad - cause the the risk to the taxpayer is higher = and we're funidng more of the upfront costs.  Plus the other planned transit improvement appear to have been thrown under the bus Bonnie Hauser

UNC is not some foreign entity. It's the students, employees, faculty patients, and visitors. All of whom are paying sales tax and will be paying fares if they ride.

The question isn't whether UNC will benefit from LRT; it's whether they will adapt plans that take full advantage of it. I've lived in a city (Baltimore) that has both light rail and a subway, and both are underutilized due to poor city/regional planning. Already, Chapel Hill has great public transit, and would be even better with easy-to-accomplish service improvements (such as Sunday service). But UNC encourages employees/students to have cars by allowing parking even in the middle of campus, and failing to develop its transit- and walkable-friendly properties, such as all the parking lots they own downtown.The Carolina North project seems just more of the same car-centered campus, and while I'd like to think they could also densify at the same time, I don't know if the committment is there. Exchanging the Mason Farm land in order to develop elsewhere seems short-sighted, particularly if the region is to grow along the light rail line.  

UNC has a dedicated right of way for the light rail from behind the Dogwood deck at UNC hospitals to Fordham Blvd. It also making available space for stations both behind the hospital and behind the Smith Center. The hospital station will be planned for both walking to the medical center as well as transfer to bus routes that will serve the station. all LRT planning has to include effective bus connections at stations/ The Mason Farm station (actually Smith Center, it is NOT at the Mason Farm itself) will be walkable from South Campus dorms as well as serving as a special events station for basketball events.

I can assure you UNC is not a "car-centered" campus. Parking has been elminiated on the main campus to make way for other buildings, and though, yes, UNC did build the Belltower Lot recently, it is for employees only. Student parking has always been extremely limited, and the construction of lots like Belltower has been done because employees continue to move and live further and further away from campus outside of the reach of public transit, and also because of a desire for more parking for football and basketball games.

UNC has not always been perfect on this issue, but parking is difficult and will remain so. As Gerry has already said, the university has committed to a right-of-way for the light rail and has a vested interest in making that line a success, as it will make a big dent in the parking demand generated by employees.

As for the parking lots downtown, many of those lots are on Rosemary Street, which is currently undergoing a small area plan called Rosemary Imagined. I imagine that as the town continues to see denser planning in the downtown area, UNC will see the benefit and be a partner in that effort.

Mary Newsom in Charlotte suggests the three Wake "experts" were a pre-stacked deck against rail transit

http://nakedcityblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/triangles-transit-tussle-and-its-expert.html

it concludes:

Of course, transit and transportation scholars can legitimately disagree about the wisdom of one public policy course over another, and they can provide research data to support a wide spectrum of conclusions. That's legitimate.  But for the Wake commissioners to name two prominent rail transit critics to a three-person advisory panel might be raising some eyebrows in the Triangle.

National transportation blog Streetsblog has picked up the story about how the Wake County Board of Commissioners stacked the deck against rail:

There is a certain class of “transportation expert” that does just one thing: poo-poos rail projects. The Reason Foundation in particular has found a niche issuing easily discredited doomsday reports on local rail.

These folks travel around the country as hired guns, and they’ve been recruited by politicians in North Carolina. The Triangle region of Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill is laying the groundwork for a light rail system between the three cities. According to Mary Newsom at the Naked City, just one community is holding out: Wake County, which has enlisted a team of “experts” to weigh in. Newsom says the deck is stacked.

today's N&O again debunks the panel of Wake "experts" on which the initial premise of this thread was basedhttp://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/19/3387739/a-panel-of-transit-experts-gave.html 

Having read throught this thread I am reminded of how difficult I find it to understand the degree to which anti-rail people are anti-rail.  I suspect its root lies in one's view on how tax money should be spent in light of which community services/infrastructure that one expects to use personally.  That, however, is a topic for a different day.My own experience with regional rail systems has been uniformly postive. I've had the chance to live on the rail networks in Southeast Pennsylvania and Copenhagen, Demark.  I have also been a frequent user of rail systems on business and personal trips around the country and around the world.  In all cases, the rail lines have been well-utlized and have spurred economic development along their corridors.  Viewed from an energy consumption per person-mile standpoint, rail is significantly more efficient than either cars or buses.  Furthermore, railroads can run directly on electricity, no liquid fuel or rare-earth metal based batteries required, making them compatible with the sustianable energy sources of the future (wind, solar, and, depending on one's view, nuclear.)Rail systems are expensive investments from which the benefits are long delayed since construction takes many years.  As such, there are always those who argue that monies would be better deployed on shorter-term, stop-gap measures.  The lenghty implementation gives opponents of rail many opportunties to decry them as "waste" or "risky" or "large financial mistakes", particularly when inevitable difficulties arise.  Regions who can perserve through these difficulties and weather the assaults assults from the anti-rail contingent end up with improved transit systems and better quality of life.  I certainly hope we stay on that path.   In fact, that's what I voted for.

The only thing missing from the UNC interview with Bruce Siceloff is the information that funding for bus expansion, the Amtrak Station in Hillsborough, and possibly the BRT line on MLK Blvd is going to LRT studies.  http://wunc.org/post/rail-transit-shot-down-panel-expertsBonnie Hauser

is what the TTA projections were in 2005 when according to the Triangle Business Journal the "FTA raised questions about the rail project's ridership figures".  That misguided squandering of funds ended up with the FTA assigning the "TTA project a low rating" and declining to recommend the project for full federal funding in 2006.  According to the Triangle Business Journal it cost approximately $140 million in state, local and federal funds.  Which elected officials and lobbyist spoke up after that debacle and said they made a mistake supporting it?  This time TTA's numbers magically almost doubled when they had an insight that virtually all the LRTpassengers would pay close to  nothing because their employers would subsidize their fares.  Given all the other issues do we think the FTA is going to accept the  TTA projections?  At least this one elected official is skeptical -- and history happens to support me -- remember Santayana's maxim!  Silence from elected officials at this point -- especially given the Chapel Hill News article on Wednesday -- is tantamount to support. Accountability is unavoidable.  And when David King says that TTA is looking at other sources of funding -- what would those realistically be?  The fundamental issue here is that no matter what we think of LRT the only opinion that matters is that of the FTA.  WIthout federal funds this project doesn't happen. Apparently most of our elected officials think it's worth a $40 million bet.  It is not!   

Pages

 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.