Angry taxpayers raised enough money to collect tens of thousands of signatures to put a transit tax back on the ballot in Charlotte, NC. Charlotte-area voters had approved a half-cent tax to support light-rail construction in 1998.
But cost overruns made the project controversial, and opponents want to stop the transit agency from beginning construction on more lines. The voters will get a chance to repeal the tax in November, just a few weeks before the first line opens for business.
Will Charlotte drivers switch to light rail or do they just want other people to switch so they can drive on uncongested roads?
Flickr photo by jacreative.
It’s viagra for cheap actually a process that involves two stages. Causes of Anorexia There is no definite cause of anorexia that has been determined. buy viagra no prescription You simply generic prescription viagra without want to buy the most healthful and potent organic supplement on the market, totally securely and hassle-free. Although the damages caused by alcoholic neuropathy are usually commander viagra permanent, abstaining from drinking can help prevent further damage to the nerves. My friend Wendell Cox has a detailed article covering the projected light-rail system on his Public Purpose web site. He points out that Charlotte’s central business district, while thriving, has only 50,000 jobs. Even if light rail takes a lot of those people to work, the other 90 percent of the region’s jobs are too thinly spread out to be served by light rail.
As a result, rail will never carry more than a tiny percent of the region’s commuters to work; planning documents predict just 1.8 percent by 2025. The 2000 census found that buses carry about 2.5 percent of commuters to work, and FTA data indicate that transit only carries about a half a percent of regional passenger travel.
Cox also notes that the planning documents for the light-rail lines projected that bus-rapid transit would cost less yet carry more people than rail. Of course, rail proponants trot out the “choice” argument. But dirigibles and personal jet packs are choices too, but you don’t see anyone proposing cities spend hundreds of millions on these technologies.
Lots of cities have seen cost overruns in their light-rail lines. The overruns in Seattle are far greater than in Charlotte; overruns in Denver look like they will also be much greater. Why is Charlotte getting to revote the matter? Apparently, some anonymous activist was motivated enough by the overruns to fund a petition-gathering campaign. The signatures (most of which were collected by paid signature gatherers) probably cost some $40,000 to $50,000. Presumably, that person will also spend a few tens of thousands of dollars on the election campaign.
The main hurdle rail opponents have to clear is convincing people that they can repeal the tax without suffering dire consequences. Rail supporters are saying that repealing the tax would require the city to refund hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal government; reduce bus service; and force the city to raise property taxes. Opponents say most of those claims are false. As always, the question is not who is right but who will get their claims, correct or not, out to the voters.
The funny thing here is, Charlotte has also funded light rail the same way a lot of things like that have been funded here in Portland. A corporate entity (business) decides they would be willing to fork out huge amounts (millions) in addition to the public funding by taxpayers to get something like this.
In the end items like light rail raise the status of such a city. Charlotte is a point of light in the otherwise backasswards south, they’re intending to keep moving forward. With the city accounting the majority of downtown work and high standards of living to Bank of America and the other “large bank” in the area light rail will be a welcome addition over time. Unless they completely botch the situation and don’t allow a solid ridership to grow they’ll be far better off with the light rail than without.
Even if it does only carry your supposed 1.x% of passengers.
Dig a little deeper and you might be surprised how encouraged strongholds of pro-car auto based lifestyles are starting to fall over to the idea of mixed mode and even subsidies (or reduced subsidies all together).
Just out of curiosity, why don’t you hit more on the unevenness of subsidies to begin with instead of ONLY the ones that are supposedly uneven for transit. I’ve seen enough arbitrary numbers for road construction and the insane subsidies that flow into that system to know better than to think that transit is the only thing receiving these.
why don’t you hit more on the unevenness of subsidies to begin with instead of ONLY the ones that are supposedly uneven for transit
I’d like to hear the Antiplanner’s take on subsidies to Walmart and other businesses.
Be against some subsidies means you’re for other subsidies?
As far as spending on light rail to raise status… I’d rather they spent the money on a nice big exspansive park then light rail that nobody is going to use and will take up streetspace.
DP4, why don’t we instead talk about the approximately $2400 per household that the “Walmart effect” has deposited into American’s pockets.
why don’t we instead talk about the approximately $2400 per household that the “Walmart effect†has deposited into American’s pockets
Be my guest.
D4P said: I’d like to hear the Antiplanner’s take on subsidies to Walmart and other businesses.
JK: We don’t need no stinking big boxes in Portland – we prefer paying higher prices at the local mixed use stores. Just ask the idiot planners.
Thanks
JK
Plan for people’s wants, not planner’s theology.
One of these will take eventually (some links and titles removed):
I’d enjoy a real conversation as well; provided there’s a discussion of both benefits and costs. Do begin, jg, (or any other Randian nom d’e- for that matter).
DS
Adron said: The funny thing here is, Charlotte has also funded light rail the same way a lot of things like that have been funded here in Portland. A corporate entity (business) decides they would be willing to fork out huge amounts (millions) in addition to the public funding by taxpayers to get something like this.
JK: Huh!! I hope you aren’t referring to the Portland airport toy train?
Adron said: In the end items like light rail raise the status of such a city.
JK: Toy trains did wonders for Portland:
* Sopped up 2 billion in transportation funds, while carrying the number of people equal to abut 1/3 of one lane of freeway. (cost over 5 times what roads would cost)
http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers2.htm
* Focus on toy trains instead of road capacity got Portland famous for its increase in traffic congestion.
* Reduced people’s job choices by reducing the number of jobs within a given commute time by increased congestion.
* Provided an excuse to funnel millions in tax abatements to favored developers (many of which just happen to be campaign contributors). In turn the toy train freaks, claim the development was due to the toy trains, forgetting to mention the tax abatements. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/LightRailDevelopment.htm
http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/development.pdf
Adron said: Charlotte is a point of light in the otherwise backasswards south, they’re intending to keep moving forward.
JK: Care to provide some comparisons with other Southern regions (lets not confine it to a city limits) like Atlanta and Houston? Start with income, unemployment, school quality, house affordability.
Adron said: Dig a little deeper and you might be surprised how encouraged strongholds of pro-car auto based lifestyles are starting to fall over to the idea of mixed mode and even subsidies (or reduced subsidies all together).
JK: Got any data, or is this just yet another planner’s wet dreams?
Adron said: Just out of curiosity, why don’t you hit more on the unevenness of subsidies to begin with instead of ONLY the ones that are supposedly uneven for transit. I’ve seen enough arbitrary numbers for road construction and the insane subsidies that flow into that system to know better than to think that transit is the only thing receiving these.
JK: What crap. You really need to quit believing those claims in the Sierra club fund raising letters.
In general, road users pay their own way and pay for a big chunk of transit through user fees. And most transit system recover less than 50% of their cost from users. The rest comes from taxpayers, so transit is really a form of welfare. They seldom consider the cost of building toy trains in their cost calculations. When you add the cost of construction, rail comes in at over FIVE times what driving a car costs. See http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm
People often forget that transit uses energy too, so they naturally assume transit uses no foreign oil and don’t even think to compare transit’s energy usage with cars. Today, the average car uses less energy than the average bus. Hybrid cars beat the pants off of buses and rail to the point that transit probably will never again approach the efficiency of cars, especially small ones. See http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm
Note that the proper comparison between a car and transit is to compare transit’s single seat (or 2’x2′ standing room) with a car, so the proper car for the comparison would be the smallest, most uncomfortable car around. Any car above that standard is consuming extra energy (and cost) for the person’s comfort. See http://www.debunkingportland.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm
BTW, if it is public policy to encourage energy saving, the logical action is to encourage transition to more efficient cars to substitute for today’s cars and SUVs. To expect people to give up their cars for buses and cattle cars is simple stupid. But that’s planning!
BTW, which government agency, rail sales or planning consulting company do you work for?
Thanks
JK
Who gets no income from city planning or fleecing the taxpayers.
I thought we were going to talk about the Wal-Mart effect instead. Pity how these things get dropped.
DS
Dan said: I thought we were going to talk about the Wal-Mart effect instead. Pity how these things get dropped.
JK: Why do planners have this thing about store brands? Why not just plan for a store of xx square feet and xx trips?
Thanks
JK
So we can’t actually speak to the Wal-Mart effect.
Alrighty then.
DS
Dan said:
So we can’t actually speak to the Wal-Mart effect.
JK:
Why should that be part of planning? That is a political issue. You aren’t suggesting that planners inflict their politics on others are you?
Thanks
JK
Just shut up and fork over the taxes, you stupid citizens. Go watch American Idol.