Finally. Here's a study that analyzes some of the criticism of rail transit and points out where it's on target and where it's off. (Warning: It's 52 pages.)
It's from Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute in Victoria, BC. (That's Canada, in case you don't get out much.)
Among his findings:
-- Several recent studies indicate that ... rail transit does reduce congestion (Page 10).
-- Average operating costs per passenger-mile actually tend to be lower for rail than bus (page 11).
-- Both motorist and truck congestion costs decline in a city as rail transit mileage expands, but congestion costs increase as bus transit mileage expands, apparently because buses lure fewer travelers from driving and contribute to traffic congestion themselves. (Page 10).
Litman includes a lengthy section examining statements by Randal O'Toole, a prolific rail transit critic and darling of the Cato Institute and other rail critics. Litman finds some of O'Toole's reports based on incorrect data and flawed analysis. (Example: "O’Toole states incorrectly and without citation that regions with rail system devote 30-80% of their total transportation capital budgets to transit.")
Finally, there's a very long point-counterpoint between Litman and O'Toole.
Happy reading.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Critiquing the rail critics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
153 comments:
Congratulations...after 10+ few years the pro-train crowd has finally found one report that disputes the multitude of reports and analysis showing trains as the costly, ridiculous boondoogles they are. Don't break you arms patting yourself on the back!
I guess all the anti-train types should pack it in and just give up with this irrefutable proof, eh?
How many days until the Observer runs this on the front page masquerading as "news"?
Please explain why we are spending hundreds of millions - $6 billion if the whole plan gets funded on plans THAT WILL NOT REDUCE CONGESTION...The transit plan ADMITS that in their own study! So no report from Vancouver can counteract that. Tober and his minions admit this has NOTHING to do with reducing congestion.
I'm from Cleveland Ohio and was there when Tober ran the "Waterfront Line" light rail project as it was being built and guess what? It was way overbudget when it was built and NO ONE rode it...ridership was way below the projected numbers even after the projections were lowered twice. Great leadership.
I think you missed a key passage on page 11. You know, the one that says that buses are more appropriate for, you know, low-density areas with less support for condemning property and subsidizing transit.
It also talks about rail transit in the ideal, only through the most dense parts of the city. Charlotte, on the other hand, has chosen the lightly-populated Corridor of Crap for its first line.
Even if one agrees with the study, one has to conclude rail probably isn't the best alternative for Charlotte and that the choices so far for it have been botched.
why can't the anti-transit folks see this is about a long-term landuse change in the city. Its the means to an end (a denser urban environment) not an end in itself.
Skeptical? Just drive down South blvd and you can see the process working already.
Yes, I know not everyone wants density, luckily you have a tremendous number of suburbs to choose from, I think University City and (if you want to leave the tremendouse tax burden of Charlotte behine, Gaston County) have particularly bright futures...
Mary,
There's lots here. Thanks for the report.
Couple of quick observations....
First let's talk about qualifications.
Todd Litman the author of your quaint little 52 pager is not a professor of anything related to transportation. Todd is a PhD candidate in Geography. The Vicoria Transportation Policy Institute is his own creation, not a legit "institute". Many of his "quotes" are from his own works.
David Hartgen, our local world renowned expert is a PHD in transportation studies.
Ph.D. Northwestern University, 1973, Transportation Planning
M.S. Northwestern University, 1967, Transportation Planning
B.S. Duke University, 1966, Civil Engineering. His most recent report had a cool 358 pages of information.
Now to some specifics...
1. Figure 4 which shows Portland's stellar ridership increase on rail from 10K to 25K over the course of 8 YEARS is misleading because it doesn't show the corresponding cost of building rail lines to support those riders. It makes it look like buses have flattened out. How much of this flattening is due to resources being misdirected to a new line or two? If those resources had been directed to the proved bus system, there would have been a definite increase I'm sure.
2. There is a nice little chart which shows on-time and on budget light rail projects. What this doesn't show is what the public was told it would cost when the project was sold. There's a major difference between "budget" by the time a project gets to that point and what a project is sold as to the public originally. That's the main beef here in Charlotte. Lies and deceptions told up front with deliberately low-ball numbers, then the first "budget" comes out with much higher numbers. This makes it look like things are on budget when they really aren't.
3. I particularly like this quote
Critics often argue that bus transit could be provided at a lower cost than rail. Rail and bus each have advantages and disadvantages, and each is suitable for certain situations (Litman, 2004b). In general, rail tends to be most appropriate on very busy urban corridors with heavy ridership demand where communities want to encourage compact, walkable urban development. Bus is most appropriate serving lower-density area or where communities are unwilling to support transit-oriented land use.
No, this guy's not biased at all now is he? The difference in charlotte is that we don't have any natural high demand corridors. They will only exist if rail-related zoning forces people into them.
Wow. There's really nothing for me to say here. Three of the four previous posters have pretty much shredded this study back into the garbage it is.
Mary, after reading many of your posts, it appears that you're intent on convincing everyone that light rail is a good idea for Charlotte. Why is that?
Rick,
can you tell us exactly how "rail-related zoning forces people into [high density corridors]"?
May, don't give up with these short-sighted, cheap fools. It is always the same 4 people posting on here that are against it anyways.
Anon @ 10:57: It's pretty obvious. As part of the light rail plan, a lot of old industrial land around the rail line is being rezoned for high-density living space... apartments and condos, mostly, with some townhouses and such. If any of the residents of these new living units work uptown or anywhere in South End, they'll obviously be prime candidates to use the light rail to get to work and other stuff that's uptown. The rezoning is key to this, because without it, the density around the light rail would remain pathetically low. It wouldn't surprise me if zoning for apartments in other areas in south Charlotte was limited somewhat to encourage crystallization of apartments around the nucleus of the rail line.
And at least most of us "short-sighted, cheap fools" have the courage to sign our names when we post here. (For all we know, all you Anons are just ONE person.) And while there may only be a few of us posting here, we represent a large number of people (63,000+, last I heard) who oppose the transit tax.
CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP!!!
63,000 out of 600,000. Yep the numbers are looking good.
Clay, it's time for your Metamucil.
To the Anons...
Again, I see the platitudes and general name calling to support your vision.
I still do not recall when keeping your hard earned income has earned a citizen the tag of "greedy" or "cheap". It a very troubling trend that tax and spenders feel they have a right to my and others hard earned money.
If light rail is so worth while and can be funded by a "measly" $50/$10,000 sales tax, then why don't those who want it, who plan to use and who support it PAY for it? We could start with them paying more than 16% of the true operating cost. We could continue with advertising on buses ($800,000 / yr lost opportunity cost). The list is nearly endless.
If it's truly a "measly...meager...almost nothing" amount of money, then it should not be a problem for light railers to pay for it themselves.
....and in this morning's Disturber, I read that Bank of America is backing out of its commitment for the Scaleybark development.
Anon 4/10/2007 10:57:00 PM
Current land use planning has a goal of at least 40%/70% of new residential construction being in the transit corridors. The original language said "requires" I believe, but that was too totalitarian for some on the board to stomach so it was changed to "encouraged". (Correct me if I'm wrong here Mary, but I remember reading that somewhere.)
It was considered a disappointment when only the low 60% range was reached during the last assessment as reported by Richard Rubin before he left.
Yes, "forced" is the right word.
From the TAP (Transportation Action Plan)
TAP Policy 1.1.2
The City will encourage a minimum of 40% of new households and 70% of
new multi-family units to be located within Centers and Corridors.
TAP Policy 1.1.3
The City will encourage 75% of new office development and 75% of new
employment to be in Centers and Corridors.
"Complementary land use planning is occurring concurrently by the Planning Commission.
Transit Station Area Principles, transit-oriented development (TOD) and
transit-supportive (TS) zoning districts, and the South End Transit Station Area Plan
have all been adopted since 2000."
Don't waste your breath on these people. They would elect Bush again if they could.
Same crowd, different day. Rail is coming and it will expand no matter what they say or how many petitions they trick people into signing. The only thing left to decide is just how much more these people will cost all of us in real estate taxes.
You can't stop progress.
I just wonder what their next topic to bitch about will be once they find out how bad they screwed all of us on the train issue ? I am sure they will find a way to blame the increased real estate tax on the "liberals".
They are all the same. Just take a look at our countries deficit with nothing to show for it except gold lined pockets of the Bush clan.
It's called PLANNING and Republicans don't and never will get it. Just as they wasted money on a war instead of beefing up our borders and ports. They now want to waste it on adding more lanes that all funnel to a congested city rather than expand options of mass transit.
Simple minded War, war, war. Hate everyone and dissagree with everyone who is not exactly like them. Nothing new, lets keep the old ways forever mentality.
It's funny how cheap they are on local spending and yet how wasteful they are on federal war spending.
Like I said, same crowd, different day.
Doesn't anyone realize its much easier to support the light rail than complain about it? It almost complete so, I doubt the city is going to scrap the project, tear it down and waste more money. Oh, and as far as our local renowned transportation expert, he is probably the reason why Charlotte's road system is the way it is. Is he the genius who decided to have all the bottlenecks around here? Thats the main reason for all the congestion. Its almost pointless to argue with anyone on here since most of you people can't see the benefits of anything and probably wouldn't do much better if you were the decision makers around here.
Last anon, you truly don't want to educate yourself do you?
If you knew anything about Professor Hartgen, you'd know the bottlenecks and poor road planning are one of the things he rails against constantly.
Also, I'd never in a million years vote for George again - for different reasons than you I'm sure.
Yeah, but you voted for Dubya at least once, maybe twice. Did you finally learn your lesson ?
Maybe 15 years from now you will also learn your transportation lesson as well.
Same people, different day.
Another thought: the writer makes a big deal about the rate of congestion increase decreasing after light rail went in. However, I believe in at least two of the cases the metro areas involved shrank. It stands to reason that if a metro area gets smaller, congestion will get less. Pity he didn't figure metro area growth/loss into the equation, or that he cherry-picked only four cities from the cited study. Correlation isn't the same as causation.
As far as the trains, I'm all in favor of them. Might even ride up to some Panthers games on occasion. It should be noted, though, I'm also in favor of CharMeckNC's high taxes, poor schools, and generally awful government, since they help drive people across the state line and increase the value of my Fort Mill home. :)
Are you cheap enough to live in a state where they want to force a woman to look at untra sounds before abortion, even in rape cases. I rather pay a little more and not live next door to a neanderthal.
S.C. sucks, period. I lived there for 5 months and figured that out.
No, I'm smart enough to live somewhere where I can have 50% more house for lower property taxes, where my kids can walk to our brand new school that will put any public school in Charlotte not named "Myers Park" to shame, where I don't have to worry about the top state officials brazenly taking bribes in exchange for telling me how to live my life, where my kids aren't a political football for zealots. More and better for less doesn't make one "cheap"; it makes one wise.
CharMeckNC is a nice place to visit, but you don't want to live there. Unless you're a well-connected mulimillionaire, maybe. Lived there for a decade, much happier in Fort Mill. But, hey, if you want to pay more for less and worse, it's all good with me.
I believe folks are misinterpreting the "won't decrease congestion" comment. Congestion will continue to increase because the region is growing so fast (61,500 people in the last year!).
Even if all four other (planned) transit corridors were to become operable this fall along with the South Line, the region would see some increase in congestion with so many people moving in. But the inevitable increase in congestion will be less with rapid transit than it would be without rapid transit.
It's analogous to inflation -- you don't compare 2007 dollars to 1960 dollars because there's been significant inflation. Instead we should compare 2020 congestion with rapid transit to 2020 congestion without rapid transit. Yes, even with rapid transit the region's congestion will increase, but that doesn't mean that rapid transit has no beneficial effect on congestion.
First of all I am getting ready to move into a hi-rise full of floor to ceiling windows with an incredible view of the city on all sides. There's no way to find this in Fort Mill or anywhere in SC for that matter. I have all the amenities of the city at my finger tips.
Secondly, I do not have school aged children so that is not an issue for me. If I did I would send them to private regardless of the state I lived in.
Finally, you must compare quality of life with the cost of that quality. I don't consider living in SC any type of quality whatsoever. My daughter actually graduated from Fort Mill. She agrees that the school is slightly better as far as curriculum but is over shadowed by the immense amount of ignorance from teachers and students. A total backward community if ever there was one. She hated the experience and has since moved back to Charlotte as an adult.
If you are backward and behind the times you will love it. Please move there, it will make Charlotte look even better with you gone.
Why is the project termed "light" rail when the tracks have been rebuilt apparently because they could not hold the weight, which formerly sufficed? Is "light" a mere marketing ploy?
A contention that the overruns are not as bad as other overruns does not mean these cost overruns are not just as repulsive.
If corruption and kickbacks were involved, what would the appearance of the history of the project look like? Just like it appears now...
I agree uptown might make more sense if you're wealthy, single, DINK, and/or empty nest. And if your employer happens to be located nearby or along the train line. If it works for you, more power to you. Just don't ask me to subsidize your lifestyle choices. And good luck for CharMeckNC is that narrow slice of the population is who they are catering to.
Re: view, my backyard view is of my kids playing on their new playset. The view from the SF Bay area can't compare. And the 3000+ square feet inside isn't bad, either. Nor is sitting on the front porch and talking to neighbors at dusk.
Re: quality of life, sounds like you're stuck in the 1980s. You might want to learn about the Fort Mill of today before commenting on it. My only complaint is Comporium (cable/phone monopoly), but that seems to be on the verge of ending.
Re: backwardness, I saw an infinitely greater amount going on in CharMeckNC than I have in Fort Mill so far. I'd rather not have my kids exposed to the elitism, tribalism, relativism, and the like that permeates the fair town and which you seem to embody. Enjoy your utopia!
Sorry Bud, she graduated in 2004 so it was hardly the Fort Mill of the 80's. You have me beat with twice the sq. footage though. But I spend my free time enjoying the city life. So 1,500 is enough for me and my wife. Are you making up for a lack in the sack ?
As far as your other comments on your kids being "exposed" they totally sum up the typical close minded Fort Redite I was talking about. Go run off and hide in the cul-de-sac. Don't let your kids figure out that there's more to life than what their daddy is preaching to them.
As far as me asking you to subsidize my lifestyle goes, I never have. You live in another God damned state.
If you happen to still be commuting to Charlotte via I77 then hang onto your panties, toll roads are coming. Say what you want, they will be here within the next decade. There's no way around it. The bigger Fort Red gets and the more of its residents cross the line for the pay check the quicker this will become a reality.
So, to sum up: you pay more for less (I'm not sure what part of the city you "enjoy," but there's nothing stopping me from doing the same) but resent others who don't. Oh, and you think elitism, tribalism, and the like are good things.
Sounds like you're just the sort of mind-numbed robot CharMeckNC wants. Enjoy!
I would have to say that protecting your children from the harmless differences of people is usually taken as preparing them to be mind-numbed robots.
What's next ? Home schooling ? Then you can really mold them into exact copies of you.
Enough about the light rail. All that matters is that someone opens a real pizza place in uptown. Fuel has got to go. Good pizza will solve all the transit issues.
unbelievable
Thad
I still say NC should build a huge toll plaza on I-77 at the SC state line.
If you don't want to subsidize transit because you won't use it, I don't want to subsidize schools because I don't have children. How about this: I don't want to subsidize your lifestyle choices - i.e. popping out kids like a pez dispenser. Atleast this is only a HALF CENT sales tax and people from outside Mecklenburg also help pay for it. Schools are property taxes and much more than half a cent.
Right to the point "get over it". Perfectly said.
You summed it all up. They cry, cry, bitch, bitch, moan, maon. But when the day's over it's all about what suits them and them only. Funny thing is that they complain that it's all for the uptown crowd and what they want. "HELLO", isn't stopping the tax all about you and YOUR wants ? Your kids school, your roads to YOUR cul-de-sacs.
The pro train / pro transit people are for everyone. They want to make the city better for EVERYONE. We all benefit from better, cleaner transit choices. If you decide not to ride the train it's your right not to. But don't go stealing that right from others.
You don't see us picketing to stop taxing us for YOUR crap we don't use.
If the plans go foward we will be looking at a great transit system by the end of the next 15 years. It takes time people. This is only the first leg of the rail. You didn't move from stage coaches to cars overnight.
Sorry for the last post. Typed a long response before and it wouldn't publish so I was checking before responding.
Let me start by saying I grew up in Charlotte and lived there for 36 yrs. I left for the same reasons most other people have posted here and on other blogs. Yes, I live in a cul-de-sac with my family and friends. I don't go to a gym because my yard work ,that i enjoy doing, keeps me in shape (not to mention playing with the kids). A good night out is dinner with friends at their house or ours or at the club with quiet conversation and drinks and after that a movie at home or sitting on our quiet deck listening to the nature around us.
You like your skyline, i like my trees.
My children get an excellent education in the schools they attend here and at one time they did attend a CharMeck schools with the name "Myers Park" in it. But enough about me- just wanted to give a background because I will be responding in the future.
Now to the topic- Being an Engineer and knowing new technologies that exist now and are being developed for the future, everyone who says light rail is the future ,whether or not you are for or against light rail, is laughable. I will give you a glimpse of what is out there and what is around the corner and you then can ask yourself if light rail is necessary.
Those little GPS things in your cars- with a little help, instead of locating you to +/- 10 ft, it can locate you to an accuracy of 0.1'/ft. Now, combine that with a map-lets use google earth (little more accurate than mapquest,yahoo maps, etc.) - and you know exactly where you are.
Now, combine the steering and hydraulics with the map and GPS (aleady done on a daily basis with GPS machine control for earth moving equipment) and you can control the machine remotely or on-board.
Just a side note- to this day, insurance companies will not insure heavy earthmoving equipment without an operator in the cab- but the military does it frequently for grading runways in hostile enviroments. (I have seen a clip from our R&D people that shows a city bus running autonomously down a city street with other traffic. That clip is 5 yrs old today.)
Also check out the DARPA race- that may interest some of you about autonomous machine control.
As cars get old and phase out- new ones can easily be upgraded to handle the change. The cars can be controlled remotely so you just hop in your car- select destination and away you go. The main traffic system would know where each car is and can control them as to not run into other cars. (Check DARPA race- same but not autonomous)
So you may ask, but there will still be the same or more cars so traffic will not change or might even get worse. My reply is, what produces traffic?
Have you ever pulled up to a stop light all by yourself and by the time the light turned green you were surrounded by other cars? Instant traffic. There is no traffic if the cars are moving all the time. First, we need more round-abouts not intersections if we stay with conventional cars. For those who want to be more like Europe, check out their round-abouts. Think of any you have been here in the states and the cars are continuously moving- no traffic- busy but NO traffic. Second, if drivers learned to merge onto highways and drivers learned how to let cars merge onto highways, cars keep moving- no traffic.
Third, with the advancement of technologies, not as many people will need to commute to the office. I have meetings, seeing virtually face to face, people thousands of miles away and in different locations. We send data to field personnel through cell phones. E-mail anyone?
With a combination of these, traffic will not be a problem and the versitility of a car can still be used.
So ask yourself, are trains the future of transportation?
Just an after thought, parking decks/areas will have to be built somewhere for the train users- if it is downtown at the final location or spread out at different loading zones. Seems to me, one large deck has less impervious area than many smaller parking lots spread along the lines.
Sorry for the misspelled words- I'm an engineer with no spell check.
Thanks for my two-cents worth,
Thad
Don't need insurance companies- very few accidents if controlled remotely.
So GovCo is slow to change? You are right about that- they are promoting old technology (trains) for future transporation. LMAO!!
You really think 50 yrs for this to happen? It is happening today on a small scale (think monorail at Carowinds). Why blow-off an idea that will solve the problems of traffic that so many here want to resolve?
Do you want smoother traffic flows or a train? Be trueful with yourself, what problem are you really trying to solve.
Don't like traffic, leave earlier. Seems everyone has to arrive at work right at 8:00am. Leave 30 min earlier or 30 minutes later and there is hardly any traffic ( unless a wreck).
Thad
Old technology? Aren't cars "old technology"?
The car has many modern advancements and many more to come. I wouldn't call it old, but forever evolving. Better gas mileage, alternative fuels, lighter, GPS equipment, on-board computers, DVD players, etc.
Hardly "old" technology. Nice try- anything else?
Thad
Todd Litman's excellent analysis is just one of a mountain of reports corroborating the clear success of rail transit - particularly light rail (LRT) - in cities across North America.
Liman's analysis is also far from alone in refuting O'Toole's idiot-level deluge of anti-transit, pro-automobile, anti-urban planning marlarky - which appears to be designed for a target audience of extremely gullible suckers.
Recently there has been a barrage of professional responses to
O'Toole. See, for example:
Responding to Transit Critics
http://www.lightrailnow.org/industry_issues.htm#responding-critics
Randal O'Toole's "Great Rail Disaster": Ideological Train Wreck
Disguised as "Research Study"
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-04.htm
CFTE Analysis of Randall O'Toole's 'Great Rail Disasters'
http://www.cfte.org/critics/O'Toole%20response.pdf
Evaluating New Start Transit Program Performance: Comparing Rail And Bus
http://www.vtpi.org/bus_rail.pdf
LRT: "Antidote to Congested Freeways" or Wasteful "Disaster"?
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_000021.htm
Responding to O'Toole's "A Desire Named Streetcar"
http://www.cfte.org/litmanotoole.pdf
Ten Ways He Gets It Wrong
http://www.cfte.org/critics/otoole_streetcar_response.asp
Remember - the above documents are just for starters, and specifically in response to O'Toole's most recent garbage - the list of documents responding to other hokum from this same crowd (which includes Wendell Cox, Tom Rubin, and other professional anti-transit "hired guns") goes
back decades.
The stock in trade of O'Toole and the rest of these charlatans is to use deception - sophistry, the deceptive manipulation of statistics, carefully deceptive cherry-picking of information, Urban Legends, "Old Wives' tales", manipulation of hysteria, the Big Lie technique, and whatever else
it takes to confuse the public and especially sucker the gullible.
For Charlotte and the prospects for rail transit, the best response to the avalanche of misinformation from these transit haters is: (1) Look at the
resounding success of new rail systems in cities like Dallas, Denver, Portland, Salt Lake City, where outlying communities are clamoring for more, and vigorous expansion is under way. (2) Look at the array of communities across the USA - from Norfolk to Kansas City to Tucson to Phoenix - that are either installing new rail systems or seeking their own
ways to do so. Actions speak far louder than bombast.
Hey, I'm all for the car. Just change it. Advance it. Hybrids are a start but we can do so much better.
As important as it is to reduce congestion it is also as important to change to clean modes of transport.
I am sure the amount of pollution produced from coal plants to give electric to move all of those people on a rail car is far less than all the cars parked on I77 with one person in each. Sitting, burning gas, polluting.
Now if they were all hybrids, like my Prius, the gas engine would totally shut off every time they stopped as well as any coasting, braking or whenever the battery just simply didn't need the help of the gas engine.
Don't be fooled by the lies that they don't get good mileage. If I am totally uptown I get about 49 m.p.g. Combo of uptown and neighboring hoods where I can get some longer distance between lights I go up to about 54 m.p.g.
The highest I got was 67 m.p.g. on a trip to D.C.
Go on, get a hybrid.
Or ride transit. Anything but sit in traffic being a cause of the problem.
Don't say they are too small either. They have mid sized hybid SUV's as well.
If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you should start with capping all volcanoes- worst polluters of the earth!! Check the percentages of entities that produce greenhouse gases and start with the top of the list and work down. When we have a handle on the majority of things that give off CO2 gases then I'll start reducing my portion of the roughly 5% we people add to the mix.
Typical response. I'll do my share last. It's that mentality that drove us to the place we are today.
I assume you get your bogus science from junkscience.com ?
If so, do some research on the owner of the site.
Steven J. Milloy is an oil lobbyist, even though he swears he's not, his name is on a list of oil lobbyists. He also lobbys to stop food labeling and a whole bunch of other things that would make you sick.
So go on, keep polluting.....STAY THE COURSE.
In case you haven't noticed, rail and other forms of mass transit have many modern advancements as well.
Rail works. I was born and reared in Charlotte, but now live in Minneapolis.
Apparently the rail haters are now rail riders. The first Hiawatha Light Rail Line was so incredibly successful, extensions and additions are in planning and getting funding together. I can't wait for the light rail to be near my house in the NW burbs! My workplace offers a deeply subsidized transit card I now use on the bus to work downtown. This pass also works on light rail out to the airport, Metrodome, & Mall of America. It's been a huge boon to Minneapolis and the areas on the line, even if there were some growing pains involved.
The trains are so quiet, clean, and fast. The exterior advertising is really cute too. They put these neat wrappers on the trains to make them look like sub sandwiches, or have customized flames & such.
Here's a link to one of the latest stories. I would only wish my beloved Charlotte would hop on and ride the light rail! http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1075306.html
I know, I know. I love the rail in Portland and Vancouver. It's fast, clean and does indeed spark development.
Is it just a Southern thing this hate for trains or anything new ? Or has anyone noticed this behavior elsewhere ?
I for one have not.
Southerns love their pick up trucks. They don't like dem city slickers.
I've got to wonder something...
When the transit petition became a done deal a couple of weeks ago, there was an article on lightrailnow.com specifically calling out Jim Puckett. The general tone of the article is that the pro-rail crowd is in a complete and total panic that this could be successful. It would set a trend that they certainly wouldn't want.
You know, the whole people standing up for themselves against the whole government waste thing.
There is a political effort tracking section of that site which talks about successes and setbacks on pushing rail at all costs.
I wondered alowd how long it would be before a large number of non-local, pro-rail people began posting on this forum.
Has anyone else noticed the increase in anons with links to biased sites not backed by real research?
And repeal referendums have been tried in Dallas and Seattle, and both failed. Heck, I think Jerry Jones was backing up the repeal in Dallas by throwing his name on it. I knew it was inevitable that something similar would happen here. Bring it on, so we can close this discussion for good in November.
In the FY 2007 Annual Report, FTA noted that the Regional Rail System in the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina, “is rated Low at this time…..(the project’s sponsor, the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA)) must submit reliable information on the costs and benefits of a project scope that results in a Medium overall project rating by September 30, 2006, or be removed from final design status.” TTA did not submit the requested information, and instead withdrew the project from final design status.
Charlotte had a rating of medium or medium high back in 2002.
Wasn't the FTA supposed to re-evaluate the South Corridor Line after the financial misleadings by Ron Tober, Pam Syfert and CATS?
Chances are that guy out of Cleveland Ohio who posted earlier is Stephan Louis, if so then he like so many others (O'Toole,
Rubin, Cox, Zucker & etc.)have conflict of interests because of connections to the highway lobby.
For them it roads at all cost, they don't care about people so long as they get to shaft them and steal their money.
Ahh, finally a breath of fresh air --- thank you, Newhope Mom (5:25 p.m.) and Anonymous (5:35 p.m.) Thank you for a real-world anecdote of how light rail is actually working out successfully --- and offered without all the heated rhetoric elsewhere on this forum, where the pro-rail folks are being painted as God-less commie liberals, and the anti-rail folks as selfish Neo-Con Right-Wing Luddites. That discourse is wearin' me out......nothing (in my opinion) speaks with more authority on this issue than hearing from folks like you who are actually seeing it work in your own city. Whether it's a success or a failure in other places that already have these transit systems, I want to hear the stories either way.
David Anderson...
"...they don't care about people so long as they get to shaft them and steal their money."
And light railers aren't doing the same shafting? The few getting a big handout vs the many who have to pay it.
Be careful with throwing rocks in glass houses.
Mary...
I noted that Litman claims a number of savings related to light rail that are overlooked by critics. If look at them closely you will notice that some of these are not true savings. Most of those savings noted are really cost shifting, not cost avoidance.
A true savings or cost avoidance would result in taking cash out of the transaction. For example, I buy product A for $1.00 for 3 months and then buy it for $0.50 for the next 3 months. I have taken $0.50 out of the transaction --- true cost savings. The money can be physically be used somewhere else.
Take Mr. Litmans example of lower vehicle costs, the savings are not taking cash out of the transaction. The transit user has simply shifted their vehicle costs to the subsidised transit system. This is clearly demonstrated when the transit rider "gives up" their vehicle and only pays 16% of the true operating cost of their transit ride. The remaining 86% are paid by citizen tax payers. Cost shifting, not cost savings, no money removed from the transaction.
...correction 84%
Sure some referendums pass, some fail.
You throw out Dallas and Seattle...
How about Florida?
Wikipedia:
Florida High Speed Rail is a proposed high-speed rail network in Florida. Funding for the system was authorized by a 2000 referendum of Florida voters and repealed by 64% of Florida voters in a 2004 referendum.
Other notes, the Seattle tax repeal effort referenced was a Gas Tax repeal effort and would have been predominantly highway work. It was NOT a pure mass transit tax. It was also state wide if I understand it correctly.
The Dallas Effort referenced, correct me if I'm wrong, was actually an additional Bond Referendum that passed with a 3% turnout.
www.publicpurpose.com/ut-railv.htm
This referendum in CharMeck is much, much different. It is Mass Transit only. It is part of a regular election, not hidden in a special election where only 3% of voters turn out. Finally, it is being had in the wake of a certified financial disaster.
Yes, it would be something to worry about.
Ken,
In the equation of cost avoidance one would have to take into account the taxes paid for roads along with the capital costs of rail (which I don't know if the 84% does or not).
If the property taxes and fuel taxes paid by individuals can be averaged out to some fixed number it would be a simple comparison.
None the less, your point is well made.
Lewis
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
.....you people are sooooooo boring.
All this over 1/2 a Lincoln. Get a life.
@ David Anderson.
I'm the guy from Cleveland who posted comment #1 and I'm not who you think I am. I have no ties to the industries...I'm just a guy who lived in Cleveland and watched GovCo pitch their WaterFront line as the thing to stimulate the Flats and Downtown development areas, then watched the costs balloon (just like in Charlotte) and then further watched (and laughed) as ridership on the waterfront line NEVER hit anywhere near the projections.
And your boy Ron Tober was the head of that mess. Now he is the head of the mess we are in.
If you want to see something as ridiculous as the light rail choo choo in Charlotte, go research what the Port Authority in Pittsburgh, PA is doing...their newest boondoogle is to build underwater tunnels for light rail trains to ferry people across one of the three rivers in their downtown. huge money. Huge waste. just like Charlotte's light rail.
Maybe Syfert, Tober and McCrory will go on a "caravan to Pittsburgh" and figure out more ways to go over budget and waste taxpayer dollars.
Meanwhile, the good people who work in Charlotte are forced to sit in traffic on 77, Rea Road, or Providence to escape the bad schools & high taxes of Mecklenburg County. Ridiculous.
Yes Rick, the Florida high speed rail was repealed, but as I recall, that was a statewide referendum too. Please note that down in Miami-Ft. Lauterdale has made their Tri-Rail commuter rail system is becoming a perminant system with massive renovations. It was originally a temporary measure to relieve an I-95 widening project to 12 lanes. It was deemed feasable to keep it going afterwards. They are also expanding their metro rail, and elevated heavy rail system, as well as their busways.
Don't start nailing a coffin for light rail locally. A lot can happen in the next six months.
Southerners respect individual liberties far more than Northerners. We choose not to be herded around like cattle by GovCo. We tend to believe that GovCo is the problem...not the solution. Call it simplistic thinking if you like, I prefer to call it common sense. Enjoy our warm weather, but please quit trying to make our charming cities into what you were used to "back home"... and no thanks on the Prius...uglier than the Edsel!
Equalizer,
Southerners need to be led around by GovCo because they are too damn stupid if left on their own. As for the Prius, they make other hybrids as stated before. Pick ups, SUV's, luxury cars.
See what I mean about stupid if left on their own.
Some dismiss the 1/2% sales tax as 1/2 a Lincoln. They are not comparable. If one examines the sales tax at the register, he will find it is 7.5 Lincolns per dollar.
7.5 * insignificant. Does it count at that level.
On a $100 transaction that is $7.5.
In fact if it is so insignificant why collect it?
Because it is a lot of money.
Spending $20,000 per year at 7.5% tax equals $1500 per year.
Is that insignificant?
Only to an incompetent mind or one which is on the receiving side.
Anon to Anon!!!
Simply because it
Spending $20,000 per year at 7.5% tax equals $1500 per year.
?????????
We are talking about the transit tax. No the total tax for EVERYTHING.
The transit tax on $20,000 is $100 PERIOD.
ANON to ANON !
Ok...one more time Anons, as you have continually dodged this question:
If the amount of the 1/2 cent sales tax is so "measly", why don't you pay it yourselves?? How do you justify a transit system where only 16% of true operating costs are paid by fairs?? Why don't you use YOUR measly amounts to pay 20, 25, 30 or 30% of your ride?
Do tell...
Because we're subsidising your roads and highways, and plenty of other government services you use and we probably don't. Haven't we gone through this enough?
I saw that Bank Of America (aka Uptown cheerleader for anything subsidised by tax-spenders) has pulled out of the Scaleybark development. I notice it received litter or no attention by the Observer. Go figure.
Anyway, BofA pulled because they could not get their tax-credits from the Feds for the program.
Interesting...pro-light railers will tell you that development and increased property values are 100% certifiable slam dunks in the rail corridor. BofA would be making money hand over fist and the fed tax-credit should be the cherry on top of the sundae. Why leave?? Sorry, it does not pass the smell test.
Does it say something more about the actual plan? Maybe this build-it-and-they-will come plan is just a dream of the light rail crowd that has little basis in reality. If it was reality, BofA would stay right? Why leave a sure thing when the money would be rolling in??
Even better, CATS now has a $5MM decificit because of it. But, hey, what's another $5MM down the drain combined with doubling of costs, the $180k thrown away on the old trolleys and the office leasing fiasco? I am sure CATS will solve it by raising user fairs above 16% of true operating cost, right?
We need to stop and really take a hard look at this plan.
As Charlotte's core city, commonly referred to as Uptown, continues to build, and people continue to have reasons to enter into the city, the following things will happen.
First, as you approach the city, new roads cannot be built, existing roads cannot be significantly widened, new exit ramps cannot be developed. The traffic flow at the terminus cannot be increased.
Second, increased parking at existing rates will cease to exist, any new parking will be closely tied to buildings they serve. It will become difficult, and expensive to bring a vehicle into the city and store it while some activity takes place.
Third, busses using a shared surface road system will be caught in the same gridlock that brings auto traffic to a stop.
Fourth, a rail system will bring people into the core city on a dedicated line running from point A to point B and then leave. This line will not be subject to surface road gridlock.
Fifth, a rail system will deposit passengers, and leave. No need for core city storage.
Sixth, common sense will encourage people to live near a rail line. Common sense will encourage developers to develop around a rail line. Common sense will help to maintain property values, as the value of those properties are more likely to be maintained and not boarded over.
There are many forces pushing us into a more dense environment. It is not right for everyone, but it will become necessary to most.
UD
UD, interesting how we can build a rail line and not roads.
Why do people need to go downtown (uptown according to newcomers) anyway. Why not spread out so commuting wouldn't be so far.
For the ANON complaining about 7.5 percent being more than the .5 percent sales tax. The point is if .5 percent is insignificant, then 7.5 is, simply because you only add .5 percent at a time.
But if 7.5 percent is not insignificant then .5 percent is not. If 7.5 percent is insignificant then 100 percent is also.
You can't have it both ways.
Lewis
Lewis, we'll see how much you like 'spreading out' when developers build a Wal-Mart and a Beazer-style cookie cutter subdivision right next to your 25 acre utopia out in Gaston County in a few years.
Let's put some more data into this discussion...
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_lrt_2007-03b.htm
Light Rail Now! website
Updated 2007/03/15
USA: Light Rail Growth Rate Leads Again, as Public Transit Ridership
Exceeds 10 Billion Trips for First Time in Nearly 50 Years
Light Rail Now Project Team
March 2007
"If you thought you were seeing more riders during your daily public transit trips, it’s not your imagination" says the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). In a 12 March media release, APTA announced that Americans took 10.1 billion trips on local public transportation in 2006 – a level not seen in 49 years. Over the last decade, says the organization, the growth rate of urban public transportation outpaced that of both the nation's population and the total of vehicle miles traveled on America’s highways.
By far, America's rail transit systems led the nation – with light rail, rapid rail, and regional passenger ("commuter") rail posting substantial growth
rates.
Light rail leads
Once again, light rail transit (LRT) – including modern streetcars, interurban or semi-metro-type trolleys, and heritage streetcars – had the highest percentage increase among all modes, with a 5.6 percent
ridership growth rate in 2006. Indeed, reports APTA, some light rail systems showed double-digit increases in ridership – such as San Jose, with a whopping 36.6%. Some of the top performers included:
• San Jose – 36.6 percent
• Minneapolis – 18.4 percent
• New Jersey – 20.1 percent
• Saint Louis – 16.2 percent
• Philadelphia – 10.8 percent
• Salt Lake City – 14.2 percent
[PHOTO]
San Jose's VTA LRT system produced the highest rate of ridership growth in the USA, helped by substantial system expansion. Here an inaugural train boards passengers at the new Downtown Campbell station
in October 2005.
[Photo: © Peter Ehrlich]
Rail rapid transit in second place
Ridership on rail rapid transit (RRT, "heavy rail") posted the second-largest increase at an average of 4.1 percent. The five RRT systems with the highest increase in ridership for 2006 included:
• Los Angeles – 10.8 percent
• New Jersey – 10.1 percent
• Staten Island, NY – 9.4 percent
• Atlanta – 6.3 percent
• Chicago – 4.5 percent
Regional passenger rail is third-highest
Regional passenger rail (RPR, "commuter rail") posted the third-largest increase at 3.2 percent. The five RPR systems with the highest ridership growth rate in 2006 included:
• South Florida RPR based in Miami – 21.3 percent
• Pennsylvania RPR based in Harrisburg – 18.9 percent
• South Bend, Indiana to Chicago, Illinois RPR system – 10.7 percent
• Stockton to San Jose, California RPR system – 8.8 percent
• South Shore RPR based in New Haven, Connecticut – 8.3 percent
[PHOTO]
South Florida's Tri-Rail regional passenger rail service, linking Miami and West Palm Beach, produced the highest rate of ridership increase among the regional rail systems in 2006..
[Photo: L. Henry]
Even bus ridership was up
Across the USA, other modes registered increases. Average transit bus ridership increased by 2.3 percent, and demand-responsive services – typically provided by smaller van-type buses – saw ridership grow by 2.9 percent.
Some larger bus operations experienced major ridership increases in the following cities:
• Seattle – 12.1 percent
• San Antonio – 9 percent
• Dallas – 8.3 percent
• Los Angeles – 6.2 percent
• Houston – 6.1 percent
"This significant ridership milestone is part of a multi-year trend as more and more Americans ride public transit to get to destinations important to them, while realizing the benefits of saving money and avoiding
congestion" said APTA president William W. Millar. "Public transit
ridership helps reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and
decreases our contribution to global warming; but ultimately, this milestone represents 10 billion reasons to increase local and federal investment in public transportation."
US public transit soaring
According to APTA, public transit use overall is up 30 percent since 1995.
That is more than double the growth rate of the population (12 percent) and higher than the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled on our roads (24 percent) during that same period. In 2006, public transit ridership grew 2.9 percent over 2005. To put the 10.1 billion public transportation trips in perspective, transit trips outnumber domestic airline
trips by 15 to one.
"Public transportation is a proven way to meet our nation’s goals" said Millar. "As Congress looks to find ways to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and reduce emissions causing global warming, we call on them to increase investment and include incentives to encourage further
use of public transportation."
The complete APTA ridership report can be viewed at the following
website:
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership
Re: Voter support for light rail ... Portland voters certainly seem a case in point.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog006.htm#POR_20060206
Light Rail Now! NewsLog
6 February 2006
Portland:
Summary of Portland voters' resounding support for light rail
Produced by the Light Rail Now! Publication Team
In an effort to disparage new light rail transit (LRT) systems, rail transit critics claim that these systems and proposals to extend them have consistently been rejected by the voting public. Portland's MAX LRT system (installed and managed by TriMet, the regional transit authority) is
a favorite target.
For example, national anti-transit hired gun Randal O'Toole has been
disseminating his claim that Portland voters have "turned down" rail transit "three times". On the other hand, rail supporters contend that there is strong public support for LRT.
What's the real story?
Our correspondents in Portland provide the following summary of public referenda relating to the LRT system:
Westside corridor
• 1990 – Metro area voters approved regional funding for the Westside MAX LRT extension by a 3-1 margin.
South-North corridor
Between 1994 and 1998, there were three Oregon votes and one
Washington vote on the financing of LRT in the South-North Corridor:
• 1994 – Voters in the TriMet service district approved measure 26-13 (a $475 million bond measure) to build a 26-mile LRT line from Clackamas County into Clark County (Washington State).
• 1995 – Clark County (Washington) voters rejected (2 to 1) a ballot
measure that would have raised $237 million for the Washington State portion of the South-North LRT line.
• 1996 – Staewide Oregon voters rejected a legislative package that
included $375 million in lottery-backed bonds for the South-North Light Rail project and $375 million for rural transportation projects around the state. While the measure failed statewide, it was approved by a majority of the voters within the TriMet service territory.
• 1998 – TriMet Service District voters rejected a new measure on the South-North Light Rail line funding. In its original form in 1998, the total proposed South-North Rail project was divided into three phases. Measure 26-74 would have provided funding toward Phases 1 and 2 (Phase 1: Rose Quarter to Milwaukie; Phase 2: Milwaukie to Clackamas Town Center and Rose Quarter to Kenton). Funding for Phase 3, Kenton
to Vancouver/Clark College, was not included in the measure. The
measure failed in Clackamas and Washington Counties and passed in
Multnomah County (Portland is the county seat of Multnomah County).
After the 1998 regional measure lost in Clackamas and Washington
counties, but passed in Multnomah (including Portland), Metro (regional planning agency), TriMet, and City of Portland staff and political leaders re-assessed the Rose Quarter-Kenton section of the proposed South-North project, and moved the alignment from I-5 to the less-costly and more passenger-friendly alignment on North Interstate Avenue to define
an affordable and useful project to serve an area that had voted heavily in favor and clearly wanted LRT. That became the Interstate MAX (Yellow) Line that opened in 2004. Today it's serving the community and neighborhoods of the corridor, and can be extended into Clark County, Washington whenever the voters there want to finance their local share.
Thus, in summary, one can conclude that in the City of Portland itself, it appears that all four light rail referenda have passed, and none has failed; and that, in most of the overall metropolitan area (TriMet service area),
three of four have passed.
Preparation of this story has included material posted on the Light Rail Progress Professional online discussion list.
According to "Rick":
=When the transit petition became a done deal a couple of weeks ago, there was an article on lightrailnow.com specifically calling out Jim Puckett. The general tone of the article is that the pro-rail crowd is in a complete and total panic that
this could be successful.=
Here's the original Light Rail Now article. I think I'll let others make their own judgements about the "tone" and the reference to Puckett.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2007q1.htm#CHA_20070331
Light Rail Now! NewsLog
31 March 2007
Charlotte:
Public transit expansion program may face fight for survival
Charlotte's transit system and its South Line light rail transit (LRT) project may be facing another battle, if a petition drive succeeds in forcing a public re-vote of the previously voter-approved 1998 sales tax that has
nourished major expansion of the area's public transit. The transit tax recall measure can be placed on the ballot if as many as 47,000 petition signatures are gathered.
Transit opponents – who have made little headway with the usual
arguments that Charlotte is too small and not dense enough for rail transit – suddenly have found their sails filled with public discontent over the 9.6-mile (15.5-km) rail project's upward cost creep. Last fall, Charlotte Area
Transit System (CATS) management announced that design problems
compounded by increasing costs of materials such as steel had pushed
project costs over the budget of US$427 miillion, to nearly $463 million.
A referendum over rescinding the transit tax might take place in early November. This would be especially disadvantageous for the LRT project, since the South Line isn't scheduled to open until the last week of November.
That has prompted some transit supporters to suggest that CATS should accelerate and restructure its South Line LRT project in order to have at least a portion in operation approximately two months before the presumed early November vote – with the main consideration being to have something the Charlotte public can see and experience sufficiently
ahead of voting.
As of last October, a slim majority of the public still appeared to support CATS's mass transit plan. According to the Carolinas Poll, registering
opinions on issues throughout the eight-county Charlotte region, 53
percent of respondents approved of the plan (reported in Charlotte
Observer, 30 Oct. 2006).
The anti-transit campaign has been given an additional boost through the backing of some major political forces, including the extremist-right John Locke Foundation and Republican county Commissioner Jim Puckett, who seems to favor diverting funds from public transit and into more
roadway expansion.
According to the Media Transparency website, the John Locke Foundation obtains much of its funding from far-right donors such as the Roe Foundation, as well as the Claude Lambe Charitable Foundation, a
component of the complex of Koch Industries family foundations, all
deeply rooted in the petroleum and petrochemical industries, including oil, gas, and chemical pipelines and asphalt production. For more details on this extremist-right, pro-highways funding apparatus, see:
Randal O'Toole's "Thoreau Institute": Oil, Asphalt, and Pipeline Money
Feed an Extremist Attack on Urban Planning and Public Transit
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
Meanwhile, largely ignoring the growing backlash against the current transit program, Charlotte-area planners have been proceeding to develop plans for further expansion of the region's public transport. An article in Rail Transit Online (December 2006) reported that on 15 November 2006, Charlotte's Metropolitan Transit Commission "voted to approve the regional 2030 Corridor System Plan and prioritized construction of proposed rail transit lines, all of which are dependant on receipt of funding." As the article elaborates,
The next LRT project on the schedule is the 11-mi. (17.7 km) Northeast Corridor from 7th Street in Center City to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, terminating just south of Interstate 485. It would be a 14-
station, $740.5-million extension of the south line that’s now under
construction. Charlotte Area Transit System is proposing to begin design in 2007, start construction in 2011 and inaugurate revenue service as
early as 2013. Also starting design in 2007 would be the initial $261-million phase of the 25.2-mi. (40.6 km) North Corridor, a commuter rail route along the existing Norfolk Southern O-Line from the proposed Charlotte Gateway Station in Center City to Mooreville. Trains would also
serve towns in northern Mecklenburg County, initially in one direction during peak periods only beginning by 2012. In 2015, design would start on an expansion of the North Corridor, costing $111.9 million that would allow simultaneous service in both directions. The North Corridor’s
relatively low projected ridership – about 4,000 daily by 2030 – is expected to make it ineligible for federal grants. CATS staff, in conjunction with local authorities, will develop a comprehensive funding plan using a
variety of sources and report back to the MTC by July 1, 2007. Further
into the future, design on the first of three phases of the Southeast Corridor from Charlotte's Center City to the border of Mecklenburg and Union Counties would start in 2016.
Also on the rail transit agenda is a $210.6-million streetcar project,
although design of the first segment would not begin before 2013. Revenue service is tentatively set for 2018 followed by completion of phase 2 in 2023. According to a statement released by CATS, "Staff will continue to research funding options to see if the streetcar can be brought
on-line sooner than currently planned." The 34-station route would start at the Rosa Parks Place Community Transit Center, run along Beatties Ford Road to Uptown and continue to the Eastland Community Transit Center
along Central Avenue, serving numerous traffic generators. The streetcar could ultimately be extended to the airport. CATS said for now it will focus on completing environmental studies for all corridors "…to advance the
planning process into design."
Clearly, the fate of these plans – and of the current operation of public transit in Charlotte, as well as the completion of the South Line LRT project – depends on the outcome of the transit tax-repeal campaign now under way. As things currently stand, Charlotte appears to be emerging as the next big battleground in the USA's "Transit Wars" – the incessant struggle between rail transit and roadway expansion that continues to convulse the nation.
To the anon poster about me complaining about a Walmart or something close in Gaston Cnty.
In fact Walmart is building a supercenter less than 6 miles away, and I'm pleased.
By spread out I meant businesses not being concentrated in the downtown area, so workers would not be required to commute there.
For Nawdry, my first opinion is who at the chamber put you up to it?
Second, while you address ridership and growth in ridership of various transit systems you do not address waste, which is one of the main reasons for the sales tax repeal referendum.
Lewis
Nawdry,
You're so kind to tell us about the Locke Foundation and it's association with right wing philanthropists, but you, unintentionally I'm sure, leave out anything about the advocacy group Light Rail Now.
Please let us know how objective this group is so we can trust their opinions as gospel, as you seem to do.
YRDWAD
Anonymous said...
Nawdry,
You're so kind to tell us about the Locke Foundation and it's association with
right wing philanthropists, but you, unintentionally I'm sure, leave out anything
about the advocacy group Light Rail Now.
Please let us know how objective this group is so we can trust their opinions as
gospel, as you seem to do.
YRDWAD
Dear YRDWAD,
Try looking on the Light Rail Now Home page - it lists ALL the underwriters of the Light Rail Now Project.
http://www.lightrailnow.org
Also, try clicking on the About Us selection - that tells a bit more about the project.
Unfortunately, extremist-right anti-transit groups like the Locke Foundation are nowhere near so forthcoming...
typxdbzDear Nawdry,
Went and looked up the supporters for LIGHTRAILNOW. Among the various left wing extremist groups were business associations and chamber's of commerce. Does this make their message is wrong in and of itself as you suggest the John Locke Foundation is simply because of their funding sources?
To attack John Locke simply because of their politically leanings is typical of the ad hominem attacks normally found in those who are unable to confront the facts otherwise - as in with facts.
It reduces your arguments substantially to do so.
Then I went and looked at the ATPA website. Lot of information.
Ridership is BACK up to 10 B passenger trips per year. It was above 20 B in the late 40's. Only in the era of "Intergovernmental partnerships" has it begun to grow. Interestingly enough, the growth statistics you cite might easily be associated with new lines opening or Katrina oil supply disruptions. In Charlotte bus ridership increased dramatically after Katrina. Has it stayed that high.
These are all nice. What we find on the APTA website are huge subsidies per passenger trip and per mile.
These are to be expected, yet you did not address my previous question about waste. To blame it all on increased concrete and steel prices is avoiding the question.
Finally, to dismiss the John Locke Foundation with an ad hominem attack and never addressing the issues they raise is typical of those supporting transfer payments to the well off. Are you one?
Nawdry, Thanks for posting that whole article from lightrailnow.org. I had forgotten how truly panicked it sounded.
Doing backflips to get a line up "early" that is way behind and over budget seems panicky.
Calling anyone who disagrees with rail a right wing extremist seems panicky. (Particularly since most local anti-train people are pro-bus, not against mass transit.)
Then, in overly dramatic terms, saying 'Charlotte appears to be emerging as the next big battleground in the USA's "Transit Wars"'.
I also particularly like the part where the national pro-railers think they are smarter than our local pro-railers.
'Meanwhile, largely ignoring the growing backlash against the current transit program, Charlotte-area planners have been proceeding to develop plans for further expansion of the region's public transport.'
This line seems to be saying that our local transit officials are ignoring this at their own peril - which they probably are.
Yep, panic was the correct word.
Has anyone noticed a pattern in all these blogs?
Liberal - "Everybody is is entitled to their own opinion and it's OK for you to disagree with me."
Conservative - "My opinion is FACT! If you question it, that makes you an evil SOCIALIST."
Anon: 11:21 AM
Actually I find the reverse to be more likely than your statement. But there are some on both sides.
Anon @ 11:21... It's more like this:
Liberal: I want Charlotte to have [insert name of government-run project here] and I want all of you to pay for it, even if you will never personally make use of it.
Conservative: I want government to run programs only that are absolutely vital. Tax dollars should be spent with careful consideration as to how they will benefit everyone, not just special interests.
Anon 11/21 makes a statement which doesn't add anything to the discussion, from where the discussion goes to responding to a non-issue.
So back to the issue. Is the lightrailnow website objective, or not?
The ATPA website shows an increase in rider trips, back to a level not seen in '49 years'. If this was shown as a percentage of population, it would show continued shrinkage even as rail lines are put in place, buses are added and other modes of subsidized public transit are implemented.
For instance urban population was 64% of the total population in 1950. Making the assumption most public transportation trips were made by urban dwellers, each urbanite made 248 trips per year in 1950.
In the year 2006, with urban population growing numerically and as a percentage population, urbanites are now 76% of the population, yet only average 43 trips per year on public transportation.
Without adjusting for urban non urban, the numbers are worse - 158 per person in 1950 and 33 per person in 2006.
Again, these are despite huge growth in public transportation infrastructure, and the accompanying huge expenditures.
This is a fact.
From which one can draw the conclusion people more often choose personal modes of transportation over public given the choice.
What would be interesting would be to see is what companies and individuals have gained the most monetarily from public transportation subsidies. Those would include bus and train manufacturers, the steel and concrete industry, but are certainly not limited to these.
Then follow their financial donations to see if they are indirectly lobbying for more trains and buses.
Lewis Guignard
More on the success of Salt Lake City's light rail...
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0114saltlake-main0114.html#
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 14, 2007
Salt Lake City embraces light rail, expansion
Factors driving its success missing from the Valley
Sean Holstege
SALT LAKE CITY - When light rail opened here seven years ago, people
lined up around the block. From the first day, the trains carried more
people than were forecast for 2025.
Seats are still scarce as the boxlike trains thread through downtown. On a
bitter cold day last month, they filled up with office workers heading north
and construction workers and retail clerks going south. Lines of trains
waited for Utah Jazz fans. Families flocked back from a downtown mall
with armfuls of gifts.
Residents of the Salt Lake area have embraced light rail to a degree that
few imagined.
Its popularity would seem a harbinger of crowds to come when the
Valley's trains begin to roll in late 2008. The Salt Lake and Phoenix areas
are similar, as both lie in the mountain West and are car-dependent.
But the Valley lacks some of the factors that drove the acceptance of light
rail in Salt Lake. A need to prepare for the Olympics, for one. And the
pervasive influence of the Mormon Church, which promoted the
transportation alternative.
Still, it took opening day to win over many skeptics. That buy-in has
turned the region into a rail showcase.
The area has voted for five light-rail extensions, including to places that
once shunned rail. One was a suburban county where 88 percent of
voters backed President Bush in 2004. The first time they were asked to
vote on rail, 60 percent backed it.
So far, Salt Lake has invested $2 billion in local funds as part of a plan to
build 50 miles of light rail and 120 miles of commuter rail.
Over the next 75 years, suburbs are planning to put residents of big
luxury homes into trains, while uranium plants and Superfund sites are
becoming stations and station communities.
Like Phoenix, Salt Lake is conservative, tax-averse and fond of the open
vistas and open roads. It's also growing rapidly, and despite a $1.6 billion
investment in freeways, traffic jams abound.
Initially, "I thought the money (spent on rail) should be spent on roads,"
said Denis Nordfelt, former police chief and now mayor of fast-growing
suburb West Valley City.
The City Council voted against light rail. Now the city of 120,000 is getting
an extension and voting to tax itself for the benefit. Nordfelt led the charge
after seeing TRAX, the light-rail system, keeping throngs of Winter
Olympics fans off the freeways in 2002.
"I was a true convert at that time," he said. "Crow doesn't taste too bad if
you put enough salt on it."
Larry H. Miller also became a devotee of rail. One of the nation's top-10
car dealers, he owns the Utah Jazz. He supported rail but was not thrilled
to pay for stations in front of his downtown basketball arena and his
suburban office. Now he does ads for TRAX and sells train tickets inside
the arena.
During a recent visit, dozens of riders and residents, politicians and
planners talked of the same thing: Once people got past their fear of the
unknown, light rail took off like a Western brush fire.
Lewis Guignard writes (2007/04/14):
==================
The ATPA [sic] website shows an increase in rider trips, back to a level not seen in '49 years'. If this was shown as a percentage of population, it would show
continued shrinkage even as rail lines are put in place, buses are added and other modes of subsidized public transit are implemented.
For instance urban population was 64% of the total population in 1950. Making the assumption most public transportation trips were made by urban dwellers,
each urbanite made 248 trips per year in 1950. In the year 2006, with urban population growing numerically and as a percentage population, urbanites are now 76% of the population, yet only average 43 trips per year on public transportation.
Without adjusting for urban non urban, the numbers are worse - 158 per person in 1950 and 33 per person in 2006.
Again, these are despite huge growth in public transportation infrastructure, and the accompanying huge expenditures.
This is a fact. From which one can draw the conclusion people more often choose personal
modes of transportation over public given the choice.
==================
So, let's see if we've got this straight. The US public transportation industry hits its highest ridership level in nearly 50 years, but this is worthless, because 50 years ago, more "urban dwellers" proportionately rode public transportation?
The anti-transit brigade are really having to stretch in pursuing their jihad to trash Charlotte's public transportation.
The first thing I'll point out here is that this argument clearly targets NOT just rail, but ALL PUBLIC TRANSIT. So much for these characters' pious assurances that - don't worry - they're not anti-transit, they're just agitated about CATS's light rail project. Baloney - their target is ALL public transit.
Second, I'll point out that the trend in per-capita ridership, in context, is basically meaningless. There is absolutely nothing surprising - in fact, it would be irrational to expect any other trend.
Why? Because the resurgence of public transit over the last couple of decades has occurred on a basis of virtual decimation of public transit in the USA, and implementation of a system of nearly absolute dependency on private motor vehicle transport under the aegis of concerted, relentless public policy lasting about 7-8 decades. Even today, much of this policy remains in effect.
...Which leads to the next point: Investment in public transit has paid off in improving ridership, but it is far, far overshadowed by the massive, relentless, vigorous investment in and further development of roadways, and the continued fostering through public policy of sprawl-type land use patterns which necessitate further dependency on private motor vehicles.
Thus, on the whole, it is totally predictable that there would be a decline in per-capita usage of transit (especially since urban areas continue to sprawl outside the boundaries of transit service). Duh.
Final point - none of this really tells us anything useful in terms of transit in Charlotte. Instead, back to the original data: In recent years, public transit nationally, as well as in Charlotte, has been making huge strides in terms of winning back riders, and using public investments wisely and effectively. And in this resurgence of public transit, as the data posted above clearly shows, it's RAIL investment that has been leading the way.
Nawdry, obviously a rail proponent offers only one fact in the entire 'rebuttal' to my observation so I reply in kind.
Good ol' Nawdry, an excellent writer who uses words such as, and here I quote:
"worthless,
anti-transit brigade,
and
pursuing their jihad"
while accusing me, and people of similar thought as "pious", in a derogatory manner.
Nawdry writes:
"this argument clearly targets NOT just rail, but ALL PUBLIC TRANSIT. these characters' pious assurances that - don't worry - they're not anti-transit, they're just agitated about CATS's light rail project. Baloney - their target is ALL public transit."
Me:
And because of the ridership numbers I pointed out which are from a website Nawdry referred to I am attacked. While all I did was point out the real numbers, facts, and make an observation about who might be gaining financially from public transportation growth.
Nawdry takes personal offense it seems.
Nawdry again:
"Second, I'll point out that the trend in per-capita ridership, in context, is basically meaningless."
Me:
MEANINGLESS??????
But the quote was ridership hit a 49 year high. If ridership was up in per-capita trips would Nawdry find that meaningless as well???
Let me guess.
Nawdry again:
There is absolutely nothing surprising - in fact, it would be irrational to expect any other trend.
Me:
---Let us now follow her logic
Why? Because the resurgence (resurgence - the trend is almost flat between 2000 and 2004) of public transit over the last couple of decades has occurred on a basis of virtual decimation of public transit in the USA, and implementation of a system of nearly absolute dependency on private motor vehicle transport under the aegis of concerted, relentless public policy lasting about 7-8 decades. Even today, much of this policy remains in effect."
Me:
The question then raised is: is there something wrong with this policy? Why is sprawl bad? What is wrong with individuals using private modes of transportation?
Nawdry again:
...Which leads to the next point: Investment in public transit has paid off in improving ridership,
Me:
---Yes but according to the ATPA website, improvment is slight when related to the huge investments. An analysis of light rail investment, addition of miles run and ridership should be offered by Nawdry and her friends if it is so wonderful. Not just the vague term "improving ridership".
According to the ATPA website the number of LightRail reporting agencies has increased 30% in the last decade. Ridership on light rail increased while bus ridership declined. All this is delineated in many of the studies cited elsewhere by others.
Nawdry again:
but it is far, far overshadowed by the massive, relentless, vigorous investment in and further development of roadways, and the continued fostering through public policy of sprawl-type land use patterns which necessitate further dependency on private motor vehicles."
SO??!!
Nawdry again:
Thus, on the whole, it is totally predictable that there would be a decline in per-capita usage of transit (especially since urban areas continue to sprawl outside the boundaries of transit service). Duh.
Me:
"DUH? Totally predictable?" What of the growth which we're told about? What of the massive amounts of money spent?
Nawdry again:
Final point - none of this really tells us anything useful in terms of transit in Charlotte. Instead, back to the original data: In recent years, public transit nationally, as well as in Charlotte, has been making huge strides in terms of winning back riders, and using public investments wisely and effectively."
ME:
"Huge strides" - the numbers are flat for the past few years despite investment.
"Wisely" - your opinion - mine is wasteful.
"Effectively" If it was effective, light rail - and associated businesses - wouldn't need - demand- the subsidies in land use, buses would be more widely used.
Nawdry ends:
" And in this resurgence of public transit, as the data posted above clearly shows, it's RAIL investment that has been leading the way."
ME:
"Resurgence" give us the numbers from ATPA - hardly a resurgence.
But I agree rail investment is leading the way in taking from one group of people to give to another: developers, bankers, train manufacturers.
Rail investment is leading the way in theft from the general population to the few.
Good ol' Nawdry, trying so hard while using no facts except the single one telling us transit ridership overall is up to a 49 year high.
Thank you Nawdry for your propaganda.
Give us some facts next time. Otherwise your comments are only an expansion of the typical anon poster's vulgarisms.
Google Nawdry
Very interestig stuff on the google search. I especially like the link below. Useful stuff.
http://bicycleaustin.info/rail/refutemyths1.txt
Lewis, why is it when you present something, you call it 'fact', but when somebody dares to counter you, it is propaganda or vulgarisms? Did some divine being come down and grant you total infallibility? I think not.
I was refering to the fact that Nawdry and Todd Litman (the author of Mary's original article) are co-authors on other works.
OK, I've been hearing all the stuff for years about light rail cost overruns. I hear NOTHING about cost overruns on highway projects or projects at the airport. How about running the original cost estimates for I-85, 485, expansion at Charlotte Douglas etc. Then when we find out how many hundreds of millions these projects were over budget, lets shut down the airport and the highway system. Lets do some real reporting.
last anon, we had a lengthy discussion about your two subjects a couple weeks back.
marynewsom.blogspot.com/2007/03/
ok-here-are-some-transit-
related.html
It ended with the pro-railers being reduced to vulgarity once again.
Nothing vulgar whatsoever. The anti-railers just hate being countered when government subsidies are convenient to them.
Anon: 11:07
Lewis, why is it when you present something, you call it 'fact', but when somebody dares to counter you, it is propaganda or vulgarisms? Did some divine being come down and grant you total infallibility? I think not.
Response: Read what I wrote.
Read what Nawdry wrote.
Some divine being? No, I'm just good, damn good, and most often RIGHT, and not just politically.
Lewis
Mary,
It's disappointing to see that you appear to have begun recruiting out of town supporters for your blog - nawdry in particular. It feels like it cheapens the value of this forum as a place for Charlotte area residents to discuss issues about the Charlotte area.
After a little google work, it's clear that nawdry is lightrailnow.org and lightrailnow.org is nawdry. No wonder he didn't like my use of the word panicked.
I doubt it is a coincidence that nawdry first shows up on the same thread where you post a "study" by nawdry's close personal friend - Todd Litman.
What did I say at the beginning of this? ...that Charlotte would gain the attention of the national light rail lobby.
Now that lobby has sent its minions, at what appears to be your request, to influence a local debate.
These people don't care about Charlotte. These people are not from Charlotte. They care nothing for our real problems – crime and education. They will never pay a dime – or a half cent – regardless of how the referendum turns out. These are people paid by the rail industry. Even you should be able to see nawdry's hypocrisy when he refers to the John Locke Foundation as paid right wing extremists. Nawdry certainly is no better.
Nawdry, would you like to introduce yourself?
Rick writes (2007/04/15)...
====================
Mary,
It's disappointing to see that you appear to have begun recruiting out of town supporters for your blog - nawdry in particular. It feels like it cheapens the value
of this forum as a place for Charlotte area residents to discuss issues about the
Charlotte area.
====================
The anti-transit jihadists are going to get increasingly tangled in their own absurd lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, and fabrications. Transit supporters take heart: this practice will ultimately come back to bite them, and hard.
They also seem to assume amazing stupidity on the part of their audience - note how they distort and fabricate the viewpoints of opponents, when the original postings can be accessed by anyone who scrolls back up to look.
Now, on the subject of congestion ... here's another interesting article from Light Rail Now.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_den003.htm
Light Rail Progress – November 2002
Denver's Regional Transportation District (RTD) has provided Light Rail Progress with extremely useful information relating to the impact of Denver's new Southwest light rail transit (LRT) line on traffic congestion in one of the major corridors it serves. This information yields insight into
how LRT can have a significant impact on traffic congestion, and can contribute to improving mobility in an affected transportation corridor.
Santa Fe Drive Corridor
The Denver RTD data, from the fall of 2000, focus on traffic flow on a
section of Denver's Santa Fe Drive (north of Mississippi), a signalized 6-lane major arterial parallelled by the Southwest LRT line to Littleton on a separate, exclusive railroad right-of-way. The segment of roadway covered by the corridor study is 3 lanes wide, eventually narrowing to 2 lanes.
The Southwest LRT line runs in a separate, exclusive alignment along an existing railroad right-of-way, through industrial areas, and past residential developments which range from lower-density urban housing to suburban housing. In the peak hour during the RTD study period, eight trains per hour at 6 two-car trains and 2 three-car trains were running
along this alignment – a total of 18 cars per hour.
Bus ridership in the Sante Fe Drive corridor was roughly 2,000
passengers per day before the Southwest LRT line opened. Since the Southwest Line opened in July 2000, LRT replaced bus service in the corridor, with bus feeder service interfacing with the LRT at stations. In October 2000, covered by the period of the RTD study, LRT ridership averaged over 13,000 riders per day.
Nearly 1/3 of Passenger Traffic by LRT
According to data from the Colorado Department of Transportation, peakhour, peak-direction roadway traffic volume on the section of Santa Fe studied is approximately 4,500 motor vehicles. RTD does not now run buses on this segment. However, approximately 7% of this traffic consists of freight vehicles. Thus the automobile count is about 4,180 vehicles. With average auto occupancy of 1.2 persons per car, the number of persons travelling by automobile is approximately 5,020.
RTD tabulates the number of peakhour, peak-direction LRT passengers at 2,000 to 2,500. Light Rail Progress calculates, therefore, that total peakhour, peak-direction person-movement in the corridor ranges between 7,020 and 7,520. Of this, the percentage (modal split) travelling by LRT ranges between 28.5% and 33.2% – a significant proportion of total passenger traffic.
[GRAPH]
Average Proportion of LRT vs. Automobile Passenger Peak Traffic in Denver's Santa Fe Drive Corridor
Put another way: If these riders chose to make their trip by automobile instead, they would further congest these 3 lanes of Santa Fe Drive with between 1,670 and 2,080 additional automobiles during this peak hour. Thus, LRT can be said to provide a significant amount of "congestion
relief" in this case.
Goal: Relieve Mobility Congestion
LRT critics and opponents consistently try to pose "reduction" of roadway
traffic as a basic measuring stick for the "success" of LRT – a measure it will inevitably fail to meet. In reality, by raising (unachievable) expectations of significant roadway congestion reduction from LRT and other major transit projects, transit and LRT opponents exploit a common
fallacy and misconception: That any single transportation facility, roadway or transit, can ever truly "reduce" congestion. It is almost universally recognized, even among highway planners, and throughout the transportation planning profession, that roadway traffic congestion is a fundamental fact of life – basically, it continues to grow with population expansion and the proliferation of motor vehicles. Acceptance of some degree of congestion is actually incorporated into the basic design of urban roadways.
For these reasons, bona fide congestion relief provided by LRT and other major transit services cannot be expected to take the form of significant reductions in road traffic. Instead, relief is far more likely to take the form
illustrated in Denver: diversion of significant traffic growth into high-quality transit service in specific corridors. (We have no specific information one way or the other of any fluctuation in motor vehicle volumes on Santa Fe
Drive.)
It is either an error or a deception to try to assess congestion relief by the
measure of whether or not existing congestion simply evaporates.
Congestion never just "evaporates". The traffic lanes on Santa Fe Drive are probably as crowded as ever (particularly because of ongoing
population and traffic growth throughout the metro area). What LRT does is to open up, in effect, a new "traffic artery" along which people can move past the existing congestion. Moreover, unlike the capacity-increasing effects of a freeway, the result with LRT is that all those cars are off the
road, out of the traffic stream, and out of the competition for scarce parking spaces. Perhaps the realistic goal of major transit improvements like LRT, therefore, is to relieve mobility congestion, and not necessarily traffic congestion.
Lessons for Other Cities
In sum, these data from Denver suggest that LRT at peak hour in the peak direction in the target corridor is carrying between 28% and 33% of the total passenger traffic flow. In other words, without the LRT line in service, approximately 30% of corridor passenger traffic would be added
to the roadway congestion. We believe this demonstrates that LRT can have a significant impact on corridor traffic congestion.
These results have significance for other communities evaluating LRT and other mobility improvements. The public might well consider whether they would rather have an additional 30% (or other percentage) of motorists on crowded streets, contesting for scarce space. Expanding the
roadway arterial to accommodate this extra traffic in Denver's case would mean adding at least 4 to 6 more lanes to Santa Fe Drive – an extremely expensive proposition, with very costly inner-city right-of-way acquisition
as well as construction. And what about the additional parking spaces for thousands of additional cars?
Bottom line: As the Denver case demonstrates, LRT can have a very real impact on congestion – a lesson which other areas might well take to heart.
Light Rail Progress wishes to acknowledge the use of photos from
Kavanagh Transit Photos (LRT on Littleton line) and Jon Bell (LRT at Mineral Ave. Station).
Rev. 2002/11/24
Rick, Lewis, don't you just hate it when somebody comes in and brings up points that don't cater to the John Locke lemmings? Welcome aboard Nawdry!
Last anon...Actually, no I don't mind it at all.
Nawdry, is it an absurd lie or deception to say that you
...are from the Austin, TX area - same as lightrailnow.org.
...have worked as a consultant to lightrailnow.org.
...currently work for a rail related organization.
...have collaborated and contributed to multiple works with Todd Litman.
...have traveled the world - virtually - over the past several years contributing to every discussion anywhere that is related to rail in an effort to force your agenda on others.
If anyone here is a jihadist, it's you. I personally could care less what other cities do with their money. They may not have the pressing needs that Charlotte does in areas such as crime and education. It may be a wise use of their money to build trains.
Here, we've got bigger problems.
Did you know that we recently had two police officers killed in the line of duty because our jails can't hold our criminals, and our DA's office is overburdened. Of course you didn't. You aren't from here.
Did you know that our schools system is on the verge of collapse due to overcrowding, discipline problems, bright flight, white flight, and educational failure? Of course you didn't, you aren't from here.
I'm not an anti-transit jihadist. I used to be a bus driver for several years, something you'd know if you were a regular reader of this forum.
I do truly want the bus system expanded because it will cost the city less money. Money that can be spent on our real problems stated above. That is something that can only happen here if the trasit tax is repealed and then reinstated as a bus-only policy.
Nawdry's brain is frozen at the "worship rail at all costs" altar.
The top 10 most congested cities and the top 10 most polluted cities ALL have light rail ( and some have heavy rail ).
The Observer is now wailing about the BofA withdrawal and the unsure future of "affordable housing."
Putting all the eggs in one basket has only worked in Vegas...from time to time...but as we all know, the house always wins. In our case, the City Council may ram this down our throats anyway and then look back with a collective "what was I thinking?"
and no...I am not a member of John Locke...don't really know who they are...I'm not anti train...I like the bus...just don't like the crap that has been going on with the whole light rail project.
>The top 10 most congested cities and >the top 10 most polluted cities ALL >have light rail ( and some have >heavy rail ).
So you are suggesting that they would be less congested if they did not have rail? What exactly is the casue and effect you are eluding to?
Lets get real here, there is no "light-rail industry lobby." The industry is TINY, a mere flyspeck when compared to oil, construction, auto interests. Any anti-progress folks who invoke the prospect of 'special interetsts' infleuencing the local transit debate are truely grasping at straws.
I'm saying that there will be congestion with or without rail.
As the first poster indicates, CATS admits on their website that the rail system is not designed to reduce congestion.
So, to the anon. who touts the "Denver" solution, even they don't know what's happening.
to the anon. who posted this:
Lets get real here, there is no "light-rail industry lobby." The industry is TINY, a mere flyspeck when compared to oil, construction, auto interests. Any anti-progress folks who invoke the prospect of 'special interetsts' infleuencing the local transit debate are truely grasping at straws.
The Observer published a letter to the editor today from "Ceos for Cities." They are based in Chicago -
why are they writing to the Observer?
and are co-founded by Forest City Enterprises CEO Charles Ratner..a national owner and developer of real estate.
Why do we have a Chicago based company doing the cheerleading for a project in Charlotte?
I see no straw there but a meaty hook in our city.
"and are co-founded by Forest City Enterprises CEO Charles Ratner..a national owner and developer of real estate.
Why do we have a Chicago based company doing the cheerleading for a project in Charlotte?"
for the same reasons we have subdivision developers from Atlanta, Phoenix and Los Angeles lobying for sprawl expansion out in our burbs.
I never said there was no rail lobby, just that the sprawl boosters are orders of magnitude more powerful.
I hope everyone had a chance to hear Keith Larson's show today. He was grilling Sue Burgess (ie: hugs for thugs coordinator) regarding the city budget. A few tibits courtesy of Ms. Burgess:
Charlotte has paid approximately $50MM in subsidies and other "improvements" for light rail. This money is completely separate from the 1/2 cent sales tax and is purely discrectionary spending by City Council. At the same time, there was a demand for more police officers to increase public safety. In the end, a "measly" property tax increase was necessary to fund the increased police. Keith rightly asked why the city said the tax increase was made for additional police when it could have been due to increased transit spending. She mumbled and bumbled, but couldn't provide a straight answer.
Some will say the money was diverted from other projects. My response: why could it not be diverted to the police or district attorney??
The lesson: tranist taxes DO AND WILL raise property taxes, but gov-co will call them something else to keep the sun shining on the transit project. A city with the 8th worst violent crime rate should be spending more wisely on making citizens safer! What we are doing with light rail is a complete fiscal sham.
If you don't like Charlotte and the direction it's going, MOVE!
Hope you don't get mugged on your light rail ride.
Good ol' Nawdry writes: "The anti-transit jihadists are going to get increasingly tangled in their own absurd lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, and fabrications."
First Nawdry, I thank you for the complement. The second definition of jihad in the Webster's Collegiate dictionary is: a crusade for a principle or belief.
Definitely I, and others here, on both sides I might add, fit. Perhaps you meant to be demeaning. If so try harder next time.
Otherwise we must thank Nawdry for the denigrating remarks which he uses to preface his unremarkable ability to take whole essays from other places and paste them here.
But, he has given us a new website to pull information from. The APTA website seems an unbiased well of information about public transit.
For instance: From 1992 through 2004, capital spending in the US on Light Rail was $15,087,000,000. During the same time period capital spending on buses was $34,386,000,000. More than twice LTR
Ridership in 2004 on buses was 19,645,000 per day. Ridership in 2004 for LTR was 1,199,000 per day.
A little math tells us capital costs per rider for LTR is more than 7 times higher than for bus riders.
During the same period, heavy rail is almost 4 times as capital expensive per rider as buses are.
The obvious conclusion is buses are much more cost effective than rail.
Give us more buses. STOPTHETRAIN!!!!!
Anon 8:54...
Just so I understand...you tell me to leave if I don't like where Charlotte is going.
That implies that YOU are satisfied with where Charlotte is going:
2 police officers brutally murdered by a recitivist thug
A DA office that does not have sufficient resources to prosecute crime
Charlotte: 8th worst city in US for violent crime.
I personally like Charlotte and will stay to fight to make this place better with what we have. Shiny trains and trinkets are distracting the citizens from doing the things that really matter
If you compare crime statistics from 1993 to today, you will find that crime is a lot less now then it was back then, and that's with 150,000 more people then back in the day. That is also the last time we lost a pair of cops to a 'recitivist thug'. I too am outraged by losing our men in blue in the line of duty, but I'm thankful that it still a very rare occasion in this community.
In addition to light rail and an expanded bus ststem, I also support an expanded freeway system, better and more efficient funding of our schools, a stronger and better staffed court system, as well as museums, cultural facilities, WTVI, IKEA, and I've been known to go to a Bobcats game every now and then. As a city gets bigger, the problems will get bigger. I understand that. But we should not forget the benefits of living in a big city as well which is why I support the above.
The days of Charlotte being the sweet-tea drinking, cul-de-sac living, Mayberry mentality are over and we need to begin thinking beyond that realm. If you live for "simpler times" of a sugar coated past, I would suggest you move to a town further out that is 20 years behind the times.
why don't we just put a Starbucks, a magazine rack and a tent at every bus stop. There; development for a dime.
Anon 10:28
I must say I am surprised and saddened by your response. You are basically saying "oh well we are getting bigger and we just have to accept bigger problems. Just be glad we have all the trappings and goodies of world class cities."
Baloney. Our big city benefits are coming at the expense of other critical areas. We are simply ignoring our problems and making ourselves feel better by adding trinkets and toys...items that are diverting valuable resources away from neglected and more deserving areas. Worse, our politicians play shell games with citizen tax payers by mascarading their real intentions (...increasing transit subsidies) with more socially accepted ones. Please, how many citizens would be upset if they were told property taxes were increased for more police resources? I am certain citizens would be far more upset to know they were duped into accepting last years property tax increase after $50 MM in descretionary funds were spent to subsidise the light rail plan. The city council made a DELIBERATE decision to spend property tax revenue on transit rather than on public safety, and then blamed the tax increase on public safety! And yes, they could have diverted some or all of the $50 MM since this was money the council directly controlled.
I am amazed how many are willing to accept the Kool Aide being served by our local politicians. We are told that repeal of the 1/2 cent sales tax is dooming us to higher property taxes. The reality is that WE ARE ALREADY PAYING HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES FOR TRANSIT!!! We are being conned daily by politicians shell game into believing it's for something else. Wake up people!
And the citizens of Charlotte reelect these people because they are satisfied with how they're doing. The same goes for the transit tax referendum. I'm sure I could nitpick something in the city budget and find something I don't like, and beat it like a dead horse as most WBT 'air personalities' do, but instead I'll opt to believe that somebody else in the community is benefiting from it and I'm cool with that. I have lived in other cities where taxes are much higher than here and you don't get near the benefits that Charlotte offers. We are getting a lot more bang for our buck here. Now if only some people would just stay out of the way and let progress happen.
Now if only some people would just stay out of the way and let progress happen.
4/17/2007 12:26:00 AM
And everyone in Charlotte should be beautiful, rich, young, and happy.
Did I get that right?
And pay their taxes without grumbling, and elected officials and government bureaucrats will never misuse those tax dollars.
How wonderful.
Where's Alice?
Previous anon,
What you call nitpicking, most people call important subjects.
Is it nitpicking to critique CMS, by far the largest anual county expense, when the schools are falling further and further behind?
Is it nitpicking to critique light rail, by far the largest public works project in city history, when it has beem poorly managed and way over budget.
Is it nitpicking to complain about crime when our murder rate is surging, our jails are overcrowded, and our gangs are growing by the thousands?
Just curious what you would describe as nitpicking...
As for the other anon who discounts Charlotte's crime rate by saying it's only as bad as it was in 1993. That is a meaningless comparison. The meaningful comparison is Charlotte compared to other cities.
From cityrating.com here are some select numbers...
All Violent Crime among the darlings of the light railers:
Portland 1.36 x national average
Seattle 1.15 x national average
Denver 1.04 x national average
Salt Lake City 1.18 x nat average
Norfolk, VA .96 x national average
Phoenix 1.16 x national average
San Jose .62 x national average
New York City 1.23 x nat average
Charlotte 1.80 x national average
To be fair, Kansas City, Chicago, St. Louis, DC and others have higher crime rates than Charlotte.
Other than Chicago and DC which are old systems, I wonder what the crime rate would be in those other cities if they had focused on that rather than trains?
Rick, I looked at the same website and looked at some cities you conveniently forgot to add, all with no trins system and/or very stagnant growth...
Violent crime rates compard to nat'l average...
Birmingham 2.33
Richmond 2.07
Jacksonville, FL 1.45
Detroit 3.38
Hartford 2.42
Greenville, SC 1.68
Memphis 2.64
Little Rock 2.58
Those stats sure make the train cities and Charlotte look much safer don't they? I'm pretty the conservatives will cook up some other apples to oranges comparisons, or find another line item in the city budget to amplify their gloom and doom view of the world and how evil cities, governments and trains and all their supporters are.
Anon 2:08
Unfortunately you have missed the point.
The pro LTR city council is threatening to increase property taxes if the 1/2 cent sales tax is repealed. However, that is now a very hollow threat based on Ms. Burgess comments on her radio interview. In 2006 the city council spent $50 MM in descrectionary funds (..property tax revenue) on LTR subsidies and upgrades. Yet, city council could not find enough money to hire all the police officers requested by the police chief. The solution: raise the property tax rate and say it was for public safety purposes.
Typical of gutless politicians, they say it's for something everyone could not disagree about. Why not be honest and say that increased LTR spending resulted in less funds for police? Because the general population thinks the 1/2 cent sales tax is covering everything. Imagine the discontent if the politicians were HONEST and said the property tax increase was a result of INCREASED LTR spending. People would have screamed about the double taxation and the repeal would have picked up more steam.
So, let them threaten to raise property taxes. It's hollow and has no meaning since they have already raised property taxes due to LTR funding and subsidies. Don't buy the message that repeal of the 1/2 cent sale tax will lead to higher property taxes. CIty council has already done so and will certainly do so again. They just won't be HONEST about it.
We need to fight back all that much more!
Exactly Ken.
The debate in Charlotte has more to do with misplaced priorities by our local government than anything else.
They choose toys over safety, and they do it time after time.
Last anon,
As for the cities I selected, there was no cherry picking. I simply selected the cities that have been repeatedly held up as examples of light rail idealism - many on this thread.
If I wanted to deceive anyone I certainly wouldn't have provided the link to the site or admitted that there were other cities with higher crime rates. Those cities obviously exist.
However, I did hold something back. I figured someone such as yourself would make the silly statement that train loving cities have lower crime rates because they are somehow enlightened.
When I selected those cities, I checked some of them for something else. While they are building trains, they are also taking care of their citizens by effectively funding their district attorney's offices.
They actually prosecute their criminals. That's why they have lower crime rates.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg has 36 assistant DAs 26 support staff positions. How many do these other similarly sized cities have?
Denver 72 DAs (From Denver's DA site)
Portland - 86 DAs and 132 support staff positions
Austin 76 DAs and 108 support staff positions. Forgot to include their crime rate in the original - .77 of national average
(Austin and Portland numbers quoted from our DA, Peter Gilchrist - RhinoTimes)
Seattle - 154 DAs in the Criminal Division alone, (2005 annual report)
Phoenix - 900 attorneys, investigators, administrators, paralegals, victim advocates and support staff.
And yes Rick, I will agree with you on that. Perhaps you and I can help Pat McCrory and other local officials lobby the state to help provide this additional help. If the good ole boys from the Eastern side of the state would realize that state priorities need to go to the more populated areas and not some tobacco farm in Duplin County, we'd all be better off.
Believe it or not, I am all for zero tolerance against violent repeat criminals. I also look forward to taking the train downtown and strolling to the Courthouse to watch these folks get locked up. It's different funding sources folks!
Unfortunately, that has been tried. McCrory thinks if he keeps putting miles on his car driving to Raleigh to beg, that let's him off the hook.
As Ken pointed out, they aren't truly separate funding sourses.
Money diverted to support rail which can't support itself from a development perspective is money directly given to rail that should have gone elsewhere.
I'll cut you a deal. No more tax breaks and no more incentives of any kind for rail. Let's see what happens. When it fails to stand on its own, then we'll see who's right. In the meantime, that money can go where it is supposed to go.
Rick,
Thanks for bringing back a little perspective comparing the effort this Mayor, city council and the Observer make when it comes to light rail, arts projects and crime.
If the above mentioned trio spent a quarter of their sweat on the issue of crime in the city and schools, we might be stopping the cop killers before they get a chance to escalate from petty theft to murder.
I encourage everyone to read Tara Servatious today ( on crime and light rail ). The cases she writes about are perfect examples how the mentality of this city and newspaper will whine about how we failed a thug and yet will do nothing to bring relief to our courts and prosecutors. Perhaps if someone suggests watching the train go by is therapeutic and can stop some of these kids from bringing their guns to school ( where is the editorial on that??????? and we will never see CMS expel or call for the prosecution of these kids)
then maybe they will focus on crime.
Mary, I know this is not the blog for crime, but as Rick has said, spending priorities is the main focus of us whose oppose the rail.
If what Susan Burgess said is correct, why hasn't there been an investigation by the Observer?
Is it because, in true CMS-style coverup, you hope the public doesn't find out before the Nov. voting? That might sway the repeal???
We need to be honest. If $50 million went to light rail that could have been used for police and the courts, shame on this entire city...no,something more forceful than shame. Vulgar and a slap into the face of the police dept. and the families of Shelton and Clark.
If this city can find money for Rita whatshername ( again read "Flowers for Rita" by Tara Servatious ) then where is the money for the police?
Mary, we need a response.
Thank you...
Mary may or may not respond.
As she has a social agenda for the spending of taxes on frills, she will not be addressing the issue of how the spending she supports raises taxes which could have been spent on police and roads.
From "Flowers for Rita" 5/17/2006
Rita Rondina had a dream.
She wanted to expand her dried silk and floral arrangements business into a multinational floral powerhouse -- or something like that. It would have been downright cruel for Rondina to be denied her dream just because the banks weren't particularly jacked up on lending her all the money she needed to do it.
So the city of Charlotte stepped in with a $150,000 loan to bridge the gap. The money could have been used for desperately overdue roadwork or to put police officers on the streets, but the dream of one woman was more important. When the silk floral arrangement market went to hell, the city's loan money went with it. On April 10, the city council shrugged its shoulders and wrote off $126,000 of the loan.
Three days later, City Manager Pam Syfert made a plea for a tax increase. The city budget was so tight she just didn't know where she'd find the money for the desperately overdue infrastructure work or the police officers we need.
"Unfortunately, the magnitude of the problems facing our city cannot be addressed with existing resources," Syfert wrote to the council.
She and the city council want you to believe this was caused by the highly complex economics of "growth," a financially murky problem taxpayers couldn't hope to understand.
• $11 million to buy off the rental car industry. The same day Syfert made her plea for a tax increase in the Charlotte Observer, she also announced that she'd miraculously "found" an extra $11 million in property tax revenue in her oh-so-tight budget. The city needs the legislature to jack up the rental car tax to generate the dough to build the arts groups the new buildings they want -- one shared building isn't good enough -- but the rental car industry planned to fight it. So instead of lobbying to raise the tax by five or six percentage points, Syfert announced they'd bridge the gap by using more property tax money so they'd only have to raise the rental tax by three percentage points. The $11 million would have paid for almost twice the number of police the department is asking for. That means the city will now put about $20 million into the projects.
• $800,000 for signs directing people from the light rail line and parking decks to downtown attractions and electronic boards to guide people to open parking spaces.
• $5.3 million from various city funds to buy up the property around what will be Scaleybark Light Rail Station so that the city can sell it back to developers at reduced prices, thus allowing the city to micromanage what goes there. City staff and light rail consultants assured council members considering a mass transit tax in the late 1990s that rail would attract business and the city wouldn't have to spend money on redevelopment.
• More than $5 million in grants and land cost reductions to the company that is renovating the Carolina Theatre.
My personal favorite was the small business survey the city funded with the Charlotte Chamber to find out what concerns businesses here. The number one answer: high taxes. That could explain why the annual number of new businesses moving here peaked in 1994, when the county added 1,052 new firms in a single year, and has been steadily declining ever since. In 2005, the number of new businesses locating here was half that, at 562.
Maybe the stuff above and the millions more the city spent that I don't have space to chronicle here was worth it. But that's not the argument city suits are making. They say they're broke, and that's bull.
Lewis posted (2007/04/16) ...
>>
The APTA website seems an unbiased well of information about public transit.
For instance: From 1992 through 2004, capital spending in the US on Light Rail was $15,087,000,000. During the same time period capital spending on buses was $34,386,000,000. More than twice LTR
Ridership in 2004 on buses was 19,645,000 per day. Ridership in 2004 for LTR was 1,199,000 per day.
A little math tells us capital costs per rider for LTR is more than 7 times higher than for bus riders.
[...]
The obvious conclusion is buses are much more cost effective than rail.
Give us more buses. STOPTHETRAIN!!!!!
<<
Isn't this kind of exercise aimed at the mentally challenged?
After all, we all (hopefully) know that buses have dominated US public transit for about the past 6 decades or so, so it should come as no great shock that they carry vastly more ridership than light rail, which is coming back (because of its advantages and successes) after having been nearly exterminated in the 1950s and 1960s.
Furthermore, hasn't it been just in the past couple of decades or so that there's been more emphasis in this country on rebuilding public transit and re-installing rail systems? So, doesn't it make sense that there would be a much higher capital investment in new rail systems, proportionate to ridership?
Hasn't the whole point of that investment been to try to attract riders back to public transit, and expand Amreica's public transit ridership?
OK, let's see how things have been going. From the same APTA website as Lewis, I added up the capital investment total for 1992-2004. I got figures very close to his: $34,391 million for bus, and $15,092 million for light rail transit (LRT).
However, doesn't it make sense to include the OPERATING cost also? After all, part of the point of installing rail is to lower the unit operating cost of transit. So I totalled operating & maintenance (O&M) costs for that same period:
Bus $145,746 million
LRT $7,143 million
Then I totalled both capital and O&M costs:
Bus $191,137 million
LRT $22,235 million
OK, then I decided to look at the ridership CHANGE over that period. Doesn't this make more sense, if you're trying to evaluate the difference in putting money into two different systems? (Here I must emphasize that both modes work TOGETHER and both deserve investment - but this comparison is necessary to respond to the ongoing gusher of nonsense from the anti-rail jihad.)
So I looked at the change in annual ridership over the 1992-2004 period that Lewis used:
Bus increased from 5,624 mn to 5,731 mn trips - +107 million
LRT increased from 188 mn to 381 mn trips - + 193 million
So, to gain those 107 million annual rider-trips, bus systems needed a total expenditure of $191,137 million. LRT, to gain 193 million trips, needed a total expenditure of $22,235 million.
Here's the result per new rider-trip gained:
Bus $1,786
LRT $115
Sure looks to me like LRT is pretty darned cost-effective compared to bus systems. LRT costs a bit over 6% the cost of bus systems for each new rider-trip gained. Wow! Maybe it becomes a little clearer why so many cities (like Charlotte) are rushing to try to install new LRT systems?
LH
Whoops - I already see a critical typo in my previous posting.
I wrote...
>>
I totalled operating & maintenance (O&M) costs for that same period:
Bus $145,746 million
LRT $7,143 million
<<
This should read:
Bus $156,746 million
LRT $7,143 million
Added to capital costs, these should equal the totals stated in previous post.
LH
On 2007/04/16 "Anonymous" posted ...
>>
Our big city benefits are coming at the expense of other critical areas. We are simply ignoring our problems and making ourselves feel better by adding trinkets and toys...items that are diverting valuable resources away from neglected and more deserving areas.
<<
If facts start failing you, how about juicing up the hysteria?
That appears to be what's happening with this new tack of suddenly concocting furor over some kind of "crime crisis" in Charlotte as an excuse for staking a claim on transit money and implying that transportation funds ought to be re-directed into the DA's office.
Traffic congestion? Let 'em suffer?
As other postings pointed out, Charlotte actually has less violent crime per capita than a number of other cities - such as Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit, Dallas, Houston. Even little Lubbock, Texas has a higher violent crime rate.
But all of a sudden, we're counting the staffs of DA offices. And, let's see, cities like Portland, Denver, Salt Lake, and San Jose are really good, because they have lower crime rates, but they're really bad, because they have light rail?
Geez, give us a break.
Crime rate studies based on reliable data, and aimed at people with fully functioning brains, tell us that things like local quality of life and income levels have a major impact on crime rates. As far as I'm concerned, good transit, including rail, helps facilitate big improvements in the quality of life and level of mobility. I'm betting that that's the kind of investment that will pay off for urban areas like Charlotte, with plenty of side benefits.
Incidentally, here are the results of a Google news seach for Charlotte's crime rate:
Most areas see violent crime drop
Charlotte Observer, NC - Apr 1, 2007
Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officials say they are encouraged by statistics showing that the violent crime rate is dropping in most of their divisions. ...
Police: Area crime plunges
Charlotte Observer, NC - Apr 1, 2007
While the original articles are no longer available, it would certainly appear from the headlines that the specter of a surge in local crime is NOT corroborated.
LH
nawdry, if you are nawdry@austin.rr.com,
the accusations about money being taken from Charlotte's general fund and paid to light rail are serious.
That is not juicing up statistics.
Mecklenburg County is overloaded with cases, no jail space and we have approx. 40% of all felony arrests go unconvicted because there isn't enough money for the courts.
Charlotte may be experiencing a decline in overall crime as we are nationally, but the fact remains the crime we do have goes unpunished.
When the city of Charlotte claims to be out of money for police and the courts but can magically find it for pet projects, that upsets many of us.
Keep in mind, while you mull over stats, that our police chief vehemently stated we had no gang problem...until enough people screamed at him and he admitted we do, in fact, have a gang problem. The same goes for CMS, our school system here, when they conveniently under-report crime in the schools until enough reporters like Tara Servatious nail them on it.
I don't care if light rail is the salvation of the world. We have some big fish to fry here and something is very fishy in our local government when it comes to budget transparency.
Go read some of Tara's articles on the crime here and get back to us.
Nawdry...until you pay your first dime of money for property taxes in the Charlotte Mecklenburg area you have absolutely no authority or credibility to criticize the local tax payers. We have every right, and responsibility, to call out our local governments when we feel our tax dollars are not being used in an appropriate manner
This is a LOCAL blog Nawdry...take your light rail propoganda elsewhere
From today'seters to the editor:
Dilworth: History can't yield to transit
In response to "Dilworth: A historic neighborhood at risk" (April 14 Viewpoint):Mary Newsom is right on the mark.
Simply put, demolishing houses in the Dilworth Historic District to accommodate transit-oriented development violates the district's ordinance and contravenes the state's enabling legislation on the creation of local historic districts.
Richard Mattson
The transit tax repeal organizers should have declared South Blvd. a historic district. Is it too late?
my God, my spelling is etruscan.
Oh, I disagree, Nawdry is welcome. He is obviously a LTR supporter exclusive of other public transportation modes.
But I question his choice of numbers.
From the APTA website showing operating, capital costs, revenue and ridership for 2004, the latest statistics available.
LTR
349 Million Riders
$232 M Revenue
$2240 M Capital Costs
$887 M Operational costs
Net Revenue $2895 M
Net Cost per rider to Taxpayer:
$8.3
Buses
4472 Million Riders
$3300 M Revenue
$2500 M Capital Costs
$12007 M Operational Costs
Net Revenue
$11207 Million
Net Cost to Taxpayer per Rider
$2.50
Better than three times the rider per the taxpayers dollar.
As an aside, buses capital investment previous to 1992 is immaterial as few, if any of the buses built during that time period are still on the road. It is a statement intent on distorting the truth of capital costs, depreciation and reinvestment in rolling stock.
I look forward to Nawdry's rhetoric surrounding his next few tidbits of misinformation.
I mean by net revenue, operational and capital costs net of revenue.
It should actually be a negative number, showing it has to be paid by tax payers.
Lewis
While waiting on Nawdry to make up some new way to look at financial information, I ask that he address the fact that LTR takes riders away from buses as part of its growth thus contributing to a smaller or negative growth rate in bus ridership.
Nawdry, give us some spin here. It's always good for a laugh.
Lewis
Let's just end the charade that is nawdry.
Nawdry, who signs his posts - LH, is most likely Lyndon Henry of Austin, of lightrailnow.org, formerly of Mobility Planning Associates, and currently of Capital Metro Transportation Authority. He is a co-author with Todd Litman and others on LRT propaganda, and appears to be the official hatchet man in the guise of "nawdry" for the light rail industry.
Mr. Henry has made a career of supporting LRT over all other transportation choices - even monorail. He is hardly unbiased.
As I stated earlier in this thread, it wouldn't be long before the light rail industry sent its heavy hitters to influence our local debate. I would even contend that they were invited here by Mary. The timing of their arrival is too coincidental.
Mr. Henry, if it is him, is incapable of understanding that cities are actually systems. There is more than one issue affecting them at any one time. He immediately discards my inclusion of crime into the debate because it doesn't fit within his tunnel view.
However, the crime, transportation, education, and general infrastructure problems that Charlotte is experiencing are all functions of the massive growth we are experiencing.
Again, in Charlotte, this debate is more about misprioritization of effort, attention, and resources - not just rail.
Rick...well said. In our zeal to become "world class" we are losing focus on the basic fundamentals of what a government is mandated to provide. Continued at its unchecked pace, in the long term we will find ourselves like the over-taxed Northern and Midwestern cities experiencing flight to NC.
Lewis...your financial analysis was right on, but I believe you might have missed an important fundamental. The obvious negative cash flow and debt situation for LTR would cause any business in the free market system to go bankrupt, as as they would have no credit worthiness for alternative operating funds. However, since LTR is a government enterprise and must operate there will always be another revenue stream for debt service: property tax and sales taxes. So, I would contend that net revenue (capital removed) is not a good way to review this, since it has to be paid by the citizen tax payer via increased taxes.
It has been demonstrated time again, the city council has no hard feelings about raising and wasting tax payers' funds. They play the shell game with the taxpayers to divert attention from the true reason for the increase by telling Joe/Jane taxpayer that it's for public saftey or some other non-arguable purpose. Just look at how the 2006 budget and property tax increase debacle was handled: huge transit subsidies funded and no money for public safety needs ---> property tax increase for public safety. A complete con job.
I posed this proposal on Mary's previous blogs and have not seen Mary's or gov-co's response:
If it is a CERTAINTY that repeal of the 1/2 cent sales tax will lead to a property tax increase, then gov-co should be able to commit, with legally a binding vote, that keeping the 1/2 cent sales tax will NEVER lead to a property increase for LTR or transit. And this would require ZERO slight of hand / accounting gimmicktry in the budgeting process. This won't happen in budget 2006 is any indication of our priorities
Don't buy the fear mongers tax increase scare tactic...whether the 1/2 cent sales tax is repealed or not, property taxes WILL go up for LTR and transit. Count on it.
Lewis Guignard previously posted (2007/04/20) ...
>>
From the APTA website showing operating, capital costs, revenue and ridership for 2004, the latest statistics available.
LTR [LRT?]
349 Million Riders
$232 M Revenue
$2240 M Capital Costs
$887 M Operational costs
Net Revenue $2895 M
Net Cost per rider to Taxpayer:
$8.3
Buses
4472 Million Riders
$3300 M Revenue
$2500 M Capital Costs
$12007 M Operational Costs
Net Revenue
$11207 Million
Net Cost to Taxpayer per Rider
$2.50
Better than three times the rider per the taxpayers dollar.
<<
Well, like I said, the arguments and Numbers Voodoo of anti-rail transit fanatics seem tailored to the mentally challenged.
(No, this is NOT implying that all transit opponents in Charlotte are "mentally challenged" - read the above carefully...)
First of all, Lewis includes capital expenses (investment) for one year. This should be a red flag for most people out there who (a) have a brain and (b) have drunk their coffee.
This is like the guy who lives in a tent and ridicules the other guy next door who builds a house, for paying tens of thousands of dollars this year more for housing. That's problem #1.
Problem #2 - capital investment expenditures in a single year tell you very little. Usually they're part of an investment project spanning many years. Totalling the investment over, say, 10 years, would be a bit more meaningful (though it still has problems). You could spend $250,000 in one year and $250 million the next on the same project.
Problem #3 - Does capital investment in a year, or 10 years, really clue us as to critical differences between light rail transit (LRT) and bus transit modes? As I said before, LRT was almost totally exterminated in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, LRT has demonstrated remarkable performance and success in attracting new ridership out of motor vehicles and off of roadways and freeways. Doesn't it make sense that public transit policy would emphasize capital investment to expand a mode that has demonstrated longer-term benefits? And that current capital investments are therefore disproportinately higher?
Problem #4 - Keep in mind that capital investment - federal and local - is NOT recouped by fares, or expected to be, because capital investment expenditures are funded (like highway and other public works investments) through federal and local grants. They're not funded through operating revenues.
OK, if a longer-term reduction in operating cost is an objective of this higher capital investment, is this paying off? Even Lewis's data - presimably from APTA (American Public Transportation Assn.) suggests that it is.
Subsidy - the difference between total ongoing costs and the revenue from direct users - riders - (and others, such as advertisers) isn't always the best way to look at investments, but to simplify things, let's consider it in this case.
Lewis's data presents a $655 million subsidy for US LRT service for 349 rider-trips. That calculates to a subsidy of $1.88 per LRT (light rail) rider-trip.
In contrast, Lewis's bus data indicates a subsidy of $8,707 million for 4,472 rider-trips. That calculates to a subsidy of $1.95 per bus rider-trip.
Based on this - a significant REDUCTION in the ongoing operating cost of light rail compared to bus services - it would again appear that the strategy of investing in LRT to reduce the ongoing cost of public transit is succeeding.
But a demonstration of public transit success is NOT something that the anti-rail jihad are willing to digest. So we can expect more iterations and permutations of Lewis's kind of Numbers Voodoo. Oh, well...
LH
Rick, I can't resist even though you're probably right.
I pick the most recent year of financial data from the APTA website which Nawdry offers as a source. I total some of the numbers offered, others are already totalled. I present them as information easily available which makes the case for public investment in buses and not LTR.
LH goes nuts. Making ad hominem attacks, dissembling and generally avoiding the issue, he says I can't read, can't intrepret, and and just plain wrong.
Not me. The numbers are from the ATPA website. Attack them. Pick a different year. Put ten years together. Tell me which year to pick. Ok - 2001.
#'s in millions except costs per trip.
BUS
Operating Costs
11814
Capital Costs
3188
Trips
5215
Costs per trip = $2.87
LTR
Operating Costs
676
Capital Costs
1441
Trips
333
Costs per trip = $6.35
Bus wins at 2.2 times as effective per cost.
So far, picking two recent years buses are indicated as substantially more effective ways to move people.
The problem with LTR is it will continue to use more capital funding as the proponents are in it for the money, and expansion is where the money is.
So arguments to the contrary are fallacious to begin with.
So LH, lets have some more of your rhetoric, you seem to have lost your numbers.
Make sure and drink your coffee first.
Lewis
Nawdry, LH, Lyndon Henry - whoever you are..
I've got a serious, straight forward question for you. It's similar to the idea put forth by Ken Rogers earlier and never answered.
In the event that the current transit tax is repealed, would you support a replacement sales tax if it had the following restrictions:
1. Annual transit expenses for all forms of mass transit can not be more than 80% of the sales tax collected in a given year. This covers all operating costs for all of CATS + all debt service + all transit oriented development subsidies. The remaining 20% goes into a fund for future lines research, planning,land purchases etc.
2. Definition of Transit Oriented Development Subsidy
This could be broken down into some sort of graduated scale. I'd propose that 100% of any government subsidy for ANY sort of development within 1/2 mile of a transit stop be considered TOD subsidy. At 1 mile it drops to 50%. Over 1 1/2 mile its not TOD and could come out of some other goverment pot of money.
3. Before a new line is constructed a referendum would be held to get public input. I'd be willing to even say that this could be a non-binding referendum. It's main purpose would be to require the government to hear from the people before spending a massive amount of money. If they ignore the people's wishes, then they do so at their own peril at the ballot box.
The end result of this setup would be no property tax increases to support transit because their spending is capped by the sales tax revenue. The government would have to listen to the people before charging down a very expensive path, and they would have a very limited amount of money for subsidizing the work of the private sector.
I'm pretty sure I know your answer...
Nawdry...
As anyone with basic financial prowess can tell you, the longer you finance a debt the more you will have to pay in debt service (ie: interest). Of course it's always convenient to view debt service over 10, 20 or 30 years to make returns look better, but you also need to consider the TOTAL cost of the investment. This includes the interest. Your point #4 assumes we are getting free capital financing for the entire LTR system. This is wrong in a multitude of ways.
Not all capital investment in LTR is being handled via state, federal or other grants. A significant portion is coming from local government (city and county) general revenues. Since these investments will never be recovered, they are 100% sunk cost. Compounding the sunk cost is the opportunity lost to use the sunk investment to fund other programs. It's not a zero sum game. So, to be completely fair in your financial review, you need to apply a cost of money factor to these sunk costs. The average interest rate for short term corporate capital is about 8%. If you want to "feel" better about it, you can use the general inflation rate of ~2%. Any way you cut it, it's big bucks.
In regards to the state and fed grants, these are not free either. Since government does not generate revenue, government must take it from citizens by force of law (taxes). Additionally, many grants are backed by treasury bonds and other government borrowing vehicles. These most certainly have a debt service component that needs to be repaid over time --- via tax revenues. Again, not free and never will be.
I hate to burst your bubble, but we are not getting something for nothing here. The investment has to, an will be, paid back --- something your conveniently ignore.
Lewis was right on in his analysis that LTR is magnitudes more expensive when you consider the TOTAL costs for everything.
I don't know what everyone is so upset about. Suburban development has been subsidised since WWII. Residential single family mortgages (not multi-family properties) have been subsidised by the implicit guarantee of the govt (via FHA, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae). Interstate highways (and beltways) were bankrolled by the federal govt long before we ever know anyone would drive on them. And lets not forget about the biggest suburban subsidy of all, the mortgage interest deduction.
All of the sudden, much smaller subsidies for non-suburban development have appeared in CLT and the suburban crowd is acting like they have never benefitted from 'govco' largess. Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that the LRT may cause changes that are similar to the changes brought by interstate development of the 60s and 70s?
No one is upset except those defending light rail. The main arguments against have to do with mispriortization of funds, waste and better choices of subsidies.
It is not whether something else has been subsidized. By the way, giving a tax deduction is not a subsidy. Not taking taxes for something is not the same as taking taxes from you to give to me. Mortgage interest deductions are not a subsidy, any more than deductions for children is a subsidy.
Umm, let's see...
Urban condo owners apparently don't get the same mortgage deductions on condos that cost 2-3 times a suburban house per square foot - equaling a much larger deduction.
I guess apartment developers can't deduct the interest they pay as a business expense.
I guess gas taxes don't more than cover the cost of roads and the reason our roads are in bad shape must not be because the money from gas taxes is spent elsewhere.
You're probably right on one thing though. I'm sure a few miles of light rail in a few cities will have the same national impact on the economy as the interstate highway system which connects all major cities, supports interstate and international commerce, and has been probably the single greatest driving force behind economic growth in the past 50 years.
the implicit govt guarantee of mortages sold by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA are clearly a subsidy, since these guarantees are not available for owners of units in multi-family buildings, I would say that yes, this does represent a subsidy of suburbanization.
As to interstates being paid for by gas taxes... Yes, they surely generate enough revenue now for maintance, but this was definatly not the case when they were built. Back then they were a gamble, just as the LRT is today.
"I guess apartment developers can't deduct the interest they pay as a business expense."
this is entirely different than the mortgage deduction. All business expenses (including the cost of borrowing) are deductable. The mortgage interest deduction is unusual because it is a personal expense.
Anon 11:51 forgot the biggest suburban subsidy of all. The cost of urban services provision (police, fire, sewer, water etc.) is dramatically higher in the burbs (due to lower densities) than it is in dense urban environments.
I believe we are distorting the meaning of subsidy.
Taking taxes to pay for a service or building - police and jails - is not a subsidy. It is a tax used to fully pay for something specific which produces no income.
A tax deduction is not a subsidy. It is a deduction from your gross income, which allows you not to pay taxes on money you spent on a particular something.
A subsidy is when the taxpayers fund - pay money - to something which produces income, but not enough to pay for itself. Arenas have become such indirectly - Bob Johnson being the recipient. Developers sometimes receive subdidies of various sorts. The bus and Light Rail may not fit the definition, as they are government services which have minor user fees.
It would seem arguing about subsidies is irrelevant, when considered against waste and misprioritization of available funds.
Lewis
Lewis,
I agree that a tax deduction is not necessaryily a subsidy. However, when deductions are unevenly applied they become a mechanism for wealth reallocation. If I am a renter I recieve no mortgage interest deduction on my housing expenditures. The revenue that the govt collects on my income (which goes to rent payments) finances a portion of the mortgage interest deduction that a homeowner recieves elsewhere. If their income is equal the apartment dweller pays more taxes than the home owner, I think this reallocation should be considered a subsidy.
A similar subsidy occurs at the center city - suburban scale. The addition of a new housing unit in a dense urban environment requires less investment in service provision than a new suburban home (the suburban home will require larger investments in pipes for water and sewer, more police car and garbage truck milage, more roads (if the urban dweller walks to some of his destinations) etc.) but (assuming the values of the homes are the same) the urbanite will pay the same property taxes. This also represents a transfer of wealth to the suburbs -- a subsidy.
I do agree with you that the waste in the LRT development process is inexcusible (why is Tobler still employed????). But this waste does not mean that the project is without merit. I-40 in Wake county was incompetently resurfaced about a year ago, it is being repaved again at gastax payers expense now. Does this waste and fraud suggest that we should stop maintaining the raod? Certainly not, just that we need to do a better job of picking the custodians of our money.
...
Ken Rogers previously posted ...
>>As anyone with basic financial prowess can tell you, the longer you finance a debt the more you will have to pay in debt service (ie: interest). Of course it's
always convenient to view debt service over 10, 20 or 30 years to make returns look better, but you also need to consider the TOTAL cost of the investment. This includes the interest. Your point #4 assumes we are getting free capital financing for the entire LTR system. This is wrong in a multitude of ways.
Not all capital investment in LTR is being handled via state, federal or other grants. A significant portion is coming from local government (city and county)
general revenues. Since these investments will never be recovered, they are 100% sunk cost. Compounding the sunk cost is the opportunity lost to use the
sunk investment to fund other programs. It's not a zero sum game. So, to be completely fair in your financial review, you need to apply a cost of money factor
to these sunk costs. The average interest rate for short term corporate capital is about 8%. If you want to "feel" better about it, you can use the general inflation rate of ~2%. Any way you cut it, it's big bucks.
<<
My comments:
>>
the longer you finance a debt the more you will have to pay in debt service (ie: interest). Of course it's always convenient to view debt service over 10, 20 or 30 years to make returns look better, but you also need to consider the TOTAL cost of the investment. This includes the interest.
<<
Well, yes, there is a cost to financing, but not all of a given project is financed and thus subject to interest.
>>
Your point #4 assumes we are getting free capital financing for the entire LTR system. This is wrong in a multitude of ways.
<<
Is "LTR" some kind of code acronym among Charlotte's anti-transit insiders? It seems to be consistent - piquing curiosity. Anyway, just for the record, the entire rest of the world and the transit industry use LRT for light rail transit, so I will stick with that. I'm beginning to wonder if this "LTR" these guys keep referring to is the same thing, or some other chimera they have in mind.
My point #4 was that major portions, possibly all, of capital costs these days are covered by grants, the idea being to facilitate investments that will ultimately save taxpayers' money. Ongoing revenues from operations (mainly fares and ad revenues) are not expected to be applied to these - any more than motor vehicle users are expected to pay for the cost of building streets and freeways. Ongoing operational subsidy is the major concern of most local governments, public agencies, and the federal government. As I pointed out, the ongoing operational subsidy for LRT is LOWER than the subsidy of bus operations.
>>
A significant portion is coming from local government (city and county) general revenues. Since these investments will never be recovered, they are 100% sunk cost.
<<
Costs of all public investments are (or should be) recovered from benefits - otherwise there would be no public streets, lighting systems, wastewater systems, libraries, etc., etc.
One of the major benefits of LRT and other rail transit investment is the stimulation of adjacent development. This new development alone can often yield property tax revenues sufficient to recoup the investment cost of the original project.
>>
So, to be completely fair in your financial review, you need to apply a cost of money factor
to these sunk costs. The average interest rate for short term corporate capital is about 8%. If you want to "feel" better about it, you can use the general inflation rate of ~2%. Any way you cut it, it's big bucks.
<<
OK, Ken is getting closer to reality. We apply a "cost of money factor" (discount rate) to convert a "sunk cost" (total capital investment) into an annual cost - similar to depreciation or amortization over the life of the project or asset. To apply the entire one-year (or even 12-year) total capital investment figure as a "cost" for the year(s) when it is incurred is just, well, stupid. The discount rate is usually approximately the average of what you would get if you invested the money in common financial instruments and what you would pay out if you financed the project - 5% is a good approximation. The economic life of the project (actually a combination mainly of the economic life of fixed infrastructure and the economic life of rolling stock) is critical - typically considerably greater than one year or a dozen years.
To treat the total capital cost of any investment or asset as the immediate, ongoing cost in the year(s) it is incurred, combined with ongoing operational cost, is a serious error. By that standard, neither businesses nor public agencies could make sound investment and overall economic decisions. Yet that is exactly what transit opponments - rail opponents in particular - keep doing, over and over again.
LH
Anon 4/23 12/29 PM
My point had to do with definitions.
A tax deduction, by definition, is not a subsidy.
This does not mean the deduction has no effect.
Taxes are often used as social policy influences. I believe this is what you are getting at.
Best wishes.
LH.
You continue to avoid the point.
Give us some numbers telling us how wonderful LTR is. Refute mine.
Do something to back up your rhetoric.
It becomes obvious you don't understand financial matters nearly as well as Ken, or even myself.
Lewis
I know this comment has nothing to do with trains, but it does point out how the train conversation is inter-related to other conversations going on in Charlotte - something that is lost on the likes of Lyndon Henry.
Last night, the CMS School Board asked for a large bond issue to be put on the ballot this November. The number that will be on the ballot - whatever that turns out to be - will be in inflation adjusted dollars.
The only reason that occurred is due to the train conversation that is currently happening. The public is now aware that their government typically tries to hoodwink them by using current day dollars for multi-year projects. They knew that the public would not let this slide again.
One curiosity that I would like to hear explained is why they are only using a 3.5% inflation rate for the schools. Many pro-rail posters here constantly say that all construction projects are experiencing 10-15% inflation rates.
While I commend the government for trying to be a little more honest with the public, I've got to wonder why they are not using the correct inflation rate for construction projects. Who's not telling the truth - the school estimators or the train estimators?
So, this November, the CharMeck voter will have a few decisions to make. Do they want to give a wasteful government a huge amount of money for schools that are desperately needed, even if some of it is misprioritized? And do they want to take a little money away from that same wasteful government for trains that will serve a miniscule percentage of the population?
Those are interesting questions...
I know this comment has nothing to do with trains, but it does point out how the train conversation is inter-related to other conversations going on in Charlotte - something that is lost on the likes of Lyndon Henry.
Last night, the CMS School Board asked for a large bond issue to be put on the ballot this November. The number that will be on the ballot - whatever that turns out to be - will be in inflation adjusted dollars.
The only reason that occurred is due to the train conversation that is currently happening. The public is now aware that their government typically tries to hoodwink them by using current day dollars for multi-year projects. They knew that the public would not let this slide again.
One curiosity that I would like to hear explained is why they are only using a 3.5% inflation rate for the schools. Many pro-rail posters here constantly say that all construction projects are experiencing 10-15% inflation rates.
While I commend the government for trying to be a little more honest with the public, I've got to wonder why they are not using the correct inflation rate for construction projects. Who's not telling the truth - the school estimators or the train estimators?
So, this November, the CharMeck voter will have a few decisions to make. Do they want to give a wasteful government a huge amount of money for schools that are desperately needed, even if some of it is misprioritized? And do they want to take a little money away from that same wasteful government for trains that will serve a miniscule percentage of the population?
Those are interesting questions...
no more comments,
Rick,
As an FYI, most government capital projects, which I am not sure Rail Lite is, include inflationary factors before being funded.
The financial departments usually handle that.
Lewis
Lewis, thanks for the clarification. That may be the case, and I certainly hope it would be the case before an actual project is funded out of the bonds or any other source.
However, I believe it is a change that the bond request is now being put on the ballot using inflation adjusted dollars. This means the government is actually asking for the money needed up front rather than not asking for enough and then having to ask for more later.
To me that is a major step forward in honesty.
By the way, I could be wrong...not afraid to admit that.
I asked to have it verified that it was a county required change to add inflation to the bond request and that was what I was told.
The reason I thought this was a change from previous bond requests was because the school board was surprised to learn that the numbers they were discussing were going to be increased due to inflation. At least that's what the Observer reported the day the request came out.
Rick,
My experience when on the Citizen's Capital Budget Advisory Committee (CCBAC) for the county, which you might find interesting volunteer work, was that before any bond hit the ballot, inflation numbers were added.
Lewis
captain stabbin videos -
free captain stabbin -
inthevip -
in the vip -
in the vip galleries -
inthevip gallery -
in the vip gallery -
inthevip movies -
in the vip movies -
in the vip parties -
in the vip pics -
inthevip pictures -
in the vip pictures -
in the vip room -
inthevip samples -
in the vip video clips -
inthevip videos -
in the vip videos -
in the vip trailers -
free milf hunter -
milfhunter -
milf hunter -
milf hunter action -
milf hunter galleries -
milfhunter gallery -
milf hunter gallery -
milf hunter mature sex -
milf hunter movie -
milf hunter movie clips -
milfhunter movies -
milf hunter movies -
milf hunter mpegs -
milf hunter password -
milf hunter pics -
milf hunters -
milfhunter pictures -
milf hunter pictures -
milfhunter pussy -
milf hunter pussy -
milfhunter trailers -
milf hunter trailers -
milfs hunter -
milf hunter video clips -
milfhunter videos -
milf hunter videos -
streetblowjob -
street blowjob -
streetblowjobs -
street blowjobs -
street blowjobs gallery -
street blowjobs movies -
street blowjobs pics -
street blowjobs pictures -
welivetogether -
we live together -
we live together gallery -
welivetogether movies -
we live together movies -
welivetogether pics -
we live together pics -
we live together pictures -
we live together samples -
we live together video clips -
we live together videos -
8thstreetlatina -
8th street latina -
8thstreetlatinas -
8th street latinas -
8th street latinas galleries -
8thstreetlatinas movies -
8th street latinas mpegs -
8th street latinas photos -
8thstreetlatinas pics -
8th street latinas pics -
8th street latinas pictures -
8thstreetlatinas samples -
8th street latinas trailers -
8th street latinas video clips -
8th street latinas videos -
8thstreetlatinas videos -
allsiteaccess -
all site access -
allsitesaccess -
all sites access -
all sites access 8th street latinas -
all sites access big naturals -
all sites access gallery -
all sites access mikes apartment -
all sites access movies -
all sites access pics -
all sites access pictures -
all sites access trailers -
all sites access video clips -
allstiesaccess videos -
all sites access we live together -
all sites access captain stabbin -
european sex parties -
eurosexparties -
euro sex parties -
euro sex parties free -
euro sex parties gallery -
eurosexparties movies -
euro sex parties pics -
euro sex parties pictures -
euro sex parties samples -
eurosexparties trailers -
euro sex parties video clips -
eurosexparties videos -
euro sex parties videos -
euro sex parties video trailers -
eurosexparty -
euro sex party -
firsttimeaudition -
first time audition -
firsttimeauditions -
first time auditions -
first time auditions movies -
first time auditions pics -
first time auditions videos -
mikeinbrazil -
mike in brazil -
mike in brazil movies -
mike in brazil pics -
mikeinbrazil videos -
mikesinbrazil -
mikes in brazil -
www.mikeinbrazil.com -
www.mike in brazil.com -
ashton moore -
ashton moore pics -
ashton moore pictures -
bignatural -
big natural -
bignaturals -
big naturals -
big naturals gallery -
bignaturals movies -
big naturals movies -
big naturals pics -
big naturals pictures -
big naturals samples -
big naturals video clips -
big naturals videos -
big naturals vids -
free bignaturals -
cumfiesta -
cum fiesta -
cumfiesta free -
cum fiesta galleries -
cumfiesta gallery -
cum fiesta gallery -
cumfiesta movies -
cum fiesta movies -
cumfiesta movie trailers -
cumfiesta mpegs -
cumfiesta password -
cum fiesta passwords -
cum fiesta pics -
cum fiesta pictures -
cumfiesta pussy -
cum fiesta pussy -
cumfiesta tgp -
cum fiesta tgp -
cum fiesta trailers -
cumfiesta video clips -
cumfiesta videos -
cum fiesta videos -
cumfiesta vids -
free cum fiesta -
mikeapartment -
mike apartment -
mikesapartment -
mikes apartment -
mikes apartment divx -
mikes apartment free -
mikes apartment galleries -
mikesapartment gallery -
mikes apartment gallery -
mikes apartment movie clips -
mikesapartment movies -
mikes apartment movs -
mikes apartment pics -
mikes apartment pictures -
mikes apartment pussy -
mikes apartment roommate -
mikes apartment trailers -
mikes apartment video clips -
mikes apartment vids -
barely legal -
barely legal pics -
barely legal pictures -
brianabanks -
briana banks -
brunob -
bruno b -
bruno b gallery -
bruno b movies -
brunob mpegs -
bruno b reality porn -
brunob trailers -
bruno b videos -
free bruno b -
chloejones -
chloe jones -
chloe jones pics -
lesbo101 -
lesbo 101 -
lesbo101 gallery -
lesbo 101 lesbian sex -
lesbo 101 movies -
lesbo 101 videos -
mrskin -
mr skin -
mr skin movies -
blackdickswhitechicks -
black dicks white chicks -
black dicks white chicks movies -
blackdickwhitechick -
black dick white chick -
ginalynn -
gina lynn -
kendrajade -
kendra jade -
milfrider -
milf rider -
milfriders -
milf riders -
milf riders alexandria -
milf riders cathy -
milf riders danna -
milfriders gallery -
milf riders gallery -
milf riders ginger -
milf riders kelly -
milfriders movie clips -
milf riders movies -
milf riders pics -
milfriders picture gallery -
milf riders pictures -
milf riders randi -
milf riders sabrina -
milf riders samantha -
milf riders toni -
milf riders trixie -
milf riders video sample -
pimp 4 a day -
pimp for a day -
blackonblonde -
black on blonde -
blacksonblondes -
blacks on blondes -
blacks on blondes galleries -
blacks on blondes gallery -
blacks on blondes movies -
blacks on blondes pics -
blacks on blondes pictures -
blacks on blondes videos -
exploitedblackteen -
exploited black teen -
exploitedblackteens -
exploited black teens -
exploited black teens galleries -
exploited black teens gallery -
exploited black teens movie clips -
exploitedblackteens movies -
exploited black teens movies -
exploitedblackteens trailers -
exploited black teens trailers -
exploited black teens video clips -
exploitedblackteens videos -
exploited black teens videos -
gloryhole -
glory hole -
gloryhole free -
glory hole gallery -
gloryhole movies -
glory hole movies -
glory hole photos -
gloryhole pics -
glory hole pics -
gloryhole pictures -
glory hole pictures -
glory hole samples -
gloryhole trailers -
glory hole video clips -
gloryhole videos -
krystalsteal -
krystal steal -
terapatrick -
tera patrick -
tera patrick gallery -
tera patrick movies -
tera patrick pics -
tera patrick pictures -
tera patrick videos -
adultfriendfinder -
adult friend finder -
adult friend finder pics -
adult friends finder -
free adult friend finder -
collegefucktour -
college fuck tour -
college fuck tour ashley -
college fuck tour cathy -
college fuck tour crystal -
college fuck tour galleries -
college fuck tour gallery -
college fuck tour jenny -
college fuck tour julianna -
college fuck tour missy -
collegefucktour movie clips -
college fuck tour movies -
collegefucktour movie samples -
college fuck tour movie samples -
college fuck tour movs -
college fuck tour pics -
collegefucktour pictures -
college fuck tour pictures -
college fuck tour samples -
college fuck tour sara -
college fuck tour trailers -
college fuck tour vids -
fuckingmachine -
fucking machine -
fuckingmachines -
fucking machines -
fucking machines gallery -
fuckingmachines movie clips -
fucking machines movies -
fucking machines pics -
fucking machines pictures -
fucking machines samples -
fucking machines trailers -
fucking machines videos -
fucking machines vids -
fuckingmachines movie clips -
hogtied -
hog tied -
hogtied galleries -
hogtied gallery -
hog tied gallery -
hogtied images -
hog tied images -
hogtied movie clips -
hog tied movie clips -
hogtied moives -
hogtied mpegs -
hogtied photos -
hogtied pic -
hogtied pics -
hog tied pics -
hogtied pictures -
hog tied pictures -
hogtied samples -
hogtied trailers -
hogtied video clips -
hogtied videos -
hog tied videos -
suckmebitch -
suck me bitch -
suck me bitch gallery -
supertwink -
super twink -
super twink trailers -
video seekers -
free friendfinder -
friendfinder -
friend finder -
friend finder free -
friend finder gallery -
friend finder movies -
friend finder personals -
friendfinder pics -
friendfinder pictures -
friend finder pictures -
friendfinder samples -
friend finder search -
friend finder sex -
friend finder site -
free outpersonals -
outpersonal -
out personal -
outpersonals -
out personals -
outpersonal gay personals -
out personals pics -
free xxx proposal -
xxxproposal -
xxx proposal -
xxx proposal galleries -
xxxproposal gallery -
xxx proposal movie clips -
xxx proposal movies -
xxxproposal pics -
xxx proposal pics -
xxxproposal pictures -
xxx proposal pictures -
xxx proposal preview -
xxx proposals -
xxxproposals -
xxx proposal trailers -
xxxproposal videos -
xxx proposal videos -
bigmouthful -
big mouthful -
bigmouthfuls -
big mouthfuls -
big mouthfuls free video -
big mouthfuls galleries -
bigmouthfuls gallery -
big mouthfuls gallery -
big mouthfuls movie clips -
bigmouthfuls pics -
big mouthfuls pics -
bigmouthfuls pictures -
big mouthfuls pictures -
bigmouthfuls samples -
bigmouthfuls trailers -
big mouthfuls trailers -
big mouthfuls video clips -
bigmouthfuls videos -
big mouthfuls videos -
big mouthfuls video samples -
big mouthfuls movies -
bigmouthfuls movies -
bigtitroundass -
big tit round ass -
bigtitsroundasses -
big tits round asses -
big tits round asses free video -
big tits round asses galleries -
big tits round asses gallery -
big tits round asses mpegs -
big tits round asses pics -
big tits round asses pictures -
big tits round asses trailers -
big tits round asses vids -
borderbanger -
border banger -
borderbangers -
border bangers -
border bangers free video -
border bangers galleries -
border bangers gallery -
border bangers movie clips -
border bangers movies -
border bangers movie sample -
border bangers mpegs -
borderbangers pics -
border bangers pics -
borderbangers pictures -
border bangers trailers -
border bangers videos -
freshteens -
fresh teens -
fresh teens hardcore videos -
fresh teens movie clips -
fresh teens pics -
freshteens pictures -
fresh teens pictures -
fresh teens videos -
fresh teen video samples -
blacksdowhites -
bootycakes -
bravegirls -
chicktrick -
ebonyhead -
freshblack -
funtit -
gloryholestation -
glory hole station -
gotaugust -
jizzlickers -
melodyhart -
mywhitedicks -
rachelsrevenge -
serafox -
sweetcreampie -
tastytranny -
xxxsalsa -
xxxsoul -
latinasex -
latina sex -
latinasex movies -
latina sex movies -
latinasex pics -
latina sex pics -
latinasex pictures -
latina sex pictures -
latinasex videos -
latina sex videos -
latina sex video samples -
lesbianlesson -
lesbian lesson -
lesbianlessons -
lesbian lessons -
lesbian lessons sample video -
monsterofcock -
monsters of cock -
monsters of cock galleries -
monstersofcock gallery -
monsters of cock gallery -
monsters of cock movie clips -
monsters of cock password -
monsters of cock photos -
monsters of cock pics -
monstersofcock pictures -
monsters of cock sample video -
monsters of cock trailers -
monster of cock -
alt.com -
alt bdsm sex -
alt fetish personals -
alt friend finder -
alt personals -
alt.com pics -
www.alt.com search -
alt seeker -
rectalrooter -
rectal rooter -
rectal rooter free -
rectal rooter free video -
rectal rooter galleries -
rectal rooter gallery -
rectalrooter gallery -
rectalrooter movies -
rectal rooter movies -
rectal rooter mpegs -
rectal rooter pics -
rectal rooter pictures -
rectal rooter samples -
rectal rooter trailers -
rectalrooter video clips -
rectal rooter videos -
bangmatch -
bang match -
bangmatch free -
bang match galleries -
bangmatch gallery -
bang match gallery -
bang match movies -
bangmatch pics -
bang match pics -
bang match pictures -
bang match tour -
bang match trailers -
bang match women -
fantasymatch -
fantasy match -
fantasy match pics -
free bang match -
milf4u -
milf 4 u -
milf4u pics -
sex2go -
sex 2 go -
sex2go gallery -
sex2go movies -
sex2go pics -
sex2go pictures -
dirtyaly -
dirty aly -
dirty aly galleries -
dirty aly gallery -
dirty aly photos -
dirtyaly pics -
dirty aly pics -
dirtyaly pictures -
dirty aly pictures -
lightspeedworld -
lightspeed world -
lightspeed world galleries -
lightspeed world gallery -
lightspeed world pic gallery -
lightspeedworld pics -
lightspeed world pics -
lightspeed world pictures -
lightspeedworld trailers -
lightspeed world video samples -
upskirtsniper -
upskirt sniper -
alexamodel -
alexa model -
alexa model gallery -
alexa model pics -
ftvgirl -
ftv girl -
ftvgirls -
ftv girls -
ftv girls bianca -
ftv girls danielle -
ftv girls elisabeth -
ftv girls erika -
ftv girls gallery -
ftv girls gia -
ftv girls isabel -
ftv girls layla -
ftv girls lexy -
ftv girls michelle -
ftvgirls movies -
ftv girls movies -
ftvgirls pics -
ftv girls pics -
ftvgirls pictures -
ftv girls pictures -
ftv girls rachel -
ftv girls rose -
ftv girls shyla -
ftv girls sindy -
ftv girls trailers -
tvgirls video clips -
ftvgirls videos -
boobizon -
boob izon -
imlive -
sexaffair -
sex affair -
sex affair pics -
sex affair pictures -
supermen -
xxxdate -
xxx date -
xxx date pics -
xxx date pictures -
free jordan capri -
jordancapri -
jordan capri -
jordan capri galleries -
jordan capri gallery -
jordan capri movie clips -
jordancapri movies -
jordan capri movies -
jordan capri mpegs -
jordan capri pic gallery -
jordan capri pics -
jordancapri pictures -
jordan capri pictures -
jordan capri pussy -
jordan capri video clips -
jordan capri videos -
lightspeed coeds -
lightspeed teen -
tiffanyparis -
tiffany paris -
tiffanyparis galleries -
tiffany paris gallery -
tiffany paris movie clips -
tiffany paris trailers -
tiffany paris videos -
scoreland -
score land -
scoreland big babes -
scoreland models -
scoreland pics -
scoreland videos -
scoreland voluptuous -
hot cartoons -
kinziekenner -
kinzie kenner -
kinzie kenner gallery -
kinzie kenner pics -
kinzie kenner pictures -
lightspeed18 -
lightspeed 18 -
lightspeed 18 gallery -
lightspeed 18 movies -
lightspeed18 pics -
lightspeed 18 pics -
lightspeedgirls -
lightspeed gilrs -
light speed girls -
lightspeed girls gallery -
lightspeed girls pics -
littletroublemaker -
little troublemaker -
little trouble maker -
little troublemaker gallery -
little trouble maker gallery -
little trouble maker joey -
little troublemaker pics -
sweetdevon -
sweet devon -
sweet devon gallery -
sweet devon images -
sweet devon pics -
i teen -
i teens -
i teens blog -
i teens movies -
i teens videos -
large girls xxx -
large girl xxx -
pornoground -
porno ground -
see asian -
see asians -
sporterotica -
sport erotica -
lesbo erotica -
lesbo erotica movies -
lesbo erotica pics -
lesbo erotica pictures -
trannyhouse -
tranny house -
voyeur gal -
voyeur gals -
xxx supersize -
xxx super size -
backseat bangers -
bang boat -
black cocks white sluts -
gangbang squad -
her first anal sex -
her first ass to mouth -
matureexotica -
mature exotica -
mature exotica gallery -
mature exotica movies -
mature exotica pics -
mature exotica pictures -
mature exotica videos -
milfseeker -
milf seeker -
milf seeker blog -
milf seeker gallery -
milf seeker images -
milf seeker links -
milf seeker movies -
milf seeker movie trailer -
milf seeker password -
milf seeker photo galleries -
milf seeker pics -
milf seeker pictures -
milf seekers -
milf seeker stories -
milf seeker trailers -
milf seeker video clips -
milf seeker videos -
milf seeker video samples -
milfs seeker -
all star stud -
all star studs -
gay amateur xxx -
gay asian xxx -
gay bear xxx -
gay facials xxx -
gay fetish xxx -
muscle men xxx -
musclemenxxx -
muscle men xxx -
muscle men xxx galleries -
muscle men xxx gallery -
muscle men xxx images -
muscle men xxx movies -
muscle men xxx photos -
muscle men xxx pics -
muscle men xxx pictures -
muscle men xxx videos -
his first huge cock -
his first huge cock gallery -
his first huge cock movies -
his first huge cock photo galleries -
his first huge cock pics -
his first huge cock pictures -
his first huge cock samples -
his first huge cock thumbs -
his first huge cock trailers -
his first huge cock videos -
mysextour -
my sex tour -
my sex tour blog -
my sex tour free -
my sex tour gallery -
my sex tour links -
my sex tour movie gallery -
my sex tour movies -
my sex tour password -
my sex tour pics -
my sex tour pictures -
my sex tour sites -
my sex tour trailers -
my sex tour video clips -
my sex tour videos -
muscle men xxx -
muscle men xxx movies -
muscle men xxx pics -
pornstudsearch -
porn stud search -
porn stud search blogs -
porn stud search free -
porn stud search gallery -
porn stud search movies -
porn stud search mpeg -
porn stud search pics -
porn stud search pictures -
porn stud search videos -
porn stud search video trailer -
porn studs search -
her first big cock -
her first lesbian sex -
milf seeker -
porn stud search -
teens for cash -
titty max -
titty max movies -
titty max pics -
titty max videos -
cheerchix -
cheer chix -
cyberfolds web -
cyberfold web -
discount reality site -
discount reality sites -
do pornstars -
euro teens xxx -
euro teens xxx gallery -
euro teens xxx movies -
euro teens xxx pics -
euro teens xxx pictures -
euro teens xxx videos -
euro teen xxx -
facialmag -
facial mag -
fantasylatina -
fantasy latina -
fetishhell -
fetish hell -
hirsute beaver -
hirsute beavers -
gay blind date sex -
gayblinddatesex -
gay blind date sex gallery -
gay blind date sex movies -
gay blind date sex pics -
gay blind date sex pictures -
gay blind date sex videos -
gay blind date sex video trailers -
herfirstanalsex -
her first anal sex -
her first anal sex blog -
her first anal sex galleries -
her first anal sex gallery -
her first anal sex links -
her first anal sex movies -
her first anal sex pics -
her first anal sex pictures -
her first anal sex videos -
her first anal sex trailers -
milf seeker -
milf seeker blogs -
milf seeker free -
milf seeker image gallery -
milf seeker movies -
milf seeker pass -
milf seeker photos -
milf seeker pics -
milf seeker pictures -
milf seeker videos -
milfs seeker -
herfirstasstomouth -
her first ass to mouth -
her first ass to mouth blog -
her first ass to mouth gallery -
her first ass to mouth images -
her first ass to mouth movies -
her first ass to mouth password -
her first ass to mouth galleries -
her first ass to mouth pics -
her first ass to mouth pictures -
her first ass to mouth video clips -
her first ass to mouth videos -
hisfirstgaysex -
his first gay sex -
his first gay sex blogs -
his first gay sex gallery -
his first gay sex movies -
his first gay sex pics -
his first gay sex pictures -
his first gay sex trailers -
his first gay sex video clips -
his first gay sex videos -
justfacial -
just facial -
justfacials -
just facials -
just facials movies -
just facials password -
just facials pics -
just facials pictures -
just facials videos -
teenforcash -
teen for cash -
teensforcash -
teens for cash -
teens for cash blogs -
teens for cash galleries -
teens for cash gallery -
teens for cash images -
teens for cash movies -
teens for cash photos -
teens for cash pics -
teens for cash pictures -
teens for cash position -
teens for cash trailers -
teens for cash video clips -
teens for cash videos -
teen for cash -
teens for cash -
teens for cash blog -
teens for cash blogger -
teens for cash free -
teens for cash gallery -
teens for cash movie clips -
teens for cash movies -
teens for cash mpeg -
teens for cash password -
teens for cash pics -
teens for cash pictures -
teens for cash trailers -
teens for cash videos -
teens for cash video sample -
twinkforcash -
twink for cash -
twinksforcash -
twinks for cash -
twinks for cash free -
twinks for cash galleries -
twinks for cash images -
twinks for cash movie clips -
twinks for cash movies -
twinks for cash photos -
twinks for cash pics -
twinks for cash pictures -
twinks for cash thumbnail gallery -
twinks for cash videos -
twinks for cash video trailers -
amazing anal -
bimbo wives -
farmsecret -
farm secret -
farmsecrets -
farm secrets -
latinafiest -
latina finest -
latina finest movies -
latina finest pics -
naughty amateur -
never shot -
amazing anal -
anal sweeties -
bimbo wives -
circuspenis -
circus penis -
circus penis movies -
fresh auditions -
kinky mature slut -
kinky mature sluts -
naughty amateur -
never shot -
porn wannabe -
she huge -
shes huge -
slam that ass -
boobie club -
circus penis -
club titties -
creamy facials -
dildo dipper -
dildo dippers -
foot craving -
foot cravings -
fucking toons -
mini boobs -
pregnant bang -
secret fetishes -
slut movies -
taboo insertions -
asian tease -
black sweeties -
cigarette sluts -
clubheshe -
club heshe -
club tranny -
ebony cheeks -
facial masters -
fistbang -
fist bang -
indiauncovered -
india uncovered -
kunt fu -
latina time -
latins finest -
oral fantasies -
blacksweeties -
black sweeties -
brown hair girl -
brownhairgirls -
brown hair girls -
foot craving -
footcravings -
foot cravings -
freshauditions -
fresh auditions -
fresh auditions pics -
fresh auditions pictures -
fresh auditions videos -
fresh auditions movies -
hotnudegranny -
hot nude granny -
slutmovie -
slut movie -
slutmovies -
slut movies -
teenbody -
teen body -
amazing anal -
anal sweeties -
boobie club -
club titties -
fresh teen -
freshteens -
fresh teens -
fresh teens blogs -
fresh teens movies -
fresh teens pics -
fresh teens videos -
mini boobs -
porn wannabe -
slam that ass -
taboo insertions -
xxx tryouts -
amazing gangbangs -
anal pals -
beaver palace -
blonde pubes -
boy for boy -
brown hair girls -
celeb hotel -
digital chicks -
dirty xxx sex -
farm secrets -
gay hitchhiker -
gay super cock -
gay super cocks -
giant gay cock -
perfect orgy -
soap boys -
super twink -
farm sexy -
girl for girl -
girlranch -
girl ranch -
grande girl -
grandegirls -
grande girls -
hot nude granny -
interracial sex fest -
junglegirls -
jungle girls -
kinky mature sluts -
lipstick lesbo -
raw xxx -
sexy hardcore -
amazing gangbang -
amazing gangbangs -
amazing gangbangs movies -
amazing gangbangs pics -
amazing gangbangs videos -
black sweeties -
cum cheeks -
ebony cheek -
ebonycheeks -
ebony cheeks -
ebony cheeks movies -
ebony cheeks videos -
ebony cheeks video trailers -
kinky mature slut -
kinky mature sluts -
oral fantasies -
slut movies -
beach teens -
bushless -
filthyletters -
filthy letters -
latina time -
pompomporno -
pom pom porno -
sweetcherrys -
sweet cherrys -
teen body -
trannytrouble -
tranny trouble -
video seekers -
ebony cheeks -
farmsexy -
farm sexy -
farm sexy movies -
farm sexy pics -
foot cravings -
grande girls -
latina time -
latins finest -
manhunter -
man hunter -
man hunter blogs -
man hunter galleries -
man hunter movies -
man hunter pics -
man hunter pictures -
man hunter videos -
amazing gangbangs -
anal pals -
boy for boy -
gay hitchhiker -
gay super cocks -
naughtytherapy -
naughty therapy -
naughty therapy movies -
naughty therapy pics -
naughty therapy pictures -
naughty therapy videos -
perfect orgy -
super bush -
supertwink -
super twink -
super twink movies -
super twink pics -
blonde pubes -
giant gay cock -
latinasex -
latina sex -
latina sex movies -
latina sex pics -
latina sex pictures -
latina sex videos -
pimp4aday -
pimp 4 a day -
pimp 4 a day gallery -
pimp 4 a day movies -
pimp 4 a day pics -
pimp 4 a day pictures -
pimp 4 a day videos -
soap boys -
super twink -
average ho -
freshteens -
fresh teens -
latinasex -
latina sex -
man hunter -
missionupskirt -
mission upskirt -
shocking cocks -
streetstrippers -
street strippers -
teenfactory -
teen factory -
upskirtschool -
upskirt school -
voyeurteens -
voyeur teens -
gay hitchhiker -
gay hitchhiker -
gay hitch hiker -
gay hitchhiker movies -
gay hitchhiker pics -
gay hitchhiker videos -
suckmebitch -
suck me bitch -
suck me bitch gallery -
suck me bitch movies -
suck me bitch pics -
suck me bitch pictures -
suck me bitch videos -
suck me bitch video trailers -
brown hair girls -
digital chicks -
dirty xxx sex -
farm secrets -
farm sexy -
girl for girl -
girl ranch -
jungle girls -
lipstick lesbo -
sexy hardcore -
sugarmamas -
sugar mamas -
beach teens -
bushless -
filthy letters -
hot nude granny -
kinky mature sluts -
pom pom porno -
sugar mamas -
sugar mamas pics -
sweet cherrys -
teen body -
teen factory -
naughtytherapy -
naughty therapy -
pimp 4 a day -
suck me bitch -
sugarmamas -
sugar mamas -
superbush -
super bush -
super bush movies -
trannytrouble -
tranny trouble -
videoseekers -
video seekers -
averageho -
average ho -
dildo dippers -
footcravings -
foot cravings -
manhunter -
man hunter -
street strippers -
tranny trouble -
tranny trouble movies -
tranny trouble pics -
video seekers -
voyeur teens -
freshteens -
fresh teens -
gayhitchhiker -
gay hitchhiker -
latinasex -
latina sex -
pimp4aday -
pimp 4 a day -
suckmebitch -
suck me bitch -
trannytrouble -
tranny trouble -
video seekers -
averageho -
average ho -
naughtytherapy -
naughty therapy -
supertwink -
super twink -
trannytrouble -
tranny trouble -
videoseeker -
video seeker -
videoseekers -
video seekers -
sugarmamas -
sugar mamas -
videoseekers -
video seekers -
video seekers blog -
video seekers blogger -
video seekers gallery -
video seekers password
18 teen live -
adult movie network -
adult video network -
adult xxx pornstars -
anal cravings -
asian cream -
bush hunter -
collegefucktour -
college fuck tour -
college fuck tour pics -
orgy fantasy -
18 teen live -
adult movie network -
adult video network -
adult xxx pornstars -
cum swapping bitches -
mature hotel -
movie erotica -
curious hunks -
gangbang lessons -
gay closet movies -
pure teen porn -
real and natural -
real trannies -
teen thrills -
college fuck tour -
cum swapping bitches -
ebony girls online -
facial buffet -
fetish view -
freakish cocks -
hisfirstthreesome -
his first threesome -
his first threesome gallery -
his first threesome movies -
his first threesome pics -
his first threesome video clips -
his first threesome videos -
gangbang lessons -
hardcore movie station -
hentai xxx sex -
his first threesome -
hot sperm facials -
hugedickslittlechicks -
huge dicks little chicks -
interracial tv -
i want amateurs -
lesbian lessons -
mature hotel -
milf riders -
monster cock farm -
movie erotica -
petite beaver -
lesbian lessons -
pure teen porn -
real and natural -
real trannies -
shaved n wet -
shemale seduction -
simply amateur -
slut toons -
milf riders -
teen dirt bags -
teen sluts gone wild -
teen thrills -
uncensored extreme -
white pussy black cocks -
wild latina girls -
anal boys toys -
bangkok bangers -
cocks usa -
curious hunks -
gay closet movies -
gay thrills -
military fantasy -
Post a Comment