The solution is really quite simple... (Charlotte, Hudson: condos, hotels, college)

[DUFF]

Originally Posted by Weedydidi

The light rail is not, nor was it designed to be, an answer to congestion. It is a very limited route that will have very limited ridership - according to the architects of the plan. It has more to do with directing development - that is - "encouraging" developers to build high-density housing along the rail line. The "powers that be" refer to it as "an alternative to congestion."

Even tho this thread has sort of moved off topic from the original poster, I love the debate. Weedy, obviously what you say above is fact (the "plans" of the "powers that be") but my question is ... is the whole idea of using a light rail system to encourage growth along the line all that bad of a thing?

In my opinion, Charlotte is a perfect example of a city that really could accommodate it's population growth and transportation dilemmas by thinking ahead NOW, and making tough (and smart) choices as early as possible to help alleviate current problems but also head off problems down the "road" 10-20-30-50 years from now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these "rail is the future of our country's transportation needs" dreamers, I'm far from it. Our country didn't become as great as it is by laying rail, but by paving roads for our gas guzzling, formerly job producing, red-blooded go-out-and-enjoy-this-great-country-of-ours (by the way stop at this McDonald's and get a burger for your gut) American cars. But like many complex problems, a complex solution is often required. And I see (a properly planned out) light rail system being PART OF the solution here in urban areas like Charlotte. I guess that is an idea that a lot of people may be having a hard time coming to grips with ... that Charlotte is becoming an URBAN area. From what I gather (as I am not native to the area only recently moved here) as recently as 10 years ago, it basically was not. It was a small city surrounded by small towns and farms? And I say properly planned out system making reference to the no rail line to the airport, this is a NO BRAINER in my book. If there really are no plans to EVER build a link then I fear for the plan's success even more.

I've read a little about other cities that have "failed" light rail systems (ie: Portland) and I guess I'm not sure what to make of them. I'm not an urban planner or politician, just an average squirrel trying to get a nut. I do know, however, that I just moved from an area (north Jersey, just across the Hudson River from NYC) where I lived 4 city blocks from a brand new light rail line and took advantage of it all the time. I could connect to train stations, bus stations and the airport by using it, in addition to just getting to different points of interest (office buildings, mall, hotels, great restaurants, condos/apts, etc) in cities nearby. These were all built near the train!

There's no doubt that this is all gonna probably cost way more $$$ than everyone thinks. But fortunately Charlotte is in a position to manage growth with some of the lines already in place. And I think that is the bigger picture issue facing this city... not only how do you keep people's commute times reasonable but how should this city grow smartly so even if we did have 6-8 lanes each way on interstates and 4 lanes each way on city highways we all still wouldn't be riding each others bumpers and fuming at the guy in front of us. Charlotte doesn't need something like Chicago or NYC ... but it needs SOMETHING, and I think the plan, with some tweaks (and a change in attitude of people who "look down" on light rail transit) it could work, and maybe even be great.

Or maybe, I'm just a dreamer. Which leads me into my grand solution that I announced in the title of this rambling ... FLYING CARS, PEOPLE! I expected mine back in 2000! ABC News: Flying Car Coming to Lot Near You

[Weedydidi]

Originally Posted by DUFF

My question is ... is the whole idea of using a light rail system to encourage growth along the line all that bad of a thing?

In my opinion, Charlotte is a perfect example of a city that really could accommodate it's population growth and transportation dilemmas by thinking ahead NOW, and making tough (and smart) choices as early as possible to help alleviate current problems but also head off problems down the "road" 10-20-30-50 years from now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these "rail is the future of our country's transportation needs" dreamers, I'm far from it. Our country didn't become as great as it is by laying rail, but by paving roads for our gas guzzling, formerly job producing, red-blooded go-out-and-enjoy-this-great-country-of-ours (by the way stop at this McDonald's and get a burger for your gut) American cars. But like many complex problems, a complex solution is often required. And I see (a properly planned out) light rail system being PART OF the solution here in urban areas like Charlotte.

No, trying to direct development is not a bad thing, and yes, light rail could/should be part of the solution. However, as this thread illustrates it won't solve the problem, and the county is putting all of its eggs in the light rail basket.

[njmdpanc]

go to Breach of Faith: Light Rail and Smart Growth in Charlotte for a great read on the light rail system in Charlotte.

It is a shame that people didn't read this or know it was around before the last vote. The light rail system was slammed down our throats without the true facts being presented by our city leaders.

[ncisgreat]

Why is there this continued whining about light rail when two public votes said it was a go? Why can't people just use it and shush up about it already? What's done is done.

[groove1]

That article fails to show that ridership on Cats buses has increased 67% since the vote. The extra bus service, as well as express bus services to the north and south have gotten more people to use mass transit. More people movin into the city has also fueld bus ridership as have high gas prices which were 95 cents a gallon in Charlotte in 2001. This article does not take into consideration high gas prices, and hiigh gas prices always mean people will look to alternatives (see European light rail systems as evidence where gas is about $9 USD in the UK). Not to mention the article is obviously biased. Also, you cannot compare bus to rail as anti-rail people always attempt; it's senseless. Trains don't drive in traffic lanes. They don't get stuck in traffic. They go faster. Would I take a bus from 485 and South Blvd uptown?HEEEEEEEEEEEEEECCCCCCCCCCCCCCK NO! But I will take the rail and I will quite often.


These facts were presented; even CATS has projected those ridership figures (which I guarantee are low projections). However, people still overwhelmingly voted by 2-1 to keep the tax (as I would have if I still lived in Meck). Also, it isn't just the rail by itself; it is timed to sync with bus routes up and down the corridors as I will sometimes do.

People often compare this system to other cities, but never to Buffalo's. Buffalo has an underground subway which runs from UB's south campus a few miles to downtown Buffalo which is pretty similar to the blue line. Even there on that one line, ridership is high among college students, downtown workers, and people attending events downtown (baseball and hockey games as well as concerts. The train is also free whn it comes out above ground in downtown.) There also really isn't all too much development along that line as it runs along some pretty rough parts.

People have voted for it twice, so let it be. Find your next anti-governemtn thing to attack.

[3johnsons]

I suspect this last vote against the repeal of the transit tax was more a vote made by people in fear of losing bus service, not in support of the train. Personally, I want more roads, more lanes.

[groove1]

Originally Posted by 3johnsons

I suspect this last vote against the repeal of the transit tax was more a vote made by people in fear of losing bus service, not in support of the train. Personally, I want more roads, more lanes.

But repeated studies as well as just good old fashioned observation show that whenever more lanes and roads are added, they fill up quite quickly and are no less congested than they were the first go around.

[3johnsons]

Originally Posted by groove1

But repeated studies as well as just good old fashioned observation show that whenever more lanes and roads are added, they fill up quite quickly and are no less congested than they were the first go around.

Maybe so, I've not seen those studies. It just seems to me to be common sense that more roads to move more people should be the priority. I'm all for having a comprehensive plan to alleviate the stresses of overcrowding, but I think the centerpiece of the plan should be more roads, not a train that a limited number of people will be able to utilize.

[lovesMountains]

An article on the subject I find interesting:

PPI: The New Politics of Mobility by Robert D. Atkinson

[3johnsons]

Originally Posted by lovesMountains

An article on the subject I find interesting:

PPI: The New Politics of Mobility by Robert D. Atkinson

Thanks-- great article!