Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you pay cash for your house and car? ~Point being that in order to do big things in life, whether you are an individual, corporation, or municipality, sometimes debt does make sense. I'm a fiscally VERY conservative person. My only debt is my house, and my car (I could pay off my car, but at current rates, I'd rather have the liquid funds in case my HVAC goes out or something). I agree with your ideas about eliminating debt, but you also have to know when managed debt is a good thing.
We can argue, and even disagree if rail is "needed", but I don't think it's valid to say we shouldn't do it because we can't pay cash up front. Let the decision be made on the merit of doing it or not, and then if it's the right thing, figure out a way to finance it and see if it still makes sense (just like buying a car or house). Otherwise, you're really just using a technicality to never let that analysis occur.
Cars yes, house no. I make a good living but not enough to pay cash for a home. I spend well above my mortgage payment to go after the principal so it will be paid off much quicker. I like to follow if you can't pay cash for it, then I don't need it. It seems to work for about 99.9% of the time for me.
I don't feel rail is needed, and everyone can agree Raleigh doesn't need more debt.
Strictly speaking I suppose investments could be considered debts...
Don't think for a moment when Citrix, Red Hat, Lenovo, or anybody else putting in facilities for manufacturing, R&D, support, whatever (aka jobs & growth) are using their own money or financing it by themselves. Sometimes it's not even public funding
I don't understand what rail provides that buses don't provide, except thrills and excitement for people who want to spend everyone else's money.
Depending on the route (talking about light rail in general, not just here in the Triangle) it could be faster and more frequent than buses, therefore more reliable.
I don't understand what rail provides that buses don't provide, except thrills and excitement for people who want to spend everyone else's money.
Buses have to share the road with cars, whereas most light rail lines have their own dedicated right-of-way. They also have larger seating capacities compared to most buses. Light rail is also known to spur TOD, or Transit-Oriented Development, along its lines, potentially adding tax revenue to the city.
The problem with debt really isn't debt itself. It's the amount cities have to pay to pay off the debt.
If they can keep that amount fairly low - or have a designated way to pay for them - then there's no problem. When they have to pay to service the debt gets out of hand, then there's a problem. At the municipal level, it doesn't sound like we've got a problem there.
Exactly. And right now is an excellent time for low-cost borrowing, if you're able. And plan well of course.
Buses have to share the road with cars, whereas most light rail lines have their own dedicated right-of-way. They also have larger seating capacities compared to most buses. Light rail is also known to spur TOD, or Transit-Oriented Development, along its lines, potentially adding tax revenue to the city.
Both true.
Still, traffic in the triangle is not close to bad enough to warrant light rail any time soon. So, around here, I don't think the first argument is compelling yet. 30 years from now - probably yes.
The second argument makes sense. This is an area that looks like it will continue to grow. We don't think we need transit to spur our growth.
Where transit could benefit the region is as a guide to development so that in 20-30 years when we do need rail, we have a city layout that would benefit from rail.
I think that we should use our bond money to design a real rail system. Next, we should purchase the right of way for the rail lines in the next few years. Then, we should establish bus routes along those project rail lines. Finally, when the density gets higher, we should build the rail system that makes sense.
I continue to think we're chasing after Light Rail as if it's a badge of honor. We're going to rush into it and build a system that will have some benefits, but not the benefits that a real rail system could.
This area will choke itself off when highways can no longer support the moronic growth driven by bribing companies to relocate here.
If this bribery could be stopped now, the area is at a manageable size. However the greed of real estate operators and outlying towns does not look like it can be shut down by restrictions on developing already saturated areas.
The longer commutes coming from tis outlying development screams out for rail and will only become more expensive when the area falls into a daily cycle of gridlock.
Rail will be needed and we must begin when it is easier and cheaper to build.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
