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.
I'm not a Raleigh resident, but Meeker's obsession with spending millions on a light rail system, and the delusional ridership forecasts he relies upon to justify it, trouble me. He also seems very focused on downtown redevelopment at the expense of other parts of Raleigh. Decent mayor on the whole, however.
He also seems very focused on downtown redevelopment at the expense of other parts of Raleigh. Decent mayor on the whole, however.
I hear this complaint from time to time, yet I don't know what people mean by this. What parts of suburban Raleigh are being ignored. What should he be doing in these other areas? If you catch the city council meetings on Tuesday nights (on public access tv) you will see Meeker constantly dealing with development, roads, and zoning issues in Raleigh that have nothing to do with downtown.
FWIW, I hear the light rail in Charlotte has been a huge success. Makes me think it could be here too.
Last edited by North_Raleigh_Guy; 04-14-2009 at 07:40 AM..
I hear this complaint from time to time, yet I don't know what people mean by this. What parts of suburban Raleigh are being ignored. What should he be doing in these other areas?
Raleigh recently identified $250,000,000 worth of public works and infrastructure improvements for which it would like to obtain federal money. While I'm sure there's a bit of fluff in the list, some of those projects surely represent real, unfunded needs. Might some of them have been addressed if less money had been directed to downtown redevelopment?
I'm not a Raleigh resident, but Meeker's obsession with spending millions on a light rail system, and the delusional ridership forecasts he relies upon to justify it, trouble me. He also seems very focused on downtown redevelopment at the expense of other parts of Raleigh. Decent mayor on the whole, however.
What delusional ridership forecasts?
Constructing a regional rail system in Wake County will induce an enormous redistribution of development activities away from remote areas of the Triangle to the rail corridor, which is centrally located. There is nothing delusional about this.
Since development is arranged within cities to facilitate interactions between different activities, changes in the relative accessibility of different sites (i.e. by building regioanl rail) affect land-use patterns. If the population of Wake County is to increase by a significant amount during the next 30 or 40 years, a dense area of land use will develop along the rail corridor and capture much of that future growth.
Raleigh recently identified $250,000,000 worth of public works and infrastructure improvements for which it would like to obtain federal money. While I'm sure there's a bit of fluff in the list, some of those projects surely represent real, unfunded needs. Might some of them have been addressed if less money had been directed to downtown redevelopment?
This is exactly why a regional rail is needed. Raleigh is a major city that has a relatively low population density spread out over a relatively large area. There are costs involved in building and maintaining the infrastructure needed to provide services to far flung city residents above and beyond what they would be if Raleigh was much more dense and compact. You have effectively identified the cost we incur because we failed to encourage more dense development by not building regional rail long ago.
When the Federal Transit Administration withdrew its support for the proposed rail system here a few years back, among the things they were highly critical of were the projections being used by local supporters to justify the project. As on local transit official was quoted regarding some of the FTA feedback:
"They were saying things like, 'unbelievable, beyond comprehension' " about the local planners' projections, Don S. Carnell, TTA assistant general manager, told TTA trustees Tuesday."
When the Federal Transit Administration withdrew its support for the proposed rail system here a few years back, among the things they were highly critical of were the projections being used by local supporters to justify the project. As on local transit official was quoted regarding some of the FTA feedback:
"They were saying things like, 'unbelievable, beyond comprehension' " about the local planners' projections, Don S. Carnell, TTA assistant general manager, told TTA trustees Tuesday."
When the first section of the beltline was built in the early 1960s, it carried less than 10,000 vehicles per day. The idea that it would grow to carry more than 100,000 vehicles per day as it does now was probably unbelievable and beyond comprehension then.
Critics of those ridership projections were basing their arguments on methods that failed to consider the very important impact of future land use changes that will occur as a result of the rail construction. You know....kind of like all the very important land use changes that occurred over the past forty years in favor of the 440 corridor and along that roads that have an interchange with it as a result of the beltline construction.
Critics of those ridership projections were basing their arguments on methods that failed to consider the very important impact of future land use changes that will occur as a result of the rail construction. You know....kind of like all the very important land use changes that occurred over the past forty years in favor of the 440 corridor and along that roads that have an interchange with it as a result of the beltline construction.
A good point - that is, essentially, what the debate's about, isn't it? Do you invest now for change you can't foresee (or be certain of), but for which the only window of opportunity is now? I'm still among the skeptics, but there's certainly room for healthy disagreement.
Providing train service is very expensive to operate and maintain. Federal funding and ticket sales alone are never enough to cover operating expenses. Guess who gets to pay the rest?..... the tax payers, many of whom will never set foot on the trains.
South Florida has a very successful light rail program, but it is always at risk of shutting down due to lack of sufficient funding even though ridership numbers have grown steadily over the years.
Building and maintaining a rail line and it's required support infrastructure will require investment of millions and millions of dollars over several years if not decades. Do we really want to invest that much time, effort, and money in something that is considered old technology and inefficient to operate?
BTW.... I also agree that Raleigh management has focused primarily on improving the downtown areas more than other parts of the city. I never go downtown except when called for jury duty because I despise having to pay for parking and other inconveniences of navigating downtown Raleigh.
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.
