Jump to content

Charlotte Center City Streetcar Network


Sabaidee

Recommended Posts


^ everybody benefits from larger markets.

\/ (next post down) Hyphenated name or not, its just an opinion piece, there is no empirical evidence supporting the authors discussion.

Here is a scholarly treatment (with evidence!) of the public ROI of education: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261725

 

Edited by kermit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dale said:

I see what you're doing here. Aside from conflating private enterprise and government, you said "sammich" several times.

Please identify any enterprise that doesn't need, profit from or use the government as a vehicle to survive (tax breaks, etc).  The military and the military supply chain (contractors, etc) alone probably employs most of America. I almost forgot, the military isn't the government.  Surely the government is capable of propping up a transit system. Contrary to popular belief the US government is damn good at doing things other than blowing up the world several times over.

Edited by Durhamite
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, asthasr said:

Before there was a government at all? They walked out into the woods to look for berries to eat.

Before there was a universal republic? They were born in a village owned by a patrician or lord who told them what to do.

Before there was a social safety net? They worked at the nearest mill that they could find starting when they were twelve, or were tenant farmers, and hoped not to starve.

Education for the masses has built the modern world. A rejection of it hearkens back to one of the prior models.

Shortly thereafter, government took a third of their berries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 6:12 PM, Dale said:

How in the world did people find work before there was a government ?

 

 

They didn't.  Even hunter/gather tribes have a form of government.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 10:13 PM, Durhamite said:

Please identify any enterprise that doesn't need, profit from or use the government as a vehicle to survive (tax breaks, etc).  The military and the military supply chain (contractors, etc) alone probably employs most of America. I almost forgot, the military isn't the government.  Surely the government is capable of propping up a transit system. Contrary to popular belief the US government is damn good at doing things other than blowing up the world several times over.

Actually Government is the largest employment sector in the US, even then it is only about 15%, after that is business services, then healthcare, then retail, then manufacturing, then leisure/hospitality.  

 

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 6:13 PM, Dale said:

For a scholarly treatment of the Public Goods Fallacy ...

https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_1_2_0.pdf?file=1&type=document

FYI: you'd be nuts not to listen to this guy. He's German and has a hyphenated name.

Wait you want us to take a biased source (a libertarian think tank) as a scholarly article?  This article is a Theory Argument, and one that doesn't include any data.  It also makes some false arguments, like inefficiency of government.  Yes Government is inefficient sometimes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that because it is inefficient it is not worth doing, or would be better in private hands.  Advertisement is notoriously inefficient, but it is still worth doing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DEnd said:

They didn't.  Even hunter/gather tribes have a form of government.  

It was very much like our multi

 

7 hours ago, DEnd said:

Actually Government is the largest employment sector in the US, even then it is only about 15%, after that is business services, then healthcare, then retail, then manufacturing, then leisure/hospitality.  

 

Wait you want us to take a biased source (a libertarian think tank) as a scholarly article?  This article is a Theory Argument, and one that doesn't include any data.  It also makes some false arguments, like inefficiency of government.  Yes Government is inefficient sometimes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that because it is inefficient it is not worth doing, or would be better in private hands.  Advertisement is notoriously inefficient, but it is still worth doing.  

"Government is inefficient sometimes" doesn't pass the giggle-test. Global Strategy calculated that it took 250,000 bullets, in Irag, to kill one insurrectionist. And then you proceed to conflate public and private enterprise. If an advertising firm is willing to flyer a neighborhood eleven times, to get calls, that's their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dale said:

"Government is inefficient sometimes" doesn't pass the giggle-test. Global Strategy calculated that it took 250,000 bullets, in Irag, to kill one insurrectionist. And then you proceed to conflate public and private enterprise.

Well that's great, we should definitely tell our military that cover fire, and training is just wasting ammunition.  :rolleyes:

I didn't conflate anything, I used a private enterprise example of inefficiencies to illustrate why something may be worth doing even though it is inefficient. Why did I use a private enterprise example?  Because people think that private enterprise is highly efficient, and Government is inefficient.  Some inefficiencies are worth paying for.  Let's take Social Security for example.  In some ways it can be argued it is highly efficient as it has overhead costs of less than 1% of expenditures generally.  Using another metric it can be argued that Social Security is highly inefficient, generating average returns that either keep up with or are slightly above inflation.  But that inefficiency is generally thought of as a good thing.  Why? Because it keeps government from controlling the stock market (as the Federal Government would hold roughly 10% of the stock market value) and it also greatly reduces the risk of investing, because it only holds US government treasury securities.  
 

Quote

If an advertising firm is willing to flyer a neighborhood eleven times, to get calls, that's their money.

And it's the Government's money to spend.  The thing about governments is they are just as, if not more, accountable for their spending than private firms, Government's customers and shareholders are one in the same.  Also if you are unhappy with Government spending there are plenty of options available, you can run for office to try and correct the errors you see or support candidates you agree with, alternatively you can also move to a municipality or state with lower taxes or more efficient spending. Just an FYI I don't agree with the don't like then move argument, but it is still a viable means of finding the government spending priorities that best fit your view.  

Edited by DEnd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DEnd said:

Well that's great, we should definitely tell our military that cover fire, and training is just wasting ammunition.  :rolleyes:

I didn't conflate anything, I used a private enterprise example of inefficiencies to illustrate why something may be worth doing even though it is inefficient. Why did I use a private enterprise example?  Because people think that private enterprise is highly efficient, and Government is inefficient.  Some inefficiencies are worth paying for.  Let's take Social Security for example.  In some ways it can be argued it is highly efficient as it has overhead costs of less than 1% of expenditures generally.  Using another metric it can be argued that Social Security is highly inefficient, generating average returns that either keep up with or are slightly above inflation.  But that inefficiency is generally thought of as a good thing.  Why? Because it keeps government from controlling the stock market (as the Federal Government would hold roughly 10% of the stock market value) and it also greatly reduces the risk of investing, because it only holds US government treasury securities.  
 

And it's the Government's money to spend.  The thing about governments is they are just as, if not more, accountable for their spending than private firms, Government's customers and shareholders are one in the same.  Also if you are unhappy with Government spending there are plenty of options available, you can run for office to try and correct the errors you see or support candidates you agree with, alternatively you can also move to a municipality or state with lower taxes or more efficient spending. Just an FYI I don't agree with the don't like then move argument, but it is still a viable means of finding the government spending priorities that best fit your view.  

Guy thinks we need a juggernaut military. Thinks brown people overseas wake up angry with us because of our freedoms.

And don't think I missed where you used the example of advertising to justify government.

Finally, government doesn't have any of its own money to spend.

Stee-rike three!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2017 at 11:37 AM, kermit said:

This means that, with a wholistic accounting perspective, governments will generate a much higher ROI on transit investments than businesses could. Similar arguments can be made about education....

The problem I have with government, both with transportation and education for that matter, running these is the politics and bureaucracy that pull away from the mission.  You allude to this with your comments about how cars are subsidized unfairly.  The problem is cars = voters and transportation should not be about elections.  

Sidenote:  You seem to completely ignore our dependence on freight shipping and the trucking industry.  Not sure if intentional or not but when you have 3,500,000 square miles of land you need to move things around.  Boats don't go on land, planes can't land where they want and rail doesn't go to every corner.  You need roads to move things around.  

If a city like Charlotte would benefit from and wants to have a light rail network they should be free to implement one.  It shouldn't be held up by who wins Presidential elections but when transportation relies so heavily on Federal funds it can be.  That's my point.  

I don't buy the nonsensical scare tactics that privatizing mass transit would lead to profiteering and whatever socialist-esq thinking that's posted here.  The reality is there were countess private streetcar and rail lines all over the US.  They balanced profit and pricing.  In fact, it was only when Government entered the picture and then was purchased by the auto industry did things go down the drain.  

Again, in some areas we very much want the same thing.  We just want to get there with different directions.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tozmervo said:

I'm not sure that there's been much discussion of this in a while, but they ARE using a hybrid model streetcar that will allow them to ditch the overhead wires from the arena to just past Tryon.

untitled.png

I like the fact it is similar to the BL but I think the blue "swoosh" should be gold- to show what line it is; it should be the same for all lines, blue line = blue swoosh, gold = gold swoosh, red = red swoosh. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm relieved that they will not need to do the overhead wires across the square.  Parades would be a mess if they had to stay under the wires or avoid the area. 

 

The fact that they are similar looking vehicles should go a long way in the changing the perception of this line.  I do wish they'd dedicate a lane at various lengths along the route, but as it is designed, with Trade St being more for transit and less for regular vehicle traffic, it will do well.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dubone said:

I'm relieved that they will not need to do the overhead wires across the square.  Parades would be a mess if they had to stay under the wires or avoid the area. 

 

The fact that they are similar looking vehicles should go a long way in the changing the perception of this line.  I do wish they'd dedicate a lane at various lengths along the route, but as it is designed, with Trade St being more for transit and less for regular vehicle traffic, it will do well.   

It's been a couple of years ago now, but CDOT told Pride that parades would no longer be able to cross Trade when the streetcar goes into service. Not sure if that was related to cantenary lines or just the fact that service couldn't be stopped for 2+ hours

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2017 at 0:48 PM, tozmervo said:

It's been a couple of years ago now, but CDOT told Pride that parades would no longer be able to cross Trade when the streetcar goes into service. Not sure if that was related to cantenary lines or just the fact that service couldn't be stopped for 2+ hours

Every parade that the city has will have to be rerouted somehow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 5/19/2017 at 6:10 PM, kermit said:

The biggest obstacle is the subsidies that road transportation receives. As long as drivers are paying for less than half of road costs via fees (not to mention additional subsidies for auto-oriented development, parking and oil extraction) private transit operators would be fighting against a state-owned and financed competitor. To answer your 'really high level' question, most private companies are smart enough to avoid competing in rigged markets.

This. Exactly.

Why is it any worse for the government to encourage private sector development by building a train line with a subsidy that people have to pay to use than it is by building an interstate loop with a subsidy that people get to use for free? It's literally the same concept, except that one is sustainable (both environmentally and financially) and the other isn't.

My issue with this whole conversation is that some people are talking about the government as though it's cramming transit sandwiches down everyone's throat. Government is definitely trying to push transit for a whole host of reasons, the most important of which is that most people want it. This was confirmed by Meck County voting for a transit tax. Twice... but it's also because it results in financially sustainable growth. The streetcar hasn't yielded this yet, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Its going through areas that have fewer opportunities for redevelopment right now whereas the Blue Line goes through largely dated and low-density industrial areas.

Further, it has to be factored into the discussion that the free market didn't give us our car culture. The government did. All of the regulations that determined how our cities were built over the past 70-80 years were a result of government policy and funding mechanisms. You can look at everything from the interstate system and highway construction subsidies all the way down to zoning laws. Everything has made it super easy to drive and park your car, so much so that the expectation when you say "I'm going to ___ " is that you're going to drive there and that there will be ample free parking for you to use when you arrive.

The problem is that now we've created a system where owning a car is essentially a requirement. While there's no law that forces you to buy this product, we've set up a massive system that allows that industry to exist at a much higher level than it would otherwise because our entire way of life incentivizes car ownership (again, because we offer so many "free" things to drivers). The biggest irony is that the car-based system of city development is completely unsustainable from a financial standpoint.

If you actually want government to act like the private sector, you'd allow it to change its business model to remove the part of the business that is resulting in a financial loss. Hint: it's not transit. It's single family housing. If we allowed government to treat growth based on what type of tax revenue it produces on a per acre basis and factor that into the "expense" of operating transit. Then, you would only allow apartments and high density commercial/retail (and industrial) types of development in order to fund or subsidize other public needs (like schools, parks, police, fire, transit, garbage collection, water etc.). If you measure everything out on a per-acre basis, SFR doesn't cover the cost to government to provide services. You need the commercial areas - notably downtown and urban neighborhoods - to offset the expenses.

But hey, if anyone decides to move to South Carolina to get away from this mess of a system we have in Charlotte, just make sure you have good suspension (or a good mechanic) on the car you are forced to drive while you enjoy your cheap gas. I'll happily pay my taxes so I can ride the streetcar to Plaza-Midwood instead of driving and dealing with parking there.

 

On 5/22/2017 at 10:13 AM, archiham04 said:

Charlotte's Original Trolley's were built this way... as land development schemes and with little or no regulation or safety oversight.  I think they eventually turned them over to the city to run, and the city tore them out and replaced them with less expensive to maintain buses.  From what I understand, they were built cheaply and likely nearing the end of their lifespan.

Trolleys were to early 1900's subdivisions what infinity pools and dog wash stations are to today's apartment "communities." The City didn't tear them out though. Duke Power made the switch to buses and the City took over well after that. They also didn't tear out the tracks so much as they just paved over them...

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edward Dilworth Latta and his partners built the first electric trolley to bring Charlotte residents to their new development of Dilworth. Homesites were available for sale and their building company was ready with plans. On weekends Latta Park had a band shell and lake with boats to rent and there was a ballpark and other enticements to ride this new streetcar. In about 1911 the service was assumed by the Southern Public Utility company, which later became Duke Power, now Duke Energy. It was a sales device from the beginning with weekday service maintained from days of horse drawn cars. "Live in the country and work in the city" was the advertising line. Not too creative there. Dilworth was not part of Charlotte until 1907.

http://www.cmhpf.org/kids/neighborhoods/Dilworth-early.html

 

http://www.cmhpf.org/development of streetcar systems.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^... and Mr. Latta did not have to build to safety standards.  A system built for profit, not the 100 year investment, we are building today. Today's streetcar system is not the same system built 100 years ago.  The system today is far superior to the system originally built and worth the additional cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.