2035 Triangle Regional Transit Vision Plan

[ChiefJoJo]

Many in the know are saying now that the bill will not likely be heard again in Senate finance before the state budget is finalized because the state is looking at the sales tax (including taxing services) as a funding option to close their financial chasm.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

Many in the know are saying now that the bill will not likely be heard again in Senate finance before the state budget is finalized because the state is looking at the sales tax (including taxing services) as a funding option to close their financial chasm.

This is my thought as well, if the state chooses the "raise the sales tax option", then Wake county/Raleigh's light rail tax option will be at least another year out.

[ChiefJoJo]

Not necessarily. Read this article for an update. It appears there is a chance it may still be heard and passed, but the budget is clearly the top priority for the General Assembly now.

[Gard]

The state constitution, IIRC, mandates that the state government must balance its budget every year. That being said, this would make it the #1 priority or they could run afoul with the state constitution. After that, they will have time to deal with such things as the transit tax.

[staffer]

starting August 24, Chapel Hill Transit will offer express bus service Pittsboro-Farrington-Chapel Hill

The new Pittsboro express route will mark the first time Chapel Hill Transit has provided service outside its borders, which includes the Town of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and UNC.

In order to operate outside these borders, Chapel Hill Transit partnered with Pittsboro and Chatham County, which will cover half of the funding for the project.

.....

Travel time for the Pittsboro route will be about 40 minutes. There will be three morning trips and three afternoon trips.

Primary stops on the route include the Chatham County Courthouse, Lowe

[orulz]

I read an article somewhere over the weekend that said that there's an idea floating around in congress that would allow regions that have already built transit lines without the help of federal money, to use the existing line as the "local contribution" on extensions. This would apply to Houston. for example, which built its Main Street light rail line in 2004 without any federal money at all.

So under this scenario, even if the first segment of our transit line had to be built without any federal contribution, it could be used as a match againt future extensions. Just food for thought.

[ChiefJoJo]

I read an article somewhere over the weekend that said that there's an idea floating around in congress that would allow regions that have already built transit lines without the help of federal money, to use the existing line as the "local contribution" on extensions. This would apply to Houston. for example, which built its Main Street light rail line in 2004 without any federal money at all.

So under this scenario, even if the first segment of our transit line had to be built without any federal contribution, it could be used as a match againt future extensions. Just food for thought.

The irony for Houston is the reason they were prevented from seeking federal transit money for the first line by their own Congressman, Tom DeLay. This is a line that ranks 2nd in the nation in riders/track mile. In any case, I can see some merit to this proposal, but what it really outlines in bold letters is that we need much more federal money for rail transit and the demand is only increasing by the day as city after city opens new lines and enters the pipeline for even more money. There will continue to be these sorts of piecemeal band aids imposed by members of Congress until our whole transportation policy is scrapped and re-written with some national strategic goals in mind that include sustainable urban transport.

[orulz]

Now I remember where I got that thing about using existing lines as matches - it was something YOU said, ChiefJoJo! No wonder I couldn't find the article.

Sheesh. I have a terrible memory.

[ChiefJoJo]

The Senate Finance Committee voted to approve the Intermodal Bill today. It now goes to the Senate floor for votes, and if they vote in favor back to the House for concurrence, and then to the Governor's office for her signature, possibly by early next week.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

The Senate Finance Committee voted to approve the Intermodal Bill today. It now goes to the Senate floor for votes, and if they vote in favor back to the House for concurrence, and then to the Governor's office for her signature, possibly by early next week.

Is it possible/likely that the Senate would leave this on the floor and not bring it up for a vote?

I have to admit that I know very little about there processes...

[Gard]

Is it possible/likely that the Senate would leave this on the floor and not bring it up for a vote?

I have to admit that I know very little about there processes...

Once they are brought to the floor, they have to be voted on. The vote, however, can also be a vote to shelve or postpone it.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Gard

[monsoon]

Would be interesting to see if Purdue would sign the bill. Have not heard one way or the other. There is political risk in doing so given all the other taxes the state is voting in, and little risk to saying no.

[ChiefJoJo]

Would be interesting to see if Purdue would sign the bill. Have not heard one way or the other. There is political risk in doing so given all the other taxes the state is voting in, and little risk to saying no.

The bill has widespread support across the state from environmental groups to asphalt pavers, to chambers of commerce, to members of both parties. In addition, almost all major bill negotiations are done with executive staff at the table as is customary practice, so all indications are that she will sign it.

[staffer]

The bill has widespread support across the state from environmental groups to asphalt pavers, to chambers of commerce, to members of both parties. In addition, almost all major bill negotiations are done with executive staff at the table as is customary practice, so all indications are that she will sign it.

The bill got preliminary Senate approval this afternoon 37-9. Final Senate vote Thursday,

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

The bill got preliminary Senate approval this afternoon 37-9. Final Senate vote Thursday,

Let's make it a little bit harder...

"The Senate is expected to give final approval today and send it back to the House for concurrence on a minor change."

Then I guess it will have to go back to the Senate yet again? Does anyone know, it this the typical process?

[ChiefJoJo]

Yes, this is typical, and since the difference in the two versions of the bill are very minor, the concurrence should be a fairly painless process.

N&O coverage

WRAL video

[Gard]

Let's make it a little bit harder...

"The Senate is expected to give final approval today and send it back to the House for concurrence on a minor change."

Then I guess it will have to go back to the Senate yet again? Does anyone know, it this the typical process?

Typical process. Anytime a bill is changed, even for wording, it must be sent back for approval to the other house. This happens both at the state and federal levels. As far as I know, it is a process spelled out by the founding fathers of this country.

[staffer]

Concurrence vote in the House will be Monday night along with concurrence on a lot of other bills in similar situations. The House receuved the Senate amendment tonight and put it on Monday's calendar for a vote. The session ends Tuesday.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

Concurrence vote in the House will be Monday night along with concurrence on a lot of other bills in similar situations. The House receuved the Senate amendment tonight and put it on Monday's calendar for a vote. The session ends Tuesday.

So if the House votes on this Monday night, and lets say they approve it, doesn't this mean that it has to go back to the Senate before it can go to the gov to be signed? My concern is that if this is the case, then it will certainly push the completion for this out due to the Senate leaving Raleigh Today/Friday!

[Gard]

So if the House votes on this Monday night, and lets say they approve it, doesn't this mean that it has to go back to the Senate before it can go to the gov to be signed?

If the house changes it in any fashion, yes, if they don't change it from how the Senate sent it to them, no.

[staffer]

If the house changes it in any fashion, yes, if they don't change it from how the Senate sent it to them, no.

\

The vote Monday is up or down on the Senate amendment. If it is approved, the bill will go to the Governor Tuesday, who will have 30 days to act. The bill is 11th out of 44 on the calendar (HB148)

http://www.ncleg.net/Calendars/CurrentCale...useCalendar.pdf

[staffer]

The vote Monday is up or down on the Senate amendment. If it is approved, the bill will go to the Governor Tuesday, who will have 30 days to act. The bill is 11th out of 44 on the calendar (HB148)

http://www.ncleg.net/Calendars/CurrentCale...useCalendar.pdf

Passed today on concurrence with Senate amendment, vote was around 73-40, this was the final legislative vote on the bill. I may be off by a bit on the vote totals. The bill will be signed by the Speaker Tuesday morning and the Lt. Governor Tuesday afternoon, and delivered to the Governor either Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday morning. She will have until September 10 to act on the 100+ bills that will be on her desk by Wednesday morning when the last ones get there after session adjournment.

Edited August 11, 2009 by staffer

[orulz]

OK now that this is pretty much done, are we sure that we want to be putting this 1/2 cent sales tax on the ballot in 2010? Given that the state budget already boosts the sales tax by a full 1%, and the extra 1/2 cent would bring us up to 8.25% - I have a feeling this wouldn't go over too well. Or will the extra 1 cent expire after a year?

[ChiefJoJo]

OK now that this is pretty much done, are we sure that we want to be putting this 1/2 cent sales tax on the ballot in 2010? Given that the state budget already boosts the sales tax by a full 1%, and the extra 1/2 cent would bring us up to 8.25% - I have a feeling this wouldn't go over too well. Or will the extra 1 cent expire after a year?

You're on top of the issues I think. There are a lot of considerations, including the state of the local economy (jobs), the sales tax rate, etc, influencing the likelihood of passage in all three counties simultaneously.

On the 1 cent sales tax increase imposed to fill the budget gap, there has been talk of a special session that would attempt to "broaden the base" of the sales tax to cover services. This would allow for a lowering of the sales tax rate while keeping revenue neutral. If that occurred, it could help with the transit tax debate. Also, there is nothing in the bill that specifies that county commissioners have to put the issue to a vote within a certain time frame, so the likelihood of swift action will also depend on the degree to which local constituents push their leaders to act. I think the consensus is that fall 2010 would be the earliest you will see a vote, and many seem to view that as a stretch.

[vitaviatic]

^^^ O makes a verrrrrrry good point here. While this action does show that there is recognition at the state level that transit is a big part of future planning considerations, it's almost suicidal by a Democratic legislature to tap two or three separate tax increases in at the same time during a sluggish economy -- no matter the benevolent intent of it. Right-wing radio is just waiting for this kind of thing so that they can spew their venom; "See! Tax and spend! Tax and spend!" Well, yeah...Seeing that we haven't spent nearly enough in infrastructure in the past 40 years.

I think I stated before that I don't like sales taxes as engines for transit. They are sloppy politically, extremely volatile during 7- to 10-year peaks and valleys in the economy, and not the least of my gripes is that they take money out of the pockets that transit is ostensibly supposed to help -- the working poor. I still think that there are better ways to come by the funds for what you need, provided two things: 1) that you can accept a shoestring starter operation while you build cred with the Feds, and 2) that someone is willing to put the elbow grease into getting it done.

vvv (Insert old argument here) vvv

My previous suggestion was to implement a Transit Influence Zone in a half- to quarter-mile radius around stations to support the commuter rail operation, along the entire alignment, within which a property tax surcharge would be implemented -- very similar to downtown business districts and other similar entities. Considering the values of these properties, a couple of mils should do the trick. Then get the State to enact a rebate to those entities paying such taxes. Two things are different with this strategy: 1) the taxes paid are recovered through value enhancement to the taxpayer's property, probably many times over; and 2) with the property tax surcharge being targeted specifically to transit, which vastly increases the transportation inventory into the taxpayers' own neighborhoods (increasing the value), it becomes a self-investment that not only is a no-brainer with a rebate, but also takes the onus off of the State to try to do everything for everybody. A guy in North Raleigh, who isn't likely to see a train in his neighborhood for the next thirty years is not very likely to bite on this. Better to cut him out before it starts. And when North Raleigh wants theirs, they can organize theirs too.

And again realizing that it's not just about trains, but about expanded bus service and other options too, I reassert that the city-managed bus systems need to be consolidated under one autonomous authority for this to work. In this way, bus routes can be streamlined and optimized, and drawn to incorporate all the other options with way more efficiency than they have now.

In short, this battle for regions to self-tax may be won, but I tend to fret with O that it may end up being a Pyrrhic victory in the end.