CATS 2030 Transit Plan is Dead

[monsoon]

Generally tolls are not placed on highways to discourage their use. They are put there to pay for them instead of using other taxes. It would make no sense to build a highway that was designed not to be used.

I am pretty sure that the freeways in Charlotte were built in part with money from the federal highway trust fund. The federal government says that if a state takes this money to build a road, then they can't later come back and put tolls on said road to derive revenue from it. There are some exceptions to this but I don't think any of the existing highways, except for the unbuilt part of I-485 would be in position to do it.

[teshadoh]

I think what you're thinking of initialD is a commuter tax. Which is a local income tax to fund transit - a few major metro areas & states use it to fund transit usage as well as schools. As monsoon said - tolls are placed exclusively to fund the upkeep (bridges) or construction.

[southslider]

Except in the case of Southeast Corridor, the rapid transit line is in the middle of an evolving limited-access highway, US 74, or what most folks call Independence. So maybe for that particular corridor, tolling could help complete the highway out to the planned Monroe By-Pass, and build a guideway for transit in the process. Denver built its own Southeast Corridor as a joint highway-transit project, also known as T-REX.

Again, it's all about thinking outside the box on funding sources.

[monsoon]

....

Again, it's all about thinking outside the box on funding sources.

[InitialD]

Generally tolls are not placed on highways to discourage their use. They are put there to pay for them instead of using other taxes. It would make no sense to build a highway that was designed not to be used.

[monsoon]

I was thinking more of a congestion pricing. I'm not really sure how London does theirs.

[Batou]

What's so bad about monorail? People love it at Disney World.

~and how is it much different than light rail, except that it's less obtrusive?

[Spartan]

Congestion pricing that is being discussed in Charlotte is not quite the same as what London has done.

Congestion pricing means that you have toll lanes on the interstates and the cost of said toll varies per time of day. So, at 730 am and 530 during peak rush hour traffic, you might may $4 to use the toll lane, but at 2pm on a sunday you might pay 50

[monsoon]

Congestion pricing that is being discussed in Charlotte is not quite the same as what London has done.

Congestion pricing means that you have toll lanes on the interstates and the cost of said toll varies per time of day. So, at 730 am and 530 during peak rush hour traffic, you might may $4 to use the toll lane, but at 2pm on a sunday you might pay 50

[Spartan]

You're right, the city would not toll the interstate, NCDOT would. We've been talking about High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes for a while now in Charlotte. Congestion pricing just adds a variable price element to the toll to help manage the traffic in that lane(s).

Many people using the interstates are commuting in from surrounding cities, towns, and counties, so the interstates are not a "City of Charlotte" problem. You can complain about why its there to start with all you want, but the fact is that it has to be dealt with.

[monsoon]

....You can complain about why its there to start with all you want, but the fact is that it has to be dealt with.

[Durhamite]

I didn't bring it up as a complaint. I am pointing out the folly in any plan that would put tolls on the highways to somehow force people onto transit and hence save the 2030 Plan.

[Spartan]

I am pointing out the folly in any plan that would put tolls on the highways to somehow force people onto transit and hence save the 2030 Plan.

[Charlotte_native]

You're right. Tolls are to pay for maintenance costs, not force people on to trains.

[BUILDIT]

Funny how the anti-rail, pro-road proponents always point out that mass transit doesn't cover its costs, yet without tolls roads generate zero income. At least mass transit brings in something. I wish we'd toll the roads -- not to punish by any means, but if you want to live miles and miles away from where you work you should shoulder some of the burdon of paying for your way to and fro.

[Charlotte_native]

yeah, we do that in something called taxes

[monsoon]

...- not to punish by any means, but if you want to live miles and miles away from where you work you should shoulder some of the burdon of paying for your way to and fro.

[Charlotte_native]

Again, my point is only applicable to those that say they shouldn't have to chip in because they don't use it. Once again, I don't have kids and would hate to know how much money I've pumped into the school coffers (honestly though I don't mind). People want it both ways -- b*tch about paying for something that doesn't directly benefit them (in their eyes) but forget that others chip in for things that they do benefit from. I believe in the idea of pooling our funds for the betterment of us all -- many don't though and see anything they don't use as stealing from them. With that logic, they should pay for the roads they use and I should pay for the train I use -- wouldn't that be a fun way to do it?

[monsoon]

Once again, I don't have kids and would hate to know how much money I've pumped into the school coffers (honestly though I don't mind). ..

[Spartan]

yeah, we do that in something called taxes

[monsoon]

What happens when the taxes don't cover the costs for planning, building, and maintaining roads?

[49er]

The person who steps on the the light rail is no more subsidized than the person who lives in a far flung suburb that was built near a new interstate. The suburbs are the greatest example of tax subsidy that this nation has ever known. Most of the strip malls and subdivisions you see today would have been impossible to build without huge government investment in infrastructure. (disclaimer, I live in the burbs so I'm not pointing fingers)

Back to the subject though, since the Obama administration has hinted that more funding for mass transit will be available in future budgets, I wouldn't call the 2030 plan dead yet. I think we'll need to see gas prices spiking again to create the general public uproar that gets Washington's attention. Even the Obama administration seems complacent right now.

[monsoon]

^Actually, most of the funding went towards national rail. He did fun New Starts, but no more than Bush has over the years. There is also some discretionary spending but requests coming from the various transit agencies far exceed what was put in there. Miami for example is asking for close to $6B to do 2 expansions to its heavy rail system.

On the tax subsidy comments, the point is that if one side starts throwing stones, then there are plenty to throw around. It is irrelevant because, as I keep repeating, this topic is about CATS failure in management and implementation of transit and because of it, we are being done an injustice. It isn't a debate on transit itself. This would seem to be an very difficult concept to comprehend.

[uptownliving]

It is irrelevant because, as I keep repeating, this topic is about CATS failure in management and implementation of transit and because of it, we are being done an injustice. It isn't a debate on transit itself.

[monsoon]

First thing I would do is to inform the MTC the current 2030 plan is unrealistic because it can't be funded on the schedule that was booked. In addition it was put together with assumptions that no longer seem relevant in this new melting down economy. The plan ought to be scrapped an a replacement plan put in place that reflects the needs and realities of today. And.... there out to be some conditions with some teeth on how new development is approved. The municipalities that do a good job, get the transit, those that don't keep their cars.