<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Charlotte&#8217;s Northeast Corridor Light Rail Line Underfunded, Likely to be Shortened</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/25/charlottes-northeast-corridor-light-rail-line-underfunded-likely-to-be-shortened/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/25/charlottes-northeast-corridor-light-rail-line-underfunded-likely-to-be-shortened/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:43:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/25/charlottes-northeast-corridor-light-rail-line-underfunded-likely-to-be-shortened/#comment-48467</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:56:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=7158#comment-48467</guid>
		<description>This line was never intended to go all the way to UNCC in one shot.  The funding available under the 1/2cent tax never ever came close to covering what was promised.  The only reason UNCC was included in the discussion was to keep the University area of the city on board (pun intended) with the transit boondoggle.  The scam all along was to get things moving then go back to the public for more taxes.  The economy has thrown a long-term wrench into that plan.  Now CATS is being forced to cut this line back to just Sugar Creek.  The telling part of all this is that way back in the beginning of this mess, this extension was to be in two phases with the first stopping at Sugar Creek.  All that&#039;s happened is that CATS is going back to their original plan.  The only people who should be upset are the University residents who bought the scam in the first place.  They should (and do) feel foolish.

As for Mr Kinard&#039;s response to your piece, CATS is now scrambling because they don&#039;t want to give the appearance that they&#039;ve given up, but they would not have finally floated this option in public, an option that&#039;s been around for long time, if it wasn&#039;t being discussed.

Also, he states that the financial troubles are because of the recession.  What he fails to admit, is that CATS&#039;s earlier projections were that there would NEVER, EVER be a recession.  If you ever see one of their presentations, their original projections went up forever without any dips or flattening.  Since recessions, even mild ones, are expected periodic events, this was a built in timebomb waiting to happen.  CATS&#039;s real issue is that they thought when the &quot;unexpected&quot; recession happened, they&#039;d be able to push through another tax to cover any difference.  Thanks to the political and economic environment they don&#039;t really have that option now.  That&#039;s their real problem.  They can&#039;t execute their plan to grab more taxpayer cash.  Over two years ago, long before the recession, I was at a public meeting in the University area where this idea was already being floated.  There&#039;s a 1/4 cent tax the CATS folks have always wanted to get their hands on for transit.  Now, in this economy, if that tax does get implemented, it won&#039;t be for transit.  It will be for keeping libraries opened and teachers in schools.  

(By the way, I&#039;m a regular bus rider, and not a reflexive mass transit oponent. I just want this to be honestly reported with more of the facts.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This line was never intended to go all the way to UNCC in one shot.  The funding available under the 1/2cent tax never ever came close to covering what was promised.  The only reason UNCC was included in the discussion was to keep the University area of the city on board (pun intended) with the transit boondoggle.  The scam all along was to get things moving then go back to the public for more taxes.  The economy has thrown a long-term wrench into that plan.  Now CATS is being forced to cut this line back to just Sugar Creek.  The telling part of all this is that way back in the beginning of this mess, this extension was to be in two phases with the first stopping at Sugar Creek.  All that&#8217;s happened is that CATS is going back to their original plan.  The only people who should be upset are the University residents who bought the scam in the first place.  They should (and do) feel foolish.</p>
<p>As for Mr Kinard&#8217;s response to your piece, CATS is now scrambling because they don&#8217;t want to give the appearance that they&#8217;ve given up, but they would not have finally floated this option in public, an option that&#8217;s been around for long time, if it wasn&#8217;t being discussed.</p>
<p>Also, he states that the financial troubles are because of the recession.  What he fails to admit, is that CATS&#8217;s earlier projections were that there would NEVER, EVER be a recession.  If you ever see one of their presentations, their original projections went up forever without any dips or flattening.  Since recessions, even mild ones, are expected periodic events, this was a built in timebomb waiting to happen.  CATS&#8217;s real issue is that they thought when the &#8220;unexpected&#8221; recession happened, they&#8217;d be able to push through another tax to cover any difference.  Thanks to the political and economic environment they don&#8217;t really have that option now.  That&#8217;s their real problem.  They can&#8217;t execute their plan to grab more taxpayer cash.  Over two years ago, long before the recession, I was at a public meeting in the University area where this idea was already being floated.  There&#8217;s a 1/4 cent tax the CATS folks have always wanted to get their hands on for transit.  Now, in this economy, if that tax does get implemented, it won&#8217;t be for transit.  It will be for keeping libraries opened and teachers in schools.  </p>
<p>(By the way, I&#8217;m a regular bus rider, and not a reflexive mass transit oponent. I just want this to be honestly reported with more of the facts.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CLT</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/25/charlottes-northeast-corridor-light-rail-line-underfunded-likely-to-be-shortened/#comment-45803</link>
		<dc:creator>CLT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 16:56:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=7158#comment-45803</guid>
		<description>If it doesn&#039;t reach UNCC I honestly don&#039;t see how the ridership will justify rail.  I question whether a shorter line would score well under federal criteria because I would guess the University was by far the major anchor and ridership generator along the line.  The area between Uptown and Sugar Creek is pretty low density and I&#039;d hate to see a lack of success on the inner part of this line doom the more warranted connection to the University area.  A park and ride doesn&#039;t generate the all-day demand needed to make light rail really work.  Sad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If it doesn&#8217;t reach UNCC I honestly don&#8217;t see how the ridership will justify rail.  I question whether a shorter line would score well under federal criteria because I would guess the University was by far the major anchor and ridership generator along the line.  The area between Uptown and Sugar Creek is pretty low density and I&#8217;d hate to see a lack of success on the inner part of this line doom the more warranted connection to the University area.  A park and ride doesn&#8217;t generate the all-day demand needed to make light rail really work.  Sad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yonah Freemark</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/25/charlottes-northeast-corridor-light-rail-line-underfunded-likely-to-be-shortened/#comment-45692</link>
		<dc:creator>Yonah Freemark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 21:34:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=7158#comment-45692</guid>
		<description>Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dejv</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/25/charlottes-northeast-corridor-light-rail-line-underfunded-likely-to-be-shortened/#comment-45689</link>
		<dc:creator>dejv</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 21:27:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=7158#comment-45689</guid>
		<description>Isn&#039;t this extension prime candidate to cut width instead of length, to be able to reach University as soon as possible, albeit at lower frequency?

Typo report: ... to park their &lt;i&gt;car&lt;/i&gt; and ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#8217;t this extension prime candidate to cut width instead of length, to be able to reach University as soon as possible, albeit at lower frequency?</p>
<p>Typo report: &#8230; to park their <i>car</i> and &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ocean Railroader</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/25/charlottes-northeast-corridor-light-rail-line-underfunded-likely-to-be-shortened/#comment-45687</link>
		<dc:creator>Ocean Railroader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 19:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=7158#comment-45687</guid>
		<description>This new commuter parking lot could work but it depends on how much it costs to park the car in down town Charlottle? Such as it costs $7.00 dollars to park in down town Norfolk VA and they also add a dollar every hour and $3.50 to $5.00 om Richmond VA. If parking is free at this park and ride then it could be a big hit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This new commuter parking lot could work but it depends on how much it costs to park the car in down town Charlottle? Such as it costs $7.00 dollars to park in down town Norfolk VA and they also add a dollar every hour and $3.50 to $5.00 om Richmond VA. If parking is free at this park and ride then it could be a big hit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mason Hicks</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/25/charlottes-northeast-corridor-light-rail-line-underfunded-likely-to-be-shortened/#comment-45663</link>
		<dc:creator>Mason Hicks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 15:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=7158#comment-45663</guid>
		<description>&quot;The city’s planners note that the Sugar Creek station would be the first on the Northeast line with a park and ride, so commuters coming in from the northern suburbs could park there before heading into downtown.&quot;

I grew up outside of Charlotte, but never on that end of town, but I suspect that like most commutes, the most deadlocked portion comes on the approach to the city core, and not the core itself. If that&#039;s the case here, locating the outer park-and-tide station at Sugar Creek Road would provide the classic commuting choice of whether to park the car or drive on in,now that the worst of the traffic is already behind you, before you get to an alternative. I really wish that the existing Lynx South line was in place while I still lived there. I would&#039;ve been on it constantly. I&#039;m saddened by the scaling back that Charlotte is doing to its transit planning. They came into the second half of the decade with big plans. There was even informal talk about running the first hydrogen-powered commuter train along the proposed North Corridor commuter rail (existing CSX &#039;O&#039;) line to Mooresville and Davidson.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The city’s planners note that the Sugar Creek station would be the first on the Northeast line with a park and ride, so commuters coming in from the northern suburbs could park there before heading into downtown.&#8221;</p>
<p>I grew up outside of Charlotte, but never on that end of town, but I suspect that like most commutes, the most deadlocked portion comes on the approach to the city core, and not the core itself. If that&#8217;s the case here, locating the outer park-and-tide station at Sugar Creek Road would provide the classic commuting choice of whether to park the car or drive on in,now that the worst of the traffic is already behind you, before you get to an alternative. I really wish that the existing Lynx South line was in place while I still lived there. I would&#8217;ve been on it constantly. I&#8217;m saddened by the scaling back that Charlotte is doing to its transit planning. They came into the second half of the decade with big plans. There was even informal talk about running the first hydrogen-powered commuter train along the proposed North Corridor commuter rail (existing CSX &#8216;O&#8217;) line to Mooresville and Davidson.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

